If the construction kit is as good as Beth says it is, then I'm just gonna wait a while until some kind modder makes a mod to bring in attributes and birthsigns. There. Problem solved. This, coupled with a natural progression for attributes and skills makes for a very enjoyable game and no stat grinding while still allowing players to customize their character.

I dread the day where I see in a TES game all characters starting with 100 hp/magicka/stamina and 1 point in these categories=10 hp/magicka/stamina. This is what I'm seeing here and it isn't pretty.

I imagine the main problem outlined in the OP could be easily rectified with a mod. It should be a simple matter of having a dialogue box with some options popping up at the start of the game where you can determine your background, or allow you to increase your skills to match your vision of your character.

That said, does not pretty much any balanced system impede role-play? You might envision playing an archmage who has been wrongfully convicted of arson, but the system only lets you distribute 25 points to your Destruction when you envision him as having 50 - at least! Another player envisions himself as a Spellsword from a dying brotherhood of warriors, and the game won't allow him to increase as many different skills as he needs to. Another player wants to play a bumbling buffoon and the village drunk, and he's stuck having to spend too many skill-points. Ultimately, to be able to roleplay at all you definitely need to be able look past these kind of limitations and suspend your disbelief. Either ignore the fact that your magical skills are lacking at the start, or make up a reason for them to be lacking; perhaps you could make your background story more interesting by fleshing it out with the answers for these questions - I dunno.

Another option is simply to cheat. You're already striving to do something that puts characters on uneven footing at the start. Just go ahead and modify your skills as you see fit.

As far as I'm concerned the absence of classes is of no threat to roleplaying though. To roleplay without an actual game-master you need to spend most of your time bloody pretending anyway, so a little additional pretence is unlikely to change anything.

This argument would hold ground in the context of Fallout 3, and not The Elder Scrolls. Which skills you "Tag" directly ties into how you can level, and if you don't enjoy the skills you tag, you basically cripple your experience. So I think right here, you totally missed the point. The Elder Scrolls' unique way of progression through repetition changes the nature of the issue entirely.



I honestly never saw that issue being tied to the classes. Just their overall progression design, specifically the "Governing Attributes". Bethesda gave players the wrong amount of control with their stats no matter which class you chose. But being mindful of the leveling mechanics to the point of perversion really damages the immersive nature of their game. The best solution here, would to have stats level up by some function off the [(majorOblivion)/minorsMorrowind] you already picked naturally, while totally removing the whole "Multiplier" ordeal, but still keeping the ability for players to boost their attributes manually each level without multipliers.





My optional solution to bring back classes, which I do wish they would, involves basically lifting Fallout's tag skill system to define your character's prologue, and the option to "Opt out".

It's a lot easier than it sounds since all skills contribute to leveling now. I wouldn't so much make people pick their "Class", so much as pick the skills they want to receive a minor boost, and actually just assigning the class based on said choices, with of course the option to rename the class. If a player Opts out of the bonus, in order to keep everyone on the same "Mathematical cap" the "Bonuses" are just evenly distributed. You get the "Pre Game event" definition, without the potentially experience-crippling repercussions of the original class system.

Indeed. The Perk system is why I'm not completely trashing Skyrim already (though i know I'll end up buying it regardless, but more for the story than anything else) because such a system can add a lot of depth to a characters progression if done right. Fallouts system was more or less just silly at times, which suited the game, but this is a serious game so yeah.



I distinctly remember this being one of my fondest memories of Morrowind and even Oblivion. And besides that, it isn't like this isn't going to happen in Skyrim. It might not be that prevalent, but you're just fooling yourself if you think no one is going to start over with an entirely new character at some point. Hell, I know I will. IDK what you seem to think is so liberating about this game's system. If you invest a lot of time in being a Sword and Shield warrior and then decide at some point you want to use Two Handers exclusively because you saw something cool happen with them, it isn't like you're just going to all of a sudden get good at two handers and unless you're literally just starting out you'll be spending a lot of time getting that skill up when you could have otherwise been progressing in the game.

Which is EXACTLY how it worked in games past. Sans the obvious differences, that is more or less what happened with a character who decides to use something else. They either start over, or spend a long time getting that particular skill(s) up to comparable levels to their previous skill(s).



Precisely the latter. I see no problem with that at all so long as there is the option to forgo the boost. You have to understand that I have no problem starting out with a character that knows nothing and can do virtually nothing yet. I've done characters like that before. But I also like starting out as characters that WERE NOT just simpletons before the game's events unfolded.



You assume the same regret can't occur to someone later on in the game who didn't get a boost in the beginning. As per my example above, it isn't like you can just switch to different weapon types on the fly and be just as good immediately. So you're point here is pretty much moot because it will still happen regardless until the player is experienced with the game, at which point what system we have doesn't really matter anymore.



Key word here is MAKE. And they call this a game where you can do whatever you want whenever you want. If I'm a new player and want to stick with pure melee skills then I damn well should be able to. I shouldn't have to feel like I need to go experiment with something else on the same character. IF I want to experiment with magic I'll boot up a character that uses magic. Same with stealth or any other combination of the three you can come up with.

WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FEEL LIMITED TO ONE CHARACTER JUST BECAUSE ITS SUDDENLY MORE "EASY" TO TRANSITION TO ANOTHER PLAYSTYLE ON THAT CHARACTER.



Doesn't mean TES has to be like them. TES has traditionally had a class system.



Balance is highly unnecesssary in a single player game. At least to the degree that every character has to be a weakling at the onset and can't be an almighty god at the offset. This is where Morrowind got it right. It was perfectly possible to start out as a god as well as a weakling simpleton just as it was to end as either of them.

And yes, after several legitimate playthroughs of the games I do cheat to get the character I want.



I've already stated elsewhere in the topic that I don't agree that only a specific set of skills can let you level. They should all count equally.



This is exactly what I've been advocating in this topic. Not to be dikeish, but read through the rest of it. I more or less had the same idea.

Having to create multiple characters means you go through a lot of the same content many times. This happens even when there's a big open world and you can do lots of stuff.

I remember restarting Fallout 3 many times just because I didn't pick the SPECIAL stats the exact right way to support my newly-chosen playstyle. And they're not half as big a deal as the perks. Especially when you're new to the playstyle you never know which perks are really the best, and you'll always feel bad if you don't get the best, coolest perks.
So you go through low-level content over and over again, and this gets tedious and can take a lot out of the game.
That's why I don't think you'll ever get perks in character creation. It's a horrible, horrible choice gameplay-design-wise.

Starting with a high skill and no perks is feasible, however, much in the same way that tag skills were in FO3. This doesn't hurt your character because you can just raise the perk-giving-level-cap a few levels above 50, and change the levelling rate in an appropriate way.
So you can have simple tag skills (not proper classes like we had in the last game, we've reached agreement on this in the thread) with no perks or no, this is what the argument boils down to: in the end, I guess that they found them to be detrimental to gameplay, and in a gameplay vs. roleplaying decision wisely ruled, as you should, in favor of gameplay.

EDIT: Well, I spoke pretty harshly there. Roleplaying is very important, and it's a lot of what the series is about. The point is that the only added value is a few skill-boosts, and that doesn't seem to contribute enough to roleplaying that you would compromise the quality of gameplay just to have it.
Whether the current system is really better for gameplay in Skyrim, I don't think we have enough information to decide that, and this is one of the many things I am curious and excited to see in the game. =]

So says you, but in a lot of games going through a lot of the low level stuff adds a certain charm to it for a lot of players. Or at least for me it does. But I doubt there isn't at least one other person who shares my opinion. I must've scoured Seyda Neen a thousand times over and a thousand times more, and I still don't get bored of walking around there. I must've been through Vilvarin (that first Aylied ruin outside the Sewers Gate in Oblivion) even more times and yet I still am fascinated by approaching the thing in any way I can think of.

And quite honestly, I'm tired of hearing about the tag system. It was stupid and quite honestly Fallout would have been better without it considering we actually cannot roleplay our characters beginnings very much (sans mods anyway). And remember, I'm advocating, if we're going to go with a boost system (and look at my other posts to see how I think it should work) that the boost shouldn't amount to anything more than may be one level. Anything more and you are definitely putting too much in the hands of the player too early. Hell, thats how Fallout basically worked. As soon as you walked out of the Vault you went up a level. Always. And that put you in a position to choose a starting perk. And for Skyrim, I'd imagine that you'd use this one starting perk to pick a weapon specialization or some other perk.

And also, for a new player and even an experienced one, if they don't know the 280 perks inside and out they're eventually going to find that they regret some perk choice somewhere down the line. And since the only way to go back is a save (which not everyone is going to have) then the other option is to start over. Which isn't bad at all as it isn't like one bad perk choice is going to break your game if Bethesda is competent in their perk design.

We're going to get one level and one perk pretty early in the game anyway, so whichever way the game starts I'm sure none of us will be very disappointed. Maybe we will get a free level after the introduction, as in Fallout 3. I agree that it's an elegant solution to this problem.

Man, I wish all these "aargh I'm for or against this feature" were this thought-out and well-written. It would lure me out of lurking more often.

Agreed, I feel the same way and enjoy playing to the strengths of my created character while being mindful of my weaknesses. I'm hoping for definitive differences in character types as well, that being said, it's my hope that what Todd was saying is that all characters will know or learn a bit of magic that can be used in a fight, after all everyone will need to learn the shouts to fight dragons, which is essentially magic, thus turning most non-magic types into battlemages...loosely speaking.

Good points, compelling and rich. I just want the devs to ensure that if I drunkenly create a fat Imperial and put all my points in Barter that I will spend most of the game hiding in the bushes from everything because I can't fight. Not all should be equal.

I agree with the original poster.
Personally, I am not completely convinced that the changes are going to work out for the better.

