A step backwards doesn't literally mean backwards in time. Otherwise, complete removal of the level-scaling system used in Oblivion would be "A step backwards."

The problem with the Oblivion system is there was no consequence for weapon/spell choices. A battle mage could fight as well as a warrior, and cast spells like a mage. The jack of all trades should be flexible, but not as powerful (or moreso) than a person who specializes in that field. You can no longer run into any situation with the same load-out. There should be a lot more strategy before a fight this time around, as well as changing tactics during a fight.

we can do that in OB without duel weilding. we just make a spell at arcane university that does that, and that way you can just pull up that spell via hot key rather than sorting through your magick inventory to set up the combination every time you use it.

besides, I don't think duel wielding is specificly for spells, I think its biggest advantage is for having things like staffs and swords, two shields maybe, two one handed weapons. I think this was mostly bgs's way off finally introducing the off hand weapon mod from MW and OB... except we could block with those, but a mod for SK could easily change the off hand weapon type from weapon to sheild.

@joshmham balancing mages should be done so by serious system configuration, not just making it more annoying to use spells and sword and shield together more irritating.

when I said a step backwards it was refering to change, Oblivion went ->forward with its Magick system as far as casting goes, Skyrim went a half step back using Morrowind and Oblivions system in conjunction...a Hybrid

Complete removal of level scaling in Oblivion would be a BLESSING...........Even Morrowind had it, just not as in your face game crippling as it was in Oblivion.

Dual paralyze would obviously just be a longer-lasting or area-effect paralyze, but I think that for the rest of those effects a one-handed casting would make them a limited duration spell just like in prior games while dual-casting would turn them into toggled effects that drain your magicka while they're in effect.

what would be the benefit of using two of the same spells at once (excluding damage spells because the benefit is obvious), what I mean: is duel weilding supposed to be more effiecient or just having slightly more effectivity than 2X . because usueally duel wielding in rpg's is not as effective or effiecient.

So people were complaining how everything is dumbed down, and how Oblivion's combat was too easy and just mindless hack and slash. Now we have a strategic element in that would make combat more diverse and now everyone is complaining that it's bad. Classy.

I don't remember anyone saying Oblivions Magic system was Dumbed down, action oriented yeah but who in their right mind would argue about Oblivions spell system when you recieved penalties for not playing as a actual mage, instead of a fighter who casts spells, and yes thats pretty much all there is to it, hack and slash, I don't know how Dual wielding makes things "diverse" maybe trivially slow, having to switch to different spells to achive a certain effect? yeah thats Deverse...and annoying, no matter how fast the switch bettween "loadouts" is.

yeah because 2 fireballs is less useful than one, 2 summoned Daedra arent better than one. Are you a "Special" kid or something?

I wasn't talking about the magic system but the combat system as a whole.

It's diverse by you actually have to THINK.
Playing as a mage will be different than playing a warrior. Also the old system catered for hybrid classes way too much.

ah...no I wouldnt agree then, I mean Morrowinds system was a Dice roll...a very annoying Dice roll, Oblivions combat is effectively like all TES games without the Dice roll control of shield and semi proper weapon arcs...I wouldnt call it Dumbed down.
l
If it included momentum and multipliers based on movement, locational damage yeah sure...but no TES game to date has that, apparently Skyrim does just not like Fallouts...which is a good thing....Im tired of a low calibur bullet taking off peoples arms

I think it would make the most sense to be able to have two summoned creatures in play if dual-wielding a conjuration spell. Could lead to some cool combinations!

Or if the same sort of "spell combining" idea they've tossed around about Destruction applies...one hand gets you a fireball, both gets you an uber-fireball. Switch to "Summon Skeleton," oh maybe...one hand gets you a skeleton, two gets you a skeleton archer...or a tougher skeleton, or changes the weaponry it's equipped with when summoned.

Don't know how useless dual-wielding spells will or won't be until we see some gameplay footage using it. :shrug:

I'm gunna run around with bound weapon in one hand, and bound shield in the other. anyone who complains they can't do magic while having a sword & shield should try this, Cuz its all three =P

But really... It'll be better for players who are straight combat, and yes, a disadvantage for magic using sword & boarders. but it adds some major decision making, and imo, a much deeper and more fun combat system.

I really like the idea of Dual Wielding, providing we get a proper UI with more than 1 freaking Hotkey like consoles.

Conjuration : 1h ConjureA ; 1h ConjureB (doubles your summon count, any mix of armor/weapon/creature)

Mysticism/Alteration (merged now) : 1h Reflect Damage or Damage Shield; 1h Telekinesis (actually sounds pretty epic now that I think about it)

Far from useless.


Also, yeah they nerfed Battlemage, cause thats what 99% of people played since it could literally do everything. They actually want different archetypes to be as good. A big step forward.

