From my understanding spellmaking was more spell enhancing. All you did was enhance the effects a spell already had which could, and in fact lead to you breaking the game. I'm fine with a the game having spells that have fixed numbers, as many games have that feature and they work just fine.

If spell making was actually spell making. If they incorporated an alchemy type system (The OS game not the Skyrim skill) where I mix rock and fire to make fireball then yeah that would be cool. But making a slightly more powerful fireball spell that I named "OMFGBBQ INSERT MEME HERE" is kind of irrelevant at this point.

Exactly, Elder Scrolls games were our only source to get our spellmaking fix.

... we're jonesing here man.


...Daddy needs his fix, man!


Magic can never be magic without it, not for this series.

carrot-

unfortunately, i'm thinking that synergism and advancement are concepts that the "creative" team at beth have trouble with.

I thought the spells were boring overall. I can't put my finger on why though.

I'm not sure a spell making system would help but maybe it would.

If they were to add spellmaking in some form of dlc, i'd hope they don't make it as bland as i've found enchanting to be, now that feels so limited personally.

think about what you're asking: ADD spellmaking to skyrim as dlc. now THAT'S a joke. i'll take something away and then ask you to pay for it to be reintroduced.

smithing/alch/enchant ARE bland. concept vs implementation.

minigames and sim actions (alchemy) are fine, but, cmon, let's add some sophistication and creativity.

@Ares:

Evidently, you do not know how to play a mage in Oblivion (or Morrowind, for that matter) because your points are not true for either game.

Almost any spell you created in TES III or IV could NOT be purchased. That was the entire point.

No spell you created cost much magicka. In fact, if you created spells properly, you didn't need much magicka at all. You still needed some, but not much (50-100 was plenty, and you never needed more than 150).

Creating spells properly also included an inherent weakness: you would lose all magicka if you tried to switch to a different spell or stopped casting for any reason. You had to be prepared for this in some way (e.g., very low cost spell to start chaining again, restore magicka potions, etc).

A pure mage most certainly did NOT use shield and sword in TES III or IV. No need to do so at all because you could create sufficient magical protection rather than rely on physical materials.

Most of this also applied to playing an alchemist rather than a caster. That is, you could play an alchemist who did many of the things a caster did, but did them using potions rather than magicka.


It seems that some other replies also fail to understand how the spellmaking system worked. For example, spellmaking was not about enhancing other spells. You could do that, but that was not the real intent of the system, nor was it where the system really supported roleplaying. As I said, you could not simply buy spells that you made. You could not buy spells with combined effects such as Paralyze + Absorb Health (i.e., succubus spells that I created). You could not buy spells with combined elemental effects, either. Perhaps most importantly, Soul Trap SHOULD BE a target spell! No pure mage is going to use a touch Soul Trap spell, at least not for anything other than very low level enemies (and even then target is far easier as it avoids needing to be close). How do you think that soul gems get filled, anyway?

Spellmaking allows and supports roleplaying, and that is the flagship feature of TES (or was, anyway). TES, or any actual roleplaying game, is not about lore, or factions, or questing, or any of that because various characters may not have any interest in any of that. TES, and any actual roleplaying game, is about one and only one thing: roleplaying. In order to allow and support that, the game mechanics MUST support player choice and AVOID interfering with player choice.


Bottom line: spell casting offered flexibility and (gasp) CHOICE! Imagine... choice in a roleplaying game! (sigh)

If rpg was all about choice they would just deliver a blank .jpg

The rest of it is up to your CHOICE, right??

No...it′s called role-playing game, and the game part of the concept involves a system of mechanics which create the framework within which the players must confine themselves and the better balanced and defined this framework is, the better the game will play out.

@AiTenshi

It's interesting how, at the end, you're talking all over about "roleplaying"... but your earlier points (not needing much magicka, crafting spells "properly", "chaining", etc) seem to be all about game mechanics & minmax/efficiency. Which many people in the tabletop RPG world consider to be the opposite of roleplaying.


