I remember a guy here on the forum a specialist on medieval weapons he said that medieval weapons more so depends on the weight than the style, so perhaps one-handed and two-handed makes good sense
But anyways I don't care, I don't think this will change a lot

Makes sense to me. Swinging a one-handed weapon seems to be relatively similar regardless if its a bunch of spikes on the end (mace) or a single blade (sword).

I haven't seen any information regarding official confirmation of skills other than the one screeny in GI and that Mysticism is cut.

I think this new system could be really good and make much more sense than any of the other previous games, while allowing for deeper character development. It's all going to come down to the depth and breadth of available perks.

Interesting perspective. I am personally looking forward to incentives to start new characters instead of working on raising all of the skills for one character as high as possible. I easily had half a dozen characters or more in MW and OB. I am hoping the new system still has incentive to try out new builds. FO3 really lacked any incentive in this respect as it was so easy to get all skills uber high.

Your assuming its one handed melee weapons its one handed weapons....

I think there are 2 weapon skills one hnaded and two handed weapons.. no ranged or unarmed everything is one or two handed.

With enough perks this allows you to still become a master of several types of weaponry.. just need to dedcate more perks to weapon perks.

Good point. I was assuming that Marksman and Unarmed are still in. If what you say is really how they organize it then it would make no sense at all. Ranged would fall under Two Handed Weapon skill and getting better with a bow doesn't really translate to getting better with a claymore. Perks could address this sure, but it would just feel shortcutted. Also then unarmed would likely have to be forced into One Handed to keep the balance of weapon types/skills and that doesn't really translate well either. Of course, this assumes that Unarmed is still in the game.

Nah. I still think Marksman and Hand to Hand are separate, as getting better with a sword would not mean you're automatically better with a bow or your fists.

Besides, Bethesda isn't dense (aka stupid) enough to do something like that.

If we were to go by this logic, then we could assume all magic would fall under one hand, seeing as you actually have to assign magic to hands now. But we know this isn't the case.

I hope that some skills from Daggerfell return, such as climbing.

I would live to see polearms return, spears and shields everyone.

I use Medieval weapons as well, mostly the Longsword and polearms. Weight and length are interesting ideas in their own right, mostly because of momentum/inertia and how you treat range, measure, and tempo. What I like about a move to one and two handed weapon skills is the fact that it mirrors what I do with my weapons very closely. The longsword and the Polearm both use the same wards, and the cuts and thrusts are handled in a very similar manner. This is because both weapons are used with two hands. The only real difference beyond that between a one handed and a two handed sword is where your shoulders are, which sounds obvious but it makes a large difference. There are small intricacies that you learn specific to polearms and longswords, but a competent person would be able to use both after a few weeks, and quite professionally and interchangeably after a lot of combat experience such as what we'll go through in the game.

Going back to wards, which are the positions from which you make all your attacks and defenses, with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiore_dei_Liberi system the cool thing is that all close quarters weapons use the same wards. They change slightly depending on the weapon (some are even discarded), but the basic ideas are the same. Even in hand to hand and dagger fighting. There are only so many ways you can hold and swing a stick, after all.


Shortened up: I fully support a change to One-handed/Two-handed.

No actualy it makes a good deal of sense as it lets them merge in thrown ranged and melee and unamred weapons into 2 easy to understand groupings letting you pick amoung the styles your best at with perk trees.
It also leaves more room for new skills and less room for people to skip 2-3 combat skills and yet still be a 100% effective warrior.

Your fears. One-handed + Two-handed + Very specific Perks in each > Blade + Blunt

quite freaking out they are simply tryin to improve the lvling system.

first, the whole specialization through perks is to make it where u specialize in somethin (duh) that way there will be more diverse character at lvl 50.

second, the reason they swapped from blade/blunt to 1/2 handed is that the duel-wielding has changed the controls which has caused the 2handed weapons to feel different compared to 1 handed weapons. which is an improvement compared to oblivions blade/blunt skills since they were identical in every way but looks

last, ur 'calculations' is stupid to say that bethesda would make skills down to 'melee' and 'ranged'

Where is this screenshot? I haven't seen it in the GI mag or on the hub.

