If there is in fact in the realms of 180 perks as was suggested, I'm willing to bet that some of these will be what we typically associate with lore skills. For an alchemist, there could be herb lore (as a perk), which enables you to identify the names of the plants. Later you can get the alchemy lore perk, which allows you also to recognize the effects simply by looking at the plant. Before you get there, you might have to carry around recognition books. How about language lore? Once you get it, you may be able to read foreign languages, where books are decrypted on the fly. Or spell lore, in which you cannot identify new scrolls you find out in the wild. Listed in inventory simply as a Scroll. Cast it on a foe and it turns out it was just some Open Lock scroll. Memory perk, where said scroll will be memorized if you cast a Scroll you didn't have identified, so that next time you find an Open Lock scroll, you will be able to identify it since you have its letters memorized.

So there are many ways these perks can make the game just that little bit easier. For some of us, it's not about making the most useful set of skills to make us most efficient (the game adjusts anyway, right?), but having perks that defines who we want to be. Perks that are useful to Hoblak the Librarian may be useless for Badprenup the Barbarian, but don't claim anything to be useless because they are to you. Pick a lock bashing perk instead of a scroll identifying perk if bashing better suits your character. Role Master (dice game system) had several hundred skills, of which most was "useless" for most. But a good GM would recognize these skills being picked and adjust his campaign to suit so they became useful. Want in a door? Thieves around? Lock it with a common lock to be picked. Any mathematicians around? Make them apply advanced math to break a code. Only fighters? Sorry guys, it can't be bashed, it's solid steel.

Coding it for a computerized GM? Yeah, *that's* the tricky part

I'm just going to summarize why the skills will be how they will be: perks.

10 perks can be chosen per skill. I assuming there will be more than 10 options per skill. So, that's at least 180 perks if not many more.

Perks are the new way to define your character more specifically. You've seen them in Fallout, and now you will see them in Elder Scrolls and later on, Diablo 3. The games allowing the most customization of character are clearly moving towards perks. I see why.

They allow customization of specific needs for a character without requiring an entire skill, so you don't waste points on skills that are far less useful than others.

Thus, the skills that were removed were removed because they weren't important enough to necessitate perks, as the perks that provided their benefits could be moved to the category of another skill. Vice versa, the skills that were added were added to provide enough perks for a character element that would benefit greatly from, and necessitate perks to become better.

Example, which also demonstrates this. There will be no Axe, Spear, Blunt, or Short Blade skills. Why? Because there is no way a single weapon type would generate enough cool perks to make it worth being its own skill. If you choose a specific weapon you will do so over time in the game, and as your skill levels up you will pick perks that benefits that specific weapon type. Instead we will see One-Handed Weapons and Two Handed Weapons.

Why Two Handed and One Handed? Because that is where the distinction in gameplay actually lies when it comes to character development, and as a result, choosing different kinds of perks. One handed and two handed combat are distinctively different due to the type of play (having a shield, spell, or second weapon in the other hand, or only being able to fight with a weapon) and the damage stats and game flow that results (very different damage, attack speed, spells/shielding). Thus, the benefit perks you choose might have more to do with actions you take in combat, blocking, and other unique benefits that cannot be quantified with a number as effectively as a perk. Additionally, these weapon skills would neatly contain the types and balance the perks available for each: one handed: long and short blades, maces, some blunts; two handed: spears, claymores, some blunts.

Essentially, if you pick one handed or two handed you are picking a different way of playing the game, and your character should have different attributes, perks, and skills as a result. The key point to make then, is that you don't want different weapon skills because the perks don't come automatically, you get to choose them now. Having a number that affects damage is not as important as picking the right perks. That is why CHOOSING perks change the balance of the borders between the skills.

Blade and Blunt -_-

Using a dagger is not the same as using a claymore. If you train at using claymores, that doesnt mean you can handle a dagger just as good! or other way around. I want short/longblade back.
also a axe is not the same as a mace. An axe isnt even a blunt weapon it's a bladed weapon. You dont swing them the same way (at least not 2h) and you use a axe for light armor and mace for heavy armor (IRL) because blunt trauma for plate and cutting in with forse for light armor such as leather with a Axe.

