I see so many topics about how Destruction is underpowered and pure mages aren't viable and I just haven't experienced that at all in my game. I'm playing on Expert rather than Master, so maybe that's the difference, but I can't imagine it's that far off. I'm level 42 currently with an 80 in Destruction and a few perks, and I kill almost everything in four or five hits. In early levels I used Fire Rune and killed things quickly; at mid level I used mostly Ice Storm and Chain Lightning, and currently I mostly use Thunderbolt and Ice Storm. I run around in the Archmage Robes with the Staff of Magus and a ring/necklace to reduce the cost of Destruction spells, and usually have an atronach backing me up. I've never had any serious problems with most battles, and can wipe out rooms full of enemies in a few seconds. Are other people actually having a hard time using Destruction, or is everyone obliterating rooms of enemies in seconds but complaining about being underpowered anyway for some reason?

You are never, ever, ever the only one.

People seem to be concerned that it's not "balanced" with other character types.

I have to wonder - why should any character type be "balanced" with any other character type? It just means you need to play the game in a different way, which is THE ENTIRE POINT.

Otherwise you're just playing the same game the same way, just with differently named, but equivalent, weapons.

My problem with a pure magic build is that it's pretty boring imo. The damage seems fine though.

I'm doing A - OK with my mage. the Impact perk is the key to taking down even the strongest enemy with little or no retalliation.

vD

From what I have read most people having problems starting experiencing them around level 40 or 50.

My pure mage is at level 31 and I've only just gotten master level spells, and I don't have any complaints about balancing. (My level ~20 warrior has had an easier time, but not appreciably.)

I took my time to level up destruction to 100 and take all possible perks and get some top-tier spells. It takes me ten times more time to burn a Draugr than to whack it with an axe. There are no ways to increase magic damage output in the game besides a few perks, but there are for ordinary weapons, so yeah, it svcks.

I've heard that impact perk is the cure.

Really the destruction issue is based on a person's game play perspective. Alone destruction will not get you through the higher end game play, however is that really an issue? Well that depends on what your expectations are.

I personally think a mage would have to excel in more than one discipline to be considered an accomplished adventure / "real world" master. Now if a mage wants to be a single discipline master in the world of academia that is fine since they are protected behind college walls but such a mage should expect to find themselves ill equipped to go out and adventure in the wilds of Skyrim.

This is of course just one perspective, many would prefer a single mastery of any discipline to be enough to conquer all obstacles, to me that seems simplistic, but whatever.

I'm not having a problem with it at all. I work at making it better by using it and taking good perks and I think it's just fine. I run into some really tough enemies and I don't take them down with one hit. I'm at Level 33.

:tes:

And there goes both your credibility and your point: the complaints are that destruction is broken on its own (with utility/defensive trees). Yes, you can use conjuration, we know that. Now try it with no summon on master difficulty and come back to tell us how that went.

Inbefore "lol use all your magic!". People want to play a nuker type character, not a summoner. Having Atronachs completely changes the gameplay. Especially when they do more damage then your spells.

Also, keep in mind that the main problem is one of scaling. Naturally, you are at the very beggining of that problematic area (lvl 40+), so it is normal that you dont see much impact of it. YET. <--- keyword.

When you say "ten times more time" is it still like five seconds? I get that you have to hold the button down to launch a spell while you can just press once when wielding weapons, but is that really the main complaint? Or is it really taking you like a minute or two to kill things? Like I said, I kill easy things in one or two hits, and most in three or four hits.

I agree they removed all of the fun spells and spellmaking.

I find destruction is almost OP. granted, I have Lydia decked out but yeah...

Lvl 43 Mage and incinerate just drops everything. I find a double shot takes out any lowboys enemy and for tougher ones like draughers, I just stun lock them with impact. It's rare that I take any dmg at all. Playing on master FYI.

I found the game hardest at around lvl 39, mostly because of insufficient mana. Now that I have 0 cost spells it's just boring. Started a sneak archer just for kicks

Lol... my "credibility" is gone because I summon atronachs in a video game? I don't always have one, but it makes things easier. I can kill things fine without the atronach, i use it mostly to tank because I can't take many hits. They don't do more damage than my spells.

