Two-handed swords

I think the topic is self explanitory, I'd like to see a nice claymore, or Zweihander or good ol' fashioned great sword.

Nuff' said

No, that isn't enough said. How would it fit into the current warrior scheme? Would it be the end-all for damage, would it be utility, and would it be worth not having a hammer or shield? What should this weapon do basically?

Well I guess some people always have to make things more complicated then they need to be. Ok, a two handed sword would be just a like a sword only with more damage. Same skills apply, to make it worth not having a shield a two handed sword would have the damage range of the hammers. Which as we all know make hammers worth it, well that and the hammer skills but really sword skills are just as good.

Ok, I don't know if you've played this game very much, but in high end PvP, the axe war will outdamage hammer and sword, but sword's skills have more utility, as well as better energy skills, and hammer gets the benefit of being able to nearly knock-lock someone. Therefore, would you want this 2h sword to be able to outdamage axe, therefore rendering axe warriors obsolete? Do you want it to have better utility than sword? Or, as you said, better damage than sword, but the same utility? Then no one uses a sword anymore. This weapon needs a niche, so it's not simply replacing a current weapon. It shouldn't be Sword war, v2.0, +5 damage, +2s bleeding duration, it should have it's own spot, something it can do, that no one else can do, but that shouldn't be something that directly replaces an existing weapon.

Maybe Strength should have been Two-Handed Mastery, then you could have 2H swords, axes, and someone wanted spears. Also, hammers would be more widely used then. Just a thought.

I agree - It needs it's own skill set.

Heres some examples of some ideas I've got for 2 handed swords:

Behead - You deal +X damage. If target enemy is below 25%, the damage is trippled. (X = 2 Handed Swordsmanship) Adrenaline cost 10.

En Guarde - For the next X seconds, or until a non-sword skill is used, you have a 75% chance of blocking melee attacks. (X = 2 Handed Swordsmanship) Adrenaline cost 5.

Impale {Elite} - You deal +X damage. Target suffers from Bleeding and Deep Wound. Adrenaline cost 8.

Legsweep - If this attack hits, the target is now crippled. 10 Mana

Overhanded Swing - You deal +X Damage (Note - X is high in this scenario). Adrenaline cost 6.

Torso Chop - If this attack hits, target suffers from Bleeding.

Flesh Wound - If this attack hits a Bleeding foe, target now suffers from Deep wound and takes X damage.

Bloodrush - If this attack hits a bleeding foe, it deals no damage, and instead interrupts any actions the target is involved in. If this action is a spell, that spell takes an additional 20 seconds to recharge.

Rupture Organ - If this attack hits a foe suffering from Deep Wound, that foe is now Poisoned, and takes X damage. (High X)

Tell me what you think.

Why must everything be so over-complicated? What's wrong with it being like two handed swords in every other RPG, just like a sword only more damaging. Would give people more options, want to be heavy on the defense go sword & shield want more damage then go two handed sword. You needn't make things more complicated then need be. You dont have to give every single thing it's "niche" thats bad game design, options are good veriety is the spice of life lets leave it at that. All I want is a claymore dammit!

Also when a game requires people to make specific so-called "best builds" to fill niches then you know something is broken and needs fixing. People shouldnt need to be forced into making specific builds to compete. Build A should be just as good as build B to Z, so you dont end up with hammer war/monk number 123457. So I can have my axe wielding W/Mes (or some other not so common build) and still be able to hold my own.

i love that so many people favor sword warriors. just mean my necro has plenty of bleeding to send flying back on at the warrior on top of my lifedraining attacks.

well maybe it could be just about the same as a hammer but dealing less damage but attacking at a faster rate but not as fast as an axe

2 handed mastery would be nice and they could get rid of hammer axe and sord mastery and just replace it with 1 and 2 handed mastery and keep strength for shields and also for the hammers they should req strength also

Well, most of those skills are basically axe skills with different names. I'm not saying I can do better, but just wanted to point that out.

