Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins?

Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Printable Version

+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Community (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: RP Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? (/showthread.php?tid=11169)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Aduu Avagnar - 04-21-2015

The issue is that due to DnD, Greatswords have taken on the role of a two-handed sword, which isn't truly the case. A medieval Longsword is classed as a Greatsword, as it is based on the blade length. The handedness of the sword is determined primarily by the hilt, and weather it was designed for one handed fighting, two handed or hand and a half.

Given the Greatswords we are talking about fall into the two handed category, you wouldn't want to use one in a single hand. It's not designed for it, even if you could carry it due to the weight. The balance wouldn't be correct.

The sort of swords we're likely to see would be a Zweihander or Claymore (literally meaning Great sword in Gaelic), maybe with a Flamberge style blade. These were designed to combat troops not protected by plate, as although the concussive force was great, it wouldn't cut through it. Which is why moves such as the mordstreich where you would use the quillions or hilt to deal a concussive blow to your oponents head.

And one of the reasons why generally a Sword and Shield would come out over a two handed sword?

reach.

Unless you have the space to swing it, a two handed sword is very limited in what you can do with it. Someone within your reach is at a very distinct advantage. That is not to say there is nothing the two handed sword wielder can do, push off against the shield to create room, stab down over the shield to try and catch a gap in the armour. It's just the options are more limited.

Also, your comment about sword and board user 'beating someone with a greatsword without problems just because they can "block everything and kill anything that bleeds"' can be applied to just about anyone. I've heard of someone taking a full on blow from a piercing weapon, to the chest, and only received a scratch.... That shit would have slipped through ribs and pierced a lung.

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - mongi291 - 04-21-2015

(04-21-2015, 07:07 AM)Nako Wrote: The issue is that due to DnD, Greatswords have taken on the role of a two-handed sword, which isn't truly the case. A medieval Longsword is classed as a Greatsword, as it is based on the blade length. The handedness of the sword is determined primarily by the hilt, and weather it was designed for one handed fighting, two handed or hand and a half.

Given the Greatswords we are talking about fall into the two handed category, you wouldn't want to use one in a single hand. It's not designed for it, even if you could carry it due to the weight. The balance wouldn't be correct.

The sort of swords we're likely to see would be a Zweihander or Claymore (literally meaning Great sword in Gaelic), maybe with a Flamberge style blade. These were designed to combat troops not protected by plate, as although the concussive force was great, it wouldn't cut through it. Which is why moves such as the mordstreich where you would use the quillions or hilt to deal a concussive blow to your oponents head.

And one of the reasons why generally a Sword and Shield would come out over a two handed sword?

reach.

Unless you have the space to swing it, a two handed sword is very limited in what you can do with it. Someone within your reach is at a very distinct advantage. That is not to say there is nothing the two handed sword wielder can do, push off against the shield to create room, stab down over the shield to try and catch a gap in the armour. It's just the options are more limited.

Also, your comment about sword and board user 'beating someone with a greatsword without problems just because they can "block everything and kill anything that bleeds"' can be applied to just about anyone. I've heard of someone taking a full on blow from a piercing weapon, to the chest, and only received a scratch.... That shit would have slipped through ribs and pierced a lung.

The "block everything and kill anything that bleeds" thing was just an 8-bit Theather quote... But nevermind. What I meant was, if I'm doing RP combat as a greatsword user, against someone using sword and shield, and they start godmoding with the excuse of being faster or whatsoever, I'd be pissed off. As it's always the case with godmoding.

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Aduu Avagnar - 04-21-2015

(04-21-2015, 07:16 AM)mongi291 Wrote:
(04-21-2015, 07:07 AM)Nako Wrote: The issue is that due to DnD, Greatswords have taken on the role of a two-handed sword, which isn't truly the case. A medieval Longsword is classed as a Greatsword, as it is based on the blade length. The handedness of the sword is determined primarily by the hilt, and weather it was designed for one handed fighting, two handed or hand and a half.

Given the Greatswords we are talking about fall into the two handed category, you wouldn't want to use one in a single hand. It's not designed for it, even if you could carry it due to the weight. The balance wouldn't be correct.

