tomofhyrule wrote: »

kriegwar13 wrote: »

Skyrim and Oblivion were beloved because of the freedom they offered by mixing spells, weapons, and skill lines however players imagined. ESO was originally built on that same foundation. Most of us still want that open-ended creativity and identity customization to remain central to the game.

Skyrim and Oblivion were single-player games. And ESO at launch totally had Classes, and they were really strict on “DK=tank, Templar=heals, Sorc=DPS, NB=PvP”

The major problem with the “just get rid of Classes lol” idea is that this is still an MMO, even if a lot of people prefer to stick to the single-player aspects. As we see with Subclassing currently, it destroyed balance in the endgame while giving the people who stick to overland the freedom they wanted.

Classes is the way that they’re able to balance in competitive arenas like endgame PvE or PvP. Saying “let’s just get rid of that!” is basically telling these playerbases that they are unwanted, and that is not appropriate. Every base will need to compromise to be able to coexist, and “Class structure, but still the freedom to do any role with any Class” is the compromise here.

We should all be interested in keeping as many players in ESO as possible, even if we don’t personally engage in that playstyle. After what happened to New World, we can’t even guarantee that Microsoft won’t decide to pull out at any moment and put all of this development into AI, so the best thing we can do is to ensure that the population is as healthy as possible so ESO is still profitable to the MS execs. And part of that will mean “change [X] would make things better for me and my playstyle, but it would be horrible for this other playstyle I don’t engage in, so it’s better not to do that and try a compromise solution instead.”

I totally agree with a lot of what you said.

ESO is definitely an MMO first and foremost, and balance is extremely important for endgame PvE/PvP communities. The goal isn’t to push those players away or undermine the competitive structure that keeps the game alive and healthy. We need all playstyles to coexist if our beloved ESO is going to continue thriving long-term.

My main point is more about broadening build identity, not removing roles or abandoning class structure entirely.

Even if things were made more flexible, the holy trinity would absolutely stay intact — tanks tank, healers heal, DPS burn bosses. Nothing changes there. But making the concept of “class” more generalized (examples: holy/warrior archetypes, spellcasters, assassins, or hybrids) could open creative doors without destroying balance.

Example:

A “Templar style” build could be a paladin-like divine warrior who tanks or heals
A vampire could still be viable as a tank with sword & shield + heavy armor

Want to become a DK identity driven class? Then seek out the Greybeards, learn Yol-Toor-Shul and unlock unique shouts and draconic abilities through a mastery questline.

How about seeking out nocturnal to become a master nightblade and walk to the path of shadows?

Weapon + armor choices + skill line mastery = your class identity

Balance would still anchor those choices, just with more room to define your own character, which is something that made Elder Scrolls special in the first place.

I also understand that this kind of update would require major system changes, including re-evaluating a ton of outdated sets and playstyles. But that’s also why it’s exciting. ESO could continue evolving rather than feeling like every patch just shifts numbers around on the same few meta builds (especially the laser beam meta RN).

Not everyone will agree with this direction, and that’s totally understandable. No single idea will fit every player. Maybe even current devs or Microsoft or ZOS entirely. But discussing possibilities for a more flexible and creative future is still valuable feedback. We all want ESO to keep growing in a way that brings more players in, not less.

Aliniel wrote: »

ZOS shows once again they have no idea how to make and maintain an MMO game.

Blizzard rebelances ALL 13 classes regularly. At least once per expansion which is every 2-3 years. They also rebalance them in lesser extent between patches which is app. every half a year.

We have been stuck with this broken mess you call subclassing for over half a year without any meaningful balances, and now you're telling us you are going to go one-by-one OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS?!

And let's not forget there's zero trust in ZOS abilities to balance things at this point.

What you've just announced is: "We're killing the game. You can all go play something else."

where do you get "over the next few years" from? I mean i know zos takes forever to do anything, but i didnt see a time frame. please tell me they didnt actually say a few years.

