Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General Ward+Sword

Wards and one-handed melee weapons can be equipped together.

There is currently no real accommodation for this fact however: your attacks cost as though you could use both weapons(2AP) but only use one, and you cannot use skills that require a melee weapon(including attacks of opportunity) if it happens to be in your off-hand, you cannot shoot your wand if it's in the off hand.

This is a bug/flaw that carries over from the EE of the original game, and it would be very nice if it was fixed/addressed this time around.


My personal suggestion is as follows:
-If the wand is equipped in the main hand, default to ranged attacks that cost 1AP.
-If the melee weapons is in the main hand, attack in melee with both weapons at a 2AP cost, and a unique animation showing the wand being used to enchant the weapon.
-In both cases, use the One-Handed skill to determine bonuses(damage/accuracy).
-In both cases, allow Opportunist attacks with just the melee weapon.
-In both cases, allow the use of abilities that require a specific weapon, using just that weapon.

Also, I'd love to see some talents that aid such a setup, for example:
Lightning Rod - Increase your Magic Armor, based on your off-hand weapon damage(50% of physical).
Witchblade - Double the Magic Damage dealt by One-Handed melee weapons.

It seems this got buried before anyone replied, so I'm bumping it.

Good catch

Oh wow, I noticed this problem but kinda ignored it

Awesome suggestions. And yeah, there should be talents/builds/ect...to help make this a thing since it is allowable as it stands

Third time's the charm, it's something really important to me.

This would be nice.
I would like to add that one handed attacks with a shield should also just cost 1 Ap and not 2

Those costing 2 is deliberate though.

You get effectively a 2-handed weapon worth of stats when carrying a shield, and having that come at no expense would make going single one-handed even less viable than it already is.

With this argument attacking with a wand should also cost 2AP because you get the stats of a two handed weapon.

You don't though.
A mismatched weapon in the off-hand is effectively an empty hand, that still costs 1 AP per hit.

Having some stat bonuses if it happens to be enchanted is not an adequate compensation for the added AP cost, as you are quite likely to find a matching pair with similar bonuses for dual wielding.

Which is exactly why I made this thread: either the option to attack with both at 2 AP should exist, or the one that serves no function should not incur a cost increase.

To reiterate the armor provided by a shield is always active.
The damage provided by a weapon is only active when it attacks.
If a weapon increases the cost of an attack, but does not contribute to it's strength, it is not working correctly.

You are right it is not working as good as it could be ( one of the problems the low AP cost has ) but Wand attacks only costing 1 AP while having a second weapon that gives you a bonus ( even if it is really small ) would make wand + sword > wand + wand. I dont think the game should be balanced for exotic builds ( wand+sword. sword + nothing ) but for normal builds ( wand+wand / staff / etc. ).

First of all, wand+wand is far more exotic than a sword+empty, while a wand+sword happens even in the very much mainstream Harry Potter.

Second, a major fantasy for a battle mage character is a melee weapon in one hand, with the other hand casting spells, be it empty or with an implement.

Finally, mechanical consistency demands that either both weapons contribute to an attack(as per proper dual-wield), or that the inactive one doesn't incur the cost.
It should absolutely not be done on a hand-full/hand-empty basis: if a weapon cannot be made active, it should be unequippable.

Obviously I'd prefer the combination be supported, rather than it be denied.

The problem as you already wrote is that one weapon + buff weapon for 1 ap is stronger than 2 weapon for 2ap.
Why would i use 2 wands if i could use just 1 with a sword? The sword would make my attacks a bit stronger ( not much ) but if we include everything you want give me attacks of opportunity und warfare/rogue skills while having no con at all. This would make dual wielding wands pretty much pointless. Adding to that you could attack more often because you could also attack more often ( you could also attack when you only have 1 AP left ) -> more dmg on earlier turns.
The best and only way to include it ( without it being a gimmick ) would be to add some new spells that only work with wand + sword. I would like that. But just buffing it and making wand+wand pointless is the wrong way to do it.

It is ridiculous to argue that the meager benefits of enchantment bonuses a Wand+Sword are worthy of the additional AP cost. It is mathematically provable they are not, and completely ignores the scenario where an item in the other hand does not have any enchantments to speak of.

It is equally ridiculous to claim that there would ever be a scenario such a setup could diminish the viability of a wand+wand loadout, as wand+wand offers an exclusive ability to trigger an elemental surface combo with a basic attack(try earth+fire, or water+wind).

