PTS Update 46 - Feedback Thread for Classes & Abilities

Joy_Division · May 4

Twohothardware wrote: »

Zeldrosi wrote: »

This patch is going to be a disaster.

Casual players are gonna log in, feel how their classes have been entirely ruined, and log out forever.

Absolute disaster for everyone but most hardcore of the hardcore, aka the 3-5% of players who post on these forums.

Whoever thought they could just nerf almost everything across the board for pure classes and still have a player count above 500 a year from now is on some strong stuff that's for sure.

Casual players are going to log in and be lucky to notice any difference at all. Casual players don't test their DPS on test dummies and that's the only place you're going to notice a difference.

This is quite dismissive of "casual" players. There are many reasons why someone might be casual. Maybe they just don't have much time to invest. Maybe they feel intimidated by the high level of entry for end-game content. Maybe they think the gameplay or story driven narrative is the big appeal of ESO. Maybe they focus their time on other systems such as housing or managing a trader guild. The reason isn't necessarily, "I don't care about being powerful and I am indifferent to being nerfed."

If ZOS does what ZOS does and nerfs the crap out of certain class lines and especially the Arcanist, they will notice and most of them will not like it. If your main focus is being a part of a trading guild, you have 3 kids, and thus "casual," but still occasionally like to do content like undaunted dailies, a casual Arcanist player will absolutely notice the 40% cost increase, the 6 target cap, and ZOS's potential incoming nerf-hammer because being "casual" does not mean being oblivious.

When I had my Maelstrom guide up, I literally had over 100 people whisper me, thanking me for putting the time and effort into maintaining it. Many of these players would probably be labelled as "casuals." Quite a few of them were PvP oriented and thus unaware of the intricacies of end-game PVE play and some of them flat out told me they just don;t have the time to invest in the game to be competitive. The point is they do try to do content beyond what is stereotypical "casual" and they do experience emotions while doing so: whether elation for winning or disappointment when not.

StarOfElyon · May 4

Dino-Jr wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Outside of maybe DK I don't think anyone is going to notice the rest of the sustain changes and DK is probably the least played class in the game if you're not a tank.

Yea agreed its mainly DK right now thats going to happen to, especially since they decided to partially fix the Sorcs sustain change.

My necros will DEFINITELY feel the sustain nerfs.

Dino-Jr · May 4

StarOfElyon wrote: »

Oh wow missed this one entirely…

Undead Confederate: This passive now increases your Health, Magicka, and Stamina Recovery by 77/155 while a Necromantic pet is active, down from 100/200.

katorga · May 4

Dino-Jr wrote: »

StarOfElyon wrote: »

Oh wow missed this one entirely…

Undead Confederate: This passive now increases your Health, Magicka, and Stamina Recovery by 77/155 while a Necromantic pet is active, down from 100/200.

totally unnecessary nerf. pointless.

StarOfElyon · May 5

katorga wrote: »

Dino-Jr wrote: »

StarOfElyon wrote: »

Oh wow missed this one entirely…

Undead Confederate: This passive now increases your Health, Magicka, and Stamina Recovery by 77/155 while a Necromantic pet is active, down from 100/200.

totally unnecessary nerf. pointless.

MIND BOGGLING nerfs.

Tariq9898 · May 5

Choosing to be a pure classes should NOT be punishable.

Counter_point · May 5

... subclasses? This is taking the easy way out. You really avoided the true challenge and work to create something amazing. Arcanist was pretty cool and now you've suddenly ruined that momentum. Instead, you should've created another job or even TWO more jobs. Not throw all the skill lines into one pot. There should be at least two more jobs than there are at this point in the history of this game. I just don't and will never understand what this dev team thinks and why you continue to make poor choices. I am absolutely judging this before it comes out. I will try it on the PTS with harsh criticism and low expectations. Lets see how this goes.

Making all skill lines available to any job creates profound rigidity. End game will find the meta and everyone will be forced into running the same skill lines and jobs. There was, at least a tiny bit of diversity in job identity, but now... you've decided to completely mutilate any progress you've made as a dev team. I just don't get it.

Rules, limitations, restrictions, and identity is the proper way to go about this, as are most artistic endeavors. The extreme opposite is subclasses. You've created even more problems for yourselves in terms of "balancing" out everything. I expect an onslaught of hot fixes, combat/gameplay nerfs and more & more dramatic changes that will inevitably anger the already exhausted community.

Everything is homogenized, the same, and you can do whatever you want whenever. This "freedom" that is so pervasive in many spaces not only in the gaming world but the world in general, accomplishes the exact opposite of the intention.

This dev team is exhausting. You seemingly were doing so much better and then you take five step backwards and put yourself at ground zero... again.

I felt mildly intrigued about the recent changes and direction the devs plan to go. But subclasses will inevitably ruin this game. I just see the future as bleak, constantly changing combat jobs, skills, to the point where all of this will collapse.

sans-culottes · May 5

Counter_point wrote: »

... subclasses? This is taking the easy way out. You really avoided the true challenge and work to create something amazing. Arcanist was pretty cool and now you've suddenly ruined that momentum. Instead, you should've created another job or even TWO more jobs. Not throw all the skill lines into one pot. There should be at least two more jobs than there are at this point in the history of this game. I just don't and will never understand what this dev team thinks and why you continue to make poor choices. I am absolutely judging this before it comes out. I will try it on the PTS with harsh criticism and low expectations. Lets see how this goes.

