What has a pure mage healing his minions or driving off the undead with restoration magic got to do with becoming a battlemage?

A pure mage doesn't use conventional weapons so there would be no mace in either hand.

That would make him a Spellsword(or Spell-Mace)!

Ofcourse he didn't enchant his own weapons. Ahzidal showed up and made them for him

I've had warriors who only smithed their equipment and relied on their perks and quest rewards (both items and perks) to get by. They would also regularly visit the closest alchemist to buy their potions. They did perfectly fine, even though I was deliberately restricting them, for the sake of role playing.

It's all about what you're having fun with. As for those who say this and that, I stopped granting them my valuable attention, long ago. What they say, is based upon what they think they know about the game anyway

For me it's about proportions. A warrior uses conventional weapons as his primary way of dealing damage and conventional armor as his primary defense. He's more interested in the battle itself than in preparing for it, so he's more likely to buy all necessary supplies than spend hours crafting them on his own. However, it doesn't mean he can't brew potions or cast a few spells when necessary, it just isn't what he's focused on (but it might be a well-developed side skill).

A warrior HAS TO BE a tall blond male Nord that uses an iron or steel sword with iron or steel shield and complete set of iron or steel armor who blocks with his shield and hits people with his sword and never picks locks, never casts spells, never enchants, never buys or sells anything (that uses a stealth skill, speech), never sneaks and never uses a potion of any kind.

If you do anyone of those things you are a filthy mongrel hybrid wannabe poser 'warrior' and need to learn how to play by following my eternal principles of warrior purity OR uninstall skyrim NOW

kkthnxbai.

No man all kool VyKinng Skyrem 4 da Nords warriors need Level 9000 Daedric Armour oferwise your a n00-b.

Ah yes, I forgot about High Rock, lol. But don't we all?

Btw, thank you for the compliment

High Rock is home to the greatest chefs in Tamriel how could you forget about it.

As a pen and paper roleplayer and Gm since the late 70s and having run a HERO system ( which is completely classless but very stylish) continuous campaign for over 25 years, I disagree classes have any connection to any but a very narrow spectrum of roleplaying mentality. In fact, my group always found the opposite, which is why we dropped D&D like a hot potato once stuff like Traveler or The fantasy Trip( proto GURPs) and then in the early 80s HERO came around.

anyway carry on. I can certainly see a pure Warrior not having ANY crafting skills if you want to get anol and that's a viable build but its pretty limiting.

I completely agree with The Robot. Ofc the "warrior" term could is very wide, but if you're refering to your class you've stopped being a warrior the second you opened that spelltome. I don't understand why some people can't accept this. If you're a warrior but still heavily relies on restoration, you're not a warrior, you're a crusader.

The past TES games gave us plenty of named classes with almost any combination of skills.

(pure) Warrior > Crusader > Spellsword > Battlemage > Sorcerer > (pure) Mage

How exactly is a crusader or a knight not a warrior, one who deals in warfare?

Simple grammatical disagreement, I'd say. Warriors, in the past, have existed as a class in the game, and one that is entirely devoted to the combat skills. The Knight and Crusader have always been hybrids who have been built on the basis of the warrior fighting style.

The overall view I have is that there is a different between the warrior class and the warrior fighting style. To distinguish them, for the purpose of tihs thread, I'd call the class warrior and the general fighting style for "fighter" or "melee fighter". Which I think comes back to the problem the OP has with people using the term warrior for hybrid characters. Hence why I like to use the terms Crusader or warrior-healer(taken from warrior-poet, from the Boyant Armigers).

PS: Inbox

ha if they didn't remove the Hand to Hand skill (why Beth?) then I would've made a bare-assed barbarian brawler long ago

I brawled every Orc chief in this way which was a fun way of showing all the tribes who's boss...bears aren't impressed though.

I'll never understand that. It goes against the actual definition of warrior, and is a silly MMO Dungeons and Dragons mentality, not fit for TES and not supported anywhere in TES. They can keep it all. I'll still call my warriors warriors despite enchanting his own equipment.

I think the "warrior" class in D&D is actually called fighter, so I don't think it comes from that.

It would if people interchange fighter for warrior. "Pure fighter" "pure warrior".

If you follow that line every single character you make will be a warrior.

Not quite. That's what keeps people from calling those in the navy soldiers, for instance. There's some common sense here that comes into play. The president is no soldier because he deals with warfare, for instance. Mages are not warriors because their primary offensive abilities are magic.

The difference then between a warrior and, say, a battlemage is a warrior's offensive skill is primarily with a melee weapon. A battlemage is equally deadly with both melee and magic. And that, is the difference.

Depends. Some general traits for a warrior I think we can agree on is that they are melee fighting-specialized combatants who usually favors heavy armor. Of course, that is rather vague, but it would separate it from things like Rogues.

K, I finally see your point now. Mine is: why do you must call your character a warrior when there's a term that suits him much better? as I said in my original post, "warrior" is just very wide. We use the class names to tell someone what our character is, what he does and the skills he uses.

What's the point then?? we have class names that say exactly what our primary skills are and we have "warrior", a very wide and vague word. you tell me which one is better to define your character

I agree. I call my main character a "Barbarian" as that better describes what he is even though he can still fall under the "Warrior" title as he uses no magic...the difference is that unlike the typical Warrior he wears little to no armor, no potions, hunts and cooks meat to heal and drinks mead; he also uses only a battleaxe for battle so no sword-n-board which is why I label him Barbarian as it's more befitting.
All these wannabe "Warriors" turn a blind eye to the fact that Enchanting is magical and always has been, especially when you simply reference real life doesn't have such magic yet swords have been used by warriors since blades been invented.

Its because there isn't a name for a warrior who enchants. I call my warriors who use restoration "paladins", but to me they're still warriors, even though I can see the difference there.

But a warrior who enchants doesn't have a name because its a skill utilized outside of the battlefield. Its like saying a warrior who can sing is no warrior and he has to be called a battlebard, because singing would be considered a speechcraft skill.

Or more simply, a warrior who is good with talking and selling his own wares is a battle bard or some other random class because its a speechcraft skill and not a warrior skill. Same with alchemy.

Exactly. Good to know you agree with me. Sometime I feel like drawing a triangle and put all OB's classes in it, Warrior, Thief and Mage being the edges

I see how the crafting skills could stay outside of what defines classes, but both your examples fall under Bard

Bards don't use heavy armor and block, and can make legendary weapons and charge head on into battle.