Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarkko
There is a reason why armies and duellists didn't use twohanded swords. They did suck if you wanted to stay alive.
|
This is not really true. A quick two handed weapon (mainly 2 handed swords and staves) is
very effective at defense, due due to the reach advantage, surface area suitable to parrying, and the fact that they can actually be much faster than a one handed weapon, believe it or not. A decent sized shield IS superior, particularly if you have to fight in a line or absorb arrow fire, but a dueler with a 2-hand can be plenty agile and difficult to strike. Axes and maces, and especially flails are less suitable as defensive weapons imo, due to being less well balanced, heavier in general, and having less suitable surface area for parrying. A one handed weapon, in contrast, being shorter, lighter, slower, and carrying less force behind them are much worse for parrying and cover a smaller percentage of the body from attack, which is where the shield comes in.
So my personal take would be that two handed swords (and possibly staves) should in general have higher defense values than they currently have and make up a bit for the lack of having a shield. On the other hand, I do agree with you that they should not be as good defensively as a shield is. But considering just a plain old blacksteel tower shield, it would take a sword with a minimum of 12 defense on it to even approach the usefulness of it as a defensive weapon, not to mention a vine or gleaming gold shield.
I don't necessarily agree that the 2-hand
needs to be as good as a 1-hand and shield (which would be very difficult considering all the nice effects some shields get), but it should definitely be an acceptable alternative for the cost. Currently I don't think that's the case.