oh really...and Console players should just do the same right? oh wait, they don't get to use cheats. ah and that completely breaks the point of even playing the game.




A better method to this would be :shocking: oh my god wait for it....... :foodndrink: :celebrate: Reduced spell effectiveness :celebrate: :foodndrink: :shocking:


Im not saying I want to wield a claymore and shoot a two handed fire ball while healing myself to near demi-god status. in Oblivion they animated and made sure that when you are using a two handed weapon, when you cast a spell the anim plays a free hand for summoning, offensive spells and healing spells. :spotted owl: what Im saying is it makes no sense that might almighty Battlemage who I wish to play however I wish because thats what TES is about within reason can heal himself while wielding an enchanted Claymore and that my only option in combat is swinging a sword, when Shield and sword can shield bash, dual wielders can flurry and parry, and 1handers can use spells.

Because you've made a strategic decision to deal as much melee damage as possible at the sacrifice of defensive abilities like the immediacy of healing spells.

I assume that you'll still be able to go into your quick menu and select a spell to cast, at which point you may well temporarily hold the sword in one hand.

-------------

@ the guy who was talking about handless mages,

Given the premises that you've set, you are right. But wouldn't it be logical to assume that in that scenario (which would not affect the PC) the mage would adapt to another spell casting method?
Magic is not broken because it is tied to your hands, we are anolysing something we know nothing about...

Don't forget we'll have Health Potions as a backup if necessary. I think this is an ok move what they did with Two Handed and Healing but it's still confusing as to why it was done, more realism is my guess.

I guess I'll have to use the Hotkeys or just use potions more often if I specialize in Two Handed.

You're overlooking there fact that spells aren't the only way to heal. use potions if you feel a two-hander and spell is unwieldy. you'll learn to accept it in time. if you really must have the giant axe/ healer character... Then learn to use the favorites menu.

No.

Lies and pigeons. Link it.

In oblivion almost all of my robed mages wielded claymores, because it meant I could melee without needing a shield and without getting that annoying penalty to effectiveness.

please don't tell me my Gandalf style is going to be crimped because Beth decided two handed weapons needed to be even weaker.

Bolded and underlined for emphasis, if you can't cast a healing spell while using a two-handed weapon how do you drink a healing potion? Seems like you would have to let go with one hand, pull out the potion, drink it, regrip your weapon, attack. Yeah, I know you don't have to equip a potion like you do a spell.

I really don't care that much you might not be able to cast a heal while using two-handed weapons, though it doesn't make sense to me. It's just seems like this is how the new system will work, at this point.

It was in one of the todd interviews. I think it was the long one with the 2 guys interviewing him and someone else...

You do know that you can also block with 2 handers as well, right?

Also it's not like you have to act differently to heal yourself than in Oblivion. If you would heal yourself while you're right next to the enemy you would hardly get healed at all, and would give the enemy a big opening, so you have to jump back to heal yourself either way.

i dont really mind too much since i wont be using two handers, but if you play on the pc im sure you there will be a mod so you can eventually

After much thought I have come to a reasonable conclusion that champions the spirit of Bipartisanship. My first inclination was outrage that I as a sword type couldn't cast a heal while I had a sword and a shield. But then, after reading some post, it should be easier for a true mage to heal as he/she can not block like I can. Likewise, a true mage should be able to call his/her shield spell quickly and I SHOULD have to fumble with freeing a hand to do it. Why, because mages are better with magic and are empty handed and take greater risk by not being able to block so they should have an easier time with magic healing and defense spells.

And since Restoration(healing) and Shield(alteration) are all on the skill tree, I wouldn't want my continued use of the spell increasing my level if I am a Warrior type. So I could live with not using heal spell much, as my HP will be much higher than a mage and I can buy healing potions. And I can live without a shield spell as I would have high HP, heavy armor and a shield which a mage would not have.

So on the other side, I would still like to find a way that I could have LIGHT in a cave while I had both hands full with a sword and shield. So Bethesda let me throw my torch on the ground and keep it burning so I may see while fighting. I dont want to fumble trying to free a hand in the middle of a fight to cast a LIGHT spell.