Lets see here. They have hammers but they are all 2 handed. They hav axe and swords that are all one handed. There are 1h hammer, 2h swords, and 2h axes so why not just add all 3 then it would be balanced.

As much as I'd love to make myself look like Nightmare, grab a zweihander, and bash someone's head in, I don't think it would fit balance-wise into Guild Wars at the moment.

It would be cool if you could dual weild weapons at the cost of a focus/sheild...

Dual weilding shields would be funny

But for two-handed sword, they could do more damage but have armor reduction.

It could have a skill like you charge at enemy with the sword causing +X damage and deep wound or having X% of armor penetration.
I don't have lots of imagination for new skills...

You see thats kinda of the two handed sword's (and hammers for that matter) built in balance, more damage but at the cost of armor/ focus. To tell you the truth I wouldnt mind seeing some nice 2 handed axes either.

I don't think you really understand game design at all. The game as it is does not require people to make "best builds", there is no such thing at the moment and hopefully never will be. What you are proposing will limit options, and force people down one avenue in order to compete.

Why? If you had thought about it, you might have realized. As it is, if you want pure damage, you go axe. Axe skills hurt the most, but that's pretty much all they're good for, tons of hurt. The only reason people choose sword is for the neat utility skills like snares, bleeds, deep wounds etc. If you created a sword line that did more damage than axe, but had all the utility skills of sword, why would anyone ever use an axe?

In case you hadn't noticed, this game is not like every other RPG, and I thank my lucky stars for that every time I boot it up. "More options" may add variety but will utterly ruin things if they're not balanced properly (or what you would consider "over-complicated"). Everything should have it's niche, that's good game design which I think is where you're confused. If you want to have a claymore so bad, why don't you go play Everquest?

Guild Wars is at its core a PvP game. Statistics and balance tend to be overcomplicated when you're dealing with players on both ends. As for 2-handed swords, I think they would be most realistically implemented along with a new profession in an expansion who actually has an attribute for wielding such weapons. Of course, the specifics are for Arenanet to decide.

I agree with you on this one, however, I still believe that Guild Wars has no such thing as a "best build" I have seen W/* of every sort, and they all have their uses. For example, an axe-wielding W/Me would just have to be played differently than your typical front-line fighter kind of warrior. I won't deny that W/Mo's are by far the most common combinations, but I don't believe that they are the "best," only the easiest to play.

I can't believe noone came up with the obvious suggestion - make 2H swords use the sword line of skills, but make them as slow as hammers. However, make them attack all targets in a arc in front of your character. (or if that's too powerful, make it attack your target and two enemies who are adjacent to your target). The 2H sword animation can be broad sweeping horizontal swings.

After all, Phantasy Star Online has 2H swords that work this way, and Polearms in Lineage 2 work this way also.

While we're at it, give us big 2H polearm axes, that use axe skills, but are as slow as hammers - but have a longer range, so you can attack people at just outside "adjacent" radius. So you can attack outside the range of skills such as lava font, aftershock etc.

One of the things that suck about most MMORPGs is that the whole weapon choice issue usually boils down to attack speed vs. damage. And they both end up being DPS, so it's often a moot point. GW adds a little bit in that different weapon types are required for different skill sets, but I'd still like to see more tactical differences available for weapons.

I like big swords as well, but the 1H swords in GW are plenty big enough that I dont see the need for 2H swords unless they influenced how you fight in a significant way.

