POLL: Shield vs two-handed

Remove all ads!

The main question is : do you prefer using weapon+shield or rather a more damaging two-handed weapon? Protection vs damage.

The poll itself is about all the weapon categories , what is the weapon of your choice? And what Unique Item in particular?

[ January 08, 2004, 20:34: Message edited by: Beren ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 33 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: shield vs two-handed (33 votes.)

Which weapon do you favor? (Choose 13)
* bastard sword - 18% (6)
* axe - 36% (12)
* bow - 21% (7)
* flail - 6% (2)
* greatsword - 52% (17)
* hammer - 6% (2)
* large sword - 45% (15)
* polearm - 3% (1)
* crossbow - 21% (7)
* mace - 15% (5)
* missile - 6% (2)
* quarterstaff - 0% (0)
* small blade - 12% (4)

 

My entire party uses two-handed weapons in melee.

For the frontline tanks with more than 16 Str twohanded weapons and the extra damage they do is great.
The only reason a meleer would use a shield was for any special properties it may hold (eg: immunity to missiles in HOF).

Of your spellcasters, none but a priest will automatiaclly get sheild proficiency, so thats a feat point wasted.
Secondly any shield will introduce atleast 5% arcane spellfailure, which is not worth it.
So if a spell caster did not go unmolested while raining spalls and arrows, he picks up a stick to knock some sence into the enemy.

As for you poll --
Axes: for 3x criticals
Great Swords: for increased damage
Maces: for their special properties.

At range any thing goes, though its best that atleast 1 charecter be able to use any of the 3.

 

Most of my tanks use a shield with an axe or large sword--hey, an extra AC is an extra AC, and I'm more of a dodge their attack person than a damage person, at least when it comes to melee--, whichever happens to have the better damage at the time. I think axes win for most of the game in that respect. By HoF, it's all Greatsword of the Soulless for my tanks. I've never built one of those really high AC deep gnomes, and the AC of my tanks (~40) just isn't enough for HoF.

Mages use bows if they run out of spells to cast.

 

I don't see the point of two handed weapons when you can attack up to 5 times! ^_^ Oh well... Just my opinion.

Anyways, your off hand weapon aren't used most of the time, unlike your shield, so i think its better off to use a shield rather then a sword. (unless the sword gives off better properties then the sheild...)

 

I'm fond of maces (very few things block bludgeoning, as opposed to slashing). Shields are also good! More AC, the better. Too bad there aren't more humans, Winged Blight is really good...

 

Now this is a funny poll

You have one question, 13 answers and you can choose 13 options, all the while

This is the main question

Well, myself i like to dual-wield. Mayhaps not the most effective since you get 1 extra off-hand attack and thats it. But its cool and realisticaly looking a tough style of fighting... and one that can be improved immensely. Not in IWDII though
Other than that i like small blades(always handy + weapon finesse), greatswords (probably the most reliable weapon you can get) and bows(hey, isnt it better to kill an enemy if it doesnt even reach you? ).

 

My character which is in front line of battles always has shield and one-handed weapon. I use this concept in all other IE games too.
It proved much more effective than the Two Handed style. The point of the concept is: most enemies will attack this character. Other warriors with two handed weapons but lesser AC can attack the enemies from other directions. And the ranged weapons have big role too. And spells.

My favourite items are those which are the most effective for specific purpose: bludgeoning against e.g. golems/boneguards, greatswords to deal high damage. There were probably good unique items, but I cannot recall their names at the moment.

 

Since I posted this poll I have been using a party where the three melee characters used a two handed weapon. Slow , they seem to be very slow with it and it's annoying. It's much better if you can take down your enemy before it even touches you!
Therefore I figured this out : wouldn' t it be better if they used weapon+shield in the beginning (to ensure they aren't slaughtered) and switch over to two-handed in the later parts (so they can take down fast that high HP monster)?
Btw in the beginning there don't seem to be alot of good/magical two-handed weapons.

 

I have a habit of using axes and hammers mostly since all of my warriors tend to be dwarves (nice bonuses vs. enemies you encounter). I usually carry both a shield + weapon and a two handed weapon so I can handle any situation.
My clerics ALWAYS use shields since the last thing you want is a spellcaster being disrupted.

 

Two-handed is good against damage resistance. The AC is slightly less, though. Through most of the game, it's just 1-2 difference, nothing exciting. But when it comes to +3 shields, well... And shields are extremely useful for paladins, who aren't renowned for their dexterity and wield 1H Holy Avengers. Much the same for clerics... and mages. How so? Armoured arcana allows only 15%, which is a big shield or a light suit of armour. Mage AC bonuses are of armour kind, not shield. Even the Shield spell And there's no spell that would give you shield type of AC bonus. Therefore, shields are good for mages with armoured arcana feats.

Definitely shields for low HP folks, like 10 CON or similar. Two-handed for fighters - focus, specialisation, power attack, cleave, improved critical comes in no time if you get so many feats. With a 2H weapon it's devastating. Also, 2H uses half again your normal STR mod. If you have STR 18 or 20, it's a free +2. Even from the beginning of the game. Guess I should have thought about that with my pally/wizard when he had 29 STR with buffs

If you go for damage alone, you could get bastard sword profs, deal 1d10 (IIRC) per blow and still use your shield.

 

You will still get hit plenty in this game with a high AC. Better to whack the opposition before they get you. Two handed weapons for me; shields don't offer enough of an AC bonus to avoid getting hit, unless your AC is remarkably low in the 1st place.

 

I normally only have one front character using a two handed weapon. (currently a barbarian-fighter using the a +4 halberd of hate?) I gave the mage -fighter a spear that was handy but everyone bar the ranger-thief uses a shield.

 

I usually give:

-Tanks: Two-Handed weapons.

-Clerics: Mace+Shield.

-Mages: Crossbows.

There are some exceptions. Paladins will get the Long Sword/Shield combo for HA goodness. Battleguards will ALWAYS go for Axes of any shape or form. Rogues, on the rare occaision that I use them, get Weapon Finesse and Short Swords, either dual-wielding them or toting a Buckler(or a Shield with a low Dex. ability hit).

 

The only time a shield is worth it is when it can take you from the point of "enemies still barely manage to hit me" to "I'm 100% protected from all critical hits and normal hits in 95% of the cases".

Other than that.. Any melee character can get 22 to 30 STR quite easily, and the extra +3 to +5 damage provided by 2H weapons is just too sweet to pass.