These changes are for PvE, balance no longer takes PvP into account, correct?

Reading some of these comments reminds me that From a PvP perspective subclassing has ruined the game.

Prior to subclassing each class had strengths and weaknesses now people build around being an absolutely filthy ganker with the survivability of a top class healer. No stealth required.

Most PvP players will know what I’m talking about here players stood in their rune of focus, cleanses working 100% up time. Waiting for in cap strike and merciless resolve to pop that is their rotation and it works

You throw in null arca- please nerf and your double dead.

The point is subclassing has allowed PvP players to be good in all scenarios where as balance meant before if your a super ganker your naturally going to be easy to kill if your healer your dps is going to be non existent and then there were middle of the road builds with a balance between both.

This is what needs to be balanced alongside restoration of pure class builds them competitive.

Okay, here's my initial two (or ten) cents after reading the article and most of this board:

Role-Based Skill Lines
I hope the line about "decentralizing role-specific power so that a single skill line won’t have every tool you need to achieve your goals" will be clarified in Thursday's ESO Live. I first read it as giving all classes a clear tank skill line, damage skill line, and healer skill line. I like this as it is easy to understand and make use of for players like me who have a simple understanding of combat. (I wouldn't even mind a tank/dps/healer icon being adding next to each skill line as a visual for players.) However, after reading the whole article and some of the posts here, it seems that other people are expecting the changes to go in the opposite direction. Please clarify!

Class Identity
To be honest, I have never felt there was a strong class identity in this game with regards to mechanics. Visuals and themes, yes; mechanics, no. Maybe that's just me as mechanics is not something that particularly interests me. (I appreciate being able to play the overland story content with any whacky combination of skills I choose and hope that doesn't change. I don't want to be required to do a bunch of math to continue questing.)

I think, from what I read, that the plan is to make the unique class mechanics more obvious and create a more powerful synergy between tank/dps/healer skill lines for a given class. That sounds like a good idea to me. I'm just not sure what the unique mechanics are for each class.

I saw someone suggest adding class-based quests to the game. I love this idea, provided these quests are still open-ended enough or provide choices for players who like to roleplay their characters with various personal lore. I think a class-based quest would be a fun and immersive way to explain a class's features and vibe (power fantasy and source of power?) to players, especially new players.

Source of Power / Power Fantasy
I think the character creation graphic looks nice, but the text needs some reworking. After reading the article, how I understood "source of power" and "power fantasy" doesn't align with the descriptions on the graphic.

• I understood "source of power" to be more related to roleplay/theme/aesthetics. "...[W]e are referring to what the lore-relevant origin of a class’s power is... 'What caused this person to become a Dragonknight/Arcanist/Sorcerer?' 'What are their motivations?' 'Where do they get their power from?'"
• I understood "power fantasy" to be more about the actual gameplay mechanics. "[It] influences how a character receives and is then able to use [power] (e.g., area of effect, damage over time, direct damage, etc.). By taking their source of power and putting it into a delivery mechanism...Different power sources shape distinct playstyles."

Thus, I would expect the top description for each class to focus on the theme and the bottom descriptions to focus on the general mechanics specific to each class. The current descriptions seem mixed in this regard. Also, some of the top descriptions leave out important aspects of the class's theme, while some of the bottom descriptions are far too vague. Overall, as someone who has a fairly shallow understanding of combat, this graphic still leaves me confused.

Specific Classes
Based on the graphic, here are some of my class-specific concerns and suggestions:

