Two Weapon Style vs. Two Handed Weapon Style (Power Gaming vs Roleplaying)
Meanbunny
Member Posts: 107
Hey guys, I would assume somewhere in the past this thread has been done before, but I have a few things bugging me about the debate. One thing I have always hated to do in life, is ride the fence on any subject. Sometimes it pays to be in the middle and sometimes not so much.
When I approach any RPG, whether it be a single player or MMO, I always seem to fall directly in the middle of Min/Max power gamer and Roleplayer. For example in the MMO Everquest, all the Min/Maxers say that if you want to play a Warrior, it has to be an Ogre. Any other race is just not good enough. In their argument Humans and Dark Elves are the worst Warrior tanks in the game. I bet you can guess what race warrior I would be compelled to play? At the same time, it would bug me that my choice was considered much weaker and sub-par.
That brings me to the thread topic. I don't know how each melee class goes about deciding which is the better option between Dual Wielding and Two Handers, but lately I have been brainstorming up a Barbarian. For some reason, when I think of a Barbarian, I think of a big bad ass dude in light armor with a giant 2 handed axe or sword. When I read the description of the Barbarian, everything about the class sounded perfect until I saw the part about them getting a bonus pip in Two Weapon Style. Is it that sole fact that Barbarians get a 3rd pip in dual wielding that makes it the best option, or is dual wielding just superior to two handed weapons?
If this is the case, then why do certain classes benefit more from a two handed weapon and others benefit more from dual wielding?
Pretty much the root of this thread is that I want to play a Barbarian that wields a two handed axe that slices and dices his opponents up like a butcher. That is the RP side of my argument. Then on the other side, it is also extremely bugging me that the Min/Maxers are saying that Barbarians pretty much have to Dual Wield.
TL;DR
Can I create a powerful Barbarian that uses a two handed weapon, or am I going to suffer so much of a damage nerf from not going dual wield that it is just not worth going that rout?
Thank you to everyone for your time and input on my nerdy gamer questions. So far everyone has been very kind and intelligent in their comments and responses. I am sorry if my posts can sometimes seem a bit long and winded, but I really enjoy coming to this forum and getting your opinions because where I am from, there are not many people locally that share in the interests that we do.
When I approach any RPG, whether it be a single player or MMO, I always seem to fall directly in the middle of Min/Max power gamer and Roleplayer. For example in the MMO Everquest, all the Min/Maxers say that if you want to play a Warrior, it has to be an Ogre. Any other race is just not good enough. In their argument Humans and Dark Elves are the worst Warrior tanks in the game. I bet you can guess what race warrior I would be compelled to play? At the same time, it would bug me that my choice was considered much weaker and sub-par.
That brings me to the thread topic. I don't know how each melee class goes about deciding which is the better option between Dual Wielding and Two Handers, but lately I have been brainstorming up a Barbarian. For some reason, when I think of a Barbarian, I think of a big bad ass dude in light armor with a giant 2 handed axe or sword. When I read the description of the Barbarian, everything about the class sounded perfect until I saw the part about them getting a bonus pip in Two Weapon Style. Is it that sole fact that Barbarians get a 3rd pip in dual wielding that makes it the best option, or is dual wielding just superior to two handed weapons?
If this is the case, then why do certain classes benefit more from a two handed weapon and others benefit more from dual wielding?
Pretty much the root of this thread is that I want to play a Barbarian that wields a two handed axe that slices and dices his opponents up like a butcher. That is the RP side of my argument. Then on the other side, it is also extremely bugging me that the Min/Maxers are saying that Barbarians pretty much have to Dual Wield.
TL;DR
Can I create a powerful Barbarian that uses a two handed weapon, or am I going to suffer so much of a damage nerf from not going dual wield that it is just not worth going that rout?
Thank you to everyone for your time and input on my nerdy gamer questions. So far everyone has been very kind and intelligent in their comments and responses. I am sorry if my posts can sometimes seem a bit long and winded, but I really enjoy coming to this forum and getting your opinions because where I am from, there are not many people locally that share in the interests that we do.
