Maintenance for the week of January 5:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 5
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 5
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
Subclassing Is a Huge Step Forward — Let’s Go Even Further
-
Ragnarok0130✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Ragnarok0130 wrote: »Militan1404 wrote: »In 10 years they couldnt balance the classes, then how could they balance it when they are all mixed?
Bet now templar skills would be nerfed becouse they are op on a nightblade or DK skills becouse they are op on a sorc. And would classes still be valuable as stand alone or do you have to have sub-classes now to be good? And would they still bother to balance each class individual or is this just an excuse to dont spend time on balance, we allready had minimal balance changes the last couple of updates. And do i have to use wierd tentacles, and bugs coming of the ground to be viable on another class when thats was not i visioned it when i made it. And is it even lore friendly? Not an lore expert but templar necromancer sounds wierd.
Thanks for the reply. Balance has always been tough in ESO, and mixing class skills definitely risks making that even more complicated. .
I've been here since 2014's closed beta - balance hasn't been "tough" - ZoS has been wholly unable to balance ESO's combat the entire time. Now we're expected to believe that ZoS will magically be able to balance every conceivable permutation of class, guild, and weapon skills when they were unable to balance those same skills when they were limited to specific classes? That isn't optimism it's naivete. I foresee an incoming nerf hammer post subclass patch that will make us think U35 was a nice day at the park.
Fair enough. You're not wrong that balance has often felt like an uphill battle. I guess for me, moving to a classless system isn’t so much about thinking ZOS will get it perfect, it’s more about the potential to approach balance in a more modular, skill-based way if they’re willing to invest in doing it right. Will it be hard? Absolutely. Could it flop? Sure. But I’d rather see the game try to evolve than stay static out of fear.
But healthy skepticism is totally valid. At the very least, the devs would need to communicate clearly and often through all of this.
ZoS was balancing in a modular way when it was limited to classes and they not only repeatedly failed balancing the game but spectacularly failed on an ongoing basis to balance the game. Now they've opened Pandora's box and there's zero possibility of ZoS being able to balance anything with this new system due to unforeseen synergies and interactions due to the sheer number of possible skill line interactions.
If ZoS had a solid track record of listening to the PTS feedback, good balancing decision, as well as balancing with a scalpel instead of a wrecking ball I'd give them the benefit of the doubt here, however the current iteration of ZoS has not earned that deference given their track record. Now the end game trials and PVP folks which took a huge hit with U35 and hasn't recovered yet is probably going to get the final throat slash from the combat team's dagger finishing us off. How can a PVPer plan a defensive move when he doesn't know what skills the other "class" has? It's already difficult to see in trials when you have more than a couple of zoo sorcs, now everyone can have pets...yay...sigh.1 -
kevkj✭✭✭✭✭I would prefer classes stay in the game, but that ship has sailed anyways.
So with that in mind I agree, they should commit fully to a classless system (opening up IA cosmetics to all + sets per skill line). I am also hopeful like you that ZOS now has more freedom to add single themed skill lines rather than have to come up with 3 in a cohesive class identity (which they actually did very well with arcanist). In a vacuum I think there's positives to look forward to, I'm just very pessimistic about the development team we have.2 -
QB1✭✭✭Ragnarok0130 wrote: »Ragnarok0130 wrote: »Militan1404 wrote: »In 10 years they couldnt balance the classes, then how could they balance it when they are all mixed?
Bet now templar skills would be nerfed becouse they are op on a nightblade or DK skills becouse they are op on a sorc. And would classes still be valuable as stand alone or do you have to have sub-classes now to be good? And would they still bother to balance each class individual or is this just an excuse to dont spend time on balance, we allready had minimal balance changes the last couple of updates. And do i have to use wierd tentacles, and bugs coming of the ground to be viable on another class when thats was not i visioned it when i made it. And is it even lore friendly? Not an lore expert but templar necromancer sounds wierd.
Thanks for the reply. Balance has always been tough in ESO, and mixing class skills definitely risks making that even more complicated. .
I've been here since 2014's closed beta - balance hasn't been "tough" - ZoS has been wholly unable to balance ESO's combat the entire time. Now we're expected to believe that ZoS will magically be able to balance every conceivable permutation of class, guild, and weapon skills when they were unable to balance those same skills when they were limited to specific classes? That isn't optimism it's naivete. I foresee an incoming nerf hammer post subclass patch that will make us think U35 was a nice day at the park.
Fair enough. You're not wrong that balance has often felt like an uphill battle. I guess for me, moving to a classless system isn’t so much about thinking ZOS will get it perfect, it’s more about the potential to approach balance in a more modular, skill-based way if they’re willing to invest in doing it right. Will it be hard? Absolutely. Could it flop? Sure. But I’d rather see the game try to evolve than stay static out of fear.
But healthy skepticism is totally valid. At the very least, the devs would need to communicate clearly and often through all of this.
ZoS was balancing in a modular way when it was limited to classes and they not only repeatedly failed balancing the game but spectacularly failed on an ongoing basis to balance the game. Now they've opened Pandora's box and there's zero possibility of ZoS being able to balance anything with this new system due to unforeseen synergies and interactions due to the sheer number of possible skill line interactions.
