Dual-wield...MAULS!?!

[Echod16]

I'd like to see that and dual wielding axes in D3, would you? (if only for the awesomeness factor)

[xchrisbobisx]

are you talking about something similar to titans grip? That was kinda a epic fail b/c you auto attack slow as hell. You could already DW 2h swords in d2 so im sure a barb can DW any weapon in d3. a 1h dagger and a big 2h mace if you pleased. Though on a realistic side, I dont see how a barb would DW a 2h mace the size of the skeleton kings. Maybe some 2h weps will be 1h wieldable... Wont matter much though my future paladin is gunna smite the hell outa a slow clumsy barb, regardless how slow of weapons it choses.

[stillman]

You have to draw the line somewhere. What about 2 polearms? That would look kind of silly and unlikely. I think 2 mauls are also too much, visually.

Maybe what they could do is allow anything to be duel wielded, like 2 colossus voulges, but this would lower your attack speed to something unplayable. And if you wear all IAS gear, it would become acceptably fast enough, but you wouldn't do much damage anyway because all your gear is for IAS.

[Echod16]

Lets leave visual realism at the door please, this is Diablo, afterall. I don't see aura rings exuding off me when I shout a battle order : )

And who says there will be-
A. Smite in Diablo 3, I hate smite, completely undermines the AR system
B. Paladins in Diablo 3? They've (Blizzard) already said there will not be a Paladin class in Diablo 3!

[Drytchnath]

I think dual-wielding mauls would look a bit silly since the maul in the WWI gameplay video was so huge.

Also, everytime I vote on a poll the forums drop me into a random D2 off-topic thread while displaying the poll results...wtf?

[Inda]

Hmm. My preference would be to assign a size+weight to all items, then compare that with the characters str+dex to see if he can dual wield them or not.

[PFSS]

Hmm. My preference would be to assign a size+weight to all items, then compare that with the characters str+dex to see if he can dual wield them or not.

This is a pretty good idea, but I think Blizzard nerfing character building by making stat point allocation automatic (unless I missed where there decided not to go ahead with this?) detracts from it a bit.

[Echod16]

.

Also, everytime I vote on a poll the forums drop me into a random D2 off-topic thread while displaying the poll results...wtf?

I've been experiencing this problem as well...ELLY!!!!!!!! *in a mighty Lion-O voice*

[veteran player]

yes. i like it also 8)

[Es Mors]

Lets leave visual realism at the door please, this is Diablo, afterall. I don't see aura rings exuding off me when I shout a battle order : )

Every game has its own realism, I think dual mauls would be unrealistic by Diablo's standards. It depends on the size of the mauls, of course. :)

I read somewhere that the poll problem isn't going away because it's so hard to fix. It's been here for ages anyway.

[NASE]

I've been experiencing this problem as well...ELLY!!!!!!!! *in a mighty Lion-O voice*

Also, everytime I vote on a poll the forums drop me into a random D2 off-topic thread while displaying the poll results...wtf?

It's a known bug that is present already for quite a while. Had something to do with updating the system IIRC.

Just remember to post before you vote.



dual wielding mauls is over the top. However, there should be some 2 handed weapons that can be used with one hand. smaller spears forinstance, or the smaller axes.

[AxlStrife]

Reminds me of the first time I played D2, hoping I could use 2x Mauls.

I agree with NASE on his last paragraph, especially with the thought of shield-wielding with a pike. Give me a horse and I'll go jousting!

[Doppel]

What bugged me in D2 was that the barbarian didn't have a 2H mastery, whats up with that?

[Grug]

Actually, you CAN dual wield pole arms in Diablo 3! If you watch the Blizzcon B roll, you can see a barbarian using a polearm and an axe at the same time.

[xpumafangx]

I just say sweet to dual wield all two handers.

I want to use 2 big axes.

[GoldenBird]

A giant axe in each hand just looks more epic, man.

Although, I don't imagine how someone would hold a maul with one hand... just the positioning wouldn't look right.

[xpumafangx]

Golden, You can and cant hold a mual one handed in real life. But then again nothing in diablo or most video games dealing with medevil weapons. Hold any truth other then theyre names.

So again DUAL WEILD MUAL EPIC CORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!11111111!

[Bomber]

Voted heck yes but would like to see a balanced barb that would lose attack speed.

[Marahumm]

I just say sweet to dual wield all two handers.

I want to use 2 big axes.

Yes, I can't wait to dual-weild two bows!

I think I'll name him Goro.

[GuardianHadriel]

are you talking about something similar to titans grip? That was kinda a epic fail b/c you auto attack slow as hell. You could already DW 2h swords in d2 so im sure a barb can DW any weapon in d3. a 1h dagger and a big 2h mace if you pleased. Though on a realistic side, I dont see how a barb would DW a 2h mace the size of the skeleton kings. Maybe some 2h weps will be 1h wieldable... Wont matter much though my future paladin is gunna smite the hell outa a slow clumsy barb, regardless how slow of weapons it choses.
i´m ALL in for the pallas...but barbarians are the second coolest class...it´s not a winky wonky as the casters with thier ***-like coward magic...not saying d3 effects are ***...BLIZZARD...i hope what you meant by "the barbarian will be the only returning class in the game" is that he is the same dude as in d2...but i still wish the pladin to be black(male version)...and this can be accomplsihed by letting you play his hidden son which was not spoken of in diablo II...does any1 think this is a good idea??

