Expanding Racial Bonuses to Weapons

GrumpyDuckling · February 2016

Does it seem odd to anyone, based on current game mechanics, that a tiny Bosmer race can technically hit harder with a giant melee-based 2-Handed greatsword than a large, physically imposing Nord race who specializes in 2-Handed combat? (The numbers are small, but Bosmer are able to achieve more weapon damage than Nords due to their max stamina bonus).

For reasons like this I propose expanding Racial Bonuses to include additional weapon damage based on the type of weapon that a race excels with, according to Elder Scrolls lore. It's nice that some races have a 15% experience boost while leveling a weapon, but that passive is useless once your character reaches level 50 in that skill. Why not give us racial bonuses that maximize our character's strengths? Something like:

- Bosmer get +5% damage with a bow equipped
- Khajiit get +5% damage with daggers equipped (2.5% per dagger)
- Altmer get +5% damage with a destruction staff equipped

- Nords get +5% damage with a greatsword equipped
- Argonians get +5% damage with a restoration staff equipped
- Dunmer get +5% damage with swords equipped (2.5% per sword)

- Orcs get +5% damage with axes equipped (2.5% per axe or 5% with battleaxe)
- Redguard get +5% damage with one hand and shield equipped
- Bretons get +5% damage with ??? equipped (Bretons excel in conjuration so I'm not sure which weapon fits them best - they're the only race who don't appear to have an obvious weapon archetype that is available in ESO - I'm open to suggestions)

Does the idea of tying racial damage bonuses to specific weapons make sense to you? Do you have better ideas? Should we expand this idea to armor as well? Throw your thoughts at me. I just can't seem to get past the understanding that a tiny Bosmer can out-melee a giant Nord while wielding a massive 2-Handed sword.

RAGUNAnoOne · February 2016

Bad idea the last thing we need is more racial imbalance. plus damage resto staff how would that work since none of the moves do damage? and dual swords dunmer+passives steel tornado zerg, Bosmer camo+snipe= one shot anything, nord WB spam gets stronger no thank you.

GrumpyDuckling · February 2016

RAGUNAnoOne wrote: »

Bad idea the last thing we need is more racial imbalance. plus damage resto staff how would that work since none of the moves do damage? and dual swords dunmer+passives steel tornado zerg, Bosmer camo+snipe= one shot anything, nord WB spam gets stronger no thank you.

Think of it more as a buff that gives you more damage for every skill while the weapon is equipped. So, while the weapon is wielded by the race their total damage (of any skill) would increase by 5%. Not just the skills of that specific weapon.

And I'm not sure what you mean by imbalance? How does a +5% damage across the board for each race make things imbalanced?

dday3six · February 2016

Seems to limit choice in game even further. Hmm, choose the race I want to play or that fits my class best, or lose out on a large amount of damage. How 'bout NO

GrumpyDuckling · February 2016

dday3six wrote: »

Seems to limit choice in game even further. Hmm, choose the race I want to play or that fits my class best, or lose out on a large amount of damage. How 'bout NO

That's a fair argument if you prefer to, let's say, play as an Altmer who uses a 2-Hander. You'd be hampering your ability to maximize damage if you didn't pick Nord. Just seems odd that your Altmer, who specializes in Magic, can do the same amount of damage as another person's Nord, who specializes in 2-Handed weapons.

Dread_Guy · February 2016

Instead of increasing the damage, why not have them reduce the cost even further with their specialized weapons?

GrumpyDuckling · February 2016

Dread_Knight_N7 wrote: »

Instead of increasing the damage, why not have them reduce the cost even further with their specialized weapons?

This sounds like a fantastic idea! Reducing costs would be even more "specialized" than achieving additional damage. Each race, due to their expertise with their weapon, knows how to handle the weapon better, therefore reducing the drain/cost of the abilities associated with that weapon. Thumbs up!

GreenSoup2HoT · February 2016

I wouldn't want to be locked down to a specific weapon just because my race has benefit's using it.

However what your saying does make sense. Bosmer should have cost reduction instead of max stamina. Would you want Bosmer's to deal more damage with Bow Snipe's though?

GrumpyDuckling · February 2016

GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »

I wouldn't want to be locked down to a specific weapon just because my race has benefit's using it.

