i like warrior people but i can never decide what is the best choice of style sword and shield or two handed can anyone help me out?

Really, the issue is between speed and power.

I do sword and shield personally, but that's just me. I like the enhanced block because I am big into the block-hit-hit pattern. Also, 1-handed blades are faster. However, I can admit 2-handers have their uses... more damage=less required hits.

I've had the same dilemma before, but I've come up with a pretty cool system of working this out. If I know I'm going to be needing to deal with large creatures (ogres, trolls, etc) and a warrior-type is being played, use the big, 2-handed sword. It's possible to rush these big creatures, let them take a swing (which I'll dodge) and then get a quick attack in. Larger weapons make it easier to attack without needing to get too close.

If I'm going to need to attack humanoids, undead, and other smaller beings, usually it'll be the sword/sheild combo. Nothing is written in stone, though.

It's all about style and the character.

A one-handed weapon plus a shield is certainly the easier way to do it-- block, swing, swing -- block, swing, swing.... And it's arguably the better approach for a warrior, since you get hit a fair amount just standing there and blocking and swinging, so you get good armor experience. Plus one-handed weapons do less damage, so you have to hit more times, and weapon experience just depends on the number of hits, so your weapon skill goes up faster with a one-handed weapon. Add in the extra Armor Rating for a shield, and one-handed plus a shield almost certainly has the advantage.

But I love two-handed weapons. I didn't use them for a while, and when I finally did, it took a while to learn the strategies, but now they're my personal preference (although, for me, it really comes down to the character's preference rather than my own).

Two handed weapons are all about speed and mobility and timing. Since they swing so much slower, you have to make every swing count. And since you don't have a shield and the amount of damage decrease you get for blocking with a weapon is only half of what you get for a shield, plus you don't have the extra AR you get from a shield, you're best off to stay out of melee range entirely. But that's okay, because you've got all the extra reach of that two-handed weapon. So you move and circle, trying to keep your opponent right at the extent of your reach, so that you can hit him and he can't hit you. You have to watch for your opening and time it right and hit him (and it's especially nice if you can do it with a power swing), then back off again before you get hit and move and circle some more. If you do it right, you can fight some of the most dangerous enemies without even getting touched once.

It's absolutely the more pleasing skill. To me at least, there's just nothing quite like a perfectly played fight with a two-handed weapon.

If you take block and heavy armour go for a shield for the reasons gpstr kindly posted.
If you take neither a two handed weapon is a great way to deal damage, but use reach and power attacks with better timing if you go this route.
Which Renee Gade 2 kindly posted as well.

This is perfectly said. When I played blade users, I worked with all of it and came to the same conclusions. My preference was a very light, nimble, fast claymore user. Keep the baddies in that sweet spot where you can hit them, but they can't hit you. I also agree that sword and board is easier and safer.

I adore two-handed swords. I love them. I can't imagine playing a fantasy RPG with a one-handed sword and a shield. There's a kind of reckless bravado inherent in going without a shield that appeals to me. My Warrior characters don't wear helms either. In Morrowind they didn't wear pauldrons. Warriors live fast, drink hard and die young in my games.

Instead of thinking about whats better or more efficient. Think about what your character/build would use If he were real, also what would you rather stare at for hours. Still you can use both as long as you take block, which you should take anyway because even Claymore waving barbarians need to block sometimes.

I use two-handers very often as well. You can, did you know, equip a shield with a two-handed weapon? You gain the shield and any magic bonus, as long as you wield a two-handed weapon, like claymore, axe, hammer, bow. If you switch to a one-handed weapon, the shield will automatically equip on your arm.

I was under the impression that, although you can equip a shield when using a two-handed weapon, any enchantment on it will only come into effect if you unequip the two-handed weapon/equip a single-handed weapon instead. I could well be wrong, though this seems to be how it works for armour rating (see how your DR will change if you switch between a blade and a bow with a shield equipped), and I had always presumed this was also true of enchantments. I haven't tested it though.

Single-handed swords have three advantages over their two-handed brethren: they generally weigh less; freeing up a hand for a shield gives you an added enchantment slot (presuming the above is true); and (much) more critically two-handed weapons don't get sneak attack bonuses. Admittedly, this isn't so relevant for a pure blood-and-thunder warrior who fights utterly without guile, but for me it's always been too great a sacrifice to make. Even my Paladin couldn't resist the lure of sneak attacks, though this isn't so great from an RPing perspective admittedly.

No-- mpls Big Daddy is right-- while, as you note, you don't get the AR for a shield unless you equip a one-handed weapon and thus actually take out the shield, having it "equipped" with a two handed weapon (or with your bare hands) still gives you whatever enchantments are attached to it. But you're right on the rest, and particularly the sneak bonus. That's why, much though I love two-handed weapons, I prefer one-handed for a dungeon crawler. I love sneak attacks. Especially against NPC mages-- instead of chasing them all over the place, I just lay 'em out with a single 6x.

Ah, now that is interesting, perhaps my Imperial Agent should invest in a lightweight shield...

One-hand weapon and shield for me. The two-handed weapons are, as all weapons in this game really, horribly underpowered and therefore not worth losing the ability to block efficiently. For my character a dagger does more damage than a big heavy warhammer and it′s just ridiculous

I regularly pick up block points when I block with a claymore. Obviously I don't block as well as if I had a shield. Though I have to say, I fall in love with Oblivion every time I successfully do the expert power move with an enchanted fire claymore. Watching your victim shoot backwards, toppling to the ground and on fire, priceless. If you do it right with a smaller enemy like a wolf, or a spriggan, you can shoot them into the air over great distances... great distances for a sword whack that is. :cheat:

With my Spellsword (who is as close to a warrior as i'll play) i use both. When i need the better spell efficiency or when the enemy isn't that tough i use a two-handed weapon, if the enemy is a heavy hitter i buff up and go with a shield. As daddy mentioned you get the enchantment bonus of a shield even when using a two-handed weapon, bow or a staff, so it's useful to have along even if you don't use it.

With my Assassin i however use a defensive blade (from Armamentarium mod) for aesthetic reasons. Those reason being that a khajiit with two wakizashis looks much more deadly than one with a shortsword and shield :toughninja:

When fighting another warrior I like to go with A sword and shield to balance offense and defense, when Im against a mage or archer I go with a two hander because you cant block them as effectively and it becomes all about who swings the biggest hammer.