Please, for the sake of all Druids, KILL KITING!
Kayne
>Most people don't want to group with Druids.
<snip the rest of the crap>
The very first statement in your post was the most absurd thing I've ever
read. The rest of it just rather followed suit.
Sam Schlansky
Since you snipped the rest of the post, I can't comment on it. However, at
high levels, the first part "most people don't want to group with druids"
happens to have some validity to it.
1) Druids' evacuate line casts the same speed and uses the same mana as a
wizards', however druids, being a wisdom-based class, have less mana
overall.
2) Druids' indoor DD spells are all fire-based until level 49; every
monster is resistant to fire. The exception is the level 19 careless
lightning, which is resisted versus magic... I see lvl 40 druids casting
this all the time. 99 damage at level 40.
3) Druids' DoT spells are useless due to the DoT bug.
4) Druids' root spells suck. Rangers (snare), shadowknights
(darkness), necromancers (darkness), and rogues (serrated bone dirk proc)
can do the same thing (basically) as snare, which is a great spell.
5) Druids' buff spells are inferior to both the clerics' and shaman's. The
only good buffs they get are nice damage shields. Thats the only good thing
they've got, and magicians have better ones... although there are NO high-
level magicians around.
6) Druids only get greater heal, the same as shamen and paladins (!).
Greater heal only does a bubble or two... it's NICE, but nothing great.
Basically, from level 30 through 48, druids just aren't all that good. They
can't heal well, they can't DD well, DoTs are useless due to the bug, snare
is shared with four other classes, and evacuate (which they used to be the
best at) is now the same as wizards. Previously, Druids *did* have a raison
d'etre-- Evacuate. But no longer.
At level 49, they get "Ice", a VERY nice cold-based DD spell, skin like
nature, a VERY nice shield spell, and thorncoat, a VERY nice damage shield.
At level 49, druids are a good grouping class again.
Now, I wouldn't say that "nobody wants to group with a druid"
necessarily... but druids are pretty mediocre at pretty much everything.
They're flexible but mediocre-- good qualities for a soloer, bad qualities
for a group.
Sam
--
/| Sam Schlansky <sam[at]operation3d[dot]com>
/| PGP Key ID: 0x63A9D707
/| 3DNews.net: News With Perspective!
/| 3DHardware.net: Taking Your Machine To The Third Dimension!
/| Remove "deletethis" to email.
Adam
<Enr...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:37c86f8c....@news.mindspring.com...
> Most people don't want to group with Druids
Stupidest thing i've ever read.
Marshall
will group with a Druid at any level, because they are a fair melee class,
with some good buffs and the ability to heal. And it is sort of nice when
your group gets run over by mobs to have that SoW and run away.
-Drefan, Druid of Tunare
Enr...@somewhere.net wrote in message
<37c86f8c....@news.mindspring.com>...
>Most people don't want to group with Druids. I have found this to be
>true. I have also noticed that MOST mid level druids don't know how
>to group. I have actually seen a druid group with a same lvl ranger
>(16) near the aviak city. Ok, time to kill some birdmen. I'm
>expecting the druid to shield the tank, swarm the birdy, and blast and
>heal as necessary while the ranger beats it down. No, the druid casts
>SoW on the ranger and himself, swarms the bird and tells the ranger,
>"ok now run".
>
>I say kiting has ruined a lot of druid players and characters. But
>more importantly it has ruined ppl's views of druids. It is pretty
>damn hard for me to find a group that wants me unless it contains
>someone I've grouped with before.
>
>Oh, just so you all know, I DO NOT like the fix that is being tested
>right now. Messing up the DOTs affects more than just kiting druids.
>But I do think Kiting should be fixed. Not a terribly high priority
>on my list, esp compared to some stuff, but I wouldn't mind a fix. Of
>course, in a perfect world druids would learn how to group and melee
>and such and we wouldn't need to change any code at all.
>
> -Enreldt (lowly 16th lvl Wood Elf Druid, Prexus)
Hamlet
personal experience on my server, 80% of the druids I've grouped with have
been exceedingly selfish--which can be traced back to their autonomy through
kiting: they don't HAVE to group with you to get exp. And if they do, the
concept of healing a party member, for example, is apparently alien. Their
team-work skills are generally substandard. So, I don't go out of my way to
get a druid into my groups, and given the choice--unless I know the druid in
question is one of the elite 20% who know how to function in a party
environment--I'll opt for any other class that would fill the spot.
