Rangers with Shields?

[Kthaara]

<DIV>Saw a 30 Ranger in Zek the other day with a shield and a sword, pulling and killing the solo orcs near the gate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I watched him for a while and noticed that his health would get close to what mine was when I pulled them.  Am I missing something here?  Are we supposed to carry a shield and a sword?  It seemed to me that he took about twice as long to kill the mob as I do, but at level 30 shouldn't he know better?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry.  I am rambling.  Here is the question:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Has anyone found a use for 1-handed weapon and a shield past level 30?  Or, is it a waste of time and silver to try it?  I have never even attempted it since I figured that our best attack was dual-wield and bow.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Kwent</DIV>

[Tr]

I used to carry around a shield with AC in the low 400s and a 1 handed weapon that was slightly better than my dual wields. Soloing there's no reason not to use dual wield, since doing 2x damage > 400 extra AC. Occasionally if I had to tank something for a group my dps wasn't going to be good hitting in front of the mob anyways, so the shield helped a little bit. I even tanked for a TT group in EF when I was 49 with it and survived pretty well with 1 healer. Round shields are what we can use, and if you come across one no other class will really want it, but I wouldn't recommend spending money if you can use it on something else more important.

[Jinsou]

For a few levels in my 30's I used Ghoulbane and a shield almost exclusively (except when training my piercing). I've done many many parses and the biggest difference I've found DPS-wise between dual wielding and sword & board (considering they are in the same level tier) is 0-5 dps, and it usually fluxuates up or down depending on luck, ripostes, etc. Since your Combat Art damage is not reliant on your weapon damage, it will not effect your backstab or special attack damage either. Not even your ripostes calculate damage based on your weapon's damage (which is why even dual wielding you will see ripostes of 70-90+ dmg).This game is not EQ1. They've designed it so that we have the option to choose. If you want to wield a sword and shield as a ranger, feel free. You won't suffer in the DPS dept. The only obvious benefit of dual wielding over one-hand is the added stats you get from DW weapons (agi/str). For the most part the wis and int found on most shields is pretty useless.Also, once you get to level 40+ you really shouldn't be using one-hand wield style, if only because you want to be using heritage weapons like the Ykesha, PGT, and Serrated Bone Dirk. There aren't any decent 1h slash or pierce heritage items after the Ghoulbane.

[Tr]

ghoulbane is a high quality 1h weapon. if you had 2 same quality dual wield weaps you'd notice a big difference. dual wielding is supposed to be the same as a 2hs. as soon as you can get an sbd use dual wield from then on, because 1h won't even be close anymore.. and I also agree that a high agi dual wield weap could make up for a lot of the ac on the shield.

[Cex]

<DIV>Slightly off subject but If you find a good 1hs and a sheild with some +Str/+Agi hang onto them. Especially at higher levels. Until you can get your hands on a pair of slashing and a pair of peircing DW's its good to have for Raid mobs who many be resistant to one type or the other.</DIV>

[GoNom]

<DIV>One thing I was curious about in this debate, since poison has a base % to hit per successfull attack, wouldn't it be logical to say that using DW where you are hitting twice as often, increase the number of damage procs from poison?</DIV>

[Trei]

Base % yes, but also then adjusted proportionately by weapon delay... apparently.

[Moussacoy]

<DIV>You can use two separate poisons simultaneously when you dual wield, but as soon as you switch to one-handed and shield one of the poisons dissapates.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Frankly, I find using a shield almost worth losing the extra poison and second weapon when I fight solo, since the limiting factor on these battles is not so much "CAN I KILL HIM 10% quicker", but rather, "CAN I REDUCE HIS DAMAGE TO ME by 25-35%"</DIV>