It's lower than 15, I was watching Modz last night and he had it at ~10, it's the second passive you unlock, so I'm guessing around 11/12, it's been a while since I've played a low level char, so I can't remember what level the second passive unlocks
I dont remember what level but its early. I was watching a stream and its the second passive unlocked if I'm not mistaken.
That´s mean something aroud 15 level and this is way to OP for leveling....
I actually don't think it would be OP, though. The balancing factors are 1) the passive also reduces Attack Speed. So there will more than likely be some total damage reduction...granted, not a lot, since 2handers are pretty strong...I'm currently saving a Messerschmidt's Reaver for that very purpose...but it will still be limited in a small way. 2) You can only equip a 2hander in just your main hand IF you're also equipping a Shield. So you can't dual-wield 2handers, it's just a different way to gear. In fact, small edit...I heard Crusaders can't dual-wield at all. It'd be nice if they could, though. Not everyone wants to play the Crusader as a Shield character.
It's a lot like Demon Hunters being able to equip a 2-handed Crossbow with a Quiver. The realistic Strength required is likely very different, but not impossbile to figure.
Anyways, I still consider it a blasphemy that a character in the game can wield 2h weapons in 1h and it isn't the Barbarian.
OMG So true! It want my Dual 2H Berserker w/ Frenzy build!
I've thought the same for a long time, I thought that Barbs in D2 being able to dual-wield 2-handed weapons was an interesting innate skill he had. However, it had to be a bit OP in that game, which is probably why they changed it for D3.
I think there are two ways they could balance that out: 1) by making Mighty Weapons stronger. If one Mighty Weapon could roll the same hugenormous stats as one 2-hander, it'd really be six of one, half dozen of the other. Barbs would have huge weapons to carry around, but they'd be class-specific. 2) By slightly reducing the potency of 2-handed weapons, but ensuring they still rolled higher than your average 1-hander. 2-handed weapons HAVE TO be stronger than 1-handed weapons, but if Mighty Weapons feel too much like average everyday 1-handers, in order to keep it from being OP for Barbs, 2-handers would have to be weakened just a bit to compensate. :-)
I dont remember what level but its early. I was watching a stream and its the second passive unlocked if I'm not mistaken.
That´s mean something aroud 15 level and this is way to OP for leveling....
I actually don't think it would be OP, though. The balancing factors are 1) the passive also reduces Attack Speed. So there will more than likely be some total damage reduction...granted, not a lot, since 2handers are pretty strong...I'm currently saving a Messerschmidt's Reaver for that very purpose...but it will still be limited in a small way. 2) You can only equip a 2hander in just your main hand IF you're also equipping a Shield. So you can't dual-wield 2handers, it's just a different way to gear. In fact, small edit...I heard Crusaders can't dual-wield at all. It'd be nice if they could, though. Not everyone wants to play the Crusader as a Shield character.
It's a lot like Demon Hunters being able to equip a 2-handed Crossbow with a Quiver. The realistic Strength required is likely very different, but not impossbile to figure.
Anyways, I still consider it a blasphemy that a character in the game can wield 2h weapons in 1h and it isn't the Barbarian.
OMG So true! It want my Dual 2H Berserker w/ Frenzy build!
I've thought the same for a long time, I thought that Barbs in D2 being able to dual-wield 2-handed weapons was an interesting innate skill he had. However, it had to be a bit OP in that game, which is probably why they changed it for D3.
I think there are two ways they could balance that out: 1) by making Mighty Weapons stronger. If one Mighty Weapon could roll the same hugenormous stats as one 2-hander, it'd really be six of one, half dozen of the other. Barbs would have huge weapons to carry around, but they'd be class-specific. 2) By slightly reducing the potency of 2-handed weapons, but ensuring they still rolled higher than your average 1-hander. 2-handed weapons HAVE TO be stronger than 1-handed weapons, but if Mighty Weapons feel too much like average everyday 1-handers, in order to keep it from being OP for Barbs, 2-handers would have to be weakened just a bit to compensate. :-)
Keep in mind that barbs could only dual-wield 2handed SWORDS. And even then, all 2h swords had a separate damage range while being wielded in one hand. It was hardly overpowered, it just gave you more gearing options.