Adam <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%i1y3.992$mo.36176@viper...
Brian Hance
>Most people don't want to group with Druids. I have found this to be
>true. I have also noticed that MOST mid level druids don't know how
>to group. I have actually seen a druid group with a same lvl ranger
>(16) near the aviak city. Ok, time to kill some birdmen. I'm
>expecting the druid to shield the tank, swarm the birdy, and blast and
>heal as necessary while the ranger beats it down. No, the druid casts
>SoW on the ranger and himself, swarms the bird and tells the ranger,
>"ok now run".
I understand your concern, but part of being in a group is
communicating with the other members. I have a Wizard buddy of mine,
and basically all we do is I SoW each of us, Snare then DoT the target
and then we run from the mob while nuking the hell out of it. Since
we don't usually have a tank, this seems like the best way for us to
work.
Maybe the Druid you grouped with had similar experiences to mine.
Maybe he didn't understand what tactics YOU were used to using and
fell back on what he knew.
Grouping isn't just finding somebody that works well with you, you
have to find somebody you can work with too.
--
Brian Hance * "ORWELLIAN UTOPIAS: Concept embraced by those
bha...@primenet.com * who got their asses kicked in gym class"
* Janeanne Garofalo from FEEL THIS BOOK
Brian Hance
wrote:
>You're a disgrace to our profession. And besides, I know many people who
>will group with a Druid at any level, because they are a fair melee class,
>with some good buffs and the ability to heal.
A fair melee class? Then why the hell am I getting spanked by light
blues? What am I doing wrong? :-)
>And it is sort of nice when
>your group gets run over by mobs to have that SoW and run away.
Druids best asset to any group is our buffs. I'd say that we're
second only to Clerics in that department.
Sean
SoW, Heals, Skin like <____>. That's it.
--
Sean S. -:- ICQ: 1826323
Zap small files with Zap `Em - http://home.rochester.rr.com/zapem
Visit www.ZenSearch.com a 100% quality search engine
(Email: sunymoon <AT> GeoCities >DOT< com )
Enr...@somewhere.net wrote in message
<37c86f8c....@news.mindspring.com>...
>Most people don't want to group with Druids. I have found this to be
>true. I have also noticed that MOST mid level druids don't know how
>to group. I have actually seen a druid group with a same lvl ranger
>(16) near the aviak city. Ok, time to kill some birdmen. I'm
>expecting the druid to shield the tank, swarm the birdy, and blast and
>heal as necessary while the ranger beats it down. No, the druid casts
>SoW on the ranger and himself, swarms the bird and tells the ranger,
>"ok now run".
>
Marshall
DoT spell, my Scimitar, and then a DD spell cast immediately after an enemy
swipes at you. Light blues are easy.
-Drefan, Druid of Tunare
Brian Hance wrote in message <37c9f051...@news.primenet.com>...
Gladimir
our group, he changes to wolf-form and starts tanking. I am constantly
healing the little doggie, when I should be stacking combat buffs on the
tanks and stacking DoTs on the mobs. It is not even like the Druid is
taking alot of blows, he just doesn't have that many hit points (I guess).
Anyway, it changes much of the group dynamics when this takes place, and it
relegates me to a very mediocre healer rather than an excellent
buffer/debuffer.
- Gladimir, Barbarian Shaman of Clan Blackwatch, Cazic-Thule
- Baphomet, Troll Warrior, Cazic-Thule
Hamlet wrote in message
Davian
Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
news:8E30E9532vi...@news4.newscene.com...
> Since you snipped the rest of the post, I can't comment on it. However, at
> high levels, the first part "most people don't want to group with druids"
> happens to have some validity to it.
Actually the original poster was level 16.
His point was more along the lines of it was becasue druids don't know how
to group, and went on to describe his encounter, where a druid grouped with
a tank... DOT'ed the monster, and told the tank to run with him.
>
> 4) Druids' root spells suck. Rangers (snare), shadowknights
> (darkness), necromancers (darkness), and rogues (serrated bone dirk proc)
> can do the same thing (basically) as snare, which is a great spell.
>
Any druid using thier root spell is an idiot. Druids can cast snare, also
Ensnare, the more powerful version of the spell.
> 5) Druids' buff spells are inferior to both the clerics' and shaman's. The
> only good buffs they get are nice damage shields. Thats the only good
thing
> they've got, and magicians have better ones... although there are NO high-
> level magicians around.
