One thing particularly that I am mentioning here is the sneak one. I am playing an archery character who has never so much as touched a dagger, and to get my sneak damage multiplier for bows, I first need to get one for daggers. Also, part of that should involve the archery skill, there should be a sneaking multilier in archery as well, so the two skills both contribute.

Don't think you need to get dagger to get bow but must wait for required skill for bow. There are no prerequisite in perk trees what I know.

Um... the dagger one is after the archery multiplier. The one handed multiplier comes first and it's actually quite useful for an archer because some enemies are very resistant to bows and some enemies you can one-hit with a sneak sword attack than you can't one-hit with a sneak bow attack. So I find it very useful. I think he sneak perk tree is fine.

They had to have trees and thus had to have something before the other


Do you think i want to do more damage with punching just to have my armor weigh less?

No, but i have to do it


Almost all skill trees have something stupid in order to get to the top

No... they don't? Most trees are separated correctly. You don't need fire spells to get to the lightning spells in the Destruction Tree... and you don't need Bound Weapons to get to the Raise Dead section of the Conjuration tree, nor do you need Raise Dead to get to the Atronach section...

It's a badly made tree, that's all there is to it.

coming from a fellow archer.. get over it. it's called making an investment.. it's not like you have to put all your points in backstab... just one..

Yes I see what you mean. They should do it like how they do it for 1H and 2H skills. Sword, axe and mace branch in their own separate trees.

But in the end it's just 1 perk. It shouldn't be too game breaking.

Some of the trees are designed a bit silly, but usually it's more of a making that skill more powerful for someone willing to put more into it. I wish some of the progressions were more logical, though.

Okay, I meant the one-handed one. It still makes no sense that an archer would need to get better at one-handed weapons before they got better at archery and a dagger user needs to get better at archery before they get better at using daggers.

Perks could've been implemented a lot better in my opinion. It's kind've a shame, as progression in the game seems to be very reliant on them.

The one perk tree where I'm not fine with how it's done is the speechcraft one as the "illegal" options are just in there with the legal stuff. I neither want to bribe guards nor sell stolen items, why do I have to pick those perks to get to the higher perks?

Maybe there are other issues with other trees, but I haven't payed too much attention. @Patchumz: Giving counter examples doesn't mean it's not different for other examples and eventually, it also depends much on what you want to play like, so perks that appear useful to you don't necessarily feel helpful to others who want one perk above in the same branch.

I would have preferred a fallout style perk system myself. Perk trees make you pick useless crap to get to what you want.

I think their decision to make perks come in trees shaped like stellar constellations was a BAD IDEA. The representation may be slightly thematic, but it makes the interface to them painfully awkward and complicates perk tree design decisions guaranteeing at least a few bad perk trees. Witness shock enchantment specializations requiring fire enchantment specializations for instance.

Though really, I think their interface design overall was not up to the level of the rest of the game.