...not saying that Skyrim does this, just that the solution to doing it better sure isn't to bring back the inherently flawed system that they carried on through Daggerfall-Morrowind-Oblivion and managed to make progressively worse with each sequel.

What if I don't want my character to be a master thief? What if he's never even bothered picking a lock in his life? I have a 30 lb warhammer and I can't just smash it on the lock? I'm a master of telekinesis but something simple like moving tumblers is far too much for me?


Maybe in the far far future. Lets stick with reasonable ones for now.

The question isn't ''Why put 'x' in?'', it's ''Why take 'x' out?'' Many features that have been removed over the series have been fun and entertaining, and in no way broken, dull or useless, so why take them out? You said it yourself, more content is better, so why deliberately remove content that many players found enjoyable?

I don't mind that damage doesn't scale. I would be perfectly content if Lightning Bolt came in Apprentice, Adept, Expert and Master levels. Just so long damage increased and the spell maintained it's efficiency. Spell making would still be nice, though, for personalizing the spells to your own style.


I think you're not quite understanding how it would work. The attributes are derived from the skill level and have nothing to do with your character level. So your strength goes up because you increased your one handed skill. So what? It's not going to hurt your character in another area. Your stealth skill goes up as well before you character level increases. That just means an increase to your agility. There is no sacrificing of potential.

I think you misunderstood my point about the Skeleton Key. During the Thieves Guild storyline, the Skeleton Key is stolen by Mercer Frey so as he can open any lock, anywhere. Were the option of learning an unlocking spell open to him, Mercer would have had no reason to take the key. He wouldn't have needed it, Gallus would have died, Karliah wouldn't have been framed, the Thieves Guild would have its luck and there would be no darn story. Considering the Thieves Guild has what might be the best questline in the game, that's an unreasonable sacrifice.

Unlocking spells do not exist in Skyrim. Adding them to a system and to stories which were designed without them would undermine the systems already in place. They would detract from Skyrim in its current state. From a gameplay standpoint, it's not a major loss. Everyone can lockpick (to varying degrees of success).

Is Mercer frey suddenly a master of alteration magic? Does he have any magickal talent at all?

This is like saying that since lockpicks exist there would be no need for Mercer to have the skeleton key. Unlock spells work the same way as lockpicks, but use magic instead of rakes.

That argument just makes no sense, of course the lockpicking spell still works lorewise, why would it suddenly cease to exist? The point of the Skeleton Key was that it's an artifact which can "unlock things hidden in people's minds" or something along those lines, its true power was nestled in its usage as a metaphor, the physical advantage of having an unbreakable lock pales in comparison to that. The two have nothing to do with eachother. I think you missed the point of that part in the Thieves Guild questline.

The game isn't irreversibly contaminated (Props to the people who get this reference).

There are features I wish they would add back in... but to an extent I'm with gram on this one. The addition of Spears COULD add a new combat style, but in games were the differences between swords and spears, mirror their real life uses, Spears are really f-ing annoying to use. Further, I don't see their use in single combat as... relevant, since swords are around. Honestly though, if they are in I wouldn't complain.

Crossbows though... that I don't like.

I also think there should be more differences between Axes and Blunt weapons.

I also think we need some kind of medium armor again, and a system of armor in which there are more pieces imparting lesser bonuses, with more specialization.


Here is one thing I think they should keep moving forward with though, but in a different way. Magic.

The more and more thought I put into the magic system, the less sense it makes. Are spells crafted and put together over time? Why? Why can't someone who casts a fire spell, simply cast a firespell with longer range? Is it really that complicated to MAKE a firespell, that someone couldn't do it on the fly? What about setting more effects, and instead of choosing set spells, you choose effect and shape then shoot.

Effects and shapes could be managed by different schools. Personal wards being more under the purview of Alteration, blast shapes and distance under destruction, confusion and doom under illusion, etc. Maybe do a seperate school of magic just for shapes or whatnot. The ability you possess in that school would determine the damage/possible width/possible range you can cast. Take spell creation out entirely, but take out fixed spells entirely too. You'd end up with a unique system that would allow for customization, while not limiting the player. Also, in terms of what is taught to people, make shapes or effects learned from vendors or teachers, or whatever. Tie them in partially to skills. You can only cast X when you get to X level in X. Or make it so that you draw energy from different sources, like from a fixed source, or from the ether, each a plateau in magic, that when reached determines your magicka levels, as well as your potential.

What I'm trying to say here, is that a couple of the changes they made could become something greater, but they seem to be in Limbo with Skryim. Hopefully this will improve now that the CK is here.

My sense of entitlement means i'm equally outraged.

This character is not designed to be strong. He wins through deception, diversion, stealth and magic and were he to challenge someone like Farkas to a fistfight, he should lose.

Also, if all stats could be maxed (no lost potential), what would be the point in using them to 'customise' your character?

I made myself an enchanted soul-trap steel dagger, and called it 'The Nasty Knife', in a moment of nostalgia.

No. But if you want reason then use a lock pick and learn how to pick locks. You still have not given a reason why you want more choices.

Sure, but Mercer didn't take it to unlock potential, Mercer took it so he could break into physical things. He never uses it for any other reason and the letters and reports you can find all talk about him breaking into super-secure places, nothing else. The player can assume he did more, but it is never shown or suggested and the Skeleton Key's importance to the metaphysical is relevant only when it comes to the Sepulcher's restoration.