First off Darren EQ is total junk and you know it, suggesting anyone play that is utterly moronic. Also two-handed swords doing more damage then axes would not invalidate axes, why? Well sir I'll tell you! Even though I already did but obviously your too narrow minded to see it in the text (hey you insult me Ill insult you). As it stands with the sword skills and axe skills as they are, a two-handed sword doing say 15-35 damage will only out damage axes in basic attacks. The axe skills still have greater potential for high damage then any sword skill, now the two-handed sword using sword skills will come pretty damn close (some will probably surpase axe, like final thrust but only when an enemy is less then 50% hp). Now for another reason why you will still go axe if two-handed swords were implemented; utility items (the same reason you'd still go one handed sword). For the ability to gain extra armor and effects from a nice shield or focus item. The only real way two-handed swords would be unbalanced (or two-handed axes) is that if Anet gave them focus abilities, like say a zweihander having a +5 energy effect on it. Then sir yes they'd be broken, but as it stands two-haned variations of swords or even axes could be implemented without hurting the game's overall balance aslong as their damage rates were kept within scope. Like you said more options will utterly ruin things if not balanced, I never suggested adding anything without balancing it. Don't put words in my mouth, and don't assume I meant that. Assumption is the mother of all ****ups.

So obviously I have thought about it, currently I would go axes (and have) for pure damage. But adding another option for a pure damage is not gonna hurt the game (if done right).

Now as for everything having it's niche being good game design, what the hell are you smoking? Forcing people into a niche is never a good thing, "oh you axes then your our damage dealer. You use hammers? Then go knock-lock [more on this in a second] the monk" No, just no! A player should never be forced into playing a specific role unless he wants to, but then of course it's not forced is it?

The game hasn't reached requiring "best builds" yet but it's getting close. Tell me how many W/Mo do you see in a given day? Why do you think that is, it's because theres the impression out there that W/Mo is the best way to do a tank. The "best build" mentality is already starting friend, like it or not. It extends past W/Mo, certain builds are much more common then others (such as E/Mo). This is because people think those builds better then others or we'd see a more varied set of builds. Praise the people who don't follow the common and make the offbeat builds like N/Me or W/Me or hell even W/R.

Finally strategies like "knock lock" need to be fixed, because when you get down to it there not really strategies there exploits. Your twinking your character to be able to take unfair advantage of a game mechanic. Don't go telling me knock lock is perfectly fair, I've been knock locked it's down right stupid. Any effect you can't counter is obviously broken and needs to be disabled, now Im not against knock down. It's a good way to halt a spell or skill but complete lock down is basically breaking the mechanic. You may like it but the guy on the recieving end sure doesnt, really in a game both parties should be having fun and no being locked down is not fun.

If you read my posts you'd see my first suggestion was to make two handed swords use the sword skills. Now I thought people were smart enough to assume that a two-handed sword would be much slower then a one handed sword. After all in real life a two-haned sword is much heavier and thus harder to swing then a one handed sword, I figured you people have at least a small idea of what realism is.

Again, W/Mo's are the most common because they are the easiest to play, and not the most powerful. Also, E/Mo's are not the most common elementalists. Having played an E/* (only secondary I haven't used is warrior) through the entire game, I wouldn't even say that they're the easiest to play, unlike W/Mo's.

Knock-locking itself is not the use of a hammer. Hammers are better than swords and axes because they provide quick and easy group control. Yes, knock-locking sucks when you're the target, but it is a perfectly viable strategy, and certainly not an uncounter-able one. I can easily prevent knock-locks with my R/Me. If you want to stop a knock-lock that has already begun, get an elementalist to AoE them.

Sorry to go off topic, but about two-handed swords, I seriously doubt that they will be implemented for current warriors. Actually, I would rather see them with a new profession in an expansion when they can have their own set of quality skills and properties, rather than just shoved in currently for warriors.

Hehe, true.

Right. So you really expect people to take axe when they could all the awesome utility skills of sword for only 3 or 4 damage less? Furthermore, basic attacks are your bread and butter, you're not popping out skills with every hit. The way you're proposing it, swords will still outdamage axes in the long run, in addition to retaining their superior utility skills.

Shields are not as useful as everyone thinks, a smart teams knows to flank shieldbearers. Focus items? Well, maybe. But to this day I've truly never seen a warrior carrying a focus item in the offhand... Maybe I spend too much time in Tombs.

As it is I'd be amazed if warriors passed over superior damage, snares, and bleeds for a nice shield... Especially since in PvP there is no point in building yourself into a tank.

