Stamina Sorc Suggestions - A casual player's perspective

dodgehopper_ESO

I'd like to know something from people who play Stamina Sorcerer all day every day. Why do I feel like there is such a strong kneejerk reaction (or even ignoring) to my suggestion that they make crit surge effective versus shields (by making shields crittable) and then basing all shields (including Sorcerer, healing ward, etc) on health. They could in general stand to make health a better stat, either through upping its multiplier or by starting to scale mitigating efficacy off of it. The reason I make this suggestion is that actually the Stamina Sorc gets screwed on skills like hardened ward. I don't think any Storcs I know use it, purely because of its scaling on magicka (in my view a poor design choice if I've ever seen any). It would be nice for the Sorcerer Tanks, and Stamina Sorcerers if they could use Hardened Ward in an effective manner, and I think this is the solution. Why then is there so much backlash and outcry (historically) when I make this suggestion? I think if they did this, we could also see them get rid of the awful changes to Battle Spirit, and it would help the class as a whole. Please I won't feedback, particularly from you Stamina/Tank Sorcerers of Tamriel. (By the way, I do play a Sorcerer tank whose playstyle has gotten gutted by the changes in the last few major updates, as well as a Stamina Sorc that I've used specifically for blackwater pvp with a friend).

@Fengrush you're pretty vocal about your feelings on Stamina Sorcerers and balance, do you have any insight on this?

Father_X_Zombie

Soneca798 wrote: »

AK47ZOMBIE66 wrote: »

Ok, I should probably clarify what I said. I never said stam sorcs are a lore breaking class that shouldn't exist and are trash that only spam WB. I ment that I don't understand why someone would want to turn a mage class into a warrior.

Well you could make the same argument to any of the classes, and before 1.6 everyone was magicka anyways so it was kinda true. Dks are pyromancers, templars are priests, nightblades are warlocks and sorcerers are mages. So if every other class, that like I said, can technically be described as a mage, now all have viable or semi viable warrior counterparts (as per what the developers intended and as per what the community obviously wants, threads like these being proof) then why is the sorcerer class the only one that's laughed at for wanting more warrior like options?

Courtesy of the elder scrolls wiki definition of a mage"Preferring to use their extensive knowledge of Magic, Mages wield a might as powerful as the sharpest blade or the deadliest mace. Mages spend many years studying schools of the arcane arts, leaving behind most other pursuits. Depending on their magical abilities for offensive and defensive power, mages are typically lacking in armor or shields and utilize limited to no physical weaponry."

And the warrior definition: Warriors are true fighters and experts at melee combat. Preferring to mix offensive power with defensive ability, warriors prefer to use a good sword or axe with a shield and shrug off attacks with heavy armor. Warriors do not tire easily and are capable of repairing their own gear.


When comparing the two, a moprh between them seems silly doesn't it, especially to a LOTR fan (like myself)

And the ESO definition of a Sorcerer: Sorcerers summon and control weather phenomenon: hurling lightning bolts and creating electrified fields, summoning tornadoes and impenetrable fog, and calling upon Daedric forces to summon Storm Atronachs and magical armor.

Im not saying a stam sorc shouldnt happen, im just saying its a bit weird to make a warrior from a mage class.

dodgehopper_ESO

AK47ZOMBIE66 wrote: »

Soneca798 wrote: »

AK47ZOMBIE66 wrote: »

Ok, I should probably clarify what I said. I never said stam sorcs are a lore breaking class that shouldn't exist and are trash that only spam WB. I ment that I don't understand why someone would want to turn a mage class into a warrior.

Well you could make the same argument to any of the classes, and before 1.6 everyone was magicka anyways so it was kinda true. Dks are pyromancers, templars are priests, nightblades are warlocks and sorcerers are mages. So if every other class, that like I said, can technically be described as a mage, now all have viable or semi viable warrior counterparts (as per what the developers intended and as per what the community obviously wants, threads like these being proof) then why is the sorcerer class the only one that's laughed at for wanting more warrior like options?

Courtesy of the elder scrolls wiki definition of a mage"Preferring to use their extensive knowledge of Magic, Mages wield a might as powerful as the sharpest blade or the deadliest mace. Mages spend many years studying schools of the arcane arts, leaving behind most other pursuits. Depending on their magical abilities for offensive and defensive power, mages are typically lacking in armor or shields and utilize limited to no physical weaponry."

And the warrior definition: Warriors are true fighters and experts at melee combat. Preferring to mix offensive power with defensive ability, warriors prefer to use a good sword or axe with a shield and shrug off attacks with heavy armor. Warriors do not tire easily and are capable of repairing their own gear.


