I think if they are going to include touch spells they should be specifically different to the ranged spells. I don't need a touch spell that does fire damage and a ranged that does fire damage. I would like them to set it up in a way where you use a spell to immobilize the target for just long enough for you to get close and use your touch spell to do some devastating damage but have it specific to touch. Don't mix touch and ranged spells I think.

The whole point of touch spells is to reduce the magicka cost of the spell, which lets you deal more damage. Ranged spells do less damage than touch, and cost more, but they give the caster a safety buffer of the range. Its a trade off between range, power, and cost.

I can do without them, really the same effects can be achieved with a target spell, only difference is touch spells cost a little less mana. I'd rather see good target spells, would save me from having to switch back and forth between touch and target spells, which was something which really annoyed me in oblivion and morrowind.

With the dual wielding, touch spells would be amazing for battle mages. Sword in one had, touch spell in the other. You would be invincible during close combat.

I am a bit confused by your wording, you cannot dual wield spells and use one hand for a sword at the same time. Forgive me if I missed the true meaning of what you were aiming at, if I did please verify. I myself think that dual wielding spells could give rise to a very awesome spell casting monk class.

Makes more sense with a comma:


Note to self: Don't try to underline a comma.

I'm pretty sure that in GI, there is a picture of a troll who is being lit on fire by a touch spell. No official statements, but I'm going to assume its in based on this screen.

I would love to play a close range Mage, duel wielding two touch spells

I really liked the touch spells in Oblivion and I hope that they are back for skyrim. It was a balst combining touch spells and a shield; you know, getting close, blocking attacks with you shield, then frying them (or shocking, or freezing) with your touch spell.

Hmm...Unarmed fighting could be more powerful if magic was added to it. Hadouken!

This is destruction magic, not unarmed.

I would like to see some unarmed weapons though, like knuckle dusters or punch daggers or claw gauntlets.

Sorry forgot a comma. It's so weird that the lack of a comma makes a whole sentence not make sense. That's one of the reasons English takes so long for new speakers to learn.

Touch spells never looked very realistic (as in actually touching someone in a believable way - not as in a "magic isn't real" way, so no one start). If you actually grabbed someone and burned them with your hand that would be cool. With all the other games it was more of a "talk to the hand" gesture where some clueless opponent just ran into a face palm.

Touch spells were very effective in close combat. Most of the touch spells I know are very effective and useful. Yes, I want touch spells!

I never liked the idea of a mage being more dangerous at close range than at long range. I'd prefer that projectile spells would simply automatically turn into "touch" spells that are guaranteed to hit if someone is currently in your face.

PS. Nice sig BTW

If no touch spells then at least have cone wide damaging spells.

Flamethrowers!

That one is already confirmed :flamethrower: .

Touch spells are in, but not in the traditional way. We will no longer have a fire spell "on touch" and another fire spell "on target". We have a single fire spell that can be casted in different ways depending on how you press the cast button. In the case of fire, the flamethrower mode is your "on touch" spell. We know that the other elemental spells have the same versatility so expect an "on touch" mode as well.

I want the touch spells to be a bit more believable. If I use a ice touch spell I want to see my character grasp my enemy, and watch frost spread on his/her body.

Touch spells are pretty good, but target spells have the same function at close range. I'd be fine with or without them.

I would assume that if you can cast a spell as a flamethrower (close range as I would assume it would only stretch out so far) by holding down a button then just hitting the button would act as a touch spell. Just depends on how they handle the spell casting.

I just wonder how the spell casting will work. Do you have to do something different to cast a spell on target, flamethrower, or rune? I mean if you have to look down and cast to place a rune would you accidentaly place a rune if you looked down to flamethrow a rat at your feet? Todd said something about charging up an AOE fireball or something. does that mean you have to repeatedly hit the cast button? (what launches the spell if you are already hitting the cast button?) Maybe I'm just not thinking clearly as I just woke up.