The point of having more choices is to have more choices. You know, the reason why you play RPG's. The reason why you can choose to be a melee or caster character even though both fulfill the same function.

True and I agree, but Oblivion was 6 years ago, and the same thing was said going to Oblivion from Morrowind and to Morrowind from Daggerfall. That's more to do with graphics technology than just making a real design choice as the power to do so grows by the year.


I honestly never understood this beef. Gamers expect to get more and more powerful while enemies remain at the same level. Skyrim has some scaling, but it doesn't take too much to reach level 15 in but maybe 6-10 hours of gameplay (without abusing smithing , alchemy and enchanting even) and you can own just about own any enemy. I mean, I two-shotted a Dragon sleeping on its perch sneaking on it when I was level 14. Walk into a cave where everything is scaled to your level and you are level 3, go back out without ever fighting, come back at level 20 and the enemies are fixed at level 3?? While Oblivion had it flaws, that wasn't one of them, IMO. The enemies changed and morphed into different beings and levels as you leveled. And even then, once you hit (IIRC) level 26, that was all the leveling the enemies could do, while you could max out to level 50+. Skyrim, be a level 50 in no time at all, while most enemies don't scale. The part Skyrim got right that Oblivion didn't, was rewarding XP for killing stronger enemies, but then you can level all and every skill while other enemies cannot, so it is over-kill now. Note, this is solely my opinion. If people didn't like it in Oblivion, I think that is fine, but I absolutely enjoyed the challenge of scaling.


I think it is a toss-up here, but I preferred Oblivion's and Skyrim's is easily abused because it helps in leveling.


And also helps in leveling making the player all powerful. Other than that, learning enchanting in-game is about the same as Oblivion's system. I liked Oblivion's system on enchanting better because the enchantments couldn't be made uber-powerful like in Skyrim.


I agree with this. But even if they did allow for degradation, the player would still be too powerful with every skill still having easily be leveled up and gaining XP for it. One restriction I absolutely loved in Oblivion was, you could not repair enchanted (magic) armors and weapons unless you were at the right level of experience in Armorer to do it.

I agree on your other two points insofar as the return of those things could open up gameplay options, but this one, I'm not so sure. The old system of attributes in Oblivion and Morrowind were poor because it didn't enhance gameplay options. EVERYONE wanted max luck and max endurance as soon as possible in Oblivion, no questions. If you casted spells, you wanted Willpower, if not, you didn't, period. Attributes were a mere extension of your skills, not an actual source of player choice to craft a different sort of character.

By comparison, attributes are actually one of the things DAII got right (quantity of content is not). Aside from each class having two main attributes they care about (warriors need strength and constitution, rogues need dexterity and cunning, mages need willpower and magic), there's still room to customize within your role. Willpower is useful for rogues and warriors if they want to cast more abilities. Constitution is useful for rogues and mages if they want to have more health. Dexterity is useful for warriors and mages if they want more defense and critical hits. Even within a class's preferred attributes there is room for customization: do you want more health as a warrior for better tanking or more damage to kill faster? As a mage do you want more willpower for more potent spells and more magic resistance, or more magic for a larger mana supply to better support a supply of mana-reserving passive abilities?

If ES had attributes like that, attributes which made a significant difference in gameplay between one sword-wielder and another sword-wielder, then sure, go for it. But in the model than Morrowind and Oblivion used, the only choice was between taking the attributes that made your skills work well, or taking the attributes that were useless to your skills and broke your character.

Have you tried asking your follower to open the chest for you? This is already in the game.

Ok but I still don't know why the alteration unlocking spell would suddenly be more powerful than a daedric artifact? The spell still exists lorewise. Just because it doesn't exist as a mechanic in Skyrim doesn't mean its suddenly wiped from history (retconned).

I'm not seeing the problem. Your character becomes stronger because he's using a heavy weapon. He doesn't become as strong as fast as a warrior because he's not using the sword to the same degree. A single attack, skewering her target instead of a protracted battle. No doubt his stealth and magic skills would be far higher than sword skills (and thus too the relevant attributes). Your idea that he isn't "designed" to be strong doesn't matter if he's continually engaging in activities that would build strength.

Then let us put 101 different ways into the game on how to open a chest.

What you are missing is to say why you need more choices.

Why should I need an NPC to do it if I have the magical ability or physical prowess to do it myself?

Some people play RPGs for the story and (pre-defined) characters, others play them for the world and the lore. I wouldn't generalise people's motivations to play RPGs, that way lies discussion on what defines an RPG and that... that way lies madness.

Personally, I'm failing to see how the higher strenght would negatively impact your character. When a character focuses on a skill that is dependant on strength, like physical combat skills, they should get stronger. That aside, a character that raises only one strength based skill will never be as strong as a character that raises two or three. And I don't see the problem with your last complaint. A character that has mastered one-handed, two-handed, heavy armor, sneaking, lockpicking, destruction, enchanting, etc SHOULD be very strong, intelligent, agile, wise, etc.

More importantly, it adds another level through which things can be manipulated. You can cast a fortify strength spell and it will increase your melee damage and help you carry more. Fortify agility will help you sneak better and improve your archery. Likewise, a disease can give you a penalty to your intelligence, affecting your magicka pool as well as your spells.

It would also be entirely possible to include some form of weighting, like how skills affect your character level.