• Arcanist: I agree with those who mentioned that there shouldn't be anything about having a pact with HM, just something about their power coming from Apocrypha. The fantasy could mention portals and beam, as those seem to me to define the class.
• Necromancers: Nothing in the description bothers me, but it could use some specific examples of stand-out skills. A lot of people seem to think this class should be a higher priority, but I don't have an opinion on it. The theme and mechanics seem pretty straightforward to me.
• Templars: The graphic mentions creating sanctuaries. I think you could lean into this and make different sanctuaries/auras a more defining feature of this class.
• Dragonknights: Maybe do more in the top to explain how dragon/fire and earth powers are connected. The bottom mentions battlefield control and building power over time. I've not noticed those things when I play my DKs, so ramp them up if these are the mechanics that define the class.
• Wardens: To be honest, this class has always felt like a strange mismatch theme-wise. If you're going to try to use "the seasons" to connect everything, you need to work in all the seasons a lot harder, including autumn. (Either that, or do what should have been done from the start and move ice skills to a separate class.) The fantasy description is too vague. "Adaptability" doesn't really seem like a clear mechanic or playstyle. Also, mention the animal line somewhere.
• Sorcerer: Like others, I also wasn't expecting such a focus on Daedric pacts here. I think of lightning/storm magic when I think of this class, and that isn't mentioned at all. Is their lightning magic meant to come from Daedric pacts as well? The mechanic that stands out here is mobility. (Sorc pets, like Warden ones, could use many more skill style options.)
• Nightblades: Their theme and mechanics are pretty clear. One of the best things about them to me is their ability to turn invisible, so I guess that could be mentioned specifically.

Long-Term Project
I don't mind this being a long-term project as long as it is done well, although I'm a little sad that it looks like we won't be getting a new class for a while now. I'm happy that class overhauls will happen one at a time. I have characters of every class, and changing them all at once would be overwhelming. Hopefully, giving the devs the ability to focus on one class at a time will also lead to better results. All that being said, it would be nice to have a better idea of what "long-term" actually means. I know there's probably not a timeline that's set in stone, but are we talking all classes over the course of 2026 or one class overhaul per year?

Also, please give us more character slots to play with all the new possibilities from scribing and subclassing.

Thanks for your continued efforts to improve the game, ZOS!

Kallykat wrote: »

Role-Based Skill Lines
I hope the line about "decentralizing role-specific power so that a single skill line won’t have every tool you need to achieve your goals" will be clarified in Thursday's ESO Live. I first read it as giving all classes a clear tank skill line, damage skill line, and healer skill line. I like this as it is easy to understand and make use of for players like me who have a simple understanding of combat. (I wouldn't even mind a tank/dps/healer icon being adding next to each skill line as a visual for players.) However, after reading the whole article and some of the posts here, it seems that other people are expecting the changes to go in the opposite direction. Please clarify!

To me, it's the exact opposite of how you're interpreting it. Distinct skill lines per role - while convenient - are one of the main reasons for excessive power creep with subclassing. If you stick to a pure Arcanist, you have a DD, a healer, and a tank skill line with their respective passives. But now your DD can swap out the healer and tank focused lines to stack more DPS passives and access more damage skills.

So it makes a ton of sense to spread role-specific skills and passive across skill lines, grouping them by theme for example rather than role.

Ph1p wrote: »

Kallykat wrote: »

Role-Based Skill Lines
I hope the line about "decentralizing role-specific power so that a single skill line won’t have every tool you need to achieve your goals" will be clarified in Thursday's ESO Live. I first read it as giving all classes a clear tank skill line, damage skill line, and healer skill line. I like this as it is easy to understand and make use of for players like me who have a simple understanding of combat. (I wouldn't even mind a tank/dps/healer icon being adding next to each skill line as a visual for players.) However, after reading the whole article and some of the posts here, it seems that other people are expecting the changes to go in the opposite direction. Please clarify!

To me, it's the exact opposite of how you're interpreting it. Distinct skill lines per role - while convenient - are one of the main reasons for excessive power creep with subclassing. If you stick to a pure Arcanist, you have a DD, a healer, and a tank skill line with their respective passives. But now your DD can swap out the healer and tank focused lines to stack more DPS passives and access more damage skills.

So it makes a ton of sense to spread role-specific skills and passive across skill lines, grouping them by theme for example rather than role.

