Skyrim talk:Destruction/Archive 2

This is an archive of past Skyrim talk:Destruction discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Scaling part tres

I'll put it simply.

• 24(Legendary Daedric Sword) * 1.5(100 one-handed) * 2.0(5/5 Armsman) * 1(attacks/second) = 72 DPS.
• {[28 (Legendary Daedric Bow) + 24 (Daedric Arrow)] * 1.5(100 Archery) * 2.0(5/5 Marksman)} / 1.86 (0.86 draw time + 1 nock and recoil) = 89.1 DPS.
• 60 (Incinerate) * 1.5 (Augmented Flames) * 1 (cast time) = 90 DPS. With one hand. 180 with two.

Yes, you can triple the damage of melee/bow with Enchanting. But that doesn't make Destruction underpowered any more than it makes melee/archery overpowered. All it does is prove that Enchanting as a skill is broken and in dire need of a severe nerf, because as seen above, without it all combat skills are fairly even. 178.183.238.122 14:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Still missing some from the total equation Critcals do count The notmal attack combo is Power Attack -> Normal attack, because it does not interfere with attack speed, and it causes a stagger. So DPS on the sword is more like 108 (144 power attack + 72 normal attack combo)further modified by crits: 20% chance to do 50% damage (10% average DPS) Or on average 119 DPS, but as high as 216 if the crit goes off on the 1st power attack. — Unsigned comment by 99.253.157.198 (talk) on 20 March 2012

I think the discussion of destruction scaling well is also not talking about intelligent use of destruction magic. If you keep an active cloak and lay wall spells you add [without any other augmentations] 80dps

to your total output. Given the impact perk, the speed of casting as opposed to shooting an arrow, and the ability to attack at range, destruction magic has not been underpowered in my experience (I'm lvl 39 and play a mage on expert) — Unsigned comment by 69.117.15.82 (talk) at 20:42 on 3 January 2012

This whole argument has been muddled. It was never a question of viable/inviable, the fact is that melee/ranged damage scale better than spell damage. Why has been addressed many times but just to be clear, melee/ranged damage is affected directly by three buffing skills, Smithing, Enchanting, Alchemy. Not only that, but all three affect each other indirectly, as has been stated many times, making a virtual s**tstorm of math. Spells are only affected by one directly, Alchemy. And only one indirectly, Enchanting.

If you put those numbers up there down here with the buffs its obvious that spell damage cannot be increased as much as melee/range. Scaling is how effective something is as difficulty increases, in Skyrim, as you continue to level up. Because spell damage, aka Destruction spells, cannot be increased as much as melee/ranged, it obviously does not scale as well in the later levels as melee/ranged. This is a simple mathematical truth and I'm not sure why this whole "debate" ever even started.

The problem is that while melee/ranged basically cap at infinity making it possible to one-shot things at level 81 on Master mode, spell damage caps much earlier and in the higher levels, or 50+, it can take a very good while if you are relying on spells for the majority of your damage. This should be mentioned in the article and not ignored.

For the record, I believe that the article states the issue adequately enough as it is now. Rookwood 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In Skyrim difficulty stops scaling at around level 50(that's just where tables end). So argument that Destruction doesn't scale up to 81 is moot. The question is: are melee, archery and Destruction equal at level 50? The answer is: yes, see calculations above. Only if you include support skills does the balance break down. Actually, even including Smithing is more or less fine, and Alchemy relies on limited resources for balance so it is arguably also fine(if you're going to haul a lot of Fortify One-Handed Potions, you might as well haul a lot of Potions of Ultimate Magicka). It is only Enchanting that is the real problem since it's not only extremely effective, it doesn't cost the player any resource whatsoever. 178.183.241.136 21:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Enchanting alone is not a problem, Alchemy alone is not a problem, Smithing alone is also not a problem. It's their combination that makes Archery and Meelee overpower. Don't blame Enchanting to be a broken skill or problem here. It would be better if there's caps of how much % better you can do with all skills.117.5.243.113 05:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember most enemies are armored, but have no magic resist and usually have weakness to at one elemental type. Throw in stun lock I don't see what the problem is.50.99.131.84 03:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, that with 100% fortify destruction Lightning Storm can be cast continiously, and that means 75+50% damage / sec — Unsigned comment by 178.48.182.194 (talk) on 4 April 2012

