Dual-Wield Spell Damage Re-Work

Enemy-of-Coldharbour

The spell damage from wielding dual swords needs to be re-worked. It should be awarded if, for example, you have staffs slotted on both bars. It currently makes no sense what-so-ever for a CASTER to get spell damage from wielding two swords that NEVER get used.

Aliniel

This is true. I always hated these things in WoW when I played it. Having daggers, swords, axes and never using them gives you spell power? What the heck?

itsfatbass

I agree 100%. Another recent post in this topic section has a poll for whether 2-handers should give benefit of 2 piece, and this ties directly into this whole DW things for caster.

bellanca6561n

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

timidobserver

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

No more silly than carrying an oddly shaped stick to gain spell damage.

redspecter23

The shape of the item you are holding in your hands to channel your magical power doesn't make a difference. In some worlds, or game systems, you need a staff or a wand or maybe just the need to wave your hand. In the world of Elder Scrolls Online, any weapon in your hand can increase your magical and physical power. If you happen to be using swords, there is also a passive that will give you a boost. It's only lore breaking if you're not willing to accept it.

If you want to get very technical, magic doesn't exist you silly person. Nothing should increase the power of something imaginary.

Nifty2g

Enemy-of-Coldharbour wrote: »

The spell damage from wielding dual swords needs to be re-worked. It should be awarded if, for example, you have staffs slotted on both bars. It currently makes no sense what-so-ever for a CASTER to get spell damage from wielding two swords that NEVER get used.

i believe it doesnt grant you spell damage, instead your damage increases by 2.5% overall.
tooltips increase not spell damage

bellanca6561n

timidobserver wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

No more silly than carrying an oddly shaped stick to gain spell damage.

Yes, magic is silly, period. But, if you accept the premise that you're in a world where magic exists, then it having its own implements aid in that willing suspension of disbelief.

But you're right. I'm only a tourist in a game world such as this one. I've never approved of the lore because it's imaginatively flabby in my view.

I prefer games that are simulations where magic has its own logically consistent alternate laws of physics. This renders the lore allegorical rather than inconsistently fantastic.

LegacyDM

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

The idea of wielding two magical blades and being a battlecaster is silly? Guess you never played dnd as a kid or read about the legend of drizzt.

I think what you are trying to say, it's silly that 2 swords provide an increase to overall damage to include magicka and stamina when in fact the swords have been designed for the stamina tree only. This doesn't make sense.

I for one use duel wield on my magicka nb. Magicka melee and ranged siphoning nb are so weak as it is i need the damage boost from the duel wield swords. ZOS probably believes this is a fair trade off if your not going to weave light attacks from range.

I agree it needs to be reworked. magicka melees or those that want to be ranged without using a destro need their own weapon and skill tree. Some have floated the idea of wands, or talismans.

bellanca6561n

LegacyDM wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

The idea of wielding two magical blades and being a battlecaster is silly? Guess you never played dnd as a kid or read about the legend of drizzt.

I think what you are trying to say, it's silly that 2 swords provide an increase to overall damage to include magicka and stamina when in fact the swords have been designed for the stamina tree only. This doesn't make sense.

I for one use duel wield on my magicka nb. Magicka melee and ranged siphoning nb are so weak as it is i need the damage boost from the duel wield swords. ZOS probably believes this is a fair trade off if your not going to weave light attacks from range.

I agree it needs to be reworked. magicka melees or those that want to be ranged without using a destro need their own weapon and skill tree. Some have floated the idea of wands, or talismans.

Let's not make assumptions about the people posting and just stick to what they say.

Mythology is full of magical blades. Each possesses their supernatural properties through a process essential to the message of the myth. Thus there many ways to accept them.

But if all blades have such properties then you've chucked their potential mythic qualities out the window. It's lazy story telling and poor game design.

Lava_Croft

Nifty2g wrote: »

Enemy-of-Coldharbour wrote: »

The spell damage from wielding dual swords needs to be re-worked. It should be awarded if, for example, you have staffs slotted on both bars. It currently makes no sense what-so-ever for a CASTER to get spell damage from wielding two swords that NEVER get used.

i believe it doesnt grant you spell damage, instead your damage increases by 2.5% overall.
tooltips increase not spell damage

Dual wield gives you higher Spell Damage and a passive to increase your overall damage by 2.5% per weapon.

Mic1007

To fix this, all they would have to do is add an effect to one of the Destro Staff passives that boosts your Spell Damage by 10%/20% (per rank) with a Destruction Staff equipped. Then, they can adjust the Dual Sword effect to boost Physical Damage by 5%, instead of general Damage.

billp_ESO

So I get more magic damage from wielding two stamina-based melee weapons than I do when wielding a magic staff?

