Which class would be the most powerful in universe?

psychotrip

Sorcerers

Jazraena wrote: »

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.

Ummm....okay dude. I listed numerous examples, npcs, quests, in-game rumors, class descriptions, in-game class dialogue, their in-game specializations...I dont know what more you want from me, but if you want to think these classes dont have specific lore then more power to you, I guess? This entire exchange has been deeply confusing to me and we're just going in circles. I'm done. You win. I'm out.

kaushad

You explained what a sorcerer is in TESIII's context. We're discussing different concepts that use the same names. As Jazraena says, a nightblade in ESO isn't the same type of mage as a nightblade in other TES games. ESO nightblades use shadow magic and don't necessarily have a lot of cloak and dagger skills. Whereas other TES game nightblades are defined by the application of their magic, to stealth and mobility, along with complementary mundane skills. ESO nightblades know some spells that enable them to be effective nightblades in the other sense, particularly shadow cloaking and teleportation, but the staff and robe and sword and board nightblades that we can play are more like battlemages, healers and spellswords. I'd include mage, but the applications of magic that we have for player characters in ESO is mostly confined to battle. Maybe the Glimmering Foxbat meets that description.

It's harder to make this distinction for sorcerers, because their three schools of magic are explained separately from each other, which leaves them less defined than nightblades. Like TESIII/IV sorcerers, they can summon daedra, but we don't have much indication that they depend upon or create enchantments any more than the next class. And necromancers could qualify as a type of sorcerer too.

For what it's worth, we might have a third type of sorcerer as in TESI/II, i.e. spellcasters with big magical reserves that they restore externally.

psychotrip

Sorcerers

kaushad wrote: »

You explained what a sorcerer is in TESIII's context. We're discussing different concepts that use the same names. As Jazraena says, a nightblade in ESO isn't the same type of mage as a nightblade in other TES games. ESO nightblades use shadow magic and don't necessarily have a lot of cloak and dagger skills. Whereas other TES game nightblades are defined by the application of their magic, to stealth and mobility, along with complementary mundane skills. ESO nightblades know some spells that enable them to be effective nightblades in the other sense, particularly shadow cloaking and teleportation, but the staff and robe and sword and board nightblades that we can play are more like battlemages, healers and spellswords. I'd include mage, but the applications of magic that we have for player characters in ESO is mostly confined to battle. Maybe the Glimmering Foxbat meets that description.

It's harder to make this distinction for sorcerers, because their three schools of magic are explained separately from each other, which leaves them less defined than nightblades. Like TESIII/IV sorcerers, they can summon daedra, but we don't have much indication that they depend upon or create enchantments any more than the next class. And necromancers could qualify as a type of sorcerer too.

For what it's worth, we might have a third type of sorcerer as in TESI/II, i.e. spellcasters with big magical reserves that they restore externally.

I brought up games other than Morrowind, dude. I used a lot of morrowind examples because that game has the most lore-dialogue. That's all. The npcs literally TELL YOU what their classes are all about. I brought up descriptions from lore-books as well.

Unless you think Morrowind and Oblivion arent canon, then all of this is valid lore. Even Skyrim has examples of sorcerers like Neloth. Why would I just ignore the information the games provide?

My point is that the original classes have more lore. I gave examples. I dont know what you want from me.

kaushad

I'm not saying that any previous lore about sorcerers is no longer applicable in ESO or TES as a whole or that it was exclusive to Morrowind. I'm saying that ESO's classes refer to something different. It's like the word "crusader"; Morrowind's description alone refers to two different meanings, so a person can be a crusader in the sense that they're a heavily armed hero type, even if they aren't a crusader in the sense that they fight for a cult.

That's why one can't judge nightblades, for the purpose of this poll, without considering shadow magic, even if the people we call nightblades in other games don't use it. But those people casting illusion and alteration spells to sneak around or whatever are still nightblades.

psychotrip

Sorcerers

kaushad wrote: »

I'm not saying that any previous lore about sorcerers is no longer applicable in ESO or TES as a whole or that it was exclusive to Morrowind. I'm saying that ESO's classes refer to something different. It's like the word "crusader"; Morrowind's description alone refers to two different meanings, so a person can be a crusader in the sense that they're a heavily armed hero type, even if they aren't a crusader in the sense that they fight for a cult.

That's why one can't judge nightblades, for the purpose of this poll, without considering shadow magic, even if the people we call nightblades in other games don't use it. But those people casting illusion and alteration spells to sneak around or whatever are still nightblades.

So just to be clear: the classes sorcerer and nightblade are different classes entirely than in every modern ES game, classes with a decades worth of lore, but ZOS decided to use the exact same names?

I get that they have different powers because it's a different game. But the classes are a little different in every ES game. I dont agree that we should just assume that these classes are entirely different and just coincidentally share the same names. That's a bit of a stretch imo.

