i'm not going to reply properly to someone who starts by saying that my arguments are invalid because I have a warrior as one of my characters.

Having many characters gives you a broader understanding of the game as a whole, and lets you see other classes in a better perspective. It's a better perspective than having a single favourite class and calling for simple buffs because you lack an objective view of the game's mechanics.

Just figured I'd throw this out there, but assumtions are usually thought out wheras guesses are more random. You could say Assessment, which would make it sound like the most thought out version?




Okey now you're just doing it on purpose. You seem to intentionally ignore points which make your arguement less valid.

1st, I was not saying it wasn't valid due to you playing a Warrior, I was asking why you cared
2nd, I play all types of characters also, I actually quit my mage once I saw how little spells there were.

My point, which I hope you read, is that Distruction should be able to function as a valid weapon choice for mages, just as One handed, or Two Handed, Or the Bow function for other class types.

'
Yes, Alchemy is the key. I'm making a potion at the moment that increases Destruction 107% and magicka by 104 for 60 seconds and restores 171 magicka. The ingredients are cheap and readily available at alchemist everywhere. And one of those takes care of most battles. I won't give spoilers here but you can checkout this site if you want the recipe. http://skyrim.melian.cc/?cmd=cmdSkyrimAlchemyWizard

Oh well I care because I like playing on my mage too and I hope that destruction gets fixed properly rather than just getting a damage buff which imo is a really boring non fix.

I think that destruction works as a valid weapon choice, you just have to be smart about how you use it. You might want to roleplay a fire or ice mage, but that's just not gonna work. You have to pick the right element for the right enemy. Remember that now spells have dual purpose, they don't just deal damage, they drain sp and ep, this is a crucially overlooked feature. Ignore this rule at your peril on master difficulty lol. Also you need the right method of applying the damage for the right situation (single target/aoe) If you use it properly it's pretty much fine, at least in my experience.

But yeah there needs to be a little less repeated spamming of spells I'll definitely agree to that.

One last edit. I was testing destro when I first started my mage, I killed a fire giant at what, level 3-4? On expert difficulty. I didn't abuse the pathing, he had a path to me the whole time, but he had no endurance and was slowed by the ice so he couldn't sprint. So he just followed me very slowly while I kited him to death. It was the easiest giant kill I'd gotten on such a low level character.

Ah, yeah, well I agree that it should have a real fix. I thought you were argueing against it getting a fix at all.

I also understand that I need to select spells (try killing a nord in MW with ice.. tehehe).. I just wana feel like I am... well a destruction mage when I have 100 destruction and a well selected spell.. like.. blowing [censored] up & making (some) of my enemies fly into the distance without repeated duel casting.. I dunno.

But yeh sorry for jumping down your throat, I just get super mad at a lot of new players who are all 'nah mages are stupid, this game is too easy with my legendary daedric stuff why are they complaining about too hard'. I assumed that was your general direction, but I was wrong.

I agree that the minimum you should cast a spell is 25% of its optimal level without perks. (level 100 with -50 magicka cost perks plus -50% cost from enchanted items)
I really hope bethesda does something to make destruction viable as a damage dealer for mages from level 1 to 81.

Yup it needs something, dunno what lol. But now most of the major bugs are getting ironed out, Bethesda said they'd start moving onto the tuning side of things with their patches. Fixing up neglected skills and removing exploits etc. So hopefully destro will get looked at.

That said, it's 1.3 time for us xbotters, woohoo!

less spamming? that won't happen, magic already takes a while to cast and an archer never runs out of energy to shoot arrows and swinging melee weapons is unlimited,, so saying you shouldn't be able to cast one spell after the other is kinda like saying you shouldn't be able to shoot one arrow after the other or swing a sword over and over again, so not sure what you're talking about but magic is pretty weak, its fun and i use it but its not powerful compared to melee or archery, its nerfed right now, so it will prob get some fine tuning to increase magic regeneration and a lower spell cost and definately some more damage per shot, thats underpowered real bad, everyone knows destructive magic is the weakest of all the offensive categories.

With the same recursive enchanting + alchemy trick you can improve weapons with, you may also brew fortify destruction potions.
With these you can one shot dragons in a way that they not only are plain dead but fly out of your field of vision from the power of impact.

Wait so if fortifying the destruction skill increases spell damage, then doesn't that mean that spells scale? Or does it have to be a really really powerful potion (like into cheating territory) for it to work?

Destruction do scale through Alchemy yes. Apply Weakness to >element< poisons for a double whammy.

Additionally, it's important to mention that many enemies have a fair bit of physical resistance. Then again few have general magic resistance. Most have some resistance against one type of elemental damage while having a weakens against another.

Know the weaknesses and combine it with alchemy fortify destro and your enemies start flying through skyrim like puppets.

Recent testing on the spoiler forum revealed that most enemies are health sponges with little to no armor.
The most armored enemies I could was bandit chiefs in steel plate, who'd have around 200-250. All monsters (dragons, giants, mammoths) have 0 armor, draugr have 2 (yes, two ). This also means that the mace perks are useless.

