Which class would be the most powerful in universe?

Jazraena

Elfdominion4 wrote: »

Battlemage

If only

Jarl_Ironheart

Dragonknights

charley222 wrote: »

not sure why player vote dk , because in pvp sorc is able to wipe a bunch of player so quick with occule overload , also same in 1 vs 1 , sorc kill a lot faster

This isn't based off game mechanics or anything. This is based off if the game was real life and using in universe physics, injuries, etc.

omnidoh

Nightblades

Nightblades, obviously.
No other "class" can vanish into thin air, teleport, and act with near-impunity.
Since all other magick skill lines can be learned by nightblades, but no other classes have the same utility, nightblades are the clear winners.

Finedaible

Nightblades

If we are speaking strictly from a lore standpoint, then Nightblades would potentially be the most powerful class depending on their proficiency with shadow magic. Shadow Magic is one of the few things that has ever been compared to the power of an Elder Scroll as far as I know, being able to affect past, present, and future and the multiverse (UESP). Why we don't see more powerful or more prominent shadow magic in later eras is yet to be established, though I suspect its varied nature can often confuse itself with the more defined scholls of Illusion and Mysticism. Basically it can do what any of the other 'schools' can do, but potentially better.

Hvíthákarl

Wardens

My two cents on this:

Templars are uncontested in raw power terms. Like, they wield literal plot device powers so...
If given enough time to play 32D multiverse chess with time travel and timelines: Necromancers. They're master plotters who mostly always plan ahead, aiming for long-term results. Nightblades would also more or less fall on this side but they're also suited for instant action, which makes them better overall.
Why I voted Wardens, then? They're the most balanced option with lots more room for breathing & improvisation (which is relevant on the battlefield). According to the game definition, they're also "master storytellers whose nature tales become magical reality" which is RAD and powerful.
Dragonknights would be a very close 2nd contester.

Vevvev

Dragonknights

If you've ever played Oblivion or Morrowind... Dragonknight.

Their abilities are basically the very OP spells in those games that let them do some crazy stuff. My Breton in Oblivion with Flame Shell hit the armor cap in a dress.... a dress!!! Then all the fire and poison spells to just wreck untold havoc on whatever you want. Fighting a flame atronach? Just use poison spells and flame for everything else.

Oh, and your alteration magic to let you fly, increase your damage resistance, and do other crazy stuff like breath underwater is just all in the Dragonknight's favor.

renne

Depends on which part of the nerf update cycle we're in, because if we're talking flimsy class-related lore reasons, the nerfs have to be lore related too.

GloatingSwine

Vevvev wrote: »

If you've ever played Oblivion or Morrowind... Dragonknight.

If we base this on other games' mechanics then, well, it's irrelevant what class because they all have Alchemy which is the true way to break the universe.

h9dlb

The Borg

aurelius_fx

Finedaible wrote: »

If we are speaking strictly from a lore standpoint, then Nightblades would potentially be the most powerful class depending on their proficiency with shadow magic. Shadow Magic is one of the few things that has ever been compared to the power of an Elder Scroll as far as I know, being able to affect past, present, and future and the multiverse (UESP). Why we don't see more powerful or more prominent shadow magic in later eras is yet to be established, though I suspect its varied nature can often confuse itself with the more defined scholls of Illusion and Mysticism. Basically it can do what any of the other 'schools' can do, but potentially better.

NB "Shadow Magic" has nothing to do with Shadowkey's shadow magic (which has nothing to do with actual shadows). It took me a little while to realize that, but there is no hidden NB secret super power. It's just some dilluded mmo babble that ZOS came up with. They're illusionists at best.

I think all of the classes are fairly even, minus warden.

Asdara

Sorcerers

Sorceres all the way, Try killing a cloud of pure energy, good luck with that.

Varana

- In the ES universe, everyone has the ability to use magic. Like with flailing a sword around, training helps to get better at it, but there's nothing barring anyone from using basic magic spells.
- Nightblades are using mostly Illusion, Destruction, and Mysticism spells. And so on.
- Restrictions on who can learn what (i.e. the concept of classes itself) has no equivalent in the lore, at least not since TES2:Daggerfall. So the question is essentially moot - there is nothing keeping a "dragonknight" from learning basic illusion spells like Invisibility.
- The question therefore cannot really be answered without taking an individual's capabilities into account. Classes are not a thing.

psychotrip

Sorcerers

Jazraena wrote: »

Given most of them have flimsical lore placement at best... eh.

Yeah only two of the classes have any basis in previous ES lore so its hard to judge classes that dont exist outside of one game.