Just my idea anyway

Absolutely, adding skills with no real purpose is stupid. That is not what I am suggesting. I want more skills with greater application. Skills that were useless in previous titles were only useless because of the implementation. What I want out of a sequel is better implementation. Mercantile is a worthless skill because everyone ends up a millionaire regardless. Combining it with Speechcraft is side stepping the problem. The economy remains unfixed.

It worries me that when presented with "Fix Poorly Implemented, but Worthwhile Skill" and "Remove Poorly Implemented Skill", Beth chooses the later.

True.

But, for anyone who argues about how consolidated skills involve different actions, that's not the point. The point is that skills with limited versatility should be consolidated, but benefits for those who really care about a particular skill or weapon type will still be available as perks. Nothing's being taken away, a lot is being added. The point is that the customization is being added via perks!

When you do the math, there are way more benefits for each weapon, say an Axe, than there would have been in Oblivion if Oblivion had kept the Axe skill. There would have been 5 perks as you leveled up the Axe skill. There will be at least 10 weapon perks to choose for each weapon skill, and I expect many more than that because of all the different weapon types.

As a result, if you really, really love that axe you'd be able to choose 10 perks that affect that Axe either specifically perking that type, or perking all weapons in the weapon types included in Skyrim's more inclusive weapon skills. However, you'd still be able to use other heavy weapons with similar effectiveness if you got sick of the axe or found a really awesome hammer. You'd be committing all of your custom bonus gains with your perks, but you'd have a little bit of flexibility in that you could still deal some good damage with a similar weapon. What's the problem with that? It sounds like more complex character growth to me.

By this logic, I expect the skills to be:

-One-Handed Weapons (perks for all one-handed weapons, one handed combat)
-Two-Handed Weapons (perks for all two-handed weapons, two handed combat)
-Ranged Weapons (perks for all ranged weapons, ranged combat)
-Armor (perks for both armor types, but still allowing you to SWITCH armor types during the game)
-Block (perks for shields, one handed, and two handed blocking)

-Destruction
-Conjuration
-Alteration
-Restoration
-Illusion
(all magic skills include perks that affect specific spells, all spells in the skill, and magic usage bonuses and tweaks)

-Smithing (perks for repair, weapon smithing, armor smithing, and smithing stat limit bonuses and tweaks)
-Enchanting (perks for enchanting, limits to enchanting, gems, soul gathering skills and tweaks like automatic soul trapping)
-Alchemy (perks for alchemy, healing, potion usage, duration, etc)
-Security (perks for lockpicking, subterfuge, trap awareness and avoidance, setting traps, etc)
-Sneak (perks for sneaking, disguise, surprise attacks, stalking, silent running, etc)

-Survival (perks for surviving, healing, hunting, cooking, endurance, disease resistance, woodcutting, mining, any hardcoe mode perk needs)
-Perception (perks for being aware of environment, noticing enemies earlier, finding paths and way in wilderness, increasing range of map/compass location sphere, noticing items, passageways, and traps, etc)
-Persuasion (perks for mercantile, deception, personality, persuading, bribing, leadership, etc)
-Acrobatics (perks for movement speed, evasion, movement skills, jumping, running, scaling, etc)

I want the ability to add more skills via the Construction Set. I love having tons of miscellaneous and mundane skills, like crafting, sewing, cooking, painting.... most people don't, however. But yes, 18 is too low in my opinion, which is why I hope we will be able to make mods for PC with new skills.

They merged:

Acrobatics and Athletics = Fitness (Or something similar)
Sneak and Security = Stealth
Barter and Speechcraft = Speech

These are probably the 3 "missing" skills.

:biggrin: nice one but I hope it won't be that bad. Perhaps until Tes X (year 2030?) we'll have a nuclear something and all the games will be played in caves, in pen and paper. Or sooner chalk and wall.

I think it's ironic that you are talking about living in a nuclear wasteland and using a pen and paper to replicate a game whose sister game is set in a nuclear wasteland.

18 isn't enough. The less skills there are the harder it is to make unique specializations.

