Ice Staff DPS: Drop the taunt and add a small, passive execute.

DocFrost72

@Froil You're right, now I'm confused:

What school is warden's ice fortress ability under?

Marginis

Froil wrote: »

DocFrost72 wrote: »

And before you repeat yourself that it doing damage makes it offensive, I ask a counter question: if you defend a facility from invasion, are you the attacker? No, doing damage does not always equate to offensive magic.

Honestly this is a nonsensical, backwards question.
If you defend a facility, do you just run away, hide and put up a wall hoping they'll just give up and go home? Or do you try to repel the invading force, take up arms, attack them, try to maim or kill? When magic is made to rend defenses or kill something, it's destruction magic. That's exactly what it is.

Turn Undead makes sense in Restoration as Restoration is mastery over life-forces, even unlife and "holy" damage isn't a thing, but Sunfire and Stendarr's Aura from Dawnguard also only dealt damage to undead and vampires, which again, go under "mastery over life-forces", but was mostly just thematic spells because you're the Dawnguard fighting against vampires with their known weakness to the sun.

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Destruction
Since you can't seem to grasp that damage-dealing magics are destruction...

I swear neither of you know what you're talking about, what with these nearly contradictory statements and poor justifications of fallacies. Ice magic has always been destruction magic. It has never been defensive. It was always made to damage and kill enemies. Only in Skyrim did frost spells drain stamina and slow enemies. When you get rid of their stamina, they have no way of defending themselves physically, they cannot escape from your onslaught of spells. This is destruction, pure and simple. But with this insistence that ice magic can, and should, be defensive, where would you move it? Alteration? Illusion? Conjuration? Thaumaturgy? Mysticism? Restoration?
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Response_to_Bero's_Speech

Ice staves should return to being a weapon for DPS and if ZOS want a magical tanking weapon, they need to make a new one.

I'm not going to advocate for one side or another in this argument, but let me just say that we should all remember that this is a game. ZOS has the job of balancing "lore" (a thing that Bethesda made up, and so can be changed, because it's fiction) which really just means "staying with something players are comfortable with because they dislike change", and gameplay balance (so that the game doesn't become incredibly unfair or boring). Obviously both sides are important to consider, and no one side will be completely 100% happy when there is a compromise, but the argument that ZOS cannot change any part of the lore - ie. frost in the destruction tree to a more defense oriented variant - is kind of ridiculous. Whether they should not is a matter of opinion, but that ZOS couldn't take restoration magic and make it a DPS oriented tree, or turn heavy armor into a magicka based skill line, or make two handed weapons ranged, is not true.

ZOS can do whatever the hell they want, and the fact is, frost in destruction made to be more defense oriented still fits pretty well within the bounds of the existing lore. It does not - and can not - be a question of if the current system fits within the narrow view of "gameplay takes precedence over everything else" or "the game HAS to be this way because this is what I'm used to". If we start taking a turn down that path no one will be happy.

esp1992

Marginis wrote: »

Froil wrote: »

DocFrost72 wrote: »

And before you repeat yourself that it doing damage makes it offensive, I ask a counter question: if you defend a facility from invasion, are you the attacker? No, doing damage does not always equate to offensive magic.

Honestly this is a nonsensical, backwards question.
If you defend a facility, do you just run away, hide and put up a wall hoping they'll just give up and go home? Or do you try to repel the invading force, take up arms, attack them, try to maim or kill? When magic is made to rend defenses or kill something, it's destruction magic. That's exactly what it is.

Turn Undead makes sense in Restoration as Restoration is mastery over life-forces, even unlife and "holy" damage isn't a thing, but Sunfire and Stendarr's Aura from Dawnguard also only dealt damage to undead and vampires, which again, go under "mastery over life-forces", but was mostly just thematic spells because you're the Dawnguard fighting against vampires with their known weakness to the sun.

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Destruction
Since you can't seem to grasp that damage-dealing magics are destruction...

I swear neither of you know what you're talking about, what with these nearly contradictory statements and poor justifications of fallacies. Ice magic has always been destruction magic. It has never been defensive. It was always made to damage and kill enemies. Only in Skyrim did frost spells drain stamina and slow enemies. When you get rid of their stamina, they have no way of defending themselves physically, they cannot escape from your onslaught of spells. This is destruction, pure and simple. But with this insistence that ice magic can, and should, be defensive, where would you move it? Alteration? Illusion? Conjuration? Thaumaturgy? Mysticism? Restoration?
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Response_to_Bero's_Speech

Ice staves should return to being a weapon for DPS and if ZOS want a magical tanking weapon, they need to make a new one.