Jaimeh

Sorcs and wardens can both summon the elements and control minions pets, so they could be a good candidate. Wardens can also heal themselves expertly so they could be a bigger threat, but the image of a warden doesn't suit a domineering overlord very well, at least compared to a sorc. Templars and necros would give them a good run for their money, also templars have the psychological advantage of the perception of fighting for the light, and hence be more determined, while necros have the obvious leech immortality aspect. Nightblades might not be as overtly strong but they could probably make a good attempt with their talent at pulling strings from the shadows, and rising to the top inconspicuously. DKs could also cause a lot of trouble by using a brute force approach and basically being fiery but I don't know how far this could take them, though they have the advantage of being very resilient, and since the rise to universe overlord is a long one, who knows, maybe they could also come out victorious.

Jazraena

psychotrip wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

Given most of them have flimsical lore placement at best... eh.

Yeah only two of the classes have any basis in previous ES lore so its hard to judge classes that dont exist outside of one game.

I kindly refer you to my second post. Whether they are in one or several games isn't really the point I'm making, nor does that in any way affect their Lore standing.

The problem is simply that they barely have any Lore that we could evaluate. With some classes, we don't even really know what they are supposed to be, and others are just random mages.

Jarl_Ironheart

Dragonknights

Varana wrote: »

- In the ES universe, everyone has the ability to use magic. Like with flailing a sword around, training helps to get better at it, but there's nothing barring anyone from using basic magic spells.
- Nightblades are using mostly Illusion, Destruction, and Mysticism spells. And so on.
- Restrictions on who can learn what (i.e. the concept of classes itself) has no equivalent in the lore, at least not since TES2:Daggerfall. So the question is essentially moot - there is nothing keeping a "dragonknight" from learning basic illusion spells like Invisibility.
- The question therefore cannot really be answered without taking an individual's capabilities into account. Classes are not a thing.

I understand TES lore. I've delved deep into it and have been a TES since morrowind. I know everyone can use even basic magic but that doesn't mean they will. These classes are people who have trained in certain skulls and have become experts at it. You can totally answer this question. If you aren't gonna answer then don't comment. It adds nothing to the discussion.

psychotrip

Sorcerers

Jazraena wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

Given most of them have flimsical lore placement at best... eh.

Yeah only two of the classes have any basis in previous ES lore so its hard to judge classes that dont exist outside of one game.

I kindly refer you to my second post. Whether they are in one or several games isn't really the point I'm making, nor does that in any way affect their Lore standing.

The problem is simply that they barely have any Lore that we could evaluate. With some classes, we don't even really know what they are supposed to be, and others are just random mages.

Did I say it did?

...

No. You're confusing lore with canonicity. I'm not saying it's not canon. I'm saying we dont have enough lore to adequately judge. Specifically, I said its hard to judge based on one game.

Classes that have existed since the early games have a ton of lore about them, including long descriptions from npcs about what a class does, how they make money, and how they harness / utilize their powers. There's also many quests and lorebooks where certain classes are explicitly referenced (both sorcerer and nightblade come to mind).

Most of ESO's classes dont have anywhere near that level of lore for us to adequately judge or compare. So if anything we agree. Canonicity is irrelevant here. There's just not enough pre-existing lore to judge these "new" classes. I dont know why you're calling me out, here.

Aliyavana

Nightblades

Nightblades. See what azra nightwielder can do with shadow magic

Jazraena

psychotrip wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

Given most of them have flimsical lore placement at best... eh.

Yeah only two of the classes have any basis in previous ES lore so its hard to judge classes that dont exist outside of one game.

I kindly refer you to my second post. Whether they are in one or several games isn't really the point I'm making, nor does that in any way affect their Lore standing.

The problem is simply that they barely have any Lore that we could evaluate. With some classes, we don't even really know what they are supposed to be, and others are just random mages.

Did I say it did?

...

No. You're confusing lore with canonicity. I'm not saying it's not canon. I'm saying we dont have enough lore to adequately judge. Specifically, I said its hard to judge based on one game.

Classes that have existed since the early games have a ton of lore about them, including long descriptions from npcs about what a class does, how they make money, and how they harness / utilize their powers. There's also many quests and lorebooks where certain classes are explicitly referenced (both sorcerer and nightblade come to mind).

Most of ESO's classes dont have anywhere near that level of lore for us to adequately judge or compare. So if anything we agree. Canonicity is irrelevant here. There's just not enough pre-existing lore to judge these "new" classes. I dont know why you're calling me out, here.

... I'm not calling you out; you responded to me.

