Couldn't agree more with the OP.

The fact that there even has to be some kind of way around it in the first place is a joke. Lowering the difficulty? Well then you don't take damage as much either.

But that's besides the point, you are meant to FEEL as if you're power is growing, not stagnating, and the way the Destruction system (doesn't) work totally ruins that feeling.

It's never of matter of use skill x to make skill y viable, its skill x would probably go well with skill y. The niche destruction is meant to fulfill is better served by weapon skills regardless of build, and because of that roleplaying suffers. You can always use destruction, but it is underpowered. It is a simple matter of the numbers involved in destruction's illogical skill progression. For player without maxed enchanting apprentice and novice spells are the most efficient, and the adept, expert, and master spells (which are scaled poorly to begin with) are outclassed before they are available(especially if the merit of destruction is based on damage over time and impact as has been suggested earlier). Beyond the 2 specialization perks and enchanting destruction never really gets better. If you are an adept level destruction user and are forced to use apprentice spells to get by anyway, you have been cheated out of a damage perk slot for nothing.

I just accessed the Master level destruction spells.

You people are talking out of your *****....

Get those spells, and you will walk over anything in the game...and they are considerably more powerful than any melee weapon, upgraded or not.

The design for mana is pretty irrational

Your primary concern is to get as much health and cast reduction gear as possible, while ignoring the +mana per level choice, and mana reduction perks (there is no way to make a glass canon mage in this game, but rather only a glass mage who runs out of life faster then magic while having the same spell power)

Design needs to get fixed because it is irrational

eg: Make perk mana reduction cumulative with gear (so you can have 4x 0 school cost choices instead of 2 and be a real mage)

Make +mana level choices have an additional effect, maybe like increase effectiveness of spells 0.5% per point or something (eg: glass cannon mage would have 4x more power spells, and 100 life)

This...is simply not true...
Hmm...so you can say something that is...not correct?
I feel as if I have just been given a superpower I will never use.
Anyway, too many people are looking at this topic and thinking that I want to destroy some mythical gameplay balance Bethesda has imposed. But this is not the case. The game is not balanced, but that isn't whats important. Its that a certain aspect of gameplay could be improved through a few simple variable changes.

Then you aren't playing a destruction mage at high levels I have a level 39 Alteration/Destruction mage with 5 skills at 100 and nothing else; Destruction/Alteration/Alchemy/Enchantment/Speech (yes RP this character with 5 perks in speech) on master's with no companions and I have no problems and don't have to use fortify destruction potions (although I do sometimes to great effect) If you only have 3 skills at 100 you are going to be much lower level and shouldn't have problems being effective. Its only when you decide that you want to use one-handers, wear armor, smith, pickpocket, sneak, lockpick, enchant, use alchemy, use speech AND ONLY use destruction for damage dealing that you are going to have have problems when you are level 55 trying to use only destruction.

Finally someone that makes sense. The complainers want to play a completely nerfed destruction mage, without supporting (damage) magic and enchants, on the highest difficulty without anything annoying them.

The problem with destruction magic isn't with destruction magic being weak, but the other combat styles being too strong and "annoyance free" at the higher levels in comparison. Add weight to my arrows, maybe I'd actually give a damn if I'm carrying 500 ebony and 700 glass arrows, instead of using less of lighter iron arrows and relying more on the perk to reduce this annoyance (ranger? I never pick it, serves no purpose).

I've tried destruction mage combined with other magic skills, and it's not all that hard. I can't imagine a "pure destruction mage" (wtf is that anyway?). Play like a MAGE if you're gonna play like a mage, or lower your difficulty. At the same time, playing the archer at higher levels is just boring with no challenge at all. This is what needs to be addressed, not the other way around. I don't understand how they can justify the "combo mage" to become that much overpowered, when overpoweredness (?) is something we love to complain about.

Arrows with weight? Equipment that goes bad over time, maybe more so for heavily smithed ones? Raise the annoyance factor, and make also the non mages use our brains or get annoyed when we choose not to - just like the "destruction mages". They have difficulty options to choose from - we don't!

If you doubt it, prove it.