I'm not going to advocate for one side or another in this argument, but let me just say that we should all remember that this is a game. ZOS has the job of balancing "lore" (a thing that Bethesda made up, and so can be changed, because it's fiction) which really just means "staying with something players are comfortable with because they dislike change", and gameplay balance (so that the game doesn't become incredibly unfair or boring). Obviously both sides are important to consider, and no one side will be completely 100% happy when there is a compromise, but the argument that ZOS cannot change any part of the lore - ie. frost in the destruction tree to a more defense oriented variant - is kind of ridiculous. Whether they should not is a matter of opinion, but that ZOS couldn't take restoration magic and make it a DPS oriented tree, or turn heavy armor into a magicka based skill line, or make two handed weapons ranged, is not true.

ZOS can do whatever the hell they want, and the fact is, frost in destruction made to be more defense oriented still fits pretty well within the bounds of the existing lore. It does not - and can not - be a question of if the current system fits within the narrow view of "gameplay takes precedence over everything else" or "the game HAS to be this way because this is what I'm used to". If we start taking a turn down that path no one will be happy.

Agreed.

Froil

@DocFrost72

Why it's clearly under the "ice should be defensive and not damaging" one, same with ice destro.

This is why the Warden's ice magics should've been like the Sorcs or DK's shock and fire magic. Offensive. Lore wise, this makes no sense for ice to be defensive. I keep repeating myself because there's no other way to say it. If the Warden weren't already a scrapped class from before, they should've had the ice be the damage line, plants can stay healing and pets or something else could've been the defensive line.
While the class is fun, they threw loresense out the window making its skills.
But I digress, this isn't about Wardens, this thread is about the Ice staff from the destruction skill line.
Going off on a tangent to prove your point is also a really weak way to try and win. And still fail.

Within your same vein of thought, shock magic and damaging magicka or flre magic and damaging health are also defensive because when a target has no magicka, they can't cast spells to heal or damage or escape or anything like that and if something has no health, it's no threat because it's dead and cannot attack. Therefore they must both be defensive. Why, then, don't they just make the entire destruction staff a purely tanking based weapon? Have the taunt apply to lightning and inferno staves? But why stop they? Why not just rework the entire skill line to be even better at tanking?

Marginis

Froil wrote: »

@DocFrost72

Why it's clearly under the "ice should be defensive and not damaging" one, same with ice destro.

This is why the Warden's ice magics should've been like the Sorcs or DK's shock and fire magic. Offensive. Lore wise, this makes no sense for ice to be defensive. I keep repeating myself because there's no other way to say it. If the Warden weren't already a scrapped class from before, they should've had the ice be the damage line, plants can stay healing and pets or something else could've been the defensive line.
While the class is fun, they threw loresense out the window making its skills.
But I digress, this isn't about Wardens, this thread is about the Ice staff from the destruction skill line.
Going off on a tangent to prove your point is also a really weak way to try and win. And still fail.

Within your same vein of thought, shock magic and damaging magicka or flre magic and damaging health are also defensive because when a target has no magicka, they can't cast spells to heal or damage or escape or anything like that and if something has no health, it's no threat because it's dead and cannot attack. Therefore they must both be defensive. Why, then, don't they just make the entire destruction staff a purely tanking based weapon? Have the taunt apply to lightning and inferno staves? But why stop they? Why not just rework the entire skill line to be even better at tanking?

Care to explain ZOS eliminating several other schools of magic, requiring staves to use magic, making mounts available at any time via the press of a button, etcetera etcetera? It seems like this entire game would upset you if something as small as making frost a bit more defensive upsets you this much.

I mean this sincerely by the way - I want to understand your line of logic. If you can explain why you think that ZOS has to stick to the lore in this regard, I think there might be some more agreement in this thread.

Lynx7386

Again, as far as Elder scrolls is concerned, destruction magic is simply elemental magic. It doesn't have to inherently blow stuff up.

DocFrost72

Froil wrote: »

@DocFrost72

Why it's clearly under the "ice should be defensive and not damaging" one, same with ice destro.

This is why the Warden's ice magics should've been like the Sorcs or DK's shock and fire magic. Offensive. Lore wise, this makes no sense for ice to be defensive. I keep repeating myself because there's no other way to say it. If the Warden weren't already a scrapped class from before, they should've had the ice be the damage line, plants can stay healing and pets or something else could've been the defensive line.
While the class is fun, they threw loresense out the window making its skills.
But I digress, this isn't about Wardens, this thread is about the Ice staff from the destruction skill line.
Going off on a tangent to prove your point is also a really weak way to try and win. And still fail.

