Ideal new class assuming one is coming.

exeeter702

Mesite wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

Like often is the case with posts like this, the suggestions are usually way off base with what actually entails a full fledged class in eso.

Unfortunately with how eso is designed, you cant associate a class with a weapon type because that is simply a new weapon with a skill line attached to it. So anyone asking for a class that is hand to hand or polearm focused is misdirecting their wish.


.

I'm pretty sure that my templar has a whole skill line based around a weapon skill - spears. I don't think a class based around a weapon skill is far fetched.

Vampires have little cut scenes when they bite people now. They could do something similar with hand to hand skills for a monk class, it would give the developers a chance to show off their abilities to make the new class do some cool moves like throwing other players to the ground.

Aedric spear is not a weapon first if all, the entirety of that skill line is magic based. And I never said you cant have thematically geared attacks that involve a characters hands. But please tell me how a monk would make sense using a bow or destruction staff?.

There are ways to create a class that leans into alteration or mysticism that call back to the type of spirit esque spells that monks used in older TES games without outright making a monk class.

fakingfocused

Barbarian

exeeter702 wrote: »

fakingfocused wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

Like often is the case with posts like this, the suggestions are usually way off base with what actually entails a full fledged class in eso.

How exactly would a barbarian fufill the healer role? With or without the resto staff is irrelevant, thematically it simply makes no sense.

Spellsword/battle mage, technically could fill all roles ofc but this goes into the other issue of fan fervor when desiring a new class for eso, its simply too broad like many of the base class choices one would find at the start of a new TES game. What IS a spell sword or battle mage exactly? Those principals essentially already exist with each and every class that already exists in the game.

The only way a new class can be implemented in eso is for starters it needs to be thematically distinct wherein said theme is not already represented in game.

Unfortunately with how eso is designed, you cant associate a class with a weapon type because that is simply a new weapon with a skill line attached to it. So anyone asking for a class that is hand to hand or polearm focused is misdirecting their wish.

You have to first look at the various schools of magic and discern what has yet to be represented in eso. Not exclusively mind you, as there are plenty of destruction and illusion class spells found across multiple classes in eso already aside from the destruction staff itself. Think about other ways that a class could lean into alternation or mystiscm perhaps, (psijic order barely counts here) and then go from there.

Asking for such specfic and rigid classes to be added that wouldnt not make any sense whatsoever (magicaka based barbarian with a destro/resto staff.. yeah ok...) or asking for something that is so surface level that it already exists or would hardly fufill a thematic niche not already in game (spell sword/battlemage...) is all misguided and shortsighted.

Pretty sure necromancer and sorc are the counter to your argument. Barbarian would just be the converse to these.

No they arent.necromancer and sorcerer have always been able to utilize said schools of magic that they have access to for a number of different archetypical "roles". Its not beyond reason that a necromancer or sorc use conjuration for melee based defense via corporeal keep deadric. Among a number of other things. These are all augmentations to ones combat prowess that's it.

Barbarian is quite literally a melee based warrior master of arms. There is not a single degree of mental gymnastics that would makes a barbarian make sense using a restoration staff healing allies in the backround or slinging fireballs with a destruction staff.

Barbarian does not thematically fufill the necessary criteria to exist as it's own class within ESOs framework.

If you want to argue application then no different than a "stealthy" nightblade healer or dragon"knight" healer in my opinion

If you want to argue specs then all stam necromancer or sorcerer (meaning absolutely zero majica) is just as lore breaking. In your own statement you automatically mentioned majica, not one word of all stam which again proves my original point.

It's supposed to be play as you want so there will always be thematically breaks.

And in my humble opinion a barbarian or similar class would be welcome, whether they use that terminology or something more palatable to the sharper critics.

Not that I expect any new classes anytime soon anyhow.

exeeter702

fakingfocused wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

fakingfocused wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

Like often is the case with posts like this, the suggestions are usually way off base with what actually entails a full fledged class in eso.

How exactly would a barbarian fufill the healer role? With or without the resto staff is irrelevant, thematically it simply makes no sense.

