Two handed weapon in one hand / Aspect of Carnage

Hey everyone,
I searched the forum for a thread like this since I expected this to be suggested before, but I couldn't find anything like what I wanted to say, so I decided to make a new thread.

I'm pretty sure the developers came to the idea of a character being able to wield two handed weapons in one hand, since that exists in so many other games, so I'm wondering why it hasn't been implemented yet, since it's pretty fun. Any kind of problems with balancing could be fixed by just tweaking the numbers. Maybe they don't want to copy other games, or they think it would cause most people to play this build? I don't know.

I any case, my suggestion is to make the Berserker able to dual wield two two-handed weapons, and the Juggernaut to be able to wield a two-handed weapon and a shield. Staffs could not be dual wielded.

The Jugg has already been successfully revamped so I don't know which ascendancy would it replace. Maybe Unstoppable since it's similar to what you get with Kaom's roots unique.

For the Serker I suggest changing the Aspect of Carnage ascendancy since it's pretty unimaginative and simple. Instead of 40% more damage, you could have the ability to dual wield two handed weapons, and you would get some kind of penalty to balance that out, like the already existing "#% more damage taken" or a reduction to attack speed and/or accuracy. The sockets in the off-hand weapon would have to be disabled so you don't have the advantage of another 6 link. Or maybe the sockets in your chest armor would be disabled instead, which would make it a great build with Kaom's heart.

The Scion could also have this in her ascendancy when choosing the Juggernaut or Berserker, so it would increase the amount of Scion builds.

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

"

Dremichius wrote:

I'm pretty sure the developers came to the idea of a character being able to wield two handed weapons in one hand, since that exists in so many other games, so I'm wondering why it hasn't been implemented yet, since it's pretty fun. Any kind of problems with balancing could be fixed by just tweaking the numbers.

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Once the numbers are tweaked, this just ends up making two handed weapons unreasonably week outside of the specialized build, or winds up making the specialized build sufficiently weaker that all the extra stats are required just to be on par with other builds.

Basically, you can't do this in a balanced way. It also, in a game where it doesn't pre-exist, introduces a wide field of fun "2 x 2H unique" interactions that were never previously possible, and which turn out to be grotesquely overpowered, leading to nerfs.

Would make sence something like "You can dual wield 2 2H weapons while wear no body armor."

But numbers tweaking would be hell. There's so much nuances of weapons besides DPS, like conversions, unique abilities and properties, it would be impossible to balance properly at this point and improper balance would make everything worse.

How about "You count as dual-wielding a copy of your 2-handed melee weapon in your off-hand."

That way it would be a pretty big dps boost, but much more predictable - no issues with unique combos or extra gem slots. It could be offset with some suitable penalty (Cannot Block should definitely be part of the penalty, and maybe 'spells are disabled'). The only crazy interaction I can think of there would be Wings of Entropy.

"

dudiobugtron wrote:

How about "You count as dual-wielding a copy of your 2-handed melee weapon in your off-hand."

That way it would be a pretty big dps boost, but much more predictable - no issues with unique combos or extra gem slots. It could be offset with some suitable penalty (Cannot Block should definitely be part of the penalty, and maybe 'spells are disabled'). The only crazy interaction I can think of there would be Wings of Entropy.

That'd work.

Then you just need to tweak the numbers so that a 2H weapon provides approximately half the DPS of 2 x 1H weapons, or in other words, is identically equal to a 1H weapon in terms of stats, etc.

"

SlippyCheeze wrote:

"

dudiobugtron wrote:

How about "You count as dual-wielding a copy of your 2-handed melee weapon in your off-hand."

That way it would be a pretty big dps boost, but much more predictable - no issues with unique combos or extra gem slots. It could be offset with some suitable penalty (Cannot Block should definitely be part of the penalty, and maybe 'spells are disabled'). The only crazy interaction I can think of there would be Wings of Entropy.

That'd work.

Then you just need to tweak the numbers so that a 2H weapon provides approximately half the DPS of 2 x 1H weapons, or in other words, is identically equal to a 1H weapon in terms of stats, etc.

But why have it then, if the 2H option would actually "EQUAL" 1H weapons???

I would be delighted to have this option if it would provide something "special".

A further 6L these days is "meh" at best, with all the pseudo multi-linked items abounding.

Not to mention that dual wielding grants a 10% more attack speed bonus next to the 20% more physical damage with attacks...

