Illarion.org

I think it would be really cool if you had a high strenght say like 17 and over that you should be able to use two handed weapons in one hand.
Or atleast there should be a NPC somewere that can teach you that.

Absolutely as long you parry skill is instantly reduced by at least 85%. Not to shoot you down but in any form of combat not olympic wresteling balance and speed are of equal import to strength.
Weapons like the war hammer are allready designed for strong players, I know Pendar is decent with a staff but seems to "miss" more with a war hammer. I can only assume I am not strong enough to use it ?
Also your damaged modifier is allready taken into account so even useing one weapon if you have a strength of 18 you are kicking my ass any way when you land a blow.
Only problem a lot of characters with 18 strength have left out some other combat vital stat..as such never reaching full warrior potenial.

How ever 18 str characters are doing damage, with out two weapons.

yes i truly agree but 85% i think is a little over the top maybe parry stays the same. Just if you decide to use a second 2 handed weapon that it just does 50% of its total damage.

Oh and my character is 19 strenght with the extra boost you say some people miss out on.

The reason you parry would drop to lets compramise 65%, Would be leaveing weight aside go and pick up two broom handles and try and swing them profiecently. Now imagine they were sharp and every slip you made and they touched your side was a huge gash. Your defence would be horrific coming at me with two large weapons. The reason two small weapons can be wielded is one doubles as a shield while one attacks, then you wait back on a opening and either snare your oppenents weapon or stab them with your shield/parrying tool the second sword in this instance.
I dont know much about medieval combat, but i know weapons in general two large heavy ones would get you killed.
Brian

Well i dont know about you but if i saw someone coming at me with something like two double axes i would most probabily run.

But ya 65% parry and 50% damage i think would be quite nice that way it gives people weilding one weapon a decent chance.

If somebody came at me with two double axes, I would dodge their attacks until they killed themselves

I dont think double handed weapons should be able to be used in only one hand. Like pendar said take 2 broom sticks and spin them around, that would be hard enough. Now make them into a coordinated attack. Then add say 15 pounds at least to each hand. And like pendar said add sharp edges. You would prbly kill yourself

But with the right paractice you could become a master.
people probably throught the same about weilding two swords at one point.

aye true...
Pendar wouldnt though
He would useing his prefered bi handed sword hit the weapon in the leading arm, wait for the sloppy follow through the off hand..now there entirely leaning to the left and take there head..
Jokes aside though, what i would rather see is a weapon system that doesnt dictate the use of two handed weapons to compete in PVP comabt. A really good swords man useing a sword and shield or sword and parrying dagger "main gauche" would stand an equal chance against a warrior wielding a war axe.
In my little world any way
Brian

Well like it says it just a proposal i throught it would be a good idea thats all.

Additionally your opponent would have an easy time parrying you. To avoid hitting your oversized weapons into each other you will have to keep one of the in a wide area at all times, and weapons coming in from wide are easy to block. Thinking about it though stronger characters will be more likely to hit with a double handed weapon in two hands than someone of normal strength. Most people are again easy to predict when they swing something heavy because you need to get a large swing on it and the momentum makes it hard to change the angle at the last moment. However a very strong person can have the extra control to react even with a double handed weapon. Plus a person far weaker than their opponent shouldn't be able to parry with any weapon, because the attempt would be knocked aside without being particularly effective. Of course all this might already be in the system, and once has to consider balance as well as realism.

If I was competent, and motivated to fight, and someone with two double axes ran at me I wouldn't be too worried though. Either they check their run, at which point you have a moment to lunge, or they will start bringing there axes up with enough distance between you for you to run to one side. Again at that point you have a momentary advantage as they will be in no state to bring an axe to bear, and also in no state to parry. And with real combat the first blow is the only one.

Brian, most of the armies of the ancient world, and the medieval world used a sword and shield combination, because in well drilled men it is easily the best and most flexible combination, so it's not just your little world, its histories view too.

This simply defeats the purpose of a two handed weapon. You would attack slower, miss more, less parry, and do less damage. Think of weapons in real terms, not in terms of their stats. Example: a sword does 1 damage per hit, a two handed sword does 2. You might think it would be totally uber to have a two handed sword in one hand, but since the other guy would hit you two hits for your every one which has major setbacks like missing often, would probobly kill you if you had the same attributes and skills. burst damage is only good when you HAVE to kill the enemy in a few hits or die, in which case you would use a two handed weapon in two hands because of the speed. I just cannot think of a case where this would be remotely useful unless there is a monster that can be blocked easily with a shield and hurts alot if you do not use a shield.