Scaling - Mod to Remedy Issue

So, someone released a mod out there to remedy the fact that warriors and sneaky types can pretty much outclass a mage. Check it out: http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=2275 --Cdevine 23:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I like that a lot. It addresses the fundamental issues in a responsible way instead of just making Destruction do 10x damage across the board or something equally inane. Best of all it doesn't presume to nerf anything else. Good find. — Unsigned comment by 206.76.160.254 (talk) at 01:38 on 6 January 2012

Uh, "making Destruction do 10x damage across the board" is exactly what this mod does. The author seems to ignore the simple fact that base damage value of spells is much higher than base damage of weapons - that's why the spells only get 50% increase in damage from skill/perks while weapons get 300%. Basically, instead of fixing the melee/archery which does insane DPS, the mod makes Destruction do insane DPS to make them "equal". I don't think this is how balance works. 178.183.241.136 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And how, pray tell, is it possible to do otherwise? It is either this or ruin your carefully crafted smithing/enchanting/other enhanced melee character by "downscaling" the other trees. No, this mod is the way to go. At the very least Bethesda should have made destruction damage scale with the skill level. Easily done and gives a good balance. Not to mention that the combination reduce cost/faster magicka regen is basically useless: you have magicka potions.

Consider alteration, too: the armor spells don't scale with level. They just _should_. — Unsigned comment by 90.63.97.17 (talk) at 18:27 on 12 February 2012

Even if you use all 3 crafting skills to increase your dps for melee and ranged combatants, Mage combatatants still have the advantage of stunlock, and if their enchanting skill is high enough or they get lucky and find enough items, they can take the mana cost to 0. So esentially, if you add in the ability of destruction spells to hit multiple targets with the same precision, speed, and range of an archer, and the different effects that a destruction mage can get from their spells, destruction is in perfect balance. I've combined enchanting, smithing and alchemy to make any attacks from a one-handed weapon, two-handed weapon, or bow strong enough to kill any combatant i may ever face, even Ancient Dragons on master difficulty, in one hit. But I still use destruction, because I love the wide range of effects it has, and just the feeling of raw power I get when I see the effects my spell just had on the enemy.— Unsigned comment by AngeliSangui (talk • contribs) at 20:41 on 8 July 2012

Walls/master level spells are unbalanced?

I can't help but notice that walls are pathetically bad. I play on master and they do piss-weak amounts of damage to pretty much anything except skeevers and mudcrabs. I can't even see the health bar move against ancient dragons after I have lit several fires underneath them. I was really looking forward to playing with these spells, is there a mod to make them viable? — Unsigned comment by 58.111.134.245 (talk) at 13:42 on 4 January 2012

As far as I know, no. But you can mod the damage output of those walls from 8 to 50 as it described very easily using Skyedit, which you can find on this site.117.5.240.25 03:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem as though you are using the spell correctly. The damage comes from casting the spell on the ground where it will leave a burning, freezing, or sparking spot that does 50 damage a second. You don't use it like flames, frostbite, or sparks by aiming it at a target. I play on master as well and I find it does fairly decent damage.

Also, wall spells don't seem to benefit from the destruction perks. This makes it a spell that is actually more useful for non-destruction mages such as summoners, illusionists and alteration mages who don't put points in destruction. It has a relatively cheap magicka cost/damage ratio if the target stands in the wall for the duration. This is easy to do by casting a wall spell underneath an enemy engaged in melee with your summons, or placing walls underneath frenzied enemies fighting each other, and even easier to paralyze a target and lay wall spells beneath them. Wall spells do 50 damage a second, lasts several seconds and has a base cost of 118 magicka a second, fully perked incinerate with aspect of terror does 100 damage. Now if you are a destruction mage, incinerate is obviously much better, but you have to spend some perks and use magicka reduction gear. The wall spells on the otherhand, require no perks and frugally putting a single fire wall spot on the ground barely costs anything for two or three hundred damage. --Berserkenstein 03:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