Nice.

Shardaxx

LegacyDM wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

The idea of wielding two magical blades and being a battlecaster is silly? Guess you never played dnd as a kid or read about the legend of drizzt.

Drizzt isn't a "battlecaster" he's a warrior/ranger and has no spells aside from the innate drow ability to conjure a globe of darkness. His scimitars are for melee, not spell casting.

Unsent.Soul

Shardaxx wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

The idea of wielding two magical blades and being a battlecaster is silly? Guess you never played dnd as a kid or read about the legend of drizzt.

Drizzt isn't a "battlecaster" he's a warrior/ranger and has no spells aside from the innate drow ability to conjure a globe of darkness. His scimitars are for melee, not spell casting.

Mic drop?

Glurin

WTF is this?! Where is it written that all magic in all contexts must be confined to random sticks and twigs? Are all mages everywhere required to be old men in long robes and pointy hats now as well?

Does this mean we should just move all the elven races to Valenwood and completely reverse the Green Pact? Shall we force everyone who uses melee weapons to wear jousting armor and immobilize them if they fall over? While we're at it, we should probably get rid of all those superfluous daedric princes and divines so we can just have one faceless bad guy trying to destroy the world from the black tower, which used to be white gold. We can call him "the dark lord".

And who ever heard of cat people or lizard people? We can just get rid of those. I think we can replace them with regular people, but shorter. We'll call them, oh I don't know. Maybe "halflings" because, you know, they are half the size of a normal person. Oh, speaking of which, we should also bring back the dwarves, but as actual dwarves.

Yeah, The Elder Scrolls of the Rings would be so much better if we did that. It would totally make logical sense then.

billp_ESO

I think, they should change it so that to get maximum melee damage, you have to be wielding a staff.

G0ku

Is that a try to sneak-nerf templar damage? no more 5-5-2 for us?

leepalmer95

They should just something like magicka orbs or something make them elemental and have them melee based.

Basically a dw skill line, or kind of one but for magicka melee so magicka can actually weave and heavy attack with melee casters and get magicka back and not miss out of so much dmg.

LegacyDM

Shardaxx wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

The idea of wielding two magical blades and being a battlecaster is silly? Guess you never played dnd as a kid or read about the legend of drizzt.

Drizzt isn't a "battlecaster" he's a warrior/ranger and has no spells aside from the innate drow ability to conjure a globe of darkness. His scimitars are for melee, not spell casting.

You are technically correct. However, I wasn't referring to drizzt himself persay but more so the blades, the books, and associated characters. Sorry if I implied drizzt was a battlecaster. Anyways, icing death and twinkle were "magical blades" not plain sharp weapons. The point is magical blades do exists in all types of lore so the concept of magical blades is not silly at all.

ArchMikem

timidobserver wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

No more silly than carrying an oddly shaped stick to gain spell damage.

LegacyDM

bellanca6561n wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

The idea of wielding two magical blades and being a battlecaster is silly? Guess you never played dnd as a kid or read about the legend of drizzt.

I think what you are trying to say, it's silly that 2 swords provide an increase to overall damage to include magicka and stamina when in fact the swords have been designed for the stamina tree only. This doesn't make sense.

I for one use duel wield on my magicka nb. Magicka melee and ranged siphoning nb are so weak as it is i need the damage boost from the duel wield swords. ZOS probably believes this is a fair trade off if your not going to weave light attacks from range.

I agree it needs to be reworked. magicka melees or those that want to be ranged without using a destro need their own weapon and skill tree. Some have floated the idea of wands, or talismans.

Let's not make assumptions about the people posting and just stick to what they say.

Mythology is full of magical blades. Each possesses their supernatural properties through a process essential to the message of the myth. Thus there many ways to accept them.

But if all blades have such properties then you've chucked their potential mythic qualities out the window. It's lazy story telling and poor game design.

Let's not go on an ego trip and tell others what to do. Mmm k?

Besides I was only trying to help prove your point that having stamina based skills on swords that increase magicka is silly. But help you understand that magicka on swords in general is not lore breaking.

However, as silly as it seems, in lack of wands or talismans, At least the game allows for magicka users to use duel wield swords. If they restricted it to Stam then theory crafting just got smaller, and now I'm forced to use a stave, change my playstyle, and not get a set bonus.