Making all skill lines available to any job creates profound rigidity. End game will find the meta and everyone will be forced into running the same skill lines and jobs. There was, at least a tiny bit of diversity in job identity, but now... you've decided to completely mutilate any progress you've made as a dev team. I just don't get it.

Rules, limitations, restrictions, and identity is the proper way to go about this, as are most artistic endeavors. The extreme opposite is subclasses. You've created even more problems for yourselves in terms of "balancing" out everything. I expect an onslaught of hot fixes, combat/gameplay nerfs and more & more dramatic changes that will inevitably anger the already exhausted community.

Everything is homogenized, the same, and you can do whatever you want whenever. This "freedom" that is so pervasive in many spaces not only in the gaming world but the world in general, accomplishes the exact opposite of the intention.

This dev team is exhausting. You seemingly were doing so much better and then you take five step backwards and put yourself at ground zero... again.

I felt mildly intrigued about the recent changes and direction the devs plan to go. But subclasses will inevitably ruin this game. I just see the future as bleak, constantly changing combat jobs, skills, to the point where all of this will collapse.

@Counter_point nails what so many defenders of subclassing sidestep: freedom without form becomes incoherence.

By collapsing class structure into a pile of interchangeable fragments, ZOS hasn’t expanded creative possibility. It has erased it. The logic here is not design but surrender. No new archetypes were built. No new thematic identities emerged. Instead, everything collapses into a flavorless slurry of modular “utility.”

The irony is that this move will reduce variety, not increase it. Once the meta calcifies around the top-performing skill line combos, diversity dies. What remains is a treadmill of reactive hotfixes and patch notes trying to balance a system that no longer has any internal logic.

What you call out—rules, limitation, identity—isn’t restriction. It’s the raw material of artistic structure. Without it, there is no tension, no flavor, no reason to pick anything at all.

Subclasses are not a bold evolution. They are an exhausted compromise.

xAlucardx92 · May 5

Inhale and his morphs, pls change it to

Channel draconic energy to suck in the air around you. After 2.5 seconds, you exhale fire, dealing X amount Flame Damage to nearby enemies and heal for x% of the damge done.

So you dont need to hit someone with the first part to activate the 2 Part.

The morph Flame Lash is very weak compared to the other morph Molten Whip.

Remove the part: „Targeting an Off Balance or immobilized enemy changes this ability into Power Lash“ and Increase the damage of this morph and reduce the healing to 30% of the damage done.

Stx · May 5

sans-culottes wrote: »

Counter_point wrote: »

... subclasses? This is taking the easy way out. You really avoided the true challenge and work to create something amazing. Arcanist was pretty cool and now you've suddenly ruined that momentum. Instead, you should've created another job or even TWO more jobs. Not throw all the skill lines into one pot. There should be at least two more jobs than there are at this point in the history of this game. I just don't and will never understand what this dev team thinks and why you continue to make poor choices. I am absolutely judging this before it comes out. I will try it on the PTS with harsh criticism and low expectations. Lets see how this goes.

Making all skill lines available to any job creates profound rigidity. End game will find the meta and everyone will be forced into running the same skill lines and jobs. There was, at least a tiny bit of diversity in job identity, but now... you've decided to completely mutilate any progress you've made as a dev team. I just don't get it.

Rules, limitations, restrictions, and identity is the proper way to go about this, as are most artistic endeavors. The extreme opposite is subclasses. You've created even more problems for yourselves in terms of "balancing" out everything. I expect an onslaught of hot fixes, combat/gameplay nerfs and more & more dramatic changes that will inevitably anger the already exhausted community.

Everything is homogenized, the same, and you can do whatever you want whenever. This "freedom" that is so pervasive in many spaces not only in the gaming world but the world in general, accomplishes the exact opposite of the intention.

This dev team is exhausting. You seemingly were doing so much better and then you take five step backwards and put yourself at ground zero... again.

I felt mildly intrigued about the recent changes and direction the devs plan to go. But subclasses will inevitably ruin this game. I just see the future as bleak, constantly changing combat jobs, skills, to the point where all of this will collapse.

@Counter_point nails what so many defenders of subclassing sidestep: freedom without form becomes incoherence.

By collapsing class structure into a pile of interchangeable fragments, ZOS hasn’t expanded creative possibility. It has erased it. The logic here is not design but surrender. No new archetypes were built. No new thematic identities emerged. Instead, everything collapses into a flavorless slurry of modular “utility.”

The irony is that this move will reduce variety, not increase it. Once the meta calcifies around the top-performing skill line combos, diversity dies. What remains is a treadmill of reactive hotfixes and patch notes trying to balance a system that no longer has any internal logic.