Well, you certainly have a frantic aversion to "over-complicating" things. Balance is complicated. Playing it simple and throwing in as many options as possible is a great way to wreck that balance, so excuse me if I'm a little wary of posts like "we need 2handers, 'nuff said".

You still don't understand what a niche is. A niche is a role that is widely accepted by groups and makes you, as a specific build, desirable and effective. Healing monks have a "niche", everyone knows the importance of healing to a group and the effectiveness of a well-built monk. As it is, rangers don't really have much of a niche - their skills are not clear-cut and widely misunderstood, so they have a harder time finding groups and playing an effective role in them.

No one is ever "forced" into a niche, and I can't understand why you would take offense at a group telling an axe warrior to deal damage... What else are they going to do? If you have a monk with 8 slots of heals and most of your points in healing and divine favor, if a group asked you to heal would you scream "STOP FORCING ME INTO A NICHE!" Of course you wouldn't (I hope). That's the group role you chose when you rolled a healing monk.
Now, the nice thing about GW is that while builds generally have outlined niches, classes don't. A monk can still smite or protect and have a niche of their own, there is nothing that forces them to heal, like clerics or priests in other games.

Okay, I've bolded all the parts of this that you need to pay attention to. Just because people think they have found the "best build" with a W/Mo is a very far cry from actually having one. The idea of W/Mo as an invincible tank may be prevalent among a lot of new people to the game or the PvE community, but any PvP group worth its salt could reduce a W/Mo to a smoldering heap with ease. That's not a "best build", it's just the illusion of one. You will probably always have to deal with that illusion, but it is very different from the actual thing.

If you think we're approaching the point where uneducated PUGs will start requiring you to be a W/Mo or an E/Mo... Well, maybe. I don't really care about them, and why should you? A smart PvP guild knows the importance of uncommon combinations just like you outlined. They don't need to be buffed to compete with the flavor of the month, they're fine as they are, just most people don't have the patience to look.

This is a different discussion entirely, and I encourage you to give it a separate thread if you feel so strongly. You want my opinion? It's hardly an exploit, and it has plenty of counters that I guess you just haven't discovered. Slap Aegis or Guardian on yourself and see how well you get knock-locked. Slap a blind on the warrior and see how well he knock-locks you. Can't do that because you're too busy getting knock-locked? Guess what, that's what your team is there for. Every strategy has an effective counter - the mistake most people make is feeling like they should be enabled to counter everything by themselves, when they should be relying on their teammates to save their ass.

I'd have to disagree on that one, 8/10 Elementalists Ive seen have been subbed Monk. As for knock locking being viable, I disagree. Any strategy that puts another person into nigh infinite lockdown is obviously broken, it like infinity combos in Magic the Gathering. Your breaking the games mechanics for your personal gain. Yes you can stop it with an AoE but that doesnt give the target a way to stop it, also your assuming the team has an elementalist on their side. Requiring a specific proffession to halt the strategy just furthers my point, that it's broken. If your lucky your team will kill the offending locker, but they'll most likely be busy with his team.

I'm not sure about PvE areas, but I've beaten the game with 2 characters and have not noticed any obvious abundance of E/Mo's (unlike W/Mo's.) I spend the majority of my time in the tombs, and I definitely don't see any excess of E/Mo's there.

About the knock-locking, I was merely emphasizing its easy preventability. Prevention is strategy. It requires you to watch and be able to predict what your opponent is doing, and act accordingly. For example, in Starcraft, a lot of people say the 12 fully upgraded carrier "rush" is cheap, but it's very easy to prevent by simply attacking the enemy base before they finish, and both require strategy to execute. Also, knock-locks are are very possible to stop once they have been initiated as well, although much more difficult by the target.