True. This probably wouldn't be a problem if they hadn't changed the magic system. If you didn't need to equip a spell in a hand slot there would be no issue. But since they made the change, to make magic more interesting (too early to tell), this is an issue we will have to deal with most likely.

I guess they could have kept it like OB where you had a spell slot and cast button, but you could still do the "on target" (where you tap/click the cast button once), "flamethrower" (where you hold down the cast button), and "rune" (where you aim at the ground to place it with the cast button). You would just lose the two-handed spell or combo spell one in each hand.

You would also just have one hand slot, like OB, since it doesn't seem like, outside of magic, having two hand slots does much. Maybe the shield bash but they could work that out with a different button or combo of buttons (like attack and block at the same time)

So hard to change weapons when you need to. It's good if added like that, shield sword and spell away at the same time, I like, I'm happy.

It adds to the immersion, its more realistic? Yeah like opening the inventory or a pressing hotkey and having your health instantly replenished when using a potion is that realistic.

Is there any actual confirmation on this? With the new system they are going for it makes sense to me that "touch" and "target" spells would need to be equipped in a hand, possibly restricting their use with a 2H weapon (though I think even that is debatable), but "self" targeted spells such as healing spells it doesn't really make any sense.

You mean I am going to have to unequip my 2H sword, then equip my healing spell, then cast my spell, then unequip my spell, then re-equip my 2H sword just to be able to heal myself in combat? That sounds like a horrible system and I find myself in a bit of disbelief they would actually go with a system like that. I find it far more plausible that if I want to cast Nighteye or Waterwalking on myself I'll be able to do so regardless of what I currently have equipped in my hands. Otherwise there is going to be a lot of needless and excessively tedious menu management just to perform very simple tasks. I don't see it happening.

And why not? If you really want to use a healing spell at same time as your sword, use a one handed sword.

Maybe thats not who are builds are. I had a crusader/paladin that used restoration and two handed weapons. having to switch back and forth to cast spells is stupid. If he needs a free hand to cast a spell, put the two hander in one hand for a second. We need a perk for this. I dont mind spending a perk on this, but just give us some way to do it.

Uh.. how about NO? Even the mage has to swap out of thier attack spell into healing to heal unless they drop down to just single hand use of attack magics.

Why should only two handers cast spells in off-hand?
Shield and Dual-wielders should also cast spells whenever they want, it's only fair this way!

At the end of the day this equipping spells to a hand thing is a gimmick. Plane and simple. If this game is about "Being who I want", this destroys the concept of Paladin or Dark Knight type characters, who are known to wield great swords and cast magic.

Honestly, I can't believe people are even defending it. There isn't one good reason to make the game this way, not one.

Because I want it this way and many others did too back when brainstorming years ago...

It makes magic more then just a tacked on bit.

This has been refuted already. If you want to be able to conveniently cast your spell in the middle of combat, use a one-handed longsword. If you want the power of a two-handed claymore, you're going to have to swap to use your spell. It's not as if the Paladin type is unplayable, it's just that there's a tradeoff.

It's the perfect mix of morrowind and oblivion.

In morrowind you could either use spells or fight with a weapon, I notice that they usually just stand there throwing spells until they run out of mana then they switch to melee, which makes it too easy to defeat them cause you can just stand behind a wall while they spam.

In oblivion you can just spam heal while fighting and spells did in fact feel tacked on. I never really felt like a mage :shrug:

That isn't a refute, it's equivalent to you plugging your ears and screaming "I can't hear you!"

Nothing is more immersion breaking than opening a menu to swap between a weapon and spell. And the Paladin type IS unplayable, because a Paladin (unless he's using a shield) uses a two handed sword WHILE casting spells.

Don't say it's for balance either. Balance is done between the damage of a two hander, and the added defense of a shield or added damage of dual wielding.

It would have been perfectly fine to keep it the way it was in Oblivion, but then Bethesda wouldn't be able to brag about this "Exciting new combat system!", that's all this is. Bells and whistles.