Warr info

[Troop]

Hey guys,

I was just wondering why the warrior always has that only choice of wielding two weapons? wouldn't wearing a 1h weapon and a shield be better for tanking purposes? Does that second weapon really make that much of a difference when coming to Threat or wouldn't a good old bash in the face be just as much and the added AC from the shield? I realize that for dmg, 2 weapons are better but when I think of a tank I see a shield somewhere in the mix.

Just want to start a conversation on this to see what is the general opinion. Please don't argue [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thanks

[pickled_heretic]

Originally Posted by Troop [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Does that second weapon really make that much of a difference when coming to Threat

Yes

[Mardur]

The small amount of AC obtained by equipping a shield doesn't even come close to the advantage of additional DPS + aggro ability of a second weapon.

They tried to make shields more Warrior-friendly in PoP by adding the Furious Bash focus (made bash do more damage + cause extra aggro) and it still wasn't worth it.

Doesn't make much sense, I know. That's why games like DAoC allowed you to actually completely block attacks and magic with shields. But in EQ it'll never be viable for a Warrior under level 13.

[Daldaen]

On live currently, warriors ONLY use 1h / Shield due to how an AA functions (Shield Specialist, increases damage from main hand and aggro from mainhand). As well as Shield block with which you can completely block a mobs swing.

On P99 you need the offhand for extra aggros. While shield AC does go overcap you will lose aggro pretty often without a secondary I believe.

[baub]

warriors wield what they wanna

[Snaggles]

The only reason knights can pull it off is because of their spells.

Classic, Kunark, and Velious you will always want a 2hander or two proccing 1handers. You will find on average taunt from the 1handers will be much better but not having a decent 2h at times will gimp what you can do.

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by Troop [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hey guys,

I was just wondering why the warrior always has that only choice of wielding two weapons? wouldn't wearing a 1h weapon and a shield be better for tanking purposes? Does that second weapon really make that much of a difference when coming to Threat or wouldn't a good old bash in the face be just as much and the added AC from the shield? I realize that for dmg, 2 weapons are better but when I think of a tank I see a shield somewhere in the mix.

Just want to start a conversation on this to see what is the general opinion. Please don't argue [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thanks

If you're talking about REALISM then dual-wielding is absurd. It's hard enough just to wield ONE weapon, but two!!!??????? LOL. However, I have to admit, it's badass to wield two weapons. Looks awesome.

Btw, flails are (in reality) VERY efficient at transmitting the force to your enemy. They also could 'catch' shields. As for their practicality, I am less sure. I would think the momentum might cause problems for balance.

I do like to play games that're more realistic, sometimes. And in some cases, realism actually adds to it. For example, you can only backstab while sneaking and its damage correlates to your sneaking ability. You lose sneaking ability when you wear anything heavier than leather. You lose backstab ability if it's bigger than a dagger. On and on... These kinds of things are realistic. I guess you just have to pick and choose what you want from reality and what you don't. Of course, some people think dual wielding is cool, others don't.

And, yes, warriors should be using shields and chain/plate armor. But, realistically, plate armor was very heavy and limiting and expensive. I think later versions were more versatile, but by that time they had guns and plate was not effective at deflecting bullets. A lot of games get things wrong, versus historic reality.

But we can create any reality with games. Just try to keep it consistent. Give it some physics.

I think the most important thing to give a player are choices, not ultimatums.

For example, choosing between hell and heaven is not a choice. Get me?

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by Daldaen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

On live currently, warriors ONLY use 1h / Shield due to how an AA functions (Shield Specialist, increases damage from main hand and aggro from mainhand). As well as Shield block with which you can completely block a mobs swing.

On P99 you need the offhand for extra aggros. While shield AC does go overcap you will lose aggro pretty often without a secondary I believe.

If you think about it, the 1h/shield for tanking and 2h for dps is actually more realistic than dual wielding for dps. But, on the other hand, this is how EQ did it. And, dual wielding has a nice appeal to it.

Not everyone agrees, of course. I bet some people think it's gimmicky.

And, btw, skill-based games are so much better, imho. This is because they're more consistent. They don't have to have separate skills for separate classes that do similar things. They don't have to artificially create walls. You can create any imaginable class you want. Warriors should always have been able to wield a 1h and shield just as good as knights do. It never made sense to me that knights were better at it.

Also, one more thing. When I quit playing my ranger on live, he had a shield. I did train the shield specialist AA. It really helped a lot. I never focused on upping his AC as much as I should have. When I left, he was around 4000. But you really needed something closer to 5000 to tank anything meaningful. And with how monsters tear through everyone in seconds, his HP was too low as well. Without raid gear, he was squishy. Kind of sucks.

That's the whole reason I played. To up his stats. Also did to keep in touch with guildies.

[Mardur]

It's not really that Knights were better at it, they were just forced into it. If SKs/Paladins were given dual wield, they'd all be dual wielding except for the very few 2handers that are worth it (and those are mostly in Velious).

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by Mardur [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not really that Knights were better at it, they were just forced into it. If SKs/Paladins were given dual wield, they'd all be dual wielding except for the very few 2handers that are worth it (and those are mostly in Velious).

Umm, getting a nice 1h for use with a shield is a lot harder than a cheap 2h. I have a knight, sir. Sure, 1h are good with a shield. But they can be very expensive and out of reach for many.

I'm basing this on my experience so far. I almost always never see a 1h in commons. And the few that I have seen were too expensive for my budget. So I got a 2h. Relatively, very cheap.

And, historically, 2h are better dps than 1h, even for knights. But 1h and shield are better for tanking.

So a knight uses a 1h/shield to better compete with a warrior as a tank, but they lose some dps. I bet a lot of the aggro is made up for, though. Cast, recast. And then there's the utility they offer...