I understand what you're saying a bit better now. I still find this interpretation harder to believe than just assuming they're variations on the same basic class, and therefore share basic lore.

Jazraena

I think the fundamental concept you need to grasp here is that real (or fictional, in this case) people don't have classes. That's a game mechanic construct first and foremost. These constructs are clearly defined per game but may differ between games.

Ontop of that some people actually use those terms in-universe, but they're far looser in meaning - unsurprisingly given that especially during the ESO Era, there is absolutely no central authority of magical research and training. Everyone does their own shtick. The very idea that Telvanni, Sapiarchs, Mage's Guild, Shad Astula or Winterhold practitioners agree on any terminology except the most basic by anything but accident is farfetched - even Gabrielle wanting to copy paste Shad Astula's school system is a novelty. That something called 'Sorcerer' would have clearly shared training regime and spellcasting tradition between them is even further out there.

And nothing in the Lorebooks about Sorcerers suggests so either. In fact, the Sorcerer Lorebooks mostly don't even refer to Sorcery; with the two exceptions being Divayth Fyr - the ancient Telvanni, whose very age and practice of Sorcery at a young age lends further doubt to any shared links between traditions - and this ominous Aureate Serpent. The others just talk about Summoning and Lightning magic detached from any notion of Sorcery.

From that, my best guess is that Sorcery is a Telvanni term if anything, and even that is, well, a guess.

ghastley

Two possibilities, neither on the list:

Guard. Those guys are invincible!

Developer. If you beat them, they can nerf you for next time.

Scaletho

He-man?

kaushad

psychotrip wrote: »

So just to be clear: the classes sorcerer and nightblade are different classes entirely than in every modern ES game, classes with a decades worth of lore, but ZOS decided to use the exact same names?

I get that they have different powers because it's a different game. But the classes are a little different in every ES game. I dont agree that we should just assume that these classes are entirely different and just coincidentally share the same names. That's a bit of a stretch imo.

I understand what you're saying a bit better now. I still find this interpretation harder to believe than just assuming they're variations on the same basic class, and therefore share basic lore.

Yes. Classes in most TES games define what a character is trained to do. ESO classes define what sort of magic they learn.

ElvenOverlord

Necromancers

francesinhalover wrote: »

Jarl_Ironheart wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

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

Well yes, they didn't exist in previous elder scrolls save for Sorcs and Nightblades. At least the names of pre set classes in old TES games. But they exist now in lore whether we like or not

Is eso lore even cannon to es?

I see es lore youtubers all the time and they ignore eso's exists.

Yes, ESO is canon. Which is why they still need Bethesda's permission to do certain things or explore certain topics. And I see Fudgemuppet and other YouTubers mention eso lore all the time if the topic involves it.

Jarl_Ironheart

Dragonknights

Jazraena wrote: »

I think the fundamental concept you need to grasp here is that real (or fictional, in this case) people don't have classes. That's a game mechanic construct first and foremost. These constructs are clearly defined per game but may differ between games.

Ontop of that some people actually use those terms in-universe, but they're far looser in meaning - unsurprisingly given that especially during the ESO Era, there is absolutely no central authority of magical research and training. Everyone does their own shtick. The very idea that Telvanni, Sapiarchs, Mage's Guild, Shad Astula or Winterhold practitioners agree on any terminology except the most basic by anything but accident is farfetched - even Gabrielle wanting to copy paste Shad Astula's school system is a novelty. That something called 'Sorcerer' would have clearly shared training regime and spellcasting tradition between them is even further out there.

And nothing in the Lorebooks about Sorcerers suggests so either. In fact, the Sorcerer Lorebooks mostly don't even refer to Sorcery; with the two exceptions being Divayth Fyr - the ancient Telvanni, whose very age and practice of Sorcery at a young age lends further doubt to any shared links between traditions - and this ominous Aureate Serpent. The others just talk about Summoning and Lightning magic detached from any notion of Sorcery.

From that, my best guess is that Sorcery is a Telvanni term if anything, and even that is, well, a guess.

I know very well that classes are not really a thing in TES. Even though we have has "classes" in all TES games and even NPCs in Skyrim were classified as certain classes. Yes, everyone can be whatever and use whatever skills they want but they are better in their class skills. Also not everyone, save for the PC God character, are not going to learn everything. I've had some other people say the same thing, we don't need a lore lesson. This is merely meant to be a fun who is stronger thread.

Jim_Pipp

Sorcerers

Lightning is 5 times hotter than the surface of the sun.

psychotrip

Sorcerers

Jazraena wrote: »

I think the fundamental concept you need to grasp here is that real (or fictional, in this case) people don't have classes. That's a game mechanic construct first and foremost. These constructs are clearly defined per game but may differ between games.

