Warrior dual wield tanking.

Discussion in 'Tanks' started by Bamp, May 8, 2013.

  1. Augok Lorekeeper

    But that content isn't really challenging when you are equipped for it ;)
  2. Sqar Granmastabash New Member

    Howdy folks,
    Lately, I've been contemplating a return to EQ, after many years off. I left during the OoW expansion. My main was a warrior, a tank, and I came to this forum to check out what changes I can expect. I must say, I'm not happy with what I'm reading.

    I DW'd exclusively, which normally meant I was an off-tank, or add-tank if you will. But I didn't DW only for the need of increased agro. I DW'd because that was the style I preferred. I was happy playing the second fiddle, usually to a paladin. It meant I could concentrate on doing reasonable damage to the boss, whilst being ready to jump in and save the day should he fall. At worst, it was my job to buy the clerics time to camp out, so we didn't end up with a complete wipe. I was good at it too, made top 50 list for warriors, cross-server.

    That being said, I agree that S&B is the highest defensive form for a warrior (compared with DW and 2H). However, that does not mean fighters, utilizing either DW or 2H, are incapable of mustering a decent defense. They absolutely can. They simply won't be as good at it. S&B is designed for maximum defense. It's not referred to as turtle-mode for nothing. They don't call it wolverine-mode now do they? Or have I been gone too long?

    Conversely, 2H practitioners are looking for maximum damage, eschewing nearly all thoughts of defense. Again, this does not preclude them from tanking, it simply makes for a less efficient use of their time and energy. The same can be said for S&B'ers who opt to jump into the middle of a free-for-all, that's not their forte.

    There is a trade-off present here, it was always intended to be here. And that is:
    When throwing everything to defense, your offense is going to suck.
    When throwing everything to offense, your defense is going to suck.
    This isn't rocket science. It's a sliding scale. It is, as another stated quite rightly, common sense.

    If you don't like such one-sided archetypes, don't fret. For you, we have the DW'er. Their offensive abilities are better (or should be) than a truly defensive (read S&B) form, and yet not as good as the 2H'ers, who live and breathe DPS (or again, should). And, of course, the DW form is not nearly as good at defending as a dedicated S&B turtle, but it should be better than the 2H'er who has thrown caution to the wind anyway.

    Now let me be clear: as I began this post by referring to myself as DW practitioner, I am not advocating for DW 24/7. That would be boring, plus I'm not interested in every other warrior out there looking to take my job, a third of them is more than sufficient =). Nor am I suggesting a DW be superior to the S&B when it comes to tanking. They shouldn't. That big- plate hanging off their arm should guarantee that. What I am saying is this:

    If we take two warriors, equal in all other relevant respects (level, effective gear, AA's, experience in class, etc.), an S&B warrior on their best day should never be able to out-DPS a 2H'er on their worst day. And, to be fair, the 2H'er should never be able to out-turtle the S&B. And the DW practitioner should float somewhere between them, in terms of both offense and defense. Their specialty is utility, fluidity. This is especially true in the real world to, but I'll leave that alone for now, so don't make me go there.

    Now, you're welcome to design things however you like, so long as the above holds true. I'll adjust. But, don't give me any grief about DW'ers not being able to tank. Of course they bloody-well can. Just like an S&B warrior can DPS. It's just that neither combination results in the optimal usage of skills and equipment.

    And, for the record, I know that a sword is not a shield. I'm literate, TYVM. If you want to take me to task for not understanding the developments since OoW, that's fine, you got me. However, if you seriously think that those developments have changed the underlying truths regarding warrior forms, then you are sadly mistaken. To be a warrior in the first place implies a choice of several viable fighting options; offense, defense, and balance.

    To force everyone to DW is wrong. I agree. To force everyone to S&B is equally wrong. If you can't agree with that, then you don't understand combat to begin with. And, if you offer me a choice between these three forms, with the sole caveat being that only the S&B form is viable, then you've effectively offered me only S&B. That, or you think I'm an idiot.
    Zalmonius and Elricvonclief like this.
  3. Battleaxe Augur

    Interesting opinion.

    Allow me to note that S&B does not throw everything at defense - that's a sword in one's mainhand. Nor does it throw everything at offense - that's a shield in one's offhand. I'm fairly certain shield using Spartans, Roman Legionnaires, medieval heavy infantry and dismounted cavalry, etc. were well protected and wrecked havoc on their opponents.