Spellsword/battle mage, technically could fill all roles ofc but this goes into the other issue of fan fervor when desiring a new class for eso, its simply too broad like many of the base class choices one would find at the start of a new TES game. What IS a spell sword or battle mage exactly? Those principals essentially already exist with each and every class that already exists in the game.

The only way a new class can be implemented in eso is for starters it needs to be thematically distinct wherein said theme is not already represented in game.

Unfortunately with how eso is designed, you cant associate a class with a weapon type because that is simply a new weapon with a skill line attached to it. So anyone asking for a class that is hand to hand or polearm focused is misdirecting their wish.

You have to first look at the various schools of magic and discern what has yet to be represented in eso. Not exclusively mind you, as there are plenty of destruction and illusion class spells found across multiple classes in eso already aside from the destruction staff itself. Think about other ways that a class could lean into alternation or mystiscm perhaps, (psijic order barely counts here) and then go from there.

Asking for such specfic and rigid classes to be added that wouldnt not make any sense whatsoever (magicaka based barbarian with a destro/resto staff.. yeah ok...) or asking for something that is so surface level that it already exists or would hardly fufill a thematic niche not already in game (spell sword/battlemage...) is all misguided and shortsighted.

Pretty sure necromancer and sorc are the counter to your argument. Barbarian would just be the converse to these.

No they arent.necromancer and sorcerer have always been able to utilize said schools of magic that they have access to for a number of different archetypical "roles". Its not beyond reason that a necromancer or sorc use conjuration for melee based defense via corporeal keep deadric. Among a number of other things. These are all augmentations to ones combat prowess that's it.

Barbarian is quite literally a melee based warrior master of arms. There is not a single degree of mental gymnastics that would makes a barbarian make sense using a restoration staff healing allies in the backround or slinging fireballs with a destruction staff.

Barbarian does not thematically fufill the necessary criteria to exist as it's own class within ESOs framework.

If you want to argue application then no different than a "stealthy" nightblade healer or dragon"knight" healer in my opinion

If you want to argue specs then all stam necromancer or sorcerer (meaning absolutely zero majica) is just as lore breaking. In your own statement you automatically mentioned majica, not one word of all stam which again proves my original point.

It's supposed to be play as you want so there will always be thematically breaks.

And in my humble opinion a barbarian or similar class would be welcome, whether they use that terminology or something more palatable to the sharper critics.

Not that I expect any new classes anytime soon anyhow.

Sorry but I think you are misunderstanding the core point. This has nothing to do with stamina/magicka variants as that is pure and simply a mechanism of build mechanics within ESO and has nothing to do with how a necromancer or sorcerer uses their abilities to augment their giving choice of combat prowess. Hurricane for a stamina sorc is no different than lighting form for a magicka sorc. Both are magic spells full stop.

There is nothing lore breaking about a necromancer dawning a 2 handed sword while using corporeal conjuration to bolster his offense in some fashion. There is nothing lore breaking about a sorcerer using bound armaments to produce the effect of wearing heavy armor while they are fighting with a sword and shield, the examples go on. Necromancer and sorcerer in eso are thematic representations, not hard defined singular classes for which they MUST be wizards of some fashion.

A nightblade is more than just an assasination or rogue archetype. Stealth healer comment is baseless, nightblades are able to use misdirection illusion and life stealing energy and can even tank up to be a more in your face combatant, ALL while remaining thematically accurate.

Barbarian is absolutely far too focused and rigid of a "class" to be practically added to eso under the systems, expecations and design philosophy that have governed every class that has already existed.

Mesite

Witchhunter

exeeter702 wrote: »

And I never said you cant have thematically geared attacks that involve a characters hands. But please tell me how a monk would make sense using a bow or destruction staff?.

There are ways to create a class that leans into alteration or mysticism that call back to the type of spirit esque spells that monks used in older TES games without outright making a monk class.

in the description of the monk class in the original TES3 Morrowind game it says they 'are skilled in a variety of ranged and close combat weapons' and they get Marksman (with a bow) as a skill, and Restoration. They get Alteration as a skill in Oblivion, but yeah, no destruction.

GetAgrippa

Battlemage/Spellsword

All I know is, no more pets please. For the love of all that is holy, no more pets.

