Well done in pointing out the in-built damage increase buffs for destruction...however, it let the destruction trolls out of the box

To be quite honest, an argument based on "But I don't want to do that" in reference to a design aspect of the game which achieves what someone is actually arguing for, is not a valid argument...it's illogical. However, I will accept it, and counter it with a similar argument to those who are against using alchemy to improve destruction magick:

You have a personal problem, get over it.

You are still arguing with the same argument.

I should not need to use Conjuration or a follower to make Destruction viable. In fact, followers get in the way of spells and are frustrating.


Is this directed at me?

Edit: I'll respond as if it is anyways.

I assume that the first line is at the OP, and I'd like to ask you to not dismiss my opinions as a troll, please.

And then, you call my argument invalid, provide no reasons it is, and then tell me to get over it with no actual base argument.

Please come back with a real argument next time.

I'm not a fan of Intense Flames. But most trees have a dud skill here or there. The others are pretty useful--Disintegrate is effectively a huge damage dealer when it activates. Deep Freeze is an effective paralyze. Summon a meat shield, cast it, and run around like an idiot while everything dies/freezes around you. There are a lot of fun ways to play the mage class.

No, you are being illogical. Who EVER said destruction magic should absolutely exist as an ISLAND to be moderately easy to play. There are NO RULES FOR THAT. By your convoluted argument, Restoration should follow the same rule. Alteration as well. Ummmm

Doesn't Disintegrate activate when the target is low on health? If so, you could just cast one or two more thunderbolts to kill them. I've already explained Deep Freeze.

I never said I want Destruction to be easy mode. I want it to be viable without other skills. So far, the entire base argument against me has been "use x skill with Destruction".

Also, you can't use Resto and Alteration as example. They are non-combat magic classes. They're supposed to be used in conjunction with other magics. Destruction, as a offence magic, should be able to be used alone, like Two-Handed. But you can't. It's stunlock and that's it.

I agree. I just love Destruction style magic but it's not very good alone.

It wasn't directed at you, but as you desire, I will give you the asnwer you seek:

The developers provided an in-game method to increase the power of destruction spells, by using alchemy potions to boost the spell power/damage. If a player chooses not to use those, that's a matter of personal choice...but then to claim that the developers should change the game because the player believes he or she is disadvantaged due to what they consider are weak spells is illogical.

The developers have done two things:

They provided a system that gives you stronger spells appropriate to the level of the mage, rather than stronger original spells as the player progresses;

Secondly, they provided alchemy and potion boosts to increase the power of Destruction spells.

If a player chooses to use the early level spark spell, rather than an expert or master level equivalent spell, that's a personal choice.

If a player chooses not to take the Destruction skill damage boosts, that's a personal choice.

If a player chooses not to use alchemy or potions to boost their spell damage or magicka/magicka regen, that's a personal choice.

If a player chooses to use Destruction in isolation, without using other magicka skills, that is a personal choice.

The developers have provided the game with a workable and effective system in relation to Magick, including Destruction magick...if a player chooses not to use or take advantage of the processes designed into the game, and continues to claim they are disadvantaged, then that is a personal problem.

To continue arguments in relation to that personal problem without accepting the logical counter arguments provided, is trolling.

All right then:

Now looking at say, Two Handed weapons, you would say they are balanced, no? No need to use Alchemy to get better power. It's ok, but it's not needed to make the skill have good kill times & such.

Now, with Destruction, on it's own, is rather weak, yes? It needs important perks like Impact to use it effectively, or enemies would simply charge and slaughter you. The problem is, Impact is guaranteed to stagger. We all know stunlock is overpowered. I don't know if it's intentional, but to me it looks as if the devs decided to fix this by nerfing Destruction's power. So now, the system is still broken, except it takes longer to kill the enemy. You have three options to deal with this.