Magicians are all fire based, aren't they? I thought you said fire spells
sucked with all the fire resistant monsters running around.
>
> 6) Druids only get greater heal, the same as shamen and paladins (!).
> Greater heal only does a bubble or two... it's NICE, but nothing great.
>
Druids get it at 29, Paladins don't get it until 39, when it is really much
less useful. At 39, Druids and Shamen should get Superior Healing, IMO.
> Now, I wouldn't say that "nobody wants to group with a druid"
> necessarily... but druids are pretty mediocre at pretty much everything.
> They're flexible but mediocre-- good qualities for a soloer, bad qualities
> for a group.
Only if the group is concerned with having *the best* of everything. Unless
the druid was a complete idiot that all they knew how to do was kite, I'm
always happy to have one or two around. They can fill almost any role
nicely.
Davian
Davian
Brian Hance <bha...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:37c9f051...@news.primenet.com...
> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:34:02 -0700, "Marshall" <sm...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You're a disgrace to our profession. And besides, I know many people who
> >will group with a Druid at any level, because they are a fair melee
class,
> >with some good buffs and the ability to heal.
>
> A fair melee class? Then why the hell am I getting spanked by light
> blues? What am I doing wrong? :-)
>
Nothing, probably. The original poster was probablly under level 20.
Druids start losing melee ability after level 10, at 20 the decline is even
more rapid, and by 30 it's almost all gone.
> >And it is sort of nice when
> >your group gets run over by mobs to have that SoW and run away.
>
> Druids best asset to any group is our buffs. I'd say that we're
> second only to Clerics in that department.
>
Shamen are the best buffers in the game. They can buff anything. Any stat,
any ability. Druids are probably second. Clerics are 3'rd. They get a few
powerful buffs, but they only affect hit points and armor class.
Davian
Sam Schlansky
>Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
>news:8E30E9532vi...@news4.newscene.com...
>> wi...@held.com (Kayne) wrote in <7q9tri$t9f$1...@news.telapex.com>:
>
>> Since you snipped the rest of the post, I can't comment on it. However, at
>> high levels, the first part "most people don't want to group with druids"
>> happens to have some validity to it.
>
>Actually the original poster was level 16.
Like I said, you snipped it out, so how was I to know that? :)
>His point was more along the lines of it was becasue druids don't know how
>to group, and went on to describe his encounter, where a druid grouped with
>a tank... DOT'ed the monster, and told the tank to run with him.
>>
>> 4) Druids' root spells suck. Rangers (snare), shadowknights
>> (darkness), necromancers (darkness), and rogues (serrated bone dirk proc)
>> can do the same thing (basically) as snare, which is a great spell.
>>
>
>Any druid using thier root spell is an idiot. Druids can cast snare, also
>Ensnare, the more powerful version of the spell.
I know about that, in fact I mentioned it... snare is a great spell, but four
other classes essentially get it. Ensnare is useless.
>> 5) Druids' buff spells are inferior to both the clerics' and shaman's. The
>> only good buffs they get are nice damage shields. Thats the only good
>>thing they've got, and magicians have better ones... although there are NO
>>high-level magicians around.
>
>Magicians are all fire based, aren't they? I thought you said fire spells
>sucked with all the fire resistant monsters running around.
I was talking about damage shields. Damage shields can't be resisted.
>> 6) Druids only get greater heal, the same as shamen and paladins (!).
>> Greater heal only does a bubble or two... it's NICE, but nothing great.
>>
>
>Druids get it at 29, Paladins don't get it until 39, when it is really much
>less useful.
That's correct. However I was talking about "the long term". In the long term,
paladins get the same heal spell as druids and shamen-- although they can't
cast too many before they're OOM!
>>At 39, Druids and Shamen should get Superior Healing, IMO.
No they shouldn't. Clerics are the masters of healing. Druids and Shamen get
regenerate and chloroplast instead, which are cool spells... but nowhere near
as good as superior heal!
>> Now, I wouldn't say that "nobody wants to group with a druid"
>> necessarily... but druids are pretty mediocre at pretty much everything.
>> They're flexible but mediocre-- good qualities for a soloer, bad qualities
>> for a group.
>
>Only if the group is concerned with having *the best* of everything. Unless
>the druid was a complete idiot that all they knew how to do was kite, I'm
>always happy to have one or two around. They can fill almost any role
>nicely.
