Skyrim's perks and perk tree designs are just really, really : V - Skyrim

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:10 am

Just like someone else has already said, the perk/skill system as is was a very good decision... that was implemented wrongly in some parts.
There are trees that are way too useful (Smithing) and trees that are way too useless (Lockpicking). Similarly, there are trees that have a lot crammed in them (sneak has some acrobatics in it, heavy armor unarmed) and others that are stretched too thin (like lockpicking and pickpocketing). They could easily have organised it better (Pickpocket and lockpicking should honestly be in the same "thievery" tree, acrobatics/athletic/unarmed should be in another one etc Most trees are fine in that aspect though)

Also, the fact that most tree have a big universal % at the bottom is not bad, but it certainly is... uninspired. Plus it kinda makes the trees a bit more than simple perk trees - not bad, again, but not really ideal either.
Imho, they should take out those %s in the tree bases, along with the cost reductions in magic trees, and replace them with more specific perk, such as the crit on swords or the reflect in heav armors. And tie that percentage with the skill level (something like +1-1.5% rating per skill level, instead of the 0-0.5% we have now). Wouldn't necessarily make it better, but it would most probably make it more interesting. It would also allow for the better character customisation that many feel this game lacks in comparison to real RPGs.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:21 am

Yes, really. Makes sense to me. Open your mind and stop being so critical.

Telling people to open their minds and then having a username like that...
There is so much annoyance building up right now... But I guess I just need to breathe in.... breathe out.... [censored] idiot... breathe in, breathe out...

Personally I love Skyrim, but to just go: "hurrrrrr this thread svcks, open your mind HURRRRR" is pretty obnoxious.

I agree totally with the fact lockpicking perks are not only useless, but because of the level scaling they are actually HARMFUL...

So the one who needs to open his mind is YOU!

Lockpicking perks are not only useless, they even MAKE YOUR CHARACTER WEAKER...

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT????

The fact is that you can open every lock without ever needing to put perks into lockpicking...
And it isn't that hard, I need around 10 lockpics for a master lock, but I never got stuck on them.
I just need to remember to have them and or buy them...

People that fail to realize lockpicking is useless are really, in my honest opinion, a little less intelligent than normal people...
Because not only is it useless, investing in it makes your character weaker... (level scaling)

» Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:37 pm

I agree with the poster. The prerequisites often don't make much sense. You end up buying some perks merely to get the one you actually want further up the tree. Smithing is ok, but Heavy Armor seems particularly difficult to understand why some are prerequisites of others.

Were I able to suggest an improvement, I'd make many of the perks automatic based on a given skill level and then leave a few in each tree which you could pick, none of which had prerequisities. At the least it would make the trees much smaller.

I would also suggest the ability to retrain -- to remove a perk that turns out to be useless (some are even counterproductive once you try it) and allow you to reselect your perks. Maybe this could be allowed on a limited basis -- one reallocated perk per 5 levels or something.

That is what I'd like for the NEXT game anyway.

when i read "counterproductive perk" i think of how i had to reload after selecting "quick reflexes" in the block tree...sounded kind of cool, but its actually REALLY annoying and makes melee combat svck. Slowing down every other hit, really just screws up the pace of melee skirmishes. I feel like ive got plenty of time to react to a power attack without it.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:51 am

I challenge anyone who disagrees to seriously look at their build and see if they can argue that more than half their perks aren't just filler that makes a skill viable by just reducing spell cost or increasing damage/effectiveness numerically.

This was my last build
http://chrizel.github.com/skyrim/#t/1/h9s0sg,-8vmyzm,m73j0g,54,0,29s6bk,24og,0
49 perks
8/10 in Illusion are filler (Quiet casting, master of the mind only good ones)
8/9 in Conjuration are filler (mystic binding only good one and that's arguable since bound weapons svck without it)
3/4 in Restoration are filler (Respite only good one)
8/8 in Enchanting are filler
2/2 in Smithing are filler
5/7 in Archery are filler (Eagle eye, power shot only good ones)
6/6 in Light Armor are filler
2/3 in Sneak are filler (Deadly Aim is the only reason I took the first two)

So only 7 out of my 49 perks are doing something that actually makes my character more interesting, the rest are just making the skills they're tied to work at higher levels.

Might as well not have called them perks.

If they called them bonuses or specializations or improvements, would you be happier?