Agreed. I think this is the best way to do this because it ties the perks with combat style: a big, two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon that can be quickly paired with a shield, spell, or different weapon. Trying to do something else would require too many perks especially since anyone with a one-handed weapon is likely to be switching what's in their hands all the time. Anyway, I think the 18 skills are still going in the direction I predicted http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1158511-pollskyrim-18-total-skills/page__view__findpost__p__16993934. Thank god for perks.

To summarize what my guess is:

LIKELY-One-Handed Weapons (perks for all one-handed weapons, one handed combat)
LIKELY-Two-Handed Weapons (perks for all two-handed weapons, two handed combat)
LIKELY-Ranged Weapons (perks for all ranged weapons, ranged combat)
LIKELY-Armor (perks only for either armor type, but still allowing you to SWITCH armor types during the game)
LIKELY-Block (perks for shields, one handed, and two handed blocking)

CONFIRMED-Destruction
CONFIRMED-Conjuration
CONFIRMED-Alteration
CONFIRMED-Restoration
CONFIRMED-Illusion
(all magic skills include perks that affect specific spells, all spells in the skill, and magic usage bonuses and tweaks)

CONFIRMED-Smithing (perks for repair, weapon smithing, armor smithing, and smithing stat limit bonuses and tweaks)
CONFIRMED-Enchanting (perks for enchanting, limits to enchanting, gems, soul gathering skills and tweaks like automatic soul trapping)
CONFIRMED-Alchemy (perks for alchemy, healing, potion usage, duration, etc)
LIKELY-Security (perks for lockpicking, subterfuge, trap awareness and avoidance, setting traps, etc)
LIKELY-Sneak (perks for sneaking, disguise, surprise attacks, stalking, silent running, etc)

?-Survival (perks for surviving, healing, hunting, cooking, endurance, disease resistance, woodcutting, mining, any hardcoe mode perk needs)
?-Perception (perks for being aware of environment, noticing enemies earlier, finding paths and way in wilderness, increasing range of map/compass location sphere, noticing items, passageways, and traps, etc)
LIKELY-Persuasion (perks for mercantile, deception, personality, persuading, bribing, leadership, etc)
LIKELY-Acrobatics/Athletics Combination (perks for movement speed, evasion, movement skills, jumping, running, etc)

I disagree.One does stick to certain skills untill they have a stable character.You tend to improve other skills AFTER you've made your first specialization.(Be it 80 or 100)
Also,there are no classes in Skyrim,which gets you out of the RPG presets like barbarian or arch-mage.You become an axe-wielding mage,and even though the previous games had classes in the end the player would find a way on his own and not some path pre-defined.Or are you saying choosing diablo-like classes would be better,granting no access to skills other than the chosen class?
Lastly,I don't think it is fun to "close shut the jaws of Oblivion" again and again just to use maces instead of bows...

My Respects...





ORLY? Note that down and let's meet again when Tes 6 is released. :cookie:

That's why we need skill atrophy.

Specialization encouraged.

God complex prevented.

Jack of all trades, master of none. Possible.

Just because there are no classes doesn't mean you still won't get "barbarian" or "arch-mage" builds.. you just won't have the class label. The skill handling is just a bit more free-form, and this (in theory) makes it easier to handle mixed-class characters (eg. a battlemage) without becoming over-powered. There shouldn't be anything preventing you from being an axe-wielding mage, but such a character shouldn't be as good of a warrior as a pure axe-warrior, or as good of a mage as a pure mage. As it is in Oblivion, for example, you're better off playing a battlemage instead of a pure mage or pure warrior, because you can max out your magic/battle skill sets rather easilly and be better than either individual class.


Ideally, you wouldn't be forced into the main quest if you didn't want to do it. That was a failing of Oblivion.

In my opinion, this is no big deal in RP terms, since we now have the perks - which really should be called "specialisations" or something, because that is what we do with them under one category. We specialise with them. Perk for more damage with axes or maces under one-handed, and we're an axe or blunt specialist again.
It's just more free-form, you really choose what you want to do with your character. It does not necessarily need the complexity of other systems to do that and play fine and challenging.