The fact of the matter is this. Any single fight is extended to the point where it is just an exercise in monotony when you choose Destruction over One-Handed, Two-Handed, or Archery. It is interfering with the enjoyment of that particular player in this SINGLE PLAYER GAME once that particular player reaches around level 50.

Is that not a good enough reason to allow Destruction to scale further? Im not asking for it to be pants soilingly powerful as Smithing+Alchemy+Enchanting+Any combat skill that isnt Destruction. Save it for the min/max players. Just allow us to scale to the point where it doesn't make combat a tedious hell.

Thread title is a little misleading. The people who are saying anything about "balance" don't even understand the problem. It also seems like Bethesda just assumed that every single person who was going to use Destruction was also going to use summons. Problem is, not everyone actually wants to use pets and the pets themselves are actually strong enough that they can play the game for you, without you actually having to lift a finger. The other problem is that even a "Warrior" can have gear that allows them to cast those same pets for 0 mana cost. The argument about Destruction being "ranged" is thrown out the window when you don't need ranged if the pet is being the distraction you need to run up and attack something...or worse, it simply destroys those casters that may have been giving you any kind of difficulty.

The NPC casters who use Destruction seriously do 5-6x as much damage with the same spells. It's pretty pathetic.

I am completely fine with having to embrace defensive options within the Illusion, Alteration and Conjuration tree's. I really am. What is not okay is that fights drag on and on. Destruction spells stay stuck at around 100 damage. Its that simple. It just needs a buff in raw numbers to stop fights being beyond slow.

Of course balance matters. What is the incentive to create a character using inferior skill trees? Sure, you could do it for the flavor, but when people choose underpowered skills, they tend to feel gimped. This is in and of itself not fun.

What do you mean it's underpowered?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jz2e0aAZj8

By making anything you use stronger, they also make it stronger for enemies. If it's possible for you to one-shot anything, it's possible for anything to one-shot you. That's what balance is.

Currently, I'm a level 10 Argonian Battle-Mage. I've been handling most enemies with the flamethrower spell, a 1-hand axe, and some healing once in a while, while wearing a robe and light armor. I use close range hit and run tactics. Flame > axe > back away > flame > repeat. It works against "warrior" characters, and I can handle archers easily once I get close. What are my toughest foes? Mages who I don't kill quickly enough. If they're alive long enough to drain my magicka, then I need to rely solely on my axe (unless I want to tap into whatever potions I find laying around). That's assuming I'm not dead yet.

Maybe I'm not understanding the problem. Maybe "pure mages" have magicka reserve or damage issues. Well, "pure warriors" have range and self healing issues. "Pure stealth" has it's own issues. They always have had issues. Those are called weaknesses. Anyone who specializes so much that they won't touch anything that isn't part of their "class" is going to suffer shortcomings. Likewise, anyone who tries to be good at everything, will not be as great at anything as a "pure" class would be.

Personally, I think that trying to be a pure anything in a game like this requires one to deal with the inherent weaknesses of their choice. Unlike in a more group-based game, where the Warrior + Mage + Healer + Thief/Archer combo works since they cover each other's weaknesses. But even in those games, a group of all anything is gonna have serious downsides.

My point is: Play to your strengths. And deal with/overcome your weaknesses.