In addition to the above, I really like the concept of skills like DK Cinder Storm/Eruption or NB Path or Plar Ritual where a single skill has different morphs for different roles. That definitely makes both versions a lot more interesting as opposed to what we have now, where in a lot of cases we have “the objectively better morph” and “the morph nobody uses”

It would be cool to go further along those lines.

ESO is an RPG at heart, so this idea of “I don’t want to make choices” or “I want all the benefits and none of the drawbacks” really plays against that. We should be making choices as we go.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

Kallykat wrote: »

Role-Based Skill Lines
I hope the line about "decentralizing role-specific power so that a single skill line won’t have every tool you need to achieve your goals" will be clarified in Thursday's ESO Live. I first read it as giving all classes a clear tank skill line, damage skill line, and healer skill line. I like this as it is easy to understand and make use of for players like me who have a simple understanding of combat. (I wouldn't even mind a tank/dps/healer icon being adding next to each skill line as a visual for players.) However, after reading the whole article and some of the posts here, it seems that other people are expecting the changes to go in the opposite direction. Please clarify!

To me, it's the exact opposite of how you're interpreting it. Distinct skill lines per role - while convenient - are one of the main reasons for excessive power creep with subclassing. If you stick to a pure Arcanist, you have a DD, a healer, and a tank skill line with their respective passives. But now your DD can swap out the healer and tank focused lines to stack more DPS passives and access more damage skills.

So it makes a ton of sense to spread role-specific skills and passive across skill lines, grouping them by theme for example rather than role.

In addition to the above, I really like the concept of skills like DK Cinder Storm/Eruption or NB Path or Plar Ritual where a single skill has different morphs for different roles. That definitely makes both versions a lot more interesting as opposed to what we have now, where in a lot of cases we have “the objectively better morph” and “the morph nobody uses”

It would be cool to go further along those lines.

ESO is an RPG at heart, so this idea of “I don’t want to make choices” or “I want all the benefits and none of the drawbacks” really plays against that. We should be making choices as we go.

Exactly. This has been one of the hugest drawbacks of subclassing to me. I have some classes (my main in particular) who stays pure class. She is a templar and always will be a templar. But I have some characters, and then some ideas for characters, who would subclass but, most combinations just aren't really worth taking, even if thematically they seem cool. While I know that overland difficulty doesn't require an optimal class, I still like to feel strong enough to stand on my own.

My templar, even as a pure class, can still solo DLC WBs. She can do IA through multiple arcs, can duo and (probably solo even though I haven't tried in awhile) Bastion Nymics, etc. She's certainly not pushing max dps, and I've not gone back into vet dungeons or done any trials since returning to the game, but I wouldn't feel like an absolute horrible person taking her to more casual runs that aren't progging trifectas or score pushing.

My hope is that skill lines become balanced enough that most combinations are viable in vet content. Again, not necessarily optimal but not where it is now when it's either forsaking identity in the name of your desired role or, conversely, giving up your ability to perform at a decent level just so you can make a cool themed build. These things should not be opposing factors and, IF they get the balance right where most combos of skill lines perform within a couple percent of the meta, it'd be pretty darn amazing.

By setting in stone "Class Identity", I believe this will limit a player's agency in developing (or, in my case, maintaining) their characters. For example, as some have already pointed out, Sorcerer is most effective based on Lightning/Conjuration, not Daedric Pacts and Dark Magic. And there's more at stake than just eliminating entire skill lines (is Storm Calling going to be gone??!?); there will be a fundamental shift in moral affinity as well. Anyone wishing to choose (or continue as) a Sorcerer after this update will probably think that the character is evil (even though they are still mostly going to be working for the good side in most quests), and will feel they have to choose Templar if that aspect is paramount to them. Class change tokens incoming-lol?