--

re: "flagship" features. Yeah, I only started with MW, but.... I really don't recall anyone talking much about spellcrafting as a "big feature" of TES. Open world? Yeah. Improve skills by using them (rather than the typical "gain class levels" or "assign skill points when you level" systems)? Yeah. Spellcrafting? Not so much. Sure, I may not have been hanging out with the "right people", but that's my experience. Which is all I can really attest to.

(Actually, the only gushing I can remember about crafting was a couple guys I knew going on and on about the stupidly overpowered/funny potions you could make in MW)

All I would say is wait for the C.K. & play on a PC.

Sure it is fun, but I'm half & half on it. Though it would interesting to see why they took it out in a statement, but if it was one of those "Oh, people thought it was complicated" things it would be rather disappointing.

It's not just spellmaking. There's also a noticable lack of brewing, fletching, and tailoring fuctions in Skyrim. All four of these need to be added into the game, in addition to smithing, enchanting, alchemy, and cooking.

some really good points here, the conjure thing i still stand by. If i were to conjure a wolf x1000 then why wouldnt I have the knowledge to conjure a spider? or a atronach? its learning by doing which is how master of the art would have gained knowledge in the first place. You would still be able to learn via master or books, which would be faster, than a slow skill gaining. its just more pratical than absolutly having to rely on others.bethesda messed up on how perks should be obtainable, my version of a perk tree would have requirements based on skill like having to have 90 skill to even touch the mid lvl tree. OB gave a perk like ability ever i forget like 25 skill?, with a tree it means you can define a char based off of skill, so like choosing mastery in lightning or frost is an example. Done right the tree can achiev more options for more classes and define a players playstyle than having everything planned out for you.



none of the above. im actually a hardcoe player in terms of difficulty, PvP or diving into the core of games, whether its story or gameplay. The attributes represent a system trying to mimic real world applications towards the character. Which i dont mind, the actual atributes for the player are fine, i prefer a system where str defines how you hold a heavy weap or intel effects the spell being successfully casted. I do miss that. What i am against is spells or potions that decrease attributes like drain/damage/absorb/restore x attribute, they just never felt defined for me. things like fortify x skill or disentegrate x, paralyze, disarm just seem more pratical use for realsim, but thats a point that each side can argue to death.



not entirely true. while playing D&D every fri, i always notice how the spreadsheet is made to mimic the real world to work without visual representation. using imagination you create a mental image of what a char at lvl 1 would be compared to a lvl 30 char, for example Strength. At lvl 1 you'd think of a tiny guy who would not be able to hold large weapons, or hit hard enough with light weapons. As he levels he gains more points into STR, SPD he then mentally looks like he would knock your face in with a heavy weap or move a light weapon fast with finesse. In video games you are actually givin the picture to see, which sets a 3rd dimention to the spreadsheet allowing some things to fade into the visual and less into the number crunch. a good example is stealth gameplay in skyrim. in D&D to move silently basically you have to outroll the opponents listen its a 50/50 chance you'll get caught, With a visual added, like in skyrim. if you move silently behind a guy wearing cloth slippers you wont get detected, giving a real world scenario like feel. That is why i mentioned those games, because they focus more of the visual representation and execution of skills resulting in the players knowledge to use these skills in real time, than relying accuracy in numbers to give a chance at doing somthing. I could go on but i dont think people want to read an essay of my theories abut the two



I wont deny im a console player, the only true PC game ive played is WoW for 5 1/2 years on one char competitively in PvP before quitting last year. My reason for mentioning J-RPGs as "True" RPGs is because they represent what the spreadsheet is doing visually. An example is FF1 though it may simplify and remove alot of the actual table top RPG features like listen, move silently, spot etc. It still mimics what that table top RPG is trying to create visually. Like towns for example During my experiences with D&D a town was a drawn picture with locationsa description and features in the town like smith, potion shops, etc and we just chose were to go. using FF1 as an example your doing the same thing except it shows you via char where your going...simple, for battles in D&D they are not real time, its turn by turn determined from dice rolls. FF1 determines from this aswell with a hidden dice mechanic using things like haste or SPD increases to make your initiative increase still using the turn by turn method. In D&D dice rolls also determine hit or miss and dmg, this again is Done in FF1 with hidden dice rolls based on char stats.

so as said it gives simple representation visually to a table top like experience which is why i name those kinds of RPGs "true" it may not be true as in direct conversion from spreadsheet to visual. even TES is not a direct conversion. This also adds to the above examples for the games i mentioned. i would love to go on about RPGs and differences and examples and comparisons and such, but i wont. Your post is valid that it questions my judgement and i gave my answers, In the end it all comes down to personal preference. Thanks for an actual helpfull post ~ cheers

Yeah, of course it is a combination.
This does not mean that without spellmaking Arena isnt a thirteen a dozen dungeon crawler.
Most of the good lore came with Daggerfall.

