27 réponses à ce sujet

[xelander]

I'm a bit bothered by the design of 2-handed Warriors in the last two installments of Dragon Age and I wanted to share my thoughts with the community and see where you guys stand.

 

First of all, some historical context (I'm gonna limit myself to Europe, for brevity's sake). 2-handed melee weapons could generally be subdivided into the following categories: Pikes, Pole weapons and 2-handed Swords. Since Pikes are applicable mostly to fighting in mass formations we will leave them out. Two-handed swords were generally an evolution of the longsword, so that it gradually increased it's reach until it matched that of other 2-handed weapons. However, while retaining their advantage over poorly armored opponents, they offered less so against armor than other 2-handed weapons. Pole weapons consisted of a long wooden haft, with a metal head of different size and shape mounted on it. They were cheap to make and maintain.

 

2-handed weapons  offered two advantages over one-handed weapons - reach and increased angular momentum, i.e. more force on impact. Thus, they were used mainly by two groups of people - low class soldiers/peasants who could not afford good armor and weaponry and relied on the defensive benefits of extended reach, and by well-armored men-at-arms and knights (i.e. "crack" troops). While the second group did also enjoy the longer reach advantages, their focus was more on the higher offensive value it provided due to its increased kinetic force. They could penetrate armor when swung with enough momentum and in closer distances they were used with a quarterstaff technique with the added options of hooking provided by the metal head of the weapon.

 

2-handed weapons were not extremely heavy or slow - they weighed generally not more than 4-5 pounds, as opposed to 1.5-2 pounds for one-handed weapons. Considering that one uses two hands to move them, there is not a serious difference in speed. However, most pole weapons were slow on the recovery because of the weight distribution, the same way one-handed axe is more cumbersome than a one-handed sword, even though the weight is about the same.

 

Worth noting is that the second group of warriors (the elite troops who fought on a regular basis) started using two-handed weapons only when they had access to armor of quality high enough to make them not worry about arrows. The huscarls (wielding Danish axes) were the most heavily armored warriors on the field, later on knights and men-at-arms who wielded poleaxes, halberds and so on were armored with plate mails or a combination of good chainmail and a gambeson beneath or above it. Both variants provided excellent protection against ranged attacks.

 

 

 

What does this mean in terms of gameplay design? Well, for one, we should have a passive or an active skill that sunders armor independent of a critical hit. We did so in DAO (Sunder Armor). We should have some skill representing the defensive advantage of longer reach and some skill reflecting the quarterstaff tactics at closer distances. The former could be for example swinging a weapon in front of you continuously, costing stamina per second and with the enemy taking heavy damage, armor penetration and stun/stagger/knockdown if they enter your arc (but ending your swing, too). The second could be some sort of disabling move, such as stun or knockdown with added benefits for the follow up attack. There should be also a passive representing the fact that your armor offers you serious protection, especially from projectiles. The auto attacks should not take significantly longer to execute than those with SnS and activated abilities should have around the same cooldown, albeit at higher stamina cost. AoE attacks might be reduced to a small cone (and up to only 3 persons) in front of you or removed completely (Cleaving several opponents with one swing was not a common occurrence).

 

How does DAI stands with regard to this? Well, we have Block and Slash and Whirlwind, which could be very well merged into one defensive skill (the spinning arc I described above). Whirlwind as an offensive talent is not that appealing, I'd rather have something like Onslaught from DAA. Speaking of which , that would be a good ability to add armor sunder on the final hit. We do have a passive for armor sunder, but dependent entirely on criticals (with no other skills affecting critical chance, except one rarely applicable specialization passive). Unless most 2-handed weapons get an (substantially) increased critical chance modifier, this is neither optimal, nor accurate. Regarding armor - SnS should provide higher frontal defense in the passives, but 2-hander should have an overall armor/defense/damage mitigation increase. One of my biggest gripes - in the first two games, the abilities cooldowns were generally in the same ranges, whereas in DAI the activated abilities hit for the same weapon percentages but 2-handers have twice as long cooldowns (without 2-handed weapons having twice as much base damage). In a game as highly responsive as DAI is, this is quite punishing.