Whoops, I wasn't even trying to vote.

Feljax

Rather than a new class, I'd love to see a new weapon skill line. "Unarmed" with a mix of martial arts style punches, kicks, jumps, etc.

exeeter702

Mesite wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

And I never said you cant have thematically geared attacks that involve a characters hands. But please tell me how a monk would make sense using a bow or destruction staff?.

There are ways to create a class that leans into alteration or mysticism that call back to the type of spirit esque spells that monks used in older TES games without outright making a monk class.

in the description of the monk class in the original TES3 Morrowind game it says they 'are skilled in a variety of ranged and close combat weapons' and they get Marksman (with a bow) as a skill, and Restoration. They get Alteration as a skill in Oblivion, but yeah, no destruction.

For what it's worth, using class lists found in previous TES games as a template is shaky at best. In some cases it can work, in other cases you start encroaching into extreme redundancy territory.

I also want to be clear here in saying that something closely akin to monk would actually work quite well in eso in terms of thematic representation not already existing in game. I just dont think it would be called "monk". Some version of a spiritual adept more likely. Mysticism and alteration, a skill line focused around martial abilities of which a psuedo melee hand based attack could exist similar to templars aedric spear.

Classes need to be broad and universal enough to be able to adopt any of the given build/playstyles within ESOs systems. They cant be shoehorned into a more specfic niche that would be at odds with the universally available skill lines. A monk would not use a destruction staff and sling fireballs from afar, but what I have explained above, absolutely could. What inhave explained above could also, conveniently enough, be made into an eso version of the TES "monk" if the player so choses. That is the difference and the important distinction that so many people in these discussions does not grasp.

francesinhalover

Battlemage/Spellsword

You forgot monk and bard

ArcVelarian

Barbarian

Battlemage/Spellsword is already taken by Dragonknight. We're really missing a class that allows you to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the forums.

MindOfTheSwarm

Witch/Hedgemage

Barbarian could be good. A Stam based class that can spec into Shaman Magicka abilities.

MindOfTheSwarm

Witch/Hedgemage

In retrospect, I’m wondering if some kind of combination class would be possible. What would a cross between a Battlemage/Witch/Barbarian look like? I get pictures of Witch King.
I think Battlemage is also possible but they would have to branch well away from how it has appeared in other games.
I still like the Artificer idea, wondering if that could be incorporated into the other class ideas. More I think about it, the more I think it should be a new class that somehow addresses all of the above suggestions and votes. A Warwitch that primarily likes to fight in melee but has some mechanical skills as well.

Supreme_Atromancer

Battlemage/Spellsword

exeeter702 wrote: »

How exactly would a barbarian fufilll the healer role? With or without the resto staff is irrelevant, thematically it simply makes no sense.

@exeeter702

I already made a suggestion about this earlier in the thread. You could have a skill line based on Shamanism or Totems that covered some style of healing and buffs. Morphs could offer alternatives that instead give self-buff or mitigation that would be useful for pvp, for tanking, or for shields/self heals for solo content.

Mental gymnastics has never been much of a barrier in zos' endeavour to push all roles or resource-modes into all classes. A stamina sorcerer makes no sense for the same reason that a dk healer, healing with a cloud of burning embers doesn't.

A barbaric shaman using spirit magic and totems to heal, ward and protect is a far more robust concept. Its cohesive and easily understandable.

Lysette

I would be for a martial arts class - skills for people just wearing costumes, no armor, no weapon, jewelry allowed though. In TES3:Morrowind we had unarmed and unarmored as skills, so this is not alien to Elder Scrolls. As this class would have much less ways to customize their build, it would need an action bar more - that up to 15 martial arts skills and 3 martial arts ultimate could be used at will - it would as well give the opportunity to actually use one or the other guild skills, which might not be used that often otherwise, because there is simply no free slot for those.

One of the base abilities of that class could be being immune to armor penetration and critical damage, to reflect their high agility and ability to avoid such hefty impacts. As it is kind of a monk class, one skill line could negate magical effects - their trained minds are less likely to be fooled by magic and so the effects of magic would be lowered (assuming magic to be just an illusion, which just has it's harming effect, because victim is believing in those).

