did one handed turn speed get adjusted??

[Falka]

the HBS

I don't get it, why HBS, why not Longsword? I would take 1 more dmg for 1 less speed any day.

Also the ACS will bounce off anything not exactly in front of the user.

You're kidding, right? Right??? 

[Jarlek]

I don't get it, why HBS, why not Longsword? I would take 1 more dmg for 1 less speed any day.

I would take the 1 speed over the 1 damage if the 1 damage was cut. If it was blunt or pierce, then that's another story.

[Strudog]

weak, short as hell, slow, weak again ?

short, slooooooooooooooooow. Also the ACS will bounce off anything not exactly in front of the user.

Short? No, weak? are you kidding me?

short, slooooooooooooooooow. Also the ACS will bounce off anything not exactly in front of the user.

You are telling me the ACS bounces from horseback? What game are you playing?

[Grumbs]

It should be a trade off between defence and offence. If you have near 360 degree invulnerability against ranged and melee and can block multiple directions at once with one key press, well you should get some downsides to that in your offensive capability.

The only real downside I see with 1 handers is the length, but I wouldn't say they're short. I don't feel like I get much range advantage against a shielder with a swinging polearm (except the likes of the glaive), and the right swing can be longer than you might expect. Left swing can be so fast that I need to block multiple times before I can get one hit in. The blunt & pierce weapons can be especially devastating, and 1 handers naturally are more likely to hit the head than other weapons

The ability to block projectiles without having to switch from your main weapon is pretty godlike too in cRPG

[Macropus]

The only real downside I see with 1 handers is the length

Well, how about damage? I would say - downsides of 1h is range and damage. As it should be.

[Grumbs]

Depends on the weapon, but generally yes the cut ones especially do lower damage. But I get hit in the head by 1 handers way more than other classes, and thats 150% more damage I believe, and the head is more likely to have less armour in the first place

Some of the pierce/blunt ones do very comparable damage to 2 handers/poles

[Erzengel]

Short? No, weak? are you kidding me?

So Steel Pick (64 length) and Warhammer (65 length) are not short in your opinion? 

I am not saying that they are weak by the way.

[Jarlek]

So Steel Pick (64 length) and Warhammer (65 length) are not short in your opinion? 

Well, ofc the Mallet (83) and Great Maul (80) is short, but 65 length 1handers are not.

Silly Erzengel...

[Falka]

If you have near 360 degree invulnerability against ranged

Just lol. Shielder against 2 not braindead archers is dead shielder.

[Rebelyell]

Well, ofc the Mallet (83) and Great Maul (80) is short, but 65 length 1handers are not.

Silly Erzengel...

right swing and tadam!!!
warchamer outreach malet 0o

[Berserkadin]

If you have near 360 degree invulnerability against ranged and melee

WAT?

[Jarlek]

right swing and tadam!!!
warchamer outreach malet 0o

Excuse me, what game are you playing? 1h Right swing does NOT give you 18 more reach than ANY 2h swing.

Some people.... So biased it hurts my mind.

[Macropus]

Btw, what we're doing right now is basically discussing whether 1h is OP or not, but our opinion mainly depends on our personal experience (like how often we have been killed by 1h or how often we didn't manage to kill someone else with 1h  ), which makes our statements partly (or mainly) biased.
This of course applies to any balance discussion...
I think we better just look at stats:
Hm, let's see, most cut 1h have about 30 damage, same goes for blunt or pierce (which are shorter though).
Most cut 2h have about 40 damage, a bit less for pierce/blunt, but that compensates with shieldbreaking or something else.
As for polearms, they have crazy diversity so i'm not even talking about it, but for stats it's pretty alike with 2h.

So, as we can conclude now, is 1h OP comparing with 2h or polearms?
Let's think... eh... I don't know. 

Leave balancing to devs then, maybe?

[Grumbs]

Couldn't count the amount of times i've hit a shielder in the back and he blocks it. Against ranged there is a forcefield but probably back hits are not hitting the shield like melee. I could have split the sentence and mentioned melee separate from ranged

But its still a hell of a nice bonus to have with your main weapon in a game filled with ranged. Its melee its still nice to not worry about manual blocking or being able to block more than 1 direction at once, and get out of outnumbered situations

[Jarlek]

Couldn't count the amount of times i've hit a shielder in the back and he blocks it. Against ranged there is a forcefield but probably back hits are not hitting the shield like melee. I could have split the sentence and mentioned melee separate from ranged

But its still a hell of a nice bonus to have with your main weapon in a game filled with ranged. Its melee its still nice to not worry about manual blocking or being able to block more than 1 direction at once, and get out of outnumbered situations

When you attacked the shielder from behind, was it a sideswing? They sometimes go around the character and get blocked by the shield. Works the other way too as you can swing "around" the shield and hit a shielder facing you. Ridiculous either way. Oh, same is for manual block and blocking sideswings. Better to do stabs/overheads when you backstab people or wait for the guy to not be blocking.

As for using shield against ranged. Remember that most shields slow your movement down a lot. It's like having a Maul or Mallet on your back. Sure, against individual ranged you are 100% safe, but when there is more they can easily flank you as you often got the same/slower speed then them AND you can't sprint because you got the shield up. I personally find it easier going for archers without a shield because when I am sprinting and dodging the arrows of 1 ranged, I am automatically dodging the arrows/bolts of ALL ranged, no matter if I know about them or not.