Just wondered what people though about playing as a combo of combat and magic.

Personally, I would like to be able to cast spells on self regardless of how many weapons/shield I am holding, as I originally planned to have a dual wielding battlemage, but it looks like that will be difficult if one hand is required to be free for spell casting.

If there weren't such a limit, a magic/combat hybrid would be a bit overpowered compared to the rest. I mean... compared to pure Combat, you have a fistfull of magic which could potentially do more damage in one swoop than any weapon. Compared to pure mages, you have a weapon with which to deal with melee-range attackers that attempt to exploit the typical Squishy Wizard weakness of mages.

I'm hoping that defense with just a weapon is a bit more realistic this time around. You don't just hold a weapon out in front of you to defend like you would a shield, you have to actively swat an enemy's weapon away from you; you have to parry.

Just think of it.... Thrust-parry-riposte-bind-FLAMETHROWER HAAAAAND!!!! :flamethrower:

If you wanted to dual wield, I would focus on damage over time, buffs, and conjures. Basically stuff that, unlike fireballs, will stick around. So, with sword in one hand, cast your spell, then unsheath your off hand weapon.

I think this would work well with the "rune" spells. Basically lay down a minefield, get the enemies attention, then crash into them while they are engulfed in your magical booby trap. Hehe. Booby.

I've always played a stealth/magic hybrid so I'll be rocking a Dagger in my right hand and a Spell in my left.

As for using a Two-Hander, Duel Wielding, or using a Shield the solution is fairly simple. As Keltic Viking says just stick with over time spells. Basically put up your claymore for a second, cast spell, pull claymore back out.

yeh I am gonna be a spellaxe nord

I've always played as these types of characters. Personally I'm glad that not using a shield allows me to use magic. I never used them, but now there's a reason to not wear them.

I really hope there are some usefull buff spells in the game. It would be a good way to play a spellsword that dual wields, or uses a sword and shield (unequip off-had, buff, then equip off-hand again; buff will remain on). It's good for game balance that you can't do offensive magic with both hands full, as it would be a bit over powered. Even the buffs could be overpowered and unfun, unless they had some cool effects (5% chance to send enemy flying, 5% chance to set them on fire, etc). The problem with fun effects, though, is that if they don't distinguish between friend and foe, then, well, "You've violated the law!".

i usually go for heavy armor, destruction, and blade and block and it works out ok. The way they discussed having a favorites menu to tag certain equipment/spells etc seems like its not a big deal to switch weapons or spells out so the only thing I can think of as a request is that they keep at trying to make some form of spellcrafting work (they talk about it in the new interview and i'm quite pleased that they are at least trying something). Or maybe a perk that makes heavy armor affect magic use less?

Yeah... I'm a bit wary of the inability to cast spells while wielding a sword and shield. The buffs are the boring part... I'd rather be able to go in, kick ass with an axe and shield, then Flamethrower Hand the pain-in-the-ass archers. And if it's "Overpowered"? Well... FYIADB

And it would auto-balance with the lower relative skill levels in Weapon, Armor, and Block skills to accomodate the extra firepower.

If you really can't cast spells with one sword and one shield in hand, I don't know how I'll play might Knight character. What is a knight without a shield?

What is a Knight with spells? Not a Knight, but a Spellsword...

Personally, I like the direction they are taking with this. In Oblivion, I almost felt like I HAD to use spells with my warrior class, simply because it would be a disadvantage not to. If I can wield a sword and shield and still be able to throw fireballs between swings, why not?

Using the new 2 hands 2 choices system, it will force players to really commit to their playstyles. If you want to use a sword and shield and still cast spells, you can. Just be prepared to do a lot more juggeling

Knights and Paladins do use spells typically in the RPG world. I agree, I felt I could never really play as a pure warrior in Oblivion and Morrowind, because if I didn't improve my willpower, spell casters could really hamper you. I hope in Skyrim I can play as a full warrior.

Paladins, yea. I was going to mention that one but I figured spellsword was good enough. But when I think of a Knight, I picture heavy platemail, shield and a longsword/mace. I don't think of a fireball throwing, magical regenerating tank warrior... But maybe that's just me :/

No. the magic should be limited to those willing to devote a hand to it.

Agree.

And nightblades are the coolest.

I do like the new system. I think it does make things much more balanced. There is actually an advantage now to playing a pure mage.

wait, what's a nightblade? My gut tells me it's something sneaky, but I've never heard the term before.

I think the new system will be great not only for balance, but for replayability... now there are reasons to go back and play a pure mage after your combat build because it will feel that much different, instead of just adding magicka, dropping heavy armor, and altering certain aspects of your game. Now barbarian that uses a two handed axe will feel different from a sword and board character, and a mage will feel way different than either of those two. You're not necessarily limited in your options for a single playthrough, you're just encouraged to stick to a type or combat.

Personally I felt when I played oblivion I always had to use magic because there was a button devoted solely to magic. It felt I was shorting my character by not throwing a fireball or two. Now if I play a dual wielding berserker, I won't feel so bad about not using magic... and my mage type won't look so dumb running around without a weapon cuz I can have a spell in each hand :clap:

EDIT: I just realized how unbelievably off topic I got with that.... sorry lol. My post still stands.

And to answer the question... if you go sword and board or dual wield and you wanna use destruction or something, then I think the best option would be to unequip your weapon and keep the shield for defense( or just one weapon for dual wielders lol). It's a give and take, and being able to attack, defend, and cast isn't fair to pure fighters or mages, so two hand two options makes the most sense, in my eyes !t least