I'm not thinking of a character punching his way through Tamriel, but a specialist in ranged melee (much like blitz-ninja in Fallout 4, just without a weapon), who isn't fooling around but goes for a clean kill, breaking necks, harming vital organs, stopping the blood flow to the brain permanently, because he knows about the exact pressure point at the neck - a mind bender, who reduces the effectiveness or efficiency of his opponents attacks and weakens their magical protection, by putting doubt into the minds of those (as well assuming magic to be mainly illusion) or makes them drop their shields and blocks (effectively disabling this ability in opponents).

Or confusing them in pvp for example - implemented as change in the order of skills used with a delay - effectively disrupting rotations this way - it could be a fun class and quite unique - but it is as well a squishy one, which isn't that likely to benefit from magical heals (simply because they know too much about the illusion-nature of those and doubt their effectiveness).

3 class skill lines:

1. agility based skills (including harm avoidance) - 2. mind bending (illusion) - 3. ranged melee (blitz-ninja style)

mind-bending could include skills for thieves and criminals - a "nothing to see here" skill, which stops a guard from going after them, forgetting about the crime or just having a blind eye in regards to crime for a little while. A "I'm kin" skill, which works like a highly effective disguise for some time. A "you don't want to harm me" skill, which weakens attacks of opponents or negates them. A "chameleon" like skill, which makes it less likely to be detected. There could be quite a few interesting skills in that skill line, which aren't necessarily about combat.

exeeter702

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

How exactly would a barbarian fufilll the healer role? With or without the resto staff is irrelevant, thematically it simply makes no sense.

@exeeter702

I already made a suggestion about this earlier in the thread. You could have a skill line based on Shamanism or Totems that covered some style of healing and buffs. Morphs could offer alternatives that instead give self-buff or mitigation that would be useful for pvp, for tanking, or for shields/self heals for solo content.

Mental gymnastics has never been much of a barrier in zos' endeavour to push all roles or resource-modes into all classes. A stamina sorcerer makes no sense for the same reason that a dk healer, healing with a cloud of burning embers doesn't.

A barbaric shaman using spirit magic and totems to heal, ward and protect is a far more robust concept. Its cohesive and easily understandable.

And also not a barbarian by TES standards. Something more along the lines of a shaman as described would absolutely work because it is broad enough to adhere to the various skill offerings in the game. A barbarian is quite literally an arms master who specializes in melee combat. This is in no way comparable to a dragon knight or sorcerer who's only defining factors are the thematic source of their power not their fighting style. I feel like I'm talking in circles and often with people who I dont even disagree with. There is a substantial difference with what a barbarian entails and what a shamanistic themed class would entail in eso. The entire point here is that a shamanistic class put into eso CAN fufill the barbarian archetype in precisely the same way the nightblade CAN fufill the stealth based rogue archetype even though nightblade is far more than just that given the circumstances of this games skill lines and weapon options ie a nightblade, for the 10k+ hours that I have spent on it since literally day zero, has never been a rogue, but a ranged life stealing caster using soul magic.

People that suggest they want a barbarian class that is focused around berzerking and melee combat is not placing their imagination in the right place for how eso is designed. Such is the case with those asking for a monk with a pure focus on hand to hand combat instead of a class that can encompass what a monk would be among other things, giving the choice of weapon and build.

Supreme_Atromancer

Battlemage/Spellsword

exeeter702 wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

How exactly would a barbarian fufilll the healer role? With or without the resto staff is irrelevant, thematically it simply makes no sense.

@exeeter702

I already made a suggestion about this earlier in the thread. You could have a skill line based on Shamanism or Totems that covered some style of healing and buffs. Morphs could offer alternatives that instead give self-buff or mitigation that would be useful for pvp, for tanking, or for shields/self heals for solo content.

Mental gymnastics has never been much of a barrier in zos' endeavour to push all roles or resource-modes into all classes. A stamina sorcerer makes no sense for the same reason that a dk healer, healing with a cloud of burning embers doesn't.