    Unlike DW and 2H which use both hands for offense,
  4. Sqar Granmastabash New Member

    The fact that S&B uses a sword in its main hand to do damage with, does not cause it to be the de facto middle ground between the three forms. S&B remains the primary defensive form. Yes, it is capable of doing damage, and currently it seems to do the most. But, I will iterate that I do not agree that it should remain as the foremost DPS form. It belongs, firmly, as the foremost defensive form.

    I would still prefer not to delve into reality and/or history for our debate, I find that doing so often muddies the water as it were. Aside from that, yes, a S&B user has always been capable of dealing decent damage. They are, as you have said, trained to do so. However, it is NOT their forte. It is not the intended focus of that fighting system. The intent is, and has always been, defense, of yourself, and of those who fight alongside you.

    A 2H user forgoes any serious attempt at defending themselves. They do so in order to maximize their damage potential. And, in this they are successful. And no, this does not mean they are defenseless, simply that defense is not their goal.

    And again, a DW fighter seeks balance between the two. An S&B fighter is a turtle, regardless of their ability to dish out damage. Their damage is, and should be, the bottom of the three. Please don't read into that. I am not saying they don't do any. I'm not saying they shouldn't do decent damage even. I'm merely saying that when you devote half of your focus (at a minimum) to a shield, which in your lingo I'll remind you is NOT A SWORD, then you are going to have reduced DPS as a result. It's not rational to expect it to be different. Unless you think that a warrior who trains in S&B somehow trains harder and better than one who trains 2H? If so, I can't help you.

    So again, S&B is a defensive-oriented style. Regardless of their ability to do damage.
    2H is an offensive-oriented style. Regardless of any ability to avoid, mitigate, or otherwise negate damage on their own.
    And, DW is an attempt by warriors to have their cake and eat it too. They get to dish out more damage than an S&B, and they get better defensive abilities than the 2H'ers. But, it comes with a cost: They don't specialize in either side. So, they will never see the kind of damage that a 2H'er can do, and they will never see the kind of defense an S&B can bring.

    Does this make S&B superior when it comes to tanking? YES, it does. Does it mean the DW has no ability to tank at all? NO, it does not. That you can claim an S&B should be able to do meaningful damage because they're still wielding a sword in their primary hand sounds awfully hypocritical when looked at alongside your belief that a DW or 2H warrior is incapable of tanking due to their lack of shield. Yes, a shield helps when defending, no question. I'd be a fool to believe otherwise. But listen, that doesn't mean I can't try. I don't own a shield here in my home. If someone breaks in, am I supposed to just give up? "Oh crap mister, my shield is in the shop getting polished, can you come by next week, we'll do this then, ok? Please?!?" I think not. I'll pick up my knife (don't own a gun) and I'll do my best to defend myself and family. Why wouldn't I? Are you saying I can't? I beg to differ.

    And when it comes down to damage output, I challenge you to pull out a standard, one-handed battle sword, say a cloverleaf or some-such, and do the kind of damage I can do with a 2H'er. It's just not going to go your way, I'm sorry to burst the bubble.

    Maybe in-game it does...so we'll come back from reality now. But see, that's what the complaint is, at least as I understand it. The current system, for as near-perfection as you seem to see it, does not reflect reality, does not reflect history, does not reflect logic, and defies common sense. Please explain to me how a one-handed sword, in the real world, is going to out-damage a 2H. Not bloody likely chap.
    Battleaxe likes this.
  5. Dre. Altoholic

    Then look at the other classes of EverQuest. Whenever there is an option of using different weapon stances for DPS, the following precedent exists:

    1x1h < 1x2h < 2x1h

    This was consistent until UF when Shield Specialist was incorrectly given too many ranks.

    IMO our DPS hierarchy should revert to this. Generally, 2H weapons have always been underpowered in EverQuest. I feel this is generally good design because 2 loots should provide more benefit than 1 loot.

    I welcome disagreement on this opinion, with the understanding that this is more than just a Warrior issue - that conversation needs to be brought to a multi-class stage. I would however generally agree that 2H weapons are poorly itemized for melee classes.
    Elricvonclief likes this.
  6. Battleaxe Augur

    What's that you are delving into there chap? Is it reality or history?

    As long as that's what we are doing:
    S&B has never been a heavy plate armor defensive form It's a tried for a short time cloth wearing 16th century duelists' form.