If ZoS had a solid track record of listening to the PTS feedback, good balancing decision, as well as balancing with a scalpel instead of a wrecking ball I'd give them the benefit of the doubt here, however the current iteration of ZoS has not earned that deference given their track record. Now the end game trials and PVP folks which took a huge hit with U35 and hasn't recovered yet is probably going to get the final throat slash from the combat team's dagger finishing us off. How can a PVPer plan a defensive move when he doesn't know what skills the other "class" has? It's already difficult to see in trials when you have more than a couple of zoo sorcs, now everyone can have pets...yay...sigh.
I don't think you're wrong to be skeptical given ZOS' track record when it comes to balancing. But my hope is that a classless system could actually fix some of those persistent balancing issues, not make them worse. When classes are rigid, you're forced to balance entire kits around each other, which often results in over-nerfing one class just because of one strong skill. In a skill-based system, you can target the problem more precisely without gutting an entire class. I think? I hope?
Your concern around unpredictable PvP matchups is something I'm actually looking forward to. Right now, PvP often boils down to recognizing the class and knowing exactly what they’ll probably do. A system that allows more unique builds might make fights more engaging, less cookie-cutter.0 -
QB1✭✭✭I would prefer classes stay in the game, but that ship has sailed anyways.
So with that in mind I agree, they should commit fully to a classless system (opening up IA cosmetics to all + sets per skill line). I am also hopeful like you that ZOS now has more freedom to add single themed skill lines rather than have to come up with 3 in a cohesive class identity (which they actually did very well with arcanist). In a vacuum I think there's positives to look forward to, I'm just very pessimistic about the development team we have.
Yeah, I think we’re well past the point of no return with classes as we knew them so we might as well embrace the potential now. I see the single-themed skill line idea as a big win. It could let them expand the game in smaller, more focused bursts without needing a full class overhaul each time. More flexibility, more room for creative builds.Edited by QB1 on 11 April 2025 21:100 -
QB1✭✭✭ForumBully wrote: »Some things never change. For every idea there's some percentage of players who will say "if you're going to do it, just cripple it from the start". It's unbelievable.
Don't penalize subclass strength, You're better off just not putting the system into effect at all
If you want to blame something for homogenization, it wasn't hybridization, it was nonstop worry about "balance" that has never been achieved.
Exactly this. If we start building the system around fear of imbalance, we’ll smother the potential before it even gets going. The goal shouldn’t be to pre-nerf creativity, it should be to let players explore powerful combos and then fine-tune from there with thoughtful tweaks, not blanket penalties.0 -
QB1✭✭✭tomofhyrule wrote: »The only way I can see subclassing working without breaking the game is to have at the very least a 50% penalty on the skills and passives. Lore wise, you're not that class. You shouldn't be able to be just as strong as someone who is naturally that class. It's the only way to open variety but keep balance in line. The skills costing 2 skill points is not enough to be considered a penalty since skill points are so easy to obtain.
I was thinking that a percentage reduction to subclasses skills would help - that would at least force people into a choice. Do you want the versatility of being able to pull buffs or skills from other classes, or the raw power of perfecting into your own?
Even in games like D&D, it's not like you can have a pure class and a multiclassed character with the same abilities. The tradeoff the multiclassed character took was to sacrifice power at the top end to give themselves a wider range of ability. For example in BG3, a pure Paladin gets their level 3 spell slots at level 9. But if a Paladin levels to 8 and then multiclasses into Barbarian for the rest of it, they'll never have access to their top level Paladin spells.
As it is here, the skills costing double skill points is not a drawback, it's an opportunity cost. That's like saying that we can use Oakensoul ring without taking up a gear slot and without locking us to one bar, but the drawback is that we have to dig up all the leads first. Ok, so you dig up the leads and then what? Oh, you just get all the power and no drawbacks.
Others may consider it too much, but I would say on top of the percentage pentalty, skills shouldn't be able to morph. I'm still going to stand by my lore wise reasoning here. Someone who isn't naturally of a class shouldn't have full access to someone who is. As it stands, there's 0 draw backs to subclassing. It shouldn't be that way. At most you should be able to decide if the skill costs stamina or magicka since non morphed skills are almost always magicka. At that point it'll become scribing 2.0 except at the cost of losing a skill line for a new one. It'll still do enough to add variety to how you play the game.
A 50% reduction to damage/healing/passive bonues/etc + no morphs isn't going to matter much outside of vet or pvp, but it can still open up some meta or near meta routes for some classes in those same areas. A necro can still find benefit in ditching bone tyrant for dawn's wrath to have access to a 240% execute, but that doesn't mean they'll become stronger than a templar. There are issues for some toggleable skills like cloak. How should it work? Decrease the against monster's bonus to 5%? Increase the cost per second? Or only be active for 1 second? Or a skill like molten armaments. Should it be reduced to 15 seconds or give minor brutality/sorcery for 30 seconds? Some thought will have to go into balancing for that so natural classes can still have their identity, whatever's left of it.
I really do hope that ZOS listens to the feedback of player's concerns instead of going through with it with 0 adjustments just because the character fantasy crowd that doesn't step into vet or pvp are excited for this. There has to be real limitations for subclassing.
Subclassing should be about new build opportunities, not a watered-down version of the original classes. If a Necro wants to drop Bone Tyrant for Dawns Wrath and lose some survivability for burst, let them. That tradeoff is the balance.