However what your saying does make sense. Bosmer should have cost reduction instead of max stamina. Would you want Bosmer's to deal more damage with Bow Snipe's though?

Initially I thought a 5% damage bonus would be good for races who specialize with specific weapons, but after reading Dread_Knight_N7's post I like the idea of adding a cost reduction instead. With cost reduction people wouldn't worry about maximizing damage, but rather, maybe they would think for a few seconds about whether or not it's worth it to have an additional 5% cost reduction for a weapon's abilities when deciding on a weapon.

Whatzituyah · February 2016

@GrumpyDuckling You forgot to give an example for Imperials just thought I would point that out.

Miszou · February 2016

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Does it seem odd to anyone, based on current game mechanics, that a tiny Bosmer race can technically hit harder with a giant melee-based 2-Handed greatsword than a large, physically imposing Nord race who specializes in 2-Handed combat?

...

I just can't seem to get past the understanding that a tiny Bosmer can out-melee a giant Nord while wielding a massive 2-Handed sword.

Toc de Malsvi · February 2016

I like the idea of it but not the practicality, players would feel more locked into certain races then they already are currently. I think a better system would be to create racial passive options say 5-6 different choices and then allow you to pick 3, thus allowing you more build customization.

GrumpyDuckling · February 2016

Whatzituyah wrote: »

@GrumpyDuckling You forgot to give an example for Imperials just thought I would point that out.

Good call, completely forgot because I was going by faction. Imperials could get cost reduction for One Hand and Shield.

RAGUNAnoOne · February 2016

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

RAGUNAnoOne wrote: »

Bad idea the last thing we need is more racial imbalance. plus damage resto staff how would that work since none of the moves do damage? and dual swords dunmer+passives steel tornado zerg, Bosmer camo+snipe= one shot anything, nord WB spam gets stronger no thank you.

Think of it more as a buff that gives you more damage for every skill while the weapon is equipped. So, while the weapon is wielded by the race their total damage (of any skill) would increase by 5%. Not just the skills of that specific weapon.

And I'm not sure what you mean by imbalance? How does a +5% damage across the board for each race make things imbalanced?

Dual wield already trumps everything by having the best base spell and weapon damage passives not included and a extra set bonus with ANOTHER 5% damage bonus dark elves would be the new meta . Then we have 2 handed followed by weapon and shield (only the set bonus) the rest are low in damage so this would make those races obsolete as the meta for both PvP and PvE is damage damage damage and perhaps one healer nothing else.

GrumpyDuckling · February 2016

RAGUNAnoOne wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

RAGUNAnoOne wrote: »

Bad idea the last thing we need is more racial imbalance. plus damage resto staff how would that work since none of the moves do damage? and dual swords dunmer+passives steel tornado zerg, Bosmer camo+snipe= one shot anything, nord WB spam gets stronger no thank you.

Think of it more as a buff that gives you more damage for every skill while the weapon is equipped. So, while the weapon is wielded by the race their total damage (of any skill) would increase by 5%. Not just the skills of that specific weapon.

And I'm not sure what you mean by imbalance? How does a +5% damage across the board for each race make things imbalanced?

Dual wield already trumps everything by having the best base spell and weapon damage passives not included and a extra set bonus with ANOTHER 5% damage bonus dark elves would be the new meta . Then we have 2 handed followed by weapon and shield (only the set bonus) the rest are low in damage so this would make those races obsolete as the meta for both PvP and PvE is damage damage damage and perhaps one healer nothing else.

Like another poster pointed out, cost reduction would be a great option instead of my initial idea about increased weapon damage. So in this case Dunmer would get a 5% cost reduction on dual wielding skills.

dday3six · February 2016

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

dday3six wrote: »

Seems to limit choice in game even further. Hmm, choose the race I want to play or that fits my class best, or lose out on a large amount of damage. How 'bout NO

That's a fair argument if you prefer to, let's say, play as an Altmer who uses a 2-Hander. You'd be hampering your ability to maximize damage if you didn't pick Nord. Just seems odd that your Altmer, who specializes in Magic, can do the same amount of damage as another person's Nord, who specializes in 2-Handed weapons.

