Having more points for perks doesn't help you if you've already maxed out your favorite trees. All that would do is make characters more homogenous, as a warrior would start becoming like a spellsword, and a wizard would start becoming like a spellsword.

Also, a higher skill cap would mean new spells, armor, and weapons.

So could new skills entirely! SQUEEEE

Say hello to throwing weapons. Or mysticism. Unarmored? Would be better than medium, I think.

No. The raise in skill level cap is trivial and easily changed; DLC should be quality content worth the money people are going to spend on it. Your attempt at equivocation is fallacious.

No, 100 is enough unless they get away from the idiotic percentages/100/100 skill systems and go for contested checks.

no, but i do think adding in new perks may be cool, Also dlc is usually about a story (think the fallout dlc, i believe i read somewhere that they were shooting for something like that size) and extra gear that you can get. Also mages could get new spells...or shouts

120 why for?

No, my equivocation was pretty darn right. You seemed to suggest if it can be done by modders, Bethesda need not do it.

Having a level cap increase won't all of a sudden turn Valenwood or Summerset Isle into bad DLC. If that's what you think, you can just leave this thread.



Doesn't really do anything for characters who already have an established set of skills they prefer. Not saying new skills wouldn't be alright (one new skill for each archetype, one for warrior, one for thief, and one for mage), but there will be multiple DLC and that suggestion could simply be rolled up in another DLC. Anyways, unarmored is basically the alteration school. Something else would be needed for the thief archetype (unless throwing weapons was thief archetype, then warrior would need something else).

As a DLC? Heck no. As a mod? Perhaps. I certainly would like to see skills going on almost indefinitely in a way, but the game would need to be harder then as well. (Not necessarily combat encounters, just crafting being scaled down and puzzles being made harder, with hints spread further.)

You want skills to go further than they have, but you don't want a DLC that includes that? I don't really understand your post at all.

People who intentionally limit themselves to only a specific set of skills and never ever use anything else strike me as the corner case. Not the one to design to. New weapon, armor, and magic schools give everyone something to try out and expand their repertoire. Instead of just more of the same. As well as invite new character concepts, in general, and improve the entire breadth of the game.

I pretty much despise DLC that increase level caps after the fact. They generally destroy what little game balance there was in a game (Broken Steel, for instance. I don't even bother installing that mess anymore.)

One-handed, block, heavy armor, destruction, conjuration, alteration, restoration, enchanting, and smithing on one character isn't really limiting yourself. I think it is kind of wrong to be expected to use every single type of skill in the game on a single character. Heck, that character is level 55 and his heavy armor, block and restoration aren't even close to maxed out yet. I can't imagine piling on more into that list of skills. Eventually it'd get to a point if you just kept getting wider that all characters would go the route of the spellsword and become too homogenous.

And a raised skill cap implies new weapons, armor, and magic. In reality, a skill cap would be the best option to reduce the "more of the same" feeling. Unless the new stuff was flat out better, making older stuff obsolete, it would be more of the same with maybe a few unique gimmick effects like artifacts. Raising the level cap allows for a natural progression upward.

It is limiting yourself if you choose to stop there. It's fair that you can't be expected to everything on one character. But giving more options increases what that character can choose to do as well as give more options for other characters. As opposed to simply letting that one level 55 level up some more.


No, it doesn't. It implies a new material. Not new types. A new material of sword is not a new weapon. Throwing daggers are, however. And you can't implement throwing daggers by raising skill caps.

Not buying it. New weapon types and armor classes is only more of the same in a broad sense. And certainly in a more reasonable new content than just continuing the old trend upward. Having a new material of sword for 20 more skill points is not a more novel activity than being able to start throwing daggers and handaxes.

We don't even need to progress upward. So I don't see that as a benefit. We need more things to do and more character options.

Throwing weapons honestly don't really make all that much sense. For bows, the bows themselves can be enchanted and the arrows are simply non-magical objects that gain benefit from the bow launching them, but throwing weapons would waste a perfectly good enchanted item. Sure, you could make up some excuse to make it work gameplay-wise, but you're already starting off on sketchy ground.

And yes, I would like to see new materials. This would allow for a natural trend upwards and have something EVERY character can work towards.

How do you need more things to do? Many characters feel like they're already doing too many things. Spellsword type might already be using every skill in the game aside from sneak and pickpocket. Adding new types and not adding a higher skill cap just forces pure characters to end up like everyone else, as a generic spellsword type of a character. That is not a good approach. Bethesda should be trying to make characters more unique in DLC, not less. An upward trend, with less perks points available but more to choose from in the higher levels makes one have to make tough decisions about what type of character he really wants to play, instead of being like every other character who is a master of everything.

