I love the balance argument.

Yes assassins are extremely strong, especially with the 30x perk (well all of sneak) and one handed skill. And if combined with smithing its just OP.

But ppl who use these skills should be aware of this, would be just as easy to build a 0% cost destruction Mage who stun kills everything. Or glitch alchemy and smithing to create god like weapons.

The point of a RP game is to build the character you want, I people want to be god like then you know what to do, your choice.

But why should the developer punish those that don't want to adopt this approach? Why should I be forced to abuse crafting skills just to keep up with AI et cetra.

Balance is not the issue, how one chooses to play the game is.

I disagree

First time you play a game, it's a learning process. If I found myself halfway through a game and it's either too difficult or too cheesy without it having provided hints at the fact that my character development was wrong, then it's an issue.

This is the reason why I'm again level scaling in RPGs. In a 'static' world, you can always find yourself facing enemies above your level against whom you can check how your character progression is going, what are your weaknesses and your strengths. Ina world where everything scales to your level you're not aware of your character development is going until you hit a wall or, if you're lucky, everything is fine, maybe too fine.

If a game forces me to artificially gimp myself or to raise/lower the difficulty level then it's clearly unbalanced and I've to compensate for its poorly implemented mechanics.

Because as it stands you don't have to "keep up with the AI." It never gets any smarter, and aside from the classes the enemies come in, there isn't really any different programing for any of the enemies:

All aggressive animals charge you and try and eat you
All warriors, Stormcloaks, Imperials, Bandits, Forsworn, and Draugr that aren't archers run at you and try and smack ya on the head.
All mages run away from you while pelting you with spells

And that's it. You never see a Stormcloak soldier who's more defensive minded and is blocking more than her shield-brother. You don't see mages throwing runes at the floor to stall you. Thieves and Assassins don't even sneak for the love of all things, they sprint right at you like a Beserker. Why would they do that?

Overall, I think the AI needs to be improved, but there's more to the problem than that. Enemies should have access to perks too. This could add to the uniqueness of fights by having random generators determining what perks the enemy has which also configures a bit into what class they have and how they'll behave in battle. Also, having enemies (especially the Falmer) capable of sneaking would be brilliant. I swear the first time I found myself in a Falmer den I was staring up at the ceiling have the time convinced they'd be climbing up there. Too bad they can't do that, it'd really add to the creepy factor of them.

No it's not. Slitting someone's throat with a tiny dagger is realistic, silently kill someone with a 50-kilogram warhammer is not.

It can apply to dragons too, an assassin might find a weak spot where he can get beneath the dragon's thick hide and kill it with a single stab.

This complaint should be directed against Smithing, not Sneak or daggers.

Why do you have a problem with daggers? If the daggers weren't as useful for stealth attacks, there would have been almost no reason to use them.

I think backstab is well implemented - I think it's great you can actually sneak up on somebody and slit their throat without the low base damage of daggers stopping you. It makes assassin builds viable and it's realistic - as that other poster said, far more realistic than sneaking up on them with a massive warhammer - which you'd be doing without the dagger specific damage bonuses. Personally, I find it really rare to be able to sneak up on a dragon so I can live with that.
I think the problem is that "backstab" should mean "backstab". It gets a bit much when you're crouched in front of people stabbing through their armour or can do that ridiculous go invisible by crouching in the middle of a fight. Stealth kills should be orientated to staying out of fields of vision and and sneak only ever work face on at a distance, a bit closer if it's dark.
I think creatures like bears should be seriously difficult to sneak up on as they should be able to smell you. I realise it's a fantasy world, but I believe bears have a more powerful sense of smell than dogs.

I think that's a great idea. Imagine the tension of being in a dark ruin with crouched Falmer trying to silently sneak up behind you! If the AI was able to use a more sneaky approach it would be a massive improvement to the game.
I also really like the perks idea, though I suspect that would precipitate "not fair! that bandit could do X and I died! This game is rubbish!"

It's not unrealistic. Not if you sneak up behind someone and shove something sharp into his throat or cut it open the right way. He probably won't die instantly, but he will be too busy dying to be much of an issue. No need to use a fancy legendary artifact either, a sharpened stick or a kitchen knife might do the trick. Though I will admit that stabbing a dragon in it's tail with a dagger shouldn't be enough to kill it, but then, not everything about dragonfighting is all that realistic. Like how it can't bite you to death until you're low enough on health (I have the finishing move in mind, it would be more realistic had it been able to do that outright).