The sort of swords we're likely to see would be a Zweihander or Claymore (literally meaning Great sword in Gaelic), maybe with a Flamberge style blade. These were designed to combat troops not protected by plate, as although the concussive force was great, it wouldn't cut through it. Which is why moves such as the mordstreich where you would use the quillions or hilt to deal a concussive blow to your oponents head.

And one of the reasons why generally a Sword and Shield would come out over a two handed sword?

reach.

Unless you have the space to swing it, a two handed sword is very limited in what you can do with it. Someone within your reach is at a very distinct advantage. That is not to say there is nothing the two handed sword wielder can do, push off against the shield to create room, stab down over the shield to try and catch a gap in the armour. It's just the options are more limited.

Also, your comment about sword and board user 'beating someone with a greatsword without problems just because they can "block everything and kill anything that bleeds"' can be applied to just about anyone. I've heard of someone taking a full on blow from a piercing weapon, to the chest, and only received a scratch.... That shit would have slipped through ribs and pierced a lung.
The "block everything and kill anything that bleeds" thing was just an 8-bit Theather quote... But nevermind. What I meant was, if I'm doing RP combat as a greatsword user, against someone using sword and shield, and they start godmoding with the excuse of being faster or whatsoever, I'd be pissed off. As it's always the case with godmoding.

except thats an issue with godmodders, rather than anything else.and which is where if you're that worried about it, use rolls rather than freeform.

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Warren Castille - 04-21-2015

(04-21-2015, 07:16 AM)mongi291 Wrote: What I meant was, if I'm doing RP combat, and they start godmoding, I'd be pissed off. As it's always the case with godmoding.

Broken down into base components, I don't think anyone would argue with this statement.

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - SunTzu7 - 04-21-2015

Newton will always, always be a Paladin, but Dark Knight and its lore are really, really in for how Artemis is going to develop post 2.55. I have her picking up a bunch of weapons anyway, so the greatsword thing isn't as much of an issue.

Mechanically I suppose it depends on how the class plays if I pick it up as a main class, but I love Paladin, I love Warrior, so odds are pretty good I'll love Dark Knight.

Although if I'm honest, playing giant sword wielding Batman is pretty much a winner regardless.

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Aaron - 04-21-2015

(04-21-2015, 07:07 AM)Nako Wrote: The issue is that due to DnD, Greatswords have taken on the role of a two-handed sword, which isn't truly the case. A medieval Longsword is classed as a Greatsword, as it is based on the blade length. The handedness of the sword is determined primarily by the hilt, and weather it was designed for one handed fighting, two handed or hand and a half.

Given the Greatswords we are talking about fall into the two handed category, you wouldn't want to use one in a single hand. It's not designed for it, even if you could carry it due to the weight. The balance wouldn't be correct.

The sort of swords we're likely to see would be a Zweihander or Claymore (literally meaning Great sword in Gaelic), maybe with a Flamberge style blade. These were designed to combat troops not protected by plate, as although the concussive force was great, it wouldn't cut through it. Which is why moves such as the mordstreich where you would use the quillions or hilt to deal a concussive blow to your oponents head.

And one of the reasons why generally a Sword and Shield would come out over a two handed sword?

reach.

Unless you have the space to swing it, a two handed sword is very limited in what you can do with it. Someone within your reach is at a very distinct advantage. That is not to say there is nothing the two handed sword wielder can do, push off against the shield to create room, stab down over the shield to try and catch a gap in the armour. It's just the options are more limited.

Also, your comment about sword and board user 'beating someone with a greatsword without problems just because they can "block everything and kill anything that bleeds"' can be applied to just about anyone. I've heard of someone taking a full on blow from a piercing weapon, to the chest, and only received a scratch.... That shit would have slipped through ribs and pierced a lung.

That explains why Kadaj was whooping Clouds ass both times the fought and even disarmed the guy until Kadaj decided to be stupid an do a cliche jump attack lol

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Aduu Avagnar - 04-21-2015

(04-21-2015, 08:39 AM)Aaron Wrote:
(04-21-2015, 07:07 AM)Nako Wrote: The issue is that due to DnD, Greatswords have taken on the role of a two-handed sword, which isn't truly the case. A medieval Longsword is classed as a Greatsword, as it is based on the blade length. The handedness of the sword is determined primarily by the hilt, and weather it was designed for one handed fighting, two handed or hand and a half.