    The arming sword with a shield was the standard armament for heavy plate infantry for a couple of hundred years. I hate to burst your bubble, but the facts are:

    1. You such can deliver deadly blows with a 1 hander while you are protected by a shield. see Roman Legion. The arming sword and shield would not have persisted had it been defensively or offensively lacking.

    2. The reason heavy infantry switched to 2Handers was to deal better with masses of pikemen and later halberdeers - the 2Handers were 36-40" long - the better to shear the wooden haft of these looong pole weapons. Arming swords in contrast were ~30" long. Heavy infantry has to get past a defensive porcupine to get at the archer line and make it flee, and reduce pikemen and halbardeers so heavy cavalry could hit the line (horses don't like lots of spears).

    Sure, German "schools" taught face to face 2H sword fighting.....because other heavy infantry was trying to keep you out of their center just as they wanted to get past pikemen and get to yours.

    Btw DW is a DMG setup - when I say 16th century duelist...even Romeo and Juliet didn't have people DWing - Shakespeare knew his crowd was aware n o body walked around with a sword hanging off each hip. (It's a romantic view of the Renaissance not much different from thinking gunfighters used twin 6-shooters. Only in the movies).

    Oh in EQ looking at DPS it's usually DW>2H>S&B when not tanking.
    DW and 2H are DPS setups.
  7. Sqar Granmastabash New Member

    I got into the reality/history reluctantly, because you took us there. You're always welcome to take us back out of it. You cannot deliver harder blows with a 1hander due to the afforded protection of the shield. For starter, the 2hander was dismissive of the shield, and utilized a full swing, remember? Secondly, mass and acceleration of the object, assuming a true impact, will result in greater damage. See Roman legion...prey tell, how did they enter combat again? What was their battlefield formation exactly? Do we use that in EQ?

    And I never said shield was defensively lacking...quite the contrary sir. I merely said that it impeded greater offensive capability, and I stand by that.

    It is not necessary for a DW practitioner to utilize 2 swords. There are a number of other combinations as well you know. We have the main gauche for a reason, yes? And yes, I accept that DW could be argued a DPS setup. My only contention is that it is less so than 2H. And that it is better (or should be) at defense than 2H.

    And just think, if Tybalt had been smart enough to use S&B, his death might have been avoided. Odd that nobody in that play seemed to be employing them. Maybe...just a theory mind you...but maybe it's because a shield is situational. Gasp.

    I can accept that in EQ it is currently DW>2H>S&B when not tanking. I haven't been back long enough to gainsay that. My concern isn't so much over should DW or 2H be better at DPS, rather than they should both be above S&B, even when S&B is tanking. S&B should be defensive, no matter how much you love that sword in the other hand, it's not enough to overcome the defensive nature of that format.

    And lastly, despite quoting me BB, you really haven't addresses why it is you feel that a single, 1hand sword is better damage potential than a 2hand sword, or DW. I'd like to know precisely why. Not that the Romans used them, that doesn't make them more damaging, just more efficient for their battle formations. Although it is the Romans, and later the Spanish, that we can thank for dealing with pikemen. It was not through the use of the longsword, which was primarily used as a thrusting tool against armored opponents, but the S&B format, that brought down the pikemen. The ability to deflect the spear with the buckler or shield, and step in close with your arming sword while the pikeman clambered for something to fight back with, that was the winning play. See "The Art of War in the Middle Ages," by Oman, some good stuff there.

    And Dre...sorry, but I'm really not following your post, please re-phrase for me? I appreciate the input and want to make sure I have it right.
    Zurd likes this.
  8. Sqar Granmastabash New Member

    Ok Dre, I went back and read that again a little more carefully, and I know what you're saying. Something about the way you laid it out threw me off, but no worries. As to what you said though...you may well be right on the hierarchy. And you make a valid point regarding value of 1 item vs. 2. I still feel that 2H should be the top DPS slot, but I'm willing to let that go, it's just not important enough. What is important, I think at least, is that all three paths for the warrior are allowed to be viable. And from what I've read here, they are not. DW and 2H cannot be said to be viable options when S&B outdoes them in damage, agro, and defense. Whether or not an S&B practitioner is currently tanking doesn't influence my opinion. S&B is important, but should not be the only functional path.
  9. Dre. Altoholic

    I was arguing that our best DPS stance should be DW and not 2h when you consider the dps hierarchy of weapon stances for other classes.