1) Drink Fortify Destruction potions
2) Abuse enchanting
3) Deal with it

Now, lets look at Two Handed again. You dont need to drink fortify potions to use it effectively. You don't need to perk Alchemy to use it effectively. You don't need to abuse enchanting to use it effectively. So, Destruction makes you waste perk points just to get decent kill times, while other skills do not.

So yes, in my view, the player is disadvantaged to other skills when he picks Destruction. It requires all sorts of little stuff just to be good, while others skills don't. It is weaker in plain power then the others.

To sum up my paragraph-thing, Destruction is weak, the other skills are not. I think I may be repeating myself.

You don't need to do a dual-cast, you can actually cast from both hands without activating the impact process and causing stagger.

I think you also miss the point that any melee weapon relying purely on the appropriate skill increase is pretty weak..in fact, it's far weaker than a comparable level spell...which means the melee player is required to improve the weapon using smithing, which equates top the mage using potions.

You also neglect to consider that the melee character has to close with the opponent to physically bash them, meaning you need defensive type skills on top of your weapon and smithing skill...which means you need to invest in the block skill, and the armour skill/s...and that armour skill does have crappy perks that I personally consider unnecessary for my characters...and the same goes for smithing, for example, why should I have to perk elven armour just to knock up some steel plate?

Really? You don't need to dual cast stagger? News to me.

About smithing, I have run some very powerful swordsmen with no smithing or enchanting, as I stated earlier in the thread. You do make a good point about armor skills, however.

The block skill is completely unneeded for my two-handed example, because I don't block.

Perhaps you need to play bit more then if you didn't know that you can cast spells from both hands.

I just never really felt the need to not dual-cast, thank you very much.

I like to role-play my characters. I only use armor/weapons I find or am given. I've never tried Alchemy/Enchanting/Smithing because they don't fit my style and they can be gamebreaking if chosen to. I find my Warrior and Archer to be successful but my Mage who uses robes and focuses on Magicka regeneration isn't as great. He pretty much focuses on Destruction spells and I usually never have anything else in his hands other than casting Mage Armor. I find that he is quite weak and I just wish I could play my mage as a glass cannon. He's the glass but not the cannon. I want the spells to be powerful but I want to die just as easily. I have three options I can either continue to just constantly spam these weak spells and play how I want to and try to enjoy it, I can stun lock spam until they are dead (similar to first option) or I can focus on other trees to make me stronger which is going away from the role-play and enjoyment for me personally.

I think of Alchemy like drugs, the ones that heal or regenerate stamina/magicka are like medicine which brings you back to your original good self. Potions that make you stronger are more like the bad drugs, like taking steroids or something. Those drugs are not your natural self and I feel like that when I play the game. If I was role-playing a character that uses them so be it, but I don't want to be forced to take drugs to make my favorite glass cannon mage a success. I don't want to have to take a potion that makes me more powerful, I want to use my own natural skill and ability to succeed. Drugs are bad.

Yes you could cast one or two more thunderbolts OR have a single disintegrate activate, which kills the target--which does more damage? Wasn't the complaint about "not enough damage?" When it activates it is 200 base damage in a second--very high DPS.

Tell me, Oh God of Logical Arguments, why you should not have to use another Skill Tree to enhance/improve a given Skill Tree? Where, in the annals of Game Design, is such a decree written? Since any similar game with specializations, from Diablo to Dark Age of Camelot to World of Warcraft ALL have synergistic trees that complement (if not improve) each other.

Destruction is perfectly viable without a follower. The damage output from a fully invested destruction tree is great. Having a follower allows a distraction so more spells can be shot off--in other words it allows for a particular *play style*. In addition, one can buy a Summon Spell and not invest in Conjuration, and use that as a meat shield. That's what mages do. They typically use distractions so they can get damage spells off. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T PLAY MAGE! To me it's like someone complaining, "Oh...I'd play an archer class but I hate having to position myself far away from enemies. They are so tiny so far away." If a given class requires a play style that is not to your liking, then don't play that class! I hate stealthing/sneaking around/adding poisons to daggers/stealing/backstabbing so I stay away from assassin-type classes when I play games. I don't spec full assassin and then try to play as a warrior. Or spec assassin, throw daggers and try to play like a DPS mage.