There’s also a real risk of overcorrecting here. A 50% penalty plus no morphs basically tells players “you can have a cool idea, but we’re going to neuter it just in case.” Let’s let players explore and push the system first, then address specific problems that arise, rather than assuming worst-case scenarios and balancing based on fear.
Let subclassing thrive, then prune where needed. That’s how you end up with a dynamic system that actually adds to the game rather than dividing it.1 -
ForumBully✭✭✭✭✭
✭tomofhyrule wrote: »The only way I can see subclassing working without breaking the game is to have at the very least a 50% penalty on the skills and passives. Lore wise, you're not that class. You shouldn't be able to be just as strong as someone who is naturally that class. It's the only way to open variety but keep balance in line. The skills costing 2 skill points is not enough to be considered a penalty since skill points are so easy to obtain.
I was thinking that a percentage reduction to subclasses skills would help - that would at least force people into a choice. Do you want the versatility of being able to pull buffs or skills from other classes, or the raw power of perfecting into your own?
Even in games like D&D, it's not like you can have a pure class and a multiclassed character with the same abilities. The tradeoff the multiclassed character took was to sacrifice power at the top end to give themselves a wider range of ability. For example in BG3, a pure Paladin gets their level 3 spell slots at level 9. But if a Paladin levels to 8 and then multiclasses into Barbarian for the rest of it, they'll never have access to their top level Paladin spells.
As it is here, the skills costing double skill points is not a drawback, it's an opportunity cost. That's like saying that we can use Oakensoul ring without taking up a gear slot and without locking us to one bar, but the drawback is that we have to dig up all the leads first. Ok, so you dig up the leads and then what? Oh, you just get all the power and no drawbacks.
Others may consider it too much, but I would say on top of the percentage pentalty, skills shouldn't be able to morph. I'm still going to stand by my lore wise reasoning here. Someone who isn't naturally of a class shouldn't have full access to someone who is. As it stands, there's 0 draw backs to subclassing. It shouldn't be that way. At most you should be able to decide if the skill costs stamina or magicka since non morphed skills are almost always magicka. At that point it'll become scribing 2.0 except at the cost of losing a skill line for a new one. It'll still do enough to add variety to how you play the game.
A 50% reduction to damage/healing/passive bonues/etc + no morphs isn't going to matter much outside of vet or pvp, but it can still open up some meta or near meta routes for some classes in those same areas. A necro can still find benefit in ditching bone tyrant for dawn's wrath to have access to a 240% execute, but that doesn't mean they'll become stronger than a templar. There are issues for some toggleable skills like cloak. How should it work? Decrease the against monster's bonus to 5%? Increase the cost per second? Or only be active for 1 second? Or a skill like molten armaments. Should it be reduced to 15 seconds or give minor brutality/sorcery for 30 seconds? Some thought will have to go into balancing for that so natural classes can still have their identity, whatever's left of it.
I really do hope that ZOS listens to the feedback of player's concerns instead of going through with it with 0 adjustments just because the character fantasy crowd that doesn't step into vet or pvp are excited for this. There has to be real limitations for subclassing.
Subclassing should be about new build opportunities, not a watered-down version of the original classes. If a Necro wants to drop Bone Tyrant for Dawns Wrath and lose some survivability for burst, let them. That tradeoff is the balance.
There’s also a real risk of overcorrecting here. A 50% penalty plus no morphs basically tells players “you can have a cool idea, but we’re going to neuter it just in case.” Let’s let players explore and push the system first, then address specific problems that arise, rather than assuming worst-case scenarios and balancing based on fear.
Let subclassing thrive, then prune where needed. That’s how you end up with a dynamic system that actually adds to the game rather than dividing it.
Yes! I can't believe I'm actually saying this but ZOS, if you're going to do this, your initial instinct for how to do it is dead on perfect.
If you start this off as some watered down half-measure it'll just be another on the pile of skills, sets and systems that could have been something interesting but eventually got sacrificed on the altar of balance that has never materialized.1 -
QB1✭✭✭ForumBully wrote: »tomofhyrule wrote: »The only way I can see subclassing working without breaking the game is to have at the very least a 50% penalty on the skills and passives. Lore wise, you're not that class. You shouldn't be able to be just as strong as someone who is naturally that class. It's the only way to open variety but keep balance in line. The skills costing 2 skill points is not enough to be considered a penalty since skill points are so easy to obtain.
I was thinking that a percentage reduction to subclasses skills would help - that would at least force people into a choice. Do you want the versatility of being able to pull buffs or skills from other classes, or the raw power of perfecting into your own?
Even in games like D&D, it's not like you can have a pure class and a multiclassed character with the same abilities. The tradeoff the multiclassed character took was to sacrifice power at the top end to give themselves a wider range of ability. For example in BG3, a pure Paladin gets their level 3 spell slots at level 9. But if a Paladin levels to 8 and then multiclasses into Barbarian for the rest of it, they'll never have access to their top level Paladin spells.
As it is here, the skills costing double skill points is not a drawback, it's an opportunity cost. That's like saying that we can use Oakensoul ring without taking up a gear slot and without locking us to one bar, but the drawback is that we have to dig up all the leads first. Ok, so you dig up the leads and then what? Oh, you just get all the power and no drawbacks.
