The problem is that too many of the perks are simple stat increases where as there should be more interesting ones. I can even understand the need for a few perks that mimick stat increases but did there have to be so many?

Alchemy:
Potions are 20% stronger. (this one has 5 ranks?)
Potions for restore Health, Magicka and Stamina are 25% stronger.
Poisons are 25% more effective

sneak:
20% less chance of being detected. again 5 ranks!?

There are many more skills where the first perk has FIVE ranks and all it does is a simple +% of effectiveness. Two handed, heavy armor, block etc. and many more perks where they are deeper in the tree and do the same thing.

Way to many ranks spent increasing the effectiveness! should be 3 ranks max in my opinion. Each one does 33% increase effectiveness. And thats only if the +% effectiveness type perks are needed.

Even the World of Warcraft developers from Blizzard, who use that system and have around 12 million subscribers to their game (im not one), have said that those types of talents are lame and they want to move as far from it as they can. They say that it is a boring system, and i agree with them.

The other worry is that the perks will be needed for your character to be effective in those skills. What use is a level 100 blacksmith if he has no perks? he can only use Iron materials even at skill level 100?

We will have to see how it plays out but if you think that the perks look impressive i would be of the opinion that you are kidding yourself.

Honestly I'm not much on the forcing issue. I am always about free choice but look at it this way... Bethesda Games always have a means of becoming overpowered. I daresay that getting all the perks in enchanting and smithing will pretty much make you a powerhouse even without the skills to back them up.

Folks can rant and rave about balance but it is up to the player to make their own decisions. A factor I love about TES and something that is becoming rare in this "Bridle and Bit" day and age of gaming. Hence the reason I debate it so fiercely.

The point of skills has changed. They are no longer a direct representation of your ability in a particular area. There are many reasons for the skills to exist and function as they do. First of all, improving your skills is the primary leveling mechanic in TES, and has been for 15 years now. By linking your character's power to his actions directly rather than to rewards for killing creatures or finishing quests regardless of how they're completed it makes for a more organic-feeling experience. You improve your skill with a shield by using a shield, and when you've improved enough skills you level up. It's a mechanic that, as far as I know, is unique to TES and abandoning it at this point would make no sense. Secondly, the measurement of said experience with a skill determines whether you are able to take a particular perk at all. You have to invest time into the skill as well as perk points if you want to become better at it. As for what you call "garbage" perks? No, they're not garbage. They're things you have to invest in if you want to get the most out of a skill. By having you put more perk points into one skill you are prevented from putting those same perk points into another skill. You have to choose what you want to be good at and carefully consider what kind of character you want to be. No more of this garbage where you spend the entire game doing nothing but casting spells and suddenly deciding that you want to be a master of the axe and not suffering for it at all. Hell, if you have enough money you can just pay people to boost every single skill to 100 in Morrowind. You'll be just as good at those things as characters who'd spent the entire game building themselves around this skill. The only difference you'll have from other characters is your HP total, which would have been higher if you'd built your character with a higher Endurance stat. In fact that's the only stat that makes a lasting difference in your character, because HP is the only stat that's determined in a linear fashion -- it goes up when you level based on your Endurance stat. But I'm getting off-track here.



Again, none of the perks we've seen are useless. They have very clear and noticeable effects, a measurable improvement of your character's ability. Secondly, how is having to invest in a particular skill in order to reap the benefits of it a bad thing? What bash perk do you want? The one that lets you disarm a foe? Doesn't it stand to reason that you'd have to master the basics of shield bashing before you can attempt a more advanced maneuver like that? Reverse the roles here and pretend you've been playing a warrior the whole time. Now you decide that you want to cast master-level Conjuration spells. Are you going to be mad that your guy who's never so much as summoned a Bound dagger is prevented from summoning two Dremora Lords at the same time? Will you cry blood and foam at the mouth because you can't skip straight to the delicious creamy making-Oblivion-your-[censored] center without chewing through the chocolaty scamp-summoning shell? This mentality is, frankly, silly.

Yes but I fail in all of this to see how it is any less redundant that attributes or "redundant skills". Give me more unique feats or perks or whatever. Let your skill determine how good you are... as it should be.... as it is we may as well do away with skills and make an adventure game...

This person speaks unfortunately wise words. These perks... they're disappointing. I had hoped for them to be unique on the level of Fallout 3's and to truly be perks, not, as they seem in some cases, the entire backbone of all character progression. Some of the skills do indeed seem useless without these perks and there are just very important variables that will not be taken into account for while some form of attribute system may have been able to do so. It's just... underwhelming and although they may have fixed terrible issues with efficient leveling, the system seems just as, if not more, lackluster and definitely more nonsensical, in return.