After experimenting with several wall spell combos, it seems like the biggest thing to keep in mind is this: all the ice/fire/shock you lay down in a single burst counts as the same wall. If you paralyze a dude, then fire a continuous spray of wall down at/under him, he's gonna take a *little* bit of damage from the spray itself (per flames/frostbite/sparks) and then a *little* bit of damage from the SINGLE wall he's now been introduced to. If you stutter cast, however, the game reads as if he's under the influence of several walls at the same time (even though they're all in the same spot) and you'll get a lot more bang for your buck.

Also note the actual mechanics behind damage iterations. Walls pump their damage into the game like heartbeats. The frost wall's kinda like a mammoth (slow beats for bigger damage) while the shock wall's more like a hummingbird (constant miniscule ticks). I've seen complaints that the wall's damage is inconsistent. This is because the enemy has actually passed through the effect "between beats" and missed the damage. Shock's more reliable because of quicker output, but won't really matter in the split second it takes joe orc to clear your spray.

Conclusion: best effect so far achieved by using shield charge to knock my opponent down, then hitting them with constant short zaps from "Wall of Storms". Rinse, repeat.137.237.209.60 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've checked with the CK, Wall spells deal 8pts and leave hazard on impact. Fire hazard does 20pts/s for 2 seconds, Frost and Shock hazard does 20pts for 1 second, which means the total damage of the spells are 28pts/s. So after all, they still do not do as much damage as they state (50pts/s).117.5.241.235 07:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Destruction perks and enchented items

Do the destruction perks(like disentegrate) apply to enchanted items as well? Or is it just limited to spells only? — Unsigned comment by 74.162.151.174 (talk) at 03:24 on 6 January 2012

Spells only 93.142.242.151 23:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Stef

Tunderbolt over Lightning Storm

As stated before, Lightning Storm(LS) spell is useles. Using Augmented Shock 2/2 it deals 112 every second, compared to Tunderbolt(Tb) dealing 198 (dualcast) every cca 0.8 seconds (it goes to 247 DPS). Also, LS has casting time, it locks you to place when casting and it can be interrupted. Tb on the other hand can be easily controlled and it staggers (using Impact). Only downside to Tb is its manacost, but that can be negated using correct equipment. Solution would be: Increasing LS damage drasticly and/or removing casting time and/or removing "lockdown". Also, Tb casting time can be even lower (close to 0.75 sec), "chargeup" time less than 545ms and "cooldown" less than 220 ms. Cheers 93.142.215.205 13:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Stef

Lightning Storm actually has a use versus dragons. It has the highest range of any spell and can easily be used to kill dragons while in the air at great distances.--Berserkenstein 03:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Lightningstorm can be useful to hit dragon while they're in mid air but as they land, it it's not worth that much cause it can hardly interrupt dragon's attack=> You are locked target for Dragon breath and bite. I can state another disadvantage of LS, whenever it hit, it create a large, very bright explosion of white spark which prevent me from locating my target.117.5.243.113 05:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dual Cast Cloak Spells?

Ive been looking all over but cant seem to find a straight answer on this, and I can only play on 360 so I couldnt really check for myself even if I knew how, which I dont. What benefit, if any, do I get from dual casting a cloak spell? I see that it uses twice as much magicka, but I see no difference in the Active Effects. It always just says 8 dps for 62 seconds, no matter if I dual cast or single cast. I read somewhere that it possibly extends the range, but the person was just guessing, then I read somewhere else that it does more damage but doesnt show in the active effects, and in another place I read that it doesnt give you any benefit at all. If possible could someone playing on pc determine what it does for certain? 71.181.56.53 20:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The animation for dual casting is also different than the single cast — Unsigned comment by 98.238.243.104 (talk) at 11:44 on 22 January 2012