It's not a fair criticism to just say that the first X perks of a skill is filler because all you want is the top one. Well, duh. That's like saying that the first 99 levels of a skill are useless because all you want is the 100th. If you want to be more honest about it, then just say that every character gets 4 perks. And each perk unlocks the entire tree of one skill. Alright. Fine. Is that better? Obviously not. At least here you can choose to stop once you get to a level that you're interested in.

The changeover to perks from major/minor skills was the best change in Skyrim. The major/minor skill system svcked. It didn't work. It made the mechanics of leveling stupid. And the major/minor skill didn't affect anything other than how fast you leveled in those skills and overall. It didn't give you special abilities in those skills. With the perk system you avoid the, "master of all" that you got out of the previous TES games while still giving the ability of choice.

Could they be more interesting? Sure. Are there some perks that are useless as a normal player? Sure. Does that mean that the system as a whole, and even the overall implementation here, svcks? No.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:29 am

It makes sense to you...

You pick Light Armor so you can run faster, move quieter, but can't take as much damage.

You pick Heavy Armor so you can take much more damage, but you can't run faster or move quieter.

I take a Perk in Heavy Armor that makes Heavy Armor Weightless, so I can run fine and not be burdened.

What's the point of ever picking Light Armor if I can make Heavy Armor just as light as Light Armor with the same, or better, protection?

You can specialize in either and have the 'Conditioning' perk, albeit the light armor version is un-lockable at an earlier level (30-35 I think), you're still required to level up to improve your armor rating, even though you then have an enhanced ability to move faster and carry more as well as sneak about.

On heavy armor you have to wait until level 70-80 to get the 'Conditioning' perk. So by then you've already got a high armor rating at the expense of spending most of the time with a rubbish carrying capacity, slow move speed and no sneak potential.

I know you only aimed to use armor as an example but there's an example of the perk system having been thought out.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:26 pm

Couldn't agree with you more OP. The perks in Skyrim aren't perks at all. They're a substitute for the skills themselves. Which also serves to make it a more level based system rather than the skill based system it used to be. Someone with 100 skill in one handed and no +damage perks does less damage than someone with 25 skill with one of the +damage perks. That is frelling [censored].

Yup - and that screws the whole system. Perks should have been used to attach extra effects, not implemented as a substitute for the skills. Bethesda might as well have called them "feats".

» Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:55 pm

If they called them bonuses or specializations or improvements, would you be happier?

I'd still want something like perks, as I liked them a lot as implemented in Fallout. They're a more meaningful sort of character customization than % based boosts to skill effectiveness and so on.

It's not a fair criticism to just say that the first X perks of a skill is filler because all you want is the top one. Well, duh. That's like saying that the first 99 levels of a skill are useless because all you want is the 100th. If you want to be more honest about it, then just say that every character gets 4 perks. And each perk unlocks the entire tree of one skill. Alright. Fine. Is that better? Obviously not. At least here you can choose to stop once you get to a level that you're interested in.

This isn't a fair criticism of my criticism. I called many perks "filler" not because they were prerequisites, but because the redundant nature of them(they just do what skill values did in previous titles) suggests they were just trying to fill up a perk tree rather than trying to make each individual perk interesting on its own and/or balanced in the scheme of things. I've already said I'm fine with prerequisites. However prerequisites in Fallout were not made obsolete by the perks you got them as a prereq for like many in Skyrim do.

The changeover to perks from major/minor skills was the best change in Skyrim. The major/minor skill system svcked. It didn't work. It made the mechanics of leveling stupid. And the major/minor skill didn't affect anything other than how fast you leveled in those skills and overall. It didn't give you special abilities in those skills. With the perk system you avoid the, "master of all" that you got out of the previous TES games while still giving the ability of choice.

Could they be more interesting? Sure. Are there some perks that are useless as a normal player? Sure. Does that mean that the system as a whole, and even the overall implementation here, svcks? No.

Mostly agree with you here, but I do think the overall implementation svcks. I can easily grant you it's better than Oblivion, but I think Fallout's perks and perk system were much better.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:25 am

I hate the perk system in Skyrim. It's not exciting to level up as Todd Howard said...

I really loved the level up system in Gothic 3. It basically went like this: When you level up, you gain 5 "learning points" (Not 100 % sure if that's what they were called), and you'd use these points as a currency (along with in-game gold) to unlock a new skill like for example "orc-slayer" which basically gave you a 30 % damage boost vs orcs. There were of course requirements to these skills like "orc-slayer" required 25 in strength (which you can increase with learning points, or by doing quests like fighting in the arena). The cool thing was that certain weapons gave you skills, like the "orc-slayer" I mentioned (but only if you used them).

