And that is why sword specs are strong. There are also more good swords (esp. noremove ones) in the game than any other weapons.

But the question is: why would they want swords to be the most common spec?
It's not like dual swords is the most ubiquitous fantasy warrior archetype.

Did it "just happen" and that's it?

Look at the nerfs to swords.

The old way of mastering flurry can be still done in a botesque way.

The minotaur that deleted, I only saw him killing certain clerics while I logged in randomly to play cf a few times during a few months.

I think.
He was mastering flurry trying to pre 42. I am trying to be coherent gdmit. I swear.

What evidence do you have that "Imms wanted swords to be the most common spec?"

The fact that sword is the most common spec is not evidence, by the way.

nt

I think this is just sort of an area writing problem. It's easier and usually more theme fitting to come up with swords. I encourage new area writers to mix it up but that doesn't really fix some of the older areas.

I am wondering why low-level area writers seem to only have items with hit and damage, or hp and mana. And not a combination of both, or rarely with other stats mixed in like SVS, SVP, Armor, etc. The values are fine, its the amount of attributes the item has that I'm wondering about.

There are exceptions to this, such as a well known belt that gives +10hp, +2 con, +1 str. But aside from that, things like that seem rare.

A high level Imm told me this when weapon specs first came out. I don't see any reason this would be considered secret knowledge.

Hutto, the Sleepy Nit

When it comes to norem.

A number are 2 handed, which means the sexy races can't make use of them.

Some have disappeared.

I can think of way More maces, for example.

And you can't count the swords like zurcon.

Many norem ones are sucky.

I'd guess human warrior with a sword and shield or dwarf with an axe?

Still not sure whose idea dual wield was. I was just fine with a weapon, shield, light, and a held item.

I'd kill for a shield spec warrior.

Double extra awesome bonus points if it's a Halfling too.

...most fantasy heroes that I can remember went with just a sword. Some used a two-hander, some a bastard sword. Probably because sword and shield is kinda plain, suitable for common fighters as opposed to heroic types, and it doesn't highlight fencing skill as much.

Single sword isn't really applicable in CF (unless you're an assassin maybe, you'd want the free hand for backfists).

Heh, I was actually going to say how nice it would be to have some more options for shield-using warriors.

The response boiled down to : shield specialization is a hallmark of the paladins and would not be made available to warriors.

Such as allowing you to add a shieldbash-like effect to flurry if you're wielding a sword with shield.

Or allowing the warrior to riposte on successful shield blocks.

You already have this. It's called dual wield with flourintine.

The only difference is fluff, since sword specs already defend like beastasauruses, while getting big damage off of riposte, flurry, and dual wield.

Besides the point, I don't think sword specs need any more edges. They already get more than any other spec.

Shields as a spec on their own would be intriguing, but I wonder how often it would really be used, since many of the 'big money' weapon skills require dual wield.

With shield spec is that it is by nature offhand, so now you can effectively fight with two specs at the same time without having to use the legacy for it.

So, let's make shield spec take BOTH weapon specs! Who cares if pgaming Nazis won't ever use it. I will, I will.

While you are able to use two specs at one time with this model, you are fighting at reduced offensive power. I see that as part of the exchange, honestly.

I see sword specs getting the least mileage out of this hypothetical shield spec, with flails gaining the most.

I'd like to see it implemented as more of a "partnering" spec choice.

With swords, axes, maces - yes, you would lose all dual skills, but defenses would increase with possibly a few flavor skills thrown in.

With spears, I'd think you would be able to use a spear one-handed, but lose most spear skills - exception being thrust, pierce, charge. Impale would probably need 2 hands for the leverage of such a powerful strike.

I think the big winners would be hand, dagger, flail, and whip.

#### polearm.

This already exists

.

dur

I repeat: That's dumb.

honestly all I want is shield mastery. let me change a spec in for that please.

I know I don't play much so maybe my opinion doesn't matter - but since Imm XP influences edges and edges are often *VERY VERY GOOD* we don't need more powerful and 'spec-like' edges. I enjoy RP'ing but I don't enjoy trying my hardest to chase down Imms trying to get their approval so I can try out a given mechanic in the game. I want my independence to not have to try to play someone different play times to overlap with others and be some needy person hunting them down for rewards.

And to me its a real problem because you've already got empowerment that makes a whole host of classes painful when you don't play at the same time as other people (and inhibiting as far as RP goes) and you've got magi requiring the ABS system (luck based exploring, yay...) so all a guy like me is left with is the melee style classes whom don't need to now totally rely on Imm XP and rewards for their success too.