    BER. 2h only
    PAL: 1h+shield or 2h. Best DPS = 2h
    SHD: 1h+shield or 2h. Best DPS = 2h
    BRD. 1h+shield or DW. Best dps = DW
    BRD. 1h+shield or DW. Best dps = DW
    RNG: 1h+shield or DW or 2h. Best DPS = DW
    BST. 1h+shield or DW or 2h. Best DPS = DW
    MNK.1h+shield or DW or 2h. Best DPS = DW
    WAR.1h+shield or DW or 2h. Best DPS = 1h???
  10. Viltaire Augur

    John Wesley Hardin

    [IMG]
    In a relatively short life, famed outlaw and gunslinger John Wesley Hardin established himself as easily the most bloodthirsty figure of the Old West, and is credited with the deaths of no less than 42 people. The son of a Methodist preacher, Hardin displayed a capacity for violence early on in life when he stabbed a fellow student in the schoolyard at the age of 14. At 15, he gunned down an ex-slave, and then proceeded to kill three Union soldiers before going on the run. He was known for carrying two pistols in holsters strapped to his chest, which he claimed facilitated the quick draw, and he used them to gun down three more people in various gunfights soon after his flight. Hardin was eventually arrested at age 17 for the murder of a Texas City Marshal, but he was able to procure a gun while in jail, and when transferred he killed one of his guards and again went on the lam. Now a celebrated gunfighter, he made his way to Abilene and fell under the tutelage of Wild Bill Hickok. But Hardin was forced to flee the city soon after his arrival when he is said to shot and killed a fellow guest at his hotel because the man’s snoring was keeping him awake. At 25, Hardin was finally arrested by a team of Texas Rangers, and eventually served a total of 16 years in prison before being released at the age of 41. Reformed form his years behind bars, Hardin began studying law and even passed the bar, but his old reputation eventually caught up with him. In 1895, he was killed after being shot in the back by a lawman in El Paso, Texas.
    Yep only in movies.
    Zurd likes this.
  11. Battleaxe Augur

    Of course there are exceptions. The over whelming rule, in part because for quite awhile during the "Wild West" era handguns were single-action, it was one handgun.

    Got any links to head-to-toe armor clad medieval heavy infantry folks wielding twin rapiers? (It was so widespread, EQ knights can't even do it at all).

    Oh and Dreneth, the basic problem is that there is too wide a gap between the standard Warrior Only aggro weapons with an aggro aug and 1H DPS weapons 10DMG aug allowing the creation of a S&B DPS setup with the 1H DPS/10DMG aug weapons.

    Close that gap and there's no DPS difference between a tanking S&B setup and a "DPS" S&B setup except for aggro and DPS procs. After closing that gap, then one can examine whether or not SS should be adjusted.

    Unfortunately that approach doesn't retrofit previous content. It might result in waaay under DPS tanking/aggro setups.

    An alternative is to disable offensive discs when in S&B and defensive discs while in DW or 2H and write off the existence of a can't use offensive discs but higher than expected S&B sustained DPS mode - kinda like Paladins in particular can turtle up and let mobs (especially undead) kill themselves on DS and ripos.

    Another alternative is to tell Warriors we're masters of DW and 2H, but that that just like archery it's not our specialization and we're not real good at it. Our preferred setup is S&B. Put EoA only on shields in the future, stick to your guns, and it's abundantly clear S&B is for tanking.

    There are doubtless many things that could be done and making our Warrior Only tanking weapons with an aggro aug useless with a shield because SS is lowered belongs at the bottom of the list.

    I realize "SS needs a nerf" is a very attractive slogan for those who prefer DW 24/7. But they're pointing at DMG augged damage weapons when they make that pretty cooked data case (it's even better it you put the Warrior in a group with a Bard and a Shaman like we always are when we are raiding :rolleyes: )
  12. Viltaire Augur

    Well if you really want to throw history in the heavily armour clad sword and board people were called Knights during the medieval period you enjoy referencing. The infantry were usually clad in lighter armour. Said knights were also from nobility historically. So in essence, by throwing that out all the time, you are saying you wish to be a knight and not a warrior. This is why history doesn't translate well to FANTASY games.
    Elricvonclief and Sinestra like this.
  13. Zalmonius Augur

    How bout Lancelot, knight of the round table? When he was dueling, prior to becoming a full bore knight (read, solo'ing), he was often single or two sword wielding. It wasn't until he became part of the knights of the round table (where in common warfare they practice phalanx fighting, not to mention used the shield as a means of displaying their coat of arms) that he took up a shield. Ah sorry, Arthurian legend isn't reality, it was a work of fiction, nevermind that's he's one of the quintissential knight. Lets try again.