And funny that you mention 2-handed weapons like warhammers when speaking of realism, since their design is more immersion-breaking in that regard than having someone die when you cut his throat open. The guy on the right in this pic carries a historical 2-handed warhammer rather than a fantasy one http://i28.tinypic.com/23ma9h4.png. Compare it's size to the ones you find in game (or if you feel like seeing a greater difference, look at the warhammers of Oblivion). It doesn't stop at warhammers either, other weapons are a bit beefed up too. This, for instance, is the head of a Dane axe, ie one of the larger axes around (in reality) and which was a 2-handed weapon. http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3066/2353904300_dc1a76e9d0_z.jpg Compare it's size and thickness with the axes you find in Skyrim (or once again, worse, with the ones in Oblivion) Or the bardiche: http://gormelia.cz/images_items/bardiche-two-handed-war-axe_2.jpg / http://www.vampires.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Bardiche.jpg. There's also the 2-handed swords that, if you assume that the weight unit used is pounds, are pretty damn heavy. The lightest 2-handed sword in the game is then a few pounds heavier than the heaviest historical 2-handers I've read about (on the top of my head, at least, and some of those have been a bit heavier since they were ornamental parade weapons and utility wasn't prioritized as much), not to mention the difference when you start comparing more common sword weights with the heavier swords in Skyrim (if the weight is really counted in pounds, of course). There are other things one could bring up too, but I think it's enough for now. And I won't get into game-balancing in itself at all.

Tolkien, the grand-pappy of all things fantasy, including RPGs that derived from the genre, wrote a book called "The Hobbit", which I'm sure you are all well aware. Bilbo infiltrated the dragon's lair to do what? Find a chink in the dragon's armor. What was the final result of finding out that information? An archer firing an arrow into the soft, unprotected flesh... one-shotting the dragon. If the patriarch of fantasy lore allows for the one-shotting of a dragon with a simple arrow, I don't understand how so many people can consider it impossible and unrealistic to one-shot a dragon with any other weapon. It's also interesting to note that Bilbo was considered a thief and he managed finding the weakness in the dragon's armor by stealth and wit... something you'd hope a master assassin would be able to use himself.

Don't start writing your own vampire rules that contradict those of the original rule-writer. It's fantasy, and you're applying a set of rules that restrict it in a way it was never intended to be restricted.

A well placed scratch from a poisoned dagger is a lot more effective in causing quick death than a misplaced sword strike.

If you don't like how your character is performing in the game, make a different character.

If a Perk or Skill is doing too much for you or too little for you, pick different skills and perks.

If the weapons are doing too much or too little for you, get a different weapon.

If you want to make a uber character that still gets his butt kicked in a fight, then find a different game.

i remember in the old AD&D second edition how a lvl 20 fighter wanted to commit suicide with a 1D 4 damage dagger
now that is ridicilous

I understand your point.

But for everyone like you there is another person out there who thinks lvling skills should mean they get stronger, to the point where they are god like (I'm the dragonborne after all).

Its hard for a game to be all things to all people which is why I believe RP is important, and your choice of skill.

Anyways I've over a dozen characters, I rarely get into lvl +40 so hitting 100 in a skill and being massively OP doesn't apply to me.

Here is a thought, don't sneak up to stab someone in the back with a dagger, and don't get the perk to increase the damage?

You are not forced to use it, so don't use it.

Personally, the instant I heard there was a pair of gloves that gave an additional x15 backstab bonus (on top of the perk), I rolled my eyes and put it in the same category as Fallout 3's Chinese Stealth Suit & Railgun, and Oblivion's "full chameleon" suit - sounds overpowered, which is boring as heck, no need to ever bother with that.

Wait Wait Wait...

How can you shoot somebody with a dagger?

This.

I don't care if you have an Abrams tank for a character, if someone slits your character's throat with a surprise attack, then that character should die. the 15x multiplier for a Sneak Attack is very realistic with what would really happen in that scenario.