They can fill any role-- but they're not GOOD at it. Druids are pretty terrible
buffers, mediocre nukers (unless you're outdoors), have crappy utility spells
besides SoW, and can only cast greater heal. What they gain in flexibility they
lose in power... and you don't NEED flexibility in a group, you need power--
you get flexibility through having six different people.
Sam Schlansky
<37cbcb48...@news.mindspring.com>:
>
>>Basically, from level 30 through 48, druids just aren't all that good.
>
>Uh, as stated I'm only lvl 16 and what you're talikng about is realy
>way beyond the point I'm trying to make. Besides, from what I've read
>at lvl 30+ kiting really isn't an issue.
Where'd you read that? I've seen druids kite from 1 to the high 40's on
spectres and ogre guards. LEVELING is easy, grouping isn't.
Brian Hance
>Brian Hance <bha...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:34:02 -0700, "Marshall" <sm...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>> >You're a disgrace to our profession. And besides, I know many people who
>> >will group with a Druid at any level, because they are a fair melee
>> >class, with some good buffs and the ability to heal.
>> A fair melee class? Then why the hell am I getting spanked by light
>> blues? What am I doing wrong? :-)
>Nothing, probably. The original poster was probablly under level 20.
>Druids start losing melee ability after level 10, at 20 the decline is even
>more rapid, and by 30 it's almost all gone.
I think my melee skill died about 9. Granted, I'm using a Combine
Scim ('cause it looks cool) which doesn't hit hard. I'm at 15 now and
going at anything light blue without nuking the hell out of it first
is suicide.
Still love my druid though. :-)
>> >And it is sort of nice when
>> >your group gets run over by mobs to have that SoW and run away.
>> Druids best asset to any group is our buffs. I'd say that we're
>> second only to Clerics in that department.
>Shamen are the best buffers in the game. They can buff anything. Any stat,
>any ability. Druids are probably second. Clerics are 3'rd. They get a few
>powerful buffs, but they only affect hit points and armor class.
Hurm. Did not know that. Seems like Clerics should be the best
buffers though. At least tied with a Shaman.
Brian Hance
wrote:
>You shouldn't be getting spanked by light blues. I use a combination of a
>DoT spell, my Scimitar, and then a DD spell cast immediately after an enemy
>swipes at you. Light blues are easy.
I was talking about melee. We're fairly formidable when you throw
spells in the mix. I've managed to solo evens, but that's kiting for
a couple so I can let the DoT work.
Davian
> n...@e.mail (Davian) wrote in <7qbvm3$s66$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>:
>
> >Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
> >news:8E30E9532vi...@news4.newscene.com...
> >> wi...@held.com (Kayne) wrote in <7q9tri$t9f$1...@news.telapex.com>:
>
>
> Like I said, you snipped it out, so how was I to know that? :)
>
Psychic abilities?
> >His point was more along the lines of it was becasue druids don't know
how
> >to group, and went on to describe his encounter, where a druid grouped
with
> >a tank... DOT'ed the monster, and told the tank to run with him.
> >>
> >> 4) Druids' root spells suck. Rangers (snare), shadowknights
> >> (darkness), necromancers (darkness), and rogues (serrated bone dirk
proc)
> >> can do the same thing (basically) as snare, which is a great spell.
> >>
> >
> >Any druid using thier root spell is an idiot. Druids can cast snare,
also
> >Ensnare, the more powerful version of the spell.
>
> I know about that, in fact I mentioned it... snare is a great spell, but
four
> other classes essentially get it. Ensnare is useless.
>
*shrug* It sounded like you were saying everyone had better, and a druid
only had root. And Rogues shouldn't be included there anyways. They can't
make thier weapon do the proc when it's needed. If they even have the
weapon. Bards should be however. Thier lvl 23 song works as snare and slow
attack.
> >> 5) Druids' buff spells are inferior to both the clerics' and shaman's.
The
> >> only good buffs they get are nice damage shields. Thats the only good
> >>thing they've got, and magicians have better ones... although there are
NO
> >>high-level magicians around.
> >
> >Magicians are all fire based, aren't they? I thought you said fire
spells
> >sucked with all the fire resistant monsters running around.
>
> I was talking about damage shields. Damage shields can't be resisted.
>
I didn't know that. I would think a fire based damage shield would be
resisted vs. fire first. Probably an oversight in the code.
> >>At 39, Druids and Shamen should get Superior Healing, IMO.
>
> No they shouldn't. Clerics are the masters of healing. Druids and Shamen
get
> regenerate and chloroplast instead, which are cool spells... but nowhere
near
> as good as superior heal!