Given the Greatswords we are talking about fall into the two handed category, you wouldn't want to use one in a single hand. It's not designed for it, even if you could carry it due to the weight. The balance wouldn't be correct.

The sort of swords we're likely to see would be a Zweihander or Claymore (literally meaning Great sword in Gaelic), maybe with a Flamberge style blade. These were designed to combat troops not protected by plate, as although the concussive force was great, it wouldn't cut through it. Which is why moves such as the mordstreich where you would use the quillions or hilt to deal a concussive blow to your oponents head.

And one of the reasons why generally a Sword and Shield would come out over a two handed sword?

reach.

Unless you have the space to swing it, a two handed sword is very limited in what you can do with it. Someone within your reach is at a very distinct advantage. That is not to say there is nothing the two handed sword wielder can do, push off against the shield to create room, stab down over the shield to try and catch a gap in the armour. It's just the options are more limited.

Also, your comment about sword and board user 'beating someone with a greatsword without problems just because they can "block everything and kill anything that bleeds"' can be applied to just about anyone. I've heard of someone taking a full on blow from a piercing weapon, to the chest, and only received a scratch.... That shit would have slipped through ribs and pierced a lung.
That explains why Kadaj was whooping Clouds ass both times the fought and even disarmed the guy until Kadaj decided to be stupid an do a cliche jump attack lol

that was more Cloud 'not having the will to fight'. All through the movie he's shown as running away. Tongue

You'll notice Cloud got a lot better at fighting nearer to the end Wink

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Khadan - 04-21-2015

(04-21-2015, 05:33 AM)mongi291 Wrote:
(04-20-2015, 08:21 PM)Kayllen Wrote:

Show Content

click to embiggenThis is something that's come up in FC chatter/mumble for a while, now, especially with our FotM hype nerds. The general consensus seems to be that all tanks will be going for Dark Knight soon or something. I still don't personally see why. Mechanically Paladins are probably the strongest tank in the game between the abundance of cooldowns and passive block being so powerful. Where Paladins suffer the most is in solo play where their dps is abysmally low and the one ability they have, Sword Oath, is the longest running joke of 2.x

If Dark Knight comes in and offers all the cooldown versatility and massive secondary mitigation of Paladin with the AoE threat and solo DPS of the Warrior? Then yes you will probably see a lot of people jumping ship to board the hype train. Of course this could easily be fixed by redoing sword oath to not be garbage and increasing the AoE threat of Paladin while also giving warrior something to compensate for their lack of a block passive.

Overall where this really matters is in raiding. If Dark Knight doesn't have the passive mitigation and cooldown versatility of Paladin I'm going to put my money on Paladin staying the strongest tank with Warrior and Dark Knight being interchangeable as Off Tanks.

Show Content

Spoiler

On to the RP side of things!

So here's the thing with greatswords: Fantasy games have played up their prominence and capability to an extreme degree. That is not to say that a great sword isn't good at what it's intended to do: cleaving a bloody swathe through unarmored foes and the legs of horses.Â

Like all jobs it is good to remember that there is a tool for every job. You're not going to bring a pair of pliers to a decking job when you need a hammer and nails, instead.Â

What does that mean for warfare and combat? Well it means that there is no "one tool fixes all" in melee warfare which is why there are so many different weapons throughout history. Some of them are good or even great, some of them are terrible and beg the question: -WHY?!-. Greatswords tend to be the marriage of a long cutting edge of a long sword or a messer sword, with the chopping force of a long axe. Some might argue that you could throw short spear in there but I disagree on the basis of how a spear is wielded and a greatsword is still shorter than a short spear; unless they mean javelins in which case you don't throw the damn greatsword gdi.

With that in mind, if you're fighting a bunch of opponents that have light or no armor or cavalry then a greatsword is excellent. Greatsword blades don't cut through solid or well made metal armor, however, since the cutting edge is spread out over too much space to penetrate your opponent. CAN you defeat an armored foe with a greatsword? Of course, but you can also kill someone with a broken bottle, too, it doesn't make it the best tool for the job.