Ontop of that some people actually use those terms in-universe, but they're far looser in meaning - unsurprisingly given that especially during the ESO Era, there is absolutely no central authority of magical research and training. Everyone does their own shtick. The very idea that Telvanni, Sapiarchs, Mage's Guild, Shad Astula or Winterhold practitioners agree on any terminology except the most basic by anything but accident is farfetched - even Gabrielle wanting to copy paste Shad Astula's school system is a novelty. That something called 'Sorcerer' would have clearly shared training regime and spellcasting tradition between them is even further out there.

And nothing in the Lorebooks about Sorcerers suggests so either. In fact, the Sorcerer Lorebooks mostly don't even refer to Sorcery; with the two exceptions being Divayth Fyr - the ancient Telvanni, whose very age and practice of Sorcery at a young age lends further doubt to any shared links between traditions - and this ominous Aureate Serpent. The others just talk about Summoning and Lightning magic detached from any notion of Sorcery.

From that, my best guess is that Sorcery is a Telvanni term if anything, and even that is, well, a guess.

Okay clearly there's just a gulf in the way we look at things. Or maybe I've just been playing the singleplayer games too much ;P

I agree that the classes are much looser in-universe than in the games, but I dont think I'll ever agree that they dont have a consistent lore or identity. I also dont agree that the class descriptions are only valid per game, nor that we cant extrapolate a lot about them based on previous games. I think maybe my interpretation is a bit too extreme, but I feel like your interpretation is bit of an opposite extreme. Just a bit. Imo.

I guess I also just prefer the concept of "class fantasy" as opposed to them just being mechanics that dont relate to the world. It's just less immersive for me. Like I said I agree that classes should have a lot of variations (which is why I think the classes are still roughly the same throughout the modern games, despite some mechanical differences), but I still like the idea of the classes being real jobs/disciplines/vocations/passions that exist within the world. Makes it feel more alive to me, and gives you insight into the lives of the people living within the universe.

So again, clearly I'm in the minority here so I'll duck out and stop ruining your fun. I guess, out of curiosity, do you think the classes as presented in ESO are purely mechanical as well? If so, why bother ranking their power if they dont really exist in-universe? Or do you find them to be "real" classes, but completely disconnected from the "less real" classes from previous games? Or is it that the classes are all "real" but only on their specific games?

Jazraena

Jarl_Ironheart wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

I think the fundamental concept you need to grasp here is that real (or fictional, in this case) people don't have classes. That's a game mechanic construct first and foremost. These constructs are clearly defined per game but may differ between games.

Ontop of that some people actually use those terms in-universe, but they're far looser in meaning - unsurprisingly given that especially during the ESO Era, there is absolutely no central authority of magical research and training. Everyone does their own shtick. The very idea that Telvanni, Sapiarchs, Mage's Guild, Shad Astula or Winterhold practitioners agree on any terminology except the most basic by anything but accident is farfetched - even Gabrielle wanting to copy paste Shad Astula's school system is a novelty. That something called 'Sorcerer' would have clearly shared training regime and spellcasting tradition between them is even further out there.

And nothing in the Lorebooks about Sorcerers suggests so either. In fact, the Sorcerer Lorebooks mostly don't even refer to Sorcery; with the two exceptions being Divayth Fyr - the ancient Telvanni, whose very age and practice of Sorcery at a young age lends further doubt to any shared links between traditions - and this ominous Aureate Serpent. The others just talk about Summoning and Lightning magic detached from any notion of Sorcery.

From that, my best guess is that Sorcery is a Telvanni term if anything, and even that is, well, a guess.

I know very well that classes are not really a thing in TES. Even though we have has "classes" in all TES games and even NPCs in Skyrim were classified as certain classes. Yes, everyone can be whatever and use whatever skills they want but they are better in their class skills. Also not everyone, save for the PC God character, are not going to learn everything. I've had some other people say the same thing, we don't need a lore lesson. This is merely meant to be a fun who is stronger thread.

I was addressing this to psychotrip, not you. And while they and I may discuss minutae, we both addressed the actual thread before - we're actually lacking information to properly respond to the question you posed.

psychotrip wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

I think the fundamental concept you need to grasp here is that real (or fictional, in this case) people don't have classes. That's a game mechanic construct first and foremost. These constructs are clearly defined per game but may differ between games.

Ontop of that some people actually use those terms in-universe, but they're far looser in meaning - unsurprisingly given that especially during the ESO Era, there is absolutely no central authority of magical research and training. Everyone does their own shtick. The very idea that Telvanni, Sapiarchs, Mage's Guild, Shad Astula or Winterhold practitioners agree on any terminology except the most basic by anything but accident is farfetched - even Gabrielle wanting to copy paste Shad Astula's school system is a novelty. That something called 'Sorcerer' would have clearly shared training regime and spellcasting tradition between them is even further out there.