Yes. If i was to run at you weilding two double axes so that it formes a "X" shape it doesn't matter what way you parry to because it could still hit you in one swing.

Like you said its the first hit that counts.

it is not a bad idea persay, I am just pointing out the flaw in it .
In honesty the combat system has a long way to go and we are going to see some huge changes in it coming up I would imagine.
Just because I dont like an idea does not mean its bad all together my opinion is no more valid than yours. I was just enjoying the discussion

Naybet many valid points,
The only one different in my view is parrying, with anything longer than a dagger you can effectively parry most weapons. Provideing of course you are skilled enough. As the parrying of a larger weapon pole arm or war hammer is achieved by deflecting it useing the force it is swung with. That is to say if you swing from left to right with a war hammer my parry would be push across once you had passed my left pulling your blow far right. If that make sense, I can only liken this to my decent knowledge of self defence and stand to be corrected by any one in the know about medieval combat dodge or deflect.

Thinking about it though stronger characters will be more likely to hit with a double handed weapon in two hands than someone of normal strength. Most people are again easy to predict when they swing something heavy because you need to get a large swing on it and the momentum makes it hard to change the angle at the last moment. However a very strong person can have the extra control to react even with a double handed weapon.

I am sure this has in part been implemented Pendar is lethargic wielding a war hammer and from what i can gather gets better damage over all with a staff. That in turn implys i am missing more with a war hammer.

I would be easy to dodge that because of the extreme slowness of attack, a double axe is so you have a counterbalance on the end, its like putting you hand in the middle of a staff and trying to chop with one end.

Unless he steps back. And swinging dual axes in an X fashion is adking for trouble. What happens when both axes collide, spin out of control and bury themselves into your own flesh, rather than that of your enemy? Yes, higher strength characters should be able to wield 2 handed weapons easier, but not wield 2 of them at once.

But if you had high strenght carrying 2 double axes would be like caring 2 swords for anyone with normal strength.

Anyone can weild two swords (if i am correct) even if thay have low strength. Also if thay have low strenght thay are still abil to hold a single 2 handed weapon so the advantage to having high strenght should be two 2 handed weapons.

No. No it would not. If both axes collide, you would not be able to control it without very high strength and very high dexterity, and even then it would be VERY hard to keep them under control, and that's without considering if the axes would break from the sheer force of the blow. Please, you know even less than my (very meagre) knowledge of weaponry. You need to read up on weapons before considering a proposal like this again.

The advantage of high strength is more weapons damage per hit

Ok take out the theory of double axe and place in two handed sword.

You can weild two swords. with higher strength things also become lighter so 2 two handed swords would feel like two single handed swords to someone with high strength.

Well thats me for the night.

You have no idea. I've got to be honest, it's a horrible proposal. You didn't think it through to start with. Ok, let's see. The maximum height a human can be ingame is around 2 metres 17 centimetres. The two handed sword used in the game is based on the german zweihander, literally meaning two hander. They are generally much too big to use two of them even for the largest of people. Try holding two normal sized swords and using them effectively. Then try working out for a few years until you're very, very strong, and then try it with two handed swords. You'll still be too small.

The types of twohanders we talk about are about 2 metres long (or even longer).

Thats really a horrible proposal.

Martin

The whole point of two handed weapons is the extra leverage you get by using it in two hands. However strong you are you would benefit from using the weapon in two hands. Plus you have to take into account the size and balance of the weapon. To effectively use such a large weapon you need size as well as strength.

In reality most people wouldn't even be strong enough to wield one two- hander correctly...

It was only a proposal no need to bite my head off.

Atleast place a strenght requirment on the weapons eg: to hold a 2 handed weapon you need 14 stregnth and higher.

The edit button is your friend. Please use the edit button.

Maybe it's better that we leave it as it is for now. It's better to wait until all the bugs are fixed before adding more thigns to the game.

I think that there should be a strength requirment for using weapons.
Rather than strong player using two two-handed weapons why not make it that the weaker cant use two handed weapons. Have like a required strength to be able to equipt any weapons or armour. I think that works better and is more realistic.

I never cared much for attribute-restrictions on items in other RPGs, I always thought they were silly.

Dear GM, Do I need 7 Strength on a character for him to swat someone over the head with a frying pan?

As it is right now, if a weakling, unskilled character takes a two-handed sword and attacks your decent fighter, chances are that weakling unskilled character will be dead soon (given the fighter even fights back instead of breaking out into laughter).