On to swords and shields. The shield as a concept has been around in practice from some of the most ancient civilizations like the Egyptian wood and ox hide shields to the famous Roman Scutum and the Viking Linden board round shields then moving on to modern day riot shields. The idea of putting a solid barrier between yourself and direct harm is something I think all of us can get behind (see what I did there?). A shield wasn't just a defensive barrier that took up a spot on your arm and occasionally absorbed an arrow shot, rather it was a solid wall between your enemy's weapon and your body, a mobile and often maneuverable shell that could block, parry, and especially trap an opponents weapon, and an effective bashing weapon. One of the most effective shield combinations is a medium sized shield, usually round or rectangular, and a short sword (Like the gladius). Even more so if you can present a shield wall to your enemies and arm your soldiers with spears as well, i.e. the phalanx.

Though I think we're supposedly focusing on one-on-one combat. I could probably present pages of scenarios to you about sword-and-shield vs. greatsword and what is better etc etc. I think someone mentioned HEMA earlier, too, and they'll know what I'm talking about in that regard. I will say that just 'off the cuff' in my opinion with two equally skilled and armored opponents you will likely see the person with the sword and shield overcoming the greatsword wielder more often just because that shield is a highly effective and adaptable tool while a greatsword only does one thing, maybe two if you count the occasional parry.

On a somewhat personal peeve I will say that I very often see this idea touted about with characters wielding this massive greatswords with relative ease and the thing is wide enough that they claim they just plant it in the ground and it can block arrows and even BULLETS. I will grant that this is Final Fantasy so ridiculous and fantastical things can and do happen like Cloud for example. HOWEVER since we have 'normal' looking swords with most of them being proportional as the majority I'm going to say that a cloud sword is just sort of ridiculous as a notion. Hell even I find Raubahn's swords to be too big and heavy to be using effectively with one in each hand. But regardless, using a sword as a shield just seems ridiculous even for FF. Plus it sounds like a good way to get your sword broken and/or shattered since it's not designed to take those kinds of impacts (small high velocity shots) on the flat. Not to mention that it's heavy and unwieldy! There's a video of a guy who made a replica of Cloud's Buster Sword and then had some body builder try to swing it around and he just couldn't do it, it weight like 50-60 pounds (a normal greatsword weighs probably 4-5). Finally, with such a large weapon your range of strikes is rather limited to downwards chops and horizontal cuts. You might get a thrust in but remember, it's not a spear. A one handed sword just has a lot more flexibility, range of motion, penetrating power if you half-sword especially, and would be faster. I know it's Final Fantasy but I just dislike the anime greatsword trope e.e

You make greatswords look like shit. While I'm not really a greatsword fan (rapiers ftw), they aren't even that heavy and clumsy, there are bigger and heavier weapons that we can still use effectively (you could even wield with only one hand some of them, if you are strong enough).
Also if I see someone using sword and shield beating someone with a greatsword without problems just because they can "block everything and kill anything that bleeds", I'd never RP with the sword and board user.

I don't make greatswords look like anything but greatswords, you mean. Unless you mean to say that I don't -glorify- them? Which I will readily admit. A greatsword is just a tool like any other weapon and honestly I would prefer a warhammer or a mace over a longsword, and a halberd or poleaxe over a greatsword, myself. Not that they are both 'superior' in either regard but they are more versatile and are less hindered by things such as heavy armor.

Having never stated that an irl greatsword is heavy or clumsy I will correct you there. While you can use a heavy maul, for example, a weapon that is likely heavier than a greatsword, not by much though, in one hand 'if you are strong enough' is -possible- the reality is that it's not probable and without training your effectiveness will drop considerably. What you will find is that strength has less to do with it than training and you won't train to wield a maul in one hand or a greatsword, for that matter. You'll train to wield it properly because that's how the weapon is designed to be used. i.e. I can train to hold a pistol upside down and fire with my pinky, I may even get good at doing that, but it's not designed that way and I am handicapping myself in the process by inherently misusing the weapon.

I caught the 8-bit theater quote and if you had read my post then you would know I never stated that a sword and shield user would always beat a greatsword user. I stated specifically:Â in my opinion with two equally skilled and armored opponents you will likely see the person with the sword and shield overcoming the greatsword wielder more often just because that shield is a highly effective and adaptable tool while a greatsword only does one thing, maybe two if you count the occasional parry.

That has nothing to do with godmoding which you seem to be concerned with. Godmoding was never even brought up, either, are you worried about godmoding or the logistics of actual weapons in actual combat as it pertains to the main point of this post which was "Will two hands replace one hand?" to which I say as the hype train goes? Initially yes but sense will hopefullyÂ persevereÂ in the end =P

That or people will just play both and pick the right weapon for the task at hand!

