Believe me, I do understand the implications.
Alternative way would be to make dw/2h do roughly 50% more damage than 1h like GrumpyMcGrump suggested (still might be too much I feel).
This way 1h with no shield would have the best auto attack, 1h+shield best survivability, 2h best skill damage. Still feel like 50% more skill damage is the best option out of 3 tbh.
Plus nerf crippling strike, bull rush and rage on top of this of course.
Truthfully, what really bothers me aren't really 2H equipped warriors, but rather 2 wielders. They have the potential to be even more devastating than the 2H, why?
Let's make an example:
Warior A: 2h Weapon, deals 112-136 damage per hit.
Warrior B: Dual wielder. Main hand: 72-84 damage. Off hand: 64-78.
The dual wielder can whack even more than the 2h; even assuming minimum damage, it's 72 + 64 = 136 vs the 2h's 112 minimum damage. Now, I'm fully aware this is purely hypothetical, but I've already stumbled upon quite a few powerful 1 h purple-tiered weapons in previous playthroughs, and their damage output combined surpassed the damage output of my warrior's 2h axe (something along the lines of 120-130 iirc). And let's not even mention what could happen were both weapons to possess a crowd control chance on hit (like, say, 15% chance on hit to set stunned and 15% on hit to set blinded, which means that per successful attack you get 30% chance to CC your target). The real "weakness" with 2 wielders is that they have to make two separate attack rolls, but with high enough stats that's hardly an issue.