Others may consider it too much, but I would say on top of the percentage pentalty, skills shouldn't be able to morph. I'm still going to stand by my lore wise reasoning here. Someone who isn't naturally of a class shouldn't have full access to someone who is. As it stands, there's 0 draw backs to subclassing. It shouldn't be that way. At most you should be able to decide if the skill costs stamina or magicka since non morphed skills are almost always magicka. At that point it'll become scribing 2.0 except at the cost of losing a skill line for a new one. It'll still do enough to add variety to how you play the game.
A 50% reduction to damage/healing/passive bonues/etc + no morphs isn't going to matter much outside of vet or pvp, but it can still open up some meta or near meta routes for some classes in those same areas. A necro can still find benefit in ditching bone tyrant for dawn's wrath to have access to a 240% execute, but that doesn't mean they'll become stronger than a templar. There are issues for some toggleable skills like cloak. How should it work? Decrease the against monster's bonus to 5%? Increase the cost per second? Or only be active for 1 second? Or a skill like molten armaments. Should it be reduced to 15 seconds or give minor brutality/sorcery for 30 seconds? Some thought will have to go into balancing for that so natural classes can still have their identity, whatever's left of it.
I really do hope that ZOS listens to the feedback of player's concerns instead of going through with it with 0 adjustments just because the character fantasy crowd that doesn't step into vet or pvp are excited for this. There has to be real limitations for subclassing.
Subclassing should be about new build opportunities, not a watered-down version of the original classes. If a Necro wants to drop Bone Tyrant for Dawns Wrath and lose some survivability for burst, let them. That tradeoff is the balance.
There’s also a real risk of overcorrecting here. A 50% penalty plus no morphs basically tells players “you can have a cool idea, but we’re going to neuter it just in case.” Let’s let players explore and push the system first, then address specific problems that arise, rather than assuming worst-case scenarios and balancing based on fear.
Let subclassing thrive, then prune where needed. That’s how you end up with a dynamic system that actually adds to the game rather than dividing it.
Yes! I can't believe I'm actually saying this but ZOS, if you're going to do this, your initial instinct for how to do it is dead on perfect.
If you start this off as some watered down half-measure it'll just be another on the pile of skills, sets and systems that could have been something interesting but eventually got sacrificed on the altar of balance that has never materialized.
I think the community’s gotten used to new systems launching under a mountain of preemptive restrictions just in case they break something, and it kills the potential before we ever get to see what the system could do.
The reality is, no system is going to launch perfectly balanced. But if the foundation is fun and creative, you can iterate from there. If you launch something nerfed into the ground, then it’s just another forgettable feature that no one uses and ends up abandoned in a couple patches.
Let players theorycraft. Let the meta shake out. Then start trimming the overgrowth where needed. That’s how systems stay alive. Not by fear-proofing everything before it even hits live.
Honestly, this could be the biggest shakeup in ESO’s identity in years. And if they lean in, it could be legendary.1 -
Ph1p✭✭✭✭✭
✭I can see the appeal of having more build options, choice, and flexibility, even though I personally prefer more distinct classes. On a side note, I think ZOS approach isn't really subclasses, but rather a mix-and-match skill system. In my opinion, subclasses would have been adding flexibility around existing skill lines, like further morph options to spec a Warden more into pets vs. ice damage, a Templar into AoE vs. single-target healing, or Sorcs into lighting vs. fire vs. ice damage.
Either way, I just hope ZOS manages to avoid certain pitfalls with this new system:- Lots of people already mentioned balancing issues. This game is almost 11 years old and shouldn't have constant balancing shake-ups over the next 1-2 years again. We all have seen the negativity and bad word of mouth when ZOS overshoots and then nerfs stuff due to power creep.
- Quantity isn't everything. They mentioned over 3000 possible combinations, but how many of those will actually be meaningful? It's like saying that DDs have 650 item sets to choose from or that there are hundreds alchemy recipes. At some point, more choices aren't a sign of flexibility but of redundancy and over-complification.
- Finally, this addition can also increase the gap between new and veteran players. Compared to a few years ago, a new player will have to level and grind antiquities, scribing, subclassing, etc. to fully unlock a toon's full potential. This may undermine one of ESO's strengths so far - being able to relatively quickly jump into content with higher-level players.
0 -
Estin✭✭✭✭✭
✭tomofhyrule wrote: »The only way I can see subclassing working without breaking the game is to have at the very least a 50% penalty on the skills and passives. Lore wise, you're not that class. You shouldn't be able to be just as strong as someone who is naturally that class. It's the only way to open variety but keep balance in line. The skills costing 2 skill points is not enough to be considered a penalty since skill points are so easy to obtain.
I was thinking that a percentage reduction to subclasses skills would help - that would at least force people into a choice. Do you want the versatility of being able to pull buffs or skills from other classes, or the raw power of perfecting into your own?
Even in games like D&D, it's not like you can have a pure class and a multiclassed character with the same abilities. The tradeoff the multiclassed character took was to sacrifice power at the top end to give themselves a wider range of ability. For example in BG3, a pure Paladin gets their level 3 spell slots at level 9. But if a Paladin levels to 8 and then multiclasses into Barbarian for the rest of it, they'll never have access to their top level Paladin spells.