I disagree that most players want another major retooling of already existing classes; isn't it more ES appropriate to continue down the path of customization? Why not divorce elemental magic from the classes so that there is yet another choice for a player to make? There's already been a drive to add custom colors via skill styles, why not flesh out these selections to accommodate this new choice? ZOS speaks of "Power Fantasy", but even if I can tolerate this condescending dev term for all the players wanting to be the only Superman or Wolverine or whoever had a weird creature bite them and now they're all awesome and stuff (we all start with the same toolkits and define ourselves by our grinding efforts in an MMO typically), it is tough sledding to be a full-on Frost Mage or Flame-wielding Warrior, unless choosing a specific class; and even then, there are morphs and basic skills missing to complete them.

And it sounds to me like ZOS is just to going to constrain the players even further with this series of updates, possibly as atonement for the wide open customization and alleged chaos of Subclassing and Scribing. And whatever hope there was for a new class (or even a single Class/Weapon/other skill line) is at best delayed for 21 months, and more likely not going to happen at all. To quote the famous phrase, "Hope deferred makes the heart sick."

And so does building a character that one enjoys very much, to only have it nerfed into Oblivion (yet again) or irrecoverably changed into something unrecognizable from what was originally intended. And the usual, "Adapt and Overcome" might be quite a bit more difficult now with more narrow-focused classes.

Kallykat wrote: »

Okay, here's my initial two (or ten) cents after reading the article and most of this board:

Role-Based Skill Lines
I hope the line about "decentralizing role-specific power so that a single skill line won’t have every tool you need to achieve your goals" will be clarified in Thursday's ESO Live. I first read it as giving all classes a clear tank skill line, damage skill line, and healer skill line. I like this as it is easy to understand and make use of for players like me who have a simple understanding of combat. (I wouldn't even mind a tank/dps/healer icon being adding next to each skill line as a visual for players.) However, after reading the whole article and some of the posts here, it seems that other people are expecting the changes to go in the opposite direction. Please clarify!

Class Identity
To be honest, I have never felt there was a strong class identity in this game with regards to mechanics. Visuals and themes, yes; mechanics, no. Maybe that's just me as mechanics is not something that particularly interests me. (I appreciate being able to play the overland story content with any whacky combination of skills I choose and hope that doesn't change. I don't want to be required to do a bunch of math to continue questing.)

I think, from what I read, that the plan is to make the unique class mechanics more obvious and create a more powerful synergy between tank/dps/healer skill lines for a given class. That sounds like a good idea to me. I'm just not sure what the unique mechanics are for each class.

I saw someone suggest adding class-based quests to the game. I love this idea, provided these quests are still open-ended enough or provide choices for players who like to roleplay their characters with various personal lore. I think a class-based quest would be a fun and immersive way to explain a class's features and vibe (power fantasy and source of power?) to players, especially new players.

Source of Power / Power Fantasy
I think the character creation graphic looks nice, but the text needs some reworking. After reading the article, how I understood "source of power" and "power fantasy" doesn't align with the descriptions on the graphic.

• I understood "source of power" to be more related to roleplay/theme/aesthetics. "...[W]e are referring to what the lore-relevant origin of a class’s power is... 'What caused this person to become a Dragonknight/Arcanist/Sorcerer?' 'What are their motivations?' 'Where do they get their power from?'"
• I understood "power fantasy" to be more about the actual gameplay mechanics. "[It] influences how a character receives and is then able to use [power] (e.g., area of effect, damage over time, direct damage, etc.). By taking their source of power and putting it into a delivery mechanism...Different power sources shape distinct playstyles."

Thus, I would expect the top description for each class to focus on the theme and the bottom descriptions to focus on the general mechanics specific to each class. The current descriptions seem mixed in this regard. Also, some of the top descriptions leave out important aspects of the class's theme, while some of the bottom descriptions are far too vague. Overall, as someone who has a fairly shallow understanding of combat, this graphic still leaves me confused.

