http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1332840-there-was-never-anything-wrong-with-the-class-system/

As for reperking, that's an absurd idea for the reason I originally stated: nobody should be able to undo choices in the past, except for reloading. However, Skyrim allows me to start as a student of magic and a budding wizard, decide I don't like magic at like level 3, and pick up a sword and start playing as a warrior with a couple useful, low-level magic abilities. Now that's real.

EDIT: Sorry if continuing somebody else's thread is considered a faux pas around here or something.

*Discussion carried over from previous forum post alluding to fact Oblivion's system of picking skills at character creation or picking a "class" was superior to Skyrim's system where you pick it as you go and start from a blank canvas.


It does not change the fact that 1 point spent in the wrong place is a flaw that you CANNOT recover from since you have a limited amount of perk points available. This is undeniably true. It is further not easy to tell the difference in power between one and two handed weapons due to the fact that Perks much such an overwhelming impact, it changes this entirely. It is more so let's say Magicka versus Melee. You might think Magicka absolutely svcks because it is so weak and uses so much Magicka. Not until you Perk the heck out of it and put on Enchants does it become viable and flesh itself out, whereas Melee starts out strong. Do you disagree with this? Look how many posts there are with players discouraged by Magic asking "should I be getting destroyed as a Mage!??" and "I quit Magic svcks!"

Why is reperking absurd? From a gameplay point of view, it most certainly is not. From this "roleplaying" point of view or "logical" point of view it is - however you can choose not to use that feature. To say that having this option adversely affects you is ludicrous. Isn't that what this whole immersion argument is about, that you create your own rules despite game structure? Please explain why reperking from a gameplay point of view, is a bad idea in a single player game?

In Skyrim you don't pick a class, you create one by playing the game. The argument that it allows you to than 'be good at everything' isn't vallid to me because if you'd train every skill you would level up really fast and have a high level and meet high level enemies while all your skills are mediocre. Of course if I'd continue to train than at a later date I would have all my skills at level 100 but by that time I must have played for 60+ hours and most of my playtime was spend fighting stronger enemies, while totally being unbalanced. So if someone likes to spend 60 hours on a mediocre character before finally being rewarded for their playstyle than I think they deserve to have a god-like character.

Besides without the perk points a skill is far from maxed, and you only have a low amount of perk points to spend so you still need to specialize or suffer being average at everything even if you have all skills at 100.

For most of my characters I wouldn't need Skyrim's system as I'd known in advance what skills I would pick, but it does allow a L10 mage to become a battlemage as you can start adding a skill to your active skills without having to restart. The same is true for real life, I can learn a new skill while already being good in other things. It is just that I only have a limited time to spend in this world so I shouldn't want to do everything, I could do it of course but than I'd never be good at anything.

So far i found that I still specialize in certain skills and through that create my own class. The only issue is that I'm just as good in lockpicking with my mage as I am with my thief. The standing stones try to fix this issue but they only do so much. So I like the new system, it could use a tweak or two in the sequel but in general it is an improvement.

This.
It has always been and will always be a grass is greener argument. When there is the pure class system, people cry for more abilities and capabilities to be added... when there is free range skill selection, people cry for more concrete class systems. If this game were one in which there was a multiplayer aspect to it, then I can see the arguments having more serious weight or validity. You wouldn't really want a player to be good at everything, but have limits... and even in those class limitations you would want to be capable of a bit more than just class specifics- in order to provide balance to the game among all of those in a MMORPG realm. But this is a SP game. THis is the most important aspect... it is SP.

If there was class specific only systems in place... then the entire mechanics of the game would have to be changed.
And then players would cry because it is not as good as it is already... as a single player RPG.

Let me ask you, why does it have to be one or the other? TES has always had the ability to select a class or create a custom one. Skyrim has removed being able to select a class, due to the fact they moved to a blank canvas system. I think you can still get this to work, it would just give you perk points automatically upon level up depending on what class you chose, and in dialog options they would refer to your "class". I don't really care if this option is included as I always create custom classes, but I don't think we need to pick between a class or non-class system or cut classes from the game.

