Maybe not, but it does take significantly longer than melee or archers take to kill the same enemy.

I'll play devil's advocate, although scaling would be preferable to me. One aside would be that Master level spells would *still* be broken with scaling since they could never advance.

Without stating any of the problems:

The philosophy is to gain DPS by perks and also by spell tiers, with new spells replacing the old ones.

My DPS goes up between level 25 and 50, again at 75 and (for one spell--sort of) at 100. New spells obviate old spells, and provide for a new tactical approach. The Impact perk is the biggest difference maker in the perk tree, and (to a much lesser extent) the Intense Flames, Deep Freeze and Disintegrate perks.

Some of the earlier spells maintain their usefulness for awhile, such as Flames used against Ice Wraiths, which are difficult to hit without some sort of AOE effect. Runes are still useful for emergency scenarios where the caster runs out of mana.

Adept tier provides for some better AOE spells, replacing the Novice tier spells.
Expert tier spells replace ranged, targeted attacks from the Apprentice tier.
Master tier spells - The Lighting Storm spell does a respectable 75dps, permastuns (with Impact) and drains magic--try casting it in a corridor and let enemies examine the disturbance and try to rush you. The other two spells appear to be focused on spellswords, as do some of the Adept tier spells

Simply saying: "Destruction doesn't scale with weapons. It needs to be buffed" ignores the fact that the mage playstyle is about constant damage and distance. You cannot remove the playstyle from the equation because the damage totals are decided by the playstyle.

This logic is like saying be a One Handed fighter with no armor. Pure destruction is possible but it's not easy.

This logic is like saying be a One Handed fighter with no armor. Pure destruction is possible but it's not easy.

Destruction cost too much mana for the damage it does leaving mages completely weaponless and forced to rely on fleeing every battle, companion, or summons.There is no cost to the warrior to keep swinging. So what if he can't power attack, at least he can attack.

Read the thread.

There is a difference between not wanting to have to take conjuration specifically, and not wanting to spend perks. A nuker archetype does not mean a glass cannon, it just means a build who's damage comes from nuking, aka, casting direct damage spells.

You do realize that you can reduce the mana cost of the spells to almost nothing right?

The issue I'd say is mana regen in combat being so low. Running out of mana with potions and a high elf with Highborn is nigh impossible though.

10 pages on a subject that's been done to death? No.

From everyone I know they do plenty of damage at high levels with destruction. The argument I see in similar threads is that you don't do the same damage as an exploited warrior with 2 500dmg maces. Well, duh.

You do realize that you can reduce the mana cost of the spells to almost nothing right?

The issue I'd say is mana regen in combat being so low. Running out of mana with potions and a high elf with Highborn is nigh impossible though.



10 pages on a subject that's been done to death? No.

From everyone I know they do plenty of damage at high levels with destruction. The argument I see in similar threads is that you don't do the same damage as an exploited warrior with 2 500dmg maces. Well, duh.

You should see Jzhargo(sp), he runs out of mana as my follower in 10 seconds and goes hand to hand with everyone. Quite funny.

Again: a miss and a swing.

The problem is that, unlike other offensive skills, destruction relies on something else to deal its damage.

Yeah, a character using 2h perks will need armor to stay alive, but his damage comes from his 2h perks. An archer will need sneak or LA, but his damage will come from his bow and arrows. It can be enhanced with enchanting, but it does not depend on it. You can still shoot arrows even without +% bow damage enchants.

However, that is not the case with destruction. You still need to build defenses, but if you take destruction, you need complementary damage (conjuration) and a high enchanting (cost reduction) just to do your job. Destruction, on its own, is so weak that it forces you to pair it up with very specific perks, which is completely against the entire spirit of the game (freedom of choice).

Both need defensive perks, but only one of those need to rely on 3 different trees for their offense.

EDIT:
Then I am sorry but our interaction is at an end. When you come in a thread without reading it, not only is it rude, but you are not even in a position to contribute because you do not understand what is being discussed. So you come here with generic crap, answering to arguments no one every raised, and otherwise being simply disruptive while not acutally bringing anything.

Again: a miss and a swing.

The problem is that, unlike other offensive skills, destruction relies on something else to deal its damage.

Yeah, a character using 2h perks will need armor to stay alive, but his damage comes from his 2h perks. An archer will need sneak or LA, but his damage will come from his bow and arrows. It can be enhanced with enchanting, but it does not depend on it. You can still shoot arrows even without +% bow damage enchants.

However, that is not the case with destruction. If you take destruction, you need complementary damage (conjuration) and a high enchanting (cost reduction) just to do your job. Destruction, on its own, is so weak that it forces you to pair it up with very specific perks, which is completely against the entire spirit of the game (freedom of choice).

Both need defensive perks, but only one of those need to rely on 3 different trees for their offense.

EDIT:
Then I am sorry but our interaction is at an end. When you come in a thread without reading it, not only is it rude, but you are not even in a position to contribute because you do not understand what is being discussed. So you come here with generic crap, answering to arguments no one every raised, and otherwise being simply disruptive and rude while not acutally bringing anything.

Reported. Read the thread first next time.

Destruction isn't that weak,

I don't need to read en entire thread to respond to a single post on the subject, and reported? Really? Is this pre-school? There's nothing rude about being brief, half the posters do it all the time. I didn't report the people that attacked me in a console vs PC thread despite totally missing my point.

Also just to change it around, it's a swing and a miss. You can't miss before you swing.

Destruction isn't that weak, you can read from many people with high level mages who have no issues with it. Saying that requiring perks is a problem doesn't make any sense whatsoever, of COURSE you need perks to enhance it. You do with just about every skill. A mace won't be strong with no Smithing or One handed perks for example.

So your point is making less sense to me after this point. You don't think you should have to use perks? That isn't how this game works. I'm sick of seeing the words "freedom of choice" to knock the game mechanics that are NECESSARY to play.

I don't need to read en entire thread to respond to a single post on the subject, and reported? Really? Is this pre-school? There's nothing rude about being brief, half the posters do it all the time. I didn't report the people that attacked me in a console vs PC thread despite totally missing my point.

Also just to change it around, it's a swing and a miss. You can't miss before you swing.

Destruction isn't that weak, you can read from many people with high level mages who have no issues with it. Saying that requiring perks is a problem doesn't make any sense whatsoever, of COURSE you need perks to enhance it. You do with just about every skill. A mace won't be strong with no Smithing or One handed perks for example.

So your point is making less sense to me after this point. You don't think you should have to use perks? That isn't how this game works. I'm sick of seeing the words "freedom of choice" to knock the game mechanics that are NECESSARY to play.

So basically you continue to miss his point over and over and still think that you somehow have the upper hand. Destruction REQUIRES a SPECIFIC perk - that is, enchanting. Try casting a couple expert level spells with no enchanting mana reduction enchants, or even with the paltry amount of destruction reduction gear you find throughout the game, and tell me it isn't required. So yes, PERKS are necessary to play, but SPECIFIC perks should not be.

Also, while many people may be completely fine with destruction at higher levels, there are also a large number of people who aren't. When there are as many satisfied people as there are, that's a sign something's wrong.