2handed to 1handed for all classes

[toonslayer]

I was thinking about this a little bit ago i think all chars should be able to one hand 2 handed weps like the barb can in d2.

I will use a fictional char the does not exist in d3 as far as we know the knight.

So you kill a few monsters and then you find a great sword and it has a str req of 100 for you to use 2 handed and to use it one handed it takes like 170-200 str, also your animation would change so instead of holding the sword in your hand you are kinda dragging it on the ground because is it heavy, vary heavy. Your speed decreases and you no longer attack sow you attack vary slow.

i think that would open up a few build choices. what do you guys think?

[5zigen]

I was thinking about this a little bit ago i think all chars should be able to one hand 2 handed weps like the barb can in d2.

I will use a fictional char the does not exist in d3 as far as we know the knight.

So you kill a few monsters and then you find a great sword and it has a str req of 100 for you to use 2 handed and to use it one handed it takes like 170-200 str, also your animation would change so instead of holding the sword in your hand you are kinda dragging it on the ground because is it heavy, vary heavy. Your speed decreases and you no longer attack sow you attack vary slow.

i think that would open up a few build choices. what do you guys think?

Why even include 1 handed and 2 handed weapons then?

I don't think any of the characters should use 2h weapons with 1 hand. I would like them to be more distinct from the 1h weapons.

[NKlint]

Besides javelins what would be the 1 handed ranged weapons?

Perhaps a Light Crossbow, or *gasp* a Gun?

[MooCQ]

I think your arms would be so tired.. is what I think.... Ever try playing diablo with two mice? lol hey.. thats got me thinking.. lol

[IcyBlue]

i think..thats kinda pointless because not all characters would have melee skills like the barbarian does. other characters dont need 2handed weapons when they are casters or summoners or whatever unless the are melee type

[Qonmus]

My first thought is that I don't totally like the idea.

Although perhaps certain classes, like the druid especially, should have been able to use 2h weapons in 1hand. 2h swords, anyways.

obviously polearms/mauls should be 2h only.

[sicilian]

What if, instead of having weapons designated as 1-hand/2-hand, they combine the strength reqs of whatever your character is holding? For example:

Sword str req = 20
Shield str req = 15
Big Sword str req = 40

A character with only 25 strength would have to wield the sword with two hands, because they would not have the 35 combined strength required for sword AND shield. A character with 40 strength could either the big sword, or the sword and shield. A character with 55 strength would have enough to use the big sword AND shield.

[sirwhere]

What I think? I think there's not much point in haggling about realism in a game where you can do stuff like summoning meteors and raising dead :)

[Qonmus]

we're not really talking about realism here....

Of course the game isn't "realistic". Yes, there's magic, there's zombies, there's monsters.

But having a sorceress run around with dual BoTD colossus blades would be really out of flavor, don't you think?

[5zigen]

What I think? I think there's not much point in haggling about realism in a game where you can do stuff like summoning meteors and raising dead :)

I think there's a limit on suspension of disbelief. Magic is explainable by "magic" things like holding a giant mace in 1 hand just isn't physically practical, regardless of strength.

[sirwhere]

well, you can call it the "magical 1-handed mace of wizardry" :)

but yeah, style counts.

[jakotaco]

Well, I think it could be kind of cool to allow any sword/axe/mace to be wielded one-handed if you had, lets say twice the strength requirements for them.

Then of course some of the heaviest weapons could have really high strength requirements for their level to make sure that some of the highest weapons probably are "2-handers" by nature.

But if someone chooses to pump strength like mad they should still be able to lift them and handle them with only one hand.

Sure a Giant Axe is huge, but if someone at the cost of vitality and dexterity chose to pump strength up to 500+ they are probably just as strong as any giant the axe was made for.

[Dwovar]

I just hope it's not swords alone that are two/one handable. I figured the axes and maces would be easier to one hand because you could choke up on them, instead of trying to manage what is essentially a 5ft long lever with a fulcrum at the very edge.

[Arbedark]

I just hope it's not swords alone that are two/one handable. I figured the axes and maces would be easier to one hand because you could choke up on them, instead of trying to manage what is essentially a 5ft long lever with a fulcrum at the very edge.