Actually, for me it's less perk choices than the fact that there are skills you have to use (a mage can't afford to buy upgraded spells unless they've been selling off loot, raising Speechcraft), which can easily cause you to outlevel your primary combat abilities. This problem could be addressed in a variety of ways, but having to be careful not to do things too often isn't fun. It would be less of a problem if mana regen/destruction damage were stronger. It would be less of a problem if mages could use alteration to open locks whose difficulty was appropriate to their skill. It would be less of a problem if "support" skills just didn't count toward leveling, unless perhaps characters for whom they were particularly important chose to "tag" them. This wasn't a problem when we had classes because you could avoid choosing such skills as majors/minors, but without classes they've been a constant thorn in my side.

There are two topics on this: http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1332932-there-was-never-anything-wrong-with-the-class-system-part-deux/ I would suggest to keep posting in this one. Just to avoid confusion and all that

Because it's just absurd. If I piss somebody off should I be able to make that change, just because I don't like the consequences of past decisions? Past decisions should be in the past, and unalterable. If I pick something up I can set it down, yes, but I can't make it so I never picked it up to begin with. Similarly, if I start leveling a skill and expending perks in that skill and decide I don't like using it, I can stop leveling and perking that skill and work with something else - but I can't make it so I never did level or perk the old skill to begin with.

And it would be absurd if I could.


Mages shouldn't need to open locks with a spell, as easy as all the locks are. You can get even a master lock open with something like 3-6 picks - and master locks are rare, while picks are as common as blades of grass.

Actually re-perking doesn t bother me at all, its a first person game not a multiplayer were a context of competition s involved.
I understand the wishes of those who want it so althought its total un-RPGing and total action game mindset.

Frustrate me more the down your throat hand holders and spoon feeders like, compass, GPS, the inability of the company to imput minimal local reference in text or even to mark generic place mark of mission destination (note: not GPS, if you have to go mont XXX, mont XXX is marked on the map but its your job to get the entrance of the dungeon or whatever.), the inability to ask trivial questions to the NPC to know more about bearings, people, availiable stores etc etcetc..

Explain to me please how having an option in the game that you can choose to use or not use adversly affects you or changes your mindset. If it was a feature in the game and you do not believe in it and think things should not be alterable, then do not use it. How does my use of this feature affect you? You realize that I have tried out Perks to see what is effective by the use of console commands currently. How does that make you feel? Has it ruined your experience? What I am advocating, just makes this feature more accessible to console players who do not have access to this feature.

Duh! Opening locks with a pick isn't a problem for mages. Leveling triggered by lockpicking can be. If we could use alteration we wouldn't have an added skill that gives us no combat benefits bumping our level--and it would help level what has been for me a slower leveling skill.

In Skyrim you don't pick a class, you create one by playing the game. The argument that it allows you to than 'be good at everything' isn't vallid to me because if you'd train every skill you would level up really fast and have a high level and meet high level enemies while all your skills are mediocre. Of course if I'd continue to train than at a later date I would have all my skills at level 100 but by that time I must have played for 60+ hours and most of my playtime was spend fighting stronger enemies, while totally being unbalanced. So if someone likes to spend 60 hours on a mediocre character before finally being rewarded for their playstyle than I think they deserve to have a god-like character.

Besides without the perk points a skill is far from maxed, and you only have a low amount of perk points to spend so you still need to specialize or suffer being average at everything even if you have all skills at 100.

For most of my characters I wouldn't need Skyrim's system as I'd known in advance what skills I would pick, but it does allow a L10 mage to become a battlemage as you can start adding a skill to your active skills without having to restart. The same is true for real life, I can learn a new skill while already being good in other things. It is just that I only have a limited time to spend in this world so I shouldn't want to do everything, I could do it of course but than I'd never be good at anything.

So far i found that I still specialize in certain skills and through that create my own class. The only issue is that I'm just as good in lockpicking with my mage as I am with my thief. The standing stones try to fix this issue but they only do so much. So I like the new system, it could use a tweak or two in the sequel but in general it is an improvement.

A 'constant' thorn in your side eh? I don′t know about you but unless you actively search for ways to advance speechcraft, enchanting etc. you will never raise them to the point where their impact on your character level makes any proportional difference to your challenge level. At the most it is an annoyance that you look at the number and feel that it′s too high for your "impression" of your character...purely aesthetic problem...