Your reasoning and arguments are completely flawed. You wrote yourself that "The only reason mages are easy are because of reduced magicka costs for XX school and Impact...." Okay. So the only reason why Class XXX obliterates is because of enchantment XXX and Skill Y. Okay, but this can be extended to any class--"The only reason 1 handed warriors are awesome is because of +1 H damage enchantments on gear and Armsman/Savage Strike" And so on. Even so, the build of a 1H warrior will be improved by investing in outside the tree, such as armor/enchanting, etc. Just like destruction mages are improved by investing in skills outside their trees.

If you want to play a dual-wielding thief, and complain that your damage svcks just investing in the "Sneak" tree, then who is the one with the dopey argument?

I am trying to understand your argument but it makes no sense. You want the Destruction skill tree to do what? The spell line does crazy damage, there are skills to invest in to increase the damage, lower the casting cost, and add effects to the spells. Other skill trees can be used to improve the ability to survive. If you are melee class that wants to add a fire spell to your arsenal, *should* you have the capability to do as much damage as a Mage Spec that fully invests in the tree/enchantments/secondary trees? No! If you're a warrior, have no skill points invested in destruction, and try to cast an Incinerate, it *should* take away most if not all of your magicka.

So really, please tell me exactly *why* you think Destruction Damage needs to be improved.

Also, newsflash--you can, but don't need to--use Alchemy to boost Destruction damage. It's not necessary to use Alchemy potions. Destruction does plenty of damage on its own. You *are* aware of creatures' natural resistances to element types, right? If you're trying to Incinerate a fire elder dragon, you're doing it wrong. I don't know, I've only played 160 hours of Skyrim as a mage. It's a ton of fun and destruction does plenty of damage. If anything, it can be toned down a little for more interesting fights.

If you like roleplaying so much, have you completed the Mage College quest line? You get awesome gear that makes you very viable. I did not start enchanting my gear until I hit 100 destruction but only did it to optimize my character--something that you're opposed to doing. Not necessary to do, but something I enjoyed.

Although, I guess if someone wants to go through the game and say "I want my roleplay my character to only use unarmed combat and no armor, kind of like a monk" and then they are disappointed they die too much and can't kill anything.......isn't it reasonable to be flexible in roleplaying decisions? Skyrim is plenty flexible, but certainly some builds will work better than others.

Well, here we go.

The reason said 200 DPS (where'd you get this stat?) is useless is that you would kill the target anyways. So it is quite pointless.

It is perfectly reasonable to be able to increase your damage in a area. However, you practically HAVE so use Alchemy and Enchant abuse to use Destruction with good kill times. Shouldn't I be able to not use Alchemy while using Destruction? After all, TES is a game of choice.

I quite disagree with the "good damage output" of Destruction you claim. With 100 Destruction, it takes me 20 Incinerates to kill an Ancient Frost Dragon. 20. A bit excessive, don't you think?

I did none of this distraction stuff, it interests me.

Also, your point about One-handed warriors being viable only because of enchantments is untrue. For the third time I do repeat, i have used both One-Handed and Two-Handed builds with no Enchanting or Smithing. Regarding Impact, it is quite different from the perks you listed. Impact makes the enemies just sit there, stunlocked. The perks you listed decrease kill-times, while Impact does not. And yes, it is good to expand out of one tree, but as I've stated ad infinum, Destruction's kill times are laughable without fortify potions. It is practically needed to enjoy the skill, IMO, while you don't need Smithing/Enchanting to make an effective warrior.

In short, I want the damage increase perks to be gone, and actual level scaling introduced, and Impact stagger chance reduced to 15% It needs to be increased because it relies on Alchemy to be effective, while the Sword skills don't need to.


As I said before, 20 Incinerates, my friend.