Classes being named in earlier games doesn't mean we have relevant Lore about them. Sorcerer is a good key example - from what little we have about them, they're just mages, no more.

Nightblades are the only example we really have more of, but even there, ESO Nightblades and the Azra type have stark differences, and we have zero background on how these seemingly unorganized mages learned two of the rarest types of magic in TES.

That's not much to go on.

Dojohoda

Dragonknights

Dragonknight is spectacular in more ways than any other class. They exhale fire or poison, they can cause the ground to pop up and pin an enemy, spikes can shoot out of their back, they sprout wings and leap, etc.

psychotrip

Sorcerers

Jazraena wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

Given most of them have flimsical lore placement at best... eh.

Yeah only two of the classes have any basis in previous ES lore so its hard to judge classes that dont exist outside of one game.

I kindly refer you to my second post. Whether they are in one or several games isn't really the point I'm making, nor does that in any way affect their Lore standing.

The problem is simply that they barely have any Lore that we could evaluate. With some classes, we don't even really know what they are supposed to be, and others are just random mages.

Did I say it did?

...

No. You're confusing lore with canonicity. I'm not saying it's not canon. I'm saying we dont have enough lore to adequately judge. Specifically, I said its hard to judge based on one game.

Classes that have existed since the early games have a ton of lore about them, including long descriptions from npcs about what a class does, how they make money, and how they harness / utilize their powers. There's also many quests and lorebooks where certain classes are explicitly referenced (both sorcerer and nightblade come to mind).

Most of ESO's classes dont have anywhere near that level of lore for us to adequately judge or compare. So if anything we agree. Canonicity is irrelevant here. There's just not enough pre-existing lore to judge these "new" classes. I dont know why you're calling me out, here.

... I'm not calling you out; you responded to me.

Classes being named in earlier games doesn't mean we have relevant Lore about them. Sorcerer is a good key example - from what little we have about them, they're just mages, no more.

Nightblades are the only example we really have more of, but even there, ESO Nightblades and the Azra type have stark differences, and we have zero background on how these seemingly unorganized mages learned two of the rarest types of magic in TES.

That's not much to go on.

...Okay I legit didnt think you were the same person I responded to since I thought we were in agreement. 100% my bad. I thought you were some random 3rd party XD

But let me articulate my point because I dont think we're really disagreeing here. At least not too much.

I'm not trying to hate on ESO's classes. I'm saying we dont have as much data on them. I dont understand why you think the OG classes dont have much lore, because they do. I'm very confused how you come to this conclusion.

We have plenty examples of sorcerer npcs in past ES games. We can learn about them by observing what they do, seeing how they live, reading books about them, or just asking them. In morrowind, there's even unique shops for different kinds of wizards (sorcerer, nightblade, mage). Bethesda is VERY good at this sort of indirect worldbuilding. Its part of why their open worlds are so compelling. Every class has several paragraphs of lore as a bare minimum. Here's one for the sorcerer:

"I am a sorcerer. Through my mastery of special disciplines of the College of Conjuration, and my private studies of the Outer Realms and their Powers and Principalities, I have learned to summon and command their denizens to do my bidding. I do these things for coin, or to suit my own interests. I also am an enchanter, enchanting items for my own use and for the use of others. My skill with enchantments also makes me more efficient in using enchanted items that I collect on my research expeditions."

Here's the mage:

"I am a mage. My study is the destruction and alteration of the visible and invisible world. I study magic for its pure intellectual challenge and rewards, but I am paid in gold for the practical applications of my knowledge. I defend myself with spells of the College of Destruction, and leap, swim, and levitate with the spells of the College of Alteration."

Here's the nightblade. I'm mostly just posting these because they're interesting bits of worldbuilding, lol:

"I am a nightblade. Blending the disciplines of the stealthy agent and subtle wizard, I move unseen and undetected, foil locks and traps, and teleport to safety when threatened, or strike like a viper from ambush. The College of Illusion hides me and fuddles or pacifies my opponents. The College of Mysticism detects my object, reflects and dispels enemy spells, and makes good my escape. The key to a nightblade's success is avoidance, by spell or by stealth; with these skills, all things are possible."

If you want to know the difference between the different wizard classes and how they operate, talk to them, observe their surroundings, the factions they're in, the quests they offer. Or even just listen to rumors from random npcs. There's years worth of lore on these classes if you're willing to look.

