To be fair, no matter what you did, if you didn't get shot by an archer or speared to death, tackly stabby death wasn't that uncommon.

Dual shields might be fun, but it's not in the game. Gstaff clarified a while ago that we can't equip two shields at once.

They must fix that oversight!

And I'm guessing that's why they made dual-shielding impossible, if Fearless Hero can be believed. I would have liked a more organic solution, because I don't like limitations just for the sake of balance, such as not allowing dual wielding swords to block. But I guess I prefer that to having dual-shielding being the most effective build in the game...

I can't understand why those who's never seen people get hit with shield bashes are still trying to argue that shield bashes can't kill or seriously hurt people. There's a reason why people aren't usually allowed to shield bash each other at medieval reenactment events: it can seriously mess you up that's why.

I think it depends on what reenactment things you go to. The Heavy Metal combat guys I watch on youtube fight pretty hardcoe (it ends up brawly I suppose, but that's how people fight, not that elegant swordsmanship stuff), although it might be justified as all of them wear full plate.

I've been to Belagarth once. Shield bashing was allowed, as was kicking other people's shields. It's dangerous, but nowhere near as dangerous as sharpened steel that has the advantage of a leveraged attack. If you sharpen the edge, you risk cutting yourself more than the enemy. Also, the reach is maybe a couple inches beyond your arm, rather than the 2 feet of a weapon.

Shields are really only good for stopping missile weapons. If arrows didn't exist, everyone would have had two weapons instead. A shield bash is good in a pinch, but as a go-to tactic, it's simply not as effective for disabling an opponent.

I laughed whole-heartedly.

also, riot shields break more bones than batons. so in a modern context, if someone decides to revolutionize law enforcement and strap two of them that are half that size to every armored riot cop i can expect see a lot more police brutality charges filed, and far less violent [or otherwise] protests.

Sorry, I should have linked the source first: http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1176076-polearms-confirmed/page__view__findpost__p__17389912.

I figured you were on the level, simply because you said Gstaff rather than "I heard somewhere." I just had to cover my own butt, in case you were lying...for whatever advantage that would give you.

*The whole "pole arm" debate is interesting. The thing is, two handed axes are technically pole arms, but in the game, they function just as two handed axes. In Morrowind, Halberds were technically "spears." They had less chopping power than axes, but much better stabbing power. Also, longer range.

Without a shield in a battle (even without range weapons) you're dead. In dense formations shieldwalls/phalanxes were made near impenetrable from the front due to shields. Even in single combat a shield is a must.

Spartans were known for killing more with their shields over anything else. I want to dual-shields too. :homestar:

Homestarrunner emoticon, really? hahaha

Not necessarily, if you're any sort of decent with your weapon and how you move. And hell, if you're good with a spear, a shield isn't necessary at all.

But again, that's all preference in fighting style.

We still have mods right? I can see a dual-shielding mod being released right after the release of skyrim...

1. It is same as with reversed grip daggers- without any training or experience, there is actually high risk of self-inflicted damage.
2. BS, shield is good at stopping anything that did not penetrate it
3. Of course sword/shield combination is far more versatile than sword/sword or shield/shield, because either way you have weapon in each hand (and it is better to have offensive and defensive weapon, than just weapon of one type)
4. Got any actual real life experience with shields to judge them so harshly?

Basically my original point (which has been totally overshadowed now, lol) was that I think it would be fun and interesting to play as a purely reactive/defensive fighter; to not carry traditional weapons like swords and clubs and to not pick a fight but to let the fight come to you.

It seems to me that with all the blocking perks that have been confirmed thus far, someone with a shield can: Deflect an arrow, run up, whack the shooter in the face, take his weapon, knock him to the ground, and smack him repeatedly with your shield OR METAL ARMGUARDS as he feebly tries to fend you off, and maybe even stop a spell or two along the way. This sounds just like something out of a martial arts movie too, lol.

Now if you were to couple that with a taunt or a frenzy spell, your enemies would basically be beating themselves to death trying unsuccessfully to take you out.

Tell me that doesn't sound pretty cool, lol.

I would like to be actually able to throw a shield or something. That'd be interesting.

Not true, check out this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRZ22UCnMNk (enough to split a skull and kill a man)

Combining two shields could be funny, especially coupled with the Dragon shouts. For some reason this reminds me of Gamara, the fire breathing giant turtle monster in Japanese cinema.

I hope theres a shield in game that has a sharp edge so you can stab your enemies. dual weild would be insane

Shields were rendered obsolete in real life by Full Plate Armors... but games generally prefer not to have such armors protect as well as they did in real life to keep them fun (It would be boring playing someone who's nigh-invulnerable just from their armor).

And I hope that the developers have seen the outrage against the inability to dual-wield shields, and change their stance on it.

Brilliance. It would be great for a puny level 1 Bosmer to dual-wield shields while running away from a giant giant.