Seems like TES lore (and game mechanics from prior games) includes both battlemages and robed mages. The mages guild in Oblivion, for example, includes both battle mages and robed mages among their ranks and most if not all of the higher ranked members were robed mages.

And in Oblivion, the game mechanics made robed mages more powerful spell casters than battlemages because of the armor penalty for casting spells. Granted, you could reduce it to a mere 5% penalty with a high armor skill, but some spells required no armor to be effective. For instance the most powerful illusion spells you could make at master skill level would not work on the highest leveled enemies in the game unless you took off your armor.

In Skyrim there is not much of a gameplay advantage for a mage to wear robes instead of armor, but this was not the case in some of the prior TES games.

Something I don't see people talking about is the Dragonrend/Blizzard combo or Ice Form/Blizzard. Am I the only one who thinks of these things?

Forcing your enemies into submission and then pounding them with Blizzard can be better than Lightning Storm, IMO. 300 frost/stamina damage over ten seconds that slows them down while you're still able to move around freely is awesome, not to mention that the best setups incapacitate your opponents first (like Mass Paralysis). At its best, Blizzard can paralyze any survivor.

It also lasts long enough for you to let out another master spell, like Lightning Storm on a downed dragon in the middle of the blizzard. You can do a Blizzard/Blizzard combo, as well. My personal favorite is the first word of Dragonrend to knock them down, then the whole shout to stack the effect (since the cooldown is shorter than the effect duration, which is especially well-pronounced with the Amulet of Talos), and while they're down...Storm Call/Blizzard/Firestorm. Fury of the elements, that combo, and it does a better job at taking down a pair of ancient dragons than a single Lightning Storm would.

Of course, this is all supposing you can pay the costs. My mage has the Master Destruction perk as well as a total of 35% reduction cost (Archmage's Robes and Nahkrin) and over 500 magicka with all his equipment.

I really couldn't get into a spellcaster in Skyrim for a really, really long time. I don't want to use illusion because Calming something, attacking, calming, repeat is boring and frenzying people and watching them fight amongst themselves whilst I stand there and pick my nose isn't too fun to me either. I don't care for conjuration because summoning or raising something and getting it to fight for me is boring as well.

I like to be active in my fights, so I've been using a light armored Spellshield, with a shield in my left and destruction in my right. I use Destruction, Alteration and Restoration too, if I get hounded by groups of undead I Turn them and take them on in smaller groups, been a surprising amount of fun. Shield bashing basically makes up for the lack of an impact perk.

Ahh, so that's how you get away with not perking enchant . . .

I haven't tried that but I know that one of my favorite spells lately is Flame Cloak. Being able to continuously damage an enemy while I shield bash or heal myself is nice.

I guess you're the type who thinks that a mage needs -100% spell cost to be effective, since actually having a respectable MP pool is "getting away" with not perking Enchanting.

My level 42 Altmer mage has 360 base magicka, plus 150 from being an Altmer, the Archmage's Robes and Nahkrin (+50 each), and 250 base health, with a possible 100 extra if I feel like using the Gauldur Amulet (which means an extra 30 magicka, as well) and my Ring of Peerless Health (+70). My mage is both strong and relatively beefy despite using only equipment found in-game.

No, I am the type who thinks a destruction mage needs some serious spell cost reduction to be effective (not necessarily free casting). I do it with enchant. You do it with items found in the game, but you are not relying solely on the cost reduction perks, plus staves and alchemy.

You had a long post above (or was it in a different thread) about how you don't need enchant for spell cost reduction as a destruction mage because you carry around 100 pounds of staves and potions. But you are getting a 35% spell cost reduction from items found in game in addition to your 50% from the perk, so that is an 85% reduction.

I can do the same thing with enchant by making two pieces of 25% reduction gear (ring and necklace) and wearing the archmage robes and wearing your Dragon priest mask. Or, I can enchant a circlet and get 90% cost reduction. Or I could enchant a falmer helm and wear one of those circlets that gives you a five percent reduction to each school for a 95% reduction. Lots of options with enchant other than free casting. Combine alchemy to get your enchants up to 29% and you have even more options.

EDIT: BTW, my Altmer has 200 health and the rest into magicka. I will eventually put another 50 into health but the rest into magicka. So, in that respect he is not that much different than yours. With enchant, you can only get free casting in two schools, so even if I go that way, I will still need a good pool of magicka to cast spells from other schools.

But I do not plan on wearing the archmages robes because I think they are ugly. My Altmer looks better in black.

I'm with Turija on this. There is more than one way to skin a ca... um, sorry... do things.

That's 85% off of base costs whose values can't even be reasonably achieved in-game even at level 81, like Firestorm's 1426 base cost. Even then, it's not totally 85%--the cost reduction values from different sources in coding don't stack quantitatively. That's like saying that I have 129% cost reduction because my Destruction is also at 100, since that makes my spells 44% more cost-effective.

After perks and skill increases, there's little use in reducing casting costs to almost zero. It's a cheap way to play the game, not to mention that it sorely lacks in versatility and utility: if my Enchanting skill or Alchemy was nearly high enough to do what you or other players typically do, I could instead increase my survivability with extra health, health regen, or armor rating; combat effectiveness by reducing the costs of all schools by 25% instead of one or two by 100%, increasing total magicka (which, again, all magic benefits from), magicka regen, or increasing weapon effectiveness for skills I don't use (so as to level them to 100 and be competent in their usage with a mage); non-combat utility by increasing Speech, barter prices, Sneak effectiveness, stamina, stamina regen, or various other things. 100% cost reduction or anything near it is always ever a waste.