Loved that system. I did like Gothic 3 too, with the community patch, which made it easily one of my top 5 RPG's of all time.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:50 am

The perk trees are a way of giving your character a 'class' as you can't just select one anymore. In that respect I think they work well, as they help define what our 'major skills' are. As for lockpicking, the perks are only useless because the fallout lockpicking system is implemented, which is better, but much easier than oblivion's. If lockpicking was the same as it was in oblivion, the perks -would- be useful. And with regards to fallout's perk system, it is much better suited to a character that just does whatever, not a specialised warrior/mage/thief ect, which would'nt work in Skyrim because it (and all previous TES games) focus a lot more on giving your character a lot more depth. In fallout you were just a guy with a gun, and there was very little variability, but in Skyrim you have so many more options, and the perk trees make you improve the skills that best suit your character in order to get the best perks, rather than just picking them out of a list like in fallout.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:46 pm

And just what the hell is a "meaningful choice" in this context? You mean like in Bioware games, where you are given a "choice" but it is promptly overwritten by canon? Let's take a look at one of their most popular games from the last decade, KOTOR: "Oh what's that? Your Darth Revan was female? LOL, too bad, canon says no."

Umm, who cares? I couldn't care less what Bioware says is cannon. I care about what I can do in game. I was able to be a dark side Revan, a light side Revan, a male Revan, a female Revan, turn evil characters to the light side and train them as Jedi, turn good characters to the dark side and train them as sith.

I would've loved it if Beth followed suit (it's my understanding that they actually did this with the ending of Daggerfall). I would've loved to join the Sixth House and side with Dagoth Ur(They actually had NPCs come up to you and say that you can do this in Morrowind, but they were just lying because Beth gave no actual choice), or join the Mythic Dawn, or become a Dragon Priest myself and worship Alduin.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:36 am

I agree.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:36 pm

Umm, who cares? I couldn't care less what Bioware says is cannon. I care about what I can do in game. I was able to be a dark side Revan, a light side Revan, a male Revan, a female Revan, turn evil characters to the light side and train them as Jedi, turn good characters to the dark side and train them as sith.

I would've loved it if Beth followed suit (it's my understanding that they actually did this with the ending of Daggerfall). I would've loved to join the Sixth House and side with Dagoth Ur(They actually had NPCs come up to you and say that you can do this in Morrowind, but they were just lying because Beth gave no actual choice), or join the Mythic Dawn, or become a Dragon Priest myself and worship Alduin.

i pray beth will never implement the boring and useless good/bad, light/dark "alternative" as seen in bioware games. being able to make a male/female, good/bad revan was redundant and would in no way be the same as being able to join the 6th or mythic and perform quests. multiple choices that change the gameworld and factions as implemented in new vegas is what i consider actually "doing" something in a game. not being a male or female and being good vs. bad.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:00 am

i pray beth will never implement the boring and useless good/bad, light/dark "alternative" as seen in bioware games. being able to make a male/female, good/bad revan was redundant and would in no way be the same as being able to join the 6th or mythic and perform quests.

Have you actually played a male and female Revan? No it's not redundant, there are actually changes in the story. The biggest one of course, is that you get to kill Carth Onasi if your a dark side female Revan. And the choice of light side/dark side leads to completely different endings and in KOTOR 2's case it also let's you get a different character (complete with his/her own backstory and interaction on the ship) depending on if you were light or dark when you got to a certain planet. Hardly what I'd call redundant.

multiple choices that change the gameworld and factions as implemented in new vegas is what i consider actually "doing" something in a game. not being a male or female and being good vs. bad.

Oh granted New Vegas blows it out of the water in comparison with their choices. But the difference between New Vegas and KOTOR with regards to choices is about the same as the difference between KOTOR and Skyrim.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:32 am

Woden, I read a post of yours saying we should go back to the Daggerfall system, and I agree completely. It worked fine, I don't know why they have evolved it into this garbage.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:28 pm

Woden, I read a post of yours saying we should go back to the Daggerfall system, and I agree completely. It worked fine, I don't know why they have evolved it into this garbage.

Lol daggerfall god no

Randomly generated world = garbage.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:35 am

Lol daggerfall god no

Randomly generated world = garbage.