That said, it would be nice if barbs got a similar option in D3, but personally I'd rather see mighty weapons get more attention.
I actually don't think it would be OP, though. The balancing factors are 1) the passive also reduces Attack Speed.
I thought it reduced your movement speed, not your attack speed?
I believe that's correct. The real balancing factor is the simple fact that it takes up a passive slot. The movement speed reduction is more of a mild inconvenience.
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)
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)
I heard Crusaders can't dual-wield at all. It'd be nice if they could, though. Not everyone wants to play the Crusader as a Shield character.
Those people should stick to the other two dual-weild melee classes. The crusader was based heavily on the D2 paladin who also couldn't dual weild and the fact that he uses a shield creates "value" among a mostly-unused item type.
I heard Crusaders can't dual-wield at all. It'd be nice if they could, though. Not everyone wants to play the Crusader as a Shield character.
Those people should stick to the other two dual-weild melee classes. The crusader was based heavily on the D2 paladin who also couldn't dual weild and the fact that he uses a shield creates "value" among a mostly-unused item type.
The demon hunter is explicitly designed as a ranged character. But they still have the option to equip certain melee weapons.
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)
Crusader shields can't have damage bonuses?
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.
Thank you
That´s mean something aroud 15 level and this is way to OP for leveling....
Your deep insights into game mechanics that you have no experience of are very valuable to me.
I am here for you !
OMG So true! It want my Dual 2H Berserker w/ Frenzy build!
I actually don't think it would be OP, though. The balancing factors are 1) the passive also reduces Attack Speed. So there will more than likely be some total damage reduction...granted, not a lot, since 2handers are pretty strong...I'm currently saving a Messerschmidt's Reaver for that very purpose...but it will still be limited in a small way. 2) You can only equip a 2hander in just your main hand IF you're also equipping a Shield. So you can't dual-wield 2handers, it's just a different way to gear. In fact, small edit...I heard Crusaders can't dual-wield at all. It'd be nice if they could, though. Not everyone wants to play the Crusader as a Shield character.
It's a lot like Demon Hunters being able to equip a 2-handed Crossbow with a Quiver. The realistic Strength required is likely very different, but not impossbile to figure.
I've thought the same for a long time, I thought that Barbs in D2 being able to dual-wield 2-handed weapons was an interesting innate skill he had. However, it had to be a bit OP in that game, which is probably why they changed it for D3.
I think there are two ways they could balance that out: 1) by making Mighty Weapons stronger. If one Mighty Weapon could roll the same hugenormous stats as one 2-hander, it'd really be six of one, half dozen of the other. Barbs would have huge weapons to carry around, but they'd be class-specific. 2) By slightly reducing the potency of 2-handed weapons, but ensuring they still rolled higher than your average 1-hander. 2-handed weapons HAVE TO be stronger than 1-handed weapons, but if Mighty Weapons feel too much like average everyday 1-handers, in order to keep it from being OP for Barbs, 2-handers would have to be weakened just a bit to compensate. :-)
Keep in mind that barbs could only dual-wield 2handed SWORDS. And even then, all 2h swords had a separate damage range while being wielded in one hand. It was hardly overpowered, it just gave you more gearing options.
That said, it would be nice if barbs got a similar option in D3, but personally I'd rather see mighty weapons get more attention.
I thought it reduced your movement speed, not your attack speed?
I believe that's correct. The real balancing factor is the simple fact that it takes up a passive slot. The movement speed reduction is more of a mild inconvenience.
I could've sworn it was Attack Speed. I'm probably forgetting and got it wrong. Still, a pretty big factor.
Crusader shields can't have damage bonuses?
Those people should stick to the other two dual-weild melee classes. The crusader was based heavily on the D2 paladin who also couldn't dual weild and the fact that he uses a shield creates "value" among a mostly-unused item type.
The demon hunter is explicitly designed as a ranged character. But they still have the option to equip certain melee weapons.
Just saying.
Everyone knows what dual wield means. Crusaders can dual wield, but they're obviously a shield class.
C wut i did thar?
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.
Classes need distinctions. Making barbs and monks the only dual wielders differentiates them from crusaders.