I predicted that pure mages would be unplayable in Skyrim as spell making was removed, I was mostly right, conjugation is very strong however destruction is naturally weak then you only have vanilla spells, add an boring magic system and you end up using just one spell.

Weapon users get an huge bonus from smithing, even without enchanting you can buy smiting and alchemy gear and make an +50 smithing potion making it easy to make a 100 damage weapon.

However this is nothing new, magic was even more broken in Morrowind without exploits.
Destruction was very nice in Oblivion as you could use the weaknesses and drain health with overpowering results, only using default spells destruction is nothing special.
Yes conjuration and illusion is good however you are better of using an weapon to do damage than destruction.

I was not asking to nerf magic , pretty much the opposite (i find destruction damage not scaling a problem )

I was just refering to the double enchantment " destro/resto/illusion/alteration reduction cost " that you can put on your clothes/circlets/rings/necklaces .

Once you do that , your magicka bar becomes useless (for the 2 main schools you use , where most of your perks are invested ) as you actually cast spells for free ...

That's what i was "criticzing" , i would have prefered if Bethesda put " fortify destro/resto/illusion etc " instead of mana cost reduction for enchanting gear

Because a Mage that can cast powerful spells without using magicka is kinda weird from a roleplaying perspective , in all fantasy games and in previous Bethesda games , Mages always use mana , there is no such thing as mana bar being put out of the equation . It's like making enchant for getting rid of the stamina bar or the health bar , it's feels strange .

I was just saying that mana cost reduction should be in , but only in the skill tree when you reach higher levels , not as enchants , because when you enchant , you can easily get rid of the mana bar and cast for free in your main schools (for damage ) , so that's why i don't do it with my Mage character .

I agree with you that destruction could do with a little boost in damage ( by scaling ) and that master spells which cost a lot of mana and time to cast , should be more cost efficient / powerful in vanilla .

if you played a pure destruction mage, he would stop leveling at around level 30 where destruction spells are very very deadly. destruction could use a dmg-boost at later levels, but i would find it better, if other skills get weaker (smithing/enchanting)

Oh please enough with the sanctimonious tripe. You couldn't be more wrong.
What is a pure mage? I play a total cloth (including boots) no weapon mage, I don't even use alchemy or enchanting. currently level 50 with all but one magic discipline mastered (that is restoration). I totally own mobs and dungeons. Elder Dragons are easy as long as I am not a moron. The other day I used Wall of Fire to own 5 vampires, one who was an ancient.

Now if I didn't describe a pure mage what did I describe? Try mass paralysis with wall of fire then tell me destruction is gimp. This by the way is on expert level. I am switching to master level tonight after work because honestly being a pure mage is totally op. Then again I don't try to use only one discipline of magic to play the game, that is to say I ACTUALLY play a mage, you know seeking all the knowledge I can and using that knowledge when applicable (some call that wisdom), not just trying to be a magic canon wanting to be OP with one skill.

The irony is underlined.

Try again, it is hardly irony calling out someone who claims to have made a prediction then describes said self prediction as true with obviously wrong information as proof.

Prove me wrong otherwise you need to look up the definition of irony.

I play a mage, described a method to show how wrong he is and did not preach my own prescience in understanding this game better than the developers.

oh and to help you with your understanding

irony - a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions. It can also indicate an incongruity between actions typically unintended.

Want to show me how that definition in anyway relates to what your intentions were?

"Jack of all trades " Mages are ok , but there still should be the possibilty of roleplaying a Fire mage or an elemental mage that specializes in destruction , without having to rely on necromancer 's conjuring witchcraft , Illusionist's tricks or Druids restoration aptitudes etc for surviving . It's a question of roleplay ...

The fact that Destruction magic would scale like every other offensive skill in the game that warriors or thief use , would be a plus , it would make the build viable in higher difficulty settings (and fun ) , after all Destruction is the only damage dealer a Mage can use for himself

Imagine if instead of the totally pointless speech , lockpick and pickpoket tree , there was an expanded destruction tree with far more perks to invest/specialize in , and that these perks made the destruction damage spells scale (like the mod i'm using at the moment , "balanced magic " ) . Everybody would have been happy ...

I was saying that you were being sanctimonious.

But it's true, most people's idea of a fix for the Destro tree is just buffing it's damage or scaling the spells so the tree stands on it's own, and the rest of the schools can be totally ignored. He has a pretty valid point whether you agree with his delivery or not.

No you said I was being ironic, now you are saying I was being sanctimonious which I would have to agree with, just a tad. I do feel justified being such, as at least my sanctimony is backed up with some factual statements of how what I said is true. Unlike the poster I was responding to.

See it this way: You mastery in destruction spells allows you to regenerate Mana to full state right after casting a spell. But i agree that magic regeneration should be far better and/or magicka cost should be reduced.

I was saying that it was ironic that you wanted the other poster to stop being sanctimonious, yet were then immediately sanctimonious yourself. I wasn't really trying to start an argument, just point out that you were behaving in a way which you professed to dislike. People need to chill out.

***For the record, I was using 'irony' in the sense of 'an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected'; that is, that the outcome of your post was contrary to your professed intention (and the expectation it implied).