no, just no. people ask that things feel more realistic like when we jump we don't fall slowly and that bows shouldn't take 10 shots to kill someone, but then you want to weild a 2 handed weapon with 1 hand *sigh*.

If you want to wield Mahoosive swords in a game like a Bleach character on steriods wait for a mod or buy a JRPG.

I wouldn't be against implementing a system similar to Demon Souls (and a few other games) where you can indeed wield twohanders in just one hand. If you guys think about it, IRL there's really no such thing as a twohanded sword type, it's just a label that we put on blades that aren't typically used in one hand. But the Claymore was actually often just swung in one hand, some people even wore a shield while flailing the giant sword at the enemy.

On the other hand, there's little to no realism whatsoever in dualwielding the big mamas though. So I don't think Bethesda should prioritize it. In Demon Souls afaik (I haven't played it but I've been told), you can basically wield any weapon in just one hand if you want, but if the weapon is heavy then the attack becomes slower. Also, there could be Strength requirements attached to it, as well. Wielding dual twohanders would simply be an extension of that logic and I can't say I'm against anything as long as it doesn't diminish my own playstyle in any way.

But dualwielding twohanded swords... meh, close but no cigar. And I do like my cigars.

I'm highly skeptical of this idea. It sounds just plain artificial, a gimmick. Even considering that in some martial arts styles, one hand is sometimes used to support/reinforce the opposite hand performing the strike, or the sword delivering the blow, i don't think that's what Bethesda is suppodesly having in mind.

Yes a bastard sword can be used both ways, mount and blade have them, you switch to two hands simply by unequipping the shield. you do far less damage with one hand but it's very nice to use from horseback because of the reach.

I really hope your not serious on your statement....

not agree at all why would u encumber your self with a slow 2 handed sword in each hand? ur goin to be fightin big fast movin fire breathing dragons
i dont care how big ur character is, the dragon is bigger ur goin to wat to attack quicky not take an hour to swing 2 big claymores...

I think you mean 7'6" as something smaller than Frodo would have a hard time lifting a pebble, let alone a two handed sword. If I may add Conan needed to use two hands... and he was a huge mutha

Which one? I stated multiple things. Have in mind that in combat it's all about inertia/momentum, gravity and sentrifugal force.

This. "Two-handed" should be a minimum requirement, not a vague suggestion.

Yeah.Thats what they say in Finnish GameReactor.

"For example,it is possible to use one handed weapon as a two handed weapon to do more damage."

Shinovakhiin, above.




God, I dont give a s**t.This is a game.Fantasy game.F the physics.

I agree with the people saying no. Using a strength requirement wouldn't matter since for one, there might not be attributes, and two there is no level cap, everyone would be able to do this eventually. Even with a perk. (It seems like one of those perks you would get with just about every character).

Hey, there's realism, believability, and then there's [censored] it all. Strive for believability, for [censored] it all is lazy, and realism can become too much of a chore.

Dual wielding weapons meant for using two hands falls under [censored] it all.

Oh come on how can those weak fragile skeletons then carry them?

You know there is a thing called gameplay mechanics. It's why the world is smaller than it really is, why time goes faster, and why jump animations look weird. Plus, it's more iconic for the undead to drag around big weapons than carry them around like a normal person. Plus, they never chop with one hand, they swing upwards and catch it with the other, strike again using 2h, and when they do chop down, it is with 2hands.

I could also just say Morrowind.

Hell, the only creature that makes sense with the using a 2h in 1h is the xivili and minotaurs, both who are much taller and stronger than the player.

:hugs:

I'd have no problem with a 2handed sword being used in one hand, as that is possible, but a 1handed sword in two hands? no. For a few reasons
1. A 1 handed sword is made just for that, one hand, so therefore it has a rather short hilt, fit for one hand.
2. With the short handle and blade, it would be VERY awkward to swing and use.
3. ok, well there is no 3, but you get my point.

Using one-handed swords with two hands is an awesome idea. Demon Souls did it, and it worked well, IMO.

Using two-handed swords in one hand is just silly, unless it's the few two-handed swords that can be used in one hand (hand-and-halfs and bastard swords, which, IRL are considered longswords).

Well it wasnt my idea,its clearly said in Finnish GameReactor.Check my older posts.

I disagree, some 1 handed longsword have a handle long enough to cram 2 hands on.
It allows more control over the blade, and more damage for the blade.

Just because you wouldn't use it (how you switch between the 2 states is a good question) doesn't mean everyone wouldn't.

Am I blind or is everyone completely misinterpreting the first post?

Looks more like, hey if you want to use that long sword with both hands go ahead.

No thats the title, the first post says using a claymore in 1 hand.

... and what about carrying another two handed weapon in the mouth?

HEY, it's fantasy!!!

(Sarcastic mode off)

I'm confused. The 'quote' and the conclusion of the first post seems to say the exact opposite of each other.

I'm okay with letting go off the claymore with the left hand for a second to cast a spell with that hand, but being able to swing claymores with one hand is just silly.

Using one handed weapons with 2 hands? Meh.