From Software The Dark Souls Discussion Thread

[Arnust]

Eh, that's something I don't feel like they needed AT ALL to change, let alone "fix". If you want to be a goodye two shoes turn off the game or spend the rest of your playtime as a coop help, because that'd just pretty much go against the slight theme of amorality from your character and the "Heroes" of this world in general. Instead just fucking open up that one gate on Anor Londo.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

True, but her motivation for stopping you with the alternate cutscene doesn't really make sense in vanilla. She knows you can hold your own against the Abyss, why try to stop you?
I get defending her master's grave, its the other cutscene that doesn't make much sense.

 

[Arnust]

True, but her motivation for stopping you with the alternate cutscene doesn't really make sense in vanilla. She knows you can hold your own against the Abyss, why try to stop you?
I get defending her master's grave, its the other cutscene that doesn't make much sense.

Sooo... Add something that makes less sense? I don't know, in the alternate cutscene she does recognize you, but she has as much a need to defend it as you have to get his relic. She acknowledges you, but that doesn't mean she's just gonna give up her purpose. It would even be a disservice to yourself, as you saved her to ultimately become able to reach that point. All that considering animal instinct and loyalty, she's still not a person y'know.

 

[RoSoDude]

Letting you skip bossfights (especially if you just happen to face Manus first and don't want to skip Sif) is lame. Not an improvement at all, and antithetical to the game's rules and general design goals. Kill the puppy.

A reasonable improvement that doesn't require them to make Lost Izalith a real level or Bed of Chaos a real bossfight would be something like adding a bonfire to lower New Londo Ruins (so you don't have to go down an elevator every time you face the Four Kings), or making balance and gameplay improvements along the lines of DS2 SOTFS, or just doing the sort of minor changes offered by InfernoPlus:

 

[Arnust]

Anyway, I don't really disagree with becoming able to skip, or practically skip bosses. But it has to be replaced with something, become an option rather than a speedrunning no-brainer.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

You could already skip bosses in Dark Souls 1. The Firesage and Centipede demon can be skipped if you open the Chaos Servant shortcut, Capra and Gaping Dragon can be completely bypassed if you take the drake valley route to Blight town.

I'd rather be able to skip bosses than to fight them every single time if I want to go somewhere. Like in Dark Souls 2.

 

[The Decline]

The Rekindled mod gave the Abyss Greatsword the abyss walking ability. So you can spare Sif, but you have beat Artorias in the DLC first.

 

[Arnust]

You could already skip bosses in Dark Souls 1. The Firesage and Centipede demon can be skipped if you open the Chaos Servant shortcut, Capra and Gaping Dragon can be completely bypassed if you take the drake valley route to Blight town.

And that's what I'm saying by it being replaced by something. Honestly, with most DS1 Skips it's actually more time to go around than to just knock them out of the way. But it's an option, sure. Even if a usually pointless one. However, getting to the actual boss and then getting a "meh, you do you" sounds lame as hell unless it has some really specific tone to it, or something.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Man, it's hard to find a good looking sword for a Dexterity build, at least early on. I farmed Balder Knights until I finally got the Balder Side Sword, but it's so ridiculously long, it makes your character look like a retard, especially when combined with the tiny buckler.

Scimitar and Falchion also look kinda bad, in combination with the buckler.

Regular longsword looks OK, but its scaling is crap with Dex.

So I finally settled on the regular rapier.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

The length is good though. Gives you a longer threat range. Its better having a long weapon than a short weapon, as it allows you to disengage more easily after landing a hit.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Just grab the Uchigatana and all your troubles in (un)life are over.

Can't, because you can't parry with 2 handed weapons in DS1. Wielding a katana with one hand (or even worse, with a shield) feels really wrong and fake to me, and if I two hand it, I would have to roll for defense against everything, which is retarded and feels way less cool than precision-parrying everything, which is what I am doing now.

Decided not to use the rapier either, since being able to hold up the shield and attack feels like cheating.

Vaccilating between BSS and longsword.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I thought about rapier/dagger or even rapier/bare hand (you can parry with bare-hand in DS), but I do like the buckler look, looks really bad-ass. Sword/dagger looks like a Renaissance pansy.

Longswords have a nice looking blade, but the handle is way too long for a sword meant to be one-handed (at least part of the time). Actual longswords from medieval times had more of a hand-and-a-half hilt, with the second hand usually resting partly on the pommel. This was because they were still often used with shields, and one-handing a long hilted sword is unwieldy. The hilts got really long later on, once these swords were used two-handed all the time.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Just grab the Uchigatana and all your troubles in (un)life are over.

Can't, because you can't parry with 2 handed weapons in DS1. Wielding a katana with one hand (or even worse, with a shield) feels really wrong and fake to me, and if I two hand it, I would have to roll for defense against everything, which is retarded and feels way less cool than precision-parrying everything, which is what I am doing now.

