I consider myself a spell combo know it all......but I am going to go try this shyt NOW!!

IMO I think Master Spell should be Daedric Shield and it give you +1,000 Armor for 400 seconds.

A sustained spell system will probably be the first thing I work on when the CK comes out. I also want it for candlelight, I'm using a darker dungeons mod but having to reequip/recast my light every minute is beyond annoying. So is waiting for it to wear off when I come to a place where I want to sneak. How would people want to see it work? I was planning to just have it reduce your magicka pool by an amount equal to the original spell's magicka cost, divided by duration (though thinking about it that seems a little low.)

Bound Torch - It pops in your hand ethereal and when you sheath your hand it gets dark again.

I remember in Daggerfall and Oblivion I had to Equip Torches just to see. I almost never need candlelight and when I do, Recast is a pain.

I take it that you didn't take the Mage Armour perks? My level 13 Mage casts 120 armour with Stoneflesh and that's just with one perk in Mage Armour; it can go up to 240 I think so Ebony and DragonSkin should be way higher if perked correctly.


The other posters seem to have missed relevant perks too as my Level 40 Mage is doing rather well and has no issues with Magicka costs (yeah the casting times are a pain) or the ability to take down enemies. I've also read posts from Magi playing on Master that contradict the posts claiming it to be too easy. And finally... the level system is only scaled to level 50 so anything higher than that is not accounted for by game mechanic scaling. Basically if you get to level 50 and everything is either too easy or too hard then it's time to think about retiring that character and building a new one.

@Imp of the Perverse: Excellent I'll use and enjoy whatever mods you create. Personally, I would prefer magicka regeneration penalties to pool penalties. I like the idea of making the penalty proportionate to magicka cost per base duration, though. For instance, if you cast a spell which ordinarily costs 100 magicka (m) and lasts 10 seconds (s), it would cost 10m/s, and casting it as a sustained spell would penalise your magicka regen by that amount (or some proportional amount).

Seriously, this covers most of the problems you have lol. Look at the details. Even if you do not have a PC or cannot mod take a look at and see if it does a good job making mages better and balancing everything. It is usable but is still being improved. GREAT MOD.

Ebonyflesh is 300 armor when maxed for 90 seconds. Dragonskin is 80% reduction for 30 seconds (perked to 45 seconds).

Considering that 300 armor is bugger all compared to, you know actually wearing armor and giving it a bit of an upgrade its not much of a spell for 3 perks in mage armor and the high cast cost and low spell time. Also Dragonskin takes 5 seconds to cast, required both hands and only last 45 seconds making it useless in any kind of combat lasting more than 45 seconds.

So yes we do know what were talking about and have used the perks to maximise it and it still svcks.

I have heard that the impact perk does a lot to redress any perceived "imbalance".

If it's combined with magicka cost reductions, it makes Destruction effective... but stunlocking is a really boring way to be effective (imo, of course, but I'm far from alone in that opinion).

I never said that people didn't know what they are talking about.


But it makes perfect sense for a Mage to be less well armoured than a Warrior. I think the max armour is 650 ish (can't remember) due to the limit so you can be armoured half as well as a fully specked Warrior. A Mage should not be going toe to toe with an enemy anyway.

The alteration and illusion master sPells have a pretty huge range from what I've observed...

Its 80% mitigation, having 567 armor is the cap. We get identical level of mitigation with our master level spell as a warrior, so that argument is out of the window im afraid. Also mage armor has no effect on dragonskin, the spell is straight up 80% mitigation. We can and do go toe to toe with an enemy. We can also use armor, the same as a warrior with no penalty to magic. The game is setup so that any class can play anyway they want. That is except mages who get forced in to using skills and equipment they would rather not.

The point I was making anyway was that a mage in armor is better off than a mage without using armor spells which should not be the case. They should be level and balanced to one another. But taking 5 seconds to cast, with both hands and only lasting 45 seconds at a HUGE cost of mana is not a balanced spell for mages. Just use armor and dont waste the perks on mage armor.

It's not the cost as much as the ridiculous time it takes to cast the bloody things. Other than lightning storm, which is very handy for dragons, master level spells are pretty much pointless.

In basically every school the expert level spells are much better, and considerably more practical.

Blizzard and fire storm are AoE spells, theyre ment to do good damage to a group of people. It does just that. But lightning storm is the big damage dealer, i kill dragons easily with it

There are penalties to a Mage wearing armour: they lose the Mage Armour bonuses (except Dragonskin). There is also a distinction between a Mage and a Battle Mage but that's another argument. Either way, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; if you say that it is too hard/easy for you then so be it. But I'm saying that it is fine for me.

