People seem to think that having a massive variety of different spells is a sign of a "deep" system, but the only differences between two spell-crafted Destruction spells in Oblivion was the damage they did. There's no difference between making 2 Shock spells in Oblivion, one which deals 10 damage and one which deals 15 damage, and having your Shock spells auto-increase in damage as you raise your Destruction skill in Skyrim. In fact it's a much cleaner system, because you don't end up with an inventory cluttered up with weak spells you no longer use.

Plus you can still combine, for example, Fear with Shock, by wielding a spell in each hand.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought armour in TES was % based? So at 85AR (max) you reduces damage by 85%. Which would make that 25 v 56 damage thing, against a 20AR enemy, turn into 20 v 44. Rather than 5 v 36.... Which to me seems fine for 6 perks investment.

As far as magic skills go, how do you know it doesn't ALSO effect magic casting cost? Maybe, a master of Destruction will, by virtue of their skill, be casting a 100 magicka spell at 80 (20% reduction), while another master who specialised with perks will be casting it at 40 (50% reduction from the perk, followed by 20% from skill). EDIT: A point has also been raised that leveling your skill may increase the power of the spells themselves.

You cannot say this is not possible because you do not know.

All you are doing here is saying "hey, what if it was like this? I would be annoyed!", and not even giving good arguments for that The Smithing skill is a good example people doing this. There is a lot of presumptions flying around that it is useless after the low levels without perk investment. Well, that is one interpretation. However, it could well be that irrelevant of perks you can improve weapons & armours condition all the way up to the highest tier of material, but the Smithing perks simply means that you can 1) personally craft those items 2) and then DOUBLES your improvements.... you know, as the text says. So normally you increase damage/AR by 15%, now you are improving by double at 30%.

But all of the perk people always told me that the perks were to add variety to the characters. I'm so confused. I know that what you said is true for some perks like the one that the OP mentioned, but I really wish that it wasn't the case. 95% of the perks should be new abilities.

The power has simply been moved from the skill increases to the perks (which is exactly what the OP was pointing out, and exactly how Todd said it would be in a podcast ironically). The perks that add things to gameplay are there and they're awesome, but unfortunately there are more: "increase x ability by 10%" than there should be.

Yes because choosing a perk that makes the fireball bigger is flipping a switch. Whereas making a bigger fireball allows me to choose exactly how big the fireball is. And if I had my way the SC system would allow even more customization.

I like the way you think. Perfectly explained. Also the AR system makes much more sense as a percentage.



No. The skill raises and perks complement each other. A character with 100 in a skill and no perks will be powerful in that skill - but a character with 100 in the same skill and lots of specialised perks will be much more powerful. That's how the perk system encourages variety in characters. It discourages people from being jacks of all trades, because by taking perks in a few specialised skills, you can unlock the full potential of those skills. No one character can unlock the full potential of EVERY skill in one playthrough, which makes perfect sense.

There's no way nearly every perk should grant a new skill, that's completely unrealistic. You'd end up with over 50 skills by the time you get to a high level, which is just completely untenable. There aren't even enough buttons on a PC to handle that many skills.

I agree with you in the sense that I think it's great that some of the perks are there to make you really strong in certain areas. Being able to become godlike in an RPG is a great experience. But being really strong in a skill does not make me significantly different than another character - it does not allow for more customization options, which is what I think of when someone says "character diversity". Being particularly good at a skill that already exists does not make more diverse characters. To accomplish something like that you need either more skills, or perks that add new, gameplay changing abilities.

I was being a little sarcastic with the guy I quoted because when we were arguing on this very forum a while ago - when attributes were first confirmed to be out - about the role of perks, all of the people who liked perks were saying that they would make for more diverse characters. And insomuch as the perks grant completely new abilities, they are correct. But, as the OP said, the perks that simply buff your skills a bit are not doing what we were promised the perks would do.

And as far as having 50+ new skills. Pfftt, bring it on. The Control, Alt, and Shift keys are there for a reason. Seriously though, all I'm saying is that there should be a significant number of new abilities. Not one for every level of your character (every perk), but enough that the perks are worth the insane sacrifice of the attribute system.