No, dual wielding should grant up to 3 x 6L items and lock the other equipment pieces to unlinked sockets... That would be a good penalty, as the only other way around this limitation would be to use 2 x Hungry Loop. And due to perceiving Berserkers as more centered on "might" than "wisdom", it would actually make sense, Kaom's equipment lacks sockets for a reason...

And no other class should be able to use a 2H with a shield. It would be better to grant "sheaths" as a counterpart to quivers instead...

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

"

SlippyCheeze wrote:

"

dudiobugtron wrote:

How about "You count as dual-wielding a copy of your 2-handed melee weapon in your off-hand."

That way it would be a pretty big dps boost, but much more predictable - no issues with unique combos or extra gem slots. It could be offset with some suitable penalty (Cannot Block should definitely be part of the penalty, and maybe 'spells are disabled'). The only crazy interaction I can think of there would be Wings of Entropy.

That'd work.

Then you just need to tweak the numbers so that a 2H weapon provides approximately half the DPS of 2 x 1H weapons, or in other words, is identically equal to a 1H weapon in terms of stats, etc.

But why have it then, if the 2H option would actually "EQUAL" 1H weapons???

That is an excellent question. What would be the point of it in that case?

Don't forget, also, to answer the other excellent question at the same time, "how do you balance this so it isn't 2x as powerful as intended, since 2H weapons already come with double the power of 1H weapons."

(hint: the answer so far is "tweak the numbers", which is exactly what cutting the power of 2H weapons in half would achieve in terms of balance...)

I actually did have a similar idea a while ago:

"

suszterpatt wrote:

2 keystones actually, in 2 stages like Acro/Phase Acro. On the outside of the Marauder tree, between the Axe and Sword clusters.

Stage 1:
- You can equip a Shield with Two-handed Swords and Axes
- 50% Less Damage with Attack Skills when wielding a Two-handed Melee weapon and a Shield

Stage 2:
- If you meet 200% of your Weapon's Attribute Requirements, 100% More Damage with Attack Skills when wielding a Two-handed Melee weapon and a Shield


In other words: the first keystone allows you to equip a 2h sword/axe and a shield, at the cost of 50% of your attack damage. The second keystone allows you to regain the lost damage at the cost of doubling the attribute requirements of your weapon.

Doesn't apply to maces because those are STR only and it would be too easy to get full damage by stacking nothing but STR, and doesn't apply to staves becase those already have block.


The beatiful part is that no matter what broken 2h/shield combos we could come up with, it would still be melee and inherently underpowered compared to everything else. :D

"

bwang008 wrote:

"

SlippyCheeze wrote:

"

Dremichius wrote:

I'm pretty sure the developers came to the idea of a character being able to wield two handed weapons in one hand, since that exists in so many other games, so I'm wondering why it hasn't been implemented yet, since it's pretty fun. Any kind of problems with balancing could be fixed by just tweaking the numbers.

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Once the numbers are tweaked, this just ends up making two handed weapons unreasonably week outside of the specialized build, or winds up making the specialized build sufficiently weaker that all the extra stats are required just to be on par with other builds.

Basically, you can't do this in a balanced way. It also, in a game where it doesn't pre-exist, introduces a wide field of fun "2 x 2H unique" interactions that were never previously possible, and which turn out to be grotesquely overpowered, leading to nerfs.

I really don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.

Melee is underpowered, especially 2-h melee. Comparing this to all projectile based, or DOT based builds that dominate the meta at the moment, to say that 'oh we can't do this because melee will become too powerful!' just makes me roll my eyes at you

Well, you are completely welcome to do that. It isn't a terribly convincing argument, though.

Are you really asserting that we could literally double the effects of 2H weapons for one specific ascendency only, and simultaneously keep them reasonably strong for every other ascendency?

Are you asserting that, in a game never designed with 2 x 2H unique effects in mind, they could be permitted without any risk of requiring significant nerfs?

I mean, "is 2H melee underpowered?" I'd agree with that, sure. They only comprise ~ 8-10 percent of the top 15,000 accounts, at all, even before we start pickup into what skill they are used with. That is reasonable evidence that 2H melee is not in a great position, at least as far as popular perception goes.

That is a very, very different question from "would allowing dual-wielding 2H weapons for one ascendency, and only one ascendency be good", which is the question I was answering here.