After the Spellbreaker...

(Title)< I really feel like if we don't get dual pistols in a spec, it's going to be horrible, as then warriors will have a weapon they can't dual wield. that can be on other professions.

I feel like it's basically required now after dual dagger.

What do my fellow warriors think?

There are far more interesting things imaginable. E.g. let us wield a weapon like hammer or greatsword as onehanded weapon. Maybe mainhand only or smth like that and with new skills ofc. That would be far more innovative.

the issue with onehanding a twohanded weapon would be - it would guarantee less damage due to having to swing it more for similar speed, and it would attack slower due to having to swing using the weight of the weapon, this would only work with caster weapons such as staves, or with underwater weapons like the spear or trident,

Staves because it wouldn't hinder magical aptitude by a lot( same damage) but would hinder casting speed due to having to channel for longer, and spears/tridents could be thrown due to having to be hydrodynamic in shape to be able to hit things up to range 900 away, the weight would probably mean a slower throw, but the damage would be the same as throwing the spear underwater.

@Kuulpb.5412 said:the issue with onehanding a twohanded weapon would be - it would guarantee less damage due to having to swing it more for similar speed, and it would attack slower due to having to swing using the weight of the weapon, this would only work with caster weapons such as staves, or with underwater weapons like the spear or trident,

Staves because it wouldn't hinder magical aptitude by a lot( same damage) but would hinder casting speed due to having to channel for longer, and spears/tridents could be thrown due to having to be hydrodynamic in shape to be able to hit things up to range 900 away, the weight would probably mean a slower throw, but the damage would be the same as throwing the spear underwater.

Anet can make the weapons do whatever they wish. There aren't any rules that say there is guarantees for anything. Anet made a ranged hammer, for instance. They don't follow the 'rules' .. they make their own.

@Obtena.7952 said:

Anet can make the weapons do whatever they wish. There aren't any rules that say there is guarantees for anything. Anet made a ranged hammer, for instance. They don't follow the 'rules' .. they make their own.

And this is why I vote that Norn get to dual wield Asurans. :)

My bet is that warrior e specs will now carry on the trend with hitting the nostalgia button and get staff in form of a scythe. How the E-Spec would work i dont know but it will be definetly sweet as a dervish revamp.

@Ferus.3165 said:There are far more interesting things imaginable. E.g. let us wield a weapon like hammer or greatsword as onehanded weapon. Maybe mainhand only or smth like that and with new skills ofc. That would be far more innovative.

@Obtena.7952 said:Anet can make the weapons do whatever they wish. There aren't any rules that say there is guarantees for anything. Anet made a ranged hammer, for instance. They don't follow the 'rules' .. they make their own.

Yes and no... They can indeed be flexible in the way of how a weapon functions mechanically. However, they can't or did not change of how a weapon is wielded (yet). For example first we saw mesmer using GS as a range weapon in core game. With HoT anet introduced melee staff and ranged hammer for rev (and thief). But we did not see a change in how they are wielding it. I mean all duel handed weapons are still duel handed. Main can be both main and offhand. And offhands only are still offhand only.

So in that regard i am not expecting any change in it. That being said tho, considering the class is mainly a melee bruser. I do see great opportunity/possibility for warrior to get a spear for territorial use. Some hybrid playstyle where it can throw, poke and swing with the weapon. Otherwise you can see Rytlock wielding an offhand pistol in AC dungeon. Maybe anet decides to do something with that.

I'd rather see the ability to use polearms/spears on dry land etc. before something silly like dual pistols on a warrior.

@Tanuk.7961 said:I'd rather see the ability to use polearms/spears on dry land etc. before something silly like dual pistols on a warrior.

Well our range pressure/damage sucks compared to other professions so I think it'd be nice if they'd do something about it.

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Kuulpb.5412 said:the issue with onehanding a twohanded weapon would be - it would guarantee less damage due to having to swing it more for similar speed, and it would attack slower due to having to swing using the weight of the weapon, this would only work with caster weapons such as staves, or with underwater weapons like the spear or trident,

Staves because it wouldn't hinder magical aptitude by a lot( same damage) but would hinder casting speed due to having to channel for longer, and spears/tridents could be thrown due to having to be hydrodynamic in shape to be able to hit things up to range 900 away, the weight would probably mean a slower throw, but the damage would be the same as throwing the spear underwater.

but thrown two handed weapons is nothing new, Ranger and warrior Gs throw the greatsword, while Dual wielding two handed weapons would be new.

@GWMO.4785 said:

@Ferus.3165 said:There are far more interesting things imaginable. E.g. let us wield a weapon like hammer or greatsword as onehanded weapon. Maybe mainhand only or smth like that and with new skills ofc. That would be far more innovative.

@"Obtena.7952" said:Anet can make the weapons do whatever they wish. There aren't any rules that say there is guarantees for anything. Anet made a ranged hammer, for instance. They don't follow the 'rules' .. they make their own.

This reminds me SO MUCH of a GW1 skill paragons had - https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Spear_Swipe - So mixing the thrown and melee would make perfect sense on land lorewise.

Shortboooow!!!

@Zaraki.5784 said:Shortboooow!!!

How would this work, (Serious question), MY idea IF THEY DID< would be - Since Longbow is Firing 2 arrows at once, Shortbow would be maybe the rangers shortbow 2, but with no condition application. so just a 5 arrow spread at 900 range, it'd allow us to have some AoE damage, while not having it limited to condition ( as far as I am aware, our only AoEs are either weak/long cooldown power hits, or spammable fire fields.

@Kuulpb.5412 said:

@Zaraki.5784 said:Shortboooow!!!