Within your same vein of thought, shock magic and damaging magicka or flre magic and damaging health are also defensive because when a target has no magicka, they can't cast spells to heal or damage or escape or anything like that and if something has no health, it's no threat because it's dead and cannot attack. Therefore they must both be defensive. Why, then, don't they just make the entire destruction staff a purely tanking based weapon? Have the taunt apply to lightning and inferno staves? But why stop they? Why not just rework the entire skill line to be even better at tanking?

Two things: I never once said ice *MUST* be defensive, simply that it can be. In those situations you described, shock would be a more defensive option that fire. It provides utility.

Marginis wrote: »

Froil wrote: »

DocFrost72 wrote: »

And before you repeat yourself that it doing damage makes it offensive, I ask a counter question: if you defend a facility from invasion, are you the attacker? No, doing damage does not always equate to offensive magic.

Honestly this is a nonsensical, backwards question.
If you defend a facility, do you just run away, hide and put up a wall hoping they'll just give up and go home? Or do you try to repel the invading force, take up arms, attack them, try to maim or kill? When magic is made to rend defenses or kill something, it's destruction magic. That's exactly what it is.

Turn Undead makes sense in Restoration as Restoration is mastery over life-forces, even unlife and "holy" damage isn't a thing, but Sunfire and Stendarr's Aura from Dawnguard also only dealt damage to undead and vampires, which again, go under "mastery over life-forces", but was mostly just thematic spells because you're the Dawnguard fighting against vampires with their known weakness to the sun.

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Destruction
Since you can't seem to grasp that damage-dealing magics are destruction...

I swear neither of you know what you're talking about, what with these nearly contradictory statements and poor justifications of fallacies. Ice magic has always been destruction magic. It has never been defensive. It was always made to damage and kill enemies. Only in Skyrim did frost spells drain stamina and slow enemies. When you get rid of their stamina, they have no way of defending themselves physically, they cannot escape from your onslaught of spells. This is destruction, pure and simple. But with this insistence that ice magic can, and should, be defensive, where would you move it? Alteration? Illusion? Conjuration? Thaumaturgy? Mysticism? Restoration?
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Response_to_Bero's_Speech

Ice staves should return to being a weapon for DPS and if ZOS want a magical tanking weapon, they need to make a new one.

ZOS can do whatever the hell they want, and the fact is, frost in destruction made to be more defense oriented still fits pretty well within the bounds of the existing lore.

THIS was my point. A frost staff offering enough utility to tank with is absolutely reasonable. If others disagree and say it is a bad idea, that is fine. Opinions are wonderful and none are inherently more right here. A sword and shield is an offensive set of items. While the shield is more geared for defending the user, they have been, are, and will be used offensively if the situation presents itself.

That is identicle to the duality of the ice staff.

My point, and the last thing I'll say on this tangent (which I'm not too vain to apologize for aiding in. I'm sorry OP) is that there is no reason ice cannot be defensive or offensive, often simultaneously.

Back on topic, hopefully ice staves get some love in the way of dps, as they are doing well in the realm of tanking as a supplement to sword and shield.

Edited for faulty tag

Froil

@Marginis
Why? Because this is an MMO and they changed a lot of things to better fit it. The thing is they stick to a lot of lore, but disregard a lot of it just the same. Does that mean it's right? No. Does it mean it's wrong? Also no. But having at least some semblance of what this is based off of would be nice. There's a lot of usage of other skills from the schools of magic in appropriate ways, the least they could do is have the weapon lines made to focus on specific schools of magic done correctly.

Here's the thing though. I have no real problem with ice being defensive other than the disregard for the lore. I like the idea, I like the way it is on Wardens, but following the lore, it's just nonsense. Were it not for the lore, I'd say nothing. But since ice magic has been offensive since Arena, why should it now be a defensive thing?

Froil

Lynx7386 wrote: »

Again, as far as Elder scrolls is concerned, destruction magic is simply elemental magic. It doesn't have to inherently blow stuff up.

This is very wrong... Destruction is also damaging of attributes, damaging with non-elemental magic, occasionally poison, destroying weapons and armor, making targets weaker to magic in all forms...

JinMori

DocFrost72 wrote: »

@JinMori

His point went over your head. There are exceptions to every school in magic, doubly so when considering that some forms of magic are very similar.

If I set an ice rune as a trap, it is part of my *defenses* in a siege. Btw, there are shock and fire runes. And before you repeat yourself that it doing damage makes it offensive, I ask a counter question: if you defend a facility from invasion, are you the attacker? No, doing damage does not always equate to offensive magic.

