» Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:26 pm
My experience has been that a focused mage is going to be more effective than an all-rounder, at least in the early going.
My first mage was an all-rounder. I did Illusion, Destruction, Conjuration, Alteration, Alchemy, Sneak... but I didn't have a very good idea of what I was doing, and so my leveling was all over the place, to the point that none of my spells were especially effective.
Then, after reading about how Destruction was underpowered, I decided to try a more focused build. I used Destruction and Alchemy. That was basically it. I levelled up a bit from Sneak, Lockpick, Speech, and Enchant, but Destruction & Alchemy were considerably far ahead of those.
I found out that, if I planned well and was able to assess the situation, my Destruction spells worked just great. I focused on the Destruction perk tree and made good use of runes to draw out foes, my higher-tier spells as openers, and dualcast Flames when Magicka got low. I also used staves (which seem to benefit from your Destruction perks!), scrolls, and shouts to keep bad guys out of my face.
This was on Adept, with no companions.
I made it up to the early 20s in level, without abusing Enchanting or Alchemy or using Impact all the time. I did use Alchemy, but found that I always had a surplus of potions - I didn't need to chug constantly as long as I was playing smart, using cover, keeping distance, approaching situations carefully, etc.
I found that my pure Destruction mage had a much easier time than my pure warriors, because warriors had to get right into the thick of it. My warriors were always running out of health potions; my mage had more potions than he needed, and very rarely got hit.
Anyway, not everyone is into Destruction, and I will admit that I wish some of the spells were more useful, or that the school had more effects like from Oblivion. But overall, I think focusing on either Destruction, Conjuration, or Illusion, and pairing those with another magic or support skill, can be a winning combo. It all comes down to approach, I think.