With area effect spells, at Master spell level, a mage can hit far more targets than the melee player...in the case of my character, with one of those spells, that's 125 hp per enemy, and my character doesn't even have maximum destruction damage. For another one of those spells, that's 93 hit points per second...so while a mage is pumping out 93 hp per second, at virtually no magicka cost, a melee character has to run up to the opponent, hit the opponent enough times to kill it. In the 5 or 6 seconds it takes to do that (or more) that's over 450 or 540 points of damage pumped out by the mage. Regardless of whether the melee character has an uber upgraded melee weapon (requiring maximising in smithing), and uber upgraded melee skill (requiring maximising in one or two-handed), or whether they have basic skills and weapons, they will not achieve that level of damage in a comparable time frame, and they still have to get right up to the opponent, which a mage doesn't have to do.

Now, I can accept the argument that a melee player has certain advantages in this game...but comparing a single skill to muliple skill requirements and then saying that the single skill is underpowered is comparing apples to oranges...it would be fairer to compare the range of mage skills, such as destruction, conjuration, alteration and restoration to the range of melee skill requirements (assuming the melee character does not use magic), meaning one/two-handed, block, smithing and alchemy (and I say alchemy because without restoration, a melee player better have a big ready supply of potions).

It's a players choice if they limit themselves to one and only one combative or offensive spell skill...but then complaining that it is not effective compared to someone who uses multiple skills is illogical, and ridiculous.

I think some are upset because that would mean they're "novices."

This issue has been done to death and beth has done nothing about it so it looks like us console players are beat...pc players just got hooked up lovely so i'm hoping beth will do something sweet for us console players

A player specialised in one handed is not going to be effective without smithing to get that damage up, or without armor skills to survive in melee range,
A bow is not as effective without good sneak and without smithing it would also loose a lot of it's effectivenes

You want to go pure destruction? sure, go ahead, but just like everyone else you won't get the most out of it without at least some other skill sets.

I would love to watch a youtube clip where one of the 'but I only want to use only destruction' folk attempt to play a melee character with a basic unimproved sword, and running around in their undergarments...I would be tempted to suggest that they may even have trouble getting to Whiterun if they came up against an upset rabbit.

The strange thing about destruction is that at the master spell level, spells are cast single-handed, although you must use two hands to deliver them.

Also, master spells highest damage is 90 points. You would be better of using the lower-level chain lightning spell, and although it's only 60 points damage, you can dual cast for 120 dps.

I use it whenever I can (and am not putting Lydia in the way of the jumps), and I can deliver it from about the same distance as a bow. It's really amazing the distance that spell goes. Together with stagger, and the perk that turns them into ash heaps when they reach 20% health (I think it's 20%?), makes it very powerful.

Unfortunately, if you play at the expert and master level, it will lack some power, and you'll have to reach out and touch the enemy a few more times before they die.

Good point. At high levels Destruction functions only in conjunction with other skills. For a mage that means you need to whittle down the Death Overlord's Hp with either Conjuration or Illision before unleashing your Destruction, or you need to use Enchanting to reduce the mana cost of Destruction by 75% or more. Or, as you say, you can spam a bunch of potions. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

Freecasting through enchanting seemed cheap to me, so I planned my mage around a build that did not rely on enchanting. However, having gotten to level 38 and purshased my first expert level spells and seeing their damage output to mana cost ratio, I have reconsidered my decision and will now be taking up Enchanting!

Of course that still won't make those apprentice level rune spells any more useful which is unfortunate. Wish you could enchant them to be stronger or something. Same with those damage cloak spells. Why doesn't dual casting affect how much damage they do. I dual cast a flame cloak and it does the same damage and only lasts two seconds longer than if I single cast it. Seems like the only thing destruction dual casting is good for is impact stagger.

Okay let me summarize my view:
The game is neither difficult nor balanced
Destruction is pointlessly restricted in terms of damage and spell variety

Anyone who has examined the adept level cloak spells will understand this issue

Upping the fun factor of destruction will do nothing to reduce the effectiveness of the other magic schools...nobody ditches armor because their weapon can one shot most mobs. And I can tell you, not being able to one shot a mudcrab with your default lightning bolt isn't fun. It takes a fully perked chain lightning spell to kill the slightly larger variety.

If you are using two hands, then they are two-handed...and I don't know what Master spells you are referring to regarding casting, all mine require two hands.

