Crit Multiplier is the most broken thing in the game

Remove crit chance and multiplier pls its too OP

Make us play only with RT. Its a super fun Passive

Im not quite as hard line n this as the op but I do agree, crit multi gem is stupidly powerful, needs nerfed, and a lot of sources of multi on the tree should be taken down a peg again.

"

Sawm wrote:

Crit multi should be a thing for 2handers, ;) i will never understand why little pocking sticks out crit/dps by a farshot 2handed weapons, you sacrifice a shield...(almost evrything....) for a tiny amount of NOT EVEN MORE DAMAGE. xD dualwield atleast is great...but that's based on how great 1handers are already.



1handers, crit chance.
2handers, crit multi.


so simple to fix....

in reality though that is how it is I think? A 2 handed axe, it does a lot of raw damage against an unarmored target, but really a well placed dagger does more, and when it comes to an armoured target a dagger is THE weapon. Even swords are pretty ineffective against armour in real life, if I remember my history lessons right to kill knights they would have very short stabbing daggerlike weapons that would be used to puncture the armour or stab in through gaps. Swords, axes, esp 2 handed ones were not good for killing knights, it was all about small short blade or spikelike 1 handed weapons, youd get inside the knights massive 2 handed swing range and use basically a metal pencil with a handle to punch in through the armour and mail.

^ You're a little bit off, afaik. Really big swords excelled at crushing things; under armour or not, bones were broken. Many were designed blunt closer to the hilt so the weapon could be inverted and held with a wider grip when engaging in direct melee. Sort of like a staff, but with a pokey end and sharp jabby bits around the hill.

A very well placed dagger could end a fight just as quickly, but most armour is designed to protect arteries and major organs, so that a blade passing through would be deflected towards less vital areas, increasing the chances its wearer could fight longer with more superficial wounds.

The real world comparison, is that a well trained dagger could move in between defenses (crit chance), but if you were hit with the full force of a heavy sword fall, enough bones were broken that even the toughest bastard in the world would be lying on the ground crying for mommy (crit multi).

"

Remember Critical hits in Diablo 2? Deadly strike caps out at exactly 200% damage.

and in the same vein there was crushing blow on the uber bosses... I doubt that we should touch that game as a place to blindly copy mechanics anymore (fun as it was at the time) because it was just a hot mess of broken mechanics that only really seemed good at the time because of just how garbage every other game around it was and still is.


and canhaspants, swinging swords did jack**** against actual armor (designed to deflect and NOT absorb a hit, and were heavily padded with cotton), of which most people wore cloth or leather anyway back then... the heaviest armor was chain except for a VERY brief period of heavy calvary knights wearing platemail (which xbows, longbows and early firearms shredded). The swords that didn't exist to cut flesh only (thus balanced for quick swings with curved blades) did piercing moves instead (thus balanced at the hilt for ease of use). Even the heavy (damn hard to wield) scottish claymore could be bent with ease by hand, while the german zweihander or flamberge (giant heavy 2 handers) were used as spears and had blunt edges. And yes, even with a english longsword or bastard sword you were more likely to stab then swing as their advantages were that you could stab them from just slightly greater range then the guy trying to cut you.


Then again a toothpick could kill a man with ease if hit in the right place (arterial puncture causing an rupture leading to bleeding out in seconds)...

"

CanHasPants wrote:

^ You're a little bit off, afaik. Really big swords excelled at crushing things; under armour or not, bones were broken. Many were designed blunt closer to the hilt so the weapon could be inverted and held with a wider grip when engaging in direct melee. Sort of like a staff, but with a pokey end and sharp jabby bits around the hill.

A very well placed dagger could end a fight just as quickly, but most armour is designed to protect arteries and major organs, so that a blade passing through would be deflected towards less vital areas, increasing the chances its wearer could fight longer with more superficial wounds.

The real world comparison, is that a well trained dagger could move in between defenses (crit chance), but if you were hit with the full force of a heavy sword fall, enough bones were broken that even the toughest bastard in the world would be lying on the ground crying for mommy (crit multi).

ya, breaking bones with impact, denting in plates causing horrible surface damage etc fi you are lucky. But small spike weapons and short blades would actually punch holes in some plates/mail and stab directly into organs etc causing way more dangerous wounds. What you describe isnt a crit, its just bashing someone, what I am describing is a high damage crit. You can live from a broken arm/ribs and some horrible surface damage, less likely from a blade/spike deep into your body.

It might help if I clarify: I'm not looking at a literal translation between real life and game mechanics. To me, crit multi seems thematically appropriate for 2H, while crit chance seems thematically appropriate for 1H. To translate this to reality, the (relationships between the) mechanics seem to read as such: It's not difficult to hit something that isn't fast moving (accuracy vs evasion), but that doesn't mean the blow will have great effect. Skilled use with one handed weapons (crit chance. . .) allows it to land more frequent, deadlier blows, but pales in comparison (. . . without as much multi) to those rare few utterly crushing blows (crit multi without as much chance) landed by a giant sword or mace.

Edit: Have you ever broken a bone? The shock of it instantly overwhelms adrenaline. Broken bone = instant casualty (ask anybody SERE trained), where as lacerations don't necessarily.

Actually swords weren't used to crush full armor, but mostly to penetrate it by stabs.

Swords were lighter than people imagine, the most "knightly" hand and a half (bastard sword) was around 1.8kg. average. One hand swords were around 1.2-1.4kg.
Such a weapon can't crush, or cut hardened metal and will be damaged during process, making it it useless.

Swords could cut lighter armor. But it was still better to stab.

Those knightly dagger was called "misericorde" a.k.a misericordia, it wasn't a weapon to fight with, but to kill the defeated enemy on the ground, showing him mercy to die with nobility and honor. Usually with a stab in the throat, in the gap between the helm and the body armor.

people would actually fight with short weapons like that as far as I know. Theres paintings and depictions of it from the time that we studied in history class where they had weapons that were basically a square bolt of metal that tapered down to a sharp point, far too short to be able to bend like a sword, that were basically just used for killing armoured knights.


..............................



jus tlooke dup that name you gave, a lot of these look like a proper bladed dagger but some of them look like what I am describing too, according to wiki...

"

A misericorde (/ˌmɪzərɪˈkɔrd/ or /-zɛrɪ-/) was a long, narrow knife, used in medieval times to deliver the death stroke (the mercy stroke, hence the name of the blade, derived from the Latin misericordia, "act of mercy") to a seriously wounded knight. The blade was thin enough so that it could strike through the gaps between armour plates.[1]

This weapon was used to dispatch knights who had received mortal wounds, which were not always quickly fatal in the age of bladed combat; it could also be used as a means of killing an active adversary, as during a grappling struggle.[1] The blade could be pushed through the visor or eye holes in the helm with the aim of piercing the brain, or thrust through holes or weak points in plate armor, such as under the arm, with the aim of piercing the heart. The weapon was known from the 12th century and has appeared in the armaments of Germany, Persia, and England.[2][3]

so ya, ur right and Im right too, it was used for death blows as you say but also used in grappling situations which is what I am talking about to punch holes through plates or into gaps. In the pictures we studied the tactic they were depicting was to basically get close enough to cuddle the knight where his large weapon couldnt really be brought to bare properly on you, then you would stab through weak points or unprotected points causing serious wounds.

"

OP is from D3

Too obvious.

Those who play other ARPGs have more to offer in a feedback thread.