Just wanted to find out if people liked this idea about specialized characters and the usage of attributes in the next TES game.

Well, this is just an idea, and IMHO this results in a better game-play:

Attributes determine if you can advance in a skill level or if you can gain a skill perk, so skill perks can have requirement for a minimum amount of some attributes, and advancing in skills can also have a requirement of a minimum amount of the related attributes.

Attributes can also define the minimum requirements to be able to use weapons, armors, and other items, like alembics, so you cannot use a specific sword in one-handed form unless you had for instance 50 strength, and you could not use it in two handed form unless you had 35 strength, and so on...

But attribute do not define the effectiveness of an action, so the higher skill you have in swordsmanship, or "blade", then you could use swords better, and deal more damage.

With better perks you could again deal more damage, like critical damages, head chop, or crushing blows.

With better swords, you would definitely deal more damage.

So in the end the strength attributes would affect how much damage you would deal, but indirectly as with higher strength you can advance to higher skill levels, gain higher level perks, and use better weapons.

This example can also be expanded for other attributes, and would really make action effectiveness calculation simpler, action effectiveness is dependent on skills, perks and the gear, but skills, perks and the gear depend on attributes.

Moreover raising attributes should be hard, especially in attributes that are not the main characteristics of the chosen race and class, so that individual characters would keep their individuality, and that effectively limits the skill level cap and the items that a character can use.

So if you want to finally be able to wear daedric armor and wield a daedric war hammer, then you should select a fighter-oriented race like Orc and a fighter class, it would be much easier to reach the level that you can do that, but on the other hand you would never be able to summon that devastating blizzard to wipe the scene. That would have to wait for another game and another character.

Do you like the idea?

Please comment on why you voted an answer.

First, I strongly dislike the whole concept of "perks" that you gain automatically for gaining a certain level or threshold. Gaining abilities as a result of quests, as rewards, or because of special circumstances makes some sense; suddenly being able to resist types of damage or pull exotic moves for no good reason other than "grinding" should NOT be a part of the game.

In my opinion, a character should be able to eventually master ANY skill in the game, but not ALL skills in the game, or even close to it. Specialization or racial abilities should be required for advancing beyond "normal" limits. The last game (and FO3) made it pretty much irrelevant what you took in terms of starting skills, attributes, etc., since the game turned more into an "arcade"-style system with "special moves", "powerups" and other ridiculous game mechanics.

There shouldn't be "requirements" on using equipment, other than "racially unsuitable" ones like Argonians wearing boots, although that doesn't mean that a starting character should be able to make "practical" use of higher grade items. Quite the contrary, tying the rate of failure to one's skills is a great concept that got lost between MW and OB. What MW lacked, and which made it annoying, was that you couldn't voluntarily choose the difficulty of the task: using starting alchemy apparatus or repair tools to do "basic" tasks, whereas using the "higher" grades would require better skills to avoid high failure rates. All they did was make "better" results, and failure was only based on skill. Weapons that are heavier might be "slower", if the character lacks sufficient strength to wield them effectively, but should still be usable. Repair costs could be used to make high-end equipment less desirable for a low-level character, because you'd quickly go broke trying to maintain Daedric or Glass gear. Again, the ability to repair them could be tied to skills, not as a "requirement", but as a failure rate modifier.

Those seem good point, except for one misunderstanding.

I did not go into the detail of my vision for perks.

Perks are not automatically given as in Oblivion, or chosen in level-ups like Fallout, but when you reach to a required level and fulfill other requirements, then you can look out for the appropriate teacher and learn the perk.

But you would have to pay for the lesson and maybe perform tasks or brings souvenirs for the teacher before the lesson.

The requirements for each perk can be attribute and skill levels and even some previous perks, so that we can have perk trees.

So you like specialized skills, and specialized item usage, but you want it to be fuzzy instead of absolute.

Nice idea!
You don't meet the requirement, so you use it very badly, but for items like war hammers, the strength requirement should completely prevent the usage.

So we can have a combined effect, an absolute minimum requirement for the ability to use, but after that it can have a fuzzy effect on usage.