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Warren Castille - 04-21-2015

The Rule of Cool is subjective, but people will always obey it.

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Khadan - 04-21-2015

(04-21-2015, 01:06 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: The Rule of Cool is subjective, but people will always obey it.

I definitely agree with that. I lived through the Death Knight pandemic, after all!

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - mongi291 - 04-21-2015

(04-21-2015, 12:59 PM)Kayllen Wrote:
(04-21-2015, 05:33 AM)mongi291 Wrote:
(04-20-2015, 08:21 PM)Kayllen Wrote:

Show Content

click to embiggenThis is something that's come up in FC chatter/mumble for a while, now, especially with our FotM hype nerds. The general consensus seems to be that all tanks will be going for Dark Knight soon or something. I still don't personally see why. Mechanically Paladins are probably the strongest tank in the game between the abundance of cooldowns and passive block being so powerful. Where Paladins suffer the most is in solo play where their dps is abysmally low and the one ability they have, Sword Oath, is the longest running joke of 2.x

If Dark Knight comes in and offers all the cooldown versatility and massive secondary mitigation of Paladin with the AoE threat and solo DPS of the Warrior? Then yes you will probably see a lot of people jumping ship to board the hype train. Of course this could easily be fixed by redoing sword oath to not be garbage and increasing the AoE threat of Paladin while also giving warrior something to compensate for their lack of a block passive.

Overall where this really matters is in raiding. If Dark Knight doesn't have the passive mitigation and cooldown versatility of Paladin I'm going to put my money on Paladin staying the strongest tank with Warrior and Dark Knight being interchangeable as Off Tanks.

Show Content

Spoiler

On to the RP side of things!

So here's the thing with greatswords: Fantasy games have played up their prominence and capability to an extreme degree. That is not to say that a great sword isn't good at what it's intended to do: cleaving a bloody swathe through unarmored foes and the legs of horses.Â

Like all jobs it is good to remember that there is a tool for every job. You're not going to bring a pair of pliers to a decking job when you need a hammer and nails, instead.Â

What does that mean for warfare and combat? Well it means that there is no "one tool fixes all" in melee warfare which is why there are so many different weapons throughout history. Some of them are good or even great, some of them are terrible and beg the question: -WHY?!-. Greatswords tend to be the marriage of a long cutting edge of a long sword or a messer sword, with the chopping force of a long axe. Some might argue that you could throw short spear in there but I disagree on the basis of how a spear is wielded and a greatsword is still shorter than a short spear; unless they mean javelins in which case you don't throw the damn greatsword gdi.

With that in mind, if you're fighting a bunch of opponents that have light or no armor or cavalry then a greatsword is excellent. Greatsword blades don't cut through solid or well made metal armor, however, since the cutting edge is spread out over too much space to penetrate your opponent. CAN you defeat an armored foe with a greatsword? Of course, but you can also kill someone with a broken bottle, too, it doesn't make it the best tool for the job.

On to swords and shields. The shield as a concept has been around in practice from some of the most ancient civilizations like the Egyptian wood and ox hide shields to the famous Roman Scutum and the Viking Linden board round shields then moving on to modern day riot shields. The idea of putting a solid barrier between yourself and direct harm is something I think all of us can get behind (see what I did there?). A shield wasn't just a defensive barrier that took up a spot on your arm and occasionally absorbed an arrow shot, rather it was a solid wall between your enemy's weapon and your body, a mobile and often maneuverable shell that could block, parry, and especially trap an opponents weapon, and an effective bashing weapon. One of the most effective shield combinations is a medium sized shield, usually round or rectangular, and a short sword (Like the gladius). Even more so if you can present a shield wall to your enemies and arm your soldiers with spears as well, i.e. the phalanx.

Though I think we're supposedly focusing on one-on-one combat. I could probably present pages of scenarios to you about sword-and-shield vs. greatsword and what is better etc etc. I think someone mentioned HEMA earlier, too, and they'll know what I'm talking about in that regard. I will say that just 'off the cuff' in my opinion with two equally skilled and armored opponents you will likely see the person with the sword and shield overcoming the greatsword wielder more often just because that shield is a highly effective and adaptable tool while a greatsword only does one thing, maybe two if you count the occasional parry.

