Dual wielding vs. Shield+Sword

[Fhtagn]

Can you guys give me the pros and cons of dual wielding and shield+sword wielding?

[.rz]

Dual wielding does more damage then shield+sword but you cannot defend yourself.

[Trigger]

Dual wielding is best with a pair of unenchanted daggers and the shout " Elemental Fury " = slice and dice time

[Captian Fish]

dual wielding=high damage, low defense
shield sword=low damage, high defense

but to be honest, its all just preference

[Silvermane]

Sword and shield is vastly superior to dual wielding due to the block perks.

Being able to bash you opponent and interrupt their swing is the best way to survive against enemies with big two handed weapons that will kill you if they land a power attack.

[gnewna]

I find dual wielding requires too much suspension of disbelief against heavy-armoured enemies, especially dual daggers, unless I'm managing to reach gaps in their armour, they should really just be laughing at me. I like either sword-and-board or sword in right hand, spell in left, usually an offensive spell (flames against draugr and Nords, frost or sparks against everyone else (theoretically frost is better against warriors and shock against mages, but I've never noticed them having much specific effect.) Shock is good for using on any human/elf whose race you're not sure of (helmets and the like) as nobody is especially immune to it (Bretons are resistant to all magic, though, and the Forsworn are Breton (wel, I presume they are in gameplay as well as lore) so in the Reach you're probably better off with the shield.

[Ibitato]

Originally posted by Silvermane:

Sword and shield is vastly superior to dual wielding due to the block perks.

Being able to bash you opponent and interrupt their swing is the best way to survive against enemies with big two handed weapons that will kill you if they land a power attack.

this.

[Jonocat25]

If your looking fro an in-between, just go with two-handed. High damage, and you can still block, though not as well as a sheild.

[Undisclosed]

if you are in melee combat, best is sword+spell.

[Kujo Irene]

tbh shield is it's own weapon
really if you want to do a playthrough with dual wielding then do it, i still have a save of my lvl 30 dual wielding Imperial in-case I ever want to play it.
pros/cons of dual wielding: later game you'll nuke everyone with super fast high damage attack speed but untill you get good armor ratings you'll be popping a lot of health pots.

pors/cons of sword+shield: great defense and can make the shield really deadly on it's own with the right perks
you are weak since you can't attack as fast nor deal enough damage but shields REALLY can save you in moments were you would be dead. (warhammer powerattack.gif)
another thing is that other than archery, shield plus *melee weapon* is the closest thing this game has to real combat rather than just button mashing as some cirtics would say. Just play what you wanna play

p.s. everytime i do a 2handed playthrough i always seem to use less potions and i think it's because 2handers just get the job done way better.

[chintaoli]

I prefer my shield and weapon, as the shield can also be used to afflict damage or stagger.

[Ilja]

Originally posted by Silvermane:

Sword and shield is vastly superior to dual wielding due to the block perks.

Being able to bash you opponent and interrupt their swing is the best way to survive against enemies with big two handed weapons that will kill you if they land a power attack.

As a dual-wielder, I slightly disagree.

Wielding 2 weapons in vanilla game is vastly superior against enemies with two handed weapons. Shield character will still have to deal with the damage - more or less reduced.

Dual wielding character does not stand around, or attack directly toward enemy, except while using dual power attack. They move around their enemy, using the largest amount of power attacks available for character. They are much less likely to suffer any damage, even when dealing with masses.

However, this all comes down to playing style. If charging boldly toward flying arrows, large weapons and dragon heads is the preferred combat style, then shield is likely quite nice to have around.

If you are like me and use high stamina characters, run, jump and swing around enemies and force them open their sides backs for occasional dual weapon power attacks, then not even dragons are a problem. Mages are even less, because lightly moving characters are more likely jump over or dodge their spells.

To each his/her own, but weapon+shield is a very good combination, it comes down to preferred combat style for what its "superior" in battle. I don't survive long with sword+shield, because I am used to acrobatics and bating my enemies. They don't really stand a change against my thief, when he attacks with both blades swinging.

[pedantic_roc]

I have my groups (SkyUI) set to sword and board against ranged attacks and dual wield against close quarter attacks. However, I will switch to sword and board (or sword and spell) against close quarter enemies if they're too nimble, or if I'm being outclassed by a boss for example.
Tbh - while both have thier pro's and con's - it's always a situational decision on my part.
They're both good but, when the going gets tough, you can't beat a good ol' shield bash :-)

[Jonocat25]

Another factor to consider wehn considering sheild vs dual wield is armor and alteration; dual-wielding with heavy armor will take less damage than with light armor. Add a specialization in Alteration to up armor rating with a quick spell.

This question is much more complex than sheild vs dual wielding, as armor and magic skills and general combat prefeerence matters a great deal.

[Vita, Mortis, Careo]

Originally posted by gnewna:

I find dual wielding requires too much suspension of disbelief against heavy-armoured enemies, especially dual daggers, unless I'm managing to reach gaps in their armour, they should really just be laughing at me. I like either sword-and-board or sword in right hand, spell in left, usually an offensive spell (flames against draugr and Nords, frost or sparks against everyone else (theoretically frost is better against warriors and shock against mages, but I've never noticed them having much specific effect.) Shock is good for using on any human/elf whose race you're not sure of (helmets and the like) as nobody is especially immune to it (Bretons are resistant to all magic, though, and the Forsworn are Breton (wel, I presume they are in gameplay as well as lore) so in the Reach you're probably better off with the shield.

This is an excellent post. One of the shortcomings in RPGs of all stripes is the same things as one of the most important aspects: Balance. In attempting to make all playstyles viable weapon and armor properties often take a backseat to mechanics. Of course, RPGs are not reality simulators, and should not be as such, but should that dagger-wielding thief be able to stand against that knight in full plate? Not a lot of good answers. Older cRPGs handled it better than newer action games, but it is still a matter that class X has some mystical ability that renders daggers somehow effective against Y. I personally tend to let it go for the sake of game balance, but it is an amusing quirk inherent to the genre.

[76561198133591931]

As noted above, it's all about personal playstyle and preference. I do my best with either mage or 2H. Sword and board doesn't fit my playstyle. Archer is also good as it's pretty similar to mage. With both aiming is crucial. But As I said I really prefer 2H. It lets me deal massive amounts of damage and the perks for it are good. There are guards that say "a good offense is a good defense. Am I right?" To me, no. The best defense is a good offense.