This doesn't mean I don't think they should merge some skills together. Like Daggerfall which had the most skills in the series. It had a dozen useless language skills like Impish, Daedric, Harpy, Dragonish, Giantish, etc. Getting rid of those was a good idea. Merging Swimming and Running into Athletics was a smart idea. Because how often does one swim in these games to dedicate 100 levels of leveling it? I even agree with the whole merging short swords into long swords deal. I always make a thief type character and thought it was silly I had to specialize in two weapons just to use a dagger and a broadsword. I can understand 2h weapons being "long swords" but there was also many 1h weapons being considered long. I can totally see mercantile and speechcraft being merged. Both involve a silk tongue so it makes sense. Sneak and lockpicking need to merge unless they fix lockpicking to make it more useful. In Daggerfall, Morrowind, and oblivion it was always better to just use the open spell. Get a ring or something with that enchantment on it and you're good to go with your own little "skeleton key". Open should be noisy and alert guards while lockpicking should be stealthier and silent. If lockpicking doesn't have such an advantage you might as well get rid of it because it's pointless and merge it into sneaking already.

The one merge I didn't agree with was Axes into Blunts. Axes aren't even blunt weapons. They don't belong in the same skill as maces. Skyrim should have 4 weapon specializations at the very least. Swords which have the advantage of being faster to swing than the other weapons. Axes which can break the shields of your enemies. Maces which can cause blunt trauma to people being protected by heavy armor(unlike a sword glancing off) and crushing skeletons into dust. Spears which provide you the ability to attack an enemy in melee but still keep a defensive distance away from them. Oh and I guess Marksmen.. which makes it 5 weapon skills and has it's own obvious advantage! That's not too bad. It gives you more replayability and 5 ways to fight physical combat just like there's about 5 ways to fight a magical combat.

So basically merging skills is a good thing. But why not add new ones as well? Surely there's some creative minds out there who can come up with something new and interesting. With it also being useful and different than the skills already available. One should expect new and extra things in a sequel right? Not just things that get taken away?

Why should they be consolidated? This isn't like Fallout, you don't have a limited amount of skill points to assign at each Level Up. Your talents grow with use. There is no situation in which using Mercantile will prevent me from improving my Speechcraft as they are used in entirely different situations. So really, why must they be combined?

Why would there be only five perks if Axe was it's own skill? My entire argument is that I want more, not the same amount, and certainly not less. Sequels should be an evolution and expansion in possibilities. The whole situation just reeks of Invisible War's "improvements" to the Deus Ex system.

As I've said, perks are a good move. But one that absolutely does not require dropping additional skills to be effective. There have been many proposals on how to handle improvements in one weapon effecting improvement in another. Those systems would be far preferable to one in which (sans perks) my capabilities with a sword are identical to my capabilities with an Axe.

The skills need to be combined since growth perks are chosen, rather than received automatically as your skills improve. If they combine mercantile and speechcraft it makes sense because they are related in that they utilize the same exact skill, being able to persuade. They always seemed like the same thing to me, but they fell under "everyone needs them, everyone uses them, but when most people get a chance, they don't improve them." It makes more sense to combine them and then choose perks that benefit you in the situations that you use Persuasion. I doubt you'd have a lot of conflicts there.

There would only be 5 perks in Oblivion if it was its own skill. That's because you get the perks automatically as you go up from novice to mastery. Instead there were 5 perks for all blunt weapons, which is illogical, just as you said. I agree with that.

But essentially in this game there are likely to be at least 4 or 5 perks that affect Axes specifically. Even if that's within a broader weapon category. Like, Lumberjack: Axe swings increase your stamina, or Executioner: You swing the Axe 1.5x faster. That's a definite improvement over Oblivion for axe users, and the best possible change they can realistically expect. I think you will be a lot happier with less skills, more perks than you think.

I really think this would allow you to specialize in Axes, while being able to switch to another weapon and not be completely pathetic with it. Since in this game you are supposed to be able to switch and swap weapons, spells, and shields quicker and faster I don't think more specific weapon skills are in the cards. They would probably just make it frustrating when you get a new frost hammer with full charge but your Axe damage doesn't cross over at all.

I'm just going to put it out there that this is the best possible direction we could have expected after the changes they made in Oblivion. Perks are making lemonade out of what was a lemon.

Not improving them is the choice you make. The problem, though, with Morrowind and Oblivion is that there were hardly any effective means to improve them without paying for training. At least in Morrowind, the ability to taunt targets into attacking was worthwhile enough to moderately improve you Speechcraft. But overall Speechcraft was worthless. As I said before, Mercantile was useless because everyone becomes a rich bastard a few levels into the game.