Actually, there was a type of uchigatana in the 16th century called a katate-uchi that was designed to be used one handed. It later evolved into the wakizashi.
So it isn't completely wrong to use the uchigatana one handed, as there was a one handed variant.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Actually, there was a type of uchigatana in the 16th century called a katate-uchi that was designed to be used one handed. It later evolved into the wakizashi.
So it isn't completely wrong to use the uchigatana one handed, as there was a one handed variant.

What was it used for? Since the Japanese did not use shields, as far as I know, nor is this a thrusting sword like the rapier, where one-handed usage can give you extra reach, I don't see how this would give any advantage over a 2-handed katana, except maybe from horseback.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Actually, there was a type of uchigatana in the 16th century called a katate-uchi that was designed to be used one handed. It later evolved into the wakizashi.
So it isn't completely wrong to use the uchigatana one handed, as there was a one handed variant.

What was it used for? Since the Japanese did not use shields, as far as I know, nor is this a thrusting sword like the rapier, where one-handed usage can give you extra reach, I don't see how this would give any advantage over a 2-handed katana, except maybe from horseback.

Actually, they Japanese did use shields, just not commonly. Most warriors prefered to use it with another weapon.

https://www.martialartswords.com/blogs/articles/sword-spotlight-the-katate-uchi

Because it was intended for one hand use, the katate-uchi was often wielded with either another weapon or a shield. Wielding the katate-uchi with a shield allowed for a higher level of defense. With that said, however, shields weren't particularly popular or widely used in feudal Japan. Most samurai warriors preferred to carry and use two swords instead of a sword and shield.

Not entirely sure why they didn't like shields though. You'd think that with the focus on ranged weapons (the bow and the spear were the primary weapons of Feudal Japanese armies. The sword was more of a side arm or a cavalry weapon), they would be more eager to adopt shields.
Apparently the Samurai didn't need to use them because their armor has a built-in shield (those big shoulder pad things), but you'd think the Ashigaru would have them as standard issue instead of two-handing spears.
Maybe their tactics were more geared around offense, or maybe their armor was just that good, even on grunts. Idk, but for what ever the reason, shields weren't really popular. They had them, just not to the same extent as European armies.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

but the handle is way too long for a sword meant to be one-handed (at least part of the time).

DaS2's power stancing is going to give you an aneurysm.

Spoiler

Especially power stanced Smelter Hammers. Or Greatswords (the Dragonslayer expy, not the class). Or any ultra greatsword, really.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Because it was intended for one hand use, the katate-uchi was often wielded with either another weapon or a shield. Wielding the katate-uchi with a shield allowed for a higher level of defense. With that said, however, shields weren't particularly popular or widely used in feudal Japan. Most samurai warriors preferred to carry and use two swords instead of a sword and shield.

Umm, this sounds like bs (not from you, from that website). I don't think there are any historical records of any soldiers from anywhere ever using dual weapons regularly. This was occasionally done in dueling (Renaissance Europe, or even Musashi supposedly in Japan), where the smaller off hand weapon served for defense, but on the battlefield, it would be literal suicide (a short blade is not very good at parrying arrows and polearms and the like).

My uneducated guess would be that if one-handed weapons WERE used in a setting where shields weren't common, it would probably be for horseback usage (so the other hand would be free to control the reins, plus dual wielding on top of a horse is awkward), or just as a smaller sidearm that gets less in a way.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Well, another explanation I found was that due to their smaller size and weight, they were easier to transport and use in close quarters fighting. Sort of how you would use a pistol in tunnels instead of a rifle.

http://www.exoticdefense.com/katate-uchi/

. The warriors used single hand fighting technique using this sword hence their popular name “One Handed Fighting Sword”. Indeed this type of swords allowed the fighter to easily manipulate it using one hand during close quarter fighting.

Light weight

Katate-uchi sword is light in weight, an ideal feature that allows the user to swiftly manipulate the sword in a close range fight. Also, the sword is not bulk to carry over long distance.

I speculate that since it was a little shorter you can draw it faster, which means that if you get ambushed or suddenly find yourself facing an enemy in a corridor you can quickly defend yourself.
Apparently at the time there was a marshal art that favored one handed sword fighting, and it was developed for that purpose.
Its not really clear though. There isn't much on it, because it's been replaced by the wakizashi. I suppose one could study how that was used, and apply that to the katate-uchi.
It does appear to be part of an ongoing process to try to improve upon the tachi design, so it might have been an experiment. Sort of like how in Europe there was a lot of variation in long sword design to try to cover certain niches.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Because it was intended for one hand use, the katate-uchi was often wielded with either another weapon or a shield. Wielding the katate-uchi with a shield allowed for a higher level of defense. With that said, however, shields weren't particularly popular or widely used in feudal Japan. Most samurai warriors preferred to carry and use two swords instead of a sword and shield.

Umm, this sounds like bs (not from you, from that website). I don't think there are any historical records of any soldiers from anywhere ever using dual weapons regularly. This was occasionally done in dueling (Renaissance Europe, or even Musashi supposedly in Japan), where the smaller off hand weapon served for defense, but on the battlefield, it would be literal suicide (a short blade is not very good at parrying arrows and polearms and the like).