This.
It is an old, old philosophy dating way back.... 'You cannot step into the same river twice.'
Sometimes the choices svck... but they are choices made of free will. Improvise, adapt, overcome.... that's how you deal with them.

The class system is better suited for games in which you have AI companions (such as Final Fantasy or Mass Effect) or MMORPGs. In a single player RPG it's unnecessary and redundant
because I know I am a mage, I see myself casting spells, and the NPCs are programmed to see that as well. The days of RPGs being D&D clones are gone, they've evolved into their own separate genre that isn't, and shouldn't be, confined, or restrained, by the rules of D&D.

Yes there was something wrong with the class system, OP.

I dubbed it "Major is Minor". You were told to "Take skills you won't use so you can control level-up and leave your actual used skills as minors so you can get +5 attributes every time".

With no more classes, and with attributes boiled down to the basics, the Major Is Minor problem is addressed.

And thats a great point about RPG.
The problem is that most customers are too weak minded to try this and developpers too lazy to do the right thing, so in the end all endup melted, formeless, a gresy something that is neither there neither here.

Pen&Paper RPG isn't relevant. Before creating your character, you can discuss with the GM about what to expect, about the mechanics of the game, and even if you decide to give big flaws to your characters, it's more inspiration for your GM to play around. In Pen&Paper, the GM adapts the game to the player, can "forget" some rules to make a better story so everyone has fun, etc. Also there generally about 3-4 players to content. You understand the difference with a computer game, where all the rules are set and same for everyone.
Pushing "New Game" and trashing your first character may be a tradition of class-based RPGs, but it's their main flaw nonetheless. Tradition isn't good by nature. BTW if you stick to tradition, Morrowind and Oblivion were far from it by giving you the possibility to customize it. That's very rogue. Don't you frown on that?
Anyway, it's a video game. You don't tell your player that the choice he made a few hours ago by instinct was crap so he should reroll. That's simply an awful design. But it certainly gives elitists a tool to belittle other players.



No really, the archery in Morrowind was bad. And it was a big pointer on the absurdity of the hit or miss roll of the combat system of Morrowind. In Oblivion it was efficient against humanoids, who have less HP. Once down in the ayleid ruins, you would have to shoot a ridiculous amount of arrows while kiting. Skyrim sneak + archery is really awesome, but would have it been badly designed again, that wouldn't have been a problem. Nobody would have had to reroll. Rerolling is good to try a new playstyle, a new RP... a real new character. Not when that's to correct a mistake that's not even your fault. That's a terribly stupid punishment.

If you try to fart too high, you're only going to cover you up with crap.

In Morrowind at 25+ you're unbeatable, whatever your skillset may be. So if you talk about the efficience of your scout at those levels, that's pretty much useless. I stopped caring about its systems after beating down Dagoth Ur with 30 in hand-to-hand, seeing how perma life regen on a ring and even basic weapon enchants were already overkill, and laughing at the alchemy exploit.
In Oblivion, after that first clunky character in which I spent too much time to be happy to reroll it, I made other characters, all taking advantage of the game mechanics I just learned. Needless to say that went a lot better, although I still don't understand why I deserved to have to reroll. Of course I also stopped caring about the systems after I understood that the charm spell alone was killing the entire speechcraft skill, and how the damage reflecting enchants were just killing the difficulty, and I really laughed when I discovered by myself I could kill entirely the game with five 20% charmeleon enchanted pieces of clothes (without durability) and a poor bound dagger (no durability, works on ghosts). I also once tried the min/maxing of the stats by swapping major and minor skills, but being very strong at lvl 3 against crappy critters was really not my definition of fun.

I now know these games and their mechanisms quite well, but that wasn't the case when I created my first character. The class system punished me for that. In Skyrim I was able to learn smoothly. Giving away a few perks isn't a problem at all. I also already made more characters in Skyrim because it's easy to try another path and another RP, if you feel you're making a mistake you can immediately correct it without starting over again through a content that hasn't a lot of replayability, let's face it.

Above all, I wonder what people allergic to typical sandbox mechanisms are doing in the TES series. They allowed you to customize your class to open the system to begin with, not to close it. So removing classes entirely was a logical step further to be even more open. There's still the global level, maybe it won't be there in the next opus.
If EA's policies weren't so low, I would advise you to test Ultima Online. But nowadays, there's less and less players, no server merge, and the prices are going up with an infamous subscription + cash shop model.