I have one perk in improved damage across all three types of spell, that gives me 125 hp in the Master fire spell, and 93 hp in the shock spell per second (I can't recall the frost spell damage). Those are huge figures compared to what you get from an unimproved melee weapon. Now, talking in terms of damage scaling using the skills we are talking about, destruction vs one-handed, with no improvements through smithing or enchanting, then the base damage for any unimproved melee weapon will never match the base damage for a comparable destruction spell at the same quality level...e.g. The humble iron sword is comparable to the sparks spell...the spark spell gets damage per second, while the iron sword has to have repeated strokes as it's a one-hit at the time thing; The top level one-handed weapon is a daedric one...unimproved, they do not reach the same damage output as any of the Master destruction spells.

Certainly, one-handed weapons benefit from the first tier perks, for the cost of five perks you can double the damage potential of your weapon...for the same five perks you can access Master level spells as a mage...so my iron sword, doubled comes in around 20 hitpoints, while your 'sparks' type Master destruction spell is pumping out 75 hitpoints per second...Okay...so I pick up a daedric axe...unimproved, it's around 25 damage, doubled, that's 50, cool...I'll use two of them and dual wield for around 100 damage...the mage then decides to use the fire Master spell, and pumps out 100.

But that 100 has an area effect, so can hit multiple enemies, which my two axes can't. Now, we can argue that smithing changes the entire dynamic, allowing the melee player to boost the weapon damage potential significantly...true, but if we do that, then we should also consider that the mage character can use enchanting to reduce the cost of casting destruction spells, and boost both their magicka reserve and their magicka regeneration rate, in effect giving them unlimited spell casting ability for those spells. Now, perhaps my math and logic isn't so good these days, but it seems to me that if I am slamming something or someone with repeated 100+ fire spells, at no cost to myself, or with 75 damage per second, again with unlimited use, then the mage character has a distince advantage...and we haven't even considered what the 'impact' perk can do, effectively locking opponents at distance through stagger, all the while soaking up killing damage. And, we haven't even considered the bonus of the damage improvement perks....150 damage for area effect, or @110 damage per second is a pretty hefty figure, whichever way you look at it.

Edit: I just realised the anomaly with the damage figures: difficulty rating. No issue, it's relative across comparisons between one-handed and destructions skills regardless of the difficulty rating.

Another thing people are forgetting is that warriors don't need enchanting to exceed destruction spells, a Cat-Sassin I have uses glass smithing alongside 2 found pieces of +one handed damage equipment. This far from optimized character deals approximately 110 damage with each hand and with dispatch elder dragons with two or three power attacks(another thing usually left out of these equations). An optimized mage never feels this empowered and that is the travesty.

Also this word...balance. I do not think some people know what it means. If destruction is truly the only aspect of the game that is "balanced" that actually means there is an imbalance. And no, smithing and enchant and the like don't really need to be nerfed. The numbers can be insane but that is fun for some people. The relatively low damage cap on melee in oblivion led to stagnate gameplay. Part of the elder scrolls experience for some people is becoming a demigod, but it is never forced upon you.

Roleplaying Opportunity > Restrictive Mechanics for these kind of games, moreso for the Elder Scrolls series which is the epitome of freedom in gaming.

If you don't get hacked down first because you're a sitting duck because of its long warm-up that you have to stand still for. Or after you cast it and there are survivors.

I could dole out more damage by emptying my mana bar casting Fireballs for the same cost it takes to cast one Firestorm. And Fireballs have the advantage of exploding at the projectile impact point instead of at your feet. A lot more projectable. And plus, you don't have to have said people wanting to hack you down at point blank range for max damage, you can keep them away.

The master level destruction spells exemplify everything wrong with Destruction.

Let's do some number crunchin'. Controlling for everything except base cast cost and base damage inflicted.

Fireball does 40 base damage, costs 133 magicka. Magicka cost/damage ratio is 3.325 magicka per damage at base values. Qualitative variable to consider: Projectile AoE.

Firestorm does 190 damage at maximum at short range within the area of effect. Base magicka cost is 1426. Ratio is 7.505. Qualitative: Long cast warmup time during which you are immobile. AOE is larger, but not emitted from projectile impact.