 

 

 

Well, we have the stereotype roles of Tank, DPSer (sustained and/or burst), and Controller/Disabler. In DAO/DAA, SnS could handle the first and the third reasonably well, while the second was somewhat more difficult. 2-hander was excellent at the second and third role, and while typical tanking was not advisable, Indomitable ensured that undisrupted damage output made it an excellent off-tank. In DA2, SnS caught up with the DPSing, while 2-hander dropped off further in terms of tanking. In fact, due to the nature of CCCs, SnS surpassed 2-handers in terms of damage output. In DAI (admittedly, I have played around only with the companions, haven't completed a main 2-handed char playthrough yet) the 2-handed tree offers only a small advantage in terms of disabling (actually none, since you have twice as long cooldowns). Tanking or off-tanking is out of the question without SnS passives (which I suspect the devs have not intended to be used without the corresponding weapon loadout). Damage output is less than SnS, unless you choose the mind-numbingly repetitious Dragon Rage/Devour route, complete with an ugly, immersion-breaking, "claws" animation. So basically, 2-handers are reduced to being playable as only one type, while SnS have expanded to all three.

 

Oh, and concerning bosses, where 2-handers should excel (given the historical aspect of crack troops, specifically designed to deal with the armored enemy elite), they lag behind. Why? Because, bosses more often cannot be stunned or knocked down, and 2-handed burst damage is much lower than SnS (while sustained DPS - auto-attacks exposes you to a lot of hurt coming your way, which only SnS can mitigate).

 

TL;DR

I feel that the 2-handed Warrior has been hamstrung in DAI.

 

Thoughts?

[Angloassassin]

DA:O - the 2H were incredibly slow, with your people winding up their attacks like they were using Solid Gold Baseball Bats. And generally, they didn't register at all, and you wound up a swing that didn't even Hit, Miss, Dodge, Or Block. It just never happened. 

 

DA2 - The 2H were rather action-combat fast, swung around willy nilly with nary a care, more like FF than anything else. And while it did bother me - I found it preferrable to he Former.

 

DA:I - The 2H seems to have come a bit more into it's own, it's slower than DA2, faster than DA:O, and the animations are (While spinning in combat is still ridiculously impractical), far better than the "I can swing it with one hand!" from DA2, and "This is too heavy" from DA:O.

 

While I can understand what you mean, and get behind a lot of it. I actually changed my SnS warrior to a 2H, because I wasn't doing much - unless I was being set up with Cross-Class combos. Giving myself the Reaver Specialisation only makes me melt even more face.

[Rhaine]

shrug, stop trying to find realism in a fantasy game.

 

No seriously, what does it matter?

 

Ok there is magic, demons and stuff but god forbid if they get the qualities of a greatsword wrong!!!!!!

 

As for game balancing well..... the dragon age games have always had balancing issues but its not something that the devs care about, if you want an OP build they have those, if you want a weaker build they have those too. Its not ideal for someone who likes things being as good as other things but its not something bioware care about.

 

And before you say something about the game being influenced by real life stuff and all that, sure its influenced, it doesnt mean they have to be historically accurate.

 

EDIT: but yea all these balance issues, all you can do is sit and hope they make changes for the next game but its hard to predict what they will do, every game feels like they are experimenting a bit and have no firm idea for anything combat related.

[pyre]

I really don't think historical accuracy was a design priority in a skill tree where you strike the ground and volcanic magma erupts. 

 

I think the main problem with 2H and its role as a damage dealer in the game is that there is zero synergy with any other skill trees for a 2H DPS role. Battlemaster is mostly utility with only 1 +30% damage skill for stunned/knocked down enemies. Horn of Valor is a party wide buff and not something specific for 2H warriors.

 

Reaver is the most damage oriented spec, but that play mechanic has no room for 2H actives. It visually doesn't use your equipped weapon, and that's thematically accurate because you basically ignore the 2H weapon tree if you go this route.

 

That's a big difference from DA2 where 2H had powerful synergy with Vanguard and buffed the power of 2H actives to make a good build.

 

For a warrior, the 2H weapons are mainly just stat sticks. Use the higher damage value for a bigger detonation w/ your templar or higher damage with your Reaver. But you don't actually hit anything with your 2H sword in the better warrior builds.

[xelander]

I do not insist on historical accuracy. However, the closer the elements of a story setting are to the real thing, the easier it is to relate to them, and conversely, the more fantastical they are, the more easily is immersion broken. Let obviously fantastical elements (dragons, magic, etc.) be fantastical, and let real stuff be as real-looking as possible. Your brain cannot easily speak as to the authenticity of the former but can very well do so regarding the latter.

 

DAO had a dark, gritty feel to it, which was one of the attractions for me. Once you start opening lava fissures by striking the ground with your 2-hader, those perceptions go out of the window.