AoE is the easiest and most obvious way to stop them, but there are a number of other ways to stop them. Also, mesmers (and probably more professions) can AoE too, so stopping a knock-lock via AoE is not limited to just one profession. I don't see the use of a few professions to do this as broken, either. In order to heal, you need either a monk or necromancer, however no one argues about healing being broken. Guild Wars is about teamwork, not about individual "dueling." Any even remotely skilled team will break one of their teammates out of a knocklock (of course, unless that teammate wasn't worth their time.)

P.S. This is going to be my last post about this issue. I don't see how this has anything to do with two-handed swords anymore.

If you read *my* post you'll see that the key point was to make the 2H swords multi-hitting. The slower speed is just the tradeoff. Get over yourself, mate.

And realism? This from someone who made a post asking for taunt/provoke skills.

somebody said there should be one handed hammers, and im too lazy to read everything to check if there has been a reply to that, so sorry if i am duplicating posts: 1 handed hammers would be completely useless. Hammers are all about they weigh. 1 handed hammers would have to be a lot lighter than 2 handed hammers, since they have to carried by half the amount of armstrength. This would deal close to no damage at all, only being usefull to work on the pavement (with a rubber hammer of course)

all statistics and damage modifiers aside.........big 2 handed swords just look cool, thats why we need them, and what about a dual wield ability for the warrior...that would be neat to.

Hundred Blades

I said there exist 1h hammers, 2h Swords and 2h axes in RPGs. There is none in GW. Sorry for the confusion.

Oh and if there was a one hand hammer and the attack speed was less than any weapon they would do just as much DPS.

i think the pure dps is stupid too though...it should do damage in coordination to the combo animation, when it looks like you hit the enemy, it SHOULD hit the enemy.

1h hammers, 2h swords, 2h axes would be a great addition, i have been trying to push it for a while now...one addition i try to put into my suggestion is that 2h weapons should be able to hit multiple enemies directly in front of you, up to 4 or so in a single swing, and it would randomize while you attack.

and as for the combo thing i was talking about...make it into sombo strikes...a certain amount of quick hitst, then a cooldown period. for example a two-handed weapon would have 3 strikes in its combo then a slight cooldown then 3 strikes again...and 1 handed would have 5 or more strikes (since they do less damage and hit less enemies)

I read your post, I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm not really an arrogant person. I just didnt comment on the fact that you said they should be sweeping. Frankly I think thats a pretty good idea, within reason of course. Could always add a sweep skill ala axe sweep (I think thats what its called) to hit more enemies. But then thats taking away from axes.

Darren well I agree that things need to be balanced, and that any new weapon additions need to be balanced. But I dont think it's as complicated as you make it out be. In my experience, common sense is usually a good way to balance things out. Its really only when you make too much of the little details that things get out of hand, which is usually Blizzard's RTSs and RPGs usually end up being totally unbalanced (Diablo 2 specifically for 2 whole versions it was pretty bad, 1.10 finally fixed most of the issues though but I digress) and usually they end up having specific strategies dominate.

About Niches I think were really on the same page, just that maybe I do have the wording wrong. The people aren't literally forcing people into the roles, the community is. By having specific builds be more common, people get the idea that these are the "best" builds since so many people play em. Thus they feel forced into the build or niche. They think that off beat builds arent any good since you never see em, so they are less likely to play a W/Me for example for fear of not being able to compete, or get into a group because of percieved uselessness. Though when you create a character you probably have a role in mind, so most people are probably not affected by the best build mentailty. Let's hope it never gets that way, Ive played some MMOs where it's so bad that you cant get a group if your not of the percieved good build for a given niche (such as Ninja having to sub Warrior in FFXI just to get a party, people only accept ninja as a blink tank, nothing more). Granted a warrior only really hurts things, I mean he is the fighter class so really all the niches of the warrior revolves around dealing hurt. I still think a tank as some use in PvP though, Im able to stay alive awhile using Gladiator's Defense. Usually enough time for the team to kill the offending opponents.

Finally about Warriors using focus items, well I use one. I play a Warrior/Necro and I find that 20 energy just doesnt cut it. But yeah I'm a rare breed.