Tradeoffs? Lets talk about that.

You can only attack one enemy at a time - True, so true. And when using melee weapons, that enemy dies very very fast. You will kill a group of enemies faster as melee than a mage with infinite magicka AoEing down enemies, simply because you can do massive damage to one enemy at a time.

Close Proximity - Close the gap with etheral form, whirlwind sprint, or just walk up to the enemy because you are a tank. Its not en epic undertaking, its standard business, and about as difficult as making rice. Furthermore, you are using armor one would hope, so its not like you can't take a hit or thirty. Only exception are forsworn briar-hearts as they [censored] everything.

Using wards in melee - DRAIN THAT MAGIC FASTER! You're better off chain staggering with inefficient dual casting.

Its not whether or not you kill them with 1 hp over kill or 1000, its the twelve minutes you took chain staggering the drauger scourgelord with whatever spell that really starts to grate you.

You're the one failing to see the balance issue.

Can't you see that endless fatigue for staggering and endless mana with staggering are the same thing? Anyways its obvious that its pretty easy to ruin the game fore yourself, be it blatantly cheating or using force multiplier combinations.

That is why you should start with 5% students, which is attainable without a force multiplier.

No they aren't the same thing. That's just the weapon enchant. I didn't say what type of weapon and what perks I have, or whether or not I improved the weapon with smithing, or if I used the % 1 handed damage increase potion. Destruction? Not even close.

Except for the chain stagger. But you're doing more damage staggering enemies with the melee weapons.

I think most people who complain about the complaints about game-balance don't get it. They do not want(or at least most of them don't) too one-shot Ancient Dragons or Draugr Death Overlords. They want things like destruction magic too be a match for the 1 and 2-handed skills, but since a pure mage does not wear armor they need to be able to get a higher DPS than a melee character would, simply because they are less durable.
That a game is single-player has nothing too do with wheter a game needs balance or not because without balance not all playstyles are viable in the same way.
As I understood it, those who complain about balance(which includes me even if it doesn't always sound like it) want this(more of less):

Weapon-and-Shield Warrior: Lowest melee dps, but the highest physical durability due too very effective blocking and armor.

2-handed Warrior: High dph(damage per hit), and is somewhat durable due too armor and some blocking ability.

DW Warrior: Lowest physical defense of the melee types, but still quite durable and it has the highest melee dps.

Archer: Very high dph, but is dependant on using the range and terrain(if pure). Low physical defense.

Assassin: Very low physical defense, but is probably on par with the archer in dph. Rely on stealth too avoid death.

Non-dirct damage Mage: somewhat low dps and dph, but with a combination of minions(summoned or other) and crowd-control too maximize their dot(damage over time). Very low physical defense aided only by certain spells.

Diract damage Mage: Highest dph and dps, but the lowest physical defense.

Hybrids: Too many types too go into detail, but, in short, lowers some of the strengths and adds more versitality. Example: Crusader: lower health, stamina and physical defense than a warrior, but higher versitality due too healing and damage spells. Also: Less perks too optimize offense and defense.

Yes, I'm quite aware it is a bit ironic post due too my other post in this thread

Edit: Made it easier too read and fixed a few typos.

This.

As I said in my other post, people expect what RPGs are giving them for many years, since pen and paper D&D. And the way offensive magic works in this game is.. weird. That's why people are complaining about the way destruction is implemented. The OP is showing a good workaround to someone that really wants to play a pure mage (me included), but the issues with spells not scaling the way melee and ranged scales still exists. And won't go away until the creation kit is released.

This, and to add: The same people who go, "Well of course the game is easy if you improve your weapons with smithing and enchanting, but you can't justify higher magic damage because of it" are being hypocrites by saying, "In order for destruction to be viable, you have to break the game with enchanting to give yourself effectively infinite magicka."

Expert and Master spells cannot even be used without investing full perks into the destruction tree and getting at least 50+% mana reduction cost. The mana consumption for spells beyond adept is absurd. 50% more damage for 3 times the magica cost? Screw that, I'll just spam fire balls and ice storms.

I don't think its really a problem/workaround for the pure mage honestly. Just looking at the mana costs of spells makes it very clear that this is the intended way of playing a mage.