Try normal cast and time the death of an enemy on a stopwatch. Then dualcast and time it again - if dualcasting works properly (+220% damage) then the time should be roughly half for killing with dualcast. Let us know the results. --147.251.215.82 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disintegrate links in table

Most of the Shock spells have the following line in their Description and Effect Details column:

• Disintegrate, 200 pts for 1 sec; if the Disintegrate perk has been unlocked

It seems that the first link should target a page describing the Disintegrate spell effect, and the second should target the Disintegrate perk. I do not know if a page exists describing the Disintegrate effect as there are for other effects (such as Fear, Paralyze, Shock Damage, etc.), but it seems like one should exist and the former link in each entry point to it. 98.228.90.26 16:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Also Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning only say "Disintegrate, 200 pts for 1 sec" with no mention as to whether the Disintegrate perk is required for this effect; Lightning Storm specifically says the perk is not required, all other spells say it is required, but these two are ambiguous. 98.228.90.26 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Only one Rune?

So, you can cast only one Fire/Frost/Lighting Rune at time and able to cast the second only after the first one explodes? I really begin to think that Beth's designers are destruction haters. What's the sense now in the Rune spell? Dual cast one as a support before beginning of a fight? Because during the fight it does makes sense to cast something more damaging or useful (like stagger AOE firebolls or Incinerate). I really thought that I can make several runes before the fight and then kite enemies to it. It was looking nice and role-playing. No, you couldn't play the game this way.--31.128.147.224 13:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally find it OK. Since your magicka regeneration is slower in combat, by allowing you to cast more than one rune, you can just set a bunch of runes before entering battle and lead your enemies to all the runes which effectively make the fight extremely easy. You don't even need to worry about running out of magicka since you are not in combat, you can just safely wait for your pool to recharge to place another rune. And that's how you don't even need to lift a finger to kill a level 40 Master Vampire while you're level 10 because he's running through, say, 20 Fire Rune. No, I don't think you can play the game that way.117.5.243.113 05:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally think the original poster is right. Runes deal a pathetic amount of damage once you are level 20+ to the point that they are useless. I used them at first then stopped using them altogether. You should be able to have a maximum of runes greater than 1. 5 would be a good compromise.— Unsigned comment by 90.63.97.17 (talk) at 21:54 on 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, it seems that allowing casting many runes for free is kind of game-breaking. However, there is a simple fix: add several levels in Rune mastery and for each perk you can add one more Rune. So, say after spending 5 perks one can cast 6 runes before a fight and notice that even double casted ones make 110 damage. That means that on Adept you can subtract 660 of 1300 HP of Draugr Deathlord. Really game-breaking! --89.23.163.7 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to Bethesda to rebalance Destruction vs melee/archery

Two very simple things to start with:

• each perk 'X destruction' for X in novice/adept/etc should be transformed from 'spells cost 50% less' to 'spells cost 25% less magicka and do 25% more damage';
• spell _damage_ as well as cost should be scaled according to skill level (note: skill level, _not_ character level): there is no reason _on earth_ why a 100-destruction "flames" should not deal more damage than a 15-destruction "flames".

These two very simple modifications would make Destruction more viable than it is now. Yes, this means magic-wielding opponents would be more of a handful but hey, how is that bad? — Unsigned comment by 90.63.97.17 (talk) at 20:38 on 12 February 2012