On a somewhat personal peeve I will say that I very often see this idea touted about with characters wielding this massive greatswords with relative ease and the thing is wide enough that they claim they just plant it in the ground and it can block arrows and even BULLETS. I will grant that this is Final Fantasy so ridiculous and fantastical things can and do happen like Cloud for example. HOWEVER since we have 'normal' looking swords with most of them being proportional as the majority I'm going to say that a cloud sword is just sort of ridiculous as a notion. Hell even I find Raubahn's swords to be too big and heavy to be using effectively with one in each hand. But regardless, using a sword as a shield just seems ridiculous even for FF. Plus it sounds like a good way to get your sword broken and/or shattered since it's not designed to take those kinds of impacts (small high velocity shots) on the flat. Not to mention that it's heavy and unwieldy! There's a video of a guy who made a replica of Cloud's Buster Sword and then had some body builder try to swing it around and he just couldn't do it, it weight like 50-60 pounds (a normal greatsword weighs probably 4-5). Finally, with such a large weapon your range of strikes is rather limited to downwards chops and horizontal cuts. You might get a thrust in but remember, it's not a spear. A one handed sword just has a lot more flexibility, range of motion, penetrating power if you half-sword especially, and would be faster. I know it's Final Fantasy but I just dislike the anime greatsword trope e.e

You make greatswords look like shit. While I'm not really a greatsword fan (rapiers ftw), they aren't even that heavy and clumsy, there are bigger and heavier weapons that we can still use effectively (you could even wield with only one hand some of them, if you are strong enough).
Also if I see someone using sword and shield beating someone with a greatsword without problems just because they can "block everything and kill anything that bleeds", I'd never RP with the sword and board user.

I don't make greatswords look like anything but greatswords, you mean. Unless you mean to say that I don't -glorify- them? Which I will readily admit. A greatsword is just a tool like any other weapon and honestly I would prefer a warhammer or a mace over a longsword, and a halberd or poleaxe over a greatsword, myself. Not that they are both 'superior' in either regard but they are more versatile and are less hindered by things such as heavy armor.

Having never stated that an irl greatsword is heavy or clumsy I will correct you there. While you can use a heavy maul, for example, a weapon that is likely heavier than a greatsword, not by much though, in one hand 'if you are strong enough' is -possible- the reality is that it's not probable and without training your effectiveness will drop considerably. What you will find is that strength has less to do with it than training and you won't train to wield a maul in one hand or a greatsword, for that matter. You'll train to wield it properly because that's how the weapon is designed to be used. i.e. I can train to hold a pistol upside down and fire with my pinky, I may even get good at doing that, but it's not designed that way and I am handicapping myself in the process by inherently misusing the weapon.

I caught the 8-bit theater quote and if you had read my post then you would know I never stated that a sword and shield user would always beat a greatsword user. I stated specifically:Â in my opinion with two equally skilled and armored opponents you will likely see the person with the sword and shield overcoming the greatsword wielder more often just because that shield is a highly effective and adaptable tool while a greatsword only does one thing, maybe two if you count the occasional parry.

That has nothing to do with godmoding which you seem to be concerned with. Godmoding was never even brought up, either, are you worried about godmoding or the logistics of actual weapons in actual combat as it pertains to the main point of this post which was "Will two hands replace one hand?" to which I say as the hype train goes? Initially yes but sense will hopefullyÂ persevereÂ in the end =P

That or people will just play both and pick the right weapon for the task at hand!

Well I'm not sure if godmoding was even the right term... But I wasn't sure about how to explain it. So I'll try to write as a sort of dialogue.
A: *attacks B with a greatsword*
B: *blocks and attacks*
A: *gets hit and attacks*
B: *blocks again and attacks*
A: *avoids the attack*
B: ((U wot m8, you're using a big ass sword, you can't avoid shit))
A: ((But you kept blocking every attack...))
B: ((Rubbish! I can block anything and kill everything that bleeds))

...ok, maybe it was stupid as an example.

