Larian Studios Forums Divinity II The Dragon Knight Saga / Flames of Vengeance (English) Divinity II - The Dragon Knight Saga Why melee suck so much in this game?

I mean, this is ridiculous, tried one melee build in the beginning and needless to say, I restarted again with another build (ranged), I don't know if it gets any better later on, but boy, what a chore.
One would think by judging the art cover that a two handed melee character would be awesome, way to go Larian...

otherwise this game is amazing.

Melee does get easier after the start of the game (once you get up a few levels). Mid to late game it gets even more effective when combined with Bleed, etc, though I'm not sure of the difficulty compared to a ranged or mage build.
I didn't find melee combat particularly difficult in D2:ED (the normal difficulty in DKS is easier than it was in D2:ED), playing a strength based dual wielding warrior, though a bow definitely comes in handy even without investing in any ranger skills (you can do damage as opponents approach, and draw them to you rather than Rush Attacking into the middle of a group). Mid-game I still found a bow helpful sometimes, but after that only used one for breaking crates, etc.


Welcome to the forum.

I also have to agree with Raze, dual wield is the way to go for any class regardless of build. You shouldn't be, but you are proverbially penalized for using a single two handed weapon. The reason is two weapons lets you place up to twice the amount of enchantments and they stack. Two weapons also gives you up to twice the additional non-enchantment buffs and charms as well. There isn't a stat cap for two single handed weapons vs a single two handed weapons, so they can both receive the same level of stat boosts.

What about sword and shield? Would you say thats just as penalized? I usually go for that build.

No, sword and shield is different. The shield provides additional defensive attributes and (enabled) skills. Whether these are useful to you may depend on your style of play. Sword and shield also allows you the option to add additional buffs. However, you will miss out on the additional damage enchants only available to weapons. Two handed can provide additional per hit damage over a single weapon but since it does not provide any additional defensive bonuses, unlike sword and shield, it is similar to dual wield-- there is no reason to use two handed weapons over dual wielding aside from player preference. Unless your options for single handed weapons are limited, mostly in early game, I would always choose two singles over a dual.

I think there were some claims that two handers had greater reach and large damage arc but I never found it to be significant.

Thanks Candlebbq. Currently on 2nd playthrough without any points in sword style at moment.

I've got to admit - dual wield is so powerful, that Larian should probably consider seriously nerfing its next game/ruleset.

I recently noticed that +damage enchants affect both weapons if you're dual-wielding. For example: a +100 damage enchant on two (dual wield) weapons will give you +200 damage on EACH weapon, or +400 damage total across both weapons (not counting dual-wield skill penalties or bonuses). This means you get twice as much 'value' out of your damage enchants if you dual-wield (compared to using a single weapon).

Plus, if you weren't dual-wielding in the first place, you'd only be able to cast a single +100 damage enchant anyway... +100 vs. +400 - I wander which one I'd choose?

Playing single handed sword after 2-handed, the damage arc is different, and it makes a difference. Still, I found the game easier with 2-handed than with single-handed.

That's one the first things I noticed about this game. Its interesting that the buffs appear to be the final step in the calculation before its applied to each item. For example the additional magic damage affects each strike from magic blast and each magic missile instead of per cast.

The overall damage was scaled better in FoV. A single volley of magic missiles used to eliminate an entire group of enemies, by the end of FoV it usually kills only a single one. If you're used to it being completely overpowered you did need to try just a little harder in FoV.

balance isnt one of the game's strengths. another thing that weakens melee classes imo is that they arent particularly tougher than the ranged (including magic) classes but they have to get in the thick of things where they WILL get damaged. sure you can use points to up your life but then your damage would suffer. ranged characters by contrast dont have to have big hp pools to survive and can just put everything into damage.

that said however, the game is hardly difficult enough to required careful character planning and its very easy (maybe even inevitable if you dont purposely try to sabotage yourself) to eventually overpower enemies whichever path you take.

I believe that's part of the confusion-- there are no classes. Every hero is a hybrid. To add to this confusion the game requires you to start with either a melee, ranged, or magic weapon.

In a game with structured classes the skills are placed into trees requiring the player to obtain a certain degree of mastery in basic skills before additional skills can be unlocked. None of the skills in this game have a skills prerequisite; although some benefit from having different weapon selection. Additionally there is no breakdown of armor into classes or restriction of weapons usage into an specializations.

If you choose to only spec melee you are at a disadvantage. There is really no reason why a hero should not carry a ranged or magic weapon. You are given more than adequate quick swap slots to accommodate the extra ranged options. Even if you do not typically use a ranged weapon you should always be hunting for the best ranged or magic weapon available if for no other purpose than to kite, hit-and-fade, or pull.

Umm that is the first I have heard this, I played the entire game as a melee character and found myself to be Godly about half way through. I think it works great, I had a blast running into a crowd and cutting them down like the peons they were lol.

Melee is the best once you get life leach becaue when used in tandem with thousand strikes or wirlwind you can't die anymore. I always use twin weapons because I can double up on any enchantments I use.

Well, the thing is, there's more to melee than "walk up and hit it until it dies before you." Melee requires as much planning, strategy, and maneuvering as ranger or mage characters. You need to know when to dodge, when to attack, when to jump, and most importantly, when to run. You should have a decent bow with you to draw away single enemies, or finish off weakened ones after fleeing.

1 level of Whirlwind and Rush Attack are absolutely mandatory for melee. Whirlwind, even at 1, does your normal (combined, if dual-wielding) weapon damage to all nearby enemies. Rush Attack immediately takes you to the nearest enemy, reducing the time the archers and mages have to pelt you with projectiles.

Thousand Strikes is an excellent boss-killer, but is too expensive to use otherwise. And the worst part is that Mana Leech can't restore its Mana cost during , because the Mana isn't deducated until the attack is finished. You need at least enough Mana to use it twice to "leech" off Mana Leech like that.

For melee weapons, I ended up using the full Defenders of Aleroth set, plus the Annihilator Axe and Bracers, dual-wielding the weapons, giving me a ton of damage output. At level 16, I tore through the goblins and black ring early on in the Orobas Fjords (goblins fell in about 5 seconds of attacks each).

If anything, I'd say melee is MORE complex than ranger or mage, since those classes (for what little "classes" are worth here) are pretty simple: Rangers shoot with a bow from a distance, and Mages cast spells, which they choose one or two of (usually Magic Missile and Fireball early, maybe Firewall later).

Same here