Thus a dumb Orc Barbarian should not be able to cast a Fireball at all. but if a character passes the absolute minimum level, he should be able to throw that fireball, but the better you fulfill those requirements, you should be able to throw a more effective fireball.

I just hate to see a hard distinction between "can" and "can't".

Most things in life are where "A" is more practical for you than "B", but either is possible. That huge Warhammer might be liftable, and you MIGHT even be able to swing it overhead in spite of insufficent strength, but are you going to be able to "fight" with it? Probably not well enough, and you generally wouldn't risk your life trying to prove the point. The hard minimums and sudden "perks" in OB really grated on my nerves: yesterday something was absolutely impossible, yet today you can do it with no possibility of failure.

I don't mind "perks" if they're "earned" by some related deed or event. I'd prefer to have them as seperate "improvable" sub-skills, where you gradually get good at them instead of suddenly being able to do them flawlessly.

I'd much rather see weapon skills have an effect on the "average" amount of damage, with a possible damage range each time, instead of every hit doing the same damage. As you improved, you should do closer to the maximum more frequently, instead of closer to the minimum most of the time. The potential for strong or weak hits should be there at ALL skill levels, but the odds should go up as your skills improve.

I believe it is extremely easy to impose any limits you want within your own game simply by choosing to do or not do certain things. If you want to play an Orc that can't cast spells or a Breton that can't swing a sword, it is very easy to do. That is not the type of char I want to play.

My problem with the game forcing limits and constraints on me is that I hate the predefined 'classes' of D&D style games that prevent me from building a char the way I want to. My char is a hybrid no melee archer that augments with magic and has never fit into a 'class' box. With the flexibility that Oblivion provides, my vision for her comes to life. If there were class / race/ specialization limitations, I would throw Oblivion in the dust bin to join the Baldurs Gate type games and Dragon Age and almost every other medievil fantasy game out there.

I always want more freedom in a game, not less. I am a lot better at choosing and employing my own limitations rather than having them forced upon me by a game that can never, ever foresee all the imaginative possibilities. It is indeed easy to become uber in Oblivion due to the freedom; it is equally easy however to choose to build a wonderful and challenging char limited only by the creativity and constraints imposed by the player.

Oh my, please don't constrain my ability to build non-stereotype characters like so many silly games do.

I dislike artificial limitations. I want the freedom to try anything, but I also expect to perform poorly in task for which I am not properly trained.

In regard to mastering all skill, as long as skills aren't static I would like to be theoretically able to master all skill, while practically being limited to mastering only one or two due to the effort required to master a skill.

Well, my basic idea is that the skills should in some way be mutually exclusive. If I'm a badaz sneak and marksman I can't also be an uber knight with the ability to thorw cars and so on. If I'm a smart mage, I'm probably not that great of a sneak. If I'm a big strong axe weilding dude, I probably am not going to be a good spell caster. That should make the game more interesting and more replayable. Probably would look more like a jobs system (for FF fans) than anything. You pick a set of skills, and while you can maybe get to apprentice in other skills, you can't get higher than that.

I kinda like the idea of opportunity cost -- choosing to do one thing means that you can't do another. It makes things more realistic IMO, and it keeps the player from getting so strong that the actual challenges don't matter anymore.

Here's the deal: I don't like archetypes. Artificial restrictions to make characters arbitrarily diverse is against the "go anywhere, do anything" spirit of TES. SHould you be able to master everything? Sure. It need not be EASY, but it needs to be possible for the simple fact that learning 150 hours into a playthrough that one of your choices from the first 15 minutes is stopping you from doing something you want to do is a game-killing moment. Keep in mind that a veteran TES player might know they want to cast a certain spell. A new player will not, and should not be penalized for just coming into the series now.

If you want characters to feel different, why not ask Bethesda to focus on actually making skills like Speechcraft work, allowing "diplomatic" characters to work, rather than placing restrictions on items that have been unrestricted since Daggerfall?

This.