And you know, I dont really care about gimmicks like dual-wielding spells.
Yes, it looks pretty, but it doesnt do very much, especially compared to spellmaking.

I dont think people spend their time taking out options, but I sure as hell do see a marked decline of the series since Daggerfall when it comes to options, customisation, roleplaying, and after Morrowind, even lore.
To me it is clear that they have gone for what works, for safe formulaic work, which in this economic climate you can hardly blame them for.
It is however still a terrible shame that we went from a world such as Daggerfall to a game such as Skyrim.
TES, a series that used to boast the most utalitarian and versatile spell system out there has gone to a series that must shamefully admit there is nothing left of that.
When a Bioware game like Dragon Age one has more versatile, unique, useful magic, something is wrong.

Spellmaking gave such freedom, such opportunity that I frankly dont care how pretty a dual wielded spell looks.
I would have preferred the new system being designed with spellmaking in mind, I do not think it should ever have been cut. Its simply less game for my buck.

So what you're really saying is, BGS were pissed that people were sandboxing their way out of situations that they'd worked hard to railroad, and so they took the sand out of the sandbox?

Spellmaking isn't merely about damage, it's about damage type, delivery method, effect speed, and the balance between those three factors and magicka cost. For some reason, BGS didn't want to let the players have fun in the sandbox, so they made all the choices for us. As a consequence, Skyrim is no more a sandbox game than Diablo 2 is, as far as magic is concerned.

How do you RP an adventuring mage who leaves the safety of the local mage guild or library and travel into dungeons that make grown men soil themselves, if you don't speculate a bit on the efficiency of your spells? Are you also going to say that using the right ammo type for the job in FONV was min-maxing? Because it's the same thing. If you're a Destro-mage then magic bombardment is your craft and getting it done right is your art.

But by all means, do tell me how you're pretending to RP a hugely intelligent guy who takes a stroll around really dangerous and scary monsters with no protection beyond his pointy hat and wizard robe, and hopes to kill them all with his spells. A warrior might chance it but a highly intelligent wizard? No way does it seem sound RP to me that he's not going to carefully consider his means of delivering magicka-based death and how to best take advantage of spell synergies.

And regarding your second paragraph, about spell making not being a big feature in TES. You're right, it's not. Then again, TES made it big as a sandbox RPG and it doesn't get any more sandbox RPG than the ability to make your own spells.

My mages never carry weapons. Sometimes staves but never weapons or shields.

In Oblivion spells were on the BUMPER BUTTON on console not the trigger (by default). You could carry whatever you wanted and still cast spells.

Casting multiple spells relied on the D-Pad? And that is bad? Have you played Skyrim? We get 2 hotkeys. Casting multiple spells now relies on pausing the freaking game every 0.5 seconds to select from the favorites menu.

You have no idea about anything you are talking about, period.

read posts before boasting your points.

I'm not talking about mages absolutly having to carry weapons, i'm talking about the fact that since the magic button is on the bumper the availability to use a shield and weap is there. i never stated that people use weapons all the time, but in that form of config for oblivion it gives a second option to use a weapon after exausting your magic, i have seen people do it, and you cant say you have NEVER done it.

My argument about skyrim is that since you have 2 hands with spells with a perk system that allowes for less magicka usage, making a pure magic weilding mage can use magic to without ever touching a weapon ever, most times in TES that is not achievable till higher levels or abusing a system.

Again read my post after my main one. I explain why the oblivion radial menu system is better and that skyrims still needs work. I like the skyrim system for little reasons over the radial menu. but that does not make it better.