In my mind a "nuker" mage is a mage that needs a tank. I think it would be weird to be in a robe casting nukes while a bunch of guys are pounding on you with axes. And I think I probably could have more defense if I wore heavy armor and put more points into health... I don't think that has anything to do with Destruction. If I was an archer or axe wielder wearing a robe with low health, I'd have the same problems. Obviously if you choose to wear a robe and not have any help in fights, you will be in danger, but that has nothing to do with Destruction itself. Is that the main complaint, that it's hard to tank if you put all of your skill points in destruction and don't wear any armor?

I guess if you say 42 is just the beginning of where things get hard I'll have to see. People told me that things got hard at 20 and then when I hit 20 I saw people saying it got hard at 30, and then at 40, and now that I'm 42 it sounds like you're saying it will be hard at 50. I think if I came back and said it still seemed fine, someone would say that it gets hard at 60.

On the default difficulty, Destruction is just fine. On Master difficulty it can be both rewarding and frustrating. Rewarding because it's far more dangerous to get in melee range with, well, just about anything, and frustrating because it takes too long to kill certain high level mobs.

So... Depends on your playstyle.

The only destruction spell I use is lightning rune that sets up a lightning trap if someone steps on it. Other than that I've found all destruction to be worthless. As a master alterationist, I can mass-paralyze an area and people are struggling just to incinerate someone.

It's not hard. Its boring and only makes use of one enchant (cost reduction).

1 "good" damage spell and 1 worth-wile enchant(which is the only saving grace for Destro) for most of my play hours, takes hours of spamming it to kill tougher enemies (on master).

Thats not how I in-visioned offensive magic.

rune is the only one i find completely useless. the damage is so low, it doesnt do anything to stronger enemies. other than that, i think destruction is fine. especially the perk that makes spells stagger enemies is pure gold and makes up for a lack of damage.

Impact is the only thing that saves it really. Stun locking thing turns it into a slow DoT crowd control versus single target. Which means no risk to you.

If you don't have impact then...well...it's kind of useless compared to other ranged damage or say Conjuration / Illusion / Alteration for Dremora Lords / Frenzy / Paralyze respectively.

The AoE destruction spells would be good but I don't find I'm facing swarms of enemies in a tight spot in this game. Usually it's 1 on 1 or at most 1 on 3.

I'm asking a serious question, not trying to argue: when you say it takes "hours of spamming" how much time do you actually mean? I'm assuming it's not actually hours. Is it like 5 seconds? 10 seconds? Like I said, I usually need to land 4 or 5 hits. Is that the "hours of spamming" that you guys are talking about, or is there something I'm missing?

The fact remains, that Mages in this world are best used as the distance artillery for fighters, thats their role in a combat situation.

People want Destruction to be the answer to all damage, and its not only unrealistic, it would be unbalanced if was capable. Mages are balanced because they can do a range of different things, not just specialised in one branch of magic.

With the addition of shouts, I think they took a lot of them out of the mages spellbook which possibly left destruction spells the hardest hit by this.

But.. block doesn't stand by itself, one handed doesn't, even two-handed doesn't. Why should destruction.

Archery is better, and also ranged.

Yeah OP, you just might be the only person that thinks destruction magic is fine (on its own unsupported merits) but its alright. I bought myself a box of sweet rolls. They are yummy so I am not going to complain and whine about how svcky I think destruction magic is.

I found destruction ok in the early levels but something really strange happened around L38 in the level scaling that I don't understand with the build I used. I was getting one shotted by typical bears all of a sudden just as an example no matter what i did. That game became unplayable.

I think the problem is that magic is initially a pretty weak playstyle compared to melee, at least in my experience, running out of magicka is a bigger deal than running out of endurance, since you are still capable of putting out damage without using power attacks as a melee character.

I think some people (like me) never adjust to being a caster properly since it's their first time trying out that class. It does definitely seem harder than being a warrior, at least for me. But for you seasoned mages who play casters in lots of games, it probably comes naturally to you as a playstyle.