Artificial limitations make no sense. If immersion is the goal, then players must, eventually, be able to master all skills, and wield any weapon or use any item. The difference has to be how good at it you are. For example, I have never had any experience with nunchucks in my life, but if I picked up a set I know I would be able to swing it around and hit someone in the head with it, if I got lucky enough to actually hit. Translating this to RPG terms is easy, simply with an effectiveness ratings that is based on attributes and skill and governs how effectively you do anything. If I put my mind to it, I could conceivably master many different combat disciplines in my life, but I would have to be dedicated and it would not come without danger or time and energy commitment. And yes I am all for bringing back spell cost chance =D

Just please at sub-Morrowind levels. At that level, it ruins any incentive to actually try to improve through practice.

Morrowind: kill Golden Saint, sell glass or better item, buy 20 levels of Destruction
Oblivion: learn any one weakness effect. Join Mage's Guild. Make 3% weakness for 1 second on self. While waiting for shops to open, run around town all night chain-casting said custom spell.

Yeah... they need to fix that...

It is a single player game, so play however you want.

Personally, I much prefer systems that encourage specialization. If I take three characters to endgame by way of combat, magic, and stealth, I want the final results to feel different and distinct - not end up being masters of everything who are pretty much interchangable. Thats how I play these games, thats how I like it to shake out.

This sums up my attitude to mastering skills
If time and money weren't meaningless, if training was sometimes hard to find, and if a miscellaneous skill took an extremely long time to get to 100 then there'd be no problem with TES in this regard
As it is a character can spend as long as they want improving a skill and noone will notice, money is rarely a problem, even master trainers aren't that hard to find, and many skills like alchemy, weapon skills and sneak can be increased rapidly even as misc. skills

If immersion is the goal, then players should be able to, eventually, forget how to use skills, and thus become less effective at them. If a warrior suddenly decides to devote his time to mastering magic, then logically his practice with the sword is going to suffer for it. By and large, people in real life don't become jacks-of-all-trades, master-of-all because they lack the time to fully devote themselves to all disciplines, and people simply lack the capacity to remember all that information.

Now, there are a number of ways to represent this; skills could simply degrade over time, you could make it so players basically have a finite amount of skill points, and eventually require you to sacrifice skill in one area to increase another. But people generally don't like seeing their skills degrade, so simply placing limits on how much you can learn provides a reasonable way to represent the limits of a person's ability.

I gather most folks here want to be able to specialize any type they like in this game regardless of the race and class they chose, like current games, but they want the process to be so time and resource consuming that it would discourage them to be master of all.

So race and class should affect only the beginning of the game, and would be just for the visual characteristics of the final character that you wanted to reach, again just like the current games.

But lets discuss this thing a bit more:

We want to discourage the characters from becoming a master of all, in the final stages of all the game courses.

If you want it to become harder and harder for any race and class to master the skills, and you wanted that it would become exponentially harder to shape your character to specialize and master the skills that you like, any skills, and there would not be any distinction to the final character that you want to be, it would be hard to reach the top mastery level of that type of character.

But if the race and class that you chose could effect the path that you liked to choose, so some mastery would be easier and some would be harder, then you could reach the final character that you liked easier, and you could replay the game to chose another style of character in another game.

Another option would be shaping the character as the game went on, and look at the character as it grew and make the path easier for the current direction and harder for other directions.

Race and class would define the initial direction of the character growth, and changing the direction in the middle of the game would not easy task, but possible, especially at the beginning of the game.

So you can choose a race and class and start the game in the style that is easier for that race and class, but if you liked to change direction, you could with some dedication, but as you developed your character, it would become harder and harder to change the direction of the growth, but it would become natural for your character to develop like current trend, and specialize.

Thus early choices would shape your characters, especially the initial race and class, like the real life, you are born into a nation and culture, but you can break from them, especially earlier in the life, but as you grew, it would become harder and harder to change your character.

In the conclusion:

Race and class affect the initial inertia of your character's growth, but you could change the direction by dedication, especially earlier in the game.

If we have a perk system as in Fallout in TES V, then specialization will be able to be encouraged through that system, even though it can also allow generalized builds as well with perks that pump up or affect multiple skills, but, as always, more generalized characters will be weaker because they won't have access to the higher end perks in the perk tree unless they sacrifice in some other area.