For the cost of one Firestorm at base costs, I could cast 10 (maybe 11 depending on regen times) fireballs, for a total of 400 damage. I will also retain mobility, and can also project the fireball to where my target is, not where I am. 195... 400... 195... 400... Decisions...

The thing that bugs me about this is that I can be a warrior who puts all his level ups into health and stamina but who has maxed out the Enchant skill and then all I have to do is put my hands on some Destruction spell tomes (aren't they available in randomn loot)? and then I can be just as good a Destruction mage as the Altmer who has put every perk into Destruction and every level up into Magicka. Well, to be fair, the Destruction mage would be able to impact stagger, which the warrior with no skill in Destruiction would not be able to do, but he could still enchant a free Destruction casting suit and then spam Destruction spells as good as any Destruction mage. I don't like a system where any Joe off the street with four pieces of enchanted gear can spam the most powerful Destruction spells.

@ Madcat, yes, agreed, but that is where the tactics the player uses comes in, and getting killed doesn't mean destruction is weak, it means that the player didn't have a good defense or a good plan.

@My3rdEYE, if you are going to add in 'smithing' into the equation, then you need to add in a mage using enchantments to decrease casting cost and magicka regen...and if we include dual-casting as a comparison to dual wielding, then the mage gets to lock the target down at distance while they are killing them, as well...an advantage that one-handed users don't get.

@Turija: Well, if you look at the other aspect of this, there is nothing stopping a mage taking up smithing and using uber-upgraded weapons and armour...it still doesn't mean that destruction is weak. However, your point is a good one...but it has more to do with how people play their game and the choices they make in it, rather than any imbalance.

Power attacks have a tendency to stagger, an even greater tendency to kill. The issue is not with difficulty or balance, it is with unsatisfying gameplay.
Besides enchanting does not just mean +skill bonuses. A warrior can buff health stamina and resistance to insane levels and remain effective, four slots all with + destruction is a very specific way to play. Optimization with these kinds of skills is not a good indicator of gameplay balance. Hence my example of glass level smithing and mere found equipment. The arch mage robe and necromancers amulet, despite being powerful items, do very little to increase a mage's combat effectiveness.

I think the difference is that a lot of warriors take up Enchanting to get uber upgraded weapons and armor, and as an unintended side benefit, they can also become a pretty decent Destruction mage, without any additional effort or skill. Whereas mages who wanted to take up Smithing would first need to develop Smithing, a skill they would otherwise not use because Smithing offers no advantage for a mage.

As far as destruction being weak, I would not say that. What I would say is that you cannot viably use it as your sole mode of inflicting damage at higher levels (i.e. 50+). Well you can if you use impact stagger and cast Apprentice level spells, but that is going to make for some very loooong battles. If you want to finish battles in a reasonable amount of time, Destruction must be combined with Illusion, Conjuration, Alchemy or Enchanting. Or, as one poster mentioned, you can purposefully develop only five skills and never use any others so you stop leveling at about level 38 and then you can be a powerful Destruction mage.

Yep, once you master enchanting you need three basic perks to be a pretty effective mage - Novice Reduction + 2 Element Perks. Or you could go stagger, but that is a lot less useful for a full bore melee toon. Enchanting is broke.

But that is what damage skills and their respective scaling capabilities are for, if destruction can't hold it's own it is underpowered. It is not fleshed out enough to stand up to the expectations of the world, the lore, the demands of gameplay, or, most importantly, the players. It might as well not be there at all. This game doesn't seem to be designed to present an appreciable level of challenge to the player, but rather give an experience. And destruction use is merely an exercise in diminishing this experience unless it is brought to players' expectations of the skill.

lol....to everyone comparing magic to melee saying DESTRUCTION MAGIC IS TEH BEST. Looks at several hundred attack duel swords and greataxe.......hmmmm. But lets just say I remove the maxed out enchanting and smithing being the cheating little stinker that I am and I can still out damage any mage who also doesn't use enchanting with my 100 one-handed or two-handed, I can easily out damage my destruction spells also with 100 destruction.( PS i have maxed out skill damage perks in all three) I did use the Master level destruction robes and Diadim of the Savant on and the only way I could dream of doing reasonable damage without sacrificing all of my magicka in a few striked i would just spam dual-cast apprentice spells and run like a ninny when I ran out.