[Chorkstain]

yea thats a hell gud idea!! pally 4 daiblo 3 lolxxxorz do it blizzy or u r ghey

[teh_Thrasher]

I don't see aura rings exuding off me when I shout a battle order
really? I DO!
lol

omg i hated the fact that u could wield 2h swords with 1hand with the barb. like wtf?! i know he's supposed to be "stronger" than the other classes, but what if the stats dont match that?! like how does he do it!? DUMB! u should have to have double the stat reqs to wield said weapon in one hand. NUFF said

oh and dual wield mauls and pole arms... DUMB! have u ever seen a maul before?! go try and pick it up and swing it with one hand. diablo is supposed to have a more realistic-ness to it. thats what the whole argument about the armor looking cartoony was about. gawd.

[tyren]

Slightly OT...
Did I read somewhere that you cannot wield 2handers like swords in 1 hand in D3? I really hope I just dreamt a nightmare, someone please correct me on this?

[Kalara]

I do believe I read that as well. I just hope that there are still some large long one hand weapons and we don't get stuck with only 20 inch gladius looking one-handers.

[Kalara]

Now I don't want to be Ichigo from Bleach or whatever his name was from Final Fantasy so don't get carried away there.

[TheWhetherMan]

Voted no. They should stick with what was allowed in D2.

[chezzmaster]

There would have to be a damage penalty on each maul. due to the fact you cant swing it how it was meant to be swung. This is what happens when you swing a maul:

=== is the shaft

O is your hands

H is the head of the maul (or large axe)

This is a character right before swinging
=O======O==H

When he begins to swing, he raises above him or higher to the side, bringing his hands together like so:

<<<sliding top hand this way<<<
=O=====O===H

=O===O=====H

=O=O=======H

this focuses a huge amount of momentum in the head, allowing you to cleave through a devilkin's skull in one hit.

Also you would need GIGANTIC hands to hold the shaft in one hand. I mean like dinner plates.

[trashX]

"i´m ALL in for the pallas...but barbarians are the second coolest class...it´s not a winky wonky as the casters with thier ***-like coward magic...not saying d3 effects are ***...BLIZZARD...i hope what you meant by "the barbarian will be the only returning class in the game" is that he is the same dude as in d2...but i still wish the pladin to be black(male version)...and this can be accomplsihed by letting you play his hidden son which was not spoken of in diablo II...does any1 think this is a good idea?? "

no, no not at all. most of you people that want the paladin to come back only want him to come back because of how unbalanced he was in D2(hammer smite FOH) that being said, if he came back in D3 those attacks would be removed or changed and he would play differently MEANING: his name will be paladin but he won't be the D2 pala you wanted.

About the 2 handed wield? Hell, It's about time

[Echod16]

Been awhile since I've chimed in on this...

I'd just like to reiterate that the Diablo universe is about larger than life characters doing larger than life things, and I just think that a barbarian dual-wielding two mauls would fit with that well

I mean seriously, if you saw a Barb in weilding eBOTD Thunder Maul with a Dragon Monarch... you'd run for the hills

[Dahmer]

@chezzmaster :
Very good point, mauls and axes are completely unlike swords (even if they're all two-handed) because of the weight ratio. For mauls and axes most of the weight is in the head which make them harder to swing so there should be some form of extra requirement and/or penalty like there are for dual wielding two-handed swords in D2 right now.
In case someone doesn't know, dual wielding two-handed swords in D2 lowers the damage per sword to the one-handed damage range.

@trashX :
I agree with the paladin thing, I always loved paladins and had fun with most of the skills and I never really used hammers because of the simple fact that winning all the time wasn't fun. There's no risk/thrill factor anymore.

@anyone talking about realism and saying you shouldn't look at it here :
Sorry but you're WRONG. (and i'm only talking about looks of items here)
If anyone doesn't agree with me just look at all the swords, bows, hammers, armor pieces.... I challenge anyone here to look for something that doesn't look realistic.
The damage thing I mentioned earlier is also about realism really.
When you equip a two-handed sword and no other weapon/shield you use it with both hands and in return do more damage. -> realistic
when you equip another weapon or a shield next to that two-handed weapon you start using it with one hand and in return do less damage. -> realistic

[Runestar]

When you equip a two-handed sword and no other weapon/shield you use it with both hands and in return do more damage. -> realistic
when you equip another weapon or a shield next to that two-handed weapon you start using it with one hand and in return do less damage. -> realistic

This isn't an issue of realism, it is more an issue of game-balance. If a barb did not get a damage penalty when wielding a 2-handed weapon with 1 hand, none of them would ever use 1-handed weapons. The only way to make this feasible is to nerf the damage of 2-handed weapons to make them comparable to 1-handed weapons when wielded as such, so that you would ultimately be indifferent between the 2.