0
Comments
Therefore I wouldn't interpret this a bias toward dualwielding for a Barbarian, at least not more than for other classes that can maximize skills in fighting styles.
Edit: Ah yes, I forgot to mention Blades, good point TJ_Hooker
Edit: ninja'd
Also, hate to break it, but there are no two-handed axes... Only swords, halberds, quarterstaffs & spears.
Edit:
Also, the real power gamers will always recommend that any warrior type dual wields... As it allows for the most attacks per round.
Personally, I'm not convinced... But then I'm a role-player... So what do I know?!
I'm not familiar with the MMO Everquest, so I've no idea about the pros and cons of dual-wielding in that game. However, I assume the rules and mechanics are not identical to BG, so arguments which apply in one game do not apply in the other, and those opinions are therefore irrelevant here.
For warrior classes, all of which are capable of doing either style well, I don't think there's a decisive advantage to make either two-handing or dual-wielding the inevitable choice (even for Rangers, although their free pips in dual-wielding naturally point you in that direction - Minsc is a two-handing Ranger, for example). In general, two-handed weapons hit harder and dual-wielded weapons hit more often, and it roughly balances out.
Since a Barbarian can't go past specialisation in any weapon, you won't by piling loads of points into just one or two weapons to get grandmastery. Thus, since s/he can have up to 17 proficiency points by the end of the series (if you get close to the XP cap), you can even (if you wish) eventually build for both dual-wielding and two-handing in the same character ... so the real question is which to go for first.
For a Barbarian, a key point to bear in mind is that s/he can't wear plate armour. Until you get good non-plate armour for them (by which time you're in BG2ee), Barbarians are generally lagging behind in AC. Therefore, the safe play is to make up for this by giving them a one-handed weapon and a decent shield throughout BG1 and early BG2. Having therefore given them proficiency (and probably specialisation) in suitable one-handed weapons, the natural development once you've got better armour is to stick with the same weapon type(s) but switch to dual-wielding. Nevertheless, that's not obligatory: you could convert to two-handing instead. Either way, though, I recommend planning your proficiency progression carefully, because after the first few levels it takes quite a while to earn each proficiency point, and you don't want to find yourself stuck for ages with unsuitable proficiencies for what you're trying to do.
Dual-wielding is dreadful unless you have at least two pips in it, and you really want all three. On the other hand, you can use two-handing pretty effectively with only one pip in two-handing (the second is a luxury you can leave until later, more so than the third pip in dual-wielding), but you'll also have needed to put a couple of pips into a two-handed weapon (e.g. 2H-sword) in order to be ready to switch styles.
Thus, either way, being ready for the switch from sword-and-shield to either dual-wielding or two-handing calls for an investment of three proficiency pips into skills which you won't actually be using (or at least not using much) until you switch styles. I recommend having at least two of those pips in place by the end of BG1ee (where proficiency points come along fairly cheaply), then place the third early in BG2ee so that you'll be ready to make the switch of style as soon as your Barbarian (in BG2ee) finds some decent armour.
On the one hand, dual-wielding is certainly strong in BG2:SoA, because your character has built up enough proficiency to do it well and has found some decent weapons to do it with.
On the other hand, in BG1, you can't do dual-wielding well enough to be really worthwhile until fairly late in the game. An extra attack-per-round is no use if it's merely an extra miss, and in the early stages neither your weapons nor your THAC0 are good enough to hit reliably. By the end of BG1 a dual-wielder might be overtaking a two-hander, but for most of the game a two-hander would probably have been stronger.