What you call out—rules, limitation, identity—isn’t restriction. It’s the raw material of artistic structure. Without it, there is no tension, no flavor, no reason to pick anything at all.

Subclasses are not a bold evolution. They are an exhausted compromise.

This is the same point that has been made from day one. This is ONLY true for min/max end gamers. For everyone else, this system gives incredible freedom.

Yudo · May 5

It is me, pure sorc.
My class nerfed, dps lower.
Multiclass rises, I remain.
Parse monkeys laughing at me again.
See you at bottom of every log.

in a corner

sans-culottes · May 5

Stx wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Counter_point wrote: »

... subclasses? This is taking the easy way out. You really avoided the true challenge and work to create something amazing. Arcanist was pretty cool and now you've suddenly ruined that momentum. Instead, you should've created another job or even TWO more jobs. Not throw all the skill lines into one pot. There should be at least two more jobs than there are at this point in the history of this game. I just don't and will never understand what this dev team thinks and why you continue to make poor choices. I am absolutely judging this before it comes out. I will try it on the PTS with harsh criticism and low expectations. Lets see how this goes.

Making all skill lines available to any job creates profound rigidity. End game will find the meta and everyone will be forced into running the same skill lines and jobs. There was, at least a tiny bit of diversity in job identity, but now... you've decided to completely mutilate any progress you've made as a dev team. I just don't get it.

Rules, limitations, restrictions, and identity is the proper way to go about this, as are most artistic endeavors. The extreme opposite is subclasses. You've created even more problems for yourselves in terms of "balancing" out everything. I expect an onslaught of hot fixes, combat/gameplay nerfs and more & more dramatic changes that will inevitably anger the already exhausted community.

Everything is homogenized, the same, and you can do whatever you want whenever. This "freedom" that is so pervasive in many spaces not only in the gaming world but the world in general, accomplishes the exact opposite of the intention.

This dev team is exhausting. You seemingly were doing so much better and then you take five step backwards and put yourself at ground zero... again.

I felt mildly intrigued about the recent changes and direction the devs plan to go. But subclasses will inevitably ruin this game. I just see the future as bleak, constantly changing combat jobs, skills, to the point where all of this will collapse.

@Counter_point nails what so many defenders of subclassing sidestep: freedom without form becomes incoherence.

By collapsing class structure into a pile of interchangeable fragments, ZOS hasn’t expanded creative possibility. It has erased it. The logic here is not design but surrender. No new archetypes were built. No new thematic identities emerged. Instead, everything collapses into a flavorless slurry of modular “utility.”

The irony is that this move will reduce variety, not increase it. Once the meta calcifies around the top-performing skill line combos, diversity dies. What remains is a treadmill of reactive hotfixes and patch notes trying to balance a system that no longer has any internal logic.

What you call out—rules, limitation, identity—isn’t restriction. It’s the raw material of artistic structure. Without it, there is no tension, no flavor, no reason to pick anything at all.

Subclasses are not a bold evolution. They are an exhausted compromise.

This is the same point that has been made from day one. This is ONLY true for min/max end gamers. For everyone else, this system gives incredible freedom.

@Stx, the “this only applies to min-maxers” dodge doesn’t hold. Subclassing undermines class identity regardless of whether one chases the meta. It collapses distinct thematic roles into generic skill-line composites, eroding clarity for everyone—from new players trying to parse group roles to veterans trying to maintain a sense of coherent character design. That isn’t freedom.

Stx · May 5

sans-culottes wrote: »

Stx wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Counter_point wrote: »

... subclasses? This is taking the easy way out. You really avoided the true challenge and work to create something amazing. Arcanist was pretty cool and now you've suddenly ruined that momentum. Instead, you should've created another job or even TWO more jobs. Not throw all the skill lines into one pot. There should be at least two more jobs than there are at this point in the history of this game. I just don't and will never understand what this dev team thinks and why you continue to make poor choices. I am absolutely judging this before it comes out. I will try it on the PTS with harsh criticism and low expectations. Lets see how this goes.

Making all skill lines available to any job creates profound rigidity. End game will find the meta and everyone will be forced into running the same skill lines and jobs. There was, at least a tiny bit of diversity in job identity, but now... you've decided to completely mutilate any progress you've made as a dev team. I just don't get it.

Rules, limitations, restrictions, and identity is the proper way to go about this, as are most artistic endeavors. The extreme opposite is subclasses. You've created even more problems for yourselves in terms of "balancing" out everything. I expect an onslaught of hot fixes, combat/gameplay nerfs and more & more dramatic changes that will inevitably anger the already exhausted community.

Everything is homogenized, the same, and you can do whatever you want whenever. This "freedom" that is so pervasive in many spaces not only in the gaming world but the world in general, accomplishes the exact opposite of the intention.

This dev team is exhausting. You seemingly were doing so much better and then you take five step backwards and put yourself at ground zero... again.

I felt mildly intrigued about the recent changes and direction the devs plan to go. But subclasses will inevitably ruin this game. I just see the future as bleak, constantly changing combat jobs, skills, to the point where all of this will collapse.

@Counter_point nails what so many defenders of subclassing sidestep: freedom without form becomes incoherence.