Specific Classes
Based on the graphic, here are some of my class-specific concerns and suggestions:

• Arcanist: I agree with those who mentioned that there shouldn't be anything about having a pact with HM, just something about their power coming from Apocrypha. The fantasy could mention portals and beam, as those seem to me to define the class.
• Necromancers: Nothing in the description bothers me, but it could use some specific examples of stand-out skills. A lot of people seem to think this class should be a higher priority, but I don't have an opinion on it. The theme and mechanics seem pretty straightforward to me.
• Templars: The graphic mentions creating sanctuaries. I think you could lean into this and make different sanctuaries/auras a more defining feature of this class.
• Dragonknights: Maybe do more in the top to explain how dragon/fire and earth powers are connected. The bottom mentions battlefield control and building power over time. I've not noticed those things when I play my DKs, so ramp them up if these are the mechanics that define the class.
• Wardens: To be honest, this class has always felt like a strange mismatch theme-wise. If you're going to try to use "the seasons" to connect everything, you need to work in all the seasons a lot harder, including autumn. (Either that, or do what should have been done from the start and move ice skills to a separate class.) The fantasy description is too vague. "Adaptability" doesn't really seem like a clear mechanic or playstyle. Also, mention the animal line somewhere.
• Sorcerer: Like others, I also wasn't expecting such a focus on Daedric pacts here. I think of lightning/storm magic when I think of this class, and that isn't mentioned at all. Is their lightning magic meant to come from Daedric pacts as well? The mechanic that stands out here is mobility. (Sorc pets, like Warden ones, could use many more skill style options.)
• Nightblades: Their theme and mechanics are pretty clear. One of the best things about them to me is their ability to turn invisible, so I guess that could be mentioned specifically.

Long-Term Project
I don't mind this being a long-term project as long as it is done well, although I'm a little sad that it looks like we won't be getting a new class for a while now. I'm happy that class overhauls will happen one at a time. I have characters of every class, and changing them all at once would be overwhelming. Hopefully, giving the devs the ability to focus on one class at a time will also lead to better results. All that being said, it would be nice to have a better idea of what "long-term" actually means. I know there's probably not a timeline that's set in stone, but are we talking all classes over the course of 2026 or one class overhaul per year?

Also, please give us more character slots to play with all the new possibilities from scribing and subclassing.

Thanks for your continued efforts to improve the game, ZOS!

I totally agree. I really don't care especially regarding this being a long-term project. Change is inevitable for every games especially if we would like to continue the legacy of Elder Scrolls. All i can say, I tried a lot of games, keep coming back to Elder Scrolls because of the history and such, and I hope the game will not be ruined in the future. As long as the system is implemented properly and thoughtfully, I believe it can still bring the best out of ESO in the long run.

Source of Power / Power Fantasy
This is exactly what I meant. where a deeper character identity can shine, giving players a reason "WHY" their character fights the way they do.

Here are some examples on my opinion, for the sake of discussion:

[*] Arcanist
[*] Role: DPS
A deal with Hermaeus Mora grants forbidden knowledge power in exchange for servitude and discovery. This improves spells to be modified by hermaeus mora's power giving an identity vs sorcerer.

[*] Templar
[*] Role: Can be a tank or healer.
Join Stendarr’s cause through sacred trials, earning divine light and sanctified abilities to smite the undead or heal the faithful. This includes mastery or improving of mace type one-handed and sword and board skill line.

[*] Dragonknight
[*] Role:Can be tank or DPS
Train under masters connected to dragon lore perhaps even the Greybeards: to unlock draconic shouts + mastery of two handed and dual wielding arms and battlefield dominance like Tiber Septim before you.

[*] Necromancer
[*] Role: DPS / new playstyle: Summon
Seek out a master of Oblivion arts: maybe the lore is even someone connected to Mannimarco’s legacy to wield undeath as your weapon. Basically, it empowers daedric summoning and raising undead under conjuration skill line.

[*] Warden
[*] Role Tank, Healer
Learn from Valenwood’s nature mystics, channeling spiritual forces and the power of the wilds through Alteration and add a primal magic skill line.

[*] Sorcerer
[*] Role DPS
Embrace the mastery of energy of the destruction magic fueled heavily by lightning, frost and fire. This mastery enables "more identity" since sorcerer class are spell masters rather than a simple spellsword casting the same spell.