Well so what is Skill/Perk relation in game?
Skill is cake and perk is cherry on top of it?
Small but unique details thats crown skills mastery with new effects, (blunt weapons able ignore armor)

or

Skill is cake and perks are cream between layers of cake?
Skill and perks are united and work in synergy. (Archery by self increase damage of bows perks greatly enhance ways to deal this increased damage)

or

Skill is cookie and perks is filling?
Skills have minor power and need only to achieve sweet perks. (Smithing skills what by self does not add anything (like decreased armor degradation rates ability repair more damage ability gathering more ingredients from smelting ores) but work as staircase for armor crafting/improving perks)


Be able charge spell and make own from combination of effects with self defined range/power and cost is different things and can work together well, I have several mods for Oblivion thats allow me create custom spell in ingame spell maker and make it chargeable.

LOL. The word "cliché" has become such a cliché among people who can't tell the difference between an overused word and a word that serves as an important utility to express a common theme.

People like you would have the entire world reading from a thesaurus just to get simple points across.

Concern over the details of a new edition of a beloved game franchise is normal. Get over it.

All three options are appropriate in different situations. So I'm fine no matter what as long as we get a lot of new abilities somewhere in the mix.

Nice metaphors I think it's a mix of them all, depending on the skill. From what I can tell it's mostly the first two.

Hold down button to charge spell -> custom sized fireball

An interesting thought... the more unique in game skills that are linked to perks would actually create more situations like what people think Smithing is. I.e. a skill which has very limited use outside of its perks... Personally, I am OK with that style (although I still do not think that is going to be the case), but I thought I would point out the consequence of what you want.

Thats not confirmed,
Can we gradually change power of spell accordingly to time of charge, e.g there is no 25 to 26 to 27 with drain of magicka per second without upper limit what can be defined by maximum Magicka.
What if such fireball only have two states uncharged what deal for example 25 damage and charged thats deal 50 and double cost of spell but require more time to be casted.

A: "option number 2 and option number 1 are really the same."

B: "No, option number 1 is more fun and yields more depth."

A: "But what about option number 3?!"

B: "A: "option number 2 and option number 1 are..."

B: "No, ..."

A: "But what about..."

B: "A: "option number 2 and option number 1 are...""" Its recursive you see.

Anyway what the crap does that have to do with whether I want the game to hand me a pre-packaged "bigger fireball" with a perk, or whether I want to make that fireball myself?

Being able to customize my spells is all I've ever wanted from a SC system. But I guess if charging will provide some of that customization, that's a good thing.

Yes it is.

Look at the video.

And how you found thats damage was increased gradually and not to certain level?

I've read through all four pages, and I still don't understand what the argument is here.

Are you upset that there are perks to reduce magicka consumption?

He's upset he won't be able to as strong as possible in a skill by just getting that skill to 100 so that he can become as strong as possible in every skill in a single char by getting all skills to 100.

Ah.

Yeah, that's so unfair that we'll have to actually make choices with lasting impact in the game world. Why won't this game cater to my needs as an indecisive god-mode-is-my-mode player?

Don't you have to work and unlock the ability to become adept,master etc....what's the problem. The perks are good enough,as are the ranks needed.

Impossible. All perks that add damage only do so at a percentage. If the skill does nothing then unlocking perks to get the max +100% damage would give you +0 damage. Skill must make up roughly half to 3/4 of their previous level of damage in TES games in order for the new system to work

Hmm, what? Maybe you should think a little more on that and see what's wrong with what you said

You are erroneous on several points.

The main gripe, if you will, of this thread is not that you cannot do everything in a given skill just by leveling it without perks. Were that the case, the perks would be pointless. The issue I have is that the perks, rather than solely being powerful enhancements, seem to entirely take the place of all other aspects of leveling.

A Master of destruction with NO perks, should still be able to cast powerful destruction spells, and to cast minor destruction spells more easily and efficiently than a novice of Destruction. That is just common sense. It should't require a perk. There might be a perk to allow him to cast a superpowerful fire spell, like a wall of fire or a ravening fire beast etc. But it shouldn't require a perk for a Master Warlock of destruction to cast a simple fireball at a lesser cost to his Magicka (i.e. more easily and effectively) than would be the case for a 3rd level novice just learning to cast the spell.

Also, I have no interest in being master of all skills. I have NEVER mastered every skill in any one character. There are plenty of skills I have never touched, so you quite misrepresent things in saying that. . I am just in favour of expanding options rather than contracting them.

You hit the nail on the head with that comment Dragonborn.

So you cannot call yourself a "master of destruction" if you don't pick any perks in destruction.

I honestly don't see the problem.