Two handers drawback is their speed. Taking a perk to be able to cast with a two handed wouldnt hurt the precious balance in a single player game were freedom>balance.

So if you have a claymore (two handed weapon), you are a beast. Meaning your HP is probably 2-3 times the amount a mage would be at the same level. If you connect your sword with a mage of light armor, they are in a hurt locker and need to heal quickly.

A two handed warrior on the other hand can either take quite a bit of damage or shrug it off. So I just don't think a warrior should be able to use a heal spell as proficiently or as quickly as a mage.

there's a lot more builds than the mage/warrior/thief. I could see an Inquisitor as a two handed caster that would benefit from such a perk. Or a Paladin/Crusader.

Okay, if you want a lot of freedom in game, then magic should like, be ten times more powerful then swords right? Because after all, it's realistic (In TES universe wise.)

No, you want balance even in a SP game, so warriors won't feel gimped compared to mages, so the player can make a fair choice on the class he wants to play. That's freedom.

I'm not disagreeing with the point that mages should be better at spellcasting. That's a given. It's just odd that they changed it so that you can't cast spells while holding objects that can easily be held with one hand.

Letting a twohander cast spells by taking a perk does not unbalance the game. Magic has always been more powerful than melee in TES games.

I don't see this as much of an issue; the dual-wield and two-hander paths seem to be intended for heavily combat oriented types, not combat/magic spellswords. Not that they can't use magic, just not as readily as those with a dual magic/combat focus. Makes sense to me. I'm sure there'll be potions for healing and it also seems likely that a character with a big two-handed weapon will go down the heavy armor route for better protection, so things should balance out.

Limitation isn't always bad; I think this system sounds a lot more interesting gameplay-wise than a "anything goes" approach.

It just...Doesn't fit. And if Bethesda thinks the same, then I'll take their word on it. Also, Bethesda is trying to address that issue in which magic is more powerful than melee by taking out the ability to craft your own spells. So they are aiming for balance.

Yet it fit in Oblivion. One of the things Oblivion did better than Morrowind. Plus spell crafting hasn't been confirmed out and if it is out, its not about balance. Todd said they dont know if they can implement it if spell effects are multi faceted, although he said he would like to have it in.

I agree, it doesn't fit. Should dual-wielders and shield-users get separate perks for the same thing?

I can see it requiring a large enough skill in 2h and a magic skill

^Awwww. We were separated at birth.
NEway I plan on doing a combination of characters. Warrior first, and I expect it to be difficult for me to cast spells. Then Battlemage, where it will be just as easy as a mage but I wouldn't have all the mana of a mage or all the HP of a warrior. Then pure mage, where it is second nature to cast heal spells, but I better know how to do it because my HP are the lowest because I sacrifice that for mana.

That would be the requirement for the perk. Even though perks are associated with one skill not two.

That argument is completely irrelevant, those users wouldn't be able to free up a hand as easily as someone with a two-handed weapon.

Yeah, but this is just breaking the combat system that Bethesda made in the first place. Who knows how hard it is to implement that in.

As for the spell crafting, you're right on that part, forgot that piece of info.

I'd rather just have Bethesda focus on more important "stuff" then this to be honest. It's already too late to incorporate this in anyways with the new combat system.

You sure only 1 skill? I know in NV and FO3, some perks required 2 skills to fulfill the requirements of being able to get that certain perk. But yeah, with 2h weapons, a person could drop one hand to cast a spell. Someone with a shield + 1h or 2 one handers have no free hands.

It comes down to dual wielding really. I dont mind dual wielding weapons, but the dual wielding spells just seems like a tacked on gimmick to get more out of the dual wield thing. Everyone liked the move from Morrowind to Oblivion in regards to weapons and magic, but now we're going backwards.


Yes, perks will be in trees directly associated with one skill. there will be no general perks, or at least not at level up. Perks will be a lot more mundane than Fallout perks. They will be more akin to the benefits from the different ranks of a skill that were in Oblivion.



Your referring to spell crafting or my perk idea?

Not to me.

In Morrowind we couldn't, in Oblivion we could, now we cant. Whether its better or worse this way is irrelevant, its taking a step back to the way it was, or worse. Since we have been able to do it before, we need some explanation on why you cant do it anymore. Are we going to rewrite Oblivion's lore that was determined by in game mechanics? Was everyone in Cyrodiil just super adapt at casting with things in their hand? Will Bows be considered twohanders? Will we not be able to cast with an undrawn bow in our hand either?

To you. Not me.

In hindsight, I don't like the Oblivion system. I like it more than Morrowind, but I like what I've seen of the Skyrim system more than either. In Oblivion, always having access to a weapon and spell at the same time made spellswords and hybrids too versatile and too powerful. What was the point of playing a pure mage when you were always free to use a sword of any kind with no impact on spellcasting? Disregarding roleplaying, of course.

The Skyrim system allows hybrids to perform quite well, using one sword and one spell. But it also benefits pure melee fighters (two swords, two-handers) and especially pure mages (two spells). Hybrids will be just as versatile as they were in Oblivion, but they will be no more powerful than their pure counterparts. No longer do you have to actively handicap yourself if you want to play a pure mage or warrior. I think that's a step forward for all three playstyles.

No it isn't. Not until we've backtracked to "Morrowind Spellcasting 2.0," where we have to switch from "fight" mode to "cast" mode to cast a spell.

Exactly.

*shakes magic 8 ball and asks question*

Magic 8 balls responds: "Signs point to yes."

The 8 ball has spoken.

As long as the 2 handeds have decent power this shouldn't be a problem, but I will miss casting illusion spells if I use a bow.

Which is basically the same thing. When holding a twohander you'll be going from weapon mode to cast mode, but worse, since you'll be hotkeying back and forth even more than the Morrowind system.

Good thing I personally only have two builds that use a twohanded melee weapon and magic. But not being able to cast with a bow equipped is just stupid.