I'm pretty concerned about Dual Wielding making Two-Handed weapons useless. Unless Two-Handed weapons get a massive damage boost, Dual Wielding would almost definitely have a higher DPS because of the faster attack speed. In Dragon Age Origins, Dual Wielding warriors have higher DPS than Two-Handed weapon warriors.

Personally, I like playing a high damage warrior, but for some reason I don't like dual wielding, so if two-handed weapons become redundant or just some kind of stunning, knockback weapons then I guess I'd rather play a mage or use the classic shield and sword combo.

I'm more worried about if it will take away from people who wish to single wield one handed weapons.

What if I just want to use a Short sword and nothing in one hand and focus with just that weapon?

Right now, we can't be sure how dual wielding will be balanced in comparison to other combat options, it's not something Bethesda has done in the previous games in the series, which already had some balance issues, so I can understand being concerned that dual wielding might not be balanced that well, it's not the first time I've seen such concerns on the forums, though the last time, the poster was concerned that dual wielding might not be worth using at all, but in the end, we'll just have to wait, and see what happens.

Hopefully, Bethesda can ensure that dual wielding is an option that's worth considering, but won't overshadow other options.



That's a pretty good question, we know we can dual wield, or use a one handed weapon with a shield, but what about just using a one handed weapon without anything in the other hand? It could well be that there will really be no benefit to doing so, a problem which past games had too, honestly, it's nice that dual wielding provides an alternative for players who want to use one handed weapons but don't want to use a shield, but it still doesn't adress specifically what players who want one weapon and only one should do. My suggestion would be to give some sort of bonus only available when using one handed weapons with nothing in the off hand, but I'm not sure what the best option would be for that.

I also hope that Bethesda balances it well, but in Oblivion two-handed weapons were already inferior to weapon and shield.

Using a single-handed weapon without anything else should perhaps allow for faster attack speed and perhaps bonuses to critical hits?

this could be where the perks come in maybe. maybe a "precise striking" perk restricted to one handed weapons. "through intense training, you have learned where to strike with your single blade to make quick work of your foes" (+10% critical chance whist wielding a single weapon.)
just a rough idea. please feel free to improve upon it.

Dual wield gives up power for speed. I think it can be balanced. Single wield with shield--western european style--is what you need if you're willing to accept some damage. Two-handed gives you power and also uses the weapon defensively. Single wield with an off-hand weapon is what you want if you want to concentrate on your main weapon but also want options--sword plus light mace allows you to do nasty things like locking the joints on your enemy's plate armor. Single wield with nothing in the off-hand is what you want to use if you're concentrating on avoiding being hit, trying to gain critical hits, or using balance.

In Neverwinter Nights, the off-hand weapon in dual wielding received penalties to hit chance, but since Skyrim's combat isn't based on hit chances, dual wielding might essentially mean double the damage of a one-handed weapon and the speed of a one-handed weapon.

Therefore, if that is the case, two-handed weapons would neither be the best damage dealers nor the best defensive weapons, and thus end up being useless. :pinch:

This, however, is entirely speculation...

It could just as easily be that, in light of dual-wielding being an option, two-handed weapons now to massive amounts of damage to compensate for relatively slow attack speeds. Add in the chance for knockback / knockdown effects being heightened, and you have a skill which is just as valid as any other. It doesn't really take a lot of work to balance things. Bethesda isn't incompetent... they've had to balance game mechanics before, and I'm sure there are no delusions of what DID and DID NOT work previously.

I'm confident it'll work out just fine.

I hope so. I've been used to two-handed weapons being the best melee damage choice, and I hope that they remain as that. I think dual-wielding should be more agile and better at criticals but not the best at raw damage output.

If Bethesda is aiming for more visceral, realistic combat, then I'm pretty sure they would have better damage values this time round, because if we are going to whack a bandit ten times in the head with a warhammer to kill him, it would still be the old "chopsticks fighting", wouldn't it? :tongue:

Bethesda has apparently said:

(from http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=422177)

I interpret this as if dual-wielding characters can't block. Although there could be other ways of protecting oneself apart from blocking, massive damage could maybe stagger foes and an agile character might be able to dodge away from attacks.

If this is true then it might be a viable way of balancing dual wielding with other weapon options. IMO it would make Two-Handed Weapons become more of balanced weapons than highly offensive or defensive weapons, with the most offensive being dual-wielding in which blocking is sacrificed, and the most defensive being weapon and shield, in which damage (might be) sacrificed.

It maybe that one handed wielding comes with benefits as well.

So far we know that a single blade can block as long as nothing is tagged in the other hand, such as a spell.
So it may be that the draw speed or switch out between gear is going to be used to balance dual and single weapons.
I:E an empty hand used for the block button switches to a keyed spell quicker than if you had a weapon or shield in that hand.

Then you may have a penalty to damage using dual style to represent the skill and difficulty of using it.
A single short blade may have a faster attack speed, but I doubt it long term.