And for that matter, I believe I also wrote that I rarely use my staves (four of Fireball, two of Chain Lightning, one of Wall of Flames and one of Expel Daedra) and haven't used my scrolls, and that potions are of little use with my Restoration skill and summons to keep me alive. Nowhere did I mention that my magicka pool or spell costs are a problem for me, so don't paraphrase me as if that was implied.

Personally I think it is bad game design that you cannot even cast a master level spell with 100 skill in Destruction unless you take a bunch of cost reducing perks or perk enchant, but that is the game design we were given so that is the way I am playing it.


Dude, there is no need to get defensive. All I am saying is that you are using a high percentage of magicka cost reduction through a combination of perks and in game enchanted items and I am foregoing the cost reduction perks and achieving cost reduction through enchant instead. It is true that I will use up the ring/amulet slots for magicka cost reduction, so your cost reduction perks buy you two extra enchantment slots that I need to fill up with cost reduction enchants, but extra effect lets me double the number of enchanting slots available to me. It all comes out in the wash.

What I'm saying is that if I did what you did (that is, raise my Enchanting skill and make better equipment) I could have more effective enchantments, since cost reduction is not as serious a problem as people make it out to be, including you. Pickpocket, Sneak and One Handed fortifications would make me an excellent addition to the Thieves Guild.

For that matter, I got defensive because you attempted to paraphrase me in such a way that I'd retroactively agree with you, which I do not. The fact that I carry staves and potions--which, by the way, I don't really use (refer to my desire for a more difficult game expansion in my post)--does not support your point that magicka costs are ineffective. On top of that, you did your math wrong; I did not achieve >85% cost reduction.

But you are wrong there. As you admitted above, no mage could cast a master level destruction spell without at least some cost reduction from enchanted items (either in game or self made items) because the master level spells require something like 1426 magicka to cast. You yourself run around with two items that reduce Destruction spell casting by a total of 35% in addition to your 50% reduction perk. Take off your robes and mask and your Destruction mage is going to have to start making more intensive use of those 100 pounds of staves and potions.

Cost reduction is a serious problem that a Destruction mage needs to solve and it can only be solved by wearing enchanted items or spamming potions. The cost reducing perks alone are not going to work for a Destruction mage (unless you impact spam low level spells, which no one thinks is fun).


We are talking about mages and warriors here, not thieves. But if my Altmer mage decided to lower himself to thievery, he could put on a different set of amulets/rings for thievery, since he would not need his destruction spells while sneaking around stealing things.


Okay, I agree with you on this. You don't use those staves and potions you lug around very often. But you do wear two cost reducing enchanted items that have 15% and 20% respectively in addition to the 50% perk.


Enlighten me. How is the math done when you combine cost reduction through enchant and cost reduction from perks.

As I've said, the costs from different sources in the game's coding don't stack quantitatively. "Fortify Destruction" enchantments stack with themselves, but are not the same as perks. I believe I've already explained that 100 skill in Destruction makes your spells 44% more cost effective, and if they did in fact stack, I'd be casting spells for -129% cost. But I guess you didn't bother reading.



You are invariably wrong, but there is obviously little use in arguing with you

I read that, but you have not explained what your total cost reduction is. 100 Destruction skill makes spells 44% more effective than zero Destruction skill. But how does the 50% perk affect your cost reduction and how does it interact with enchanted items that reduce spell casting cost. You say that they would be a 129% reduction if they stack but then you said that they don't stack, so what is the number?

You have not explained your math very well and have not answered the question of how much reduction you can get with the 50% perk and 35% reduction from items.



Well, yeah, if you are not going to back up your argument with anything but a thumbs down smiley, then I agree that there is no point in arguing.

You say that a Destruction mage does not need to wear spell cost reducing enchanted items to be effective, and yet you admit that your Destruction mage wears two cost reducing items (with a combined total of 35% cost reduction) in addition to your 50% cost reduction from the perk and you admit that you cannot cast your master level Destruction spell without putting on your two spell cost reducing enchanted items. That sounds to me like Destruction mages have a problem with spell cost that can only be solved by donning spell cost reducing enchanted items (or perhaps alchemy).

I usually play as a one-handed warrior but around level 45 my character became mind numbingly powerful and I decided at try my hand as a mage. I concentrate on destruction, restoration, alteration and conjuration using one or both hands for destruction, fireball or chain lightening. I use the other hand to conjure frosty, cast stone flesh and fast healing when needed.

Destruction might not be efficient but fireball and chain lightening have proven very useful against multiple opponents and if I run out of magicka I can just dodge an enemies attacks until it regens or drink a couple potions to get off a few more shots and finish the job and when fighting multiple enemies letting them surround you will lead to your death. I used heavy armor, boots and gauntlets only, until I got the first mage armor perk then armor became pretty useless as the cost reduction and magicka regen from destruction robes is way too beneficial to pass up. Leveling enchanting to be able to match those enchantments on armor would take forever and in my opinion a mage shouldn't wear armor anyway, not to mention you can carry so much more loot when your weight is under 90 lbs.

Currently a level 23 with just over 400 magicka and 200 health, obviously equipping items to increase magicka, decrease cost, boost health and so on. http://skyrimcalculator.com/#126860 (putting that point in enchanting was a waste) I have two unused points, thinking about going for impact but I haven't decided on that yet. This is where I want to be http://skyrimcalculator.com/#126867 ,but I doubt I'll get here by level 35, and I'll use the higher level spells along the way. This has a promising build so far I've been able to hold my own fairly easily and I've enjoyed the different play style that has come along with it.

But as with any character type they will likely start off somewhat difficult, eventually becoming a slaughter fest.

Step 1) Level enchanting to 100
Step 2) Enchant 4 pieces of armor with fortify (Whatever school here)
Step 3) Enjoy unlimited magicka

In Vanilla? Sure. WIth Magic Scaling Mod? Nah.

Unless you still abuse smithing, then.. Yeah..