when i ride a horse on my knight or become a werewolf on my warrior (although neither are too important because of the way the were implaminted, i like to RP, which means getting a horse on any character that is appropriate and becomeing a werewolf every night [actually full moon, but im not 100% sure when that is in the TES calander]), am i over-reacting? yes, but if it is not made known that being forced into 3rd perosn is the most annoying thing they can possibly do and still have the game considered a TES game then they might make more places where it is forced

@voice of reason

I don't usually ride horses so I had forgotten about that. Oblivion had optional 3rd and first person views on horses, so I am with you. They should do the same in Skyrim. With wolf form, I think they were trying to make combat tougher in wolf form by forcing the 3rd person, but I don't like being forced to do anything in a TES game so I am with you there too.

Its the simple fact that they replace the birthsigns with the stones, they serve the same purpose as the birthsigns they have the same constellation and everything. In TES you were born under a certain sign and given that blessing.
They serve the same function as birthsigns in the past, they took out birthsigns and added thew stones to replace the signs. They are the birthsigns of the past games all 13 of them.

You're still not born with any of these signs so they can't be birthsigns. That was my point. They might have the same bonuses but they're not birthsign IMO

Birsthsign have always existed in this series, and out of all of them you are born under one to say you are not means your character could not exist within the world.

Edit: Here is a book on the birthsigns, http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:The_Firmament.

I never really noticed whether alchemy, smithing or enchanting was in third person or not since you are taken so quickly to the spreadsheet (Hey Todd, look we still have spreadsheets ). But you CAN mine in first person by equipping the pickaxe and manually swinging it at the ore vein.

+1. i agree with all of these.

It shows you in the background not sure if that would be considered third person, well yes those canned animations are third person.
Aw the spreadsheets one of the most insane statements that was given to justify the number of features and content that was cut from the series.
I swing my pickaxe in first to mine, for me it seems faster that way and I seem to get more gems.

Still... I look at the Guardian Stones like magical bonuses from the sky. You can change these bonuses, hence their not exactly birthsigns. I like to think that my birthsign is one that I can't see as that would be more appropriate.

Its difficult for me because they have taken the place of the signs and the sign gives you a blessing.
Now we have the stone where you can change the power of the sign on the fly.

Well... Everybody's different

They serve the same function as Doomstones in the past.

Birthsigns, they just took out. Period.


Nowhere in the game (manual, or in-game lore) did I run into anything that suggested the Guardian Stones had anything to do with "birth". The fact they have constellations on them does not automatically mean that - as is shown by the constellation-based Doomstones in Oblivion. Which also had nothing to do with the character's birth circumstances... you could activate a Doomstone of a different constellation as your birthsign.

Skyrim's standing stones are similar to Oblivion's star sign guardian stones, but not exactly the same. In Oblivion, your "birthsign" conferred a constant active effect. Oblivion's star sign guardian stones only conferred a once a day power.

They eliminated "birthsigns" in Skyrim and they imbued standing stones with constant active effects that were previously reserved only for "birthsigns."

Very true.
Sure they serve the same concept as Doomstones.

Which is insane because that strips people of their birth.

The Stones in this game has replaced the function of the birthsigns and they have similar effects other than a few which are very different now. We could have had our birthsigns and these stones and both the pro and con people of this issue would be happy: I just do not see the point in getting rid of the signs as they are what people are born under. It makes no sense, neck in this game I mainly use the The Steed for its weight incress.

Therefore its safe to assume these are a replacement for the birthsigns.

Or maybe people just got less superstitious about the Tamrielic zodiac.

"Serpent- Don't give up on that search for true love, but don't ignore the opportunities right in front of your face. Sure she may be undead, but love is eternal."

"Lady- You will get that promotion you've been waiting for when the current leader of your bandit tribe gets decapitated by a wandering hero. But your success will be short-lived."

As may be reasonably obvious by this point, I assume no such thing.


And a good number of the stones don't have "birthsign" powers. The Mage/Fighter/Thief stones have a similar effect to Archetype & Major Skill specialization in Oblivion. Several of the other stones still give "once per day" powers. There's no way to make a blanket statement that the stones are "birthsign substitute".

Eh, whatever. Set-in-stone opinions are set in stone. Further debate is mostly pointless.

Maybe thy are not as influenced by what they are related with on the zodiac.

Everybody born under a sign still is blessed with that sign and in Skyrim you suddenly are not, if it was put into the lore it would make sense but as it stands they have not and all we can do is speculate.

All we can do is assume as there is no evidebce in the lore as you have mentioned.

They have changed a lot in Skyrim this is one of those changes they made some more useful such as the steed and the atronach but still, they have removed the signs now we have this it feels that the signs have been replaced by the stones.

That was my feeling as well. They consolidated the star sign guardian stones with birthsigns into the standing stones. Another example of "streamlining." Also, I was not entirely happy with the decision to make some of the stones "more useful" by, for instance, reducing the stunted magicka penalty of the Atronach sign to a minor reduction in the magicka regen speed. Atronach used to be fun and challenging, or at least it changed the way you play the game and taking that birthsign could literally define your character. Now it is just a free 50% Spell Absorbtion for as long as you want it and when you are tired of it just swap it out for the steed stone so you can carry more. Meh.

Yes I dispise the streamlining, well lets be honest dumbing down too.
I do really like the steed and I have stuck with it for a few characters, I also agree that the old atronach made you really think on how you played your game. The lady could be useful I like the lord. The ritual could be fun for a necromancer build.

4. There is a book specifically explaining the lore behind the guardian stones (and by extension the standing stones). It provides a perfectly good explanation for your complaints that only you seem to use them.

Here's a link: http://uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Watcher_of_Stones

In-game lore?

Blasphemy!

You just argued against your own point. If it's really a birth sign, you should not be able to choose it in the first place and you should be stuck with it. However, bethesda allows you the choice. Many new players will have no idea what to choose, and so they are allowed multiple options. The Guardian Stones are nice to have early on so that you can level your skills faster, but become obsolete at a certain point, at which players may want to change. The stones do not represent "birth signs" as much as devotions to certain celestial bodies. In Oblivion, if you don't recall, doomstones serve the exact function of standing stones in Skyrim, so it is no new institution that you are allowed to experiment with different powers. It is just another option bethesda allows us, and with so many complaints that options are too few it is surprising to see a complaint about one. In addition, it's not as though people pretend they don't exist. At the beginning of the game one of two NPCs explains them to you. No, people don't hover about them on a regular basis, but it would be more unrealistic for someone to live next to one of the stones than for you to rarely see people near them. In addition, tossing a bunch of Dibella statues across the wilderness would not improve anything, and if it did, it would be an aesthetic improvement, not one in game play. You repeatedly berate other people participating in your topic for not being "logical," but your hypocrisy abounds when you cannot construct a coherent argument yourself. Don't insult someone by saying the game is "dumbed down" for them because you have not taken the time to consider lore and the precedent set by previous games regarding issues such as this one with the stones, which were present in the same way in Oblivion's doomstones.