Exactly.

You don't need to take all five ranks before continuing up the tree. This makes it vastly different than WoW in that way - as well as weaken your argument incredibly as you can choose not to take all ranks.

But I generally agree with you. I think that they could just reduce those starting tree perks down to 3 or so. I'm not sure that I like too many ranks in perks in general.

As for your issue with Blacksmithing, it is the exception to the rule. Also, 100 blacksmithing presumably allows you to improve your weapons and armor at a higher level. You will not be able to create items, but you will be able to improve them. Taking perks doubles the improvement and allows you to create items.


I also think that because I see their perk tree system as being 4 million times better than the Oblivion system, it does not mean that I am "kidding myself."

I fail to see your reasoning here. I wasn't talking at all about skill level. Here, let us try this (a little hypothetical to wrap your brain around what I'm trying to say):

During my playthrough, I get my one-handed and destruction both to 100.

Now that I am a "master" swordsman and magic user, because my skill is at 100, why do I HAVE to get the one handed perks for 20% more damage? They're forcing me to get that as a base perk. That's a requirement, even though I have 100 in one handed. Why SHOULDN'T I be able to skip to whatever I'd like? I've been using a sword the whole game to level up my skill, I am obviously pretty good with a sword - why won't they allow me to skip straight to depreciation regardless of my other perk choices?

Sorry, dude, but any way you cut it this is a limitation. I'm still going to love and buy Skyrim, but this feature, so far, is my least favorite. Perks should be skill dependent, not dependent on how many previous perks you chose within that same tree.

If you fail to see his reasoning, you fail to see reason.

You are arguing, at the same time, a want for the old system that forced you to pick up a perk early and you are against a new system that forces you to pick a perk early.

Oblivion - Forced Perks. You can get them all.
Skyrim - Semi-Forced Perks in a perk stree that has branches. You can't get them all. You don't need to pick up more than one rank.

Sorry, dude, I find Skyrim to be far superior to previous Elder Scrolls games. Oblivion was FAR more limiting than Skyrim, which gives you a choice of what perk to choose.

Please read my post again and take note of all the times I said "attributes." Here's a hint: It's zero. I'd have loved to see attributes in the game, but not in the god-awful implementation they were in before. Those were hardly even attributes, given how fluid they were. They weren't inherent characteristics, they were basically just another skill to raise. I'd have loved to see a talent-tree type setup for attributes so you have a third option to pick when you level up: resource pool, skill perk, attribute node. It would add another layer of complexity to a system that's already complex.

And you're missing the point of those passive perks entirely. They're a reward for investing in the skill. If you get a rank 100 in Block, you'll be really good at blocking, but to become the undisputed blocking master you have to put perks into that tree. It's making you be really good at block and not so good at other things. It reinforces the concept of roleplay from a stats perspective. At level 20 you will be pretty well invested into whatever kind of character you're making and if you decide to suddenly change your focus and start investing in a new skill then those other skills you were focusing on before will not increase in power as much. In short the new system does a better job of encouraging you to stick to a particular "class" better than the half-baked class system of the old games ever did. It prevents the JackMaster-of-All-Trades syndrome that plagued the past four games in the series, making each and every one of your characters feel truly unique in what he or she does. It's a good kind of restriction, one that makes the game more interesting. And before you come back and say that any kind of restriction is bad because that's not what the series is about, just imagine how boring Morrowind would be if you just kept noclip on all the time and used the console to kill every enemy before they even touched you. That right there is no restrictions, a perfect illustration of how rules that are not easily bent or broken can make for a game that is more challenging, fun, and engaging.

I've got one word for you Prerequisites of course they are going to make you get perks w, x, & y before you can get z or do you think it would be cool if they just let charecters just start things of with the coolest perk of them while ignoring all the others. Here's something else D&D has a ton prerequisites for the really cool feats, Fallout has prerequisites skills, attributes, and perks for some all the cool perks, and diablo has does the same thing in the form of skill trees that require to start at the bottom with the crappy skill and work your way up to the cool ones. I don't see how skyrim is any different from any of those other games.

No, I'm arguing against both systems. I think you should be able to jump around the perk tree, dependent on your skill level (a level 50 skill in destruction cannot buy you a level 100 perk). That's how customization works, doesn't it?