Being able to master anything means that you are good at any thing, and this might result in more immersion for some people, but for me, it would not.

Immersion for me is that a huge Orc war hammer wielder with calloused hands, should not be able to pick the locks expertly, and if somehow he decides to become expert, then it would be real, real hard for him to gradually do so.


Exactly my sentiments. :goodjob:


Good insight, misc skills should be real hard to raise, thats my point. Learning skills should be really expensive, especially for out of character skills.
Skill and Perk teachers should be less frequent, and hard to reach, so the when you find one, you should treasure the opportunity.
Money should be hard to raise because of collapsed economy and steep prices for lessons.


Good idea, so the skills should gradually degrade when not used, there is another way to do that:

When you do not use a skill, it would gradually become harder to raise that skill, and the first attempts would only result to raise the dampened skill advancement speed, and would not raise the actual skill, then gradually the actual skill should raise as the character persist to use the forgotten skill, and after a while, the speed of skill progression can revert to normal.

Sorry I missed this interesting post earlier.


When I suggested absolute minimum attribute requirement for item usage, I meant a newbie Bosmer Thief would not have enough strength to even lift that huge war hammer before he can start to wield it. So there can be an absolute minimum attribute requirement.


Earning perks can be like reaching the minimum requirement and finding the teacher to teach that perk to you, so for instance you find a teacher that tells you that he can teach you the "Head Chop" move for long swords, but you lack the required attributes and skills, so come back when you are ready, after that you see that perk in your perk list but it would be discolored and would only show the requirements to achieve it.

You start to grow your character toward those requirements and finally reach those, then you return to the teacher and pay the steep fee to learn that perk, after that, sometime when you are fighting an opponent with long swords, there is a chance that the "Head Chop" perk is triggered, so the animation goes into a 3rd person slow-motion and you see your character try for the neck, and depending on your swordsmanship skill, and attributes compared to the opponent, you have a chance of success, and you might see the head flying through the air and *finish*.

As you grow your swordsmanship skill and the related attributes for the perk, your perk become more effective and more frequent, so you might say that you are becoming gradually good at that perk, as it results in the same end result.


Really, really an interesting idea, so depending on the quality of the weapons, they might have a range of base damage dealt, and they can have a nominal requirement to deal the medium damage in the range.

So you would deal a random amount of damage in that range and with exact fulfillment of the requirement the probability of the damage dealt is a bell shaped range in the middle of the weapon's damage range.

If you do not have the nominal requirement of the weapon, then the bell shape leans toward the minimum damage dealt, and if you surpass the nominal requirement, then the bell shape leans toward the maximum damage dealt.

Great idea, but as before I would add the absolute minimum requirement to be able to lift the weapon ,or to understand the usage of the item, or spell, and so on...

how it was in Oblivion

no racial restrictions(Morrowind) and no class restrictions(Arena/Daggerfall), but training minor skills takes longer than training major skills does

I believe everything should be usable, but how usable should be determined by the characters stats.

I believe character stats should effect actions directly, but not in a way that contradicts what is physically possible, or the player control that is needed with a First Person Perspective. This means that attributes and skills does not effect to-hit, but effects what happens when you physically connect with enemy, critical hits, critical failures, if the damage you do is in the upper or lower quantile of your weapons dmg range, like elven sword dmg [16 - 21].

perks / special moves / special attacks, should all be trainable and failure/succes should be stat dependent.

Not a problem, within limits. Stendarr's Hammer in MW was technically "unusable" by a "normal" character, because it exceeded noramlly achievable encumbrance. Oddly enough, though, you could fight just fine with it, but not be able to walk anywhere with it, unless your strength was fortified to the point where you'd break the weapon on the first hit. I'd be fine with having such extreme cases be as you suggest, and be impossible to use, because you shouldn't be able to lift it at all. Ideally, at least in my opinion, a merely "very heavy" weapon could technically still be "usable", but not in any practical sense, because you'd suffer penalties to hitting with it, reduced damage due to the lack of strength needed to generate sufficient speed, and a lethargic attack delay that would leave you wide open to counter-attack. A cheap kitchen knife or a wooden table leg would be much more effective in the hands of such a character.

