Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
Because it's heavy enough that most people would have insufficient strength to wield one competently without using both hands (and arms).
However, a hero with such prodigious strength as a barbarian would not necessarily have that limitation. That's why in Diablo II, the barbarian was the only hero class which was allowed to dual-wield 2-hand weapons as it was deemed that he had enough strength to do so.
It's a long-running theme in Blizzard games. You'll also find that Fury Warriors in WoW were the only class able to dual-wield 2-handed weaponry using the talent "Titan's Grip".
By the way, just out of interest, how many hands (and arms) do you think you'd need to wield a "hand and a half" sword?
The reason is quite simply class balance. Currently barbarians either use a Skorn or a two 1H weapons. If they were able to use a Skorn and another 2H weapon, their DPS would just be off the charts compared to other classes. Other classes than barbarians use Skorns though, so it wouldn't be fair to just nerf the DPS of 2H'ers across the board. Also, the barbarian-only weapon class - Mighty Weapons - are very badly designed in that the single best barbarian passive - http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/class/barbarian/passive/weapons-master - is almost worthless if we use our class-specific weaponry. Why would you lose out on 10CC to get increased fury generation?
Yeah, I miss that too, but it wouldn't make much sense in d3 anyway, with the way the game is designed. Another (related) little detail I miss is that mobs weren't clones of each other. If you ran into a pack of fallen some would dual wield, others would go sword and board, and use different combinations of scimitars, daggers, clubs. Those minotaur demons in act 5 were insanely cool also, some were dual wielding axes, others went for flails or combinations of the two. Why don't devs think of such little things anymore?! They would add so much to the experience.
@Diego barbs in d2 were so badass they could 1-hand a 2-handed sword. You had a damage penalty for it, but hey, onehanding that zweihander is any man's dream!
you missed one important point - skorn is axe, we talking here about swords! In D2 when barb dual-wield 2handed swords - it had damage penalty for every sword - so it was a balance. blizz could go the same way in D3.
You'd have to be the incredible hulk to dualwield twohanded weapons.
It's not only about the weight, it's about the length of the weapon itself, you'd get entangled in your weapons even if you had sufficent strength.
An interesting fact, twohanding weapons is very popular because you gain more than twice the power when striking. So if you're stronger, it's still much better to twohand a weapon.
But it's also about handling and precision and that's why dualwielding always been widely unpopular.
You do gain speed, but it is vastly more difficult to handle two separate weapons, to the extent that it will get you killed trying a stunt like that.
I'm sure there are brilliant exceptions, but mainly, you'd get a shield and a onehander if you knew what was good for you.
Then there is the game..
Even if you used 2 Grandfather.... Your dps burst like crazy
Also, I always hated dualwielding twohanders. It's just stupid in my opinion.
guys, you are missing the point, it's obvious that if there would not any penalty for dual wielding 2handed sword - it would be imba for barbs, blizz should find a balance to create some penalty for dual wielding 2handed sword - but make it possible for barbarian class.
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.