That was actually specifically in regards to Daggerfall's character creation. Honestly I tried, but I could not get into playing Daggerfall. It was those dungeons, holy crap were they huge and way to easy to get lost in. But, making the character was the most fun I've ever had making a character in a TES game. It's character creation system was awesome.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:30 am

That was actually specifically in regards to Daggerfall's character creation. Honestly I tried, but I could not get into playing Daggerfall. It was those dungeons, holy crap were they huge and way to easy to get lost in. But, making the character was the most fun I've ever had making a character in a TES game. It's character creation system was awesome.

I actually enjoyed the dungeons, not that I would want to go back to that as they wouldn't work well in a modern setting, but I see no reason why we can't go back to it's character creation. It was not that complicated.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:17 am

[qupte]8/10 in Illusion are filler (Quiet casting, master of the mind only good ones)

Without the level boosters most of them would utterly fail to work on HL enemies period. You rmaster of the mind would be useless without the perks leading up to it.

8/9 in Conjuration are filler (mystic binding only good one and that's arguable since bound weapons svck without it)

So summoning allies for longer, making them tougher before having two at once is filler?

8/8 in Enchanting are filler

I disagree soul siphon and squeezer simply aren't good, and neither are the elemental perks but Enchanter 5/5, Insightful, Corpus and Dual Effect are great. (dual doesn't require the elemental perks). So if your goal is extra effect. There is no filler on your way there.

5/7 in Archery are filler (Eagle eye, power shot only good ones)

Wow you svck at archery then, slow time by 50% awesome, draw bow 30% faster also awesome. I would say the filler is hunter's discipline and critical shot(because smithing doesn't effect the critical damage) Everything else is gold

6/6 in Light Armor are filler

If your not going to invest in glass or daedric level smithing(or do an enchanting loop_ most of those perks are good to make your light armor highly protective.

2/3 in Sneak are filler (Deadly Aim is the only reason I took the first two)

A lot of people use shadow warrior to repeatedly sneak attack the same target. Not that its necessay if assassin's blade is combined with the brotherhood gloves for x30 dmg.

I think the problem may lie more in your build then the perks.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:20 am

Lord Vukodlak(didn't I kill you back in 2000 in NYC?

), Odd Hermit can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's complaining that those perks don't do anything(+skill effectiveness obviously does something) but that they are things that should've been part of the skill themselves and just stripped out of the skill and made into perks so Beth could go around bragging about how many perks they have like they did a lot in the PR frenzy before Skyrim was released.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:39 am

Without the level boosters most of them would utterly fail to work on HL enemies period. You rmaster of the mind would be useless without the perks leading up to it.

So summoning allies for longer, making them tougher before having two at once is filler?

I disagree soul siphon and squeezer simply aren't good, and neither are the elemental perks but Enchanter 5/5, Insightful, Corpus and Dual Effect are great. (dual doesn't require the elemental perks). So if your goal is extra effect. There is no filler on your way there.

Wow you svck at archery then, slow time by 50% awesome, draw bow 30% faster also awesome. I would say the filler is hunter's discipline and critical shot(because smithing doesn't effect the critical damage) Everything else is gold
If your not going to invest in glass or daedric level smithing(or do an enchanting loop_ most of those perks are good to make your light armor highly protective.

A lot of people use shadow warrior to repeatedly sneak attack the same target. Not that its necessay if assassin's blade is combined with the brotherhood gloves for x30 dmg.

I think the problem may lie more in your build then the perks.

You've missed the point entirely, I never argued that the perks weren't effective or strong, and yes in fact many are certainly necessary if you want some spells to do anything on high level enemies. They're filler because they're doing something skill values could've been doing in the first place - and did in previous games. As the poster above me noted correctly. In the post you quoted I explained:

I challenge anyone who disagrees to seriously look at their build and see if they can argue that more than half their perks aren't just filler that makes a skill viable by just reducing spell cost or increasing damage/effectiveness numerically.

...

So only 7 out of my 49 perks are doing something that actually makes my character more interesting, the rest are just making the skills they're tied to work at higher levels.

I could grant twin souls as a good conjuration perk, it is almost like a % based increase as it doubles the power of conjuration, much like the final enchanting perk, but it's definitely more fun having 2 Dremora Lords out than just having 2x the enchants I must admit. That's the only one I could grant though, the increased duration on summons isn't actually useful and neither is it interesting - and the perks that make your atronachs stronger don't affect Dremora Lords which is what I used 90% of the time - they just scale your elementals up to not be obsolete at higher levels.