 

My opinion is that drawing deeper inspiration from reality can only benefit both gameplay design and experience. That is not to say that you have to have an isometric equivalence between real world and game rules (nor could you).

 

 

@Angloassassin About DAO: I agree about the auto-attack being slow, but the activated talents had quite decent animations. Plus, if you got yourself the combat fix mod and made a party of 2 Hasted mages and 2 2-handed Warriors, you could practically beat Nightmare hands-free.

[Jasiem]

DAO had a dark, gritty feel to it, which was one of the attractions for me. Once you start opening lava fissures by striking the ground with your 2-hader, those perceptions go out of the window.

 

I've rationalized it by considering the age group targeted by two-handed warriors. Get the sense that Bioware intended that tree for a younger audience.

 

Unfortunate, since I loved my two-handed Reaver Nightmare solo runs in the original, but it makes a grudging amount of sense.

[EngineerEd]

I've rationalized it by considering the age group targeted by two-handed warriors. Get the sense that Bioware intended that tree for a younger audience.

 

Unfortunate, since I loved my two-handed Reaver Nightmare solo runs in the original, but it makes a grudging amount of sense.

I mean it's more flashy than SnS Warrior I suppose, but far less than DW Rogue (that twin fangs animation....), archer (glowing arrows for abilities??), mage (self-explanatory).

 

I agree in that it looks less vanilla than SnS, but that's to be expected. SnS seems to be the most  cRPG classic weapon choice in all the DA games.

 

 

Anyways I agree with this topic that 2H is underwhelming. I don't know about the historical context as much, but as of right now it seems to be a wanna-be jack of all trades, master of none, but really it's just mediocre at all trades it seems. Without turn the bolt/turn the blade (SnS passives) it's closer to DW Rogue in survivability than SnS Warrior. It does have a decent single target crowd control, mighty blow and pommel strike are both solid and do solid damage too. However mage easily wins in crowd control, and for SnS usually war cry taunt is enough. Lastly in damage 2H barely does more than SnS, if at all (that attack speed). Reaver makes DPS respectable but reaver does similar DPS with SnS. Even Reaver of course, can't compete with DW or Archer rogue.

[1G86]

Now I'm thinking why Pole Arms aren't around in the game. It seems to be practical given that the game has Dragons as the "apex predator" Most lore have Dragoons using spears and various Pole Arm weapons, save maybe the Dragonborn of Skyrim. (which you can easily mod to get your character slashing with spears.)

[UniformGreyColor]

I don't see the point to this thread. It just seems like another excuse to say DA:I is not DA:O and it should be. Why? Its a different game and it will take a long time for a very similar game to Origins to emerge. I'm not trying to take away the OPs nostalgia, just that the premise that DA:O was better because of the way two-handers worked just seems like weak sauce to me. There weren't poles in DA:O last time I checked and you can bet a 2 handed great sward weighs a heck of a lot more than a pole made out of wood, but we didn't get that part of the story.

[xelander]

I don't see the point to this thread. It just seems like another excuse to say DA:I is not DA:O and it should be. Why? Its a different game and it will take a long time for a very similar game to Origins to emerge. I'm not trying to take away the OPs nostalgia, just that the premise that DA:O was better because of the way two-handers worked just seems like weak sauce to me. There weren't poles in DA:O last time I checked and you can bet a 2 handed great sward weighs a heck of a lot more than a pole made out of wood, but we didn't get that part of the story.

 

I'm criticizing one particular element of DAI, I am not making a thorough comparison of DAO vs.DAI. In fact, I make only one specific reference to DAO in my opening post and that is when I describe how SnS and 2-hander developed throughout the series, which inherently necessitates involving DAO/DAA.

 

As for your second and third point - pole weapons did exist in DAO, any 2-handed axe is a pole weapon (though not a poleaxe!); 2-handed mauls, though non-existent in reality, could very well relate to real world 2-handed hammers (one example being Bec de Corbin).

 

And, regarding weight:

One-handed sword - avg. 2.4 lbs.

Hand-and-a-half, i.e. Longsword - 2.4 to 4 lbs.

Zweihaender - 4.4 to 7 lbs.

Various Poleaxes - 5 to 7 lbs.

(for weight in kg, a rough equivalent is when you divide these numbers by 2)

 

You might mistake ceremonial two-handed swords (with weight upwards of 10 pounds) for the ones used in practical combat. However, "real" two-handed swords and pole weapons had similar weight, which was about twice as much as that of a one-handed weapon, but then again, you have two hands to wield them.