Actually the main problem in "reducing mana cost" enchants is it's additive stacking nature. Just compare Fortify Smithing and Fortify Destruction. Both having the same magnitude, and when you wear one item with 25% then you Smithing is 125% and your Destruction mana cost is 75% which is kind of comparable, but wearing 2 items already gives you 150% Smithing and 50% reduction which is effectively 200%, 3 items gives you 175% in Smithing, and 25% mana cost which is actually 400%. Of course, 4 items give you only 200% Smithing but Infinite Effectivness in Destruction (Free spells). So the effects are simply not comparable even though they should be. There are many possible fixes to that problem. One is to introduce Destruction Factor=(1+Enchants) like already exsiting Price Factor in Mercantile. When you compute destruction Effect you multiply Spell Damage by this Factor and when you compute Mana Cost you divide by this Factor. So 100% Fortify Destruction give you 200% in Damage and 50% in Cost. It is still not perfect in terms of scaling but it is still much better than existing one.--89.23.180.153 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fortify Destruction only stacks that way now because of how they coded it. If it's a request to Bethesda to change it, they could alter that. If the main problem is that 25% + 25% + 25% + 25% = 100%, then it could be easily changed to be .75 * .75 * .75 * .75 = 31.6% of normal cost. -Vardis 17:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is another way, which is quite logical but it does have some problems on its own. The main one is that it is very hard to predict the result of multiple enchants. For example, you have one necklace for 17% and one ring for 14%, when you additively stack these it gives you 31% and it is easy to check and be satisfied, however if it would be like (1-0.17)*(1-0.14)=0.83*0.86. Could you compute this without a calculator. I couldn't and an average Joe couldn't. Therefore this scheme is pretty rare in computer games (even though it is logical). My suggestion of introducing some Destruction Factor was not for Beth(since they have habits not correcting base game mechanics after release) but for some mod.--31.128.148.176 18:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You can check mana costs on your Magic screen. I support Varidis' suggestion. Though I think "suggestion to Bethesda" is more than a little naive; more like "suggestion for a game mod". --Theothersteve7 18:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a mod can't do what I suggested, unless the CK is hiding its equations from me and I just haven't found them yet. Anyway, this isn't really about the article, and should probably be taken to the forums if anyone wants to discuss further. -Vardis 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't have the CK but as far as I understand you there is no way to mod it. Actually, this is probably a consequence of another issue ot the multiplicative system: you need somehow to fix the order of enchantments apllied multiplicatively. For example, there are four possible slots, so in the game you need to create 4 multipliers and keep track of those. If they don't exist, you need to somehow to sort all possible items and check that it has some enchantmens and you have to do it for each effect. The point is that if you want to multiply the effect of a ring you need first to check and apply effects of an amulet, chest, and head gear. Or you aplly the effect of a ring first, or second, or third. So you need prescribe the order and continuously keep track of worn and missed parts. It is not a big issue but it has to be done from the beginning.--31.128.147.106 21:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, one can check on the screen, as it is the only way to get a feedback to our actions. The problem is how it matches expectations of players. If Beth made the multiplicative system I imagine that each player would be confused at least once because as I mentioned there are several individual variables/factors (each enchanting item) contrary to only one (the sum of all enchants) in the additive scheme.--31.128.147.106 21:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) Remember there are destruction potions as well that increases destruction damage for a percentage. destruction doesn't have any less dps than melee or archery and it can stun lock. 50.99.131.84 22:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is the enchant Fire, Frost, Shock Enchanter perks, perhaps this would be a more reasonable way to buff Destruction damage. So you would choose from reducing all Destruction mana costs, or specifically buffing one of the elemental damage types. I would take an educated guess and say the damage buff should be 25% considering 100 enchant and a grand soul gem. — Unsigned comment by 99.253.157.198 (talk) on 20 March 2012

Destruction 50% cost perks and fortify destruction?

If you have the 50% off perks for destruction, do you only need 2 pieces of 25% fortify destruction for 0 magicka cost? — Unsigned comment by 50.99.131.84 (talk) at 22:58 on 26 February 2012

No, since in this case everything stacks multiplicatively and fortify destruction applied to already reduced half cost.--31.128.131.87 07:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Fireball DoT and Ice Storm questions

So I recently started using fire and ice magic (only used lightning beforehand) and realized that a Draugr Deathlord takes 3 dual casted fireballs to kill, while it has around 1000 health. How much DoT does fireball have?? Even with the Necromage perk taken (all spells do 1.25x damage against undead) and their innate weakness to fire (again 1.25x) it shouldnt do 1000+ damage, but only 619 (40 base damage, 1.5x from augmented flames, 1.25x from weakness to fire, 1.25x from necromage, and 2.2x from dual cast, all this x3 because it took 3 casts to kill)

Is it possible that fireball does more DoT than other fire spells?? Or do all fire spells have such crazy 'aftereffect'?

