I'll start with some examples taken straight from the game -

"Bound Weapons deal more damage"
That's great, how much more damage?

"Greater duration for reanimated undead"
.....how much more duration?

"Calm spells now work on higher level opponents. Cumulative with Kindred Mage and Animage."
Awesome, but how many levels higher? How do I even tell what level an opponent is?


Considering for console players, that can't conveniently alt tab and google this stuff, and also can't even remove perks, so much lack of information is pretty lame. These aren't exceptions either, there are many more perks that just don't tell you what you're actually getting.

The third example is especially bad, since you don't even know when your spell will work and when it won't. Considering calm spells cost a fair amount of magicka, and if they fail will alert enemies to your presence.....it's not so great.


I don't think I need to explain too much why this is just bad design.

This is more or less an opinion on playstyle. Personally, I like the realism that the uncertaintly causes--mostly. I think eating items to determine properties is unintuitive (and dangerous IRL, if some child gets his hands on the game and then decides to experiment with mushrooms growing in his back yard.)

I like it. Much as I enjoy having no "Breath" meter whenever I am underground. Also, Perks investing is completely OPTIONAL. You can always save, get your smartphone or PC out and google this information.

I don't see how this kind of uncertainty adds any realism or has anything to do with playstyle, it's mostly under the table kind of stuff. You don't choose perks IRL at all so it just doesn't seem like a part of the game realism is relevant to.

Yeah... your title says it all, couldn't have said it better myself.

Would be nice if we had the OPTION of having complete information in game though, wouldn't it?

Amen. Uncertainty in stats, that's like exploration but on a different level.

I like it as it gets away from number crunching. I play The Elder Scrolls for the immersion options, and I think they above everyone do the best job at "open world". I don't want to tweak my character min/max style. If my character is great at Illusion magic I don't care how much higher the monster are that I can calm, or what level they actually are, just that my Master Illusionist can accomplish that.

I see this as a decision between hand-holding and figure it out for yourself. Save and invest into a perk, see how long a conjured Atronach will last. I don't want everything spelled out for me in-game. I enjoy ambiguity at times, especially in a TES game.

But I sound like a raving defender so I will say having the option to have complete information regarding a perk is desirable.

It must be some design choice this time around to restrict the user from knowing numbers or useful information. January isn't much further away.

Having to save and test everything just adds a ton of tedium and frustration. It's got nothing to do with hand holding really.

Like I said. I play this game purely for immersion and the journey, detailed stats, explanation and the like is not something I desire. But I will vote if we had the option to suit both parties. I am, however for more information regarding food BEFORE consumption.

Natural selection. The world wouldn't be overcrowded.

Thank agreed.

Obvious sarcasm.

Perks IRL would be my fields of interest that I invest time in along with any serious hobbies. If I could use magic IRL I wouldn't be able to tell at a glance what I could or couldn't do to someone.

Not arguing, I see your point. You prefer to know exactly and it's a valid point to want to know the details. RPG players in general tend to like hard figures ((Happily reminisces about the tables in the back of the Baldur's Gate manuals. ))

Yet you don't know the target level to begin with. What good is knowing the modified level your spell effects?

I don't know of too many RPGs that blatantly give out the level of enemies to the players.

Would be easier if the developers were straightforward about the perks.
Never liked talents or perks systems where a vague description is given.

For calm/frenzy I'd rather see a random chance, with guaranteed success for creatures x levels below you, and guaranteed failure for creatures y levels above you (and 100% fail for bosses.)

I think the only odd thing is the inconsistancy. In some places, they give you straight numbers. Like, enchantments tell you exactly how much % they improve things. And scrolls of Calm/Fury/repel undead say what level they work on..... but, as mentioned, you've no idea what level your enemies are. So those numbers are semi worthless. And some perks give %, some just say "more".


Pick one way, or the other. But don't just randomly vary between them.

Your RL perk tree must be broken. I have been putting points into sarcastic responses for the last 15 years -- I've almost peaked.

Yeah, more specifies numbers for a lot of the perks would be great.

I've found that simply running around crushing things with my hammer seems to work pretty well. I don't sweat all of that small stuff.

I don't know of too many RPG's that don't display enemy levels.

How many RPGs give you spells that only work on enemies below a certain level and don't tell you what level your enemies are?


I understand the Illusion spells need to be balanced somehow, but they should have done it differently than just making it level dependent. Maybe make them channeled, and you have to channel for X seconds per level of an enemy. Would be a better balancing method than just having them simply work completely or do absolutely nothing.