Stacking Max Magicka vs Spell Damage

akray21

I tried to look for an answer to this, but was unable to find one. Do you get a higher damage output by stacking max magicka, or spell damage? Not many items in game give you additional spell damage, so this leads me to believe that spell damage has a greater impact on the damage dealt with class abilities. The reason I ask this is because I am trying to choose a set and I don't know if I should go for one that adds say ~70 max magicka, or one that adds ~10 spell damage. Assuming that the person is not at the soft cap on either, which one would be more beneficial for damage output?

Debile

The spell damage soft cap is quite easy to obtain, so spell damage softcap ­then magicka

CapuchinSeven

Same with stamina, weapon soft cap, then stamina stacking. So spell damage, then magic stacking.

Frankly, with my weapon damage at soft cap and my stamina at 1900 I still hit like a train and managed 3700 health yesterday. I killed 5 players at the same time with a bow on the same day, 3 of them in an open fight, then picked the other two off with Snipe.

Sooo many rage tells, one to let me know I must be exploiting, the rest to rage that bow is OP.

akray21

My Bosmer NB hits for 2,100 dmg with concealed weapon, from sneak, near magicka soft cap (2,2500ish), he is still quite far from the spell damage cap however. I wonder how high I can get my concealed weapon opener...

So you are saying that instead of max magicka enchants on my jewelry I should have spell power enchants?

Vuron

akray21 wrote: »

So you are saying that instead of max magicka enchants on my jewelry I should have spell power enchants?

Correct. I know that I have the numbers somewhere, but can't find them at the moment. The ratio of damage per spell power is much higher than the ration of damage per magicka. On a pure damage basis, you want to cap spell power before magicka.

There are downsides to doing this, though. One of the biggest challenges with the game is resource management. If you concentrate completely on damage, you will run out of resources much faster, creating more of a burst build than a sustain build.

akray21

Vuron wrote: »

akray21 wrote: »

So you are saying that instead of max magicka enchants on my jewelry I should have spell power enchants?

Correct. I know that I have the numbers somewhere, but can't find them at the moment. The ratio of damage per spell power is much higher than the ration of damage per magicka. On a pure damage basis, you want to cap spell power before magicka.

There are downsides to doing this, though. One of the biggest challenges with the game is resource management. If you concentrate completely on damage, you will run out of resources much faster, creating more of a burst build than a sustain build.

Good point on the burst build vs sustain build, I had not thought about that. For PvP I would like the burst build, but feel that for PvE a sustain build is superior.

CapuchinSeven

akray21 wrote: »

My Bosmer NB hits for 2,100 dmg with concealed weapon, from sneak, near magicka soft cap (2,2500ish), he is still quite far from the spell damage cap however. I wonder how high I can get my concealed weapon opener...

So you are saying that instead of max magicka enchants on my jewelry I should have spell power enchants?

Yes you will have a very high burst build but in PVP wouldn't be able to fight much after that burst.

Dekkameron

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

akray21 wrote: »

My Bosmer NB hits for 2,100 dmg with concealed weapon, from sneak, near magicka soft cap (2,2500ish), he is still quite far from the spell damage cap however. I wonder how high I can get my concealed weapon opener...

So you are saying that instead of max magicka enchants on my jewelry I should have spell power enchants?

Yes you will have a very high burst build but in PVP wouldn't be able to fight much after that burst.

They're a nightblade. they can pop siphoning strikes for sustainability.

akray21

Also, with Magicka recovery soft capped (and siphoning strikes) I don't find myself out of magicka that often.