Broadly - dual wielding of spells and combinations of spells and weapons, shields, etc. is just one of those things that's prey to the way that Beth designs games. They start with a gimmick - in this case dual wielding - and they stuff it into the game, then they set about trying to balance the rest of the game around that gimmick - trimming here, restricting there, eliminating this other thing entirely - in order to accomodate the gimmick. It remains to be seen how well they pull this one off - sometimes they do it well and other times they don't.

Narrowly - I dislike the imposed restriction of having to "equip" a spell in place of an item. And before the scorn even starts - that's not because I have any sort of interest in playing some sort of uber battlemage deathdealer with two of everything in his hands (I've never gotten the fascination with battlemages anyway - I think I've played maybe three of them in all my years of TES games). It's because I dislike artificial binary restrictions - you can do this and you simply can't, at all, do that. If they're logical physical restrictions - of course they should exist (you can't fight with a sword and a bow at the same time), but I see no physical reason why you shouldn't be able to cast a spell with something in your hand. If the point is to limit the power of battlemages, then simply expand the concept of spell effectiveness so that it's not only affected by armor, but by equipped items. Make it so that a character with a sword in one hand and a shield in the other can't cast a very good spell, simply because he's got so much stuff in his hands, but I'm not too fond of the idea of arbitrarily making it such that the mere presence of a dagger in your hand means you can't cast a spell AT ALL. That just doesn't seem believeable to me, and, to me, believeability trumps balance every time.

To further GP's post, Dual-wielding wasn't even a focus much less in the game until recently What ever Todd calls late, I find it sad so much took a curbstomping just so that Dual wielding could be in and initially not have magick spell interactions? I mean Modded Oblivion has Dual wielding...actual working Dual wielding were it matters and it wasn't as froobed as it sounds or rather not as cut this and cut that as the current system sounds :shrug:

Actual working dual wileding? You mean one where the other sword isn't just a shield?
Only one I know used the same system from daggerfall, changing your mainhand weapon to your offhand one. That's barely true dual wielding.
The rest were only animation.

- no one is making you dual wield any of those spells.

- it makes much more sense that you can't just shoot a fireball around your sword0

And it doesn't seem believable to me that you could cast spells, when there's anything in your hand.
How do you throw a fireball from your hand when you're already holding a sword or a shield on it? In nearly all fantasy media it requires at least one free hand.

The only question really here are the two handed weapons. For that I can think there might be a perk so that you can cast one handed spells with them. Hopefully...

paralyze + some offensive spell (fireball for ex.)
or
weakness to element + offensive spell of this element
or
drain life + offensive spell

There are great combinations, so it doesn't seem useless at all

I just wonder how quickslots will work
In what order they will replace items in hands?
Or we will be able to set combination of two in quickslot?

they could do it like in the witcher 2 how Q was set to use your currently equipped sign/spell and R was set for you currently equipped special item bomb/trap. that COULD make you a "true paladin" as someone said.

I like the new system better. In OB magic had its own button and made it seem lesser then say the sword and board. Now its more like Bioshock (best shooter ever) were you have to chose what you want to use. Now the magic users can dual wield and not have to me bothered by even looking at a staff or sword the never used. Besides for my spellax I'll just going to hotkey 1. ax+shield 2.ax+fire 3. fire+fire 4. fire+heal etc. for everything else. All there is to do is press a number and 1 second later I have a whole new fighting style ready. Some of you might really be over thinking it, or stuck in old ways. Get with the new [censored]. :foodndrink:

(edit) grammerfail

Are they the same people? I don't think so.
When playing on maximal difficulty TES4 is more tactical than TES3 or TES2
Yes maybe it is damn hard to play as pure something, but when playing as mixed class, it is great.
(Lets be honest sooner or later we all become sneaky spellswords)
Sneak upon someone as close as you can, buff yourself, get his attention with bow (increased damage included), attack, attack, block. as soon as enemy is knocked back a little, retreat and heal yourself as much as possible (spells AND potions) if there is time cast something offensive or summon something nasty, continue until everyone except yourself as dead. Not to mention fights against numerous strong enemies (reloading few times included)

Maybe someone knows, how shield+ spell combination will work? In TES4 it svcked that you couldn't apply spells on yourself while shielding from incoming attacks.

I believe this system to be a step back, think about Fable 1 to Fable 2... then to the awful Fable 3. Each game they stream lined the spell casting system until it was eventually 'wielding' spells like Skyrim will be. You could create 'more' spells by using 2 different ones (blades and fireball, or storm and force push) or you could make a super strong fireball. Each spell had 3 different ways to cast it, as a normal spell, an AoE, or by charging it.

It made the game boring, the best part about Fable 1 was being able to have access to any of the spells at any time via the spell book... you could have a multi arrow spell put on you then summon a ghost and then dash around and then cast a fireball... this string of actions got progressively harder to do in the series until it was impossible in fable 3.

People who enjoyed using 2h weapons or 1h and shield as well as casting magic are feeling slighted by this new system and they rightly should. This was a legitimate playstyle.