By collapsing class structure into a pile of interchangeable fragments, ZOS hasn’t expanded creative possibility. It has erased it. The logic here is not design but surrender. No new archetypes were built. No new thematic identities emerged. Instead, everything collapses into a flavorless slurry of modular “utility.”

The irony is that this move will reduce variety, not increase it. Once the meta calcifies around the top-performing skill line combos, diversity dies. What remains is a treadmill of reactive hotfixes and patch notes trying to balance a system that no longer has any internal logic.

What you call out—rules, limitation, identity—isn’t restriction. It’s the raw material of artistic structure. Without it, there is no tension, no flavor, no reason to pick anything at all.

Subclasses are not a bold evolution. They are an exhausted compromise.

This is the same point that has been made from day one. This is ONLY true for min/max end gamers. For everyone else, this system gives incredible freedom.

@Stx, the “this only applies to min-maxers” dodge doesn’t hold. Subclassing undermines class identity regardless of whether one chases the meta. It collapses distinct thematic roles into generic skill-line composites, eroding clarity for everyone—from new players trying to parse group roles to veterans trying to maintain a sense of coherent character design. That isn’t freedom.

False. You presume everyone cares about ‘class identity’. Subclassing makes the class system less cookie cutter, and much more in line with the single player Elder scrolls games which to me is awesome. This change helps character design, you can make character themes that you couldn’t before. You say clarity, I say restrictions.

sans-culottes · May 5

Stx wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Stx wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Counter_point wrote: »

... subclasses? This is taking the easy way out. You really avoided the true challenge and work to create something amazing. Arcanist was pretty cool and now you've suddenly ruined that momentum. Instead, you should've created another job or even TWO more jobs. Not throw all the skill lines into one pot. There should be at least two more jobs than there are at this point in the history of this game. I just don't and will never understand what this dev team thinks and why you continue to make poor choices. I am absolutely judging this before it comes out. I will try it on the PTS with harsh criticism and low expectations. Lets see how this goes.

Making all skill lines available to any job creates profound rigidity. End game will find the meta and everyone will be forced into running the same skill lines and jobs. There was, at least a tiny bit of diversity in job identity, but now... you've decided to completely mutilate any progress you've made as a dev team. I just don't get it.

Rules, limitations, restrictions, and identity is the proper way to go about this, as are most artistic endeavors. The extreme opposite is subclasses. You've created even more problems for yourselves in terms of "balancing" out everything. I expect an onslaught of hot fixes, combat/gameplay nerfs and more & more dramatic changes that will inevitably anger the already exhausted community.

Everything is homogenized, the same, and you can do whatever you want whenever. This "freedom" that is so pervasive in many spaces not only in the gaming world but the world in general, accomplishes the exact opposite of the intention.

This dev team is exhausting. You seemingly were doing so much better and then you take five step backwards and put yourself at ground zero... again.

I felt mildly intrigued about the recent changes and direction the devs plan to go. But subclasses will inevitably ruin this game. I just see the future as bleak, constantly changing combat jobs, skills, to the point where all of this will collapse.

@Counter_point nails what so many defenders of subclassing sidestep: freedom without form becomes incoherence.

By collapsing class structure into a pile of interchangeable fragments, ZOS hasn’t expanded creative possibility. It has erased it. The logic here is not design but surrender. No new archetypes were built. No new thematic identities emerged. Instead, everything collapses into a flavorless slurry of modular “utility.”

The irony is that this move will reduce variety, not increase it. Once the meta calcifies around the top-performing skill line combos, diversity dies. What remains is a treadmill of reactive hotfixes and patch notes trying to balance a system that no longer has any internal logic.

What you call out—rules, limitation, identity—isn’t restriction. It’s the raw material of artistic structure. Without it, there is no tension, no flavor, no reason to pick anything at all.

Subclasses are not a bold evolution. They are an exhausted compromise.

This is the same point that has been made from day one. This is ONLY true for min/max end gamers. For everyone else, this system gives incredible freedom.

@Stx, the “this only applies to min-maxers” dodge doesn’t hold. Subclassing undermines class identity regardless of whether one chases the meta. It collapses distinct thematic roles into generic skill-line composites, eroding clarity for everyone—from new players trying to parse group roles to veterans trying to maintain a sense of coherent character design. That isn’t freedom.

False. You presume everyone cares about ‘class identity’. Subclassing makes the class system less cookie cutter, and much more in line with the single player Elder scrolls games which to me is awesome. This change helps character design, you can make character themes that you couldn’t before. You say clarity, I say restrictions.

@Stx, that’s not a rebuttal. It’s a confession of preference. You like subclassing. Fine. But the structure you’re praising—“less cookie cutter,” “more like single player”—relies on flattening distinctions until all classes become interchangeable vectors for utility. That may feel like freedom, but in design terms, it’s entropy.

You haven’t defended subclassing so much as restated your aesthetic preference for looseness over form. That doesn’t erase the reality that coherence, clarity, and identity are being discarded to chase a shallow idea of flexibility.

