Found this on wiki

Dual-Casting

Within each school of magic is a perk granting proficiency in 'dual-casting' spells. Without this perk, casting a spell with both hands has the same effectiveness as though cast normally, but twice. However, once a dual-casting perk has been taken, relevant spells can be 'overcharged' via dual-casting, resulting in a single, more powerful effect. The formula seems to be: 2.2x spell effectiveness for 2.8x spell cost (remember that we're casting two spells at the same time so 2 is the base value here, not 1).

Whether dual-casting is worth it or not depends on school. For example, without the dual-casting perk, equipping two Frenzy spells in both hands is completely pointless, but equipping two Firebolts will double the damage output. Generally speaking, the school which benefits most from dual-casting is Illusion, as dual-casting increases the maximum possible level of affected creatures and the effect stacks with perks like Kindred Mage or Animage. The Alteration and Conjuration schools, and protective spells from the Restoration school, gain duration only, which is of limited use. Healing spells actually lose effectivenes when dual-cast, as they heal only 20% faster but for 80% more magicka. Similarly Destruction spells are better off cast separetely, though the Impact perk might be well worth the increased cost.


So is it really worth it?

Why not duel cast? It deals far more damage.. It does take up a lot of magicka, but there are such things as perks that decrease the amount that Duel Casting takes up. All I'm saying about duel casting is.. Why not?

Dual casting, especially with the Impact perk, is great. Biggest problem then is getting spells that actually do enough damage to matter at high levels.

I think it's worth it for alteration and illusion. Alteration for flesh spells and paralyze. It imperative to get it with illusion for reasons you already stated. I don't get it with destro or conjuration tho because I don't think it's worth it.

My issue is that dual-casting is only 0.2x more effective than just putting the spell in both hands and poor-man's dual-casting them with Destruction, dual-casting healing spells is LESS effective than poor-man's dual-cast, and most Alteration and Conjuration spells only gain a duration bonus. Dual-casting's usefulness is very limited because of how badly balanced it is.

All woes in Destruction, for instance, could be long gone by just allowing for dual-cast Destruction spells to do TRIPLE damage instead of just slightly more than double. You can already do double-damage without the dual-cast perks, so the only reason to take it for Destruction is in anticipation of Impact, and I'm sorry, but a perk needing another perk to make it useful is not good design. Nerfing the Impact perk a bit might be necessary for this, though.

Dual-casting healing spells being less effective than just taking the poor-man's approach, again, stupid, and clear evidence that not much thought went into the mechanic. And once more, solvable by making Dual-cast spells provide triple magnitude instead of slightly more than double. We're already spending close to three times the normal Magicka cost on the spell, why not give the same benefit to the effectiveness? For the rest of Restoration, Circle spells have their radius increased, Ward spells gain a set duration and do not need to be sustained, and Turn Undead (if it doesn't already) affects higher level Undead.

Conjuration: dual-casting should buff the level of the summon and give him better equipment. For Necromancy spells, the zombie gets some extra health, and for soul-trap, give it an area of effect.

Illusion spells actually do gain extra benefit from dual-casting them, so Illusion is fine.

And Alteration spells... the shielding spells gain extra armor rating from dual-cast (save Dragonhide, leaving that with a duration bonus is fine), Paralyze does NOT get a duration bonus, but instead decreases the target's chance to resist, Equilibrium's health price is halved, Detection spells have their area of effect widened a bit, and Transmute makes Iron into gold, and Silver into a random gemstone.

And yet, for those without knowledge of the inner workings of the game, Destruction looks like it would benefit most from Dual-casting...

I wish I could mod my Xbox 360. Then I could fix Destruction dual-casting - 3x damage at 1.(7)5xcost.

I got duel casting and impact perks and I use firebolt... all I can say is I love it... Firebolt costs less and for some reason seems to do the same ammount as fireball. I can single handedly take down the hardest creatures or humaniods because of the stagger impact makes. So do I think it is worth it? HELL YES!