On the third hand(!), in BG2:ToB (from the start if you've already done WK, or otherwise as soon as you get over around 4M XP), dual-wielding loses much of its attraction because your warrior will have multiple uses-per-day of the Greater Whirlwind Attack HLA, which sets your APR to 10 even with a huge great two-handed weapon, and will also have Improved Haste available to keep his APR fairly high (5 to 7, depending upon skills and equipment) even when GWA runs out. Since 10 APR is a hard-capped limit in BG (even when dual-wielding), you might be better off using a two-handed weapon and getting the benefit of the harder hits (and of getting a critical on 19 or 20 instead of only on 20). Furthermore, even a single-wielding one-hander gets the max 10 APR under GWA, and he can protect himself with a big shield at the same time (which actually does make a significant difference in ToB, in spite of what some people say - when you get your AC down to -20 or so, even ToB bosses have trouble hitting you), so you can even argue that Sword-and-Shield may be the most advantageous style in ToB.
Of course, as you point out, there are lots of viable options out there that are plenty powerful. But if you're really looking to maximize DPS, I think dual wielding is the way to go.
You will get two points during bg1 either spend them both in two handed style or if you plan on killing some werewolves take one point in bastard swords one in two handed style (style first). You will still be able to max style early bg2.
@Gallowglass My point when speaking about Everquest didn't have anything to do with the pro's and cons of dual wielding vs two handed weapons. The point was about my struggle between power gaming and role playing. How the min/maxers would say that if you wanted to play a warrior, then your only choice was an ogre, akin to what some people here say about dual wielding as a melee type. They also would always point out that the two worst races for a warrior were humans and dark elves. I would always be compelled to play a human or dark elf warrior simply because they were considered underpowered. So I would always at the end of the day be stuck between wanting to maximize my character's potential, while also having that urge to satisfy my craving to play a character that suits me role playing wise.
Thanks for the input guys. I really appreciate it.
Barbarian rage does not protect against imprisonment, berzerker rage does.
Berzerker rage lasts longer, but when it wears off, your character becomes temporarily weakened.
Berzerkers are normal fighters, so can get 5* in weapons, barbarians can only get **.
Barbarians have an innate 20% resistance to all physical damage.
Barbarians get more hit points for the first 10 levels, d12 per level against d10 for fighters.
Berzerkers can wear full plate, barbarians can only wear .. chain mail?
Anyway, you can buy a weapon just about made for Barbarians at the copper coronet after completing the slave quest. It's called defender of Easthaven, and grants an additional 20% physical resistance. This is a great off hand weapon for a Barbarian, giving 40% physical resistance, or 80% resistance with the Hardiness HLA.
I soloed Ascension (on easy) with a barbie dual wielding DoE & blackrazor, and it WAS easy. I got all 5 down to near death, and then offed them all in one blaze of carnage. A berzerker would very likely struggle a bit. Also there are so many great weapons in this game, and your barbie can use all of them as the fight demands. Axe of unyielding, flail of ages, club of detonation, runehammer, storm star, what's not to like.
Berzerkers are extremely cool too though
EDIT There's an item mod called underrepresented items which adds 2-handed axes to the game, but most of the items are way overpowered for early BG2, although they're on a par for late ToB.
An optimised character will always dual wield, it's purely stronger.
And the difference is actually huge at the start of BG1 despite what some people think. Going for two handed won't give you much of a THAC0 advantage. Assuming specialization, you will start the game with 1.5 Apr while a dual wielding character will have 2.5 Apr which represents a 66% increase in your attack rate which is the same difference as going from 3 Apr to 5 when you switch from two handed to dual wielding with Belm. So if you think dual wielding a speed weapon is strong, try to dual wield at level 1 and be impressed.
If you don't trust me, create a Barbarian or a Berserker, put 2 pips in your weapon of choice and 2 pips in dual wielding, activate your Rage/Enrage ability and watch your character slaughter Firebead in a mere round.
Onwards, the third point in dual wielding is pretty useless like the second point in two handed.
Not only dual wielding gives you more damage but also more resistance thanks to the Defender of Eastheven which is arguably the best weapon of the game.
On a Barbarian especially, it is imperative that you use it, as going from 60% ( passive + Hardiness) to 80% damage reduction will effectively double your tanking and nothing will top that.