Grim_Overlord · May 5

I think part of the issue with how this is being discussed is that if we just view this new system through the lens of class identity as it was, it isn't engaging with the system in terms of its stated premise. If the goal of subclassing is to turn each skill line into a module based around the theme inherent to it, then class identity isn't destroyed, but rather reshaped, as we are being given more freedom to create classes more unique to our characters.

That is not to say that this does not come with its own issues, as for this to work, each skill line needs to work independently while offer enough synergy with a few other skill lines to offer the possibility for potential combinations. Thus, classes are suffering in two groups: The base game classes and Warden, whose lines offer mostly unique aesthetics based around their concept, with the most homogenous of these being Templar, and Necro and Arcanist, whose identities are consistent across their skill lines, but more specialized by role rather than aesthetic. I know Warden is the same in this way to the other DLC classes, but each line is very distinct in appearance which is why I've lumped it otherwise.

The best way forward that I can see is to ensure that each module, while prepacked as a class at character select, operates in ways that promotes the creation of unique classes, meaning that skill lines wholly focused on damage, healing, or tanking, while optimal for endgame minmaxing, shouldn't be the goal. Rather, the aesthetic should come first alongside the passives there-in augmenting a specific playstyle. Modules should have some overlap with each other in terms of playstyle, but that should also mean that there are trade-offs in picking and choosing certain modules beyond just not having access to a certain skill line or passive, breaking your crafted aesthetic, or loosing out on 50% efficiency compared to other combos.

In essence, I think modules should strive to encourage different playstyles through their combinations first and foremost. An example would be taking Dark Magic for shield healing(assuming Ward gets moved over or other skills get the Daedric Refuge treatment) and Winter's Embrace, Stormcalling, and Ardent Flame each give their own benefits to their damage types alongside differences in playstyle so that they can be used all together effectively as much as being built around. I think each does this somewhat, with the focus on chilled, reverse execute(though the skills themselves could do with some buffing), and a focus on longer DOTs(though this is the weakest identity of the three).

illutian · May 5

Thinking about this, and figure maybe I should post here just in case...because the alternatives are nuking abilities or baking in a "penalty" for subclassing.

From my post in a General thread:

All they need to do is put a cap on the buff amounts. Sure, 160k shield is silly. But if they put a cap on Shields to be something like "up to 200% of Max Health". Then I'm looking at, on my Warden right now, 40k shield with no HP buffs.

Stuff like Resistance and Penetration. Easy, Resistance and Penetration capped at 100% (or whatever) of either Magicka or Stamina, which ever is highest.

There. Now it doesn't matter to stack skill lines for INT Overflow numbers for Shields, Resistance, or Penetration.

Stx · May 5

sans-culottes wrote: »

Stx wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Stx wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Counter_point wrote: »

... subclasses? This is taking the easy way out. You really avoided the true challenge and work to create something amazing. Arcanist was pretty cool and now you've suddenly ruined that momentum. Instead, you should've created another job or even TWO more jobs. Not throw all the skill lines into one pot. There should be at least two more jobs than there are at this point in the history of this game. I just don't and will never understand what this dev team thinks and why you continue to make poor choices. I am absolutely judging this before it comes out. I will try it on the PTS with harsh criticism and low expectations. Lets see how this goes.

Making all skill lines available to any job creates profound rigidity. End game will find the meta and everyone will be forced into running the same skill lines and jobs. There was, at least a tiny bit of diversity in job identity, but now... you've decided to completely mutilate any progress you've made as a dev team. I just don't get it.

Rules, limitations, restrictions, and identity is the proper way to go about this, as are most artistic endeavors. The extreme opposite is subclasses. You've created even more problems for yourselves in terms of "balancing" out everything. I expect an onslaught of hot fixes, combat/gameplay nerfs and more & more dramatic changes that will inevitably anger the already exhausted community.

Everything is homogenized, the same, and you can do whatever you want whenever. This "freedom" that is so pervasive in many spaces not only in the gaming world but the world in general, accomplishes the exact opposite of the intention.

This dev team is exhausting. You seemingly were doing so much better and then you take five step backwards and put yourself at ground zero... again.

I felt mildly intrigued about the recent changes and direction the devs plan to go. But subclasses will inevitably ruin this game. I just see the future as bleak, constantly changing combat jobs, skills, to the point where all of this will collapse.

@Counter_point nails what so many defenders of subclassing sidestep: freedom without form becomes incoherence.

By collapsing class structure into a pile of interchangeable fragments, ZOS hasn’t expanded creative possibility. It has erased it. The logic here is not design but surrender. No new archetypes were built. No new thematic identities emerged. Instead, everything collapses into a flavorless slurry of modular “utility.”

The irony is that this move will reduce variety, not increase it. Once the meta calcifies around the top-performing skill line combos, diversity dies. What remains is a treadmill of reactive hotfixes and patch notes trying to balance a system that no longer has any internal logic.

What you call out—rules, limitation, identity—isn’t restriction. It’s the raw material of artistic structure. Without it, there is no tension, no flavor, no reason to pick anything at all.