I state facts. not things i dream up that might be true, L2R and not judge people.

Morrowind had a great spell crafting system,
Oblivion had a not - so great system (had alot to do with removal of certain effects; and other limitations)
Sktrim has no spell crafting system.
The next elderscrolls probably will not have magic at all.

BTW "spreadsheety" was a GOOD thing.
It allowed for organization of meaningfull stats/attributes.

Skrim's approach was to simply remove meaningfull stats/attributes (& spellcrafting)

Actually you make a good point about the possibility to specialize in frost magic for example. But for this, perks need only to give you a boost in frost magic, not provide you the frost magic spells themselves, IMO. Once again, for me it makes no sense that the knowledge just pops in your mind on how to cast a new spell. Too many action-RPG games already use this mechanic and I like how TES is different and more immersive/logical in the historical fantasy way that you learn knowledge/spells from mystical tomes and elder masters of magic, instead of you "ding" your level and receive the ability just like that. This is not RPG-like, this is action-game-like. This would be like Diablo, WoW... most hack'n'slash and action-RPG. We have already tons of them. Plus, you can always RP your mage like an ice-specialist and only buy/use frost spells. In games like WoW or Diablo, you have those skill/perks trees and that's it, you can't get our of it. It is more limited possibilities, but decent enough to give enough variety for an action-rpg like wow, where you also have other aspects like social interactions and RAIDS and pvp and gear hunting etc... Diablo is the same way : simplified mecanics but lots of gear hunting and multi possibilities. TES series were never big in gear hunting, multiplayer or social interactions... they were more about completely customizable character experience, with way more possibilities than Wow or diablo, huge world to roam how you wish, make your own spells, you own class, you own potions etc...

Why isn't it possible to have both in ? What I mean is that to have disarm (base on your agility attribute for example ? ), you don't need to let go of the potion or spell that will damage the agility of your foe, because it can give more tactical options, and you don't have to use them anyway. I, like you wrote, miss the attribute based possibilities/success chances too. Yes it is different from most nowadays action-RPGs, but that doesn't mean its bad. It is a bit nerdy, but that's why it's good, and feels a bit closer to reality, thus bringing a bit more immersion or logic, in a way.

I understand what you mean, but for many things, you can mix both worlds. I just don't want that everything is focused on the visual, and drop the "spreadsheet" legacy because for me the spreadsheet was a nice, logical and more accurate model of the real world, which helps to get into the RPG. Just like first person view helps a bit more that third person view.
I love to play some action games based on visual and hand skill (with the controller or keyboard/mouse, I mean), and I love RPGs where hand skill is insignificant compared to the actual numbers and stats defining your character. And the visuals can be tied to the stats, just like you said in your example from j-rpgs.


Then you should try Baldur's Gate series on PC, because this is the real D&D based visual RPG reference that is the norm among PC rpg players, usually. Or the like (Planescape torment, icewind dale), or the dungeon crawlers like ultima underground, etc... Though I see your point with J-RPG, it is a very specific type of RPG and for me at least, it is not the best translation of a tabletop game on screen, although you're right to say it is still a good one in a way.

I also played WoW, but WoW is not really a RPG. WoW is more an action-RPG (and massively multi at that). I was a Rogue PVP almost exclusive but left the game because of Burning Crusade and how it felt like they were forcing me to buy it, especially with the bettlegrounds. But that's OT.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I think that while we both played tabletop RPGs, I was more playing oldschool occidental RPGs on PC, while you were more playing oldschool J-RPGs on the console. While I played some as well (FF6, FF7, Grandia, and a few more I don't remember well, as well as tactical-RPGs), I always found that the occidental ones like Baldur's gate were closer to the tabletop experience for me. But then again that might be because of the background rather than the mechanics...

I am two-sided about spellmaking. I realize that I haven′t missed it that much when playing the game so it′s not like not having it is ruining the game. But it is an interesting and fun feature, and as others have said, if it was removed because of balancing issues then certainly enchanting simply repeats the exact same mistake and if we can accept enchanting with it′s exploitable features, then we should be able to accept spellmaking with exploitable features.