But all hope is not lost, in an optimised party, someone will need to use two handed because there aren't an infinite number of good one handed weapon and because some two handed weapons like Carsomyr and The Ravager are so powerful that they are actually worth using. But definitely not on a Barbarian.
And using a shield past BG1 isn't optimised because if you are using a shield it means that you want to tank, but if you want to tank, you will need to use the DoE but if you are using both a shield and the DoE, you don't have a weapon powerful enough to hit some foes.
But in the end, everything I said is about min/maxing, you definitely don't need to powergame to complete and/or enjoy the game ! So play what you want
If you don't want to feel penalized for using two handed weapons, a simple advise I can give to all the forumites here, edit your character with EE:Keeper and give him 20% damage reduction to compensate the fact that you won't be able to use the DoE, yes I know it's cheating, but honestly it's all you need to make two handed users on par with dual wielding and for some it's not a problem but for some others (like me) it can be hard to enjoy a character that you need to gimp in order to roleplay it.
Thanks for reading, great discussion !
I've got nothing against dual-wielding, indeed my protagonist in my current run is dual-wielding (in SoA) and is doing very nicely with it. Nevertheless, I reckon some people are continuing to over-rate the advantages by only considering part of the picture.
As I said before, the extra APR is no use if it's merely an extra miss. A low-level warrior trying to dual-wield with low-level weapons, and especially with only ** in the style, is most often going to miss with the off-hand against anything tougher than (say) a gibberling. I take the point that a Barb's Rage can make it significantly more effective, but at low levels you've got Rage only once per day.
The third point in dual-wielding is significantly more important than the second point in two-handing, because the extra 2 THAC0 with the off-hand gives the additional APR more chance of actually counting for something (i.e. of being a hit), whereas the second two-handing point doesn't affect your hit chance.
Yes, the Defender of Easthaven is an excellent off-hand weapon, and indeed my current protagonist is using it. Nevertheless, it's not available until you're in BG2, and you probably can't afford it (it's very expensive) until you're fairly well along in the game (probably Chapter 3, and half the side-quests in the game already completed), so it's not relevant to the situation in BG1 or early BG2.
No, the DoE isn't imperative. I do agree that it's highly advantageous for a Barb in particular, because (as said) going from 60% damage reduction to 80% is seriously useful, although this only applies once you've got the Hardiness HLA, so this is relevant only to end-SoA and ToB, not earlier stages. If you want to dual-wield with a Barb, then the DoE is generally the way to go. Nevertheless, the advantages of sword-and-shield are being dismissed too lightly: physical damage reduction is one way of surviving as a tank, but not being hit so much is also very effective. Furthermore, various shields have very relevant damage reductions themselves, against (for example) elemental damage, which can also be excellent for survival as a tank (depending upon who you're fighting). You don't need to use the DoE to tank when fighting with a shield, you instead carry the right weapon to hurt the enemy and rely on the shield to make it difficult for the enemy to hit you ... if the enemy can only hit you half as often when you have 60% damage reduction, then that's roughly the same overall effect as taking the full number of hits but with 80% damage reduction.