Word .

[stillman]

Well, one problem is that a knight doesn't really look like a knight if he has 2 swords. He would resemble a swashbuckler. Appearance spoils the mood and the chr sometimes. Well, lots of times actually. For instance, I never play the assassin because she looks retarded wearing full plate. Who ever heard of a stealthy assassin sneaking around in a full suit of armor? Setting traps while wearing a full helm with those little eye slits...silly.

On the other hand (so to speak), I don't see why any chr can't wear two daggers. I mean, they're only daggers.

Another problem is that the barb was supposed to have a "special" ability to equip 2 weapons at once. This made him special, and he would be less special if any chr could do it. The problem is, Blizzard didn't follow up by giving all the other classes their own unique inate abilities. Well, they let the assassin open chests without keys, but that is it. So the problem is, everyone now thinks the barb is in some ways overpowered (well he was back in 1.09) and it isn't fair that he can have all that mf with 2 ali babas for example while the other chrs don't have their own special advantages. Players are rightfully wanting some balance.

So imo, blizzard would just have to give ALL the classes an inate ability, like in d1. The warrior could repair armor on the spot. I think the mage could recharge staves, and the rogue could dissarm traps. In d2, they gave the barb an inate ability to hold two weapons, but they seemed to forget about the other classes. They also forgot about secret rooms. There were what, 2 secret rooms in the jails or w/e? If you're only going to have 2 of something then why bother designing it? They also seemed to forget about stamina...

[Dwovar]

I think the reason Blizzard forgot about innate abilities was because each class had 3 skill trees worth of "innate abilities". Unlike D1, no one could learn Firebolt but the sorceress.

Perhaps Diablo could include a D&D type dual wielding/weapon catagory system. There are light weapons and heavy weapons. Heavy weapons can only be carried in the main hand (except by Barbs) but any class can pack a light weapon in their offhand.

So sure, dagger and sword, club and mace, hatchet and battle axe. Those are all good to go. But if you want to pack the double sword heat, you have to be a barb.

While I agree that the idea of an assassin in plate is kind of silly, how much stealth really took place in D2? I can't really think of any. I guess Dim Vision, kinda.

[phool]

WRT innate abilites: actually you're forgetting several innate abilites. stamina/health/mana per level and per stat, ias/fhr/fbr, base block % for example.

Other than letting other chars use an improved mf switch there would have been little point in opening 2 handers up to other classes. Probably just weres and maybe a few cases of aura weapons. If that's really an issue (I'd think of it more as compensation for barbs being easily the most eq dependent class and having almost exclusively single target striking attacks) then adding a higher mf/gf shield would be a simpler resolution.

[jakotaco]

Well, dualwielding for all classes was not what I was talking about, I was thinking about 1-handed + shield.

Although if the 2x str req = 1 handed sword/axe/mace suggestion would be in then it would maybe make sense with something like 3x str req = offhanded sword/axe/mace, maybe dualwielding would also be somehow dependant on dexterity to perform well... But on the off-hand issue I am not yet certain if opening it would be a good idea or if it should be barbarian territory. And if it was open to all I would suggest barbarians to have much better breakpoints for it. Or some other bonus as breakpoints might be gone.

[uzurpator]

Barbs should be able to dual wield anything one handed
other classes should be able to have 'light' weapon off hand (think wands, daggers, short swords, hatchets). Witch Doctor wielding two wands (or two daggers) sounds awesome :>

Single handed two handed weapons are dumb. But two handed weapons are dumb in D2 anyways (they are slower then 1 handed when in reality opposite is true).

[Arbedark]

Barbs should be able to dual wield anything one handed
other classes should be able to have 'light' weapon off hand (think wands, daggers, short swords, hatchets). Witch Doctor wielding two wands (or two daggers) sounds awesome :>

Single handed two handed weapons are dumb. But two handed weapons are dumb in D2 anyways (they are slower then 1 handed when in reality opposite is true).

Bashiok has stated that some "offhand items" will be class specific.

Indicating that not all offhand items will be shields, maybe shrunken heads for the WD and yes that's stealing off the necro, but could happen. Relics of some form, offhand weapons which don't actually attack but instead give boni etc for offhand items would be good.