That's not really the problem he is saying here. In fact, that would likely be the opposite of what the OP wants. He's saying that for several skills the levels just seem to be a requirement for the perks.

Tying skills to perks more would just exacerbate the problem.

I wish the picture you paint were right, but in my case I have a lv 54 character that is going to have to start shooting a bow and blacksmithing in order to get master level magic perks once I max out conjuration and destruction (in 2 levels).

So the way it's working out is that leveling skills is functioning as paying for the ticket to my next skill point. My character build is essentially based on the Spellsword class in oblivion, and sneak, with only 3 skill points in it, and 1-handed sword with 5, are both maxed. Luckily I've already gotten all the perks I want out of those skills, but now I have to do a bunch of stuff I would not be doing if not for the fact that I need the skill points to keep building up my magic.

From a roleplaying perspective it's pretty weird. Mind you, I definitely feel like OP's desired balance of emphasis on Skills over perks would lead to god characters, the current system doesn't make as much sense for "multiclass" characters.

I could see a change, but not to 50%. You'd still be able to be 100% effective something, and 50% effective everything else. Some adjustment could work though- maybe 80-20.

Besides, MANY of the skills really AREN'T dependent on perks.
-Heavy/Light Armor- most people can get it maxed without any perks.
-All the magic schools, or at least most of them. The real power comes from which spells you can get, which is determined solely by your skill level.
-Pickpocket, only thing perks get you is "cool" abilities. It has essentially no effect on your ability to succeed.
-Sneak, a player with 100 in sneak is almost impervious to detection without a single perk. The perks are only useful for the +damage perks, which is only needed for a thief/assassin type character. If you just want sneak to get by (or close to enemies) unseen, you don't need them.

If you think about it, it's really just weapon skills (1 hand, 2 hand, and archery) and crafting where perks really make a huge difference in the usefulness of the skill.

Personally I like the design change and that perks have alot of power, especially since perks are limited. It results in character builds that are unique instead of generic 100 skill maxed charaters like TES games in the past. In Skyrim you could have two characters with the same skills @ 100 and they can be totally different. Plus perk selections adds some thought and planning to the game.

Simply put, the point of perks is to create an opportunity cost. IRL, it's pretty difficult to be great at everything because it requires time, money, etc. If you do one particular thing, it's going to take away the opportunity to do something else. Think about your career choice or your hobbies. You have had to make choices to do certain things that prevent you from doing (and becoming good at) other things. Perks force you to make choices that will result in a character that varies in abilities from someone else's character; otherwise, every character would reach the same endpoint--with the ability to be great in everything.

I wouldn't say that. With Destruction, you really want those extra damage perks. The dual-casting perks, the reduced-cost perks, the impact perk, etc, are all quite useful if you're relying on Destruction magic. Haven't really explored the other magic schools, but you really do want to invest in some of those perks as you level.

Skyrim has flaws. I am however sick of the constant whinging. It's flipping boring.

I'm pretty sure the whole point of the perks system, and the removal of classes, was so that you could play any/all character-builds with one character... except it totally backfired, because there's no way you can roleplay as an actually powerful jack-of-all-trades without using a ridiculous amount of perks to get there.

Edit: The actual point was so you could effectively change classes mid-game, except by that point you'd have already wasted a huge amount of perks on something else.

Uh, explain that. You just said that you can't roleplay a powerful character because to do it, you have to become powerful

I said you couldn't become a really powerful jack of all trades. If you wanted to be powerful at every type of combat, for example, you'd have to level up a ridiculous amount to get all the high-level perks for all the skills. In effect, they're limiting your ability to obtain god-like powers, just as they did by removing spell crafting, acrobatics, etc. Of course, if they wanted to limit your ability to do that, then why did the include the incredibly overpowered smithing/enchanting skills? Senseless.

You seem to be describing 'master of all trades' now

Oh please. You knew what I meant.

Why is that a problem?

Because in effect, you can take any [censored] weapon and make it into a legendary tool of destruction if you so choose to.

Agreed... in that I don't like perks.


Nazeem.

are you sure i dont think thats correct ive been decapped by a bandit leader that requires a perk...

Skill appears to accomplish what it is meant to accomplish, so it is a success, not a failure. Perks are useful, and skill alone allows you to have perks, so skill cannot be borderline useless.

Nope, just the opposite in fact, as simple logic dictates. The point is to encourage specialization, since you only have a limited number of perks. So even though you could max out all skills, the perks are what make them powerful, and there's not enough of them to fill out more than a few skills.

The idea was perfect. You can be a Jack-of-all-Trades (ie, decent at a wide range of skills). Or you can be a master of a select few skills, and poor at the rest. It gives a reason to specialize, since specializing will make you more powerful in certain skills than if you try to spread yourself out over all skills. It avoids all characters gravitating towards Master-of-All when at high levels.

It also gave you the flexibility to try various class styles early on, without risk of ruining a character because of a few "bad" perk choices, and to let you naturally fit into a desired class role as you play (a few misplaced perks won't really harm your character in the long run). It was never designed to let you play any and all character types, or to switch half-way through... if it was, then perks wouldn't have been so limited, and if perks were unlimited (or re-selectable), then it wouldn't have been terribly different from Oblivion's skill leveling.


The only fault, really, is that some perks could be better designed and less superfluous. But overall, it does the job its designed to do pretty admirably.

Exactly, you could get 100 in everything and be super god robo jesus.

Completely agree. I love the freedom or trying skills around but at the same time having to eventually specialize in 3 to 6 or 7 skills. I love the perks as a system, although some particular ones I could do without.

There's nothing wrong with that. You could flip burgers all your life at McDonald's, you'd be pretty good at it, but it wouldn't mean you would be able to run a great Parisian restaurant. To run a four star Parisian restaurant you'd have to try out recipes, perfect them, experiment, etc. This is were the perks come in. You don't gain cooking skills by flipping burgers all your life.

Ehm, no. To make perfect sense you'd have to up the challenge as well also to gain the skill, when your skill is already high. The perks are just what you specialize in. The burger flipping example, on skill 25 you'd gain only half the experience from doing it. From 40, only a quarter. From 50 onwards, you just don't gain anymore experience from doing it - your skill can improve no more from doing this over and over. To gain further from practice, you have to up the challenge and start preparing better meals. So you specialize in what kind of meal (bakery vs cooking), and you have to do this over and over to reach the next cap. If you don't want to put perks in it to gain the experience, then pay for the training.