I honestly hope for the off hand to be small blade only, unless perked.
I'm ambidextrous irl, but I am still weaker in one arm, both in speed and strength as I use the off hand less and less.

As to how it'll work, we had power attacks in Oblivion.
The current trend now in games, is to add combos and attack chains, perks, finishing moves.. etc.
So odds on that some special moves will be added in some way.

TES dwarves are almost nothing like typical fantasy dwarves anyway.

On topic, the reason you don't see Dual-wielding as often as longsword/shield, two-handed, etc in history isn't because it was less effective in actuality, but simply because it was MUCH harder to master. It was simply easier to basically say "Okay, hold this big sheet of metal/wood up when your opponent tries to take a swing at you, then swing at him when he lets his guard down" or "Swing this big hunk of metal as hard as you can" than to teach all the complicated techniques that go into being effective with two weapons. Efficiency has always been a major factor in what the standard soldier is taught. Dual-wielding is simply less time-efficient to master than simpler arts like the shield or claymore.

That's not a good reason for it to be that way in the game. A warrior that trains with both arms will still be good with both arms, even if there is a little more power with one side than the other.


I agree with this. On a battlefield there would also need to be a lot more weapons made for everyone to fight with two, and if a weapon is dropped an enemy could pick it up, so it might not be a good idea for an army. That doesn't mean it can't be an effective fighting style for a single person though.

You can be a short muscular Bosmer with a long beard, it should be close enough. bliviongate:

does cutting a humans ears sharp make him a elf? No

nice try, but nope, TES is forever not the best rpg series ever unless they can con in dwarfs X3

I know a few others have already answered this but oh well...

Here's how I see it. You're not attacking with both weapons with the same button(alternating Mouse buttons or Gamepad triggers). The advantage comes from being able to deliver a second blow with your second weapon faster than you would have been able to with only one weapon equipped. Theoretically, you should also be able string together combination attacks when an opening or opportunity presents itself. It could also be useful when fighting multiple foes; if you can turn your attention between two surrounding enemies fast enough and deliver alternating strikes on each, essentially fending one off with your sword, and the other with your mace. Lastly you can block with two weapons, whereas it's been stated you won't be able to block with a sword+spell.

Shhhhttt! Dual wielding is cool ! It's a dream come true in TES game

did oblvion have blunt weapons ignore armor damage reduction? if so i could see the point in dual wielding. on the subject of attack speed.. it makes sense but does anyone know if bethesda confirmed the increased attck speed. Demon Souls allowed you to dual wield but you could only attack with one weapon at a time, the wait time for another attack (after attacking with a weapon) was the same for both weapons.
bascially i would consider dual wielding only if the following were met.
1. use charged attacks with both weapons simutanously
2. increased attack speed
3. different weapons such as blunt, blade, and spear have different affects on armor

I can easily see the advantage. I am playing morrowind right now and I have been switching between two short swords during fights, especially hard fights. One sword causes paralysis and the other does 1-20 fire damage, this would be easier to execute with one in each hand. If you have the same weapon in each hand meaning no real combination it results in helping keep maximum damage up by alternating swings causing less damge to each sword during a fight, basically giving your sword life double what it has.

Not only that but perks also add to the usefulness, two different weapon types means more than one weapon perk can be used at a time in a fight.

Those would logically be the three biggest advantages to it. Your third point is vaguely confirmed, with mace perks that ignore armor and axe perks that cause the character to bleed out. We don't know much about the overall perk system yet, but I would imagine it goes deep enough to give tactical meaning to dual wielding specific combinations of weapons.

I don't think your second point has been bluntly confirmed, but I imagine the attack with your second weapon would come in between the full animation of your first attack. For example you have shortswords in each hand. You swing and strike with the first one. Just as it connects you swing with the other one, and as you're pulling back your first wepon the second one is heading for the target. That seems to make sense since it has been confirmed that if you have dual fire spells on each hand you can send a stream of rapid-fire, fireballs at the enemy by alternating back and forth between each hand.

The first point hasn't been confirmed at all(as far as I know), but that would be great. I think, at the very least, we'll see some of that in the finishing moves the game offers.

I will just carry a pole-arm and kill all of these silly dual-wielders before they can reach me.

It's called "playstyle". What's it have to do with advantages? It's whether or not you like doing it.

A few posts have been deleted. It really isn't necessary or appreciated to post insults about people who like/dislike a feature, and if you see it happening, don't quote it and call it out. Just hit the report button, please.

Which would be worse; getting stabbed once, by one sword, or getting stabbed twice, by two swords?
I imagine you will attack about 50% faster, and the power attack will do around 2x damage, assuming you have 2 of the same weapon. Which thinking about it, it would be cool if there were bonuses for holding certain weapons together. I mean, holding a Daedric mace in one hand, and a Glass shortsword in the other would kind of throw off my balance I think lol.

sacrifice of defense for the most damage and quickest attacks, especially if both are enchanted.

Dual wielding = WIN.

Possible advantages to dual wielding:

1: Higher attack rate as you alternate swings

2: Higher enchantment potential (Pick any enchantment- with 2 weapons, you get it twice or can use 2 different enchantments, one on each weapon)

3: Use of multiple weapon-type bonuses by mixing weapons (axe + sword, sword + mace, etc)

4: Under new combat system, ability to heal at all (spells must be "equipped" to be cast, so you'll have to dual-wield a healing spell and a weapon to heal while fighting)

Y'want more?

:biggrin: Not if your character's name is One-Giant-Arm. :biggrin:

From a real-life standpoint, a technique like this actually makes more sense than two heavy weapons does. A real life fighter would use the mace as his/her main striking weapon, while the lighter shortsword would be used for both defense (parrying) and offense (feints to get your opponent's guard down or a quick jab at an open area)

Whether maces were actually dual-wielded in any way in real life, I can't say though.

Not at all.

Yeah I don't really like the idea of dual wielding since it's totally unpractical in real life, but I guess it's good for roleplaying and besides, who can pull of wearing 2 axes better than a crude, ugly, skull-cracking barbarian.

http://th05.deviantart.net/fs40/PRE/f/2009/010/d/e/Female_Death_Dealer_2009_by_Necrella.jpg :foodndrink:

I can see how duel wielding weapons could be cool if was something like a class you can upgrade. A lot of warriors in medieval times trained to duel wield weapons. But duel wielding shields sounds kind of strange to me. who knows though! Bethesda is very creative!

"If one sword has a power of 100, then using two swords would make it 200, right?"
— Lloyd Irving, Tales Of Symphonia

First off, it's dual wielding, not duel. Dual meants two, you are wielding two weapons.

The reason is simple, you look cool. that's the only reason needed.

Yeah, wait to see actual gameplay before critisizing its usefulness.