ArchMikem

Mythology is full of magical blades. Each possesses their supernatural properties through a process essential to the message of the myth. Thus there many ways to accept them.

Just gonna say, everyone in ESO that has some type of bladed weapon, has Enchanted them with something. Enchants are Magical, even the Stamina Characters are using Magical Blades.

AzuraKin

Enemy-of-Coldharbour wrote: »

The spell damage from wielding dual swords needs to be re-worked. It should be awarded if, for example, you have staffs slotted on both bars. It currently makes no sense what-so-ever for a CASTER to get spell damage from wielding two swords that NEVER get used.

rofl take away spell power being gained from these weapons you would destroy a hell of a lot of builds, magicka tanks, spellswords, ect. plus thier is a trade off to using dw over staff.

Valethar

Shardaxx wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

The idea of wielding two magical blades and being a battlecaster is silly? Guess you never played dnd as a kid or read about the legend of drizzt.

Drizzt isn't a "battlecaster" he's a warrior/ranger and has no spells aside from the innate drow ability to conjure a globe of darkness. His scimitars are for melee, not spell casting.

Actually, as a Ranger, he had more spells than that available. He also had other innate magical abilities beyond the globe of darkness.

Yinmaigao

Glurin wrote: »

WTF is this?! Where is it written that all magic in all contexts must be confined to random sticks and twigs? Are all mages everywhere required to be old men in long robes and pointy hats now as well?

Yes.

Aurielle

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

I think this guy would have a thing or two to say in response to that...

Tannus15

Valethar wrote: »

Shardaxx wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

The idea of wielding two magical blades and being a battlecaster is silly? Guess you never played dnd as a kid or read about the legend of drizzt.

Drizzt isn't a "battlecaster" he's a warrior/ranger and has no spells aside from the innate drow ability to conjure a globe of darkness. His scimitars are for melee, not spell casting.

Actually, as a Ranger, he had more spells than that available. He also had other innate magical abilities beyond the globe of darkness.

if you're going to nerd, do it properly:

https://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=fr/fx20010117d

Male drow Ftr10/Bbn1/Rgr5 of Mielikki

Spell-Like Abilities: 1/day—dancing lights, darkness, faerie fire. These abilities are as the spells cast by a 16th-level sorcerer.

Spells Prepared (1; base DC = 14): 1—detect animals or plants.

Basically Drizzt only really picked up enough Ranger levels to get the most out of the combat style feats, grabbed 1 level of barbarian for Rage and dumped the rest into Fighter.

Dude is a min maxer.

DHale

This is not getting charged. Move on.

Valethar

Tannus15 wrote: »

Valethar wrote: »

Shardaxx wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Same here. The very idea that carrying bladed weapons can increase you SPELL damage is insufferably silly.

The idea of wielding two magical blades and being a battlecaster is silly? Guess you never played dnd as a kid or read about the legend of drizzt.

Drizzt isn't a "battlecaster" he's a warrior/ranger and has no spells aside from the innate drow ability to conjure a globe of darkness. His scimitars are for melee, not spell casting.

Actually, as a Ranger, he had more spells than that available. He also had other innate magical abilities beyond the globe of darkness.

if you're going to nerd, do it properly:

https://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=fr/fx20010117d

Male drow Ftr10/Bbn1/Rgr5 of Mielikki

Spell-Like Abilities: 1/day—dancing lights, darkness, faerie fire. These abilities are as the spells cast by a 16th-level sorcerer.

Spells Prepared (1; base DC = 14): 1—detect animals or plants.

Basically Drizzt only really picked up enough Ranger levels to get the most out of the combat style feats, grabbed 1 level of barbarian for Rage and dumped the rest into Fighter.

Dude is a min maxer.

Speaking of doing things properly....

Have a look at the stats pre-WotC. Drizzt as a character originated while TSR ran the show. According to the 1e and 2e stats, he was a level 10 or 16 Ranger respectively, which would have given him a larger pool of spells to draw upon.

We're kind of getting off topic though, and I don't want to get smacked by the Thought Police™, so I'm going to leave it at that.

Well, almost. LOL @ WotC.

Ok, now I'm done.

Koensol

billp_ESO wrote: »

So I get more magic damage from wielding two stamina-based melee weapons than I do when wielding a magic staff?

Nice.

I know right? It's absolutely moronic. When I quit the game some time ago, this was one of my major complaints. If you wanted to be really viable, you had to do stupid and nonsensical stuff like this. Also a lot of abilities had (and still have) random buff effects pasted onto them for balance sake. It just doesn't feel like some of the abilities make sense at times.