why not nuke the rats? if it costs no less magicka, why not? don't tell me you want to go easy on them, rat-man

I have a feeling that in Skyrim the effectiveness and what you can do with certain spells will be affected by your skill in that particular school of magic. An expert mage for example would be a lot more effective with and would have more ways of using an individual spell than a novice. With each spell there could be multiple ways to use it. You may be able to lightly use a fire spell for smaller enemies, costing less magicka, or with the same spell you could use a large magic attack for more difficult foes. This would in a way combine small and powerful magic attacks into one spell. Even with this Bethesda could put in several, or tons of unique fire spells, but how you use them can vary more, and there effectiveness, or "leveling" would be based on the magic skill for that school.

This is only a theory on what may happen with Skyrim, so I could be completely wrong about all of this :biggrin:!

But wouldn't a weaker spell cost less, meaning it would be more appropriate.

There could be an option to use the spell as its basic form and I still dont get why you cant just nuke the rats

Have a rank system that way you can keep the rank 1 fireball for rats and a higher rank fireball for the harder enemy's.

To get the new spell you after go to a Mage who will teach you how to make your spell more efficient after paying some money.

you could still use a weaker spell, and I only said that it COULD replace the spell-making system. you could buy cheap-easy to use spells that cannot level

Your poll is bias and vague and you keep changing what the definition of your 'idea' is. Leveled spells just wouldnt work. It should stay the same way it was in Oblivion.

and another aspect of the spell you could spend its exp. on is its magicka cost, reducing its cost

I voted 'no'.

In theory, the mage could get better with Fireball from familiarity, but in practice I feel that a mage should (perhaps would) be more concerned with their mastery of craft as a whole. The PC "mage-like" character of high level should be a master of even the mundane and little used spells, and that won't happen in a game that relies on use for advancement. The concept of skill use for advancement has always been good on paper, but IMO bad in practice. Even in my own RPG designs, the first ones were to be like that, until I realized how it would play out.

So some spells level some don't?
Some spells can be combined, some can't? (limited spellmaking suggestions)
It's all a bit flip-flopper

I think the way BGS is currently handling the spell system is worth a shot. (I'm very good at reading between the lines) I think I have a good grasp at what BGS is going for... And it's like the system put forward in this thread, but relying on skill, not individual spell.

It seems we will be nuke-ing rats, how ever much that aspect disconcerns me.

With this, I have become utterly befuddled. So basically we went from having leveling up spells to ones where the cost doesn't change to another version where you can still cast lesser versions of the spell to this where XP (until now not even mentioned) is spent on making it reduce the cost (you said that twice in one sentence btw). I would assume that you could also make it more powerful, affect a bigger area, or make it last longer?

Dude, two words: "Edit button."

Nah, don't want spells leveling up. Them causing their associated spell school skill to level up, and consequently the increased skill allowing me to cast the spell with more power, or for less magicka, sure.

The only reason I would see them doing this if they were gonna really cut down the amount of spells available. For this reason I'm against it.

I change my idea to adapt it

Well with the latest change (Going from leveled spells to having to spend some kind of a point system to get stronger spells (if you have the skill level to cast them) while retaining your old ones) you changed your idea to Spellmaking as it was in Oblivion. Just replace XP with money and it's exactly the same.

I now support this idea.

Options = "Don't like it, don't have to use it" + "play on PC and mod it in/out"
The Bethesda Way?
That is righteous

So what gives your -Optional- preference priority over someone elses -Optional- preference?

well they can have their optional preference because if I dont like it, I can turn it off and visa versa

Sooo, gamesas should waste time developing not one but two spell/magic skill leveling systems? Oh, hell no! What feature gets cut to free up dev time for making another magic leveling system knowing only one will get used? :thumbsdown:

based on the poll looks like about 70% of the community would use mine, and Bethesda will be using an altered magic system from oblivion from what I know.

Before you leave the first dungeon.

Would you like to spells to grow in power based on how often you use them?
Y/N

Would you like spells to grow based on skill?
Y/N

Would you like the spell system classic?
Y/N
:tongue:

Agreed. And be able to delete spells if we want.

Er, No!

The poll is biased

The no option is incorrect as spells weren't based on level, they were based on skill. Also we already know the spell system is different, so why would I vote for this option.

So I, and the rest of us, can't take your results and toss them out the window.

I thought Todd said somewhere there were 85 spells (at the time of interview)

I was going thru the OB wiki and just from Alteration, Conjuration, Destruction, and Illusion there are about 35 spell effects (not individual spells). I only counted summoning as 1 effect since there are so many creatures that can be summoned and we don't know how it will work in Skyrim. Same for Drain, Damage (like damage health, magicka, attribute, fatigue), Absorb effects, counted as 1 effect each. So if you have about 35 effects in just 4 schools they are either leveling spells or cutting a bunch of effects. Unless I misunderstood what Todd was saying.