And, again, I'm not arguing against the "you can't get them all aspect." I hate playing god-like warriors in games. I hate playing anything god-like, because I'm a writer, and flaws make character. At the same time, if I want a guy proficient at chopping off heads, but that doesn't have an x number of useless powers I dislike, I should be able to do that. It would STILL MEAN THAT I CAN'T GET EVERY PERK.

So I'm not sure what you're talking about, but cool.

Yes, now you're getting it. It's a limitation. That's why it's good. What, limitations good? Yes, limitations good. That's why you're not allowed to walk through walls and say "no, I don't feel like going to jail" when a guard attempts to arrest you and just walk away without him opposing you.

Again, the whole point of the perk system is to make each character unique, and to make you invest in your skills with careful consideration. If you want to be good at destruction magic and swords then invest perks in those. You want to be good at everything? Too damn bad. Either deal with the fact that you can't or cheat.

EDIT: And no, you don't get to jump around the tree either because that negates the entire damn point of the tree.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas don't do this, and actually adhere to a structure that I really like. I didn't ever have to get the Gun Nut perk to get the Gunslinger perk. It was LEVEL ADHERENT. I had to be level 4 to get the gun nut perk, and level six to get the gunslinger perk. I didn't have to choose both.

Also, I have two words for you: [censored] prerequisites. I was told to take prerequisite courses when I first entered college and said, "[censored] this, I know all this [censored], I'm testing out." That's the whole point. I already knew what the hell I was doing. I didn't have to take Bio101 if I already took Bio201 in high school. Pretty simple.

Oh, right. You don't like either system.

You want to be given a list of 200 perks to be chosen from and then just select whichever one you want. I get the wishful thinking behind a system like that. I personally think it would make for a terrible system.

I prefer a system where the tree rewards you with better and better perks as you go up the tree so that you are rewarded for your commitment to that tree. Your system would involve cherry picking the most excellent skills and then leaving behind all the ones you feel are inferior.

I personally find your system terrible and feel like what they are doing is far superior.

Wow. So far everyone in this thread has completely misinterpreted what I said.

Right. I will be good at destruction magic and one handed. Why do I have to be force-fed perks within those trees when I'm a high enough skill level? If I'm level 100 at destruction, why do I have to get 50% magicka cost first? Why can't I get Fire has a chance to make characters flee?

That would be the Fallout system. I still couldn't get every perk, but I choose the ones I wanted depending on my level.

I don't see how people aren't getting this.

Fallout had like 50 perks total. (I think by level 30 you got to pick 30 of them).

It looks like you want a Fallout system. I like the Skyrim system far more personally.

Wait, wait, wait, you're arguing against ... doing ... what ... people ... would ... like. Is this the Elder Scrolls forum, or have I gone into crazy land?

And it wouldn't be cherry-picking, because the "most excellent" skills are still only going to be available to the highest level players which ever system is used. Mine just says, "When you're at level five, here's some perks to choose from, you get to choose which you'd like better," instead of, "you're level five ... this is the level five perk you HAVE to choose so you can get the level six perk later."

And no. It is level adherent. You don't just start with 200 perks to choose from and choose the best ones. Either way, "best" is subjective. I'm sure there are people who would choose, "Do 20% more damage" every damn time.

Honestly, I'm going for the Fallout way of doing perks. Seems like a much better system to me. Way less limiting and abrasive.

No, I see where you are going now. After you mentioned Fallout specifically, it was easier to see where your ideas were coming from.

I like that Skyrim has a far more vast selection of perks and that characters will be more specialized than in Fallout. I also like that the system focuses on giving you better and better perks as you get higher in the tree so that it rewards commitment to the tree.

I also found most of the Fallout perks to be less interesting than the Skyrim perks. 95% of them were stat-like increases. Just take a look and at http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_perks

There is no hard level cap like in Fallout though. Gaining all the best perks and becoming overpowered sounds like it would be possible with your system, which I think is something Bethesda wants to avoid. The only way to balance your way of handling perks would be to make this more like Fallout and stop leveling at a certain point, which is not what I want at all.

I hope that the skill level still affects the spell being cast in some way, I prefer the system where you have a percentage chance of successfully casting a spell, which is determined by your skill level. This tier system better still have this.

I also hope that spell damage is not nerfed with the exclusion of spellcrafting. Nothing is more satisfying than Fortifying your magicka pool and Destruction skill, before unleashing a mega-spell. It is realistic and non-game breaking, because it requires time and care to prepare such massive spells. I hope that they keep these mega-spell options in the game by some means.

