So then why do we have seperate melee skills at all? Why are magic schools seperated into different skills?

Skills define your character, and define how your character progresses. Removing skills, even skills that do the same thing, removes a part of defining your character.
If all skills must be different in action, then we would end up with only a small handful of skills, perhaps eventually just magic, stealth, and combat.

Besides, with perks we could have different weapon skills, and then the perks can modify those skills in numerous ways. We could learn new and interesting power attacks from perks tied to those skills. Or we could the weapon types could be very different in action, like they should be but never have.

Just because a character uses a sword doesn't mean he will be good with a great axe. I just don't get why people need to be equally good with every weapon even though they have never used a mace.

No they haven't. In fact, they apparently cant implement features that were in previous games into this system because of limitations. again, now for the third time, those were only a few examples. Hell, character creation in Daggerfall was more in depth and meaningful than Morrow and OB combined and that was before the game even really started.

at least get my quotation in context [censored] i used many fonts so that its easier to see wich part of the quotation i was answering to i was refering in my sentences


@Xarnac
yes they have. instead of climbing you have a landscape that let the designers make the levels how they intend to and you can jump to get on higher surfaces that are not too much unrealistic to reach
unarmored has been effectively removed by a fluid combat you can dodge and your enemies sort of move around. in morrowind enemies were in front of you and did nothing but spam attacks at you thats why unarmored was good at the time.

Fable believes it very differently.

And you could learn how to move your body slightly so that less critical parts of the body protect other parts of the body. Like holding your arms in front of you in a barrage of arrows, your arms get damaged, but you don't get an arrow through your heart. It could even be twisting your leg so that the axe sails through muscle rather than severing an artery.

thats a good point but thats more of a block skill rather than unarmored skills (locking involves blocking with your arms your weapons or a shield. so thats not unarmored fight its just blocking) as for the legs well its more or less dodging and you have arrow keys or joysticks to do that

Oh yeah, remember armor limitations? In Daggerfall you could make a character that couldn't wear anything better than leather armor, but got boons to his magical powers at night and all sorts of other things.

? You could jump in Dagger. You've yet to give any examples of how they were redundant, just illustrated that you may have never played Daggerfall. Go play it and come back, then tell me how they were so redundent. The fact is, they werent. Weve been losing depth since Dagger, thats a fact.

I have played daggerfall I just didnt remember that you could jump. and even if you could it was pretty useless in that game. if youre going to just say go play daggerfall at the end of each of your sentences it will just show that you cant formulate good arguments.

by the way implying that my arguments are invalid because i ''havent'' played daggerfall is a fallacy. you know i can point out your fallacies too.

You could jump really high in Dagger and it was as useful as any other skill. You played Dagger...but you forgot that you could jump? You could even jump in Arena. Your "arguments" are filled with false info, how is it not a fallacy? anyone's who's played daggerfall knows that a lot of the stuff in that game was not redundant and has never been replaced by anything in the newer games. So I would say "go play Dagger" is a perfectly reasonable argument if you dont know what your talking about.

yes i forgot that it was possible to jump in daggerfall because i pretty much managed to play it without realy doing it apparently. I didnt do the whole questline or anything because the game was not fun. when i played it the gameplay was too old to be satisfying i put less than 10 hours on it.

The arms in front would be blocking, but twisting the leg so that the blade glances a non critical part of the leg is by no means blocking.

You can come up with plenty of examples, my point is that unarmored is not redundant, and never was.
What about barbarians who wear no armor but still manage to make blows glance off of them? Part of TES is fantasy, and part of that fantasy is half naked barbarians who manage to somehow have skin of steel. Conan anyone?

Besides you could hardly dodge in Oblivion. You could backpedle, but if you moved to the side the enemy would just adjust his aim. The dodging ability with acrobatics was so sloppy and nearly useless.

But you could backpedle. even if it was not realy a satisfying mechanics it was better than a dice roll

i did not say that the leg part was blocking re-read what i said. i said it was dodging.

its not because the oblivion mechanics are not 100% satisfying that the skyrim ones wont be better or that we should go back to a system thats worse


@Xarnac i dont know whats wrong with you it seems you just want to show off that you just learnt about sophism so you keep going back with the same arguments and tell people that everything is a fallacy when its not. not remembering something is not a fallacy.

my points is that both unarmored and climbing have been replaced by better mechanics and by no means going back to play dagger fall will change anything

Nope, Unarmored did more than just dodging and jumping has nothing to do with climbing. Try again.

like what

What do you mean? What else did unarmored do? Deflecting and absorbing blows, it also gave you an armor rating. It did more than just factor in chance to dodge.

I've got to say, while I don't like dice rolls sometimes (playing halo for instance), TES is an RPG, and part of that is representing your characters skills over player skill.
While im all for player skill meaning something, it shouldn't represent everything. Character skill should trump player skill. Otherwise why should we have skills at all? Lets just expand Dark Messiah multiplayer and play it if that were the case. It would be fun, but it wouldn't be an rpg...

You don't cut your entire hand off and replace it with a hook because your fingers are stiff. The goal shouldn't be to simplify but to better define those choices so they feel like real viable choices. :huh:

So unarmored apparently did more than just add AC by dodging and blocking. What was that?

And mages already had alteration for AC...

Yes i agree with you but i think that dice rolls should be left to this like dammage, persuasion, saves against certain spell effects or poisons and stuff like that. not to thinks that can be done realy well with gameplay rather than dice rolls like dodging and exploring the environment in vertical

So, about climbing. You say its redundant because you can jump and walk places, because the level designers have to give you a defined path? What about a thief trying to steal from a castle? Is he forced to have a path of vines leading to a window in a high tower with an open window leading to an unlit closet to get in? Or should he use the door like everyone else? Or should we have a skill allowing him to climb the walls to avoid gaurds like a good thief would?

There is no replacement for climbing. I can't jump to that high tower, and I shouldn't need to have a predefined path. Good sandbox level design involves not forcing a character down 1-2 paths, but rather having the tools and a robust enough design to allow them to find their own way that best suits their needs.

There is also no good way to dodge in combat.
And im all for not using dice rolls to control if you hit the target, but I'd like a better system than Oblivions in determining skills effect on combat. The more damage model only works somewhat. We should do more damage as we level, but there should be more than damage to model the relationship between combat and weapon skill.

Who says Mages only benefit from unarmored? plus thats only one example from the many that have been cut, or will be cut.

The way I see it is:

Morrowind is a wedding cake.
Oblivion is a cupcake.
Skyrim will be a crumb.

But...

Wedding cakes taste bad
Cupcakes are good
This crumb will be that once in a lifetime taste that you will never get to have again.

(Im referring to complexity, not quality of game)

The question is why do you need a SKILL for it. what im saying is that climbing CAN be changed by gameplay mechanics. Assassin's creed shown it. why cant we do it in ES (in a less extreme acrobatic fashion maybe)
Its better to have 5-6 paths in fact and thats highly possible but its also stupid to have a skills that when its high makes you stick to the walls. because theres not an infinite number of places to get over the wall you say its bad desing? youre saying that because i cant climb 1 metter away from a place that seems climbable its bad sandbox design?

i might have not understood well please clarify.

Whether its a skill, or just a gameplay mechanic, its not redundant. there was definitely nothing linear about climbing in Dagger.

Well it seems complexity stops at how much skills we have...

So why stop at Morrowind/Daggerfall number of skills!
:teehee:

Why are maces and hammers work the same way, or longswords and claymores, or shortswords and daggers. All of them should be a different skill!
Even better, make all weapons you pick up requiring different skill, afterall no two swords are the same...

MORE IS BETTER :teehee: