So was Marksman, Blade and Blunt- there should be one consolidated skill called "Weapons." Better, merge in Unarmed and make the skill "Fighting." :shrug:

It takes skill to move in heavy armor. It takes skill to change a thrust attack, that would penetrate chainmail, into a slicing attack which will not. It takes skill to do these various things. Read some skill books and you will see examples. Thats like saying if you can use a knife you can use a sword and if you can use a sword you can use a bow.

Something new. Something revolutionary. Some TES would be great.

:facepalm:

I have read about actual armor and even plate armor was less inhibiting than popular belief -

"Plate armour could have consisted of a helmet, a gorget (or bevor), pauldrons (or spaulders), couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a cuirass (back and briastplate) with a fauld, tassets and a culet, a mail skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves, and sabatons. While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel.[2] This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier (usually 25 to 35 kg), and the weight is more evenly distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer, as witnessed in re-enactment combat. The notion that it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.[3][4] (And, in fact, the mere existence of plate armour during King Arthur's era is a myth as well: 6th-century knights would have worn mail instead.) Even knights in enormously heavy jousting armour were not winched onto their horses. This type of "sporting" armour was meant only for ceremonial lancing matches and its design was deliberately made extremely thick to protect the wearer from severe accidents, such as the one which caused the death of King Henry II of France.Template:Http://www.themiddleages.net/armor.html

Tournament armour is always heavier, clumsier and more protective than combat armour. The rationale is that nobody wants to get killed in a game, but on battlefield the question is about life and death, and mobility and endurance is a more important aspect of combat survival than direct protection. Therefore combat armour is a compromise between protection and mobility, while tournament armour merely stresses protection on cost of mobility."

Also the idea that skill is going to somehow make the armor reduce more damage makes no sense - the materials and construction of the armor are what determine it's level of protection.

Absolutely.


I definitively wouldn't remove barter, nor mysticism. Don't cut out things you never used I never liked conjuration, but I definitively don't think they should remove it.
Also I hope they get away from Oblivion chopping, some combinations were plain [censored]. Tho as someone said, combining Acrobatics and Athletics wouldn't be bad idea at all. Maybe instead of removing Bartering, combining it with Speechcraft wouldn't be a bad idea either.

I don't understand why people are so eager to complain/bless Skyrim's skills when they don't know what all the skills are or how they'll be implemented.

Exactly! What do axes and maces have in common? They might swing the same, but they definitely don't do the same kind of damage. Axes are more like swords, really. A cheaper version (Vikings mostly used long axes because iron was expensive). So I hope there'll be marksman (bows/crossbows), spear, sword, axe and blunt. Or let sword/axe/blunt share the same skill.

And I do hope the skills they removed are the armor skills, which didn't make that much sense anyway. Just let the armor affect your speed and protection. Which speed-protection ratio you want is simply dependant on which armor class you choose this moment. If you have to focus on leveling all the time, you can't change and try different kinds of armours.

Oblivion had 21 * 5 = 105 perks. Skyrim will have 180 perks - almost twice that, plus you won't be able to get all of them as there are certain perk chains. That adds a lot more variability than simply adding 10 more skills with less perks.

ok starting at oblivion and then adding moorowind skills

REMOVE from oblivion
mysticism.. no explanation
i want barter removed, but consequently speech would need to be altered. mini games would differ depending on what you are trying to do
athletics

ADD from Morrowind
unarmored because that should be a choice
spears/pole arms

You answered your own question. The perks suppliment the system, they don't replace it. That is why you don't have just 1 skill with all perks under it. Each skill has its own set of relavent perks.


Many skills overlap, though. If you expand them, then you just overlap further. Like Mercantile and Speechcraft.. a lot of overlap because they are both a means of sweet-talking NPCs into getting what you want. The former is to get better deals when haggling, and the latter is to gain a person's trust. So ultimately, you can combine both into one "speechcraft" skill which is a skill related to sweet-talking NPCs, and perks can be designed to help you get better deals, or to help you gain the trust of NPCs. Additionally, more perks can be created, adding further nuances and abilities related to the same basic skill, without having to make a whole nother skill that has to go from 0 to 100, and without having to worry if people will be able to use it enough to actually level it efficiently (or use it too much to make levelling it trivial).

The combination of skills/perks is IMHO better than just skills alone. Somebody trained in sword fighting would have a better idea of axe fighting than somebody not trained at all. OTOH they would not nearly have as good an idea as somebody who was actually trained to use an axe. Skills/Perks expresses this by letting the generic skill rise while perks denote specialization. Done right it can work very well.

As someone who avidly enjoys D&D I won't miss mathcrafting and munchkining my character decked out so the appropriate skills and attributes all match up to become an omnipotent force of reckoning. As stated before, I'd rather have a deeper system that governs skills, rather than a wider variety of skills that only governs how I'm to play. If anything I found it to be more restrictive than open, and this new system (combined with the new level and no class system) I think it'll be more open and if anything, just as complex. It all comes down to how they implement the perk system.