    How about the Turkish Dervish?

    However, history is irrelevant for reasons I posted several pages back (read, the real world didn't have to deal with area effect warfare very often, which made phalanx fighting the prime form in large scale warfare). In a situation where bunching up together so the dragon is garaunteed to breathe fighter on everyone all at once, phalanx fighting is the LEAST effective style of combat. In a true fantasy world, where we have dragons, giants (You really think that shield is gonna do anything against a club the size of a 10 story building?), etc, its one of the single least effective tools in our arsenal. Granted, there are situations where it would be useful to have, but when was the last time we had a raid encounter with a mob the size of our characters (only one in current content that comes to mind is Marnek)? Wielding an offhand weapon would be better, as it provides increased mobility to AVOID that giant club from cracking your skill.

    In duel situations, it was most common historically to use a single weapon and an open hand, for many reasons. Really, the absurdity of you thought process is saying that a riot cop isn't a riot cop unless he's got full riot gear (body armor, shield, night stick) Tools change based on the situation. Those who can't adapt die very quickly. Warriors take off their armor, they leave their shields at home when they go shopping for food, they get in conflicts with others in situations away from the field of battle. It's not like a marine ceases to be a marine when he doesn't have his full battle gear (grenades, assault rifles, sidearms, etc). Hell, in modern day, all combat units know to use the right tool for the right situation, close quarter combats, a bazooka is not the right tool. Hell, sometimes a knife is the right tool over using a firearm. That's what it means to be a master of arms.

    In a real world and fantasy setting, dual-wielding is a perfectly viable offensive and defensive form, hell, even two-handed swords in the right person's hands (Hi, I'm a warrior, MASTER OF ARMS! I think warriors are the right person's hands!) are also a very viable defensive weapon. Each form has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Shields, in practical use have the least amount of threatening area. Afterall, your shield creates a blind spot in your threat arc, for lack of a better term. Yes, you can shield bash, but 1) range is shorter than that of a sword, and 2) a shield does nowhere near the damage of a sword, even with shield spikes and such. Yes, you could always use your sword and swing your shield arm back, but you also lose complete use of the shield, not to mention throw your body completely off balance, which would almost certainly garauntee you getting killed.

    Second, if you compare the size of an arming sword to that of a traditional broadsword or longsword, you'll note that a longsword is actually (wait for it!) longer and bigger than the arming sword. Yes, that's right! The primary weapon used with a shield was a smaller and lighter weapon than those designed to be used without a shield! They were primarily thrust weapons (piercing!), not slashing weapons. Amazingly, the arming sword was about the same size as a short sword; the weapon commonly dual wielded! The majority of weaponry at that time didn't have the mass to penetrate heavy armor (one of the big reasons why the mounted knight was the most feared warrior at the time, until the arrival of the archer). So, smaller, lighter, can't penetrate armor, sounds like this setup does the least amount of damage and is designed for defensive at the expense of offense compared to other weapons forms. ZOMG?!?! WHAT HAVE WE BEEN SAYING FOR THE PAST BILLION PAGES! Also, as was mentioned, the majority of infantry wore LIGHT ARMOR! An arming sword (short sword) was perfect for that! Platemail was expensive, and you could bankrupt a kingdom trying to fit every single one of your soldiers in platemail. It's why only nobles, and knights wore it. They were the only ones who could afford it!

    Dual wielded weapons had a completely different dynamic. A fighter could assume a more aggressive stance at the cost of defense (flurry of attacks designed to pin down an opponent, not giving them an opportunity to attack), or assuming a defensive stance, allowing you to cover yourself from several directions. Anything can be used as a parrying device, but the key was (especially in european traditional fencing, the parry and riposte were done in a single action (vs modern day olympic styles where a parry and riposte are two actions). Even in situations such as the one you mentioned in Romeo and Juliet, the hand was often a perfectly viable parry tool. There were fencing schools all about being able to catch a blade in your hand / fingers without getting cut. Combining that with single move parry/ripostes, you get something really cool overall, and not needing a secondary weapon.

    Two-handed weapons often times had a problem with defensive, especially against opponents wielding smaller weapons (yes, even two-handed swords), which is why full two-handed swords were uncommon. Most swords were hand-and-a-half swords, or bastard swords as they are commonly referred to in fantasy settings. Weapons that were not as long as two-handed swords, but longer than the traditional longsword (or "arming sword" as you keep bringing up) that were usable with one hand, but had a long enough hilt for a second hand to be added for more shot power. However, the reason for such weapons was that two-handed weapons (polearms included as well) often times had difficulty hitting opponents in close quarters. Amusingly enough, some historic polearm users would include spiked knuckles around the haft specifically for situations where an opponent does get in close quartered. Defensively though, they too were a perfectly viable weapon with use of parries. Of course, no pole arm user would sit there and use his polearm to block an incoming hit, they would often intercept the blow and tilt their weapon at an angle, so the blade would instead slide along the haft of the weapon away from the wielder.

    But, this is real world combat. Talking about EQ combat, is there any reason that suddenly because I'm using a shield, my main hand suddenly deals more damage than when I'm wielding two swords? Until you actually put up your numbers to support your claim that DW is more DPS than S&B with an agro aug, I'm more inclined to believe that you're just flat out lying for whatever reason. Every parse I've done so far has supported what Damacord posted earlier, roughly 5-10% less damage when dual wielding compared to sword and board (I'll post up numbers when I get home later this evening). As everyone here knows and you refuse to accept, S&B is our greatest DPS form, with our DPS forms (DW and 2H) being our weakest tanking and DPS forms. This is a problem that everyone here seems to wants addressed.

    Our UNAUGED and UNDISCED DPS should be the LOWEST when using a shield, and HIGHEST when using a man sized sledge hammer, with DW fitting somewhere in between. I shouldn't need to throw in augs and burn discs to be doing what I SHOULD BE DOING NATURALLY.

    /cue more cut and paste BB stuff. "DW is not for tanking," "That's a sword in our main hand." and "You're a poo poo head!"
    How bout Lancelot, knight of the round table? When he was dueling, prior to becoming a full bore knight (read, solo'ing), he was often single or two sword wielding. It wasn't until he became part of the knights of the round table (where in common warfare they practice phalanx fighting, not to mention used the shield as a means of displaying their coat of arms) that he took up a shield. Ah sorry, Arthurian legend isn't reality, it was a work of fiction, nevermind that's he's one of the quintissential knight. Lets try again.

    How about the Turkish Dervish?

    However, history is irrelevant for reasons I posted several pages back (read, the real world didn't have to deal with area effect warfare very often, which made phalanx fighting the prime form in large scale warfare). In a situation where bunching up together so the dragon is garaunteed to breathe fighter on everyone all at once, phalanx fighting is the LEAST effective style of combat. In a true fantasy world, where we have dragons, giants (You really think that shield is gonna do anything against a club the size of a 10 story building?), etc, its one of the single least effective tools in our arsenal. Granted, there are situations where it would be useful to have, but when was the last time we had a raid encounter with a mob the size of our characters (only one in current content that comes to mind is Marnek)? Wielding an offhand weapon would be better, as it provides increased mobility to AVOID that giant club from cracking your skill.

    In duel situations, it was most common historically to use a single weapon and an open hand, for many reasons. Really, the absurdity of you thought process is saying that a riot cop isn't a riot cop unless he's got full riot gear (body armor, shield, night stick) Tools change based on the situation. Those who can't adapt die very quickly. Warriors take off their armor, they leave their shields at home when they go shopping for food, they get in conflicts with others in situations away from the field of battle. It's not like a marine ceases to be a marine when he doesn't have his full battle gear (grenades, assault rifles, sidearms, etc). Hell, in modern day, all combat units know to use the right tool for the right situation, close quarter combats, a bazooka is not the right tool. Hell, sometimes a knife is the right tool over using a firearm. That's what it means to be a master of arms.

    In a real world and fantasy setting, dual-wielding is a perfectly viable offensive and defensive form, hell, even two-handed swords in the right person's hands (Hi, I'm a warrior, MASTER OF ARMS! I think warriors are the right person's hands!) are also a very viable defensive weapon. Each form has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Shields, in practical use have the least amount of threatening area. Afterall, your shield creates a blind spot in your threat arc, for lack of a better term. Yes, you can shield bash, but 1) range is shorter than that of a sword, and 2) a shield does nowhere near the damage of a sword, even with shield spikes and such. Yes, you could always use your sword and swing your shield arm back, but you also lose complete use of the shield, not to mention throw your body completely off balance, which would almost certainly garauntee you getting killed.

