I'm absolutely loving everything I'm seeing about Skyrim, however, there is one thing that concerns me, and that is the Blocking issue. As a player who usually plays Spellsword type characters this is really bad news. Being able to block opens up a more tactical approach than just bullrushing with Magic flaring and Weapon swinging.

I've recently started a new Oblivion run with the character I want to start with in Skyrim (as faithfully as possible). However with this new news I'm really doubting I'll enjoy the Spellsword playstyle in Skyrim. Of course this is only my own opinion, and I do not represent everyone.

So Bethesda community, let the voices be heard, should Bethesda rethink this decision (if the articles are correct of course).

Nothing wrong with the OB system, not only is blocking with a shield more effective, but weapon blocking requires a lot more repairing to keep weapon condition up.
Don't understand why there isn't just a hierarchy : shield>two hander>one hander>dagger. Makes sense and upsets no one, though the ability to change from sword and spell to sword and shield on the fly may make this a non issue, except for role playing concerns.

I don't really understand what you're talking about. :blush: Is it not possible to block with a weapon in Skyrim?

Not a Single Wield weapon while using magic, no. If you've got a Sword in your right hand, and a spell in your left, than according to current information you will be unable to block.

It feels like being forced into learning shield spells.

mabye if for blocking there could be a spell that puts up a sheild that last momentarily in a sphere shape in front of you for deflecting a spell or a hit from a sword but the spell would only last long enough that you would have to do it half way though there swing or the fireball is less then half a meter in front of you and the shield wouldn't work from behind. like the spell in warlocks in wc3 if anyone heres played it they'll know what im talking about

Well, that sort of made me not want to create my Dunmer spellsword anymore. :facepalm: Maybe shield spells could be used for blocking though.

Enemies in Arcania : Gothic 4 (I never used magic myself) could block when using spells by creating some sort of barrier, if shield spells work that way when the button is held down it would be a viable blocking mechanism for spells.

Where's the pool option "If Bethesda wants it to be like that, then so be it we'll just have to deal with it"?

Block is probably a skill and so every build should be viable without learning it provided you got enough hands to equip everything you want to use So I don't think there's anything to worry about.

Bethesda is reintroducing the Magic Shield effect from daggerfall. There it only lowered spell damage, like an armor rating. Maybe it will act more like a physical shield, drawing from your mana instead? Doubtful, but we can only hope.
It might be from coding difficulties. Each hand is controlled separately, so if using a 2h weapon, one button attacks, one defends, with a 1h + shield, 1 is for the weapon, the second is for the shield. dual wielding means you cannot defend (as it stands) because both buttons are reserved for attacking.
I think that it wont be too hard to overcome this with the massive rework they did to both magic and combat. Stunning, etc is more common from attacks now (probably why a normal spear wasn't viable) combining that with magic could set you up as a force to be reckoned with. Remember, frost slows them down, so side stepping and doing quick attacks then rushing out of range could be a VERY effective style in Skyrim.

Need a third option, "Can't tell until playing with the mechanics in game".

We all lose something, myself if I′m going to keep my defense of doom I have to give up my mace. I don′t mind it too much, granted it is more realistic to be able to parry as a spell-sword but I′m not really sure it′s too fitting, if a minataur hits you with a 2-h hammer with all his strength seeing him bounce back from someone blocking it with 1 tiny weapon with 1 hand is well... at least with those that use 1 handed weapons and no spells they can add their 2nd hand to the job when blocking, spell-swords just do it with 1 hand unless Bethesda would make it impossible for them to cast spell while blocking, but then what would be the point of being a pure 1handed warrior ? Ofc the RP aspect but it′s not even very RP like or realistic that a spell-sword would be able to lean to master both spells and the sword in the same time a pure warrior only masters the sword.

Edit: Then again in general I don′t think anyone should be able to block easily with 1-h weapons.

If I'm a mage fighting up close with a weapon is a last line of defense. My mage has little [if any] armor and now I can't block? This discourages me from wanting to play as a pure mage. Throw in no spellmaking and I start to come to the conclusion that the pure mage is purposefully being nerfed and the less in common you have with a Nord tank, the harder you will find things to be.

I would preffer not being able to attack with the sword instead of not blocking (I didn't meant that I would like this, only that not being able to block is worse).

Actually, this is reassuring to me. Since they have blocking requiring precise timing now, and I've never been able to handle that in other games. If not every character can block, then they're setting it up as just another option depending on your equipment choices and passing up on it won't be too much of a disadvantage.

OMG, they nerfed the mages!!!!


Stop overreacting and if getting hit in melee as a pure mage is your main worry, why do you go sword + spell instead of spell + good old daedric shield? Both builds are as much pure mages as each other (ie, they aren't)

Can't you carry a shield in one hand and cast with the other--or isn't that an allowable configuration?