[Churchader]

These discussions always remind me of one thing. Why isnt there 1hand spec (just wielding 1 1hand weapon)?

Like most people probably would, historically

[UniformGreyColor]

I'm criticizing one particular element of DAI, I am not making a thorough comparison of DAO vs.DAI. In fact, I make only one specific reference to DAO in my opening post and that is when I describe how SnS and 2-hander developed throughout the series, which inherently necessitates involving DAO/DAA.

 

As for your second and third point - pole weapons did exist in DAO, any 2-handed axe is a pole weapon (though not a poleaxe!); 2-handed mauls, though non-existent in reality, could very well relate to real world 2-handed hammers (one example being Bec de Corbin).

 

And, regarding weight:

One-handed sword - avg. 2.4 lbs.

Hand-and-a-half, i.e. Longsword - 2.4 to 4 lbs.

Zweihaender - 4.4 to 7 lbs.

Various Poleaxes - 5 to 7 lbs.

(for weight in kg, a rough equivalent is when you divide these numbers by 2)

 

You might mistake ceremonial two-handed swords (with weight upwards of 10 pounds) for the ones used in practical combat. However, "real" two-handed swords and pole weapons had similar weight, which was about twice as much as that of a one-handed weapon, but then again, you have two hands to wield them.

 

And I said I disagree with your premise: that this game would be better if it was more like Origins. I didn't reread the whole OP but glanced at it for 2 sec and saw 1 references to DA:O and 1 to DA:O/DA:A. You say you're comparing one instance in the game, and if you left DA:O/DA:A/DA:2 out of it I could totally see your point, but you bring the previous series games into it thereby telling us that game did this better so we should compare this game to that one.

 

Aside from that, I will say it was a very well written post and your points on the history of the weapons are enjoyable to read. I just don't see how a game where a char can shoot fire from a piece of wood and metal makes much sense to be true and true to real life. I apologies if I came on too strongly, sometimes my emotions get the better of me. All I'm saying is that it is probably fine that the weapons are portrayed in the way they are in this fantasy game; I've seen far worse implementation of lack of realism in weaponry in a ton of games for it to even bother me at this point.

[Angloassassin]

And I said I disagree with your premise: that this game would be better if it was more like Origins. I didn't reread the whole OP but glanced at it for 2 sec and saw 1 references to DA:O and 1 to DA:O/DA:A. You say you're comparing one instance in the game, and if you left DA:O/DA:A/DA:2 out of it I could totally see your point, but you bring the previous series games into it thereby telling us that game did this better so we should compare this game to that one.

 

Aside from that, I will say it was a very well written post and your points on the history of the weapons are enjoyable to read. I just don't see how a game where a char can shoot fire from a piece of wood and metal makes much sense to be true and true to real life. I apologies if I came on too strongly, sometimes my emotions get the better of me. All I'm saying is that it is probably fine that the weapons are portrayed in the way they are in this fantasy game; I've seen far worse implementation of lack of realism in weaponry in a ton of games for it to even bother me at this point.

 

 

Did someone stir you in a pot for a while?... Just wondering. I'll go away now - Oh, I agree with you..

[xelander]

And I said I disagree with your premise: that this game would be better if it was more like Origins. ..

 

My premise is not that at all, nor have I stated so. In fact, my opinion is that SnS has improved throughout the series, while 2H has deteriorated. For some reason, you keep trying to re-frame the topic into a general DAO vs DAI debate. If we go along for a moment with this, where does that leave us - should DAI be more like DAO or the other way around?! Once again,

 

I'm criticizing one particular element of DAI.

 

 

... I've seen far worse implementation of lack of realism in weaponry in a ton of games for it to even bother me at this point.

 

 

Abundance of mediocrity and low standards should not deter us from seeking excellence.

[UniformGreyColor]

My premise is not that at all, nor have I stated so. In fact, my opinion is that SnS has improved throughout the series, while 2H has deteriorated. For some reason, you keep trying to re-frame the topic into a general DAO vs DAI debate. If we go along for a moment with this, where does that leave us - should DAI be more like DAO or the other way around?! Once again,

 

I'm criticizing one particular element of DAI.

 

 

Abundance of mediocrity and low standards should not deter us from seeking excellence.