The point being that the forum only represents those players willing to make posts and does not reflect the gaming experience of all players. If radical changes were implemented on the say so of only those posters willing to post that would likely be unfair to all those who either are having no issues or do not feel that they warrant changing.

None of that alters your right to make your opinion heard; but , please consider that your opinion is not definitive.

OP, I like fire spells, but yesterday changed to lightning-based spells because they do more damage. Dual cast chain-lightning and the stagger (can't remember the correct name) perk. Great spell even for single targets, and has a very long reach. I got near an old fort with bandits and easily killed the archers standing on the walls. However, you have to be careful if you have a follower. If they got too close, the spell will jump to them.

"Stunlocking" is a boring way to be effective? That just sounds.... wilfully obstructive to a solution, if you'll excuse my simplistic assessment

The problem isn't that Destruction isn't effective. It can be, if you use those methods. It's that lots of us don't think that it's fun when those methods are used. So, for me, the solution to Destruction's ineffectiveness isn't a solution to the salient problem, that Destruction isn't effective and fun. If you find that style of play fun, more power to you. I'll be using a mod

I made no mention of difficulty either way. Its a pure game mechanic term Im talking about. There is no penalty to wearing armor, as you simply do not perk mage armor as its not requried when doing so. In game mechanics terms there is no downside to a mage in armor but there IS a downside to a mage using alteration armor spells thats the point Im trying to get across here. The downside is that the spell is nowhere near as effective in game mechanics as armor when it SHOULD be. The casting time and cost make it a bit of a downside albiet managable to some extent. However when joined with the extremely short nature of the spell it means that in any long engagement (ie a dragon) you going to have to cast it multiple times. With its high costs and high cast time and requiring both hands it means your wide open to attack and without resorting to enchanting for zero casting gear your going to be out of mana and up an anus gravy river with a sinking boat and no paddle.

The games billed as you defining your character, but rather the games skills and spells are funnelling players in to pattern of play. There is little wiggle room for diversity.

Just means you can stun lock enemy, not really exciting. In Skyrim stun is too powerful, shield bash is 100% effective and impact has to be fairly close to that number as well, weapon bashes I believe are also 100% effective on stunning.



It's effective but considering that anybody with a shield or 2 handed weapon can stunlock from level one up where mages can't stun lock until impact (which requires 2 perks, whereas shield bash and 2H have the ability to stun lock from the get go).

Destruction has a lot of useless or underpowered perks in my opinion and never really matches up to Archery or Melee. Destruction can still be powerful but my mage already has the Expert leveled destruction spells at level 25 and all the damage bonus perks, Fire, Ice and Lightning all +50% damage. From level 25 onwards my damage can not increase in other words other then being able to toss out more expert leveled spells... that's all the damage bonus I'll be seeing from now on out... with my previous Paladin character, my damage sky rocketed around level 30~35 when I started actually working on Smithing and Enchanting... to the point where normal single attacks can one hit kill guards while still holding back on the enchantments that I could use...

Destruction users definitely fall behind in later levels since destruction stops getting more powerful after expert and actually becomes more and more inefficient after Apprentice (Firebolt has a base magicka to damage efficiency of 69%, incinerate only has a 33% efficiency since it does ~2.5 times more damage but has about 9 times the magicka cost). If not for -spell cast cost effects, it'd be very difficult to kill anything that had as much HP as you have magicka with incinerate but actually not too difficult with firebolt... yeah... just takes twice as long to get the actual kill.

I find the FL\lames spell quite useful, especially when I am going against a Frost troll or some other creature that is of Frost and highly sensitive to fire. It is pretty funny to watch a Horker wiggle from the roasting then they eventually try to run. I will most likely stay at apprentice spells and not go higher that that...Some of the Shouts are cool though...

The problem that I see with all builds being able to achieve the same level of offence and defence is that it effectively means that there is only one build; that would be the opposite of diversity. And my own play style is a testament to Skyrim's diversity in player builds. I have purposely built and under-powered build (the terms under/over powered being defined by math) and I have drawn out several other builds that are both optimum and sub-optimum. It's the ability to create these 'weak' characters that lends the game such flexibility.

Now none of this takes into account the player's style and tactics which often compensates for or exploits the mechanics of a game.

Given that you acknowledge that people (yourself included) can and do deliberately create sub-optimal builds, not necessarily maximising their character's capabilties, it seems to follow that increased character possibilities would only increase character diversity. That is, if mages had the option to be offensively and defensively equal to warriors, players could still choose not to take perks, could still make a weak character.

There is nothing more dissapointing in Skyrim than its magic.

With the removal of spellmaking they have removed their flagship feature and for what?
Now they look cool, but are completely unimaginitive, unvaried, not useful and get quite boring.