A barbaric shaman using spirit magic and totems to heal, ward and protect is a far more robust concept. Its cohesive and easily understandable.

And also not a barbarian by TES standards. Something more along the lines of a shaman as described would absolutely work because it is broad enough to adhere to the various skill offerings in the game. A barbarian is quite literally an arms master who specializes in melee combat. This is in no way comparable to a dragon knight or sorcerer who's only defining factors are the thematic source of their power not their fighting style. I feel like I'm talking in circles and often with people who I dont even disagree with. There is a substantial difference with what a barbarian entails and what a shamanistic themed class would entail in eso. The entire point here is that a shamanistic class put into eso CAN fufill the barbarian archetype in precisely the same way the nightblade CAN fufill the stealth based rogue archetype even though nightblade is far more than just that given the circumstances of this games skill lines and weapon options ie a nightblade, for the 10k+ hours that I have spent on it since literally day zero, has never been a rogue, but a ranged life stealing caster using soul magic.

People that suggest they want a barbarian class that is focused around berzerking and melee combat is not placing their imagination in the right place for how eso is designed. Such is the case with those asking for a monk with a pure focus on hand to hand combat instead of a class that can encompass what a monk would be among other things, giving the choice of weapon and build.

@exeeter702

You're saying that a Barbarian couldn't work as a concept because it is not broad enough to map to the various functions that classes today are expected to allow.

I'm saying that the concept of a Barbarian is absolutely broad enough, when you consider shamanistic-themed abilities mesh well with the concept, and do not exclude the berserker power fantasy people like the idea of (and in fact, depending on how skills in such a line might be morphable, take little imagination to conceive can actually support the concept).

Lysette

We don't need a new class, which is just the same as all the other in a different color - it takes a unique and very different class to make things more interesting - just having the same in a different class is just boring.

When I look at my characters, even they are of all classes and races, I can play them in pretty much the exact same way:

1 = quick healing
2 = damage shield
3 = spammable
4 = finisher or damage enhancer
5 = weapon specific skill

(it is the same for my sorceresses, they do not use pets)

And this is the same with any of my characters - I do not even need to know, what class they are or which weapon they use, they play exactly the same, regardless of their class or race. This is not interesting - we need something quite different from that.

Supreme_Atromancer

Battlemage/Spellsword

exeeter702 wrote: »

And also not a barbarian by TES standards...This is in no way comparable to a dragon knight or sorcerer who's only defining factors are the thematic source of their power not their fighting style.

@exeeter702

Right, but when people pick a "sorcerer" or "templar", they still have specific power fantasies in mind. Choosing these names aren't just coincidence: ZOS are trying to evoke archetypes, which happen to suggest immediate, natural playstyles. That they can be abstracted and bent to the point of conceptual retardation (surges of lightning and clouds or embers that somehow "heal", and personalised hurricanes generated from the power of you stamina *somehow*) really has no currency in the TES standard of power fantasies, and is an issue of ZOS struggling to map concept to purely meta, mechanical demands. As a result, arguing against a Barbarian class on the basis of TES standards rings a bit empty.

Like Sorcerer, Barbarian would be an evocative name that suggests a certain playstyle, but which isn't bound by it. Raw, wild, uncivilised spirit, being either physical or praeter-natural would be the obvious thematic source of power. Such a concept speaks readily to the demand for the straight-up "Barbarian" people want, but immediately offers a bunch of natural conceptual possibilities for fulfilling everything a class today is expected to. Without all the awkward contortion and stretching the basegame classes currently have.

Lysette

Yeah, my nightblades once were high burst damage glass cannons - killers from the shadow - and now they can do everything, but nothing really well, and especially not what their class would be supposed to do - so sad. I blame the competitive community for that - they complain about "balance" for as long as it takes to make everything the same, just in a different color - they basically ruin that what was good and exciting in TES games - namely playing a unique role.

MindOfTheSwarm

Witch/Hedgemage

@exeeter702 @Supreme_Atromancer
I think you guys are arguing the same point.
Barbarian vs Shaman.
It’s like comparing Tangerines to Clementines.