As it is here, the skills costing double skill points is not a drawback, it's an opportunity cost. That's like saying that we can use Oakensoul ring without taking up a gear slot and without locking us to one bar, but the drawback is that we have to dig up all the leads first. Ok, so you dig up the leads and then what? Oh, you just get all the power and no drawbacks.
Others may consider it too much, but I would say on top of the percentage pentalty, skills shouldn't be able to morph. I'm still going to stand by my lore wise reasoning here. Someone who isn't naturally of a class shouldn't have full access to someone who is. As it stands, there's 0 draw backs to subclassing. It shouldn't be that way. At most you should be able to decide if the skill costs stamina or magicka since non morphed skills are almost always magicka. At that point it'll become scribing 2.0 except at the cost of losing a skill line for a new one. It'll still do enough to add variety to how you play the game.
A 50% reduction to damage/healing/passive bonues/etc + no morphs isn't going to matter much outside of vet or pvp, but it can still open up some meta or near meta routes for some classes in those same areas. A necro can still find benefit in ditching bone tyrant for dawn's wrath to have access to a 240% execute, but that doesn't mean they'll become stronger than a templar. There are issues for some toggleable skills like cloak. How should it work? Decrease the against monster's bonus to 5%? Increase the cost per second? Or only be active for 1 second? Or a skill like molten armaments. Should it be reduced to 15 seconds or give minor brutality/sorcery for 30 seconds? Some thought will have to go into balancing for that so natural classes can still have their identity, whatever's left of it.
I really do hope that ZOS listens to the feedback of player's concerns instead of going through with it with 0 adjustments just because the character fantasy crowd that doesn't step into vet or pvp are excited for this. There has to be real limitations for subclassing.
Subclassing should be about new build opportunities, not a watered-down version of the original classes. If a Necro wants to drop Bone Tyrant for Dawns Wrath and lose some survivability for burst, let them. That tradeoff is the balance.
There’s also a real risk of overcorrecting here. A 50% penalty plus no morphs basically tells players “you can have a cool idea, but we’re going to neuter it just in case.” Let’s let players explore and push the system first, then address specific problems that arise, rather than assuming worst-case scenarios and balancing based on fear.
Let subclassing thrive, then prune where needed. That’s how you end up with a dynamic system that actually adds to the game rather than dividing it.
It will do more than thrive in it's current state. It's already easy to tell there will be problems. The survivability loss on necro means nothing because it's a small bonus to what other classes already have, and because healing is way overtuned. For a necro PvE DPS, you gain nothing from having bone tyrant. There will be no reason to keep it slotted. You swap it to dawn's wrath and you just gave them an ability that is 25% stronger than what a pure templar can have plus 40% crit chance in execute when it's already easy to obtain 45% naturally. Don't stop there, because you can swap out living death for winter's embrace for higher chill proc and damage, plus 8% extra damage, and regain the survivability lost with bone tyrant. So what do you nerf here? Do you nerf radiant oppression, necro passives, or warden passives? If you nerf any of them, then pure classes get weaker for no reason. You are now going against play how you want because you're forcing pures to be weaker without subclassing, something scribing didn't do.
This isn't an edge case either. There are plenty more broken combinations out there for other classes other than necro. I don't even need to mention how bad PvP will get broken with this too, something which ZOS is aware will happen. There needs to be a penalty to subclassing because you're going to be at a massive disadvantage if you don't. And even with penalties, it's not going to affect players who are into this idea for their character fantasy. They won't be weak choices in overland, normal group content, and even solo vet content. There will also still be meta to near meta routes for classes who use sub class skills with penalties in vet group content and pvp. They just won't be insanely broken which is what needs to be avoided. Penalized skills will also make them easier to balance so you're not nerfing pures all because another class is taking advantage of their skills.0 -
QB1✭✭✭tomofhyrule wrote: »The only way I can see subclassing working without breaking the game is to have at the very least a 50% penalty on the skills and passives. Lore wise, you're not that class. You shouldn't be able to be just as strong as someone who is naturally that class. It's the only way to open variety but keep balance in line. The skills costing 2 skill points is not enough to be considered a penalty since skill points are so easy to obtain.
I was thinking that a percentage reduction to subclasses skills would help - that would at least force people into a choice. Do you want the versatility of being able to pull buffs or skills from other classes, or the raw power of perfecting into your own?
Even in games like D&D, it's not like you can have a pure class and a multiclassed character with the same abilities. The tradeoff the multiclassed character took was to sacrifice power at the top end to give themselves a wider range of ability. For example in BG3, a pure Paladin gets their level 3 spell slots at level 9. But if a Paladin levels to 8 and then multiclasses into Barbarian for the rest of it, they'll never have access to their top level Paladin spells.
As it is here, the skills costing double skill points is not a drawback, it's an opportunity cost. That's like saying that we can use Oakensoul ring without taking up a gear slot and without locking us to one bar, but the drawback is that we have to dig up all the leads first. Ok, so you dig up the leads and then what? Oh, you just get all the power and no drawbacks.