And nothing in the Lorebooks about Sorcerers suggests so either. In fact, the Sorcerer Lorebooks mostly don't even refer to Sorcery; with the two exceptions being Divayth Fyr - the ancient Telvanni, whose very age and practice of Sorcery at a young age lends further doubt to any shared links between traditions - and this ominous Aureate Serpent. The others just talk about Summoning and Lightning magic detached from any notion of Sorcery.

From that, my best guess is that Sorcery is a Telvanni term if anything, and even that is, well, a guess.

Okay clearly there's just a gulf in the way we look at things. Or maybe I've just been playing the singleplayer games too much ;P

I agree that the classes are much looser in-universe than in the games, but I dont think I'll ever agree that they dont have a consistent lore or identity. I also dont agree that the class descriptions are only valid per game, nor that we cant extrapolate a lot about them based on previous games. I think maybe my interpretation is a bit too extreme, but I feel like your interpretation is bit of an opposite extreme. Just a bit. Imo.

I guess I also just prefer the concept of "class fantasy" as opposed to them just being mechanics that dont relate to the world. It's just less immersive for me. Like I said I agree that classes should have a lot of variations (which is why I think the classes are still roughly the same throughout the modern games, despite some mechanical differences), but I still like the idea of the classes being real jobs/disciplines/vocations/passions that exist within the world. Makes it feel more alive to me, and gives you insight into the lives of the people living within the universe.

So again, clearly I'm in the minority here so I'll duck out and stop ruining your fun. I guess, out of curiosity, do you think the classes as presented in ESO are purely mechanical as well? If so, why bother ranking their power if they dont really exist in-universe? Or do you find them to be "real" classes, but completely disconnected from the "less real" classes from previous games? Or is it that the classes are all "real" but only on their specific games?

I'm not saying the class and the in-universe term are without link, I'm saying you can't directly equate the two. One is a game term that, by definition, needs to be clearly defined and identical across Tamriel. The other one needs to address the realities of a largely very much not unified magical world, often across great lengths of time. Divayth Fyr and random_sorcerer_23 of the Mage's Guild inevitably cannot share more than cursory similarities simply due to how this fictional reality is defined, and neither is ultimately restricted to it. Fyr in particular is someone, despite being the go-to Sorcerer, who is probably capable of replicating every single set of class abilities in the game and then some.

However, once we pose the question how powerful these mechanical constructs would be in-universe we run into the problem that the in-universe term isn't defined and unified enough to properly evaluate the question. And if we go by actual mechanical abilities we can certainly find skills that are more challenging to master than others in-universe, but in the end, none of them are really that out there for a powerful mage.

With, perhaps, the potential mentioned exception of the blood and shadow magic Nightblades bring to the table. Not because of the actual skills, but because of the rarity and extraordinary potential such magic brings.

Zodiarkslayer

Templars

Lorewise, there is one really good example for Templars being the god class.
Pelinal Whitestrake

I go so far as to say he is not a Templar, but all Templars are trying to be Pelinal Whitestrakes.

Jarl_Ironheart

Dragonknights

Zodiarkslayer wrote: »

Lorewise, there is one really good example for Templars being the god class.
Pelinal Whitestrake

I go so far as to say he is not a Templar, but all Templars are trying to be Pelinal Whitestrakes.

While I agree templars are pretty powerful pelinal makes them look like pushovers. I WOULDN'T wanna fight him ever

Dragonlord573

Templars

Considering they're wielders of Aedric power

Varana

psychotrip wrote: »

I guess, out of curiosity, do you think the classes as presented in ESO are purely mechanical as well? If so, why bother ranking their power if they dont really exist in-universe? Or do you find them to be "real" classes, but completely disconnected from the "less real" classes from previous games? Or is it that the classes are all "real" but only on their specific games?

Using this as a jump-off point...
ESO's classes are "real" classes, in terms of game mechanics. They restrict what you can learn or do in "unnatural" ways.
The single-player "classes" are much looser and broader, more like suggestions and specialisations than actual classes.
As such, people like sorcerers and acrobats being actual ingame jobs and groups, with lore descriptions, is fine.
ESO's classes, on the other hand, are different. Their constraints make them more or less unable to act as ingame jobs.
The single-player "classes" are also part of a much wider ecosystem of jobs, with the ability of the player to create entirely new ones (at least in some games). As a world description, ESO's classes are incredibly limited and restrictive.
Therefore, ingame sorcerers and ESO sorcerers are different things, imho, and we can't just transfer lore from one to the other.

rexagamemnon

Templars

ghastley wrote: »

Two possibilities, neither on the list:

Guard. Those guys are invincible!

Developer. If you beat them, they can nerf you for next time.

😂 lmao

barney2525

Gym Class