Now, compare that to what we have on the dragon knight, warden, and templar. My only point is we dont have enough data on the new classes to make a fair assessment. If anything its unfair to compare a templar to the people who murdered Cuhlecain and slit Tiber Septim's throat (nightblade). It's unfair to compare the Dragonknight to ancient wizard lords who explore other dimensions and see themselves as being on par with gods (sorcerers). Hell, there are npcs in morrowind who think the tribunal are just particularly powerful sorcerers.

So I'm saying that I would like more lore on the new classes. What does a level 100 templar look like? What do they do? How do they attain such power? What are examples of the most powerful wardens in the world? What have they accomplished? What does the world think of them?

Until I have those answers, my opinion remains the same: I dont think we have enough data to adequately judge them without it feeling unfair.

Jazraena

Ah, I think we're merely on the point of specifics and semantics then and otherwise in agreement on the general point.

I'd go further and assert that while sorcerers are really just mages with (by ESO) a specific skillset, not all mages are sorcerers - it's a subset, but not one with it's unique tradition and place in the world. Thus, we don't really have much specific Lore on the likes of Sorcerers simply because they're not anything specific; they're just mages and general magic lore applies.
We can also make an argument that most other classes are also just mages. For example, what little we have of Templars suggests that the templar skillset is just an assortment of spells actively spread by the Sect of Harmonious Masters, so any mage could readily know them, but they seem to at least originate from a certain unique tradition... which we then get told very little about.

I'd also posit that ESO Nightblades and Nightblades from other games aren't necessarily the same - certainly, their shadow magic has a lot more oomph in prior iterations, and blood magic seems mostly missing. But I'd really like to know how ESO Nightblades came to learn two so rare magic types in the first place.

merpins

Dragonknights

Probably Dragon Knights, Sorcerers, and Necromancers. DKs seem to have dragon blood, and are therefore dragonborn. This doesn't make them inherently stronger, but they have huge potential. Sorcs and Necromancers have, canonically, been the ones with the most potential, but then again, you could argue that the protagonist of TES5 is a Dragon Knight. Templars don't really exist in-universe, at least not in the way they do in ESO. Wardens are basically just beast tamers and they don't really have much potential (a frost warden maybe, but I'd put that in the sorcerer category. Ice is such a weird thing to give to warden IMO, canonically). And Nightblades are just assassins. There have been some good assassins throughout the ES series, but none of them have been the most powerful person in the world.

Jazraena

Dragon Knights are not Dragonborn.

What little Lore we do have on them suggests they are a mix of martial and magical tradition originating with the Dragonguard, which also aren't Dragonborn.

And... please. Reign in your 'Canon' assessments.

Saint-Ange

Necromancers as dead far outnumber the living.

An army of dead efficiently used to attack the weakest, the non combatant, to hinder all positive logistics while creating negative logistics to forbid its mechanical growth constitutes a threat that must not be overlooked. Such campaign having a disastrous snowball effect has to be killed in the egg therefor all necromancers should be immediately terminated.

Ha!

psychotrip

Sorcerers

Jazraena wrote: »

Ah, I think we're merely on the point of specifics and semantics then and otherwise in agreement on the general point.

I'd go further and assert that while sorcerers are really just mages with (by ESO) a specific skillset, not all mages are sorcerers - it's a subset, but not one with it's unique tradition and place in the world. Thus, we don't really have much specific Lore on the likes of Sorcerers simply because they're not anything specific; they're just mages and general magic lore applies.
We can also make an argument that most other classes are also just mages. For example, what little we have of Templars suggests that the templar skillset is just an assortment of spells actively spread by the Sect of Harmonious Masters, so any mage could readily know them, but they seem to at least originate from a certain unique tradition... which we then get told very little about.

I'd also posit that ESO Nightblades and Nightblades from other games aren't necessarily the same - certainly, their shadow magic has a lot more oomph in prior iterations, and blood magic seems mostly missing. But I'd really like to know how ESO Nightblades came to learn two so rare magic types in the first place.

I still dont get what you mean when you conflate sorcerers and mages, and claim sorcerers dont have lore, skills, typical personalities, preferred spells that set them apart. They do. Mages and sorcerers are both wizards. They are different kinds of wizards who focus on different things in different ways. Its like saying a nightblade and a battlemage are the same. Both wizards, but different specs.