Glacku808

Witch/Hedgemage

Vampire/Werewolf classes - full classes, with 3 skill lines to help create your idea of a Vampy/WW

Archmage - Skills revolving the schools of magic

Mental Magic - something with illusions and trickery

Witch - a full on witch class, both dark and misunderstood, both like the reach witches and something darker

A different type of rogue class, idk Im not the biggest fan of Nightblades

Pet class, 2 types, one that summons pets and another where you can select pets to join you and attack for you, not just a bear that everyone is stuck with or a Netch

Something less mystical and magical and more sword-like, based on realism

Orrrrr remove the class system entirely and allow us to pick and choose skills from different classes, ie create our own

Glacku808

Witch/Hedgemage

I do also like the idea of water classes, hydromancers, water-healers but also Marines and Pirates, Captains, things of that nature

Xuhora

is this "new class" trend in threads lately just because the new reweal-trailer or ist there an actual hint/post somewhere i didnt find it (like twitter and what not)?

divnyi

Barbarian

Literally every class in the game is a spellsword if you take 2h/dw. We need physical-oriented class, where even magica abilities would resolve around physical aspect of the combat.

Cadbury

Either a Monk/Unarmed class or a crossbow/gunner class

cyberjanet

None. I have too many characters and no way to change class.

Deter1UK

MindOfTheSwarm wrote: »

@exeeter702 @Supreme_Atromancer
I think you guys are arguing the same point.
Barbarian vs Shaman.
It’s like comparing Tangerines to Clementines.

And The Reach is full of inhabitants that would qualify under the definition of 'Barbarian' (either the classical definition or the 'Conan / D&D' definition.

It's a Culture not a Class.

(Shaman would be a class however)

Celephantsylvius_Bornasfinmo

Found this hanging around (French Dwemers ^^)
I know it's not very lore friendly, but it does look kind of cool.

Supreme_Atromancer

Battlemage/Spellsword

Deter1UK wrote: »

MindOfTheSwarm wrote: »

@exeeter702 @Supreme_Atromancer
I think you guys are arguing the same point.
Barbarian vs Shaman.
It’s like comparing Tangerines to Clementines.

And The Reach is full of inhabitants that would qualify under the definition of 'Barbarian' (either the classical definition or the 'Conan / D&D' definition.

It's a Culture not a Class.

(Shaman would be a class however)

D&D treated Barbarian as a class.

MindOfTheSwarm wrote: »

@exeeter702 @Supreme_Atromancer
I think you guys are arguing the same point.
Barbarian vs Shaman.
It’s like comparing Tangerines to Clementines.

I was arguing against the position that Barbarian can't work as a class because its just a warrior, by explaining how the concept could be a little broader- in a very organic way (totems or spirit magic) with no "mental gymnastics", because ex was arguing the idea of a Barbarian healing is ludicrous.

Though there's definitely overlap between those two concepts, you're right. Why I'm defending the idea of Barbarian in particular is because it was nominated as an option, and I don't think the arguments against it stand up. Also, its a core archetype in TES franchise and fantasy games, its popular request, and currently there's no satisfying way to do that power fantasy unless you subscribe to the notion that you can make anything approaching viability by ignoring your entire class toolkit.

Deter1UK

Schools of Magic don't yet exist in the Mage's Guild - there is a book about this to be found in Cyrodil -

https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Proposal:_Schools_of_Magic

So any introduction of Alteration etc would have to be based around Shad Astula and would be Lore-stretching at best
not to mention the massive amount of dev work involved - somewhat unlikely unfortunately.

Deter1UK

[quote="Supreme_Atromancer;c-7496616"

D&D treated Barbarian as a class.

Indeed; and it took some playing and a agile DM to cope with my early character who was led around dungeons with a sack over his head in case the next room had a magic caster in it...

Why I'm defending the idea of Barbarian in particular is because it was nominated as an option, and I don't think the arguments against it stand up. Also, its a core archetype in TES franchise and fantasy games, its popular request, and currently there's no satisfying way to do that power fantasy unless you subscribe to the notion that you can make anything approaching viability by ignoring your entire class toolkit.[/quote]

Fair enough but what toolkit would you envisage out of interest?