So then, in Oblivion and Morrowind, enchanting your items was big business. You could make yourself an immortal demigod, or near enough, and make the Daedra Princes your mistresses with the correct line up. You could also theoretically do patently silly things, like putting 100% Chameleon or 100% Magic Resistance on the Sack Cloth Pants you start with. This set me off thinking - not all things are created equal, right? (Just ask the Kajit and Argonians in Morrowind for confirmation of this.) It makes sense that certain things would retain Enchantment better than others. Because at the end of the day, Enchantment is imbuing an item with raw power.

Now, that doesn't sound like a problem, until you consider that you could be pouring an Hiroshima-esque level of Magicka into an item, designed to be held together by mould and hope. That's an extreme example, but I can visualise my trousers exploding because I tried to kill an aedra with them. Now, I'm not just waffling for my own good, and this wall o' text does have some bearing on Skyrim and my suggestions. People want to be able to wear a layer of clothes, then a layer of armour, then a layer of overcoat - so a cloak or robe or whatever. Pete Hines has already announced that Skyrim will be retaining the multiple hardpoint system. He's been elusively vague about whether he means Morrowind, Oblivion or Arena style multiple hardpoints though. The only thing he's confirmed is it wont be using the Fallout style. Given that they're using Havok Physics and Havok Behaviour (assum), it would be logical (or at least a conveniently small leap of faith) to presume they might look into using Havok Cloth too, which is showcased on the fact it supports capes and their ilk.

Now, that's where this proposal comes in. If you're wearing underclothes, armour and overclothes, that's a lot of enchantment. Trousers, shirt, belt(?). Boots, greaves, cuirass, gauntlets, helm, shield. Cloak/cape/robe(?). Two rings, one pendant/necklace. Potentially two weapons, if you want to lose the shield. So, that's a max of 14 enchantments there. That is a lot of enchantments. People have been joking about people wanting to be able to customise the rivets on their briastplate, just so they can enchant them, but the result would be pretty much the same anyway.

So, I'm proposing adding a Soul Gem style limit to items too. Soul Gems can only take so much Soul, items can only take so much power from the Soul Gems. Makes sense, right? There's even references in the game books to higher end items being able to take more enchantment than others. So, clothes, capes, robes and so on, would be able to take a minimal amount of enchantment overall (this also prevents clothes enchanted to be better than Daedric armour for protection, etc). Armour would be able to take increasing amounts of enchantment as it got better - heavy more than light. So, fur (or equivalent) would take the least enchantment, while Daedric (or equivalent) would take the most. Jewellery would take varying amounts depending on the quality of materials, I guess. So, copper would be like clothes, while gold jewelled would be like Daedric.

(As a trade off for not being able to have uberclothes any more, it would be nice if they brought back the unarmoured skill. That was neat.)

So yeah... Comment, discuss, flame, troll. I'm up for the argument.

nah i like how enchantment is currently is it is a single player game if i wield a 100% or a combination of enchantments for it that my business and not some one else.

I′d like to see it like in Oblivion but you should only be able to use one type of enchant once on armor that you enchant yourself, so if I put 20% damage reduction on a chestplate and try to enchant pants too I′d get a warning "Enchanting those pants will remove a enchant from another item" but you should be able to wear "found" items with enchanted gear, so I could have my 20% damage reduction pants + some gloves I′d find with 15% damage reduction or some.

we need items to have enchant values, we probably will


100% chameleon should be allowed only with full daedric armour (and that makes lots of noise) thereby chameleon is balanced

The idea behind what I proposed would be to disperse enchantment around all the hardpoints. So, for example, in Oblivion you might have 10,000 soul enchantment points spread around all your equipment (probably more than that, but meh). If Skyrim introduced more hardpoints, you could lower the amount each could take individually, meaning you'd still end up with the same 10,000 enchantment points, but over more hardpoints. It would also support an increasing buildup of power, as the player obtains more powerful gear.

By the endgame, there'd probably be no appreciable difference in power, but working towards it would be harder. This'd simply be because enchantments wouldn't be able to be slapped on lower end gear, in order to flick an instant win switch. Something like that anyway. This time I am actually rambling pointlessly.

Quality of the item and potency of the captured soul. Also, with Enchanting now back as a skill, I would like it so that you need to have some skill to use more powerful enchantments.

You could also divide the enchantments by body zones. this way if you wear a shirt, a cuirass and a gamberson, as those cover the same body part, the chest, only the most powerfull enchant would affect you.

Isn't what you're describing the same as the current enchantment system?

There are already different types of soulgems, and varying degrees of souls. And I'm pretty sure that an Ebony Cuirass can handle more enchantment than a Tattered Brown Robe.

Edit* Voted yes by the way.

I'd prefer it like Oblivion, without enchantment limits on the items.

It could be based on enchant skill instead. I'd like to play with enchant as a wizard and not have to wear heavy armor to get any decent enchantments. Daedric armor wearers already get the best protection, do they really need the best enchants as well? It doesn't seem too useful as a balancing mechanism either. I don't think most people were making their 100% chameleon suits out of sack cloth prisoner clothes.

If anything it should be the opposite way, with clothing and robes easier to enchant. Wizards must have some reason for using those. Maybe there could be a perk for it. Like armor will be limited to 50% of your enchant capacity, with a perk to raise it to 75% and another for 100%.

Actually it can′t, both can take for example 20% Chameleon, there is no difference in Oblivion at least.

I disagree with enchantments scaling with armor type. I think the scaling should be done within each type the way it was in Morrowind. You shouldn't be able to put top enchants on starter gear, but you should be able to use them on an "Extravagant Robe." It makes no sense for magic effects to be most available to those wearing heavy armor. That said, I'd like there to be humble-looking gear of extravagant quality for role-playing purposes.

