I love how people are completely ignoring weapon specific perks within the 1h/2h Skills, witch result in more weapon specific characters than Oblivion or Morrowind.

Wisdom for the ages.

There should be one-handed, two-handed, and dual-wield skills.

Not if it′s true what some say that you will be able to get all the perks... then everyone will be even more the same than in Oblivion.

itll be alot harder than it was in oblivion tho since the higher lvl u r the less the skills at lower lvls will effect ur lvling

It would probably be more like this.

Dear diary day 20. I've been fighting with a mace and an axe, but I've lost them. No worries though. I'm not stupid enough to think a dagger could be slammed into something. Logic dictats that with a small thing like this, I'd need to get close, be more sneeky. To bad I never bothered to focus on that before. I'll have to try and learn out to be sneeky now.

Dear Diary day 25. I'm pretty good at being sneeky. At first I couldn't even get close to people and they'd know I was there. Now I can get behind people and stab them. Though I still have to figure out how those master assassins do all that crazy stuff and not even leave a mark! (Perk)

No. You can take both blade and blunt in Oblivion too. Skyrim just has a re-organization + perks. Ends up with more options.

Through the screen in GI we have determined that there are more than 100 perks and only 50 can be attained through leveling. On top of that we have o idea about exclusions which prevent you from taking certain perks based on certain criteria.

50 levels 180 perks, you can take less than a third. Sure you can take all the perks for a weapon skill, but that's 10 levels with no persuasion, magic or defense. Hard to see how everyone will be all the same. Seems this is a system that demands specialization, rather than everyone ending up with 100 in all skills and attributes,and being the same. Each end game character should be different, I'm all for this.

Edit: Actually scrap everything I said, what zen1966 just enlightened me about has brightened my day and made me drop any arguments.

Can′t wait for Skyrim

lol :celebration: Glad your with us.

Using a baseball bat (two-handed) will get you good at playing baseball.
If your good a baseball, you'll be better at tennis (playing two-handed) than a complete beginner, but still not that great.
If your good a playing tennis (two-handed) you'll be good at playing tennis (one-handed).

I don't like the one-versus-two handed weapons skills (would've preferred light/heavy/long/ranged), but increasing your sword skill by 1 should give you 1/2 a bonus skill point to similar weapons like axe/blunt.

Actually that makes perfect sense. A battle axe is nothing like one-handed axe. A battle axe is far to heavy to be used the way as a smaller axe. My argument is, weight is the key difference between weapon proficiency. Training your joints to slash, thrust, and chop with a one-handed weapon would allow you to use any weapon of similar weight and grip to the same effect. Any true combatant would instantly recognize their weapon's strength and weaknesses and adjust his tactics accordingly. Now if that same fighter tried to use a heavy weapon, which requires two hands, he would run into difficulties. The weight of his swing, the balance of his form, and the strength requirement in general would require a new set of skills. He would have to train his muscles in both arms to move accordingly. A person could easily hurt them self using a heavy weapon without proper conditioning.

Now people like to throw up the dagger card, which is silly. Ofcourse using a small weapon is different from a sword or axe, but considering the dagger is the only "small-arms" in the game, we can make an exception.

I can understand how people like multiple skills, but saying this new system isn't realistic is non-sense. I've never cared about the skills, it never affected how I played the game, but I feel the skill list seems more organic and real.

I think Blade and blunt was fine and i hope they use it for Skyrim. If your fighting with a sword your objective is to cut the person your fighting into pieces or stab him. Now with a blunt weapon its brute force the shear swinging of a weapon into someone to cause blunt damage. Now with a two handed weapon would it be diffrent, yes it would but having a 1-H and 2-H blunt and blade class wouldn't make alot of sense nor would it be practical.

Um your all assuming these are 1 handed and 2 handed melee... it just says 1 handed weapons...

You might find there is only one handed and two handed weapons no ranged or unarmed.

well blade and blunt WOULD be fine if they actaully acted different... but if theyre anythin lik oblivion then its not fine since they were the same. were better off with 1handed/2handed since they actually acted different in oblivion

Bows are reworked ( longer todraw string, more damage ) so they are in. Assuming punching is default if nothing equipped to one or both hands.

As long as they still have archery/ranged and hand to hand I'm fine with it, it will be the same amount of weapon skills.Bit worried that we won't see hand to hand.

There better be hand to hand. If there isn't I'll throw a saiyan sized conniption fit. :verymad:

im sure its still in. im pretty sure if u dont dual wield the left hand will be ur fist. plus they already hav a good amount of perks for un-armed from FO

Yes but as I just said if its one handed and 2 handed weapons and not one handed and two handed melee weapons then bows would be two handed weapons. If you played fallout new vegas this would make sense as in that game they have thrown melee weapons.

I'm glad for the change, if for no other reason than it implies that we'll be getting more 2-handed weapons this time around.

wait wait WAIT!!! where does it OFFICIALLY state that they cut it to one-handed and two-handed!

I honestly think people are so eager to complain that when they saw a thread about it they immediately jumped to conclusions!

I think perks will make the difference. That said have we got confirmation of a 1 handed or 2 handed skill?

The change, that Im pretty sure is implied for I haven't seen them actually say it, sounds terrible to me.
It makes no sense, just like adding axe to blunt made no sense.
The difference between a mace and a two handed warhammer is how you hold it. The targets are the same, the strengths and weaknesses are similar, and they require the same attributes, endurance and strength to effectively operate. Axes may use endurance and strength as well, but they do not target the same areas. Nor are they the same in striking, because it is important to keep the axe blade from shifting or it won't cut cleanly whereas a mace can slide 360 degrees during the impact and the damage on the target will be the same (although congratz you got a broken wrist). Just like longswords, which are primarily hacking and slashing but often used for thrusting and are versatile in their motions, are nothing like short swords, which are only useful for thrusting. They shouldn't boil the combat skills down because they are all used very different. Just because I was good with a dagger doesn't mean I should be good with a claymore. Bethesda's response was to make me good with a mace instead? It doesn't make sense...

Maybe for TES VI we can get a single combat stat so those, "Im awesome with an axe why can't I use a sword" crowd is happy. Its only the trend im seeing...
:swear:

And now I take my leave to calm down
*walks away*