    Second, if you compare the size of an arming sword to that of a traditional broadsword or longsword, you'll note that a longsword is actually (wait for it!) longer and bigger than the arming sword. Yes, that's right! The primary weapon used with a shield was a smaller and lighter weapon than those designed to be used without a shield! They were primarily thrust weapons (piercing!), not slashing weapons. Amazingly, the arming sword was about the same size as a short sword; the weapon commonly dual wielded! The majority of weaponry at that time didn't have the mass to penetrate heavy armor (one of the big reasons why the mounted knight was the most feared warrior at the time, until the arrival of the archer). So, smaller, lighter, can't penetrate armor, sounds like this setup does the least amount of damage and is designed for defensive at the expense of offense compared to other weapons forms. ZOMG?!?! WHAT HAVE WE BEEN SAYING FOR THE PAST BILLION PAGES! Also, as was mentioned, the majority of infantry wore LIGHT ARMOR! An arming sword (short sword) was perfect for that! Platemail was expensive, and you could bankrupt a kingdom trying to fit every single one of your soldiers in platemail. It's why only nobles, and knights wore it. They were the only ones who could afford it!

    Dual wielded weapons had a completely different dynamic. A fighter could assume a more aggressive stance at the cost of defense (flurry of attacks designed to pin down an opponent, not giving them an opportunity to attack), or assuming a defensive stance, allowing you to cover yourself from several directions. Anything can be used as a parrying device, but the key was (especially in european traditional fencing, the parry and riposte were done in a single action (vs modern day olympic styles where a parry and riposte are two actions). Even in situations such as the one you mentioned in Romeo and Juliet, the hand was often a perfectly viable parry tool. There were fencing schools all about being able to catch a blade in your hand / fingers without getting cut. Combining that with single move parry/ripostes, you get something really cool overall, and not needing a secondary weapon.

    Two-handed weapons often times had a problem with defensive, especially against opponents wielding smaller weapons (yes, even two-handed swords), which is why full two-handed swords were uncommon. Most swords were hand-and-a-half swords, or bastard swords as they are commonly referred to in fantasy settings. Weapons that were not as long as two-handed swords, but longer than the traditional longsword (or "arming sword" as you keep bringing up) that were usable with one hand, but had a long enough hilt for a second hand to be added for more shot power. However, the reason for such weapons was that two-handed weapons (polearms included as well) often times had difficulty hitting opponents in close quarters. Amusingly enough, some historic polearm users would include spiked knuckles around the haft specifically for situations where an opponent does get in close quartered. Defensively though, they too were a perfectly viable weapon with use of parries. Of course, no pole arm user would sit there and use his polearm to block an incoming hit, they would often intercept the blow and tilt their weapon at an angle, so the blade would instead slide along the haft of the weapon away from the wielder.

    But, this is real world combat. Talking about EQ combat, is there any reason that suddenly because I'm using a shield, my main hand suddenly deals more damage than when I'm wielding two swords? Until you actually put up your numbers to support your claim that DW is more DPS than S&B with an agro aug, I'm more inclined to believe that you're just flat out lying for whatever reason. Every parse I've done so far has supported what Damacord posted earlier, roughly 5-10% less damage when dual wielding compared to sword and board (I'll post up numbers when I get home later this evening). As everyone here knows and you refuse to accept, S&B is our greatest DPS form, with our DPS forms (DW and 2H) being our weakest tanking and DPS forms. This is a problem that everyone here seems to wants addressed.

    Our UNAUGED and UNDISCED DPS should be the LOWEST when using a shield, and HIGHEST when using a man sized sledge hammer, with DW fitting somewhere in between. I shouldn't need to throw in augs and burn discs to be doing what I SHOULD BE DOING NATURALLY. If you disagree with this statement, then you're either not at all interested in game balance, or are an even bigger idiot than I originally thought.

    /cue more cut and paste BB stuff. "You just wanna DW 24/7!" "DW is not for tanking," "That's a sword in our main hand." and "You're a poo poo head!"
  14. Battleaxe Augur

    But what kind of fantasy game sir?

    It's a fantasy game where there are Warriors/Myrmidons/Barons/Marshalls/Warlords. Indeed nobles. Yet neither a feudal knight owing vassalage nor a "religious"/magic using knight. Not a Crusader, Saint nor a Archfiend. Not a "Sir".

    A Veteran fighter who "thanks to their heavy armor and unheard of stamina" gets to fight on the front lines part of the heavy infantry joined by dismounted calvary (knights).