But otherwise, yeah I think we're on the same page.

rexagamemnon

Templars

I say this for lore reasons, outside of lore in game, The devs decided to castrate the Templar class so they are the worst by leaps and bounds

kaushad

Regarding how sorcerers are " just mages", I find the identities of the class book authors significant. We have:

• the founder of the Mages Guild
• the most reknowned Telvanni wizard
• a Direnni, who says that he has innovated a safer mode form of Conjuration
• some journeyman of Mages Guild
• "the Aureate Serpent"

I don't know about this Aureate Serpent, but these are celebrated pioneers of magic as we know it in the Third Era (and a member of the Guild that one of them founded). It includes a couple of High Elves. I think that what sorcerers use represents a cosmopolitan mainstream of magic, which originates with High Elves if any one people, along with most of Tamriel's academia. I'd would expect Shalidor to be a sorcerer in this sense as well. It's not quite the Shad Astula curriculum, but that may be a difference of organisation of study rather than principles as with other most classes.

psychotrip

Sorcerers

I think that what sorcerers use represents a cosmopolitan mainstream of magic, which originates with High Elves if any one people, along with most of Tamriel's academia. I'd would expect Shalidor to be a sorcerer in this sense as well. It's not quite the Shad Astula curriculum, but that may be a difference of organisation of study rather than principles as with other most classes.

We dont need to speculate like this because the games explicitly spell it out. I posted some of the in-game dialogue on them earlier, but here's the class description for sorcerers from Morrowind. The one in Oblivion is almost the same:

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.

Sorcerers are wizards who specialize in enchanting and conjuration. They train with armor and commonly enchanted weapons (mostly blades and marksman weapons) to better utilize their creations.

Sorcerers are greedy for magical trinkets like thieves are greedy for jewels. They tend to be megalomaniacal, isolationist, and secretive in their research. People of Tamriel tend to see sorcerers as powerful, secretive and dangerous iconoclasts whose morality is often in question (ex: people assume the serial murders in vivec city *must* have been done by either a vampire or sorcerer)

They tend to build powerbases to support their expensive and resource-intensive research (estates, castles, towers), and prefer to stay hidden from the masses behind a legion of minions, retainers, and supernatural creatures.

Notice how no one finds it odd how old and secretive Janus Hasildor is. Thats just typical sorcerer behavior.

Mages, on the other hand, are more like the traditional "scientists" of Tamriel. Their main specializations are in destruction and alteration. Magic is their passion AND their day-to-day job. They typically divide their their time between personal research and contract work with a guild. Conversly, they may work full-time for a noble or for the government. Unlike sorcerers, they're usually a bit less secretive and more willing to share their work with peers, or publish their research for the masses. However, they are often prone to monetary greed, academic pride, and petty politicking, as evidenced by the mages guild questline in morrowind.

Most mages claim to study magic for its intellectual rewards, but they also often profit from its practical applications. Varying widely in temperament and motivation, mages share but one thing in common - an avid love of spellcasting.

Nightblades tend to be magical mercenaries who act as enforcers, assassins, or agents for the government. They specialize in illusion and mysticism. People in Tamriel tend to fear them the most, because despite their more "subtle" applications of magic, their skills make them nearly impossible to beat. You never see them coming, they can use illusion magic to drive you insane, they can break into almost any location, and if the battle turns south they can teleport halfway across the world in seconds. This is probably why they get so much work, and why some reachmen nightblades were able to murder the would-be emperor in the middle of the imperial city and set the entire island on fire before vanishing.

Nightblades are spellcasters who use their magics to enhance mobility, concealment, and stealthy close combat. They have a sinister reputation, since many nightblades are thieves, enforcers, assassins, or covert agents.

Side note: people in this thread are not giving nightblades enough credit. A high level nightblade is like a mandrake from Warhammer 40k. You do NOT want to fight one ;P

But yeah this is all stuff you can piece together by playing the games. Skyrim is the exception because they got rid of classes, but even npcs still use the traditional classes. But as I said, Bethesda is actually very good at this sort of worldbuilding. Epsecially in the older games, they're very intentional in how they place npcs, what their environment says about them, the quests they give, the factions they belong to, etc. You can learn a ton of lore just by observing the world like this.

Templars, Dragon Knights, and Wardens unfortunately dont have anything on this level. I wish they did.

Jazraena

Meanwhile, I find the very fact how widespread this 'class concept' of a Sorcerer without any actual Lore connection between is fairly obvious evidence that this is a very loose in-universe concept at best.

Sorcerers are apparently just mages - as in generic spellcaster, not some other niche - that happen to have knowledge in summoning Daedra, lightning magic and 'dark magic'. There is no singular source of knowledge, training, tradition, no link provided wherever. And a similarly named game mechanical construct does not a lore link make.

Not that Sorcerers are alone in this; the idea that an Akaviri Martial Art is as widespread as ESO Dragon Knights make us believe even among the Akaviri's and Imperial's historical enemies without any explanation is equally bizarre for example, but there it's explicitly stated.