The comparison you're making is too board and even lopsided. Nord passives suck. So assuming build, gear, and skills were the same you'd be correct. However, throw a race with actual damage passives in there. Such as Khajiit, Orc, Redguard, or Imperial, and they'd deal more.

"Seems odd", and comments of the same ilk are about personal emotional fulfillment. You want to feel like a Nord by dealing more damage with 2H weaponry. That's about adhering individual interpretations of TES fluff. However this ideology is too subjective, and terribly limiting.

TheShadowScout · February 2016

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Does it seem odd to anyone, based on current game mechanics, that a tiny Bosmer race can technically hit harder with a giant melee-based 2-Handed greatsword than a large, physically imposing Nord race who specializes in 2-Handed combat?
....

Yes, It is a suboptimal feature.

But pigeonholing races into "you must use -THIS- weapon or you will not be effective" isn't the answer.

Personally I would have liked some relation between character appereance and combat stats... big strong characters gaining a "mighty" bonus for all weapons relying on stength (axes and maces), small agile characters getting an "precise" bonus for all weapons relying on hitting the right spot (daggers and bows)... with swords being half-half and getting boni from both...

(and yes, I know there are such champion system passives, that's how I spend my champion points... my orcs and nord rack them up in might, my elves in piercing and precise... but we are talking about basic game system here after all)

BtW, Nords are all about the Axes. Have been since Isgramur and his Wulfthraad...

Orcs... I see more as mace-happy...

GrumpyDuckling · February 2016

dday3six wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

dday3six wrote: »

Seems to limit choice in game even further. Hmm, choose the race I want to play or that fits my class best, or lose out on a large amount of damage. How 'bout NO

That's a fair argument if you prefer to, let's say, play as an Altmer who uses a 2-Hander. You'd be hampering your ability to maximize damage if you didn't pick Nord. Just seems odd that your Altmer, who specializes in Magic, can do the same amount of damage as another person's Nord, who specializes in 2-Handed weapons.

The comparison you're making is too board and even lopsided. Nord passives suck. So assuming build, gear, and skills were the same you'd be correct. However, throw a race with actual damage passives in there. Such as Khajiit, Orc, Redguard, or Imperial, and they'd deal more.

"Seems odd", and comments of the same ilk are about personal emotional fulfillment. You want to feel like a Nord by dealing more damage with 2H weaponry. That's about adhering individual interpretations of TES fluff. However this ideology is too subjective, and terribly limiting.

"TES fluff?" We're playing an Elder Scrolls game...
Why shouldn't Nords be more effective than Bosmer or Altmer with two-handed weaponry? Looking at past games and Elder Scrolls lore, Nords specialize in two-handed weaponry and combat. Expecting Nords to be better, not worse, than other races while wielding a two-handed weapon is logical.

If I wanted personal emotional fulfillment while playing then I would just just always choose to be an Orc. Orcs get a racial buff to melee weapon damage and I could always maximize melee weapon damage on whichever melee weapon I choose. Look at the other posts in this thread. Someone posted about giving cost reduction for specialized weapon use instead of increased damage. That option is even more logical than the one I initially proposed.

Grendel_at_ESO · February 2016

Something like that would be better than having a race just train faster in a particular line, what good does that do in the end? You're going to get there anyway.

dday3six · February 2016

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

dday3six wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

dday3six wrote: »

Seems to limit choice in game even further. Hmm, choose the race I want to play or that fits my class best, or lose out on a large amount of damage. How 'bout NO

That's a fair argument if you prefer to, let's say, play as an Altmer who uses a 2-Hander. You'd be hampering your ability to maximize damage if you didn't pick Nord. Just seems odd that your Altmer, who specializes in Magic, can do the same amount of damage as another person's Nord, who specializes in 2-Handed weapons.

The comparison you're making is too board and even lopsided. Nord passives suck. So assuming build, gear, and skills were the same you'd be correct. However, throw a race with actual damage passives in there. Such as Khajiit, Orc, Redguard, or Imperial, and they'd deal more.

"Seems odd", and comments of the same ilk are about personal emotional fulfillment. You want to feel like a Nord by dealing more damage with 2H weaponry. That's about adhering individual interpretations of TES fluff. However this ideology is too subjective, and terribly limiting.