 

Obviously a true comparison between the two games is difficult to put a comparison on because of how differently they play. I also have to admit that I was wrong about your OP and I did not read it right the first time because I was, as nerdy as this sounds, worked up over some other discussions elsewhere on the forum that were not close to as objective as the point of view you frame in the OP. Anyways, I agree with your conclusion and all points seem valid and you have done some research on the game play aspect of things which makes me glad to see. Heh... I will even admit to wanting to find a game that is made that is almost completely realistic, and by that I mean you don't stab or get stabbed or hit in the head without taking some realistic damage and how that would alter the encounter. I don't know much about medieval warfare but I know that later when the Samurai actually used Katanas that the fights/battles went quite quickly and the loser knew he was done shortly after it started. But this is not about Samurai and is besides the point (no pun intended). I hope you get plenty of good comments toward your OP.

[lastpawn]

In terms of how 2H weapons feel, I think that DA:I strikes the right ground between "old man swinging a heavy axe" DA:O and "look at me swing my plastic lightsaber, mom" of DA2. Like, DA:I > DA:O >= DA2.

 

That said, I thought that the 2H weapons in DAI are somewhat disappointing. Few reasons.

 

1. Shatter bug. C'mon!

2. A rather uninspired 2H tree. Huge cooldowns! Why? And why can't we have a skill like Block and Slash that doesn't work only as a counterattack? I love tossing fools around and need more of it.

3. Specializations actually make me use the 2H weapon LESS. As a Reaver, you're spamming dragon claws over and over, your weapon doing nothing. As a Templar, I'm doing Wrath => Purge, once again not using my weapon. Maybe DLC will add some sort of spirit warrior spec that makes this work.

[Soulinet]

In terms of how 2H weapons feel, I think that DA:I strikes the right ground between "old man swinging a heavy axe" DA:O and "look at me swing my plastic lightsaber, mom" of DA2. Like, DA:I > DA:O >= DA2.

 

That said, I thought that the 2H weapons in DAI are somewhat disappointing. Few reasons.

 

1. Shatter bug. C'mon!

2. A rather uninspired 2H tree. Huge cooldowns! Why? And why can't we have a skill like Block and Slash that doesn't work only as a counterattack? I love tossing fools around and need more of it.

3. Specializations actually make me use the 2H weapon LESS. As a Reaver, you're spamming dragon claws over and over, your weapon doing nothing. As a Templar, I'm doing Wrath => Purge, once again not using my weapon. Maybe DLC will add some sort of spirit warrior spec that makes this work.

Agreed. As far as feeling is concerned, I think DA:I delivers a satisfactory experience. You have a feeling of weight behind every swing and every impact of your 2-hander.

 

On the other hand, damage output is underwhelming (at best) and the specialization skills don't involve the weapon as much as they should.

[TheImmortalBeaver]

Absolutely agree. In my first playthrough, I played a two-handed warrior for a while and then switched to SnS because it felt so useless. Then, I started again on Nightmare thinking that maybe it should be played a bit closer to a dual-knife rogue (worrying about positioning and eliminating special targets like archers). While I had some success, I couldn't help but feel that my inquisitor was by far the least useful member of my party. The 2H weapon skills are useless, and there's very little synergy with the vast majority of skills or other classes. It's really frustrating, because Warrior is my favorite class, and 2H was my favorite weapon in DAO and DA2. It's basically impossible to justify using here, though.

[Valerius]

Despite its uselessness here though, would you still consider it more enjoyable than sword and shield? Am still deciding whether to roll 2h or sword and shield in my nightmare run

[Matth85]

The 2H weapon skills are useless

 

The what now?

[TheImmortalBeaver]

The what now?

I don't exactly get what you're asking. If you're disputing my claim that the 2-handed weapon skills are useless, I'd stand by that. Terrible passives that focus on critical hits (despite the warrior getting no real boosts to critical hit chance through gear or other passives), and iffy active skills that, while decent, basically do the same things that a lot of other classes do but substantially worse with long cooldown times and almost non-existant synergies.

 

If that's not what you're asking, then I'm simply confused and have no idea what you're asking.

[lastpawn]

Despite its uselessness here though, would you still consider it more enjoyable than sword and shield? Am still deciding whether to roll 2h or sword and shield in my nightmare run

 

I am working through the game on Nightmare with a 2H Templar and find it fun (I also play with a number of restrictions, like no Tier 3 crafting). It's only relatively useless, in the sense that I could be doing more with some other classes or specializations. But I find Wrath => Purge combo fun for big numbers so I stick with 2H.

 

You can always switch between shield and 2H later. I occasionally respec to S&S for resistance passives and more fun (quicker cooldown) abilities.