[*] NightBlade
[*] Role DPS
By wielding daggers, and medium armor this class grants speed, and invisibility/shadow using illusion spells. Stealth is important. It empowers dual wield + bow weapons when equipped. Learn from the lore itself, the masters of shadow under nocturnal.

These stories explain your powers, deepen immersion, and help players build their own personal lore.

Lets be realistic: A DragonKnight warrior could be tank or damager. A Templar, which is a paladin type class can be tank or healer.

Sorcerers cannot be a tank can use healing but not efficient as a dedicated healer. And Nightblade cannot assume role as tank it can, but it will definitely lose the benefits of a tank type class like dragonknight or templar.

On my opinion, class identity should start with the player.
Weapons + armor + skill line mastery define who you are that’s the heart of Elder Scrolls.

But we still preserve the Holy Trinity:

Tanks - sword & board, taunts, utility and mitigation tools
Healers - keeping the group alive, resurrection abilities tied to healing skill lines
DPS - melee glass cannons (Nightblade/Warrior) or ranged destruction (Sorcerer/Bow Assassin)

Your identity is how you choose to fill one of those roles.

Imagine cyrodiil battlefields where identities are visually and functionally clear.
- Shield walls of tank up front
- Ranged DPS and spellcasters raining destruction behind them
- Dedicated healers supporting the push

It would feel more like an actual faction war, not a pile of hybrid builds trying to be everything at once.

Also the trinity of armor class balance. (It has been the meta on all games all along)
- Magicka type attacks and spells are effective against tanks (using heavy armor)
- Physical Damage and critical bonuses are not very effective against tanks (using medium)
- Physical Damage and critical attacks are effective against healers and spellcasters (light armor)

On the cyrodiil battlefield :
- Assassins and nightblades hunts spellcasters due to their light armor
- Tanks can lead the push by holding position tankiness to withstand critical than other roles
- Spellcasters are there to blow up front line positions.

I think vengeanization of PVP could definitely help in this situation. and its a good start for the balance.. It will be a battle of skills and wits unlike the battle of how much champion points you have and the equipment gear you have.

TL;DR— Identity Through Roles + Skills + Gear

Role → Skill Lines → Weapons/Armor → Your Identity

Roles (Tank / Healer / DPS) stay mandatory and balanced for group content

Players build their class identity through:
- The skill lines they choose to master
- The weapons they use (determines active ability access)
- The armor they wear (determines passives and survivability)

You still fill the role your group needs but how you fill that role becomes your personal playstyle, lore, and character fantasy.

I’m not sure if this idea will ever reach the devs, or if a major overhaul like this is even being considered given the current engine and combat system. I understand this is a "huge idea" and maybe not going to materialize anytime soon. But if it ever does happen, quality and careful execution would make the wait worthwhile.

Cheers for the future of the game and the future of tamriel.

Sorc should not be pushed into a summoner fantasy with pacts, if that is how I understood that...

Current System

Players can pick two class skill lines from any class, creating strong subclass builds but weakening class identity and causing imbalance.


---

Suggestions Changes


1. Skill Line Categories

Keep Damage / Tank / Healing roles, but each class should have a primary focus that defines its identity.

2. Cross-Class Skill Line Trade-Off

Players may take a skill line from another class only by replacing the same category in their own class.
Example: A Warden taking Nightblade’s Assassination (damage) must replace their Warden Animal Companion (damage) line.

3. Pure Class Buff

If a player uses no subclass lines and sticks with 100% pure class, they should receive a significant buff (e.g., ~30%).
This ensures pure class builds stay competitive and rewards players who want to maintain original class identity.

Why This Works

Trade-offs stop some builds from becoming overpowered.

Pure class bonus keeps original class identity strong and viable.

The system becomes flexible, fair, and prevents power-creep from mixed builds.