His second illustration is some thing in the restoration line did damage. The exact oposite of restore xD

Every game adds something new, skyrim added ice as a more defensive option under the destruction tree, and eso made it even more defensive. Not liking that is totally fine, but claiming this argument is baseless is just false.

You guys just don't get it, when you set a trap, the intent might be to defend yourself, or to attack also, but what i was talking about was the result, the result is that the trap damaged the enemy through some mechanism, either piercing, or slashing etc, you might have set the trap for self defense, but the result is an offensive attack, because you used that trap to kill somebody, that implies offense, therefore, as i said before, rooting, freezing etc, might have a defensive effect because the enemy can no longer attack you, but, it was achieved through an offensive attack.

It's really not hard to understand.

Also, this is not necessarily about gameplay, just talking about what states as offense and what is defense, i will say that i do not like ice tanking because it makes no sense lorewise or just tanking with a stick meant for destruction also seems illogical at best to me.

Just to make it even more clear, let's say there is a fistfight, let's say that you were attacked by somebody, so you take a stance and defend yourself from his punches, by blocking, dodging etc, but then you decide to throw a punch, that might be called self defense, but the act of throwing a punch is by definition an attack, and the punch might debilitate the other person, as a result, the other person can no longer attack as effectively, see where i'm going? It really is not hard to understand.

JinMori

Lynx7386 wrote: »

Again, as far as Elder scrolls is concerned, destruction magic is simply elemental magic. It doesn't have to inherently blow stuff up.

Do you realize what the name destruction implies? There are not many meanings for destruction, if it was just elemental magic it would have been called just that.

Marginis

Froil wrote: »

@Marginis
Why? Because this is an MMO and they changed a lot of things to better fit it. The thing is they stick to a lot of lore, but disregard a lot of it just the same. Does that mean it's right? No. Does it mean it's wrong? Also no. But having at least some semblance of what this is based off of would be nice. There's a lot of usage of other skills from the schools of magic in appropriate ways, the least they could do is have the weapon lines made to focus on specific schools of magic done correctly.

Here's the thing though. I have no real problem with ice being defensive other than the disregard for the lore. I like the idea, I like the way it is on Wardens, but following the lore, it's just nonsense. Were it not for the lore, I'd say nothing. But since ice magic has been offensive since Arena, why should it now be a defensive thing?

Just regarding destruction magic, I recall that ESO started with shock as the aoe, flame as the high damage, and frost as - well, I forget what it was originally styled like, but as of right now it's the defensive option. In Skyrim I recall it was something like frost hurts stamina, shock hurts magicka, and flame hurts health a little bit extra. Can someone with more experience with the lore do their best to explain the general role of the different elements in each TES game (as my memory seems to be failing a bit here)? This discussion is getting me interested in looking at the evolution of the elements, specifically, throughout the games, as each game does something a little bit differently with them. It would also be helpful to the discussion to help debate whether or not the frost staff being made into a defensive weapon is a bigger leap than the other changes in TES games, especially in regards to if it was to a significant degree or not.

Froil

@Marginis
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Arena:The_Known_Spellbook
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Daggerfall:Destruction_Spells
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Destruction_Spells
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Destruction_Spells
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Destruction_Spells
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Destruction

For outright damaging destruction spells, they didn't have extra effects, they just simply did damage based off of their element or lack thereof. If an enemy was weak to fire, they'd take 50*% more damage from it, but if they resisted shock, they'd take 50*% less. If an enemy resisted magic, spells like Morrowind's Damage Health spells would do less damage.

It's possible that frost magic in Skyrim could have had Damage Attribute (Speed) and Damage Fatigue (Stamina) added on to its simple frost elemental damage, though both Damage Attribute and Fatigue spells are still destruction magic, but prior to Skyrim, spells didn't have extra effects like those. Skyrim's changes to frost and shock spells was a pretty big step from being simple elemental damage.

FrancisCrawford

WhoThenNow7 wrote: »

I agree. And to help make it more of a dps weapon, here is my suggestion.. enemies should take more damage overall when they have the frost effect on them. Makes sense because everything hurts more when you're cold. It's sad that you don't see ice mages running around.

So you want frost to have the same effect as shock? (It's called Minor Vulnerability.)

FrancisCrawford

DocFrost72 wrote: »

Elemental susceptibility now taunts,

Since when???

DocFrost72

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

DocFrost72 wrote: »

Elemental susceptibility now taunts,

Since when???

I was giving a compromise for where the taunt on an ice staff would go without it being on a heavy attack, apapologies if that is misleading.