Because realistically you cant parry a full strength swing with a 1 handed blade or weapon. the weapon would be batted to the side or completely knocked from your hand. where as a 2 handed weapon you can counterbalance and retain grip and with a small bit of effort get back into position before your opponent is able to skewer you like a cocktail weenie.

better for balance that way too. next thing people will want is to do back flips while they block and launch fireballs and parry and strike simultaneously. be happy with simplicity.

not like we are asking to be able to cast spells while blocking, we are just asking to have the freedom to play a hybrid at all, instead of being shoehorned into being a warrior or a mage

This doesn't make sense. So if I am dual wielding two one handed swords I can't raise them both up (even crossing them like an x) to block? Really?

But this does the opposite. It makes hybrid classes more fun by giving battlemages actual strengths and weaknesses relative to to other builds.

In Oblivion there was no downside to being a battlemage. They could do everything, which was utterly BORING. It was a catch-all class that incorporated every other class' abilities with virtually no drawbacks. That's why almost everyone ended up playting a battlemage.

It's like an FPS having a gun that is always perfect for all situations. It makes the game boring since there is zero incentive to use other weapons. It doesn't give the player more freedom, just more tedium.

With the enhanced magic system, battlemages will be more deadly along with being more vulnerable than in the past, and most importantly, they will be more unique. It will all equal out to a more fun and varied experience.

making spells into something you wield is all the balance that needed, removing block counters that since you might as well go sole warrior or sole mage

sole warrior so you can block and get a fair chance to defend yourself in melee

or pure mage so you can nuke people at range, because if you use magic at all you don′t want anyone in melee anyway.

As far as I understand:


Dual Weilding: Hold both triggers to block, individual triggers to attack
Two-Handed Weapon: Left trigger to block, right to attack
Sheild and Sword: Left to block, right to attack
Magic and Sword: No block (possible magic block?), individual triggers to attack
One handed Weapon: Unknown
Unarmed: Unknown

There's a logic flaw in your "might as well" reasoning here, namely that battlemages will still have the advantage of being able to dish out serious damage at both close and long range. Again, add in a powerful defense, and the build becomes a catch-all with no real drawbacks relative to the others.

Eh, I'm sure we could reason out a way around this, but it doesn't really matter. At this point I highly doubt the combat system will change, and I think we'll all enjoy it once we actually get to try it out.

That's how I understand it too.
Would be really weird ("realistically" speaking) though if, just because you have magic in one hand, you cant use the other to block. But it's kinda understandable since it would require another button/hotkey; a third button/hotkey.
Maybe some kind of magic block is possible.

offence, yes, but defensively as fast as someone goes melee I′m screwed if I can′t block, now some would say "well then try and not get hit" well that′s the point, if my defence then consists of running away, why not skip the sword and just hard focus on blasting foes in the face at range?

Or just eliminate the defence problem by throwing away magic and focus on giving me the ability to block?


a good character is one whom can work both defensively and offensively, not one or the other, there my friends is where the realism should be, because last I checked, RL warriors prioritise both, not one.

I like the idea of not being able to just make any decision I want without facing consequences. Thats why I like archery now, and now the spellsword type. However, its possible the magazine made a mistake, cuz Todd did say something about holding down both triggers.

I read that you can't block with a one handed weapon is when you a magic spell in the opposite hand

In the OXM thread i've just mentioned about combat.
They said (the mag) it makes sense,and it works well.
It also says you can switch quicky from a spell to a shield etc.
It's not going to be as bad as people make it to be,trust me
It also makes you think more tactically when fighting,nothing wrong with using our brains from time to time...eh mate :thumbsup:

Not presicely true. In RL, there were many instances where certain types of fighters prioritized offense over defense, or visa-versa. Moreover, we're assuming there will be no magical means of buffing your defense, which I doubt is true.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind a cross block for dual weilding blade users, provided the blades were batted away after one strike from a two-handed blow. Two-handed weapons are in need of real buffs compared to Oblivion (not just the lame solution of dealing more damage).

but what if I wanna roleplay a spellsword whom only use a weapon and a spell, should I be punish from that?


plus isn′t it better to promote people use they brains with the tools they have? Rather then use there brains to circumvent the BS limitations of them?

Thanks for the comments. Glad you guys enjoyed it. I didn't mean it to be any sort of tale when I first started it, as you can see with the bullet points, but am happy with how it turned out.



Outlander, from what I've heard blocking while dual wielding weapons is possible and, in fact, pressing both triggers or mouse buttons at the same time is how you do it. I imagine when you try to block with your character he will either cross his weapons in front of his face and absorb the impact, or , since Beth is putting such an emphasis on timing your blocks, perhaps blocking will deflect the momentum of your enemy strikes, by pushing their weapon aside and leaving them open for a quick counter attack.

As far as everyone being worried about not being able to block with sword+spell, the info might not even be correct, but even if it is, I just don't see it being a problem. It just means you will be forced to do more switching between your preset slots at precise moments, to draw that second weapon or un-equip the spell so that you can block the oncoming attack in time. It's just one more way to make combat that much more involving and intense.

Because in your right hand you may have a shield spell?

Why Spell and weapon cant block its because:
Poor design decision or/and Console control limitation.
Those are the only 2 plausible explanation.

The middle way to do it was designing a third button to block but they won t do it.

The right way to do it is to have a button for the right hand a button for the left hand and a third button acting like a shift:
Hand action + "shift" umpressed = attack
Hand action + "shift" Pressed = defend.

Simple clean and neat.

And on a side note switching fast to a shield is lame. shield are slow to be done on and need both hand, unless a buckler, they a have a hand grabber and a forearm fixer, usually a leather tongue you must adjust and lock.
They easy to throw away but not the other way around.

And what about the freedom from not training a skill? Are you saying melee combatants NEED to use and thus train the Block skill to be viable? Just like you had to train the athletics skill in Oblivion and it was a bad idea. The melee combat should be viable without having to train Block at all.



Remember that the skills you do not train are as much part of what differentiates your toon from the other toons than the skills you train.

I wouldn't call it a punishment, you can use spells when they are not up close and as they close in you quickly switch to the shield, it is just trying to make you mix it up a bit

but I have a perfectly blocking melee weapon right the f word there!

why should I be fumbling around with that when the others don′t?

I see where your coming from,but we can have different load outs,meaning: once you have used your spell etc,you can quickly switch back to a shield etc.
Then if you feel you have a chance to,then you switch back to sword and a spell again,to go even more offensive.
Its a balance between the two,making it tactical.
In my book,if you are willing to go ultra offensive,then defence should be weakened and so on.
It sounds ok to me.

again to remind you, if I roleplay that my character would never use a shield aka I purposely choose not to use a shield because that′s how I wanna roleplay....in a RolePlaying Game, why should I be punished?

What about dual wielders? How can you not block with a sword in each hand? All you have to do is raise both swords to block?

Ralos, your argument contradicts itself.

As a spellsword you would carry a sword in one hand and be switching between multiple spells in your other whenever the need arises for you to use your brain, as you put it, and call upon a new spell to try and tackle a specific problem on screen. Un-equipping your spell altogether and leaving one hand vacant so you can block a strike, when you anticipate that your enemy's attack is on the way, is no different than using your preset slots to switch between multiple spells and using them in the fight, only instead of pulling up a new spell you have to use your brains to empty that hand so you can time your blocks and save yourself needless damage to your health.