The other question is about the damage of Ice Storm, I realized that it does more damage whenever its the "edge" of the spell hitting the enemies, sometimes 2x, and sometimes even as much as 3x as much damage, can anyone confirm how this spell really works? (eg: A falmer sometimes takes 3 single casts, sometimes 2, and sometimes just 1 to kill) — Unsigned comment by 84.3.160.218 (talk) at 20:27 on 4 March 2012

Ice storm will damage anything on its path, so if you are able to keep your target in the storm, it will deal more damage. This usually happen when you dual cast the spell, Impact perk will push them back, sometimes it pushes them back into the storm that has just travelled through them and they receive damage again.117.5.243.12 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

New character/pre-civil war destruction leveling.

I know there are tons of ways to level your destruction but i've found one of the easiest (through shear number of npc's available for attacking is the civil war line of quests. every time you need to take over a fort there are a number of fast spawning randomized enemies, and during the course of the fight, friendly fire is completely ignored.

this allows for upwards of 10-15 friendlies+ enemies to unleash aoe's on, ice storm being one of my favorites due to fireballs inability to damage enemies standing behind a "blast wave" blocking npc. ice storm will pass through all enemies in a fairly large cylindrical area in front of you.

other "hotspots" include open space foresworn camps, though not as easy to gather as the warring stormcloaks and imperials. went from 62-65 in about 450 magicka using whiterun's "main gate" instant respawning guards during the imperial defense — Unsigned comment by 71.180.30.46 (talk) at 01:23 on 4 April 2012

Reason for removing the parts about perks improving fireball/ice storm radius and chain lightning jump

The perks all have nothing regarding area. The spells have nothing regarding those perks specifically, nor the magic effect. Fireball lists its explosion radius without it implying it can change, and it doesn't. Chain Lightning can chain over numerous enemies without any perk. Visibly these aren't true either and all of those spells act identically with and without the perks. 96.245.177.118 01:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Harnessing Spelling

At the beginning of the article, the word "harnessing" appears with "sic" next to it. The description says not to change it to "harnessing" since it's intentionally misspelled in the game.

Here's the thing: It's already spelled "harnessing" LOL! I went over it several times, letter by letter (it was in italics), to make sure I wasn't just being dyslexic or something. I wasn't.

Did somebody change the spelling anyway and nobody else caught it? Or was it whoever put the "sic" there in the first place who was dyslexic.

Either way, either the "sic" needs to be removed OR the spelling needs to be changed to match whatever the spelling is in-game. Right now, it's just confusing and makes no sense. 216.243.60.171 04:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Added {{contradict}} Mediawiki template. Looks like your wiki isn't following best practices as that template appears to be missing. You'll need to add that as well. 216.243.60.171 04:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The mistake is actually not with the word harnessing at all. It was actually an extra 'the' (before and after harnessing). Thanks for pointing this out. I will fix the note momentarily. ABCface^◥ 05:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Disintegrating dragons

The article states that a disintegrated dragon won't yield a soul, which is (at least on the Xbox 360 and 1.5 patch) incorrect. Disintegration does not prevent the collection of souls. -- 78.82.43.118 21:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. With the latest official patch and the latest beta official patch, I've tested it on PC several times. Right after the disintegrating magic strike I entered a building or sprinted away. The soul was absorbed all the time. Perhaps it should be removed from the Notes section in the article.Aran Mafre 16:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I'm surprised no one edited the article yet. In every dragon encounter I had after I unlocked the Disintegrate perk, I always used lightning spells for the coup de grace. The dragon's soul was absorbed each time, even if I move away. I'll edit the article. Maybe move the statement to Bugs. I'm playing on PC with 1.5 patch if that makes any difference. Oh, and on a more funnier note: after disintegrating a dragon, nearby NPCs will still run over to gather around the little "ash pile", commenting "By the gods, I don't know what to say..." and stuff like that xD --Psylocke 20:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 1

Up: Skyrim talk:Destruction

Next: Archive 3