No. I'm fairly sure their shields are regular shields, just with crusader only rolls... and possibly slightly higher stats. If crusader shields gave + damage, it would make it the only choice and completely invalidate regular shields such as stormshield and lidless.
Unless you were going for a tank build. Then you prefer as much defensive bonuses as you can get over whatever extra offense cru-shields offer.
Regardless, we really don't know yet how crusader damage will compare to the other classes, with or without the 2h passive.
Technicalities. Everyone knows what "melee" means. DHs can melee, but they're obviously a ranged class.
Everyone knows what dual wield means. Crusaders can dual wield, but they're obviously a shield class.
C wut i did thar?
Classes need distinctions. Making barbs and monks the only dual wielders differentiates them from crusaders.
There is plenty of distinctions between the classes, and even if crusaders were given the option to dual wield, it doesn't mean that many people will do it, or that it will be efficient. They are absolutely a shield class, and the fact they have several skills that focus on shields already makes them plenty unique.
My point is that saying they aren't intended to dual-wield isn't a good argument that they shouldn't have the option to do so. Demon hunters shouldn't use melee weapons, wizards shouldn't use bows, witch doctors shouldn't use 2h axes. But they can.
My point is that saying they aren't intended to dual-wield isn't a good argument that they shouldn't have the option to do so. Demon hunters shouldn't use melee weapons, wizards shouldn't use bows, witch doctors shouldn't use 2h axes. But they can.
There's a difference between the ability to dual wield and which weapons are classified as generic versus class specific.
For example, bows and xbows are almost certainly "generic" items so that the scoundrel can equip them - and the same reason he can't use quivers and hand crossbows. 2h axes, maces, and swords are almost certainly "generic" so that the enchantress can equip them.
Now you could argue that each class (including the followers) should have a set of items they can use which obviously would also include their class-specific items, and frankly I would completely agree with that.
But trying to say that the crusader (which is HEAVILY BASED ON A CLASS THAT CAN'T DUAL WIELD) should be able to dual wield because a WD can use a bow... well that's being pretty ignorant of why many weapon types are "generic" in the first place. We should be fixing the idea of generic weapons ... not using that as a reason to justify other bits of stupidity.
But trying to say that the crusader (which is HEAVILY BASED ON A CLASS THAT CAN'T DUAL WIELD) should be able to dual wield because a WD can use a bow... well that's being pretty ignorant of why many weapon types are "generic" in the first place. We should be fixing the idea of generic weapons ... not using that as a reason to justify other bits of stupidity.
Yes, that is pretty ignorant. Good thing that's not what I said.
Crusaders don't get + damage from off hands and cannot dual wield. This is their one option to make their DPS comparable. (Only certain skills get bonuses from shield block amount)
Yeah but a Crusader's shield's armor rating contributes to damage. That's the balancing factor.
Crusaders don't get + damage from off hands and cannot dual wield. This is their one option to make their DPS comparable. (Only certain skills get bonuses from shield block amount)
There's no way that this is intended as a mandatory passive. Obviously Crusaders who choose not to use this passive should still have competitive DPS.
If the DPS difference between 1H and 2H is anything like it is today, I can't understand how this passive can be balanced as-is. A 10% movement speed penalty is not a big deal at higher difficulties where monsters have a ton of health so you spend more time fighting than running.
Crusaders don't get + damage from off hands and cannot dual wield. This is their one option to make their DPS comparable. (Only certain skills get bonuses from shield block amount)
There's no way that this is intended as a mandatory passive. Obviously Crusaders who choose not to use this passive should still have competitive DPS.
If the DPS difference between 1H and 2H is anything like it is today, I can't understand how this passive can be balanced as-is. A 10% movement speed penalty is not a big deal at higher difficulties where monsters have a ton of health so you spend more time fighting than running.
Completely throwing this out there while blind on the subject, but possibly there's a healthy amount of DPS increasing passives to take (more than 3) instead of heavenly strength that make up for it. Sure you can grab 2 +dps ones and HS for the 2 hander, or you can grab 2 dps ones + one that only increases single handed damage, or a 3rd that increases DPS as well.
If the DPS difference between 1H and 2H is anything like it is today, I can't understand how this passive can be balanced as-is. A 10% movement speed penalty is not a big deal at higher difficulties where monsters have a ton of health so you spend more time fighting than running.
While I think you're underestimating how important movement speed is at high levels, I do see Heavenly Strength, as-is, becoming something like Ruthless, where it's not necessarily mandatory, but it's going to be the best option for most set-ups.
Crusaders don't get + damage from off hands and cannot dual wield. This is their one option to make their DPS comparable. (Only certain skills get bonuses from shield block amount)
Yeah but a Crusader's shield's armor rating contributes to damage. That's the balancing factor.
Incorrect. Shield ONLY adds damage to SPECIFIC skills, and that amount is dtermined by the block amount.
Funny you should mention that...I was right about to click on the first page of this thread and say, "how did this discussion start?" And I've contributed to it!
Go home, Cardinal, you had too many chicken wings with the coworkers todayat lunch, ;-)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Unless you were going for a tank build. Then you prefer as much defensive bonuses as you can get over whatever extra offense cru-shields offer.
Regardless, we really don't know yet how crusader damage will compare to the other classes, with or without the 2h passive.
There is plenty of distinctions between the classes, and even if crusaders were given the option to dual wield, it doesn't mean that many people will do it, or that it will be efficient. They are absolutely a shield class, and the fact they have several skills that focus on shields already makes them plenty unique.
My point is that saying they aren't intended to dual-wield isn't a good argument that they shouldn't have the option to do so. Demon hunters shouldn't use melee weapons, wizards shouldn't use bows, witch doctors shouldn't use 2h axes. But they can.
There's a difference between the ability to dual wield and which weapons are classified as generic versus class specific.
For example, bows and xbows are almost certainly "generic" items so that the scoundrel can equip them - and the same reason he can't use quivers and hand crossbows. 2h axes, maces, and swords are almost certainly "generic" so that the enchantress can equip them.
Now you could argue that each class (including the followers) should have a set of items they can use which obviously would also include their class-specific items, and frankly I would completely agree with that.
But trying to say that the crusader (which is HEAVILY BASED ON A CLASS THAT CAN'T DUAL WIELD) should be able to dual wield because a WD can use a bow... well that's being pretty ignorant of why many weapon types are "generic" in the first place. We should be fixing the idea of generic weapons ... not using that as a reason to justify other bits of stupidity.
Yes, that is pretty ignorant. Good thing that's not what I said.
Yeah but a Crusader's shield's armor rating contributes to damage. That's the balancing factor.
There's no way that this is intended as a mandatory passive. Obviously Crusaders who choose not to use this passive should still have competitive DPS.
If the DPS difference between 1H and 2H is anything like it is today, I can't understand how this passive can be balanced as-is. A 10% movement speed penalty is not a big deal at higher difficulties where monsters have a ton of health so you spend more time fighting than running.
Completely throwing this out there while blind on the subject, but possibly there's a healthy amount of DPS increasing passives to take (more than 3) instead of heavenly strength that make up for it. Sure you can grab 2 +dps ones and HS for the 2 hander, or you can grab 2 dps ones + one that only increases single handed damage, or a 3rd that increases DPS as well.
While I think you're underestimating how important movement speed is at high levels, I do see Heavenly Strength, as-is, becoming something like Ruthless, where it's not necessarily mandatory, but it's going to be the best option for most set-ups.
Incorrect. Shield ONLY adds damage to SPECIFIC skills, and that amount is dtermined by the block amount.
Go home, Cardinal, you had too many chicken wings with the coworkers todayat lunch, ;-)