What are your thoughts on the following assassin buff.
Allow the assassin to dual wield any one handed weapon as long as it is paired with a claw.
(sword/claw or axe/claw or claw/mace… Etc)
This opens the door for so much, I think it would be a great addition to the class.
Maybe it comes with some type of negative effect that becomes a positive as you devote points to claw mastery or something.
Give the class the ability to treat the claw weapon class almost like how most classes treat a shield.
(Gives access to the “claw only” martial skills as well.)
What do you all think?
2 Likes
Ehh, I dunno. Seems to be a move away from the “fantasy” of the MA Sin, and gives less purpose really to Claw weapons, as the Sin is their only wielder. I would still love however, for her to be able to “double swing” claws targeting multiple foes like the Barbarian.
I get your apprehension to a degree.
But I would say that assassins with shields are far more removed from the fantasy than a claw/weapon dual-wield assassin. Non-claw weapons paired with shield is a super common assassin I see now.
There is also real-life historical relevance to pairing a smaller weapon like a claw or a short sword on the off-hand while dueling with a primary longer main weapon 
I’m fine with that once they change barbarian throwing mastery to ranged mastery to include bows/xbows, and once they add hard point synergies to druid summons allowing them to all be cast together, if you’re spending 60 points on wolves and bear you should be able to use your wolves and bear? Crazy idea, I know. Anyway, once those happen, I’m all for doing whatever your preferred change is to assassin or whatever.
I don’t like it. I’d prefer them to introduce 6 slot claws, that allow more sockets. But I think dual grief claws would be a little bit OP, as spider is already very strong in pvp.
tbh not a fan, only because it feels like you’d be a barbarian rather then an assassin.
An alternative might be that they open up sword runewords for claws, it always bugged me that wrist sword isn’t a sword, then why call it a sword.
You’d get access to things like “crescent moon” , “Lawbringer” the new “plague” runeword, might be op though.
I mean, then we start getting into why spears aren’t polearms? Spears are literally polearms, by definition. Then we get into the differences between all the mace/club/scepter differences…the reason why all this stuff is as it is is because it’s a game, and that’s how it was designed. That’s why spears are spears and polearms are polearms, despite being the same thing in real life. That’s why clubs are clubs and maces are maces and scepters are scepters, in real life they may all fall under the same category but we’re not in real life, we’re in a game, and the game has rules, and balances, and so on. So don’t be bothered that something called a Wrist Sword has sword in the name, yet is not considered a sword, this is Diablo 2, not real life.
My favorite mis-lableing is the Scutum/Aegis. D2 has Scutum as a ‘greek’ round shield, while the Aegis is the ‘tower shield’ skin. They got the names on these backwards as Aegis is ‘greek’ in origin and should more properly be round and Scutum, being Roman in origin should be the ‘tower shield’ skin.
1 Like