When comparing the two, a moprh between them seems silly doesn't it, especially to a LOTR fan (like myself)

And the ESO definition of a Sorcerer: Sorcerers summon and control weather phenomenon: hurling lightning bolts and creating electrified fields, summoning tornadoes and impenetrable fog, and calling upon Daedric forces to summon Storm Atronachs and magical armor.

Im not saying a stam sorc shouldnt happen, im just saying its a bit weird to make a warrior from a mage class.

I understand your point of view, but I'd like to make a few comparisons why many other people disagree.

Morrowind Sorcerer Definition: Though spellcasters by vocation, sorcerers rely most on summonings and enchantments. They are greedy for magic scrolls, rings, armor and weapons, and commanding undead and Daedric servants gratifies their egos.
Their Major Skills were: Enchant, Conjuration, Mysticism, Destruction, Alteration // Their Minor Skills were: Illusion, Medium Armor, Heavy Armor, Marksman, Shortblade. Thematically this class has always had a warrior facet to it and was a hybrid class.

Oblivion Sorcerer Definition: Besting the most well-equipped fighters, they rely on the spells of the mystic arts. Unique to these mages is the bodily stamina to be armed with the thickest armor.
Attributes: Endurance/Intelligence
Skills: Alchemy, Alteration, Conjuration, Destruction, Heavy ARmor, Mysticism, Restoration

As you can see in Oblivion the class even has a more militant design, focusing heavily on a mix of magic and armored combat. I think 'Bound Weapons' definitely defines this class for a lot of people, something this game didn't have.

Finally, you have multiple Sorcerer NPC's wielding Sword and Shield or the 2hander, Mebs Runnyeye is one example, but there are hundreds of NPC's that wield lightning auras and slam down a lightning-dawnbreaker with the 2hander. In fact at the outset of the game it was clear that 2hander was built with Sorcerer in mind. One of the passives use to make elemental effects proc their secondary effect 100% of the time, which was fantastic if you were a melee Sorc with Boundless Lightning up. It was amazing and the change to that one passive wrecked my original Sorc build. The design of the Sorcerer early in the game clearly had the intent though to be viable for the melee fighter. The point I'm making here is that between the history of what the class represented in the last 15+ years of TES is definitely on the side of being 'magician or warrior or both'. All of the classes were meant to be played your way, which just means that you could play any role. That was the intent and while different classes have fallen short at different times, I believe this is likely still their intent based on all of the changes they have made the last few years (yes I'm including beta).

Soneca798

AK47ZOMBIE66 wrote: »

Soneca798 wrote: »

AK47ZOMBIE66 wrote: »

Ok, I should probably clarify what I said. I never said stam sorcs are a lore breaking class that shouldn't exist and are trash that only spam WB. I ment that I don't understand why someone would want to turn a mage class into a warrior.

Well you could make the same argument to any of the classes, and before 1.6 everyone was magicka anyways so it was kinda true. Dks are pyromancers, templars are priests, nightblades are warlocks and sorcerers are mages. So if every other class, that like I said, can technically be described as a mage, now all have viable or semi viable warrior counterparts (as per what the developers intended and as per what the community obviously wants, threads like these being proof) then why is the sorcerer class the only one that's laughed at for wanting more warrior like options?

Courtesy of the elder scrolls wiki definition of a mage"Preferring to use their extensive knowledge of Magic, Mages wield a might as powerful as the sharpest blade or the deadliest mace. Mages spend many years studying schools of the arcane arts, leaving behind most other pursuits. Depending on their magical abilities for offensive and defensive power, mages are typically lacking in armor or shields and utilize limited to no physical weaponry."

And the warrior definition: Warriors are true fighters and experts at melee combat. Preferring to mix offensive power with defensive ability, warriors prefer to use a good sword or axe with a shield and shrug off attacks with heavy armor. Warriors do not tire easily and are capable of repairing their own gear.


When comparing the two, a moprh between them seems silly doesn't it, especially to a LOTR fan (like myself)

And the ESO definition of a Sorcerer: Sorcerers summon and control weather phenomenon: hurling lightning bolts and creating electrified fields, summoning tornadoes and impenetrable fog, and calling upon Daedric forces to summon Storm Atronachs and magical armor.

Im not saying a stam sorc shouldnt happen, im just saying its a bit weird to make a warrior from a mage class.