Exactly contrary to what was said above, the time when you're tanking against an enemy who can't be hit by the DoE (a +3 weapon) is precisely the best time to think about sword-and-shield. In that situation, carrying the DoE in your off-hand would be purely for defensive purposes (+1 AC and 20% damage reduction), just like a shield, so that's when you ought to consider whether some other shield in your bag might be better-suited to the situation. For example, suppose you're in a situation where the enemy hits you (carrying DoE) whenever his hit roll is 15+: then switching from DoE to a shield giving +5 AC would reduce him to hitting you only when he rolls a crit, and that's a substantially bigger advantage than the extra 20% damage reduction. If the enemy is hitting you every time, then I agree that the damage reduction would be more advantageous than a modest improvement in AC, but with the right equipment it's possible (even in ToB) to max out your AC so much that not even boss-enemies can hit you reliably, and that's when a shield can be a lot better than the DoE. Well that's one situation, but generally-unjustifiable assumptions. You might well not have grandmastery because you might be a Paladin, a Ranger, or (especially for the current discussion) a Barbarian, and even as a Fighter it's often advantageous to build for mastery in two melee weapons (for different damage types) rather than grandmastery in one melee weapon. (Yes, a Fighter can eventually get grandmastery in two melee weapons as well as mastering dual-wielding and having some ranged proficiency ... but the game will be pretty much over by the time you can do all that.) It's also not a sensible assumption that you're using Belm (or Kundane) in the off-hand, since we're mainly talking about ToB when we're debating the use of HLAs, and in ToB a +2 weapon isn't itself capable of hitting anything that matters, so Belm merely gives an extra attack with the main-hand weapon. In ToB, you're usually better off using something in the off-hand which is stronger (so that it can hit in its own right) and/or which has some relevant bonus effect (such as a protection or stat boost). Thus your natural APR is actually going to be 3.5 (or 4 for a Fighter with grandmastery), not 5.
Also, not having exactly 5 APR naturally doesn't necessarily change anything. Even if you don't have GM (so 4.5 APR), you'd still have 7 APR with your main-hand with improved haste. This effectively becomes 14 APR with critical strike (approximately, as some types of damage aren't doubled with a critical), compared to the effective 10 APR you'd have if doing the same thing with a 2-hander (or if using GWW). And that's assuming Belm isn't hitting at all. Of course, this is again assuming that the enemy isn't immune to critical hits.
And if you are wielding something like DoE in the offhand, you may no longer have the damage advantage over 2-handed weapons, but you'll then have the advantage of whatever effect your off-hand weapon gives.
What I am getting from all of this, is that dual wielding, thanks to the weapons that are available in the game are generally a better choice because of special weapon effects and defensive bonuses of having an offhand weapon, but at least in the damage department, a top-tier two handed weapon can at least perform almost on par with a dual wield setup.
I understand that the min/maxers are all for dual wielding and there is nothing wrong with dual wielding from my RP perspective. I really do enjoy it. I just wanted to make sure that if I got the itch to smash and slash things with a two hander that I wouldn't be so overly nerfed it was not funny.
I really enjoy reading your posts. I also appreciate how some of you guys have looked at things from my perspective. That empathy really makes me feel more open to constructive criticism about how I play the game.
On the other hand, dual wield also reeks of cheese. Most, if not ALL characters seriously involved in that, can max proficiency in the style. If they cannot exceed one point specialization, though, it would be bad idea to use 2 weapons simultaneously. But consider using Melf's minute meteors with weapon in offhand (the ranged attack comes packed with ALL MELEE DAMAGE of that weapon), or dual wield heavy weapons (call me katana, which hits like a two handed sword and needs one hand only, and/or scimitar, and/or longsword) that can make short work of any enemy foolish (or unskilled) enough to get close to you.
Two handed weapons allow you to have a ranged attack weapon equipped, a bow, crossbow, sling or dart. When you dual wield though (two weapons), you cannot equip ANY item that has to do anything with ranged attack. Most of the times, i let my main (fighter dual mage) use two handed swords, staffs with grandmastery, and one point in longbows (best SoA ranged attacker is a longbow, and Taralash in ToB isn't half bad either...), one because berserker does not allow any more... I leave dual wield to me thieves! Most of the time...
On a similar note: If you want to go totally crazy with the min/maxing and "tweaking", there's a component in the BG2 Tweak Pack which lets you dual-class a Barbarian. So if you were to go Barbarian(X)->Thief for some X >= 20, then you could also wear Jan's armor (via Use Any Item) for 100% damage resistance while Hardiness is active. I'm not sure what the optimal X would be in terms of number-of-uses of Hardiness/other Warrior HLAs versus Thief HLAs, but it's an intriguing possibility.