The solution to make these skills worthwhile is not to simply combine them. Doing that hasn't fixed any of the actual problems with the game. It has just attempted to hide them by giving a single skill a broader definition. You will still find yourself flithy rich and you will still find you persuasiveness totally useless unless there is an active effort put into fixing things like the economy or non-violent, social quest options. If these later two things are fixed, then it is not preferable to combine the skills as they will both be worthwhile ventures in their own right.

This is the problem I see with reduction. A casual dismissal of the real problems.

I want to be perfectly clear:

Perks are awesome, especially lots of them. I am not disputing this. I think Perks are a super great addition to the character system. None of this, however, gives any credence to the idea that the overall number of skills ought to be reduced. Absolutely every single perk that they are already including right now could absolutely be carried over into a system with separate weapon skills, separate social skills, etc. If Axes and Swords were two different skills you could still have just as many perks for both axes and swords. You could still have these perks be chosen rather than automatically assigned. You could still have branching or upgradable perks to select from. None of these things require reducing your available skills.

In one system you choose from a variety of weapon skills, and then further specialize fighting style (as you said, things like speed or power behind blows). Moderately similar skills might be raised at a substantially slower pace, reflecting your overall fighting skill. In the other system, you also have the exact same perks at your disposal, but are inexplicably exactly as skilled with a knife as you are a hatchet. In what way is the latter preferable to the former?

Perhaps they are moving Alchemy, Mercantile and Armourer to those new item creation things, meaning they are no longer skills, but still there in some way.

Except preventing people from creating broken characters does mean reducing the available skills. If somone used Axes and Swords equally, while also using spells, and shields, they'd be nerfing their own evolution as a character. You level up quicker as your skills get higher, but if none of your weapon skills stayed even with your other skills because you used too many types of weapons, you wouldn't have enough perks or points on your weapons, without any way to fix it.

It's a silly blunder from a development standpoint, when the main distinction in combat preferences is not the type of weapon but the way it is used in the new combat system: a two handed melee build, a two handed ranged build, a one handed dual wielding build, a one handed sword and shield build, a one handed sword and spell build, and a two handed spell build (and a shield and spell build, I guess). However, when it comes the distinctions between combat methods, most people will continue using two handed weapons or ranged weapons if that is what they like, and most people using one handed weapons will switch those in and out a lot between weapon types, spells, and shields. Hence, only three weapon types: 1, 2, and ranged.

Keeping the weapons skills broadened is the best design decision to balance the leveling of the characters so that you can use the powerful weapons you find that fit into your build (one handed or two handed, battlemage or warrior, shield or no shield, or ranged) without getting screwed over by having your weapon skill points across too many skills. With the adjustment you might lose your perk bonuses for switching from an axe to a blade, but at least you get the correct amount of damage for your level. They are being more careful because Oblivion's leveling system was so finicky, so they aren't taking any chances on leaving dead weight in their skill system. You can't say more is always better, at least when it comes to weapon skills.

I would take more spells and abilities any day though.

Wow, they're dumbing it down even further? I'm impressed. :rolleyes:

Where is the "I'm a sensible person, so I'll wait and see how it turns out before judging" option?

There should be an "I trust Bethesda. The number of skills is irrelevant so long as Bethesda keeps it complex enough to be fulfilling and simple enough to keep it fun" option, or something similar.

It doesn't amaze me anymore when people just notice the 3 merged skills, yet completely dismiss the tons of new RPG systems which completely over-shadow that loss and just call it "dumbing down"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx2vdn7gpY

No, they've added per-...oh [censored] it, go look it up yourself, I'm tired of people jumping the gun on hearing 18 skills.

Well as I stated much earlier I think most of this panic is pointless without more info on perks and how combat works (actually when isn't panic pointless).

I still maintain that armor skill has no real world correlates except learning how to put it on and then dodging. Blocking though does have real world correlates and people do extensively train in that.

Hope that is not gone.

HAHAHA ditto... gosh people, just read the thread. just read from the top page 9 and down, even. It's just ridiculous.

And the next time I have to post a link to the map I am going to yell randomly.

Yeah, because skills like Acrobatics were so useful, right?

As per usual, people just sequaciously follow whatever the developer says. Grow some brains. Make your own decisions. Before the Game Informer issue everyone was pining for more skills, but now a lot of you are simply as intellectually diffident as sheep.