If anything, I would argue that perhaps when using a 2-handed weapon in 1-hand, the damage should remains the same, but you receive an attack penalty instead. This could make for an even more interesting tradeoff.

If you want to talk about realism, there is the whole joke about studded leather armour (I think that punching nails into armour would actually make it weaker, not stronger) or chain-mail (since mail just means chain, so you are really just saying chain-chain).

Likewise, characters can apparently run around with 5 sets of fullplate armour in their inventory without being encumbered despite not having enough strength to wear any one. 6 chipped gems take up as much space as 1 suit of armour.

If anything in D2 resembles or happens to mimic real-life physics, I personally believe it is more coincidence than anything else. I don't think anything is going to care if the trajectory of your projectiles is a little (or a lot) way off, nor may they even be in a position to spot the discrepancies anyways. So what really matters is what looks visually appealing or does not take away from a player's enjoyment of the game (would you find it fun if you had to wait 8 hours for a vendor to "replenish" his gold?). The rest can take a back seat.

[Dahmer]

I know it's part of game balancing but it's also realistic to do less damage if you're only using one hand instead of two.

As for the realism part, thanks for answering besides my point, next time I'll make sure to put the word LOOKS in bold with fancy colours so even you can see it.

[Runestar]

What's the issue? It certainly does not look realistic to me at all that 6 diamonds are taking up 6 squares, the same space as a suit of armour. ???

I know it's part of game balancing but it's also realistic to do less damage if you're only using one hand instead of two.

My point was more that the reduced damage was a deliberate effort on part of the designers to balance weapons. That it conforms to real-life realism (presumably) is purely coincidental (meaning that they did not set out to model real life physics to begin with).

So I am not sure if there is even a point to arguing whether a particular feature is "realistic" or not in the sense of the word. I mean - we already have spellcasters tossing around balls of fire and calling down flaming rocks from the sky.

If dual-wielding two 2-handed weapons is not possible in D3, I daresay that it will be left out for purely mechanical reasons. I am sure there are a fair number of people who believe that it is cool to run around with 2 oversized steak-knives, easily as many as those who feel this is a retarded concept. So Blizzard has to take into account their preferences as much as yours or mine.

[TheMightyShoe]

If you want to talk about realism, there is the whole joke about studded leather armour (I think that punching nails into armour would actually make it weaker, not stronger) or chain-mail (since mail just means chain, so you are really just saying chain-chain).

If I remember correctly, "studded leather" is really overlapping plates or leaves held together with metal studs. Hardened leather armor (boiled in wax) doesn't flex, so "leaves" of hard leather were layered together to give a somewhat better range of motion. The overlapping leaves actually gave pretty good protection. Hardened leather is quite cut-resistant, and the layering system gives some defense against dull blows like maces or fists.

[Risingred]

I think it would look pretty cool, if anything. The barbarian is huge. He's supposed to be physically intimidating. That's what I would call physically intimidating.

It isn't like someone's asking for an amazon class that can dual wield bows.

[Arkansaw]

I prefer to dual wield staves

[jhtvman]

I think it would be pretty awesome. If it's an option, I'd definitely be running around with dual Ogre Mauls smashing things to pieces.

It makes sense within the context of the game world. I mean, just look at the Barbarian in D2. He's like twice the size of every other character because his pure physical power is his greatest asset. He can heft weapons in one hand that other warriors would struggle to lift off the ground and swing them with great speed and power. He's supposed to be much bigger and stronger than everyone else.

[GuardianHadriel]

yea thats a hell gud idea!! pally 4 daiblo 3 lolxxxorz do it blizzy or u r ghey

that´s mah maaaen!:crazyeyes:

[Echod16]

I'd just like to point out that realism in a fantasy game can be strived for, but does not need to be, and in order to indulge in the "damn, that's one BAMF" side in a lot of us, I just think adding this bit of unrealistic play to the table would appease a lot more people than it would dissatisfy

A potential solution to a problem I keep seeing recur in this thread:

As was pointed out, mauls and axes (and all weapons except blades/swords, for that matter) rely on a concentrated mass on an end. So while it made sense for a sword's damage when dual-wielded in D2 to go down linearly to the amount of strength used in an attack (1 arm versus 2), this shouldn't hold true for other traditional 2h weapons.

Instead, the dual-wielded maul (for example) should have 1/2 of the attack speed than if it were equipped as a two hander. This way, it would properly reflect the fact that swinging a weapon of this off-kilter weight is a hard thing to do, so it would go slower, but would ultimately reach a similar impact velocity as with a two handed version, and so would still reach the appropriate damage as if it were 2 handed. This way, it looks more realistic in manner, but still ends up having a very similar "dps" when compared to it's swordy predecessor

Also, the barb should get a bonus +10 fury for being such a BAMF if he dual-wields mauls, end of story : )

[Jarvgrimr]

I think dual-wielding 2H Axes or Maces/Mauls would look daft. Dual wielding the single handed axes is perfectly fine.

[Starving_Poet]

I wonder how big the barb's wrist would have to be to deal with the handle length :)

[lumpor]

I don't really like the idea. When I think of a maul, there's someone holding a very big one with both arms, brings it back, and then swings very heavily. Dual-wielding would look kinda lame