Of course a regular Dwarf Barbarian wielding Foebane+5 and DoE offhand would be nigh-unkillable anyway, so this is probably completely overkill.
However, BG is generally a game that does not require you to min-max (at least BG I and SoA; don't know about Throne of Bhaal), I think one can safely build one's characters the way one wants without regrets.
Personally I always felt dual wielding belongs more to rogues/rangers/bards than any other class.
Sure, dual wielding has its advantages, but it does'nt make two handed fighting style obsolete at all.
Two handers also have the advantage on being able to equip a ranged weapon along with it.
I would'nt write them off, just go for whatever you feel like.
The ''best choice'' does'nt exist.
Some people think you can only solo the game with one class.
And I did it with an assassin. a blade, a necromancer, a priest of talos and a berserker.
I've heard of others soloing it with a sorcerer, using only a quarterstaff as only item, and no saves inbetween, so death will mean a restart.
Just goes for show, you don't have to play it one way, pick whatever you feel like and it'll work out.
If we look at this from a purely efficiency (not RP) perspective, neither dual wielding nor 2-handed weapons are ideal for a barbarian, because a barbarian's armor restrictions are felt much more strongly in BG1 than in BG2 (owing to the lesser number of magic armor options). In actuality, the most practical setup for a barbarian in BG1 is a one-handed weapon and then either a shield or (if the character is using a two-handed ranged weapon) points in single-weapon style (for the AC bonus).
Functionally-speaking, you have the potential to do a lot of damage with either dual wielding or 2-handed weapons - dualling will give you an extra APR, meaning an extra opportunity to deal damage within a single round, while 2-handed weapons typically do more damage with each individual blow, especially if you've put a point in 2-handed weapon style. There will probably be times and situations where either one is preferable over the other at various points in the game, so I don't think either one has a clear advantage over the other (and I say this as someone who recently completed a playthrough as a dual-wielding ranger, which I enjoyed very much). If your heart is set on using a 2-handed weapon over dual-wielding, I don't think it will make much of a different from an efficiency perspective.
Basically what I was trying to get out of this is...
If Baldur's Gate was an MMORPG and I was a Barbarian LFG (looking for group) and got recruited into a 6 man group as a melee dps. Would everyone laugh at me when I showed up with a 2 hander and not dual wielding like the min/maxers say you should.
Now that I have gotten a sample from everyone's perspective, I feel a lot better about just playing the game the way that makes me happy while also being aware what choices are good and which choices are sub par for whatever character I decide to play.
You guys are awesome and I am so glad that I stumbled across this forum recently.
Isometric RPG's for life! :b
Baldur's Gate is not an E-Sport or competitive game, that means you can do whatever you want.
I've personaly never used dual wield on my ''CHARACTER NAME) , i always use 2handers and rarely Sword/Board.
There are many good people here who can give u tips and calculations about 2h vs Dual but i can assure you that you can complete the game with any class / kit and any party , just improvise and have fun if you don't go for powerplay.
In the original BG1, the game would unpause when you were in a character's inventory screen, which made wise use of quick slots and careful weapon planning a lot more important, since swapping out equipment in mid battle was dangerous. While it's probably good that feature disappeared in BG2, part of me thinks that maybe "no inventory screen during combat" would be a good setting, or at least a voluntary challenge.
Just my opinion at the end of the day. Still, a good point if you were playing the original version of the game.
Under the current ruleset, I think the UI could also use a tweak to make doing what a lot of players frequently do more convenient by letting you equip two handed weapons while a shield or offhand weapon was also equipped, and just make equipping the 2H weapon disable the offhand weapon/shield. (If you're going to let players freely swap out weapons during combat, don't make the UI make the process tedious and annoying.)
On the subject of UI oversights, you can (or at least could in the original BG series) get around the strength requirements for weapons and armour by temporarily boosting your strength with some spell or effect and then equipping the desired item. When the effect wore off, the item would be shaded red, but would remain equipped, so you could continue to use it until you unequipped it.