Then with perks one perk tree may out balance the others to make up for initial strengths of one style.

Two handers may have greater effects at start, higher knock back chances, greater fatigue loss on a hit.. etc.

Simple answer is no one knows tbh.

this for sure. two handers will probably deal more damage and knock down enemies easier still, which makes them useful.

I believe you'll still be able to block with one,one handed weapon,as long as your left hand has no spell in it.
To me the only way you can't block is if you have a spell in one hand,and one handed weapon in the other,any other way than that,i believe you can block.

I don't believe duel wield will over-shadow two handed weapons. It's just another style choice.
Each will have it's benefits. Everyone is different,we all have ways we want to fight.

Dragon age had the same problem, once you have magic weapons the bonus magic damage from faster attacks heavily outweighs the extra two handed base damage.
Either two handed needs some serious perks, or they need to save the best enchantments for claymores and warhammers.

Then you should expect it to be making things harder on yourself... of course a short sword alone will not block as well as a shield, do the damage of a claymore, or have the versatility of dual wielding. The only advantages it should have are that it swings faster than heavier weapons and does more damage/ blocks more than lighter ones.

Also I don't believe that bit about certain players not being able to block. I'd be very surprised if everyone couldn't not block. I can't thing of anything I could put in my hand that would prevent me from blocking, even if bare handed.

You have actually made a great point there mate.
We know they have reworked combat,so it's more intense.We'll stagger and get knocked around more if we are not careful.
And your right,and two handed weapon,is going to increase the chances of staggering etc.
Like i said in an earlier post,each style will have it's weakness and benefits.
Anyway,what you posted ,hits the nail on the head :thumbsup:

Every other game I've ever played dual wielding = dual attacking, always and without exception. Skyrim will be different in that each hand is controlled independently. I find it hard to imagine that in such a system that it would be practical to attack with both weapons all the time. I trust that the mechanics will be tactical as promised and not just a hack fest.

1h weapon/empty hand is the only weapon configuration that allows spellcasting. I'd say that's bonus enough.

The more I think about this, the more I like it. Bethesda might have come up with a great way to handle fights this time that is both simple and creates diversity. If dual-wielding people can't block, then those people might prefer light armor to be fast enough to dodge in and out, while those who can block could put more emphasis on heavy armor since they stay in and soak the hits. It would be two very different styles of gameplay with their respective drawbacks (dual-wielders would have problem against long reaching weapons, while blockers would have problem with strong foes that can knock them down).

I only have one worry. That Bethesda doesn't think hard enough about the sword+magic combinations, especially the defensive magics. Stuns and paralyze effects could potentially take away all challenge from a hard fight. It wouldn't surprise me at all if players choose to engage the hardest foes in their underwear, so they get 0% spellfailure and can use an overpowered spell effect to pin the opponent while chopping madly at it with a blade.

Say what? How would you cast a spell without one equipped? You mean 1 hand weapon/spell right?

If you add in perks weapons, rings and other goodies that give damage boosts (maybe a attack speed increase here and there, but kept minimal), you could even it out. Honestly, we're not playing WoW here, so it doesn't really matter if your playstyle comes up short compared to others. Since WoW is full of [censored] that like to whine about you "misplacing" one talent point and consult GearScore to make sure the toilet paper is leet enough to be used (took this from wowwiki, kudos to whoever thought it up first), you have to pigeon-hole yourself into whatever "teh raiding godz" want you to be if you want to see endgame (unless PvP is your bag, but after listening to my brother whine about prot pallys, I don't think I'll try PvP any time soon).

Luckily, this ISN'T WoW, it's a singleplayer-RPG, so you CAN get away with having a perk that others would find unnecessary, or use a weapon style that gimps you a bit. If you can kill everything you go up against (except any fights that were engineered to make you lose) and you can do it in a way YOU want to, and have fun doing it, then the game is at its peek and you should find one of the devs and give them a pat on the back.

Besides, if you find it a bit harder to play with your style than another style, than it makes the game that much more challenging, and beating it that much more rewarding, right?

Have they mentioned how staves will work.
As equiping a stave to cast a single spell that is just the same as or weaker than an ordinary player cast one.
And removing the ability to cast another, would be a tad silly imo.
Either they make magical staves.
1, a weapon and a spell, I.E cast on the right click, swing on the left click.
2. make the left click a staff spell, and the right one a player spell.
3. a staff spell and block ability, like a ranged two hander.

Two-handed weapons in Oblivion was way to underpower with only +4 more damage than a one handed weapon, but with the cost of no shield.

But atleast in Skyrim, dual wielding do not allow you to block!

Been thinking about that one. In Oblivion just equipping a shield boosted DR exponentially without even having to use it. I don't think we will have that advantage in Skyrim, especially if the Armor skills were removed and locational damage has been added. That's really the only way I can see all styles being balanced.



Actually from what i've heard supposedly two mags have stated that blocking is possible with a dual wield by holding both triggers(mouse buttons). Pretty sure the only time you can't block is when wielding a spell.