OK, so we have swords, axes and hammers. Swords are one-handed, used with a shield or other offhand and the same goes for axes. Hammers are bigger, and only two-handed.
Well, why aren't there any two-handed swords, or one-handed hammers? For instance, the skin on the Long Sword looks like it was designed to be held in both hands, while Gladius' and Tribal Blades aren't. So why isn't the Long Sword two-handed? Why can't a Warrior wield a smaller skinned Hammer with a shield? It could still be rather hefty, like a blacksmith's sledge, but able to be paired with an offhand. That idea came to after seeing the infamous flail-wielding character in the game's concept artwork. I'd love a mace or a modified Ball Hammer with the head attached by a chain.
Since no in-depth details have been released about Campaign Four, maybe there will be such weapons and maybe there won't be. But still, I'd like to have a big, two-handed sword for my Warrior to wield into battle akin to Highlander or LOTR. When I think "Broadsword", I think Excaliber or Narsil or some big ass blade that means business, not a little one-handed knife with a tassel. (Narsil is said to be either a one- or two-handed sword depending on wh you ask however.)
I know what you're saying now, what about the skills? Well most of the pre-existing stances would work equally well save for one, Shield Stance. In it's place I suggest Blade Stance, for one.
- Blade Stance - For 8...18 seconds, while wielding a two-handed sword, you have a 75% chance to "block" incoming attacks, but you move 33% slower.
In that regard the idea needs more filling out, along with the one-handed hammer part, but I leave that in the community's capable hands. I've said my say, I would like a two-handed sword.
Thank you.