My uneducated guess would be that if one-handed weapons WERE used in a setting where shields weren't common, it would probably be for horseback usage (so the other hand would be free to control the reins, plus dual wielding on top of a horse is awkward), or just as a smaller sidearm that gets less in a way.

The problem with that is that you don't want a short weapon on horseback, as you need something to reach infantry. The tachi already fulfilled that niche; it was a respectable length (70-80 centimeters, compared to the katana's 60cm) and could be used one or two handed. Apparently the momentum of the horse allowed them to cut effectively while using just one hand, where on foot you'd need to use 2 hands to achieve a similar effect.

The closest European counterpart I could think would probably be 19th century period sabers, which had a similar design and use.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

The problem with that is that you don't want a short weapon on horseback, as you need something to reach infantry. The tachi already fulfilled that niche; it was a respectable length (70-80 centimeters, compared to the katana's 60cm) and could be used one or two handed. Apparently the momentum of the horse allowed them to cut effectively while using just one hand, where on foot you'd need to use 2 hands to achieve a similar effect.

The closest European counterpart I could think would probably be 19th century period sabers, which had a similar design and use.

It's not short though. I think the blade is roughly the same length as a katana, only the hilt is shorter, which wouldn't matter. Having a shorter hilt would let you wield the weapon more effectively with one hand from horseback.

Well, another explanation I found was that due to their smaller size and weight, they were easier to transport and use in close quarters fighting. Sort of how you would use a pistol in tunnels instead of a rifle.

I think that's why Knights had a dagger in a addition to their regular sword, and Samurai had the Wakizashi. Those short weapons would be invaluable in confined quarters or if the opponent got in close. But the one-handed sword wouldn't really offer the same advantages, since its blade is still long and it would have the same issues as a katana in those circumstances.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Went through 4 bosses (some were mini-bosses) the last 2 days. Killed that ugly headless thing below the armorsmith in the Undead Parish, by strafe-rolling to its back. Then killed the Black Knight with the glaive in the Darkroot Basin by parrying/countering. Did it the same way with Havel. Yesterday took out the Capra Demon by rolling. That is probably the single most annoying boss fight so far, that room is tiny, no space no roll, camera is blocked, his dogs trap you against walls, and his swords cover the whole room. It's like a meat-grinder with broken furniture to stub your toes on. Took like 20 tries. Still triggered.

Been exploring Darkroot Garden since then. It seems like a great place to farm souls, since everyone there drops a ton of them, but they are also pretty tough.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Yeah, Capra demon is considered to be one of the few boss fights that's absolute, unfair, bullshit.
Good thing there's an exploit where you can just throw something like 50 black fire bombs to kill it without having to step into the goat's rape closet.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Do you guys think there are some attacks that are unparryable that should be parryable? What I mean is, some humanoid enemies of your size have regular attacks that ought to be parryable, but I just can't do it. I don't know if it's because they are too fast, or just unparryable and/or glitched. The two enemies I've seen with this so far are the Assassin Thieves in lower Undead Burg and the Skeletons outside the Catacombs. If you just run up to them, they do this first quick attack which I can NEVER parry, my parry animation just does not go off. Could be just because my reflexes suck I guess, but I am able to parry Black Knight attacks, which are ridiculously quick at times, but never these guys' first attack.

However, if I hold up block to weather their first attack, and then switch to parrying, it works much better, because their subsequent attacks are slower. Anybody else experience this?

 

[L'Montes]

Any fight that has you fighting the camera will feel a bit unfair. Also, fights where the enemies aren't subject to any of the same restrictions as you (e.g. - your attacks ricochet off a nearby surface, theirs fly through it). Souls in particular can often feel awkward/unfair in fights that have multiple targets because the combat/lock system can be more than a little poorly suited to handling multiple opponents (Bloodborne aside) - it was an issue a lot of people took with 2.

Capra manages to combine those factors in a way. It probably doesn't help that the adds in the fights are dogs, which are somewhat infamous for their weird spazzy movements. It's not my least favorite fight in the series, but it's top 5 worst imho.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Do you guys think there are some attacks that are unparryable that should be parryable? What I mean is, some humanoid enemies of your size have regular attacks that ought to be parryable, but I just can't do it. I don't know if it's because they are too fast, or just unparryable and/or glitched. The two enemies I've seen with this so far are the Assassin Thieves in lower Undead Burg and the Skeletons outside the Catacombs. If you just run up to them, they do this first quick attack which I can NEVER parry, my parry animation just does not go off. Could be just because my reflexes suck I guess, but I am able to parry Black Knight attacks, which are ridiculously quick at times, but never these guys' first attack.

However, if I hold up block to weather their first attack, and then switch to parrying, it works much better, because their subsequent attacks are slower. Anybody else experience this?

Apparently you can parry all of the assassins' knife attacks, except for the throwing knife.
What shield are you using? Different shields have different parry times and frames of parrying animation. Try doing it with a target shield, buckler or parrying knife, which have higher active frames and are a bit faster.

Its been a while, but I believe in dark souls 1 you have to parry at the beginning of the attack animation but after the windup.