>
Giving them Superior healing at 39 wouldn't be a threat to clerics, who can
cast Complete Healing at that level.
> >> Now, I wouldn't say that "nobody wants to group with a druid"
> >> necessarily... but druids are pretty mediocre at pretty much
everything.
> >> They're flexible but mediocre-- good qualities for a soloer, bad
qualities
> >> for a group.
> >
> >Only if the group is concerned with having *the best* of everything.
Unless
> >the druid was a complete idiot that all they knew how to do was kite, I'm
> >always happy to have one or two around. They can fill almost any role
> >nicely.
>
> They can fill any role-- but they're not GOOD at it. Druids are pretty
terrible
> buffers, mediocre nukers (unless you're outdoors), have crappy utility
spells
> besides SoW, and can only cast greater heal. What they gain in flexibility
they
> lose in power... and you don't NEED flexibility in a group, you need
power--
> you get flexibility through having six different people.
Remember that next time you head to a dungeon without a cleric. You don't
want to add a druid, because the cleric's healing is better. You'd rather
do without. ;)
Repeat same with Wizard and nuking, if you want. ;)
Sam Schlansky
>Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
>news:8E31C7593vi...@news4.newscene.com...
>> n...@e.mail (Davian) wrote in <7qbvm3$s66$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>:
>> >> 4) Druids' root spells suck. Rangers (snare), shadowknights
>> >> (darkness), necromancers (darkness), and rogues (serrated bone dirk
>> >> proc) can do the same thing (basically) as snare, which is a great spell.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Any druid using thier root spell is an idiot. Druids can cast snare, also
>> >Ensnare, the more powerful version of the spell.
>>
>> I know about that, in fact I mentioned it... snare is a great spell,
>> but four other classes essentially get it. Ensnare is useless.
>>
>
>*shrug* It sounded like you were saying everyone had better, and a
>druid only had root. And Rogues shouldn't be included there anyways.
>They can't make thier weapon do the proc when it's needed. If they even
>have the weapon.
Its true that they can't MAKE their weapon proc, but by the time rogues get the
serrated bone dirk (lvl 35+) they usually have pretty good dexterities...
unless you've got a few nukers, the proc usually goes off.
>Bards should be however. Thier lvl 23 song works as
>snare and slow attack.
Thats true. Add bards to the list of classes that can essentially snare.
>> >> 5) Druids' buff spells are inferior to both the clerics' and
>> >> shaman's.
>> >> The only good buffs they get are nice damage shields. Thats the only
>> >> good
>> >> thing they've got, and magicians have better ones... although there
>> >> are
>> >> NO high-level magicians around.
>> >
>> >Magicians are all fire based, aren't they? I thought you said fire
>> >spells sucked with all the fire resistant monsters running around.
>>
>> I was talking about damage shields. Damage shields can't be resisted.
>>
>I didn't know that. I would think a fire based damage shield would be
>resisted vs. fire first. Probably an oversight in the code.
I suppose... the thorn line would then be resisted as either magic or physical
damage tho, which would make it MUCH more powerful than the magicians'
shields... and magicians are "supposed" to have the best damage shields. Just
like druids were originally "supposed" to be the masters of travel. :)
>> >>At 39, Druids and Shamen should get Superior Healing, IMO.
>>
>> No they shouldn't. Clerics are the masters of healing. Druids and
>> Shamen get regenerate and chloroplast instead, which are cool spells... but
>> nowhere near as good as superior heal!
>>
>
>Giving them Superior healing at 39 wouldn't be a threat to clerics, who
>can cast Complete Healing at that level.
I've never seen a cleric cast complete heal. Unless you've got a tank with over
1200 hit points who's down to less than 200 or so, it's not a mana-efficient
spell. It also casts slow, is easy to interrupt, and will frenzy monsters like
CRAZY on the cleric casting it. Clerics are great healers because of superior
heal-- not complete heal.
>> They can fill any role-- but they're not GOOD at it. Druids are pretty
>> terrible buffers, mediocre nukers (unless you're outdoors), have crappy
>> utility spells besides SoW, and can only cast greater heal. What they gain
>> in flexibility they lose in power... and you don't NEED flexibility in a
>> group, you need power-- you get flexibility through having six different
>> people.
>
>Remember that next time you head to a dungeon without a cleric. You
>don't want to add a druid, because the cleric's healing is better.