If you're going to compare classical Elder Scrolls definition, then please use the classical sorcerer definition, ergo, the heavily armored, no magicka regeneration, weapon using badass that he is supposed to be. Like many others have already pointed out in this thread, I don't feel like I need to repeat it since the comment above me or two comments above me explains what the classic sorcerer is.

CP5

Soneca798 wrote: »

AK47ZOMBIE66 wrote: »

Soneca798 wrote: »

AK47ZOMBIE66 wrote: »

Ok, I should probably clarify what I said. I never said stam sorcs are a lore breaking class that shouldn't exist and are trash that only spam WB. I ment that I don't understand why someone would want to turn a mage class into a warrior.

Well you could make the same argument to any of the classes, and before 1.6 everyone was magicka anyways so it was kinda true. Dks are pyromancers, templars are priests, nightblades are warlocks and sorcerers are mages. So if every other class, that like I said, can technically be described as a mage, now all have viable or semi viable warrior counterparts (as per what the developers intended and as per what the community obviously wants, threads like these being proof) then why is the sorcerer class the only one that's laughed at for wanting more warrior like options?

Courtesy of the elder scrolls wiki definition of a mage"Preferring to use their extensive knowledge of Magic, Mages wield a might as powerful as the sharpest blade or the deadliest mace. Mages spend many years studying schools of the arcane arts, leaving behind most other pursuits. Depending on their magical abilities for offensive and defensive power, mages are typically lacking in armor or shields and utilize limited to no physical weaponry."

And the warrior definition: Warriors are true fighters and experts at melee combat. Preferring to mix offensive power with defensive ability, warriors prefer to use a good sword or axe with a shield and shrug off attacks with heavy armor. Warriors do not tire easily and are capable of repairing their own gear.


When comparing the two, a moprh between them seems silly doesn't it, especially to a LOTR fan (like myself)

And the ESO definition of a Sorcerer: Sorcerers summon and control weather phenomenon: hurling lightning bolts and creating electrified fields, summoning tornadoes and impenetrable fog, and calling upon Daedric forces to summon Storm Atronachs and magical armor.

Im not saying a stam sorc shouldnt happen, im just saying its a bit weird to make a warrior from a mage class.

If you're going to compare classical Elder Scrolls definition, then please use the classical sorcerer definition, ergo, the heavily armored, no magicka regeneration, weapon using badass that he is supposed to be. Like many others have already pointed out in this thread, I don't feel like I need to repeat it since the comment above me or two comments above me explains what the classic sorcerer is.

Exactly that.

And @AK47ZOMBIE66, I chose the sorcerer class to be my first character knowing full well I was going to use a bow and medium armor. I still run that combo with my off weapon being the only thing that changes. I chose the class for the mobility, the clannfear, the the skills I felt would compliment that playstyle. When ZOS changed the game by removing soft caps a majority of the classes skills got locked behind a wall where I would need to stack max magicka and little else to get anything out of them, or even use them.

The other classes can apply their class specific perks to most builds and playstyles, yet sorcerer's are heavily forced into this corner. We are asking ZOS to be consistent with their design for the game which is that any class can uniquely fulfill any role. Sorcerer's in this game are just as much a 'magic' class as all the others, and is just as much of a warrior as well.

zoltarg

AK47ZOMBIE66 wrote: »

Im not saying a stam sorc shouldnt happen, im just saying its a bit weird to make a warrior from a mage class.

ZOS didn't think it was weird to make "Meb's Runnyeye" among several other stam sorc NPCs in the game that they made. Too bad that's about all the effort they have put into stam sorcs in the last two years.

Brrrofski

Don't worry guys, it's on the roadmap.

Until then, throw a crystal blast at a zerg!

Anyone else notice he spoke more about 1 Argonian passive and even blood altar, than stam sorcs?

Daymond

They need to change up the weapon skill lines right now 2h and 1h shield are good they work fine on their own and work well with cass buffs to agument your char the way you want to play. Dual wield though not very good by itself and even with certain classes does not go well. How I see the weapon lines are 1h shield great for def alright dmg 2h slow but hard hitting, and the way that I think Dual wield should be is mobile, fast and precise hits which sadly I think its not cuz if you look at it by itself Dual wield cant close in on its targets fast cuz its has zero gap closers which it should.

Said all that cuz right now if they redid some of Dual wield skills and made it into the fast a precise weapon line I think it should be. It would really go well with stam sorcs and allow people to mix it up rather then just 2h.

Jar_Ek

Agreed DW is a bit of a mess atm.

Cathexis

tennant94 wrote: »

Stam sorcs are already op

Did I just read this. Is this for real?