Oh wow... Shows what I know.

I think I only ever bothered rising ranks in the Mages Guild with two characters, so I didn't get much use out of the enchanting system in Oblivion other than the use of Sigil Stones.

I know that in Morrowind items have varying limits of how much enchantment they can take based on their quality.

This was the other part of the idea that I didn't develop properly. I meant to say that the better an item's quality, the more enchantment it would hold. So like you said, Extravagant Robes beat Common Robes. Glass would beat Fur. Daedric would beat Iron. So inside each skill group / appearance (clothes / light armour / heavy armour), the best quality items would hold more. When it comes to Heavy Armour, you are all right about the poor balance incentives of having the highest armour rating having the highest enchant value too, though...

Some kind of system would have to be found in order to put them in order of ability to hold enchantment. Other than the quality of items idea, I'll stay out of that particular part of the debate. Oh, and I presumed that mages wore loose robes because they are much easier to get out of quickly if you accidentally set yourself on fire.

i read most of the replies but didnt see anything about enchanting rings and necklaces... i thought it was weird that you could put the same level of enchantment on a brass ring as you could a gold ring or a plain brass necklaces and a diamond studded necklace, to me a rare diamond necklace should be able to hold more enchantment than an old brass ring that everybody has.

Well Morrowind items could hold only so much enchantment, I actually thought that clothing was fairy useless to enchant, for the most part since it could not hold much. So I'm all for that making a return.

I think both Enchantment Skill, and material should play an effect on how well an item takes an enchantment. If I mine an extremely rare ore that is particularly good at taking enchantments and then smelt it down into a ring, it would be nice to put something distinctly powerful on it (given a good enough soul). I do believe insane "exploits" should be possible too. Make that ring hard enough to make, and make the enchantment difficult enough to cast (I.e most NPC's refuse to do it), then I see no reason why a 100% Chamelion Ring shouldn't be allowed. I've worked for it, so it's my choice, right?

As for power build up, it's an interesting concept, but I think I'd rather leave the limitation to skill and material. To get truly powerful enchantments on everything will be hard if they reintroduce material properties. Basic cotton wouldn't take it very well, whereas an extremely rare silk might. Getting enough good stuff in one place would take a lot of effort, and thus should be rewarded.

I like the idea, but only if we return to the old school hardpoint system. I do think an Iron Chestpiece and a Daedric one should be the same though. If the Chestpiece needed a Grand Soul or something for maximum effect while a Gauntlet needed only a Petty Soul it would make getting the full enchantments that much harder, making you feel like you are really achieving something.

We need a good, solid mix. For instance, if you use a GRAND BLACK SOUL GEM, you know, maybe you could make Sack Cloth Pants of Invulnerability. The pants, although made of poor material, become so imbued with power that their physical essence is actually almost entirely replaced with magical energy.

However, it would never be as powerful as the Ebony Cuirass of Invulnerability made with the same Grand Black Soul Gem. And it would only be equal to an Ebony Cuirass of Invulnerability made with a less powerful soulgem.

This would prevent people from easily spamming enchantments on every piece of clothing, because it takes a rare soul gem to give an item that much power, and you're not going to get as big of an effect as if you use it on something more magically conductive.

I agree the enchantment system needs an overhaul, but I don't think this is the right way of going about things. What svcks is that I can't think of a satisfying alternative solution.

Voted other, as I agree with OP, but actually thought iron armour was the best looking in OB and happily wore it enchanted at end game levels.

Exactly like it was in Morrowind, so Im all for it.

Yeah sounds ok but why would robes have low enchantment potential? I think robes should have a higher enchantment value than most. The reason being is that a Mage can only wear robes to look like a Mage should and keep the 100% spell effectiveness value, in addition, mages should technically be the best at enchanting.

I think quality should be one factor, but not the only factor.

The overall size or mass of the object should put some limits on it, as well. A cuirass should hold more enchantment points than a ring, but the ring might be far easier to enchant a high level spell onto, although with less charges. That ragged pair of sackcloth trousers should hold less enchantment points because of its sad shape, and also because the robe next to it uses a lot more material.

Certain materials could be better or worse at holding either the spell itself or the charges, so a Silver item might hold a lot less charges and weaker spells than a comparable Dwemer one, if only because the Dwemer metal was developed to hold enchantments well, A Mithril one might take anything but weak spells only with difficulty, but hold an enormous amount of charges, where an Iron item might take spells easily, but not hold enough charges to cast anything but weak ones. The possibilities are enormous, buy having the spell size and charge limits seperate for different materials.

Rather than a "simplified" game, I'd much rather see a far deeper and complex system with a simple and streamlined interface. You'd see a simple set of options, which would be all you'd need to know to play the game, but the underlying concepts, inter-relationships, and limitations would be all but hidden unless you really worked at finding out the intricacies.

Enchanting was a highly rewarding and amazing skill in MW, if you worked hard enough to get beyond the difficult start. Oblivion made the skill all but pointless. I'm very happy to see it back, hopefully with improvements. The series has a sad history of disposing of those things that didn't work as planned or were given "underwhelming" treatment in the previous game, and I half-expected to see it cut "because nobody used it'.

I completely agree, Morrowind's enchanting system made perfect sense.

I know this is a tad off subject also, but I think grand souls for soul gems should be harder to find... I mean its one thing to limit the amount a shirt or some greaves can hold enchantment wise, but I think if you made the best and most potent souls harder to obtain it would add a lot. Maybe instead of being able to summon a golden saint or a xivilai and just kill it for a grand soul, how bout we take all summoned creatures down a notch? So in the wild a grand soul is grand, but if you summon it it is greater? Obviously petty can stay petty haha. This would solve a lot of issues with payers just getting a ton of grand souls really easily to enchanted I. The first place.