Yeah, more backpedaling and not making any argument, at all. LOL at absolutes. Facts and fact based opinions are as absolute as you'll get. Show proof of dual casting being anything more than a gimmick, design choice of how spells would be cast, or how the things I listed that are no longer in Skyrim, actually are. You cant. All you can do is dance around it.

Considering that if you take perks out you're basically left with the same system as before then you're arguing for all the TES games. That being said most perks are based upon percentages which means that they scale with level so even at a high level the effects are still the same.

The only effect that doesn't really have a set percentage or number is the bleeding effect which ultimately does 18 points of damage over time with a Daedric weapon, however it also stacks.

you can always type the magazine name volume number and edition into google and look for yourself.

p.s. the magazine is from 1975 in case you are unable to figure that out from my post as well.

I'm arguing more about how those things actually adding diversity. They don't really. Its just more damage. Things like bound weapons banishing summoned creatures is an actual new and unique feature, for example. It isn't just some number slider that's barely noticeable.

Its obvious that if he is proven wrong, he isn't interested in hearing it.

Then again, I haven't really been paying attention to your argument, so I don't know if your right or wrong, but if your right, he doesn't want to be told about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger

Is what Tolkien based Aragorn on. Aragorn was no paladin knight hybrid, which is what you stated was the staple for all rangers classes. Aragorn was simply a man who was good and moving across the lands unseen and tracking down things and fought to rid his homeland of evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(Middle-earth)

" with their keen senses and ability to understand the language of birds and beasts.^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(Middle-earth)#cite_note-0} They were great trackers and hardy warriors—defending their respective areas from evil forces."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger - Now this is a definition of a ranger. Where in the world do you get the idea that the D&D-definition of a ranger is teh holy grail for every RPG out there? Are you serious? There are so many other RPGs and even though D&D sure had much influence on today's RPG landscape it still is a class description from this game, not a definition of teh term "ranger". So maybe if you think about a ranger you have a certain picture in mind but to sell it as universal truth is so beyond wrong.

Alright so things like time slowing, disarm, bound weapons banishing and soul trapping, soul trapping recharging weapons, stealing equipped weapons/items, and harming npcs through pickpocketing poisons are diverse features?

You can't summarize in one sentence what a Ranger is?

Let me see if can, then, from what I think you are referring to.

A dual-wielding, dodging, minor magic using mostly warrior.


I've already explained my position.

Generalizations = Bad, ignorant, uniformed, incapable of intelligent conversation for the most part

Dual casting allows the mage to stun things from Destruction, cast more powerful versions of spells, cast spells that have longer durations, and dual wielding gives the player a variety of options besides impact/cast/repeat.

I also stated, or rather inferred, that instant casting was pretty unrealistic and I am glad that a player has to actually cast a spell.

Where are you going with this? More generalizations?

Its a start. One could argue that some of those things didnt exactly need to be perks, but yes, those actually do add diversity, as in you can create RPs around features like that, that other similar but not the same RPs may not take.



And none of that stuff is new, or adds anything new to ES (which is all Ive been saying this whole time). You didn't need to have dual casting to implement a perk that staggers an opponent with magic, nor is staggering an opponent with magic new to the ES. Try again. The only one generalizing is you, the guy that apparently cant stand to be proven wrong.

Still waiting for you to eat that crow about the features that are no longer in Skyrim.

I see a contradiction between these two sentences...

I won't get into the whole debate but I have to disagree with this. I played a dual-wielding character that used only swords and enchanted clothes, no armor at all, on expert, with great results.

Where? There's no contradiction there.

You're supposed to say it like this :

Everything you just said, or have ever posted, or even thought is a contradiction.

This is a fact and will never be open to debate, ever.

For there to be a debate, there has to be two arguments, not just one argument and the other guy dancing around it like Cicero. Still not sure how you think I'm dealing in absolutes, I'm not a Sith. I'm dealing in logic and understanding every facet of every ES, ever.

Failed and I are having an actual debate, although I'd like to call it a conversation. You, you've been shucking and jiving this whole time.

read again you didnt understand it the first time apparently. nobody is talking about paladin/knight hybrids or what tolken based aragorn on.

Considering that the PC understands the Dragon language, one could say that every character is born a Ranger.

If we then consider how detect life/undead or Aura Whisper play in this dynamic...

Rangers as you describe them are still an easily created build.

How does combat work for a 'real' Ranger in the Tolkien..en sense?

Defense?

gettin closer but still wrong. if your gonna be too lazy to actually read up then im going to be too lazy to waste anymore time talking to a wall.

How could we make a ranger in past games then? I assume that a Ranger is:

Skilled with swords (one-handed) and a bow (archery) to even out fights before the enemy gets in close to give an advantage.
Herblore (alchemy) in order to craft salves and poultices, skill in light armor (light armor, obviously) to protect from blows, but to allow full range of motion.
Shouts can allow you to control animals (and the Bosmer racial allows this as well)

That, to me, is what a Ranger is. I would not know any other way to make one, and Skyrim allows this.

Because dual wielding and dual casting are mediums through which you cast a bound weapon in one hand, then banish a daedra with the weapon, while also soul trapping to recharge a weapon...

With dual wielding you can make maces faster than they would be normally.

I'm grasping at straws here but you could argue that the spells he listed, and weapons having additional perks as being nothing new. However dual wielding, and dual casting are new based upon what you can do with them, as well as rping.

Oh, this is one of those sub-conscious superimposing things... I get you know.

Would you like me to quote myself, however narcissistic it may be?

Perhaps short term memory is a quantifier of the enlightened... I obviously wouldn't know as I am such a newb for all time... like... ever.

Hilarious, I'm lazy because I have to define your own definition.

If you can't summarize, then yes... you truly have no place in a discussion.

Dual wielding adds something new. Dual casting doesn't. You could have dual wielding two summoned weapons with one handed casting. What I'm getting at is dual casting is just a casting system, even more general than a delivery system. It adds nothing, nor does it add diversity. Your just casting with two hands instead of one. Or to put it another way, couldn't you do everything that can be done with two hands, with one hand, if Beth had decided to have one handed casting? Couldn't one hand raised in there air like Oblivion put a bound weapon in each hand? Is that something that simply couldn't happen with single hand casting? I think not.

However, having a sword in one hand, and a staff in the other (dual wielding), does add something new and different. But just binding a second weapon is the same as binding the first.

When was the last time a monk punched you in the face? Try using calm it's good fun and a good substitute for hand to hand or combat

But your same line of logic could be applied to dual wielding. You're just attacking with two weapons, which could easily be done with one (as we've seen before).

Without dual casting you couldn't have a ward up, and cast. You couldn't heal with one hand and cast with the other... and honestly it just doesn't make sense that you shouldn't be able to cast with both hands.
I like the dual casting as it gives me more flexibility without changes spells. I can cast a more powerful fireball if I want, or I can assault it with alternating fireballs that do damage over time.

But those two weapons are different, perhaps even different types of weapons, like staff/sword, etc. Dual casting is just a casting system, having two bound weapons and two hands to cast don't have to be mutually exclusive. And, if dual wielding doesn't actually add anything, so be it, that wasn't my real point anyway, it was about dual casting and it only being a design choice system. Spell creation for example added way more diversity than both dual casting and wielding combined.

I hate the dual casting system because its one of the technical reasons there's no spell creation. Almost anything Skyrim magic does, I could do with vanilla spell creation in previous games. From staggering, to making actual magic traps in Oblivion.