Well Destruct needs it purely for the impact plus duel wielding Conjuraton gets a more powerful minion iirc. But Illusion benefits the most at higher levels...

Without Dual cast, Destruction spells cannot have the impact properties. As I understand it, that is a mage's bread and butter and impact lock is basically how they operate at later levels.

I agree with all of this.

It's worth it, more damage.

Try for dual casting lightning bolt, they do more damage than fire spells. Later on, you can upgrade to chain lightning, and you can hit archers on top of forts without any problems, and also flying dragons when they get close enough.

And get the "stagger" perk. Had a dragon land in front of me yesterday, and I just kept hitting him till he was dead, he never hit me with his fire spell.

Just be careful with that chain lightning spell if you have a companion. You'll kill them if they get too close because the spell jumps from an enemy to your companion.

Good luck.

I decided to go to bows for long range for my mage. They work better against dragons and you can put potions on the arrows

:D

don't forget the slow time at will and telescopic vision thing, either.

dual casting is good only for destruction so that you can uses impact and stun lock enemys and illusion as is doubles the level that are effect by the spell e.g calm effects level 6 and under with no dual casting with dual casting effects lv12 and under

conjuration, alteration dual casting only effects the duration of the effect which isnt realy needed come end game since there are perks can already improve duration to 90-120 seconds which is plently of time.

I think dual casting is definitely worth it for all schools but the Magicka cost to output ratio is weak and could be improved. I think it makes more sense to take the perk once you have a high Magicka pool otherwise the casting costs actually make combat significantly harder.

So impact perk works only when dual-casting a destruction spell?

The passage as stated by the OP implies that dual-casting healing spells is more effective, but very inefficient. The writer may have meant "efficient" when he said "effective." The extra cost might be worth it in an emergency.

yes however not all spell are effect by impact continuous spells like flame and sparks arnt effected by impact but target spells like fireball and chain lighting do

The problem lies in enchanting. Once you equip Fortify enchants and start reducing magicka costs, dual casting starts to become far more cost efficient. Thus, for balance, you have to make its positive effects small. Otherwise, you make dual casting + Fortify enchants overpowered (if you leave base effects the same and increase the multiplier) or mandatory (if you reduce base effects and increase the multiplier).

What many do not realize is that even with a perk invested, you can always dual cast without overcharging. Just hold the right trigger first and then the left one after you are casting to dual cast without the charge effect.

It's what I do. Works wonders.

I find that dual casting is important for illusion only really. With alteration you can just pick the stability perk instead(less time, but only one hand needed). Cojuration is just dumb you get more time big deal, thralls stay untill destroyed nuff said. Restoration only if you care about the undead spells. Destruction.....impact thats it.

20% increase in damage is a lot. At best I'd bump it up to +50% but any higher would be absurd.

EDIT: If it's doing 2.2x damage as opposed to 2.0 damage it's actually doing 10% more.. that does seem a little low.

Still, it's a 120% improvement over the regular spell in exchange for a 180% increase in magicka cost. That ratio is quite skewed and needs to be evened out. In which case, I would probably advocate reducing the extra magicka cost for dual-casting a bit. 2.5x damage for 2.6x or 2.7x Magicka drain, perhaps.



Except that your hand is forced when you take Dual-cast. Either you take the slightly less effective, much more efficient approach and not take the dual-cast perk or you take the slightly more effective, much less efficient approach and take dual-casting. There is no middle-ground, so this reasoning doesn't work.

I'm not sure people really understand the mechanics of this game. Level yourself to 18 and train no other skill but Destruction and take all the perks - you are quite powerful.

Now once you start training other skills, you need to synergize those new skills with Destruction to keep yourself competitive, if you can't - you gimp yourself.

Well, actually if we're talking about the overcharged version bring 2.2x the damage of the sum of the normal spell in both hands, then it'd only be a 10% increase, which is pretty bad, so yeah it should be buffed to actually make it at least 20% extra damage. That being said, I do think the magicka cost should be disproportionately higher in the way that it is - diminishing returns and all that.