Question: While refreshing classes will you also take into account ease-of-use? Like for example making the warden's netch into a permanent pet.

Request: As you are re-doing skills and taking another look at all skills, could you please add tags to skills of what they are and what interacts with them(including for passives)? Just small tags at the top, example Dragonknight's lava whip tags would be: "Direct damage" "Flame damage" "Single target", the Dragonknight's venemous claw's tags would be: "Direct damage" "Duration" "Single target" "Poison damage". This makes skills easier to recognize for players, and easier to see what interacts with what. (Path of Exile has this system for their skills, and it makes a world of difference)

kriegwar13 wrote: »

Personally I would really hate if the classes could only do certain roles part of your post 😅

Just some examples:
- As a templar, why shouldn't I be able to dd? Paladins in fantasy are not just huge golden knights (off the top of my head, think Xenk from the newish DnD movie).
- Why shouldn't sorc heal or tank, magical shields and magical elements and beasties that heal your friends seem perfect?
- Wardens should be allowed to DD and send the zoo after you to eat your face off or going full Poison Ivy on the BBEG.

well, you can. its just that you will not be able to benefit a ton since there are better skill lines for damage dealing. Again, doing what you want is still the core concept of all elder scrolls game. its just you will benefit the bonuses from a specific role or class identity mastery.

Fair enough, but it's also an MMO. I'm pretty casual (vet trials, some pvp, etc) and I love the freedom there is. Every class can do every role (even pre-subclassing) and unless you're properly looking to min-max or do vet DLC HM trials, they could do it pretty decently across the board.

When I started playing I remember being kicked from dungeons because oMg yOu NoT aRgOnIaN dK tAnK.

Trying to pigeon hole classes back into roles just feels like a step backwards for me.

Skorro wrote: »

kriegwar13 wrote: »

Personally I would really hate if the classes could only do certain roles part of your post 😅

Just some examples:
- As a templar, why shouldn't I be able to dd? Paladins in fantasy are not just huge golden knights (off the top of my head, think Xenk from the newish DnD movie).
- Why shouldn't sorc heal or tank, magical shields and magical elements and beasties that heal your friends seem perfect?
- Wardens should be allowed to DD and send the zoo after you to eat your face off or going full Poison Ivy on the BBEG.

well, you can. its just that you will not be able to benefit a ton since there are better skill lines for damage dealing. Again, doing what you want is still the core concept of all elder scrolls game. its just you will benefit the bonuses from a specific role or class identity mastery.

Fair enough, but it's also an MMO. I'm pretty casual (vet trials, some pvp, etc) and I love the freedom there is. Every class can do every role (even pre-subclassing) and unless you're properly looking to min-max or do vet DLC HM trials, they could do it pretty decently across the board.

When I started playing I remember being kicked from dungeons because oMg yOu NoT aRgOnIaN dK tAnK.

Trying to pigeon hole classes back into roles just feels like a step backwards for me.

I agree. That is the bigger problem because of the current system. gating other players.. is not a good thing. But we all live in "you need to do what you are told" with the min-max builds.. You are just a mediocre type if you dont do this min-max build. And it kills the game. Always do what is told, what is the meta and such. It doesn't open the fact that other builds are viable.

Another reason why is because of the "races" and some of the class passive specifics.. But you won't really notice that minimal effect unless you're a perfectionist. I believe in skill, especially in PvE. (PvP is a different beast to conquer and a massive pain-in-the-ass to balance) you just need to know the mechanics of the delve. But we can't argue with people with those kind of mindset.

I think that is the main reason why there will be a class identity refresh. The game is so boring right now because its just repetitive meta skills or builds that are always used. No diversity. you will see a lot of laser beams spamming dungeons. no more other melee builds and such. Being ranged are always rewarded for safety without risk of dying. so why do an assassin build if you can use staves, range skills bows and laser beams.

Again, from my previous posts and while other people's comments to that, its like a utopia. but I guess it will not really happen. we just wanted to share our insights, and could offer some difference in the future.