Difference between agility based weapons?

Well, title speaks for itself, but I can expand my thought: what is actual mechanical difference between shortswords, hunting swords and sabers? Ok, some have certain damage type better than others, but… Shortswords look like best choice - universal, best damage numbers, everything like that. There are cutting swords, stabbing swords, swords of a little of both. And if we take sabers to compare, they would be worse than shortswords of 1-2 levels lower. Hunting swords are a bit better in this case, but still - I used them just because they looked interesting, and nothing more.

I miss some hidden characteristic like reach or attack speed?

I’m sure that there is a reach difference, some weapons are visually longer.

Well, yep, but even shortsword is not that “short”, it is just one-handed. So , some statistics, recovered from code or any other source could be cool to see.

I use to play with shortswords, because they visually fit my “forest hunter” visual style and fighting preferences, but from time to time I want to try sabers (well, until I see their stats, which are horrible). And as I’m not entirely sure about what I exchange on lower damage…

Agility-based swords (shortsword, sabre, hunting sword) differ from longswords in that they’re agility-based (a minimum level of agility is required for them to deal nominal damage, higher agility increases this damage further) and they use different combos.

There are several differences between shortsword, sabre and hunting swords. Sabres are generally balanced towards cutting vs stabbing as are some hunting swords. Shortswords have better defence stats than other one handed swords. Some hunting swords have very good durability stat, but defense is generally not the best. If you want to use a one handed sword without a shield, go for the shortsword. Shortswords also appear to have the highest quality among other one handed swords.

In comparison to longswords, one handed swords can do most (but not all!) combos with a shield equipped, while longswords can still be used with a shield equipped, but can perform no combos. On the other hand longswords have the highest defense stat of all weapons, which makes them the best weapon to use with a torch equipped.

Swords in general have a significantly higher speed and reach compared to maces and axes, but fare badly against plate armor (save for the best swords).

If you want to play it safe, you will need at least one longsword, one short weapon, one shield and a torch at all times so you can succesfully engage archers and enemies in the dark.

When playing a melee-oriented character, one handed swords have no specific advantage, as you will need strength for carrying heavy armor and using anti-armor weaponry, while you will also level up agility while using strength-based weapons.

1 Like

I wonder what is the real physical background behind the fact that sabres are agility-based and longswords are strength-based?

Most swords used by most humans across most of time tend to weight the same and have similar reach, because you want the most massive weapon that you can reliably use. When you take the average person, train them in the average way and provide them with average nutrition, they’ll develop a physique within a range that will allow them to use the average sword. During the Napoleonic Wars infantry was issued cutlasses while the cavalry and officers were issued sabers (some officers carried smallswords, but that’s beyond the point). Infantry cutlasses and cavalry sabres had similar shapes, similar handguards, but the cutlasses were shorter and had a thicker cross-section. This allowed the cutlass to weight exactly the same as the sabre while allowing fighting in more confined spaces (the infantry also had bayonets for melee at longer range).

The games gives different and incremental strength requirements to simulate progression, but there’s absolutely no reason in Heaven and Earth why the Bailiff’s Mace should deal same damage as the Ceremonial Mace and still have a strength requirement of 10 vs 13. There’s no reason why Fearnot and Merchant’s sword deal similar damage, with the former having a requirement of 5 and the latter of 8, despite it being actually lighter.

All melee weapons require a mix of physical strength and coordination to use, but it’s not like you’ll be swinging that shortsword with your legs for it to require agility to use.

1 Like

Okay, thanks. Now I cannot understand the reason why this division is implemented in the game in the first place :frowning:

So you can make an archer character, who’s dressed in light armor and who uses a short sword and shield and make full use of your agility (agility increases speed, while heavy load decreases speed).

So you can make an archer character, who’s dressed in light armor and who uses a short sword and shield and make full use of your agility (agility increases speed, while heavy load decreases speed).

Yep, exactly how I play. More stealth, less honor, sometimes poison on the blade. And archery. Still feels OP as shit after some time - game definitely needs a weapon balancing mod which lowers high level weapon damage, to be less skyrocketing.

Try engaging a few halberd-wielding enemies at once. Not much room for soaking up that damage with your dark saxon gambeson and dark combat jacket.