I don't know but I just want to be able to use C&C shortbow on my war. ^^

@Kuulpb.5412 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Kuulpb.5412 said:the issue with onehanding a twohanded weapon would be - it would guarantee less damage due to having to swing it more for similar speed, and it would attack slower due to having to swing using the weight of the weapon, this would only work with caster weapons such as staves, or with underwater weapons like the spear or trident,

Staves because it wouldn't hinder magical aptitude by a lot( same damage) but would hinder casting speed due to having to channel for longer, and spears/tridents could be thrown due to having to be hydrodynamic in shape to be able to hit things up to range 900 away, the weight would probably mean a slower throw, but the damage would be the same as throwing the spear underwater.

Hold on ... throwing a melee weapon does NOT make it a ranged weapon. Besides, that's not the point. The point is that you have made some assumptions about how weapons are designed based on your own perception of them, leading you to false conclusions about what they can and can't be or do. That isn't very relevant in a game where we see Anet do things ... like make a Hammer a ranged weapon.

I don't even know how you come to the conclusion that if you don't get a dual pistol setup after Spellbreaker, it will be horrible. That makes no sense. It simply demonstrates your own ideas are restrictive, as I've pointed out.

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Kuulpb.5412 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Kuulpb.5412 said:the issue with onehanding a twohanded weapon would be - it would guarantee less damage due to having to swing it more for similar speed, and it would attack slower due to having to swing using the weight of the weapon, this would only work with caster weapons such as staves, or with underwater weapons like the spear or trident,

Staves because it wouldn't hinder magical aptitude by a lot( same damage) but would hinder casting speed due to having to channel for longer, and spears/tridents could be thrown due to having to be hydrodynamic in shape to be able to hit things up to range 900 away, the weight would probably mean a slower throw, but the damage would be the same as throwing the spear underwater.

right now, you're the one assuming. I have provided evidence of what gw2 have done, such as a thrown greatsword, which means throwing two handed weapons is something that has happened in the universe, thus ranged hammer on rev isn't special. dual wielded two handed weapons though is far different, as no npc or player has ever done this before.

Again, the point isn't you can or can't throw a sword. The point is that you can't make assumptions on how the game can and can't work based on your OWN ideas of what things should be. They can be anything Anet decides they are, even if they are as extraordinary as a ranged 2H hammer weapon (which IS rather unique, even if you don't think it is)

For example, you say that "the issue with onehanding a twohanded weapon would be - it would guarantee less damage due to having to swing it more for similar speed, and it would attack slower due to having to swing using the weight of the weapon"

... except Anet can make one handing a two handed weapon have as much damage as they want it to with whatever speed they want it to swing with and have whatever weight they want it to have to make it attack at whatever rate they want it to attack with. So you're assumptions are simply off the mark here.

So again, you haven't even described to anyone how ANY other option other than a dual pistol after spellbreaker will be horrible.

We're gonna get mele dual pistol, because reasons. :lol:

@Red Haired Savage.5430 said:We're gonna get mele dual pistol, because reasons. :lol:

Why do I now feel like we need Sun Wukong's Gunchucks from RWBY?

@Ferus.3165 said:There are far more interesting things imaginable. E.g. let us wield a weapon like hammer or greatsword as onehanded weapon. Maybe mainhand only or smth like that and with new skills ofc. That would be far more innovative.

That's called Sword and Mace...

@"Obtena.7952" said:Again, the point isn't you can or can't throw a sword. The point is that you can't make assumptions on how the game can and can't work based on your OWN ideas of what things should be. They can be anything Anet decides they are, even if they are as extraordinary as a ranged 2H hammer weapon (which IS rather unique, even if you don't think it is)

For example, you say that "the issue with onehanding a twohanded weapon would be - it would guarantee less damage due to having to swing it more for similar speed, and it would attack slower due to having to swing using the weight of the weapon"

... except Anet can make one handing a two handed weapon have as much damage as they want it to with whatever speed they want it to swing with and have whatever weight they want it to have to make it attack at whatever rate they want it to attack with. So you're assumptions are simply off the mark here.

So again, you haven't even described to anyone how ANY other option other than a dual pistol after spellbreaker will be horrible.

just to clarify, I am saying if we don't get dual pistols, it will be horrible - BECAUSE we will then have a non dual wielded primary weapon. I believe you are seeing what i wrote as - if we don't get dual pistols, it is bad - end. I specified - dual wielding.

You need to explain why having a non-dual wielded primary weapon is horrible. I don't see what would be horrible about it.

@Obtena.7952 said:You need to explain why having a non-dual wielded primary weapon is horrible. I don't see what would be horrible about it.

i did twice - it would mean warriors wouldn't have access to only dual wield primaries, e.g. they would have either a mh pistol or oh pistol, but as a master of arms (the reason they have dual daggers on spellbreaker according to gw2) they should have both, not having pistols dual wielded when they can be would mean the reasoning behind spellbreaker having dual daggers would be questionable. - this is not me speculating, they said warriors got dual daggers and a single dagger didn't fir the master of weapons style. ~ or something similar to the master of weapons they definitely said wouldn't fit.

SO ... you don't think Anet could change that ... I do. They can do what they want, even if it contradicts what they did previously.

That still doesn't explain why it would be horrible to have access to only dual wield primaries. I don't think it would ever make sense for Anet to enforce self-imposed restrictions on themselves if it means they acknowledge something would be terrible, whatever that 'terrible' is you have in mind. If they did say that, then I can hardly believe it's a global rule that they need to absolutely abide by, regardless of the consequences.

Only weapon set Warriors are lacking is Spear+Shield. End of story