Got this from Finnish GameReactor:
"For example,it is possible to use one handed weapon as a two handed weapon to do more damage."

Does this mean,perhaps, if you have like high blade skill or Strength you can use two handed sword as one handed sword :hubbahubba: .That would be awesome.

No, it wouldn't be 'Awsome'.

It'd be stupid.

Maybe as a high end perk, and as long as you have high strength and skill. But I would imagine it would have severe penalties to make in unviable.

I'd like to, if it made a difference.
Holding a 1 handed longsword, which could be held with 2 hands as well, in 2 hands could make it faster, or hit a little harder. It wouldn't have the damage bonus a claymore would have, or the reach. Not to mention the fact you wouldn't be using a shield or a spell in the other hand.

That sounds like a benefit, and a negative, which invokes some balance.

Oh the other way around.
Psshh, high strength maybe.

I've seen skeletal champions do it, so maybe a few nord barbarians could.

Explain.Why would it be stupid.I can see it being possible.Maybe a perk?

Wooooooo............ someone got out'a bed the wrongside this morning lol

I think that the ability to wield a 2 handed sword with one hand in certain situations would be great, obviously there would need to be some downside, like lower damage or less recovery speed after a swing.

And vice versa, if you use a one handed sword with two hands, you would have more damage that a normal one handed swing, but less than using a two handed sword.

This sounds great.

I just like the fact that I could have a left handed swordsman if thats what I want...............its all about choice with me.

1. I don't like the idea of wielding a claymore with one hand.

2. You can wield a one handed sword with both hands? That's awesome. That's... Wow... Um... I just got a woody.

The clue is in the name. It is designed to be swung with two hands. Why would anyone want to carry a slow, heavy, unwieldy weapon, and not get the most out of it by using it wrongly?

Clam down, buddy.

He's right though, it would be stupid.

Yeah I thought about that too, which sounds awesome. It better be in, I want a left handed swordsman.
Lefties, unite!
*Steps back*
*Looks down at right hand*
*Sighs*

It is possible to 1 hand wield a claymore, I've done it before, but it is completely pointless, unless you have a broken arm and no shorter blade.

Just try it and you will understand why its an uterly stupid idea.
well hell take a brom start swinging it at double weight, try swing it....
Now cut another broom and add it to the lenght of the first broom, swing it, now put the second half of the broom on the first and try to swing it.

Anyway if you had a just swung a broom and had a notion of physics you wouldn t be asking why your suggestion ain t smart.

Those of us that are 7" 6in barbarians with hands like shovels, and those puny single handed swords are like daggers to us, thats who.

Remember body customisation is in there so we could be oversized hunks of meat if we want.

For me elderscrolls games are not about using the weapon with the most damage, or the armor with the best defence. its about looks and what my character would use/wear in that situation. so if I am playing a ox with no brains, bigger is better however he uses it, and it would look soooooo cool

There are swords like bastard swords/ hand-and-a-half swords which are designed to be able to be used 2-handed or 1-handed. These make much more logical sense than "I am like hulk! Dual-wield Zweihanders!"

No, you need a bigger one handed sword, and an even bigger claymore. If you just have a normal claymore in one hand, where can you go? None more big.

Unless i missed the sarcasm..
There s a diference beetween carrying a 2 handed weapon with 2 hands, you can add strenght, but its unpratical.
That why the hand an a half sword was created, sometimes called bastard, because it reside beetween the 1 handed and the 2 handed.
In medieval times shields where made of wood and painted, few where iron clad, and almost none had even a metallic sheet.
So after 2 relatively strong people would bash each other or in a long fight in a clash the shield would go to pieces and handling extra strenght and speed with an adequate place to place the second hand could make all the diference between being dead meat, mauled or get out safe and victorious.
Even if the bastard sword wasn t that popular it had logical reason to exist.
Weilding a 2 handed weapon with one hand lossing speed, strenght, control and balace is signing a suicide recipe in the middle of a battle or a duel.

I'm hoping for Bastard Swords, but a two hander used one handed? Overused and stupid.

Dual wielding bows would be much cooler.
You need a lot of Agility/perks, of course.
That would be awesome.

7" 6' barbarians don't wield weapons with 2 hands, they wield 2 2 handed weapons.

I like the idea, if its a high level perk. I also think this would be a good perk to have "trained" from a trainer, not in the weapons skills perks list.

Where did you hear you can use one handed swords as two handed swords..?

Makes about as much sense as two handing a dagger.

That's the thing though, those swords are meant to be switchers, depending on the situation. Holding a claymore with 1 arm is rather...dumb to put it nicely.Too big, too heavy, and too awkward to hold it with 1 hand, let alone dual wielding a weapon like that. Hell, I'd say dual wielding a bastard sword isn't a terribly smart move either.

The title was misleading...
He's talking about wielding a claymore in 1 hand.

LOL!!!!

@karniest... well if you like to play an oxy-moron (Awfull joke) i dont thnk you will survive much i skyrim.
You ll get stuck trying to get out of the jail, get lost, and come back to the cell, or even not be willing to flee because you re fed in jail....lol

Sounds like Bastard Swords or hand-and-a-half swords (i think thats what they're called)