Quite a few explanations, and reasonings have been given (or suggested when no official statement has been made) for some of the changes, and quite a few of them fail to stand up to closer examination.
For example, Skyrim's system is better because people will not get stuck with broken classes/ better able to change halfway.
Wrong.
This will likely be no better than in Oblivion and there is a good chance that it will actually get worse. In Oblivion there were attributes and skills (which controlled a handful of perks gained at specific skill levels). Skyrim has skills and perks. In Oblivion, I could decide halfway through the game that I wanted to focus on marksman as opposed to blunt to help deal with the fleeing mage NPCs. GIven some time and use of the skill I could do just that and eventually obtain the top level perk for that skill, no matter how late in the game that I changed my mind.
This is not true with Skyrim (unless we get an option to forget one perk to gain another). There will come a point where due to the limited number of perks you will not be able to max out a particular skills perks and work your way up to the best perk of the skill. One could argue that this is better, and actually I agree because people should be different, but it actually reduces the ability to change specializations later in the game.

Another related problem to classes and bad classes is going into a town and acdentally leveling up a couple of times using city related skills (Mercantile, Speechcraft, and the like) then finding oneself outclassed by enemies. Now that classes are gone all characters will have to worry about this problem. They spend time in the city and lock in that area near town at level 5 with level 1 combat skills. This has gotten worse as well.

I am concerned that some of these improvments will have unexpected consequences that will negatively impact the game. These are complex games and it is very hard to see how minor changes, let alone major ones will work out in full

By the way I have never had health problems in Oblivion. (Morrowind is another story at early levels). If my total health is becomming an issue, the fight is already lost. Maybe I am quicker to flee when a fight is going poorly as opposed to sitting there and trying to grind away a win. My real problem is that around level 10 a couple of fast enemies with an attack that stuns for a moment start appearing. Get trapped by one of those locking you down so you can't respond, and infinite health isn't much help.

Yes, first of Elder scroll is single character games, in a group based game like dragon age origins it makes sense to specialize.
In Skyrim you can not ask the priest to heal you, you have to do it yourself. You can heal with potions but not being able to cast simple spells is a huge handicap. (played an Oblivion character who was unable to cast any spells, it was hard)

Not saying that any character should be equal skillful, however he has to have some basic knowledge.

Now even without classes and without perks it's very hard to pick up a new skill at high level in Elder Scroll,
Think on Oblivion, do you think bows was underpowered? They was not, played many archers and at 100 in sneak and marksman every sneak attack on npc was single hit to kill. However with low skill you did low damage, in Morrowind it was even harder as you had serious problems even hitting the enemy. Now the enemy do full damage and will try to kill you so it's hard to use skills who don't work well.

With perks this will be even harder.
perks also gives you a sort of class specialization, you might use some skill a lot even if you have lite interest in them. You cast a basic healing spell to restore health a lot so your restoration skill is decent however as you have no interest in it you choose no perks so the skill stays basic.
With block you choose to choose all the perks as you both want to block and bash with great effect.

I prefer the Skyrim Implementation over the previous ones, but theyre both essentially the same. My only concern is the "Master of All" outcome where you eventually max all skills in the game. I suppose a finite amount of perk points would give you the edge in your melee or magic or whatever, but if destruction and swords and stealth and bows and etc etc can all be 100 then thats not very interesting. you just grind skills till youre a walking tower of death and devastation.

The big issue with the lack of classes is NOT the leveling system - that can be fixed in far easier ways than getting rid of classes - but the character development system. In essence, you are a "master of all" when you begin the game.

I would still prefer not. I would want a game that restricts the player to class. A wizard would have access to powerful spells, and the warrior would be able to wear the heavy armor and use the powerful melee weapons. I would think that a warrior with no experience in making potions, should be dependent on acquiring them if they want to use magic to heal. ~and be dependent on magic weaponry (not of their own making) for any offensive spell effects.

Being a single character game does not justify it IMO; as I have played single character games that did not have cross talents between the archetypes.
(In fact, they even used identical objects in different ways.)

The only reason I can think of to have the PC know a bit of everything, is to show it all off in on session; and that's no good, except for marketing.

The thing is about such a restrictive class system as you describe Gizmo is that it goes against the whole "Be who you want" ideal.

However, with the perk system taken into consideration, I can concede that perks should only end up being towards one specialization or a handful of not-maxed specializations. But then we run into an issue over whether or not perk choices should be permanent for the player. And it would be hard to implement a system that allows you to change your perk selections in a timely manner (no one is going to want to level up 50 times more just to pick perks all over again. Same if picking perks relies on skill level ups and not actual player level ups) while also having it make sense in game. Sure I can think of a potion that makes someone forget all of their perks, but how then would I rechoose perks? Should it happen instantly, with you having a set number of perk "points", if you will, with which to spend on perks in a large list, or should it happen via natural leveling all over again? Or perhaps with something else?

And if perks are permanent then there is a massive problem as JMcD pointed out earlier. We fall into the same "restrictive" character progression system, except classes (or more accurately, the (in hindsight) not so well thought out mechanics behind classes that could have just been removed without touching on the basic class system) have been replaced with perks as the issue.

bump