"TES fluff?" We're playing an Elder Scrolls game...
Why shouldn't Nords be more effective than Bosmer or Altmer with two-handed weaponry? Looking at past games and Elder Scrolls lore, Nords specialize in two-handed weaponry and combat. Expecting Nords to be better, not worse, than other races while wielding a two-handed weapon is logical.

If I wanted personal emotional fulfillment while playing then I would just just always choose to be an Orc. Orcs get a racial buff to melee weapon damage and I could always maximize melee weapon damage on whichever melee weapon I choose. Look at the other posts in this thread. Someone posted about giving cost reduction for specialized weapon use instead of increased damage. That option is even more logical than the one I initially proposed.

Freedom of player choice, that's why. Forcing players to choose a race based on not only racial passives, but also the weapons they're going to use is too much. Let's look at it from a new player stand point. How is a brand new player going to know what weapon they are going to favor without even playing the game. Then what if players what to switch between Magicka and Stamina, or go from 2H, DW, and Bow.

What your advocating is far too limiting. It's a "feel good" notion that is loosely supported by lore, and serves no purpose but to limit what players can do with their characters.

Danksta · February 2016

Size doesn't necessarily equal strength. An obvious example would be Bruce Lee. If you knew Bruce Lee in his prime, he would likely be the strongest person you know, even though he may not even weigh 150 lbs./68kg. So the fact that a smaller person could be stronger than a larger person in a fantasy world doesn't seem odd at all to me.

Zorrashi · February 2016

dday3six wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

dday3six wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

dday3six wrote: »

Seems to limit choice in game even further. Hmm, choose the race I want to play or that fits my class best, or lose out on a large amount of damage. How 'bout NO

That's a fair argument if you prefer to, let's say, play as an Altmer who uses a 2-Hander. You'd be hampering your ability to maximize damage if you didn't pick Nord. Just seems odd that your Altmer, who specializes in Magic, can do the same amount of damage as another person's Nord, who specializes in 2-Handed weapons.

The comparison you're making is too board and even lopsided. Nord passives suck. So assuming build, gear, and skills were the same you'd be correct. However, throw a race with actual damage passives in there. Such as Khajiit, Orc, Redguard, or Imperial, and they'd deal more.

"Seems odd", and comments of the same ilk are about personal emotional fulfillment. You want to feel like a Nord by dealing more damage with 2H weaponry. That's about adhering individual interpretations of TES fluff. However this ideology is too subjective, and terribly limiting.

"TES fluff?" We're playing an Elder Scrolls game...
Why shouldn't Nords be more effective than Bosmer or Altmer with two-handed weaponry? Looking at past games and Elder Scrolls lore, Nords specialize in two-handed weaponry and combat. Expecting Nords to be better, not worse, than other races while wielding a two-handed weapon is logical.

If I wanted personal emotional fulfillment while playing then I would just just always choose to be an Orc. Orcs get a racial buff to melee weapon damage and I could always maximize melee weapon damage on whichever melee weapon I choose. Look at the other posts in this thread. Someone posted about giving cost reduction for specialized weapon use instead of increased damage. That option is even more logical than the one I initially proposed.

Freedom of player choice, that's why. Forcing players to choose a race based on not only racial passives, but also the weapons they're going to use is too much. Let's look at it from a new player stand point. How is a brand new player going to know what weapon they are going to favor without even playing the game. Then what if players what to switch between Magicka and Stamina, or go from 2H, DW, and Bow.

What your advocating is far too limiting. It's a "feel good" notion that is loosely supported by lore, and serves no purpose but to limit what players can do with their characters.

My sentiments exactly. Race was never meant to pigeonhole players into a certain playstyle, adding the proposed weapon racial bonuses will only make players feel the right race is all the more necessary for a "proper build".

GrumpyDuckling · February 2016

dday3six wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

dday3six wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

dday3six wrote: »

Seems to limit choice in game even further. Hmm, choose the race I want to play or that fits my class best, or lose out on a large amount of damage. How 'bout NO

That's a fair argument if you prefer to, let's say, play as an Altmer who uses a 2-Hander. You'd be hampering your ability to maximize damage if you didn't pick Nord. Just seems odd that your Altmer, who specializes in Magic, can do the same amount of damage as another person's Nord, who specializes in 2-Handed weapons.