The thing about perks that has me concerned the most is whether or not npcs will have them. I certainly hope that the majority of these damage-buff and maneuver perks cannot be used by npcs. Nothing was more disapointing than being shield bashed by every single goblin every two seconds. Being level 50 made the game much harder than being level 1, lmao. :rofl:
There needs to be some kind of reward for leveling up...... :dry:

Right, but Fallout having worse or better perks than Skyrim isn't what we're talking about.

I'm talking about having to waste precious perk points, having to get a bunch of skills you don't want, just to get ONE that you do. That limits you from getting perks in other skills and doing what you would like with your character by having a bunch of meaningless perks you didn't want. I use the word meaningless in this case to mean, "don't want," because that's what it would be: meaningless to me, but useful to other people.

That is exactly why Fallout did it right. Didn't have to adhere to any structure, didn't have to get anything before any other perk ... just had to get to a certain level, and then was given a number of equally awesome options to choose from. This is why choice would be important in a system like this. I scrambled my head over which perks to choose in Fallout.

In Skyrim, it'll be more like,

"I really want this perk at the end of this perk tree ... so I'm going to spend all my perk points until then so I can get to it, even though I don't really like or want any of the perks before it."

That sounds like a GOOD system to you? Really? Not trying to be a dike, but that sounds less than kosher to me. Way less.

You get a fixed amount of perks, 70 odd if you power level, about 50 for a normal end game character. Want decapitation, but consider the other perks necessary to get it as useless? Fine, think of it as decapitation costs four perks, whereas a damage boost costs one. That would be fair, extra cost for a better perk, whether or not you want the perks below, it's an ability that is worth more.

As for the +20% perks, apart from the first one you have a choice. More damage or interesting effect. Lot of posts here saying there should be more effects, but that takes the choice away from those who want extra damage. Someone wants a half braindead Orc who smashes skulls instead of worrying about fancy moves, then extra damage is part of what defines that character, but it seems from some of this thread that such a character shouldn't be possible, because some people wouldn't find it interesting.

Also there are two types of choice. Spellmaking, taking perks by 'jumping around the trees', wielding a sword, a shield, and a spell, these were all choices, but didn't require decisions. Now, with the limited amount of spells, the equipping to hands, and the limits on perks, real choices have to be made. Someone mentioned a healing flame. Well, making that spell was one of millions of choices, choices with no real consequence, now you have to decide whether the flame or the healing will best serve you, or whether you can afford to forego a weapon to use both. You can burn enemies and heal yourself at the same time, but there are consequences, specifically not being able to use a sword or shield at the same time.

Which sounds more interesting? Choices without worrying about limitation or consequence, from a vast amount of options, not real decisions of import at all, or being constantly required to make choices, every encounter demanding tactical decisions, and getting the perks you want requiring forethought and the sacrifice of other potential abilities?

We don't know how the tree is structured, but I can guarantee you that the 50% consumption thing is either going to be a tiered perk (and thus you only have to get the first one to unlock the rest of the things along its branch) or is going to have a branch to itself. We already know that the root perk of every magic tree is the one that allows you to double-up your spells to make them more powerful. Now that fire makes enemies flee thing? It's an advanced feature. You have to at least get the perk that lets you make your spells more powerful by doubling them (a mark of a competent caster in the school), then make your fire spells more powerful, and only then can you imbue them with such flash and sparkle that it makes enemies poop their pants in terror. It's not a single straight line where you have to get every damn perk in the tree before you get that one you want. We've seen that they have multiple branches and seem to be laid out in a logical and natural way. You need to get good at smashing people in the face with a shield before you can hit them hard enough and with enough precision to cause them serious damage, to knock them over completely with a bash you put your entire body into, to be fast enough to smash their hands so they drop their weapon, and to have such a strong shield arm that you can brace your shield and hold it steady while you sprint and just completely steamroll everyone. That is linear progression that makes sense and rewards specialization. It would be dumb if you could just skip straight to the things that a legendary master of defense can do at a whim.

People need to drop this whole "the skills should X" mentality. Automatically giving you perks or letting you pick and choose perks without any rules (or too few rules) governing it goes against the point of the system.

Don't you kind of see my point though you had to use the knowledge you learned in your hs bio201 course to except the bio101 course and I'm sure you had to take another class before you could take bio201. Its the same thing with perks before you go around decapitating people you have to learn how to paralyze them and before you can learn to paralyze you have to learn how to disarm and so on and so on. You work your way up from the bottom and usually that bottom is a +1 to this or a 5 points to this and for skyrim its a 20% bonus to damage no matter how high your skill is.

I don't mean this in a condescending way but try playing some different rpgs other then Fallout and you'll see it isn't the norm.