No, it would just be stupid. Like really stupid. Like "I wonder if this cliff is high, it looks high, but if I jump off it probably won't seem that high" stupid. I wouldn't stop playing if I saw a bandit with two war-hammers, I would just lol and say that's silly. :tongue:

A claymore still only weighs 5-6 lbs. And it's possible to re-adjust the grip between strikes for greater mobility. Proper maneuvering of a claymore can get it behind a heavy shield.

still, unless you where a hard working Highlander with a body like a brick wall a claymore ain′t a toy...plus if 2 handers are so great and easy to keep swinging...why didn′t it become the standard to have 2 handed weapons in armies?

Well, I don't think Skyrim will have a lack of Highlanders with bodies like or even surpassing a Brick Wall... considering that's the default status of a Nord.

And it was standard to have 2-handed weapons in armies: Polearms. They were cheaper than two-handed swords, and thus easier to outfit and train soldiers with them.

polearms and 2 handed swords is like a race car and a pickup, both the same yet both are different...plus anyone trying to say anything else then polearms being slow and clumsy is just silly.

Two handed weapons require space to use, not the best thing when fighting in an army.

Right. But, it doesn't matter if a polearm's slower than the Claymore. The reach and sheer number of guys with polearms makes them pwn Sword users before they can get a second strike off.

Id rather have two handed weapons have another attraction along with more damage, though i cannot think of any, maybe greater knock-back/staggering/lesser penalties for hitting an enemie's block?

eh...my good sir is drifting away from the subject...we where talking about your claims of 2h swords somehow being faster and easier to use then 1h swords...not about length advantage.

No, the fact you can't attack with a single hand makes it less mobile. The human body can only articulate in so many ways when both arms must be used in unison.

5-6 lbs, but your ignoring torque. The farther your grip is from the pivot the harder it is to hold a claymore out. This is why the grip extends into the blade on some designs, but as soon as you put your hand on the upper grip you remove the power of the claymore. It effectively is a moderate sized sword when held at the upper grip, no more heavy swing. Claymores in game are held at the handle (they don't even incorporate the upper grip design) so the re-adjusting your grip has to barring.

To add, unlike a gladius, which requires only your bicep and fore arms for a slash. A claymore swing draws it's force from your forearms, biceps, triceps, shoulders, and core. This means more time is needed between blows. Like any machine, the more parts and motions needed to run an action the slower the action will take.

Edit: torque= moment (for our engineering and over sea friends)

I only like using heavy 2 handed weapons if they dont oversize the weapon in game and if they take endurance into account with all weapons making heaver weapons use more of it as it does in real life.

Historically the greatsword users were paid double to be at the front of the charge in formation, to bat aside enemy polearms and try to panic the frontline troops.

Damn straight. If anything, I say two-handers should have some significant bonuses due to this alone. The fact that they lack the inherent flexibility that one-handers allow in the new system seems balanced enough. Making them significantly slower, as a lot of people are suggesting, is just overkill and makes them even more worthless.

The ability to look like Guts is the only bonus you need. :lmao:

Edit: Could not help myself.

You could always allow them to be enchanted with several different spells or increase any enchqants power or decrease recharge [if morowinds system is used] time,

but that doesn′t explain away why a huge, heavy 2 hand weapon has almost the same damage as a 1 handed weapon, it′s frankly just lacy to go "oh just slap something magic on them"

That is an awesome bonus. Let's just hope Bethesda's makes the right hairstyle... But no, I wanna' play like Gut as well!

That would be a good solution, but seeing as how they said maces get armour piercing perks, I think warhammers are only going to pierce armour with perks. Unless, they give warhammers innate armour piercing that stacks with perks, so you can bypass armour with less perks.




I'm not really clear about the perk thing. So far, I know that swords can do more criticals, axes can cause bleeding and maces can penetrate armour, but are those only for one-handed weapons or also for two-handed weapons? If one-handed axes cause a bleeding effect of, say -3hp for 10s, and two-handed axes do the same, I would think that two-handed weapons are underpowered when compared to one-handed weapons.

Having a stunning ability would be good though, but it should be better than any the shield can do, because overall I think two-handed weapons should give the highest offensive capability, while one-handed weapons should give the most flexibility/speed, with shields providing the best defense.



I think two-handed weapons should have increased damage and perhaps perks that are different from their one-handed counterparts, so while a one-handed sword has a perk that gives more critical chance/damage, a claymore could have a perk that gives more critical chance/damage while giving a chance for disarming opponents blocking with smaller weapons.

i like this idea, maybe another perk for two handed weapons that makes it harder for enemies with one handed weapons to disarm you while you have a two handed weapon equipped?
i would also like to see a perk that reduces the fatigue cost of swinging a two handed weapon, maybe that same perk could do other things as well like increase swing speed? no where near the speed or fatigue cost of a one handed weapon but just a small boost. Anyone else think the perks are gonna be like the skills from borderlands?

I totally didn't think about stamina cost before this. Since two-handed weapons are most likely going to cost more stamina than one-handed weapons to swing, it's another reason they need more advantages added to balance them with one-handed weapons.

I'm hoping the perks do something special than just increase damage and stuff like that, and the axe bleeding effect thing gives me hope. I hope we don't get kill-activated perks like those in Borderlands. :tongue:

http://talent.87bazillion.com/siren.php?000000000000000000000 (for people who never played BL bliviongate: )

i agree, id also like to see more perks that are not just a spread sheet variable changer, im hoping alot of them are new power attacks or work with sprinting some way.

In Oblivion, two-handed weapons didn't get any bonus from a successful sneak attack, giving one-handed weapons yet another advantage. :confused: Not that I would go sneaking around with a massive claymore, but it seems that one-handed weapons are good at everything in Oblivion.

I hope Two-handed weapons lose their ridiculous stamina penalty... You're offering the blade 2-3x the support of a Longsword, even if it is a heavier weapon.

And I'd rather have a lot of what you guys are suggesting as "Perks" to be innate. The perks should be saved for specializing your skill with a two-handed weapons in a direction, not what D&D players call a "Feat Tax" - a perk or feat that is pretty much required by the skillset/class for the character to function. Whether this is an awesomely powerful perk no 2-handed user would ever pass up (No matter how they'd otherwise choose to specialize), or a perk that grants the two-handed weapon set an ability/benefit it should have had from the begining.

It would be great if two-handed weapons have abilities like knockback, etc. as an innate ability, but stuff like residual bleeding from axes would probably still end up being perks.

yeah with a 2 hander you were really at a disadvantage.