Slow time on archery is 100% useless to my build which mainly used sneak attacks, though it is a better perk than most as it affects the way you play rather than just increasing existing things by a %. That doesn't mean the problem lies in my build more than the perks though, I didn't take every interesting perk but nor did I go out of my way to only pick bland ones for the purpose of this argument. Perks like that are the exception in Skyrim's perk system, that's the problem.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:38 am

I love the idea of the perk system, but implementation could have used a few tweaks.

A lot of the perks feel more like "Make this skill viable" than "Make this skill better and more interesting."

The major issue for me, though, is that you have combat skills and non-combat skills running on the same system. I'd like to do some Smithing in my game, but I honestly don't have the heart to waste 10 perks on a damn crafting skill, let alone on such dull perks. Things like smithing, alchemy, enchanting, pick-pocketing and speech should be operating on a system separate from the combat skills.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:21 am

Perks worked well in Fallout, but in Skyrim were done extremely poorly. The trees are one reason. Having to create several perks for each skill really doesn't work considering they vary so much in complexity. Lockpicking didn't need 10 perks dedicated to it, and the one that makes picks unbreakable makes most of them obsolete. The novice->adept and so on design doesn't work at all for lockpicking either, as lower level locks are already easy. Sinking that many perks into the tree for master or unbreakable is a total waste not to mention when you've got 100 lockpicking you're probably drowning in lockpicks anyway. The perks that might actually be worth taking are buried in useless perks for a skill that just didn't need that many perks dedicated to it begin with. Same can be said for pickpocket, or speech.

They tried to make all skills roughly equal but they're just not. Speech, lockpicking, pickpocket shouldn't be treated like combat skills and neither should crafting skills.

I really hope they get rid of the novice, apprentice, adept style perks in the next TES. I mentioned they don't work for lockpicking, but on second thought, they don't work for anything. These were completely unnecessary not to mention unimaginative. It's like they tried to make perks do too much of what skills themselves were supposed to do, rather than being actual perks.

Take a look at Fallout perks -

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_perks
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_perks

There are some duds, sure. But look at how many don't even relate to a specific skill and are solely for improving or giving RP options for your character. Also note that some give major bonuses outside of combat for just one perk so that they're actually worth taking over a combat perk. They're also just generally more interesting and less restricted than Skyrim's perks. This is how they should've designed Skyrim's perks.

You made the mistake of viewing Skyrim perks as being anything like Fallout perks. Skyrim perks are what are normally referred to as talents when it comes to RPGs. Honestly, the only thing they have in common is that they are both called perks.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:29 am

i pray beth will never implement the boring and useless good/bad, light/dark "alternative" as seen in bioware games.

Oh, I agree, though they're treading too close to it, already. I really hate the alignment system - it's mindless gameplay - pick option a for good, option b for bad.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:38 pm

Aside from certain skill's perks needing to have a min level prerequisite to them (enchanting, alchemy, and smithing), I think the problem with the other skills is perk value vs perk placement within the tree. The oversight on Beth's part seems to be that different characters will place a different value on a particular perk. Aside from there being no bound dagger spell, which is a separate issue, the only perk I would want is the silent casting out of illusion to go with the bound weapon perks in the conjuration tree. The thing is, even if there was a bound dagger spell, having to invest 3 perk points into the previous prerequisites (4 in total) just so I can summon my weapons and remain hidden isn't worth it. Now some may argue that it isn't worth it anyway because I'm gimping myself the enchantments, but I do enough sneak damage to one shot anything I sneak up on, poisons and enchants become worthless at that point, bound weapons can be made to both trap soul and banish summoned minions.

Now, if my assassin wanted to utilized illusion spells and mess with the masses while remaining hidden, then the investment in those other perks becomes worth it.

To say that particular skill trees have x good perks and y filler is entirely on the character being played and the person playing it.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:25 am

And just what the hell is a "meaningful choice" in this context? You mean like in Bioware games, where you are given a "choice" but it is promptly overwritten by canon? Let's take a look at one of their most popular games from the last decade, KOTOR: "Oh what's that? Your Darth Revan was female? LOL, too bad, canon says no."

Read the whole thread before quoting me next time, how about? <_<