The guy with 100 skill in blade would have used swords long enough to actually be skilled with them. The guy with 25 blade skill swung a sword a few times, but suddenly he takes a "perk" and is better than the guy who's used swords way longer.

Exactly, i made a barbarian oday who only uses light armor and two handed swords, but i am also putting a few perks into archery to get those pesky archers, enchanting, to deal with those mages, a VERY few perks into sneak, block and a few other things to give my character a heads up a bit, but other than that, i feel I am playing as a barbarian, much different than my high mage, and my knight character.

Um, yeah you guys are kinda missing the point. Upgrade your skill and put perks in and you'll do even more damage. I don't understand the uproar. If you want to be good at something, put perks into it. Specialize. The idea is, perks are what define mastery. If you have a lot of natural talent in real life but don't know any special techniques or lack in finesse, a person that may have not as much innate aptitude but put more effort into training will most likely beat you.

People just need to accept that this game has a new meaning to the term "level". That's all. They're not going to change the game to match your interpretation of the term. You have to come to understand theirs. Level doesn't mean the same thing as it does in WoW or Diablo II. It might not even mean the same thing it did in Oblivion. Character level is actually a necessary evil... you want to keep it low in comparison to your main skills. Skill level, as you point out, is pretty much a way to unlock other abilities, and not a measure of how good you are. You start out good, and get a little better along the way. It's not a game like Dungeon Siege where you start out as a farm boy and end up king of the world. You start out as Dragonborn... and you end up as Dragonborn. It's not a game that makes the people who fixate on "progress" happy. Most of the complaints we're reading come from this dynamic. "X,Y and Z don't work the way I want them to!" Learn to work with X,Y and Z as presented in the game... don't fuss about insisting that the game cater to your wishes.

yep and thats why the system is how it is.


seems some people dont want to have defined characters and be the best at everything >> in which i say they have no idea how this game is designed or how it was designed to be played.

they didnt design this game to be a jack of all trades master at everything.

Well said. Although I much prefer this new system. I think Bethesda got it exactly right here.

when ck comes out this issue can easily be dealt with. easier than frying eggs

I disagree also, otherwise it would undermine the whole concept of perks.

It's worlds better than Oblivion's method of leveling. I'm talking the whole package of leveling...perks, attributes, scaling, major skills, etc...

I always wish I could have like 3 more perk points. I think this is a good thing because I actually look forward to leveling.

This. This is not Oblivion. You cannot be good at everything. Deal with it.

The Perks don't need to be removed, they need to be altered I don't mind special moves or "stances" related to weapons for example, I do have an issue that Crits, Bleeding and ignoring armor doesn't work on their respected weapon types unless you tell the game to give them permission.

Perks do need tweaking yes. But overall they are the right idea to have in this game.

I'm even in favor of merging light armor skill and heavy armor skill into one, and then create specialized perks to specialize in either heavy or light armor. Most of the perks are the same anyway.

This encourages players to mix and match heavy and light armor without feeling gimped. They can even bring back medium armor.

I am making a 'nuke mage necromancer knight barbarian sneak assassin' right now. legitment grinding to get 100 in all skills to see if 81 really is the legitment ceiling. i should have 80 perks when i'm done. I am level 62 right now with 30 unused perks. Only taking the perks I see are required to make any tree good. I haven't needed to fill out archery damage at level 62 to kill things with a bow. just 1 point in damage, eagle eye, power shot and quick shot. Same with the magic trees, as few perks as required, novice and apprentice destruction, dual cast, impact, augument fire twice. there you go full wizardly firebolts with impact. Nuke Mage Necormancer Knight Barbarian Sneak Assassin here I come!

Combining heavy and light armor would negate half the perks in both trees, I dont see either of them as really usefull anyway, Didn't plan on putting any perks in either of them. the base damage reduction is enough and putting points in alteration both benefits paralyze spells as well as shield spells to double up on armor.

I've already mastered all the magic schools, 2 handed, 1 handed sword, lockpick and most my other skills are in the 70's to 80's. There is defently a huge difference though since I dont have points in 2handed weapons my msot damaging two handed weapon only does like 35 points of damage. not including the ebony blade with its health absorb which is what I use, or mehrunes razor which eventually goes off if you hit a paralyzed person enough times with it.

Agreed If we're gonna have Perk Trees, where are the Roots and Leaves? its just a dead trunk with bare Branches...

Wow, they made it that way because unless you want to be annoying and pick away at the game then why would you be level 100 with no perks in it. If you like something and want to level it up then your going to put perks into that skill. There's nothing wrong with it your just trying to find something wrong.

complaints of "Master of Everything?"

That's what I'm worried about- those compliants. Gone are super strength and super speed- and being a master of 'everything" . Chameleon is gone. Skyrim is a mountainess land and Acrobatics, Speed and Strength are gone- exactly those tools neccesary to experience the landscape more completely. You know, sometimes I'd play Oblivion and Morrowind hard core and other times take every advantage. It was fun. But somehow that fun must have been ruled against and we have Skyrim to show for it.

There was nothing stopping a player from playing either of the previous Elder Scroll editions any way they pleased- so why are we now so limited? Someone must have complained!

And the solution is not as pleasing as the previous 'problems'. I think the posters here are correct- perks are in the game so a player at a late stage can still develope certain skill sets if they like. And there are skill point requirements, so it's not a totally free lunch.

But as great a game as I think Skyrim still is, it has also lost some 'fun' because someone complained. In a democracy, if you listened to every opinion and then went by numeric consent, you'd have a kind of porridge, a product that would please no one.

Bethesda should listen to us, and then build a game they themselves would want to play. If they react to every need or desire or what someone decides is 'fair', they are going the wrong direction.

It's true if the product were not so wonderful, and the expectations and hope so high, the criticism would not be as sharp.

Perks aren't really perks. Perks are supposed to be just a little advantage (max 10% more damage total) you shouldn't be forced to use a perk just to make a certain armor type in Smithing. IMO they should remove perks and bring back attributes.

the perks have to matter more because you can level everything to 100 but can't unlock every perk. they're what shape your character into the class you want to play, and so they have more bearing on gameplay than your skill's level.

Wasn't one of reasons given in support of axing the class system that it was too restrictive? Or beyond that, aren't there far better systems for maintaining character diversity?

I just feel like a lot of support for this system is done so after the fact rather than thinking about how one might best implement a character system given certain goals.

Makes sense. You should have to perk in something to be great at it.

Why not just get 100 skill in everything. NO!

On one hand, this does help a bit with balance. You can level all skills up to 100, but you won't be able to truly master all of them without achieving certain perks in each tree (which isn't possible).

Damn yea...been wondering....

I wonder if it's simply a matter of a slight misnomer. If "perks" was replaced with "the knack", would it make it more palatable?

And instead of "skill", replace it with "experience".

I can totally see how a guy with x amount of experience still doesn't have the knack of a particular move. And likewise I can see how a guy with little experience can have a knack for a particular move that gives him a specific advantage.

How about perk dmg gains are based on skill lvl. Like, +0.25% dmg per skill lvl. With 5/5 that's 1.25% per skill, so +125% at max skill.

... I think perks and Skill should be 50/50, so that a person with One-handed 100 does twice as much as someone with One-handed 50, and perks should be able to double that, so that 100 One-handed + 100% Extra Damage does twice as much as 100 + No Perks.