Any benefits of an off-hand sword provides in a wand+sword combo, are by no means free; they come at the expense of choosing the corresponding Talents, which a dual wand user can spend elsewhere. Using a hybrid build like this also requires hybrid stats, which also diminish it's purely offensive power.

The only combination that suffers from implementing my suggestions, or otherwise recognizing the wand+sword as a valid combo, is a wand+empty, which is a separate consideration altogether.
It should speak volumes as to how weak the position from which you argue against my suggestion is, when I need to think up better arguments for you to use.

So your point is correct and your arguments better because it is your idea? okay.
The tradeoff for having the possibility to use combos is that i need 2 good wands ( or one does no damage ) not always a given + i can use enough combos as a mage as it is.
While using different wands can also hinder you by activating surfaces you did no want ( again a tradeoff ).

-In both cases, allow the use of abilities that require a specific weapon, using just that weapon.

Would make sword + nothing worthless because sword + wand would be superior in every case.

-In both cases, allow Opportunist attacks with just the melee weapon.

Ignoring the tradeoff i mentioned before you now need only 1 good wand ( good enough ) but also can use Opportunist which is a good buff ( you can ignore the con of having to choose a talent as long as most are not worth anyway ) -> sword + wand > wand + wand = wand + nothing

An item without enchantments in the other hand would be like level 1 or 2?
+ I dont need a hybrid build to use a sword in my offhand. Maybe i just wand the stats it gives? Giving us the possibilty to use anything in our offhand while just using the mainhand without a con would just make the offhand a statdumb.

+ show me how 2 wands = wand + sword mathematically in case i dont have 2 wands of the same strength ( which is like always ).

Not true, you can take advantage of the elemental combination even with very weak wands, so long as the second one to fire is the stronger one(earth/fire combo the order doesn't matter)

Also, you equally need a proper quality weapon to 'exploit' sword+wand, so you basically negate your own point about the bonuses(if item scarcity is a valid cost/counter to one, it's valid to the other).

And regardless of that, my entire premise for that is that the mechanic should also work, when no enchantment bonuses are present, which it currently does not.


Not true, unlike a lone wand, a sword alone in the main hand would still get better AP to damage ratio than sword+wand(wands deal less damage than swords so sword+wand is also beaten by dual-melee and 2-handed melee on raw damage) the only difference is the elemental distribution of it, which depending on your tactical needs is either a flaw or an advantage, and you can shift between the two freely regardless.



While this is a somewhat valid concern, it being a free stat dump is an infinitely better solution than it being a dead weight.
For an offhand melee to be worth increasing the cost of a wand attack however, it would have to provide a benefit worth of that increase in all scenarios: that means either making Opportunist a baseline talent everyone gets for free, or some other form of damage contribution in a wand+sword scenario.
At an absolute worst, this can be resolved by always forcing the 'enchanted melee' attack, but that would be counter intuitive towards equipping a range weapon as a main form of attack.



As explained above, so long as the second wand to fire is the stronger one(wind in water+wind combo, either one in fire+earth), you will come out ahead of using the same wand twice.
Further more, as mentioned even earlier, you cannot use an argument against/in support of a stance, that equally applies to the opposite one.

The same rules that work against a Wand+Wand combo, work against a Wand+Sword one(you need to actually find the right off hand), whereas you have nothing that would go against the simple fact that right now, when no enhancements are present(which is actually very common if you craft gear, rather than find it), the second item is neither worth equipping, nor interacts with the game world as expected.

This is a good catch, the 2 AP cost while missing the second attack is a bit of an oddity and most certainly a bug, since no benefits are gained and only detriments added.

The simplest solution, conceptually, is to place this situation under 'dual wield' and have both attack (wands still fire in melee) but at range the melee weapon attack always misses.
This however, does then bring into the conversation whether to allow attacks/abilities that require a specific weapon to be used in this combination. My opinion is yes, it should, but only the proper weapon contributes to damage/effect calculations. So the opportunity attack is essentially a 1 hand melee wpn attack using the melee weapon equipped.

However, while these changes may be the simplest conceptually, I have no idea how hard it would be to code, as skills would need to make a hand by hand check for the character, filter out the appropriate hand and check range while attacking for each hand separately. So from a game design perspective, it may make the most sense to simply limit the opportunity to wield wand and sword at the same time.

Regardless of your balance discussion, these are the things you should take into account. The argument you both are having is mostly about tweaking and number balance, which can be done AFTER the problem of the current situation is remedied. Currently Wand/Sword is worse than anything you could otherwise choose and is unduly penalized for the choice. Regardless of the solution, it's a problem that needs to be addressed.