Subclasses are not a bold evolution. They are an exhausted compromise.

This is the same point that has been made from day one. This is ONLY true for min/max end gamers. For everyone else, this system gives incredible freedom.

@Stx, the “this only applies to min-maxers” dodge doesn’t hold. Subclassing undermines class identity regardless of whether one chases the meta. It collapses distinct thematic roles into generic skill-line composites, eroding clarity for everyone—from new players trying to parse group roles to veterans trying to maintain a sense of coherent character design. That isn’t freedom.

False. You presume everyone cares about ‘class identity’. Subclassing makes the class system less cookie cutter, and much more in line with the single player Elder scrolls games which to me is awesome. This change helps character design, you can make character themes that you couldn’t before. You say clarity, I say restrictions.

@Stx, that’s not a rebuttal. It’s a confession of preference. You like subclassing. Fine. But the structure you’re praising—“less cookie cutter,” “more like single player”—relies on flattening distinctions until all classes become interchangeable vectors for utility. That may feel like freedom, but in design terms, it’s entropy.

You haven’t defended subclassing so much as restated your aesthetic preference for looseness over form. That doesn’t erase the reality that coherence, clarity, and identity are being discarded to chase a shallow idea of flexibility.

That’s your reality. You can throw out numerous subjective terms to try and create your point but what this comes down to is preference, and yes I prefer a more classless traditional elder scrolls system. I acknowledge the point that this system at the min/max level will reduce variety in builds just like hybridization did. I think it’s still a very good system to implement for the overall game and player base.

wolfie1.0. · May 5

Subclassing makes balancing harder not easier. This is way more work for the devs. And more player frustration.

Rather than having a group of 15 active skills, 15 passives, and 3 ultimates to balance a class out between each other for a class as a whole, you now have to make do with less. You have to make 5 actives, 5 passives, and an ultimate balance with 20 others to make them balanced.

Honestly, a better choice at this point would have been to either increase morph options, or better yet to have introduced class specializations, where a character can choose one of the three skill lines to focus on and get new skill lines. Night blade would be assassin, shadow, soul and you get to have 3 new skill lines for each one. That would have had balancing challenges but gives you a ton of room to play in.

StarOfElyon · May 5

Stx wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Counter_point wrote: »

... subclasses? This is taking the easy way out. You really avoided the true challenge and work to create something amazing. Arcanist was pretty cool and now you've suddenly ruined that momentum. Instead, you should've created another job or even TWO more jobs. Not throw all the skill lines into one pot. There should be at least two more jobs than there are at this point in the history of this game. I just don't and will never understand what this dev team thinks and why you continue to make poor choices. I am absolutely judging this before it comes out. I will try it on the PTS with harsh criticism and low expectations. Lets see how this goes.

Making all skill lines available to any job creates profound rigidity. End game will find the meta and everyone will be forced into running the same skill lines and jobs. There was, at least a tiny bit of diversity in job identity, but now... you've decided to completely mutilate any progress you've made as a dev team. I just don't get it.

Rules, limitations, restrictions, and identity is the proper way to go about this, as are most artistic endeavors. The extreme opposite is subclasses. You've created even more problems for yourselves in terms of "balancing" out everything. I expect an onslaught of hot fixes, combat/gameplay nerfs and more & more dramatic changes that will inevitably anger the already exhausted community.

Everything is homogenized, the same, and you can do whatever you want whenever. This "freedom" that is so pervasive in many spaces not only in the gaming world but the world in general, accomplishes the exact opposite of the intention.

This dev team is exhausting. You seemingly were doing so much better and then you take five step backwards and put yourself at ground zero... again.

I felt mildly intrigued about the recent changes and direction the devs plan to go. But subclasses will inevitably ruin this game. I just see the future as bleak, constantly changing combat jobs, skills, to the point where all of this will collapse.

@Counter_point nails what so many defenders of subclassing sidestep: freedom without form becomes incoherence.

By collapsing class structure into a pile of interchangeable fragments, ZOS hasn’t expanded creative possibility. It has erased it. The logic here is not design but surrender. No new archetypes were built. No new thematic identities emerged. Instead, everything collapses into a flavorless slurry of modular “utility.”

The irony is that this move will reduce variety, not increase it. Once the meta calcifies around the top-performing skill line combos, diversity dies. What remains is a treadmill of reactive hotfixes and patch notes trying to balance a system that no longer has any internal logic.

What you call out—rules, limitation, identity—isn’t restriction. It’s the raw material of artistic structure. Without it, there is no tension, no flavor, no reason to pick anything at all.

Subclasses are not a bold evolution. They are an exhausted compromise.

This is the same point that has been made from day one. This is ONLY true for min/max end gamers. For everyone else, this system gives incredible freedom.

Freedom should have been given through more world skills, scribing, weapons, classes, and skill styles. Subclassing will cause MANY more problems than it will solve.

sans-culottes · May 5

Stx wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Stx wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Stx wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Counter_point wrote: »

... subclasses? This is taking the easy way out. You really avoided the true challenge and work to create something amazing. Arcanist was pretty cool and now you've suddenly ruined that momentum. Instead, you should've created another job or even TWO more jobs. Not throw all the skill lines into one pot. There should be at least two more jobs than there are at this point in the history of this game. I just don't and will never understand what this dev team thinks and why you continue to make poor choices. I am absolutely judging this before it comes out. I will try it on the PTS with harsh criticism and low expectations. Lets see how this goes.

