I was hoping they'd do away with the simplistic principle of "raw damage" or at least add some nuances to the system. maybe they will, though since "bleeding" has been confirmed.Im hoping that swords will be better for hacking up lightly armored people since they are long and sharp, and axes and such will work better against shields and heavy armor since they are heavier and their comparatively blunt edge doesn't dull quickly.
You just put an image of a war axe slicing a huge gaping notch into a wooden shield... how I would love to see that...
I don't see why they wouldn't be, especially since the axe is the archetype weapon for the nord/viking. Axes will have bleed damage, maces will ignore armor, and swords will...do something
. It sounds like gamesas is keeping the weapons well balanced, so I wouldn't worry
oh! I didn't know bleeding was confirmed yet.. hehheh... if war axes have a btter chance of making enemies bleed, I will be using those more often...
Man, I agree, but I also think it's just 2 handed weapons in general. There just isn't/wasn't enough of a significance in damage between the two to really make up for the disadvantage of not having a shield. If you're wielding a two handed wrecking ball in your hand, it should feel like a 2 handed wrecking ball. I hope that this whole splitting it up by handedness as opposed to blade or blunt will remedy this issue.
Exactly! I always thought the war hammers felt the same as swinging a sword. Not slowing you down, able to swing it like you have a fly swatter in your hands. If I have a warhammer, I want it to be able to break a guy's leg in half... or tear it completely off.