They've already confirmed the magical shield ability, but I believe they stated that will only protect you from magical attacks.

Want to block? Try putting on a shield. Yes, I know. Doing this requires making a choice. Having to think and consider, make judgments. Or you could just make an arbitrary decision and hope for the best. I know that a lot of players are used to playing god and being able to do anything or all things at any time, but now that the combat system presents more options you have to take into consideration that not all of those options are equal and that there will be pros and cons between them. Things like this mean that the choice between dual wielding, spellsword, classic sword/shield, etc, won't be purely aesthetic differences or only arbitrarily different but actually present very different methods of playing, which may not always be the most suitable in any given situation.

I appreciate the balancing/play style arguments, but if I have a sword, and someone tries to hit me with their sword, how does me not being able to block them with my sword possibly make any sense?

You cannot block an attack with a sword. It would destroy it. You can however perry, or redirect the attack so it misses. I think they will have some kind of system where if you swing at them and they swing at you at the same time, you guys perry eachother and nobody is harmed. Only in movies can people simply hold out their sword and dead stop another persons attack. I'm sure Bethesda will work in some kind of perrying deal, as simply being defenseless is stupid. They wouldn't do that to us.

Is this whole thread based on speculation that came from that European magazine saying one trigger was for attack and one for block???

I'm pretty sure that information is incorrect. There are conflicting reports (I believe the GI podcast in fact) saying that to block you have to pull BOTH triggers at the same time and if you hold them you do a shield bash. In other words, this thread may be useless because we will in fact be able to block with one-handed weapons.

Yeah, I should have said parry rather than block. But the argument still stands, no one wants to be told they can't do something sensible because the game says so, balancing or something.

I'm going to tell you exactly what I told the last person who had this concern in a different thread. First off, no ones entirely sure that magazine is accurate with this info. We may all be discussing something that is totally false.

But if it is true, I think I wrapped my head around why the devs went in this direction... the GI mag talked about the give and take between offense and defense in the combat system in skyrim. Hey said it was a give and take. So let's say you go sword and board. You take away virtually any offense with your offhand for defense. Let's say you go two handed. You have a big weapon focused on offense, but makes it practical to block... you are still melee oriented and for that, blocking is practical. Duak wielding is the same thing. You are a melee oriented character and blocking with two weapons is practical, although not as effective as sword and shied. You see the give and take?

Now for magic to enter the fray completely alters the give and take. Offensively, wielding a sword and spell gives you much more flexibility in a fight than being straight melee.. now if you run into a physically imposing enemy with magic weakness, you have an advantage Offensively. The give and take with magic is that because of that added versatility, your defense suffers by not being able to block... this defensive shortcoming is easily remedied by wielding a defensive spell. Now you have a defensive hand as well as an offensive hand. The perk, to me, about sword and spell is the ability to do so many things with spells. You cant block magic with a shield, but you can with a spell.

It's a give and take. As a mage/melee character, not blocking is the price you pay for the added flexibility on both the offensive and defensive sides of a fight.

I hope this helps, if you managed to read the whole thing

Yes. I'll be disappointed if we can't block with a one-hander while a spell's "equipped" in the other hand. The apparent reasoning (as described very well in the post above) isn't satisfactory whatsoever; mechanics like that feel like pseudo classes, or "your guy is this, so he can never do this or that," for no logical purpose (a person wielding a sword in one hand can parry with that sword), and worst of all, no positive gameplay purpose (it would be fun to block with my one-handed sword while a spell is equipped - if it wouldn't be fun for you, don't do it).

And while many forum users might not have figured out that dynamic of game design, I'm sure Todd and his team have, which is why I suspect this limitation (if it does indeed exist) has more to do with button assignments and the control system, than "balance" in the form of presumptuous and arbitrary class rules in a classless system.

Having said all that, either my weapon-and-spell characters will get used to swapping out spells to and from the off-hand pretty fast, or I'll look into modding the system, so it doesn't bother me much personally. I just dislike the thinking behind such a limitation.

Well new magic system can handle shield spell like this for example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTOynB6Z-Rw
Or in
Spellshields
http://tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=21629

That's just it, blocking with a one handed sword isn't sensible in the least. Parrying is (depending on what your opponent is using and how they're attacking you), but parrying is nothing like blocking and shouldn't be lumped into the same category. If they were capable of simulating parrying, that would be amazing but it's highly unlikely considering how sensitive something like parrying is. Doing it any realistic way would lead to it being almost impossible or it being so easy that it's broken.

I would also like to note that avoidance is just as worthy a tactic to prevent yourself from getting hit, and far more easy to introduce than parrying in any realistic fashion. I know it wasn't really possible in past games due to attacks being more or less immediate and opponents having a perpetual lock on to you during combat, but they stated that weapons will have more 'feel' to them in Skyrim, so it might be more reasonable to use movement to your advantage.