Others may consider it too much, but I would say on top of the percentage pentalty, skills shouldn't be able to morph. I'm still going to stand by my lore wise reasoning here. Someone who isn't naturally of a class shouldn't have full access to someone who is. As it stands, there's 0 draw backs to subclassing. It shouldn't be that way. At most you should be able to decide if the skill costs stamina or magicka since non morphed skills are almost always magicka. At that point it'll become scribing 2.0 except at the cost of losing a skill line for a new one. It'll still do enough to add variety to how you play the game.
A 50% reduction to damage/healing/passive bonues/etc + no morphs isn't going to matter much outside of vet or pvp, but it can still open up some meta or near meta routes for some classes in those same areas. A necro can still find benefit in ditching bone tyrant for dawn's wrath to have access to a 240% execute, but that doesn't mean they'll become stronger than a templar. There are issues for some toggleable skills like cloak. How should it work? Decrease the against monster's bonus to 5%? Increase the cost per second? Or only be active for 1 second? Or a skill like molten armaments. Should it be reduced to 15 seconds or give minor brutality/sorcery for 30 seconds? Some thought will have to go into balancing for that so natural classes can still have their identity, whatever's left of it.
I really do hope that ZOS listens to the feedback of player's concerns instead of going through with it with 0 adjustments just because the character fantasy crowd that doesn't step into vet or pvp are excited for this. There has to be real limitations for subclassing.
Subclassing should be about new build opportunities, not a watered-down version of the original classes. If a Necro wants to drop Bone Tyrant for Dawns Wrath and lose some survivability for burst, let them. That tradeoff is the balance.
There’s also a real risk of overcorrecting here. A 50% penalty plus no morphs basically tells players “you can have a cool idea, but we’re going to neuter it just in case.” Let’s let players explore and push the system first, then address specific problems that arise, rather than assuming worst-case scenarios and balancing based on fear.
Let subclassing thrive, then prune where needed. That’s how you end up with a dynamic system that actually adds to the game rather than dividing it.
It will do more than thrive in it's current state. It's already easy to tell there will be problems. The survivability loss on necro means nothing because it's a small bonus to what other classes already have, and because healing is way overtuned. For a necro PvE DPS, you gain nothing from having bone tyrant. There will be no reason to keep it slotted. You swap it to dawn's wrath and you just gave them an ability that is 25% stronger than what a pure templar can have plus 40% crit chance in execute when it's already easy to obtain 45% naturally. Don't stop there, because you can swap out living death for winter's embrace for higher chill proc and damage, plus 8% extra damage, and regain the survivability lost with bone tyrant. So what do you nerf here? Do you nerf radiant oppression, necro passives, or warden passives? If you nerf any of them, then pure classes get weaker for no reason. You are now going against play how you want because you're forcing pures to be weaker without subclassing, something scribing didn't do.
This isn't an edge case either. There are plenty more broken combinations out there for other classes other than necro. I don't even need to mention how bad PvP will get broken with this too, something which ZOS is aware will happen. There needs to be a penalty to subclassing because you're going to be at a massive disadvantage if you don't. And even with penalties, it's not going to affect players who are into this idea for their character fantasy. They won't be weak choices in overland, normal group content, and even solo vet content. There will also still be meta to near meta routes for classes who use sub class skills with penalties in vet group content and pvp. They just won't be insanely broken which is what needs to be avoided. Penalized skills will also make them easier to balance so you're not nerfing pures all because another class is taking advantage of their skills.
Not that worried about it tbh. If you get in execute range you're gonna be in trouble either way. If you die to radiant oppression on a necro you would have probably died to radiant on a templar as well or any other class.
Obviously there are going to be balance issues but starting with heavy penalties kind of kills the creativity before it has a chance to flourish.
Let the wild builds happen, let the outliers emerge, and then figure out a way to dial them in. If we overcorrect from the start, we risk stifling what could be one of the most exciting changes the game’s had in a while.1 -
Estin✭✭✭✭✭
✭tomofhyrule wrote: »The only way I can see subclassing working without breaking the game is to have at the very least a 50% penalty on the skills and passives. Lore wise, you're not that class. You shouldn't be able to be just as strong as someone who is naturally that class. It's the only way to open variety but keep balance in line. The skills costing 2 skill points is not enough to be considered a penalty since skill points are so easy to obtain.
I was thinking that a percentage reduction to subclasses skills would help - that would at least force people into a choice. Do you want the versatility of being able to pull buffs or skills from other classes, or the raw power of perfecting into your own?
Even in games like D&D, it's not like you can have a pure class and a multiclassed character with the same abilities. The tradeoff the multiclassed character took was to sacrifice power at the top end to give themselves a wider range of ability. For example in BG3, a pure Paladin gets their level 3 spell slots at level 9. But if a Paladin levels to 8 and then multiclasses into Barbarian for the rest of it, they'll never have access to their top level Paladin spells.
As it is here, the skills costing double skill points is not a drawback, it's an opportunity cost. That's like saying that we can use Oakensoul ring without taking up a gear slot and without locking us to one bar, but the drawback is that we have to dig up all the leads first. Ok, so you dig up the leads and then what? Oh, you just get all the power and no drawbacks.
Others may consider it too much, but I would say on top of the percentage pentalty, skills shouldn't be able to morph. I'm still going to stand by my lore wise reasoning here. Someone who isn't naturally of a class shouldn't have full access to someone who is. As it stands, there's 0 draw backs to subclassing. It shouldn't be that way. At most you should be able to decide if the skill costs stamina or magicka since non morphed skills are almost always magicka. At that point it'll become scribing 2.0 except at the cost of losing a skill line for a new one. It'll still do enough to add variety to how you play the game.