The comparison you're making is too board and even lopsided. Nord passives suck. So assuming build, gear, and skills were the same you'd be correct. However, throw a race with actual damage passives in there. Such as Khajiit, Orc, Redguard, or Imperial, and they'd deal more.

"Seems odd", and comments of the same ilk are about personal emotional fulfillment. You want to feel like a Nord by dealing more damage with 2H weaponry. That's about adhering individual interpretations of TES fluff. However this ideology is too subjective, and terribly limiting.

"TES fluff?" We're playing an Elder Scrolls game...
Why shouldn't Nords be more effective than Bosmer or Altmer with two-handed weaponry? Looking at past games and Elder Scrolls lore, Nords specialize in two-handed weaponry and combat. Expecting Nords to be better, not worse, than other races while wielding a two-handed weapon is logical.

If I wanted personal emotional fulfillment while playing then I would just just always choose to be an Orc. Orcs get a racial buff to melee weapon damage and I could always maximize melee weapon damage on whichever melee weapon I choose. Look at the other posts in this thread. Someone posted about giving cost reduction for specialized weapon use instead of increased damage. That option is even more logical than the one I initially proposed.

Freedom of player choice, that's why. Forcing players to choose a race based on not only racial passives, but also the weapons they're going to use is too much. Let's look at it from a new player stand point. How is a brand new player going to know what weapon they are going to favor without even playing the game. Then what if players what to switch between Magicka and Stamina, or go from 2H, DW, and Bow.

What your advocating is far too limiting. It's a "feel good" notion that is loosely supported by lore, and serves no purpose but to limit what players can do with their characters.

Is a 5% cost reduction for a particular weapon based on race really minimizing "player choice?" It's not stopping you from making an Altmer archer or rolling with a Khajiit healer. It just gives you a more lore friendly way, and option, to utilize your races innate talents.

You seem fixated upon shutting down the discussion by using terms and phrases such as "interpretations of TES fluff" and "loosely supported by lore." Simply research for yourself or play past Elder Scrolls games to see that specific races have specific weapons/magic/armor that they excel with. Perhaps you could offer some suggestions like others have as to how to make the 15% extra experience racial passives matter once a character reaches 50 in that skill. Sure, it's nice to level up a skill a little quicker but that's such a meaningless bonus once level 50 is achieved.

If my Bosmer really does have "archery expertise" and my Nord really does have "two-handed expertise" (which the game itself states), then why is their expertise with each respective weapon, at level 50, exactly the same, or even worse, than other races who use the same skill? How is that "expertise?" When the game says Nords are experts with two-handed weapons, Bosmers should not be able to use them better. It just defies logic.

idk · February 2016

Grabs popcorn.

TheShadowScout · February 2016

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

If my Bosmer really does have "archery expertise" and my Nord really does have "two-handed expertise" (which the game itself states), then why is their expertise with each respective weapon, at level 50, exactly the same, or even worse, than other races who use the same skill? How is that "expertise?" When the game says Nords are experts with two-handed weapons, Bosmers should not be able to use them better. It just defies logic.

That is one thing I find a bit vexing about the racial passives myself. That there is always one that stops giving you any benefit once you maxed that particular skill line. Would love to see this one have some extra benefit beyond the traning boon... Could be extra damage/damage resistance. Could be reduced skill cost/block cost. But it sure yould be neat to have -something- even after attaining skill line max... just as long as its not large enough an advantage to pigeonhole characters into that particular weapon/armor type...

Grendel_at_ESO · February 2016

Small bonuses shouldn't make any one choice the ONLY choice. There are 19 races and 45 classes in DAOC and while some combinations are considered optimal it's going to come down to the player, not race choice, how well they do in PvP. As for PvE, is it really that important? I don't understand why anyone would get upset about who's marginally better at killing computer controlled mobs.
As long as they don't go nuts and offer large bonuses to each race and balance it by offering bonuses to all that can help with different play styles I don't see a problem.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO · February 2016

NO, races already are so imbalanced, we dont need to make it worse.

#need racechanges

Ragnaroek93 · February 2016

No thanks, race does already matter way too much, don't make it even worse.

Acsvf · February 2016

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

- Dunmer get +5% damage with swords equipped (2.5% per sword)

I'd like that on my magicka templar.