That is the choice os the weak minded.
A pity companies listen to such people, yes there were issues with skills, incomplete implementation of the foilosophy behind it, but the issue you bringis a minor one, brought buy people who find extremely cool to overpower in a single player game.
unfortunatly market has ears for idiots, maybe because there s many screaming at the same time.

Youre very wrong in there. PEN and PAPER is the base, is the filosophy and the origin.
Its very relevant and the mistakes of people like you made lead to bad implementation and uncomplete, broken gameplay, just because developer didn t understood all the conexions and interdependence of the system.
Would the system have been done right since the start we wouldn t have this perk soup, dryed of attributes which emasculate the characteristics and uniqueness of you character since the start.
Ok, there s limitation or correcting there were limitations in programing.

What i wonder is why the system had to be changed when Morrowind had such a success, couldn t them refine it ? Guess no, its too much work, better simplify it to Diablo point.




Can you elaborate on that it doesn t make sense to me....How customization is lack of tradition, i must be missing something.

As many people have pointed it if you allow reperks then essentially you are saying that it's ok to start with a smithing/enchanting character and make uber gear and then switch over to combat/magic character. After all according to some people if the game allows it then its not an exploit. So no reperking is a bad idea.

The whole gameplay is casualised in TES ... in Skyrim even more than in Oblivion.
Almost nothing is absolute, you can change/reskill/etc. the whole time ... you even can adjust the difficulty EVERY TIME (even in battles).

It's all done to prevent people from whining about "oh, my build isn't great ... I wish I could redo it" (yes, you can ... start a new character FFS!). But by doing it, everything becomes even more meaningless.
No classes, no start-attributes, start-skill-advantages are meaningless, race is meaningless, ... and only 3 pseudo-attributes, where it's almost impossible to really screw up.

It's probably cool for 12 year olds, who just want to kill some time, but it's really boring for players, who want to develop/design a character. It's especially sad, because the TES leveling system does not even allow you to be and build the character YOU want ... no, you have to adjust your playstyle to the system to get the skills you want.



Oh ... the perks, yes yes, the perks, ...
You get so many perk points to spend, and there are so many useless perks, that in the end, every character can do almost everything anyways.
It's really hard to screw something up here. Some people might like that, but to me I just can't enjoy making a "good build", if I wasn't able to make a "bad one" in the first place.

But why should these decisions be set in stone from the start of the game? Why is the ability to stop concentrating on magic and start concentrating on melee "casual" or whatever? The fact remains that you can be a warrior or a thief or a mage or an illusionist or a warrior-necromancer or whatever you can imagine. You simply go and level the skills that you think relate to that.

And no, there are no characters that can do everything. Yes, you can have a character that has magic skills, and rogue skills, and warrior skills - and this has its origins in the very beginnings of RPGs. Ever heard of a multiclass fighter/magic-user/thief from AD&D? BUT, while you can do this, you're giving up being excellent in any of these fields. All skills can be leveled, even within one character, but there are more perks than anybody can take at once. You'll never get all you skills to 100 unless you just say "You know what, screw actually playing the game, Imma spend the next three months leveling all my skills to 100 just to say I did". And you'll certainly never take all the perks given that there is supposedly a hard character level limit of like 85, which means you can only get 84 perks...and it'll take you forever to get to level 85 anyway.

So yes, you can be a jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none in this game, and why shouldn't people be able to do that if they want?

You could make the same argument about being able to change your character's race. It'd be completely optional, so technically it shouldn't adversely affect anyone's experience if just the option is there right? Yet people would still (rightly) complain about how it makes no sense and screws with the lore/narrative.

For the record, I personally wouldn't care if reperking were in the game. But you can't claim that a feature existing doesn't influince people's experience and how they percieve the game. A feature existing in the game is the developers explicitly saying "we want this to be a part of our game; this is an intended part of what we consider the full Skyrim experience." It's similar to the "just wait for someone to make a mod for it" when people mention features they want to be in the game. Technically that's true but playing Skyrim the way the developers" intended" and playing Skyrim + mods are two different things. Just like how playing Skyrim the way the developers "intended" is different from playing Skyrim while pretending that certain features don't exist.