Agreed, we should never need another skill to make another skill useful. Not sure why people cannot grasp this, destruction should be useful as is, but no we have to use enchanting or alchemy for it to be truly useful. I think a lot of us know alchemy can boost destruction, but in Skyrim we boost destruction to make it useful. We use to boost to supplement it and increase its power, now ii ta boosted to make it valuable.

Again this is complete BS logic...

You have no build options for buffing destruction damage in relation to your mana pool except Alchemy and that is the problem. So again, your typical mage in reality buffs life instead of mana, and opts for mana reduction gear since alchemy is not a magic skill and enchantment is.

That is not a fun way to play.

eg: There is absolutely no way to make a glass canon mage, only a way to make a mage who runs out of life before mana. (because you always do the same amount of damage with destruction)

Got a bit to go over here, and this is before I reach the second page. Here goes.


Invisibility is a fairly high-level spell, yes, but remember that the given build uses Alchemy That, and there's the Shadow stone, as well as generally sticking to dark areas and staying out of the line of sight.

Muffle is also a fairly low-level spell (you could get it by the time you get to Dragonsreach), and as long as enemies can't hear you, you can sneak fine. Also, as a Stealth Mage, your Sneak level is going to go up pretty well despite not investing in it. I encourage you to try it; Sneak isn't really needed in this build


LOL, you made that post with the purpose to argue

I don't know where you got that nonsense from, but I'm not going to read or reply to your posts any more. Please cease posting on this thread and please don't give me a reason to report you; I'd rather not get this topic locked, as I feel that Destro/Alchemy is a pretty cool thing to discuss (which, by the way, is why I really made this thread).


Then we agree. Why are you speaking as if you disagree?


Lots of this.


I think you missed the part when Gungho1 said "an argument based on 'But I don't want to do that' in reference to a design aspect of the game which achieves what someone is actually arguing for, is not a valid argument...it's illogical."

Sounds to me like the poster told you exactly why your argument is invalid. "I don't want to do that" is in no way a valid argument to conclude that doing something is bad, wrong, or inefficient.

Okay, I've reached the second page. I've got to say, I'm pretty disappointed in you folks

This wasn't supposed to be a thread about Destruction compared to other skills, or some foolhardy thought that Destruction is underpowered because it alone is not as damaging as several other skills put together.

[And on that note, Destruction is, by the way, the single most damaging offensive skill in the game (out of four offensive skills, the other three being One Handed, Two Handed and Archery). Given a fully perked tree and expert/master spells, Destruction outdamages, both in terms of damage-per-hit and DPS, any unsmitthed, unenchanted Deadric weapon with a fully perked tree in its discipline. Destruction > One handed (or Two Handed or Archery), but One Handed + Enchanting + Smithing + Sneak > Destruction. And in case you forgot, Destruction isn't just about offensive damage, but tactics and defense, hence runes, walls, cloaks and gout spells.]

Anyway, this topic is about how cool it is to put Destruction and Alchemy together, and how obscenely powerful a mage can be given something like Pickpocket to add to that without even using Sneak. This is not about how butthurt you guys are that Destruction alone does not make you a glass cannon on Master difficulty, and I would like to keep it that way. In fact, last I checked, you guys were supposed to be posting feedback and criticisms on my thoughts and discussing them as well as your own ideas, not bickering amongst yourselves about how the only valid opinion in all the forums is that DESTRUCTION BAD.

You assume that a destruction mage should spell down everything they face before they get killed...You also forget to account for the six damage increase perks in destruction, and that every other build faces the same problem...or do you believe that a destruction mage should only wear non-armour clothes, and shouldn't use defensive skills like a shield and block?

Don't even bother You're arguing with someone who is literally saying that people have to play a certain way.

However, he never provided reason why it should be so that you must use Alchemy to achieve a half-way decent Destruction power, and instead just pointed out a technicality.

Also, for someone who apparently wants to "keep on topic", you seem to like to make jabs at my and other's arguments and then not provide any sort of reason.

Please be more mature.