    There were in fact landholders who owed their title to land to kings, had feudal responsibility to bring equipped men (often more lightly amoured bowmen/halberdiers) and fought themselves in heavy armor. Not knights though sometimes knighted after actions on the field. Knights were not the only people to hold and and have obligations.

    I've no doubt at all Sir Walter Scott -> J.R.R. Tolkien -> Diku -> the original EQ team were up to snuff on medieval history, myths/stories, and how they tie in with a fantasy world
  15. Sathayorn Augur

    ... Am I really reading this?
    Elricvonclief likes this.
  16. Viltaire Augur

    diku muds you dual wielded and carried a shield. You started as a noble? wow the rest of us started without a copper to our name, just a common tunic and a rusty short sword. It doesn't translate at all. they just borrow the armor and such, not only that every woodcutting from Abrecht Durer that shows a knight, or a warrior since you want to go that route, doesn't have a shield. He lived during the medieval age so you would think he might know. Give up the ghost, quit being a detriment to your own class and while your at it get on the ground floor of Camelot Unchained. I hear they want to be historically accurate. Perhaps they'll enjoy your long winded, broken record rhetoric.
    Elricvonclief likes this.
  17. Battleaxe Augur

    Arguing for shields to more more practical for Warriors giving us access to shield AC being not subject to the softcap and Shield Block was hardly a detriment to my class.

    Durer worked around 1500. Well past the era when arming sword and shield or bucklers were the usual armament for heavy plate armored fighters.
  18. Zalmonius Augur

    Shoehorning us to S&B 24/7 is. Vying for more changes to make us into knights also is.

    Arming sword just sounds so much cooler than Short Sword, doesn't it?



    Gimli must not be a warrior in this scene...
    Sinestra likes this.
  19. Viltaire Augur

    History of Medieval Armor Timeline
    • Up to 5th century: Two varying armor types:
    • Barbarian armor which was mostly leather and chainmail;
    • and classical armor which was brass and iron
    • From 5th through the 14 th Chainmail was standard and still lasted in part until the 17th
    • 12th century: various materials were added to supplement the
    • chainmail chest piece including the gambeson
    • 13th/14th century: the strength and protection of the chainmail was enhanced
    • by the addition of various plates. The coat of plates was regularly used.
    • 14th century: The plate chest armor was expanded upon by applying plate
    • to other parts of the body like greaves for the legs and vambraces for the arms.
    • 15th century: The height of Plate mail armor sets with two different schools:
    • the Italian and the german.
    • 15th century: Plate armor came in three different types by function:
    • Battle armor, ceremonial armor and tournament armor. Each was specifically designed for its purpose.
    • end of 15th century: The two schools of armor making merged into what some
    • consider to be the pinnacle of armor set styles: The Maximillian.
    Then by your own admission you should all be wearing chainmail since it was used through most of the middle ages and it is your sole argument.

    And as far as depictions go Durer is as close as you are going to get. There weren't any photos during that time.
    Elricvonclief likes this.
  20. Battleaxe Augur

    That doesn't sound to me like favoring S&B 24/7. You appear to be mistaken.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_sword
    "It is so called because it was worn with armour."

    "warrior" - lowercase 'w' . "A brave or experienced soldier or fighter."
    "Warrior" - uppercase 'W'. In this EverQuest forum, https://www.everquest.com/classes

    By my own admission, EQ is inspired by medieval history, myths, novels, D&D, muds, ...
    "Warriors are a melee class with the ability to wear plate armor and wield all types of weapons.

    Warriors build their strength and stamina to unheard-of levels, making them far hardier than any other class. When combined with their heavy armor and excellent defensive skills, warriors are unmatched in their ability to survive the most brutal battles." [BA: emphasis mine]

    In EQ all three of the classes in the tank archetype wear plate armor, thanks in part to our use of heavy armor, 1H shield appropriate weapons, and the additional protection provided by a shield...

    The front ranks of the French at the Battle of Agincourt (1415) were heavily armored men-at-arms wielding axes and shields according to one eye-witness. Of course they didn't have video cameras back then so that's the best info you're going to get.

    One can expect a certain amount of license with history and high fantasy mythos but a product should be internally consistent. 2 of the 3 classes in the tank archetype tanking with shields when the one with the greatest general facility was constrained lacked verisimilitude.

    The SK and the doesn't have the levels or AA's to do a meaningful parse fella can beat the two years established S&B is for tanking/DW and 2H is for DPS dead pony if ya want. I got to work on my character.