A 50% reduction to damage/healing/passive bonues/etc + no morphs isn't going to matter much outside of vet or pvp, but it can still open up some meta or near meta routes for some classes in those same areas. A necro can still find benefit in ditching bone tyrant for dawn's wrath to have access to a 240% execute, but that doesn't mean they'll become stronger than a templar. There are issues for some toggleable skills like cloak. How should it work? Decrease the against monster's bonus to 5%? Increase the cost per second? Or only be active for 1 second? Or a skill like molten armaments. Should it be reduced to 15 seconds or give minor brutality/sorcery for 30 seconds? Some thought will have to go into balancing for that so natural classes can still have their identity, whatever's left of it.
I really do hope that ZOS listens to the feedback of player's concerns instead of going through with it with 0 adjustments just because the character fantasy crowd that doesn't step into vet or pvp are excited for this. There has to be real limitations for subclassing.
Subclassing should be about new build opportunities, not a watered-down version of the original classes. If a Necro wants to drop Bone Tyrant for Dawns Wrath and lose some survivability for burst, let them. That tradeoff is the balance.
There’s also a real risk of overcorrecting here. A 50% penalty plus no morphs basically tells players “you can have a cool idea, but we’re going to neuter it just in case.” Let’s let players explore and push the system first, then address specific problems that arise, rather than assuming worst-case scenarios and balancing based on fear.
Let subclassing thrive, then prune where needed. That’s how you end up with a dynamic system that actually adds to the game rather than dividing it.
It will do more than thrive in it's current state. It's already easy to tell there will be problems. The survivability loss on necro means nothing because it's a small bonus to what other classes already have, and because healing is way overtuned. For a necro PvE DPS, you gain nothing from having bone tyrant. There will be no reason to keep it slotted. You swap it to dawn's wrath and you just gave them an ability that is 25% stronger than what a pure templar can have plus 40% crit chance in execute when it's already easy to obtain 45% naturally. Don't stop there, because you can swap out living death for winter's embrace for higher chill proc and damage, plus 8% extra damage, and regain the survivability lost with bone tyrant. So what do you nerf here? Do you nerf radiant oppression, necro passives, or warden passives? If you nerf any of them, then pure classes get weaker for no reason. You are now going against play how you want because you're forcing pures to be weaker without subclassing, something scribing didn't do.
This isn't an edge case either. There are plenty more broken combinations out there for other classes other than necro. I don't even need to mention how bad PvP will get broken with this too, something which ZOS is aware will happen. There needs to be a penalty to subclassing because you're going to be at a massive disadvantage if you don't. And even with penalties, it's not going to affect players who are into this idea for their character fantasy. They won't be weak choices in overland, normal group content, and even solo vet content. There will also still be meta to near meta routes for classes who use sub class skills with penalties in vet group content and pvp. They just won't be insanely broken which is what needs to be avoided. Penalized skills will also make them easier to balance so you're not nerfing pures all because another class is taking advantage of their skills.
Not that worried about it tbh. If you get in execute range you're gonna be in trouble either way. If you die to radiant oppression on a necro you would have probably died to radiant on a templar as well or any other class.
Obviously there are going to be balance issues but starting with heavy penalties kind of kills the creativity before it has a chance to flourish.
Let the wild builds happen, let the outliers emerge, and then figure out a way to dial them in. If we overcorrect from the start, we risk stifling what could be one of the most exciting changes the game’s had in a while.
And that's really where the problem lies. The community is pretty split over this. One side is concerned over balance and identity, and the other side does not care since it doesn't affect them and they're more excited over the possibilities for character fantasy. Both are pretty valid, but it's possible to still meet in the middle, hence the penalties.
I don't really have much more to debate about, since I pretty much said all I could think of. I can say as a real world example, you shouldn't allow all the animals in a zoo to free roam in the beginning just because visitors love animals, and then enclose the problematic animals after incidents happen. That's how the zoo gets ruined.1 -
QB1✭✭✭tomofhyrule wrote: »The only way I can see subclassing working without breaking the game is to have at the very least a 50% penalty on the skills and passives. Lore wise, you're not that class. You shouldn't be able to be just as strong as someone who is naturally that class. It's the only way to open variety but keep balance in line. The skills costing 2 skill points is not enough to be considered a penalty since skill points are so easy to obtain.
I was thinking that a percentage reduction to subclasses skills would help - that would at least force people into a choice. Do you want the versatility of being able to pull buffs or skills from other classes, or the raw power of perfecting into your own?
Even in games like D&D, it's not like you can have a pure class and a multiclassed character with the same abilities. The tradeoff the multiclassed character took was to sacrifice power at the top end to give themselves a wider range of ability. For example in BG3, a pure Paladin gets their level 3 spell slots at level 9. But if a Paladin levels to 8 and then multiclasses into Barbarian for the rest of it, they'll never have access to their top level Paladin spells.
As it is here, the skills costing double skill points is not a drawback, it's an opportunity cost. That's like saying that we can use Oakensoul ring without taking up a gear slot and without locking us to one bar, but the drawback is that we have to dig up all the leads first. Ok, so you dig up the leads and then what? Oh, you just get all the power and no drawbacks.