Making all skill lines available to any job creates profound rigidity. End game will find the meta and everyone will be forced into running the same skill lines and jobs. There was, at least a tiny bit of diversity in job identity, but now... you've decided to completely mutilate any progress you've made as a dev team. I just don't get it.

Rules, limitations, restrictions, and identity is the proper way to go about this, as are most artistic endeavors. The extreme opposite is subclasses. You've created even more problems for yourselves in terms of "balancing" out everything. I expect an onslaught of hot fixes, combat/gameplay nerfs and more & more dramatic changes that will inevitably anger the already exhausted community.

Everything is homogenized, the same, and you can do whatever you want whenever. This "freedom" that is so pervasive in many spaces not only in the gaming world but the world in general, accomplishes the exact opposite of the intention.

This dev team is exhausting. You seemingly were doing so much better and then you take five step backwards and put yourself at ground zero... again.

I felt mildly intrigued about the recent changes and direction the devs plan to go. But subclasses will inevitably ruin this game. I just see the future as bleak, constantly changing combat jobs, skills, to the point where all of this will collapse.

@Counter_point nails what so many defenders of subclassing sidestep: freedom without form becomes incoherence.

By collapsing class structure into a pile of interchangeable fragments, ZOS hasn’t expanded creative possibility. It has erased it. The logic here is not design but surrender. No new archetypes were built. No new thematic identities emerged. Instead, everything collapses into a flavorless slurry of modular “utility.”

The irony is that this move will reduce variety, not increase it. Once the meta calcifies around the top-performing skill line combos, diversity dies. What remains is a treadmill of reactive hotfixes and patch notes trying to balance a system that no longer has any internal logic.

What you call out—rules, limitation, identity—isn’t restriction. It’s the raw material of artistic structure. Without it, there is no tension, no flavor, no reason to pick anything at all.

Subclasses are not a bold evolution. They are an exhausted compromise.

This is the same point that has been made from day one. This is ONLY true for min/max end gamers. For everyone else, this system gives incredible freedom.

@Stx, the “this only applies to min-maxers” dodge doesn’t hold. Subclassing undermines class identity regardless of whether one chases the meta. It collapses distinct thematic roles into generic skill-line composites, eroding clarity for everyone—from new players trying to parse group roles to veterans trying to maintain a sense of coherent character design. That isn’t freedom.

False. You presume everyone cares about ‘class identity’. Subclassing makes the class system less cookie cutter, and much more in line with the single player Elder scrolls games which to me is awesome. This change helps character design, you can make character themes that you couldn’t before. You say clarity, I say restrictions.

@Stx, that’s not a rebuttal. It’s a confession of preference. You like subclassing. Fine. But the structure you’re praising—“less cookie cutter,” “more like single player”—relies on flattening distinctions until all classes become interchangeable vectors for utility. That may feel like freedom, but in design terms, it’s entropy.

You haven’t defended subclassing so much as restated your aesthetic preference for looseness over form. That doesn’t erase the reality that coherence, clarity, and identity are being discarded to chase a shallow idea of flexibility.

That’s your reality. You can throw out numerous subjective terms to try and create your point but what this comes down to is preference, and yes I prefer a more classless traditional elder scrolls system. I acknowledge the point that this system at the min/max level will reduce variety in builds just like hybridization did. I think it’s still a very good system to implement for the overall game and player base.

@Stx, if subclassing truly enabled richer character themes, then you’d be able to give one example—just one—that isn’t already undermined by the absurd toolkit mashups this system invites. Instead, we get the usual bait-and-switch: vague gestures toward “freedom,” followed by hand-waving when asked what any of it actually means.

You admit the system collapses diversity at the top end. But it also confuses identity at the casual level. What exactly is being preserved here? A character who looks like a Warden, fights like a Sorc, and heals with Siphoning? That isn’t thematic freedom. It’s a mess.

Dreadwar · May 5

The more I play on the PTS, the more I am inclined to classes being able to swap out only any one skill line instead of the planned up to 2.

necro_the_crafter · May 5

There is so much potential in subclassing, its just requires ZoS to put in an actual work and show real creativity.
With the subclassing there is no longer a need of having tanking/healing/damage tree for classes, and each class can be more specialised as a base, that you can then mix with subclassing.

And, with hybridisation, theres is no longer a need for a damage types to be tied with resourse, i.e. physical-stamina, magical-mana. Each class can now have a unique role and damage type, while also being able to borrow from each other, wich will create even more possibilities and diversity for the players to end up with unique playstyles that suits their power fanatsy.

Also, a lot of work needs to be done to give players an ability to customise theirs "borrowed" spells into one theme, so we all dont end up being "rainbow warriors", which will also ruin an immersion for a lot of people, and TES games, at its core, is all about immersive fanatsy expirience.