Of course it bypasses the Armor Rating, you're making a strike straight to the throat. And unlike any other type of combat, your enemy has/had no idea that you were there. In a typical combat, the Armor Rating comes into play because your enemy is aware of you and can maneuver so that their armor takes the brunt of any hits. In a Sneak Attack, it makes perfect sense that you can have a one-hit kill with a Dagger, and on almost any enemy.

And lets not forget the fact that Assassin's, by their chosen trade, are supposed to be just that lethal. It's the whole point to an Assassin build.

This is why Assassin's are feared, kiddos.

Right.


I always try to make my characters as powerful as possible as fast as possible. Once I get to a point where they're just rolling over everything on Master, I start a new one.

However, I do see a general point the OP is making. It's not really about being able to manufacture a single weapon to become ridiculously overpowered, it's about the overall difficulty of the game. Once your character gets to around 50+ on any difficulty level, the competitive phase of the game is over. At that point you're just taking revenge on everything that killed you at lower levels. Even Bethesda says that the game is more fun below level 50. To my mind, that says that something's wrong with the game.

I would prefer a system where it's essential max out one or more of the crafting skills in order to survive at higher levels. The shame of it is, is that it could have been done. A lot of people want all kinds of things to have been put in the game without regard for the limits of technology, but this isn't one of them.

There has always been a level where this happens in a TES game. In Morrowind, it was level 25. In every game in this series, once a powerful character reaches a certain point, the combat challenges diminish. But, they should diminish for a powerful character. If a person wants a challenge at a high level, they have to build a different kind of character.

If you want a challenge in this game for a powerful character, then only use low to mid level characters, because that is what the game is designed for. TES is not about combat, it is about immersing yourself in a world and exploring it. Combat is just something that can happen along the way, but is not required to complete the story, except in some cases. Or, you can build a weaker character that will have challenges in combat up to the Level Max.

Assassin's Creed anyone? I think when you slit someone's throat they die pretty quick

That's a valid playstyle, but it's not the only one. (Seems pretty boring to me, but that's just opinion.)


Games that require "maxing out" in order to succeed are a different style. I've never known a Bethesda game to be like that - it's just not the type of games they make. (And personally, I'm glad - I'm not that type of gamer. I have a good bit of trouble playing "gotta min-max" games, because I don't naturally do that when I play games. I end up having to find guides, or just don't do well at the games and stop playing them because I'm not enjoying myself.)

Luckily, there are games catering to different types of play and different players. But not every game will satisfy every player/playstyle.

(tl;dr - Bethesda doesn't make Demons Souls-type games. They just don't.)

But then there would be no freedom in the game if i was FORCED to max out a skill that did not fit my character

Being crazy awesome/invincible at high levels is just a feature of the elder scroll franchise. If anything you actually can't become quite as ridiculous in this game because of the armor and resistance caps as you could in the past. Before you could make silly things like 100% reflect physical/magic damage, fly insanely fast forever, 100% sanctuary (permanent dodging of every attack), 100% chameleon (permanent invisibility).

I remember the end game of every character I made in morrowind and oblivion being completely over the top invincible one shoting everything with my super gear/spells having mastered every single skill. One shotting dragons in skyrim with a dagger is what toned down looks like.

In all seriousness though there are perks like speech, pickpocket, lock pick, destruction, alteration ect ect that I feel a lot of people ignore because it does crappy/no damage and I like that you can take some of the more powerful perks in stronger trees and because your strong enough to do good damage from just that tree you have perks freed up to put points in non-combat skills. Seriously folks you dont need to max enchant AND smith but you can max one of them and speech and have a character plenty strong to finish the game with a more expanded play style. Powerful perks give you the freedom to spread out in different skills. Don't spend every perk making your weapon of choice stronger and then be surprised when your weapon is too strong.

But your thread is titled 'one shotting anything with a dagger is ridiculous' not 'one shotting a dragon with a dagger is ridiculous' so using one shotting dragons as an argument against dagger one shotting anything is a bit off.

Yes, because if he was one hit killing a Cave Bear, then he would have an over powered character.....

OK OK fair enough, but people were defending the one shot stealth killing by using NPS's as an example then he pulls out dragons to say daggers are overpowered, but I get your point. Perhaps the one shot stealth kill should only apply to humanoids?