Others may consider it too much, but I would say on top of the percentage pentalty, skills shouldn't be able to morph. I'm still going to stand by my lore wise reasoning here. Someone who isn't naturally of a class shouldn't have full access to someone who is. As it stands, there's 0 draw backs to subclassing. It shouldn't be that way. At most you should be able to decide if the skill costs stamina or magicka since non morphed skills are almost always magicka. At that point it'll become scribing 2.0 except at the cost of losing a skill line for a new one. It'll still do enough to add variety to how you play the game.
A 50% reduction to damage/healing/passive bonues/etc + no morphs isn't going to matter much outside of vet or pvp, but it can still open up some meta or near meta routes for some classes in those same areas. A necro can still find benefit in ditching bone tyrant for dawn's wrath to have access to a 240% execute, but that doesn't mean they'll become stronger than a templar. There are issues for some toggleable skills like cloak. How should it work? Decrease the against monster's bonus to 5%? Increase the cost per second? Or only be active for 1 second? Or a skill like molten armaments. Should it be reduced to 15 seconds or give minor brutality/sorcery for 30 seconds? Some thought will have to go into balancing for that so natural classes can still have their identity, whatever's left of it.
I really do hope that ZOS listens to the feedback of player's concerns instead of going through with it with 0 adjustments just because the character fantasy crowd that doesn't step into vet or pvp are excited for this. There has to be real limitations for subclassing.
Subclassing should be about new build opportunities, not a watered-down version of the original classes. If a Necro wants to drop Bone Tyrant for Dawns Wrath and lose some survivability for burst, let them. That tradeoff is the balance.
There’s also a real risk of overcorrecting here. A 50% penalty plus no morphs basically tells players “you can have a cool idea, but we’re going to neuter it just in case.” Let’s let players explore and push the system first, then address specific problems that arise, rather than assuming worst-case scenarios and balancing based on fear.
Let subclassing thrive, then prune where needed. That’s how you end up with a dynamic system that actually adds to the game rather than dividing it.
It will do more than thrive in it's current state. It's already easy to tell there will be problems. The survivability loss on necro means nothing because it's a small bonus to what other classes already have, and because healing is way overtuned. For a necro PvE DPS, you gain nothing from having bone tyrant. There will be no reason to keep it slotted. You swap it to dawn's wrath and you just gave them an ability that is 25% stronger than what a pure templar can have plus 40% crit chance in execute when it's already easy to obtain 45% naturally. Don't stop there, because you can swap out living death for winter's embrace for higher chill proc and damage, plus 8% extra damage, and regain the survivability lost with bone tyrant. So what do you nerf here? Do you nerf radiant oppression, necro passives, or warden passives? If you nerf any of them, then pure classes get weaker for no reason. You are now going against play how you want because you're forcing pures to be weaker without subclassing, something scribing didn't do.
This isn't an edge case either. There are plenty more broken combinations out there for other classes other than necro. I don't even need to mention how bad PvP will get broken with this too, something which ZOS is aware will happen. There needs to be a penalty to subclassing because you're going to be at a massive disadvantage if you don't. And even with penalties, it's not going to affect players who are into this idea for their character fantasy. They won't be weak choices in overland, normal group content, and even solo vet content. There will also still be meta to near meta routes for classes who use sub class skills with penalties in vet group content and pvp. They just won't be insanely broken which is what needs to be avoided. Penalized skills will also make them easier to balance so you're not nerfing pures all because another class is taking advantage of their skills.
Not that worried about it tbh. If you get in execute range you're gonna be in trouble either way. If you die to radiant oppression on a necro you would have probably died to radiant on a templar as well or any other class.
Obviously there are going to be balance issues but starting with heavy penalties kind of kills the creativity before it has a chance to flourish.
Let the wild builds happen, let the outliers emerge, and then figure out a way to dial them in. If we overcorrect from the start, we risk stifling what could be one of the most exciting changes the game’s had in a while.
And that's really where the problem lies. The community is pretty split over this. One side is concerned over balance and identity, and the other side does not care since it doesn't affect them and they're more excited over the possibilities for character fantasy. Both are pretty valid, but it's possible to still meet in the middle, hence the penalties.
I don't really have much more to debate about, since I pretty much said all I could think of. I can say as a real world example, you shouldn't allow all the animals in a zoo to free roam in the beginning just because visitors love animals, and then enclose the problematic animals after incidents happen. That's how the zoo gets ruined.
To infer that I’m not concerned about balance would be wrong. I absolutely want things to be as balanced as possible. I just don’t see subclassing or moving toward a more classless system as something that will ruin balance any more than it already is. There are going to be trade-offs, and creators who had a week to play around with it have said that it's going to be more balanced than people think. If it ends up being a complete sh*tshow, I’ll gladly step back and re-evaluate my opinion. I just don’t think it’ll be that bad. We’ll see.
As for identity, I care about that too, just more in terms of overall character identity rather than strict class identity, which is why I welcome these changes.
But I agree it seems like the community is pretty split. We’ll see what ends up being the best path forward. Appreciate the conversation!Edited by QB1 on 11 April 2025 23:310