Someone used Fallout as an example of what can be bad about future DLC... and that is what will happen in future DLC if the cap isn't raised. The expectation is your character is going to keep getting stronger in DLC, but if you don't allow players to go beyond 100 skill, every starts maxing out every skill, and having enough perk points to get every single perk they want. That's what happened in Fallout. Perks that helped you reach 100 skill faster were garbage because you were going to be 100 skill in mostly everything you used regardless. From the devs perspective, it is easier to balance if everyone is skill 100 in everything, from the player's perspective, it kills replay value and makes things feel bland.

And that's the real problem.

How so? It is a natural part of roleplaying games. Doing stuff = your character sees gains. If it weren't so, it wouldn't be an RPG. I don't see any reason why, once you complete the vanilla edition, the game should change from an RPG to an action game.

they completely ruined fallout NV by giving 5 extra levels for every DLC. you cant start with a game balanced around 30 levels and then add 20 extra levels and expect it not become completely borked. thankfully i play on PC so i could use a mod to limit my level to 30 (or take teh logans loophole perk) i wouldnt mind the ability to pick an extra perk for every DLC though, but only one per DLC.

What is this? D&D? Whats armor class? Light? Heavy? =p

Some of this and polearms!!

Because they inevitably throw balance out the window. Most games I've seen with level-cap-increasing DLC don't have their difficulty & leveling systems tuned around the fact that they're going to get more levels.

Which means that once you add more levels with a DLC, everything goes stupid. (As I mentioned, Fallout 3.... too many perks, too many skill points, etc. Even for games like kill&loot ARPGs like Borderlands, where you'd think it wouldn't be as much of a problem.... letting people throw a whole bunch more skill points into the skill trees means you don't really have to make any choices anymore - you'll be able to do almost everything.)


In a game series like TES, where the world is full of millions of different things to do, places to explore, etc; I don't see any reason to try to increase the cap. The game is already "do whatever you want, if you don't want to use other skills, you'll stop improving before you 'finish' the content", why should adding more content change that?

Balance is already thrown out the window once you reach above level 50 currently. And the problem of having many perks and too many skill points would be REMEDIED by increasing the cap. Raising the cap means players need to spend more perk points to get full effectiveness out of a tree, and it would allow Bethesda to add enemies above level 50 without breaking the game because player damage could scale up naturally, instead of having to adopt specific gimmick tactics if their damage was forcibly capped. Basically, you're going to have Oblivion level scaling if you don't raise the cap, where the player would fear becoming more higher level because their effectiveness would reach some limit and the enemies wouldn't. Raising the level cap is the only natural way to allow for higher than level 50 content. The only other option is alternate level progression as I've said before, and that is really a last resort IMO.

Why only 120? I was thinking 150 would be better. And ONLY if the DLC included other stuff like quests, houses, unique weapons and armor, etc.

And new spells too!!!!!

that doesnt make any sense. if you add additional levels which is a bit silly anyways since you can go to 80 right now as it is then they will have the ablity to pick even more perk points which means we will have the "master of all" issue that morrowind and oblivion had. the one good thing in skyrims system is precisely that it prevents you from becoming great at everything. past TES games and fallout 3 and NV had tons of quest mods that were fun to play and they never increase the level cap. you dont need to constantly increase the level cap every time something new is added anyways. just look how that attitude destroyed fallout new vegas which was initially balanced around 30 levels and became a joke when you could get ot level 50. i had to go out of my way of not picking certain perks and not reading skill books to avoid having 100 skill in all the skills. it became a joke before the logans loophole perk or if you had access to mods.

you wont need them anyways because you would have to play a long long long time in order to get your character to the level 80 limit anyways and by that time you end up with more perk points than you know what to do with.

I had to actively restraint myself from just straight up flaming you. No. No.

Enemies stop scaling once you reach level 50. You can become a master of all in Skyrim and completely surpass the enemy because they stop scaling upward and your own only option of getting more powerful is to go outward. That is bad. Bad. Raising the skill cap allows players to see NATURAL power progression and allows Bethesda to create enemies who scale upwards in power without requiring you to become a generic master of all spellsword. Right now, you can reach 100 in all skills and you can get all the perks you would likely want. If you actually understood the system, you would understand that raising the skill caps and allowing the monsters to scale up would deflate player power relative speaking, until players reach the new cap and attempted to surpass that by again expanding outward.

And at the comment about going to up 150... raising the cap is one thing, but that's probably a little too high.

Nope, your fallacy of equivocation occurred when you assumed that not adding extended skill cap, because you can easily do it yourself = modders can make dlc, so Bethesda shouldn't do it. That is reaching, and has no logical connection to what I actually said which was, and I quote, 'Just do it in the console'.
Try again.


Where did I say that?

Try again. Inventing things to argue against doesn't work when people can easily back track this thread and see what was said.