What I'd much prefer to see would be a system where all of the different "grades" of weapons, armor, and tools are present in the game, as in Morrowind, and you'd be able to use them "in theory", but the more exotic and expensive would be impractical either because of your poor stats, low income, or other reason that makes them unattractive at the moment. As your skills improved, and your ability to afford the higher maintainance on better grade gear allowed, you'd eventually find them useful and eventually "right" for you. Of course, then we'd have to listen to all of the "Daedric sux" complaints from players trying to fight with it at Level 1.

One way to work the system would be to have each item include two stats: an effectiveness Multiplier and an Offset. The Multiplier would act on your base skill, so a higher Multiplier would be a "good thing". The Offset would either add or subtract from your base skill, so a negative offset would be bad, while a positive one would be good. Starting level items could have a low multiplier (0.5 or less), but a decent positive Offset (like +20), so at a skill of 5, your "effective skill" would be: 5 skill + 20 offset = 25, times the 0.5 multiplier = 12.5. With that "Novice" item, you would be able to use it as if your skill was 12.5, a definite improvement. At a character skill of 50, plus the 20 offset, times the 0.5 multiplier, your "effective skill" with that item would only be 35, not exactly beneficial. The equipment would help a novice up to a certain point, but restrict the abilities of a skilled user. The negative offset on a high-level item (such as -20) would reduce any novice's effective skill to 0 or less, while the higher multiplier (like 1.2 or 1.5) would allow a skilled user to benefit from it. Novice items would be most useful in the hands of a Novice, and Master items would benefit a skilled user while being all but useless to an untrained user. Sure, you're free to use something a few steps above your effective level, but it won't really help you until you "grow into it". I find that a lot more realistic than a message telling me that "You cannot use this item".

Your previous suggestion about damage magnitude range and the chance to deal the minimal damage(for unskilled) or maximal damage(for skilled), inside that range, would be all encompassing and would have the result of discouraging unqualified users.

A great way to show a player if he is ready for a weapon or other item would be by animations, so I think Bethesda Game Studio can hire some good animator and design some different animation for actors to show if they are qualified to use an item or not.

So if you swing that war hammer with clumsy moves then you know it is too soon to use that, or if you move around slickly and block and parry attacks with grace with those two long daggers, then you know that you have great skill with a dagger in each hand, I have thought about a fighting system with great emphasis on character animation when in the fight.

In fact I have thought about all aspect of a great game as I was going to gradually write in http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1092502-idea-the-next-elder-scrolls-game/ thread, but it was closed.

As for character animation, you could start with basic and clumsy moves, but as you grew in skills your movement style could gradually improve, (in stages), and you could acquire new fighting styles or opportunity finishing moves with each new perk that you learned, so it would show in a glance if a character has enough required attributes and if he is skilled with a weapon or not.

As for not meeting the minimal required attribute, the camera can always move to 3rd person view and show the character to try to lift the war hammer and fail, or examine the alembic and shake his head, or try to wear the heavy plate and fail, and so on...

Some perks that change a fighting style could be equivalent to a character reaching the next level of mastery in oblivion, but instead you have to learn them from great masters of that skill, but some perks that would only add a new opportunity move, are easier to learn and would be more affordable.

This new Perk system can be applied to spell casting or even non-fight oriented skills, and I was going write about them in more detail, in that thread, but I might think of some other way to write about them in the future.

Spells can really be new Perks taught and added to magical skills, and fit into the perk tree, so you have to learn them as any other perks, go figure.

Some perks can be racial or class characteristics or acquired by some quests and so on...

OK enough about perks, and in the end implementing those perks and animation styles and moves would be a wise move for B.G.S. and I hope to see them in the next game.

I want to be able to use anything in the game, but I dont want to be a jack of all trades.

This :tops:

Just because i can max out all skills with any character in Morrowind or Oblivion, i have never had the time or interest in doing so. Its up to the player.

Learning takes a lot of time. But if you have a lot of time, you can learn a lot. Like M'aiq, who knows much. There is plenty of time.

Morrowind's way was perfect for me. I hope they go back to it.