Nicely said!

So spell casting is dependent on what is occupying your hand slots at that time. *tick*
If both hand slots are occupied you can't cast (as far as we know so far)
I am aware that the loss of limbs will not occur in Skyrim, but I am merly pointing out the flaw in restricting the use of magic to the state of ones hands. What if someone had no hands. It's a reasoning process called deduction:

PCs require a free hand to cast spells
PC has no hands
PC can't cast spells

So who cares right cause lose of limbs is not in. It is a simple observation, that in other fantasy worlds would be a consideration, as lose of limbs is common in blade based warfare. (and yes, you would be scrwed without hands in Skyrim, but what about if you've lost one hand?). Who cares tho, just a thought.

He doesn't want to have to switch.

I know. I'm saying tough luck by giving logical examples of why putting it away would be the better choice in the first place.

Oh ok cool. I understand now.

Also, OP. Please stop saying how this is so unrealistic. The very idea of casting a magic healing spell is unrealistic to begin with.

Because you need a hand to cast the spell. But don't worry, just ready a heal spell in the other hand (making the twohanded into onehanded). The reason why the weapon is twohanded is because you're using two hands. You're not using two hands because it's twohanded. All apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples.

What? Have you not read anything on the combat system, or read any of this thread?

i think he means have a healing spell in one hand and a 1-handed sword in the other (funny enough u wont be able to block then).

No I was talking about the socalled "twohanded weapons". Some are twohanded period, but most weapons are twohanded if you choose them to be (by the way you're wielding them). People assume too much, because of how things worked in Oblivion.

I don't know. The edit makes even less sense now. OP doesn't want to heal with 1 handed weapon anyway. He's talking about 2 handed weapons.

Let's flip it around: If I'm using a spell in two hands, why can't I also use a sword? Same problem.

ok. in real life sure this works. but in the game u have 2 slots.... 2-handed weapon=2slots.

:intergalactic:


I mean, Beth and some people that hang on to their words are like.

Woot! no classes, less restrictions yeeah! my character can be Dynamic. but then you stop and look that you can't cast spells and defend yourself with a weapons on the fly like a spellsword or battle mage so then its like.....ok why are classes gone when there restrictions are still around?

Are you saying using a 1 handed sword 2 handed? Seems that way. But even then he'd still be against it cause you'd have to switch to healing + sword, then switch back to just the sword being wielded two handed.

The restrictions are there for balancing. Bethesda(and me) think that there should be a tradeoff for playing as a certain type of character. Battlemages(weapom-and-spell) cannot block and two-handed/waepon-and-shield warrior cannot heal without freeing a hand.

Basically this. I'm liking what they are doing with combat and loadouts etc. It will make you think more rather than rush in like an idiot. We've yet to find out way more stuff yet,why should we be able to do everything in combat at the same time without thinking or penalty.....Lets think on our feet for once

As long as I can switch from spell mode to weapon mode easily, so I can still be an effective battlemage I dont mind.

Besides, maybe there will be a perk specific to battle mage characters that makes it easier for that kind of thing.
We just dont know enough yet.

then once again, whats the point of removing classes and touting freedom if I can't make a proper battlemage? healing yourself in combat in the few seconds it took in Oblivion is FAAAR more practical the disarming myself and casting heal while still getting faced by a massive spider :meh:

Guys, it's a video game, remember that.

Too much realism =/= a good game.
There's balance in a video game for a reason...

I think that summarizes the thread (awaits possible flaming)

Let's see this combat system in depth, in motion first shall we?

besides spreading yourself thin with perks and skill levels, are there any other downsides to being a battlemage? should there be?
It seems that this new system is adding to this, so as not to become too powerful of a character.

This concerned me as well.

In oblivion, you could block, slash, and hit your enemy with magic whenever he raised his shield to block. It was gloriously overpowered and I loved it! Having to keep track of my blocks, magics, dodges, and swordplay made for a fun rhythm.

So my question is thus: Why can't I have my cake and eat it too? It's fun! (I always thought the idea of Oblivion was that you could become a thief/mage/swordsman and excel in all these for a well-rounded play experience)

Of course... I trust Bethesda is working overtime to make a fun game and it will be versatile as ever. Maybe this new system means I will need to do multiple playthroughs...

Cause you will dun get fat der boy.

You have a cogent point

We'll figure out ways to break the new system... we alwayyysss do

the talk of "loadouts" and the like gives me a forboding view of what it may be like, I'll wait of course...but the only reprieve is that I personally will have mods to do away with this sillyness.

A spellsword or battlemage would presumably use one-handed weapons, casting spells with the other hand. The Oblivion system was too biased in favor of battlemages. A pure warrior or pure mage would have buttons that they weren't using. A battlemage/spellsword could use all the buttons available to them - thus, the game pushed you towards the battlemage style by making the other styles less enjoyable. The new system gives pure warriors and pure mages an advantage to balance the battlemages - the pure warrior can use powerful two-handed weapons (or dual-wield weapons), and the pure mage can wield two spells at once.