Stx · May 5

You know what’s a mess? Base warden class.

I haven’t provided any examples because I wasn’t asked. I have many that I’m excited for-

Storm God: Storm calling / Aedric spear / X

Geomancer: Earthen Heart / Storm calling / Winters embrace

Master Summoner: Daedric summoning / Grave Lord / Animal Companion

Plague Dragon: Ardent Flame / Grave Lord / X

Witch Hunter: Daedric Summoning / Assassination / Shadow

Magician: Siphoning / Dark Magic / Dawns Wrath / Animal Companion (magicka damage, one is out)

We can agree that for min / maxing subclassing “collapses” build diversity although I think that’s a little dramatic. We won’t agree that this ruins identity in any way. This does wonders for identity. Mainly because the classes as they exist now have never had a strong identity to begin with. What in the world even is a ‘Dragon knight’?

Maggusemm · May 5

It would be great if there would be one specific set of skills of buffs which are really class specific and cannot be exchanged. Therefore, a separate category could be introduced as additional buff (maybe choosing between 1-3 options there).

So one set of class buffs giving class identity which can only be changed within the class.

And then the additional three skill lines like we know them which can be changed with sub-classing.

sans-culottes · May 5

Stx wrote: »

You know what’s a mess? Base warden class.

I haven’t provided any examples because I wasn’t asked. I have many that I’m excited for-

Storm God: Storm calling / Aedric spear / X

Geomancer: Earthen Heart / Storm calling / Winters embrace

Master Summoner: Daedric summoning / Grave Lord / Animal Companion

Plague Dragon: Ardent Flame / Grave Lord / X

Witch Hunter: Daedric Summoning / Assassination / Shadow

Magician: Siphoning / Dark Magic / Dawns Wrath / Animal Companion (magicka damage, one is out)

We can agree that for min / maxing subclassing “collapses” build diversity although I think that’s a little dramatic. We won’t agree that this ruins identity in any way. This does wonders for identity. Mainly because the classes as they exist now have never had a strong identity to begin with. What in the world even is a ‘Dragon knight’?

The examples you listed do not reinforce identity. They underscore its collapse. “Storm God” and “Geomancer” are not cohesive archetypes. They are ad hoc titles pasted over disconnected mechanics. Pairing Aedric Spear with Storm Calling or mixing Ardent Flame with Grave Lord does not create a class. It creates a toolkit.

Identity in design requires more than access to parts. It requires structure, coherence, and constraint. What you are calling “freedom” is the absence of design logic. It is not a system that invites creativity. It is a system that erases the difference between a character and a build.

If Dragonknight never had a strong identity, then that’s because the design was muddled from the outset. Combining it with other fragments does not solve the problem, though. Rather, it just amplifies the noise.

P.S. I actually agree with you that rigid, highly structured class kits are not in line with the broader Elder Scrolls tradition. But subclassing doesn’t fix that. A proper solution would require redesigning skills along recognizable magical schools, weapon disciplines, and thematic archetypes—like those in Daggerfall or Morrowind. That would offer freedom with form, instead of the current incoherent sprawl.

SaintJohnHM · May 5

Stx wrote: »

We can agree that for min / maxing subclassing “collapses” build diversity although I think that’s a little dramatic. We won’t agree that this ruins identity in any way. This does wonders for identity. Mainly because the classes as they exist now have never had a strong identity to begin with. What in the world even is a ‘Dragon knight’?

You can think multiclassing gives you more identity, but there are many many players who have built their gameplay around having some class identity based on the the current system. Those players are going to have much less fun, and many will leave the game.

Varana · May 5

If Storm Calling and Winter's Embrace make a Geomancer (you know, geo- like in earth), but then claim a DK (you know, FIRE! and FIERY rock! and FIRE-spewing lizard!) would not have an "identity"? What?!?
The original classes have a really strong theme that ties them together. Made-up combinations from single parts of those themes are, with very few exceptions, thematically weaker than their originals.

Cominfordatoothbrush · May 5

Stx wrote: »

What in the world even is a ‘Dragon knight’?

I know it's a very minor point to hone in on, but canonically it's a warrior that practices the martial styles of the Akaviri Dragonguard

PrinceShroob · May 5

Really? 11.0.3 took two weeks for balance changes and that's all you do? You don't address the community's concerns about subclassing at all? What can I say except "we warned you"? Adding subclassing this way to a decade-old game is like trying to add a new piece to chess.

Case in point: you're concerned about Rapid Rot's effect on damage over time skills, so you just arbitrarily and nonsensically make beams--which definitionally deal damage over a period of time--not be considered damage over time abilities rather than addressing the underlying issue, that you were not and are not prepared for the level of damage increase subclassing has enabled. And rather than saying mea culpa, it's full steam ahead. I really have no words.

Cominfordatoothbrush · May 5

Regarding the patch notes, my disappointment in seeing the communitys feedback seemingly not considered at all is immeasurable. Some of us LIKE the old classes, it's ridiculous for this patch to go forward with multiclasses being so much more powerful