Cant have a thread like this without Dragonborn saying "Thanks Beth, I love the change."

They'd announce that axes were being replaced by halibut and Dragonborn would say "Thanks Beth, I love the change." Then spout fallacies such as 'less is more' and 'addition by subtraction'.

See how that works?

I completely agree. I wasn't very happy when I couldn't change my class on Oblivion.

Who we are shouldn't be decided at the very beginning of the game. Elder Scrolls is about what you do and who you become, and what we're good and bad at should reflect upon that.

I wouldn't call choosing your skillset as you level "instant gratification and guaranteed success." If anything the previews seem to indicate that Skyrim will be a bit more difficult than prior games.

Anyways, I have to disagree with you on the class issue. It wasn't that your first character was a throwaway, it's that the first dozen or so were. I nearly gave up on Morrowind when it first came out because after a warrior who got killed by a Nord, a mage who got killed by a Nord, a mage/thief that got killed by a Nord, etc. I eventually figured out that I should skip the Nord and just go to Balmora, where I stayed true to my class (pure thief) by stealing absolutely everything that wasn't nailed down, making it so that after an hour of play I never needed to worry about money ever again.

And the funny thing is, by the time I beat the game, I was decked out mostly in heavy armor and using a sword instead of a dagger. After a certain point it didn't matter the least [censored] bit what class you chose at the start of the game, and towards the end all the characters sort of became the same jack-of-all-trades demigods. If that's the end result then why do we have classes to begin with?

Also: With the new system, people will still abandon their first few characters when they figure out they don't like playing an orc, or that maybe taking those Frost spell perks was the wrong move for their style of play. The new system will just lessen this phenomenon's frequency.

Actually, i'd probably say it's "natural evolution".

who's fault is that? Not one of my builds has ever became a JOAT in an ES. I RP with every character. Even if it was more practical to use a skill, or weapon outside of my build, I just wouldnt. Sticking to a gameplay style is rewarding. Making a niche character is rewarding. Making multiple characters that do everything in the game opposed to one character that does everything in the game is more rewarding. IMO.


Nah, Id call it "replacing axes with fish".

My thief got to be good with heavy armor because he wore Wraithguard. After that I found the Helm of Oreyn Bearclaw to be a marvelous complement to my Cuirass of the Savior's Skin, and rounded out my outfit with some nice Daedric boots. Not that it mattered. I was level 40. Nothing could touch me. I prefer to roleplay a character who doesn't turn his nose up at a powerful artifact because "oh, I don't use heavy armor!" My character was just a pragmatist.

By the way, "less is more" is not a fallacy, it's an idiom meant to illustrate that complexity is not an inherently good thing.

Its a fallacy unless youu want TES to become a linear, mindless action game. More is more.

So only classes can limit players now?

What about a level cap, or, I don't know, perks. Even without a perk cap you wouldn't be able to get all of them.
Not to mention TES classes never stopped those "JOAT"s...


...what the hell is a JOAT anyway?

IMHO the mark of a good RP'er is the ability to weave a good story no matter the circumstance. To that end, it doesn't matter if a person is a "pure" fighter or a JOAT, so long as there are compelling enough RP reasons for doing so.

@Bukee JOAT is Jack of all trades.

That's not going to happen. Bethesda isn't looking to dumb it down entirely. They're looking for a happy-medium of complexity and simplicity, which is exactly what they should be doing.

This is actually an example of a fallacy. Bonus points if you can guess which.

More is more?

Yeah, but people are not playing to RP. They are going into it like an action game asking "Whats the best race, class, build?" When there is none. You cant really make a bad character in TES, they all have their niche. Therefore classes are not limiting. there's nothing wrong with making a choice in the beginning on how you will generally play, especially since you can just make another characters. the guy that does everything in the game with one character doesnt get anything more out of the game than the person that does everything through multiple characters. In fact, he actually gets less out of it.


I dont want any dumbing down. Forget trying to appeal to a different, unreceptive demographic. whats next? The ability to change your race if you want? The ability to respec your perks? Lets just take all of the choice and consequence out of it.

I don't think it will even lessen the frequency of people feeling like their perk selection has gimped their character. Suppose we will have to wait and see what the skill/perk divide is like.

I like this way as well. This way we become our character instead of just having a preset skills as before.

HA! That's hilarious. "Linear" applies to every TES game except Daggerfall as far as plot progression and faction quest lines went, and action was always, always a more important gameplay element than number-crunching or roleplay, right behind exploration. Don't believe me? Go back and play them again, only this time try not to kill anything. You won't be able to finish them. Yes, Daggerfall included.

And of course "more" is a nebulous thing. More what? Skills, in spite of the fact that perks provide reasonable simulation of different lines of training? Attributes, which were abstract things that never had any direct effect on gameplay, the way they do in more traditional cRPGs? Spell effects like weakness to common disease that were entirely useless? To butcher a good steak you cut out the fat and the gristle. If an element of the game is redundant or does not add significantly to it, or is easily replaced by a system that is simpler but just as nuanced, then why the [censored] is it there?

You can play a passive character in all of the TES games. More is better. You basically just agree when you bring up Daggerfall.

That was it. Class had no meaning. There weren't any quest opportunities, unique to a class; and the campaign was the same for every class. NPC wouldn't relate to your character, based on their own class.

Class never mattered, beyond building the best dungeon crawler. Bethesda could make class matter, if they want to, but they've chosen not to.

Really. How did you convince Dagoth Gares to infect you with Corprus Disease, then? Perhaps you laid a clever trap for Jagar Tharn rather than assaulting him directly. Oh, wait, no, I've got it. When you want to Gaiar Alata, you challenged Mankar Camoran to a battle of wits, and traded riddles with him until he had to admit defeat and handed over the Amulet in a civilized and dignified manner.

Yeah, you can be a passive character, but only if you're willing to ignore 75% of the game's content. You can sneak into dungeons to steal items (combat-related ones, which you're obviously not using), but if you want to rise in rank in a Great House or, really, any other faction in the game, it is absolutely necessary to have blood on your hands.

75% of TES games have to be ignored if you passive? No, they dont. Again, I RP and do things that the game does allow a passive character to do. Not every character goes through the main quest. Beating the main quest isn't "beating the game".

Your character develops closer to your desired playstyle though. With classes you pick at the very beginning, most of the time blind, and the effects tend to be more drastic, with perks on the other hand you would pick a bad perk once or twice maybe, but you can always abandon that skill if you don't want to use it.

And no, starting a new character is not fun at all. I just saw trough the intro, I just did most of the quests, I don't want to repeat them...

First of all, It's not dumbing down, it's refining. If something is too complex, it's difficult to use. If something is too simple, there isn't enough options. Bethesda is looking for a middle-road where we can have a variety of options with a simple to use interface. There's nothing wrong with that.

Secondly, Bethesda is obviously not going to give us the ability to change our race or to respec our perks. That would be dumbing down, and that would be ridiculous.

Third of all, if anything, classes took the choice away from the game. Elder Scrolls is about who you are and who you become. I shouldn't choose who I am at the beginning of the game, I should become that person via my actions and decisions, and my skills should reflect upon that.

It wasn't too complex though. It actually made you think, but it wasn't too complex. You were not born in that prison a day before the game starts. having an idea on how you will play and who your character is is not limiting, since you can make another characters.

I completely agree with you there.