Calling all veterans! 2-hand or dual wield?

Frogman

Greetings warriors! My party will be led by a bloodthirsty half-Orc barbarian named Leary. Looking for him to be the first into battle and the highest damage dealer. I'm filling out my party with spell casters and A bard all built to keep him buffed, healed, unencumbered, and frightfully devastating. Any suggestions for how to play and/or build him are appreciated! The main poll question, which will serve him better...2-hand sword or dual axes? Thanks as always comrades!

elminster

So you are debating between two axes or a two handed sword. I'm going to go with dual wielding. However...

Considering that IWD has two-handed axes I kind of feel the need to ask if you considered using two-handed axes?

Mathsorcerer

Why not both? IWD had 2-handed axes available. In the long run, though, you will want dual-wield and to use weapons other than axes. There is a hammer that gives 15% physical resistance and a morningstar which gives 20% so when backed by an 11th-level bard you are almost 50% resistant to physical damage and this doesn't count any other items you are using.

Frogman

This will be my first time in iwd (I've played and beaten iwd2/bg1/bg2) so I'm definitely open to alternative weapon ideas! I actually didn't know about the two hand axes!

Kamigoroshi

Agreed. Nothing's better than having some good ol' Two-Handed Axe in your green hands.

Frogman

Mathsorcerer said:

Why not both? IWD had 2-handed axes available. In the long run, though, you will want dual-wield and to use weapons other than axes. There is a hammer that gives 15% physical resistance and a morningstar which gives 20% so when backed by an 11th-level bard you are almost 50% resistant to physical damage and this doesn't count any other items you are using.

Wow that sounds amazing and a great way to turn him into the one man army that I'm hoping he will be. So are you recommending a vanilla bard or skald to support him? (I read the entire bard thread but I still can't decide)

CoryNewb

Casadoom

derrick4372 said:

Mathsorcerer said:

Why not both? IWD had 2-handed axes available. In the long run, though, you will want dual-wield and to use weapons other than axes. There is a hammer that gives 15% physical resistance and a morningstar which gives 20% so when backed by an 11th-level bard you are almost 50% resistant to physical damage and this doesn't count any other items you are using.

Wow that sounds amazing and a great way to turn him into the one man army that I'm hoping he will be. So are you recommending a vanilla bard or skald to support him? (I read the entire bard thread but I still can't decide)

If you want a one man army, put that on a Dwarven Defender instead of those weakling half-breeds.

CoryNewb

I loved my dwarven defender through bg1&2

DreadKhan

Casadoom said:

derrick4372 said:

Mathsorcerer said:

Why not both? IWD had 2-handed axes available. In the long run, though, you will want dual-wield and to use weapons other than axes. There is a hammer that gives 15% physical resistance and a morningstar which gives 20% so when backed by an 11th-level bard you are almost 50% resistant to physical damage and this doesn't count any other items you are using.

Wow that sounds amazing and a great way to turn him into the one man army that I'm hoping he will be. So are you recommending a vanilla bard or skald to support him? (I read the entire bard thread but I still can't decide)

If you want a one man army, put that on a Dwarven Defender instead of those weakling half-breeds.

Racist!

O_Bruce

"I can't be a racist against race that doesn't exists" Freeza, DBZA.

Jarrakul

It's pretty constantly true in the IE games that dual-wielding is more powerful than two-handed weapons. So if you've only got the one main damage dealer, I'd go with that.

Casadoom

I am quite worried that dual-wield will be insanely powerful in this game, more so than usual, since the one-handers are balanced without dual wielding in mind.

bob_veng

Jarrakul said:

It's pretty constantly true in the IE games that dual-wielding is more powerful than two-handed weapons. So if you've only got the one main damage dealer, I'd go with that.

not in those that have that have the greater whirlwind HLA.

IWD won't so dual wielding will be more powerful here (double attack rate via spell = mucho more APR)

Jarrakul

I've still gotta disagree with you there, bob_veng. Greater Whirlwind only lets two-handers surpass dual-wielders against enemies who are immune to crits, and that's nowhere near everyone. Remember, you can't Greater Whirlwind and Critical Strike at the same time, due to their short durations and the one-ability-per-round limit. You can, however, Critical Strike while under Improved Haste, so against most dangerous enemies (dragons, mariliths, Demogorgon, Irenicus, I think the TOB final boss, etc.) dual-wielding retains its advantage. Two-handers become stronger in some fringe circumstances, for a round or two at a time, but overall dual-wielding wins out.

bob_veng

uhhm yeah...you're right. i always forget that dual wielding is stronger (in abstract terms) because i get into the habit of using GWW since many bosses in tob are immune to crits.

OlvynChuru

Dual wielding is more powerful but two handing is more fun.

Kamigoroshi

It's a shame that AD&D never had a Two-Footed Weapon Style. It could be just like doing Capoeira. Only while grabbing some hefty weapon with your feets.

Zeckul

Just going by the picture in my head, wielding a huge 2-handed axe seems way cooler and more fitting of an orc. Dual-wielding axes seems... strange. But of course it's the more optimal thing to do in terms of damage output in IWD.

Mathsorcerer

The question as to whether a character should use a two-handed weapon or two one-handed weapons is easily answered by examining the character concept. If the character concept calls for dual-wield then go with that; if the character concept calls for two-handed sword, two-handed axe, or some polearm weapon then go with that.

Schneidend

Dual-wielding is for sissies, unless it's a shield bash or spiked armor attack.

kcwise

As others have said, I think the two handed axe sounds more consistent with an aggressive damage dealer, from a role playing perspective. Obviously, dual wielding can offer more damage and double the potential for secondary item abilities from weapons.

ballsackattack

I said duel buttttt.. WHY NOT USE A FLIPPING SHEILD

SharGuidesMyHand

Mathsorcerer said:

There is a hammer that gives 15% physical resistance and a morningstar which gives 20% so when backed by an 11th-level bard you are almost 50% resistant to physical damage and this doesn't count any other items you are using.

I wonder if the devs will do something to nerf this? (I hope not)

DreadKhan

Most of those resistance items are in random loot... ie you might or might not find a given weapon.

The real issue imo, there werent many really worthwhile two-handed weapons in IWD1. DWing or using a good shield is likely better.

JuliusBorisov

There are few things more terrifying than a half-orc barbarian with a double axe.

Mathsorcerer

SharGuidesMyHand said:

Mathsorcerer said:

There is a hammer that gives 15% physical resistance and a morningstar which gives 20% so when backed by an 11th-level bard you are almost 50% resistant to physical damage and this doesn't count any other items you are using.

I wonder if the devs will do something to nerf this? (I hope not)

I certainly hope not, as well. Obtaining immunity to a particular attack form is great and becomes the key to breezing through HoF mode.

OlvynChuru

One thing to keep in mind about dual wielding and damage resistances is that many shields, such as the Great Shield and Tiernon's shield, also provide some damage resistance. It won't be that big of a change. But what makes things even crazier is that there's a possibility that in the enhanced edition they will include Armor of Faith, which can give up to 25% damage resistance by itself. Let's see how things turn out.

Vitor

Dual Wield is the most efficient in Baldur's Gate. But it's illegal according to AD&D 2nd Edition, unless:

1. You're a Ranger
2. You use my special rule (Wich is: You can't put more than 2 points in it, and you can just have a "smaller" weapon in your off-hand, like a Dagger or Short Sword).
3. You're higher than Lv. 15, since now you're like a Demigod anyway.

For all other purposes, Two-Handed is much more badass!

Jarrakul

Vitor said:

Dual Wield is the most efficient in Baldur's Gate. But it's illegal according to AD&D 2nd Edition, unless:

1. You're a Ranger
2. You use my special rule (Wich is: You can't put more than 2 points in it, and you can just have a "smaller" weapon in your off-hand, like a Dagger or Short Sword).
3. You're higher than Lv. 15, since now you're like a Demigod anyway.

For all other purposes, Two-Handed is much more badass!

Actually, it was totally legal in 2E. You didn't even have to put points into it, in most versions of the rule I saw. The penalties were based off your Dex, not off of proficiencies, and got rather small by 18 (-0/-2, I believe). As you can imagine, it was pretty hideously strong.