Why not simply suppress off hand enchantment?

Ranger209

Rather than cutting enchants in half for one handed weapons why not simply suppress enchantments in the offhand the same way that poisons suppress enchantments. If you are dual wielding and use poisons, both of your enchantments are suppressed by the poison. This solves the 1 hand and shield issue as that is then untouched. Then the only question is 1 full strength enchant more desirable than 2 half strength enchants or not. This also balances enchants more with poisons, at least to the point that only one is allowed no matter the weapon type. Thoughts?

validifyedneb18_ESO

Well... it would fix the issue where we cant have a zerk enchant on frontbar now because it would be half strength and cant stack with 2.

Would also feel kinda untidy, but we do already have a tooltip for suppressed enchantments. Another solution would be allowing the enchants to stack to normal strength if you use 2 of the same, but this would then be a potential nerf as with the original solution you would only need 1 infused. Buuuuttt.... again, then you wouldnt be able to have nirnhoned on the main...

ok point is its confusing, but I support trying different methods out if ZOS can justify the development time.

Ranger209

It is tough, but I think we need to look at it as how do we tone down dual wield without affecting 1 hand and shield. It also makes poisons more viable on dual wield.

John_Falstaff

I can totally get behind this idea, it's the least destructive one (including for 1H&S), and it sets enchants on equal footing with 2H (instead of making them worse).

As an aside, though, I don't think that poisons are viable for PvE right now - whether it's bug or feature, they can't stack. Only one instance of a given poison ticking on target, sadly.

BaylorCorvette

Honestly I think this is the best option as well.

Onefrkncrzypope

Just to play devil's advocate. Sword and board gets an enchant on shield. Soo there is that argument. They should have just nerf the damage enchants instead. Left the berserker, weakening and crushing alone.

TimeDazzler

Or you can add a passive to the S&B line that increases weapon enchantments by 100%.

Ranger209

Onefrkncrzypope wrote: »

Just to play devil's advocate. Sword and board gets an enchant on shield. Soo there is that argument. They should have just nerf the damage enchants instead. Left the berserker, weakening and crushing alone.

I would envision it only pertaining to weapons, should have been more clear on that.

Onefrkncrzypope

Ranger209 wrote: »

Onefrkncrzypope wrote: »

Just to play devil's advocate. Sword and board gets an enchant on shield. Soo there is that argument. They should have just nerf the damage enchants instead. Left the berserker, weakening and crushing alone.

I would envision it only pertaining to weapons, should have been more clear on that.

I was just giving my take. I know how the forums work. See dw is becoming more and more annoying. You have to farm twice as long, double mats and etc. But 2h is two set pieces for half the time and gold spent. Idk it's lame but it's w.e. my point is that people will complain if they don't get the same benefits.

Why does dw(two weapons) get two set pieces and I don't with one stick or longer sword...

Why does dw get two full enchants(two weapons) and I don't with a stick or longer sword?

It will be the same. Why does sword and board get to have another enchant while dw and 2 hand doesn't.

Ooo what if dw just gets a stat enchant like snb. And everyone gets one full weapon enchant? But but what about my big stick/sword.

It's annoying but that is what ZoS got to deal with.

ChunkyCat

That’s a cool idea.

Lord_Eomer

Many prefer weapon damage Enhancement in PVP than shield enhancement,

It will be still OP in PVP and meta for Sword and Board will remain live!

Ranger209

Lord_Dexter wrote: »

Many prefer weapon damage Enhancement in PVP than shield enhancement,

It will be still OP in PVP and meta for Sword and Board will remain live!

With sword and board you get both right? Not exactly sure what you mean here, sorry.