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Warren Castille - 04-21-2015

(04-21-2015, 01:31 PM)mongi291 Wrote: Well I'm not sure if godmoding was even the right term... But I wasn't sure about how to explain it. So I'll try to write as a sort of dialogue.
A: *attacks B with a greatsword*
B: *blocks and attacks*
A: *gets hit and attacks*
B: *blocks again and attacks*
A: *avoids the attack*
B: ((U wot m8, you're using a big ass sword, you can't avoid shit))
A: ((But you kept blocking every attack...))
B: ((Rubbish! I can block anything and kill everything that bleeds))

...ok, maybe it was stupid as an example.

Falls in line with the relative view of what entails godmoding. I'd advise against playing with folks who insist that two defenses are playing unfair, though.

Keep in mind I'm coming from the mentality of someone who thinks posting damage sustained in a believable way is the whole fun of combat RP.

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - mongi291 - 04-21-2015

(04-21-2015, 01:36 PM)Warren Castille Wrote:
(04-21-2015, 01:31 PM)mongi291 Wrote: Well I'm not sure if godmoding was even the right term... But I wasn't sure about how to explain it. So I'll try to write as a sort of dialogue.
A: *attacks B with a greatsword*
B: *blocks and attacks*
A: *gets hit and attacks*
B: *blocks again and attacks*
A: *avoids the attack*
B: ((U wot m8, you're using a big ass sword, you can't avoid shit))
A: ((But you kept blocking every attack...))
B: ((Rubbish! I can block anything and kill everything that bleeds))

...ok, maybe it was stupid as an example.

Falls in line with the relative view of what entails godmoding. I'd advise against playing with folks who insist that two defenses are playing unfair, though.

Keep in mind I'm coming from the mentality of someone who thinks posting damage sustained in a believable way is the whole fun of combat RP.

There were two blocks because I didn't want to make an unnecessarily long post. The point isn't the fact that he blocked 2 times, it's the fact he blocked 2 times out of 2.
Anyway, my point is... I'd prefer to avoid penalizing people to lose just because they use the weapon they like the most, even if in reality it's inferior.

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - Verad - 04-21-2015

Kayllen Wrote: Who asked you, DUSKIE?!

You did. You asked everyone. Rhetorical questions are doomed online.

More to the point, it is possible to care about weapons, to be interested in the historical use of weapons, and still not give a damn about the realistic portrayal of weapons according to their historical uses in works of fiction. The inevitable appearance of the well-actuallys and discussion around what would happen all things being equal between two historical weapons (things are never equal where they have not been made numerically equal by a dice system) in any thread mentioning weapons to any significant degree makes the arguments tiresome and the arguers pedantic.

I find these arguments especially interesting because the fiction in the times and places where the usage of these weapons was actually relevantÂ didn't give as much of a damn as we do. When Sir Gowther in the romance bearing his name made a giant falchion for himself and went rampaging around the countryside burning down nunneries and engaging in general un-Christian naughtiness, the narrative didn't pause to consider anything but the thematic implications of a nasty low-class weapon like a falchion, and not, say, its efficacy against a person bearing a shield. And GowtherÂ is unusual in its emphasis on that weapon - half the time the people engaging in mass slaughter against characters who are eight-feet tall for no good reason are just using a sword, never mind what kind. We fuss about this more than the writers who lived in these periods and were writing fantastical narratives.

So why wouldn't we use lightsabers if we don't care about realism? Because they're not aesthetically interesting to some players. Efficacy has nothing to with it, the same way that really we should all be converting to Machinist as quickly as possible. The people who are converting to it like the style and how it fits their character concept rather than efficacy. So too with DRK.

So here's what will actually happen, in connection with the OP: A number of people are going to convert to DRK all at once because it's the new tank class and they just have to try it. Some of them will make it an RP thing, but not everybody. Then some people will decide they don't like the playstyle of the class and they'll switch back. It won't have much to do with the reality of the weapons and the portrayal thereof.

RE: Will two hands replace one hand, and dark knights replace paladins? - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-21-2015

As an interesting side note, weapons did not develop in a vacuum.

Two handed swords did not become popular until the advent of full body plate. At that point you didn't need a shield, your entire body was a shield.

It was far better to just have a better and more powerful weapon. Ironically in many fantasy games, the trope is Plate plus shield, but in reality that wasn't all that common.

Generally only more lightly armored people used a shield, skirmishers and ranged troops and such. Since they are cheap, and you can drop it if you have to run.