[Matth85]

I don't exactly get what you're asking. If you're disputing my claim that the 2-handed weapon skills are useless, I'd stand by that. Terrible passives that focus on critical hits (despite the warrior getting no real boosts to critical hit chance through gear or other passives), and iffy active skills that, while decent, basically do the same things that a lot of other classes do but substantially worse with long cooldown times and almost non-existant synergies.

 

If that's not what you're asking, then I'm simply confused and have no idea what you're asking.

I wouldn't say I am disputing your claim, as much as questioning it. Not comparing an apple to a tomatoe, I don't see any wrong with the 2 handed tree. A few odd moments can be picked off regarding synergy, but that's how it is.

We get:

 

Mighty Blow - Very good.

Pommel Strike - Very good.

Whirlwind - Situational.. but otherwise very good.

Earthshaking Strike - Never used it, so I have no idea. Doesn't look particularly good though!

 

On the passive side we get:

 

Shield-Breaker - which is decent enough (You need to be able to crit about once every 5-6 second. Not too difficult).

Clear a path - Works like a charm together with a Rift Mage, or with Whirlwind.

Flow of Battle - Eh. Mediocre. 

Guard Smash - Situational... but OK.

 

It's.. well.. OK. I can agree the 2h warrior does not feel particularly strong this time around, but the control given makes up for it. I do miss the 2h playstyle in DA2 though! Even if it was a tad... Final Fantasyesque. 

 

We could compare it to, say, a DW rogue. 2 good abilities. 2 OK abilities. 1 useless ability. 1 useless passive. 1 great passive. 2 questionable decent passives.

Or Archer. 2 situational passives, 1 good passive, 1 useless passive, 2 decent abilities and 2 situational CC abilities. 

Or a Mages Winter tree: 3, quesitonable 4, good points. Rest are near useless, and/or questionable at best. 

Or a mages Storm tree: 3 good ones, 2 questionable ones and 3 downright terrible ones.

 

Basically, the warrior 2h tree isn't bad. The 2h warrior class in itself is just.. weird. We hit slow - but not hard. We got few abilities. Our only synergy tree are Coupe De Grace and Charging Bulls free hit. 

 

So, yeah. I do question the claim. Not because I feel you are wrong about the warrior; Outiside of reaver they are lacking. but because you put it on 1 tree, which in itself is better than a lot of other trees around. It's just.. they didn't think this through. Vanguard is too focused on guard, and battlemaster doesn't help us too much. A design fault, in my opinion.

Battlemaster should have more damage boost/CD reduction boost. Vanguard should be just that - a vanguard. You should be rewarded for being close and taking risk. You know, like the Vanguard in Mass Effect! I should be able to rush in, deal a shitton of damage, but need to rely purely on my skill not to die. 

 

Ah, well. This is a bit off topic, so sorry 'bout that OP!

[TheImmortalBeaver]

snip

Ok, I get where you're coming from, and I wouldn't really disagree with you. I suppose it's fairly easy to look at whatever class you're playing and declare that the skills are always better on the other side of things. I guess a more general claim could be made that ultimately, the skill trees in DAI are just kind of wonky. You get some that work so well as to completely break the game (Knight Enchanter), and others that don't really seem to fit in anywhere (Vanguard). It does seem to me that the two-handed Warrior got the short end of the stick overall, but it'd be tough to prove that objectively. I really hope BioWare does a lot of skill overhauling in future patches.

 

Also, I would confirm: Earthshaking Strike is terrible in my experience. I used it a few times, and it barely seemed like it was doing anything. Maybe I just didn't get what it was supposed to do, but I quickly specc'd out of using it.

[Cmpunker13]

I love 2-handed warriors, unfortunately they are not treated well in the DA universe, imo.

 

In Origins it was my favourite warrior. However, if min/maxing, the warrior itself is broken: a dual wield dagger warrior, full dexterity, has probably the best single target dps output of the game while autoattacking and a defense so high that you are the best tank (unbelievable, I know). You don't have Indomitable or Shield Wall so ogres can lock you down, but that's not really a problem. No utility however means it's not good for solo runs. For the same reason it's better to do a dexterity SnS with a dagger, and imo it's a better dps than a 2-handed, as sns needs less skill to be played . The 2handed warrior was not the best dps, but had very good utility (cc) skills.

 

In DA2 tbh there's not so much difference with a SnS. They both can "tank" but they both are dps. Even if a sns is better, I don't think the difference is enough to be relevant. I don't like the attacking animation with a 2-handed weapons, it looks like they were using a feather to fight. I prefer the Origin slower animations.

 

Haven't played them in DAI yet.