Now for someone wanting to play a warlock/jedi with 1h + destruction, this system greatly inhibits them. But then that playstyle has always been substandard in TES.

Back then you would have used a weakness to magic/magic damage weapon with a magic damage/weakness to magic spell. That worked about as well as one could have hoped. But you are correct in saying that you would be slightly weaker for your increased versatility (physical and magic damage as opposed to just one.)

Yes, you're right.
When you have spells that cost 1000+ mana and you have item enchantments that decrease spell cost instead of increasing spell damage, you know they designed the game knowing people would eventually be able to cast spells for free. So, instead of making mages powerful and limiting them with a finite resource, they're making them deal below average damage with no resource management.. Well, and I'll have to say yet again: man, that's really really weird

No I mean that I think that they intended for you to use enchanting heavily to reduce mana cost to 5% base mana cost. I don't think they would expect people to use self-enchanted robes, and instead they planned on you using robes of the archmage or expert robes of a certain school.

Secondly I think they intended you not be required to have expert alchemy in order to achieve this, because really it isn't fair to say to someone, if you want to play a mage you have to be a master alchemist and enchanter. The problem exists with master alchemists and master enchanters. Just keep in mind that you're ruining the game for yourself if you eliminate mana cost completely, you might as well just IDDQD and IDKFA your way through the game.

It is very.. unfortunate that we have to regulate ourselves in this way, but don't use enchanting potions when fortifying your magic schools, and mana costs will still be perfectly within reasonable bounds.

I would still use the 29% alchemy gear for making potions, that part I do not thing was an oversight by Beth. Actually I don't even thing the 0% mana was an oversight either, but it just wouldn't be fair to casters to require both...

Thank you for the guide. I'm thinking of playing as a battlemage next, and heard how lousy destruction is at higher levels.

One word:
EQUILIBRIUM!!!!

With that you'll never run out of mana as long as you have blood left in your veins ( and don't mind making that sacrifice ;] )

There is a small problem with enchanting, maybe intentional *shrugs* the dual enchantments IE Destruction & magica regen both don't scale with your skill/perks (specifically the magica regen remains at 10 no matter what)

Stopped reading here.

I dont understand the problem my destruction spells cost me 0% mana with a good enchanting setup 25% on hel / armor / neck / ring = 100% reduction and I just rip it up nothing can stop me

For me it comes down to... reducing the mana cost does not make my character feel more powerful, to be quite frank it is nothing less than boring. Alchemy shouldn't even come into it, the magical trees themselves should be offering the feel of a growing character and not chugging foul smelling brews every 30 seconds.

On Adept and below. Not everyone plays on the easy levels. Even on Adept though playing Destruction is not worthwhile. It's ludicrous to even mention Enchanting, because it's just like saying "Oh, Destruction + Enchanting is actually one school, they just broke it up into two seperate trees!".


Exactly.

i woinder why everyone took an instant dislike to you

Read this thread and the 2 previous ones before it
http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1279078-2419-armor-6399-damage-using-smithing-alchemy-enchanting-only-33-perks-329k-backstabs-post-3/

Nothing new was added to this topic Furthemore you cant wear a helmet/circlet with the arch-mage robes because they use a head slot too.

Odd, considering I can wear a circlet whilst wearing the Arch Mage robes. You can't wear a helmet, but you can wear a circlet. I even wore one of the Masks too, the 100% Magi regen (Vokun?)

Know before you post!

Fine so I got it wrong on the circlet becuase I never tried to wear one. It didnt work for the helmet so I never tried again on anything else. Dosnt mean that I dont know my [censored].
This thread alone is a compilation of my posts: the 0 mana casting, destruction dmg pots, weakness pots. It still misses a post about weapon enchants synergies with enchanting/alchemy/destruction.

My 2nd toon will definitely be a mage.

Fortifying a set of armor with fortify destruction and casting spells isn't exploiting (2% mana cost vs 0% mana cost is irrelevant).

But fortifiying a set of armor with fortify alchemy and making a potion is exploiting.

Stop being a hypocrite.

Its too bad people find it necessary to employ two other demonstrably OP skills just to make destruction viable at high levels. It seems like it would be a better idea for BGS to just fix destuction in the first place.

THere's already mods that address the issue at least partially for PC, I just feel bad for the console folks.