>You'd rather do without. ;)
That's a good point; many have been the times where a druid "steps in" as
dedicated healer. They can only cast gheal, but they have enough mana to cast
it a whole bunch of times. They're not GREAT healers, and they generally don't
ENJOY being the dedicated healer... but they can do it in a pinch.
>Repeat same with Wizard and nuking, if you want. ;)
Nah, not really. If you've got a druid nuking all he does is cast careless
lightning continuously for 99 damage per cast. Since all their other DD spells
are fire-based or outdoors-only, careless lightning is what they use up to
level 49. It's mana-inefficient, gets mobs to frenzy on them, and it plain
doesn't help very much. I'd rather have a warrior/ranger/monk for damage or a
shaman for buffs over a druid for nuking. They're really bad nukers.
Keil
On 28 Aug 1999 22:02:09 -0500, s...@deletethis.operation3d.com (Sam
Schlansky) wrote:
>wi...@held.com (Kayne) wrote in <7q9tri$t9f$1...@news.telapex.com>:
>
>>>Most people don't want to group with Druids.
>>
>>
>><snip the rest of the crap>
>>
>>The very first statement in your post was the most absurd thing I've ever
>>read. The rest of it just rather followed suit.
>
>Since you snipped the rest of the post, I can't comment on it. However, at
>high levels, the first part "most people don't want to group with druids"
>happens to have some validity to it.
>
>1) Druids' evacuate line casts the same speed and uses the same mana as a
>wizards', however druids, being a wisdom-based class, have less mana
>overall.
Wiz's are good at two things only blast and evac. (they can not heal
period)
>
>2) Druids' indoor DD spells are all fire-based until level 49; every
>monster is resistant to fire. The exception is the level 19 careless
>lightning, which is resisted versus magic... I see lvl 40 druids casting
>this all the time. 99 damage at level 40.
>
>3) Druids' DoT spells are useless due to the DoT bug.
>
>4) Druids' root spells suck. Rangers (snare), shadowknights
>(darkness), necromancers (darkness), and rogues (serrated bone dirk proc)
>can do the same thing (basically) as snare, which is a great spell.
Druids can snare too, and no one does root no reason to in a group.
>
>5) Druids' buff spells are inferior to both the clerics' and shaman's. The
>only good buffs they get are nice damage shields. Thats the only good thing
>they've got, and magicians have better ones... although there are NO high-
>level magicians around.
Your damage shields are great if you cast them, I find very few Druids
that like to but they definatley can do some damage. And as for buffs
I prefer clerics or shamans, but that is there specialty
>
>6) Druids only get greater heal, the same as shamen and paladins (!).
>Greater heal only does a bubble or two... it's NICE, but nothing great.
Yes but you have a group regen, which is very nice and a plus in my
book.
>
>Basically, from level 30 through 48, druids just aren't all that good. They
>can't heal well, they can't DD well, DoTs are useless due to the bug, snare
>is shared with four other classes, and evacuate (which they used to be the
>best at) is now the same as wizards. Previously, Druids *did* have a raison
>d'etre-- Evacuate. But no longer.
Well now to sommerize really quick. For one with the Wiz thing.
Druids are a good utility caster inwhich they have great things for
the group, cast your damage shield and your regen and everyone is
happy, and a heal to a pure caster will save there life and fully
restore there hp. I'll take a druid over a wiz (i'm a ranger) mostly
do to the healing regen and dmg shield. On one particular fight with
8 minos in lower guk and a couple wans that damage shield had to do
atleast over 1000hp, most of the minos had knock themselfs to half
health just because they were hitting me in the back.
>
>At level 49, they get "Ice", a VERY nice cold-based DD spell, skin like
>nature, a VERY nice shield spell, and thorncoat, a VERY nice damage shield.
>At level 49, druids are a good grouping class again.
>
>Now, I wouldn't say that "nobody wants to group with a druid"
>necessarily... but druids are pretty mediocre at pretty much everything.
>They're flexible but mediocre-- good qualities for a soloer, bad qualities
>for a group.
>
Keil
like the ones whom know how to heal, regen group, and dmg shield the
tanks. And since i am usually the leader of the group I take control
and in a med/healing session go over what is expected of the players
themselfs. ususally they will , but you have to nudge them along.
I remember grouping with a male Shaman level 34 whom just buff'd his
entire mana bar on himself and kept himself buff'd to max and wanted
none the less but to be a tank. He wouldn't cooperate in buffing the
rest of the group so we dismissed him, what is the pint in haveing a
shaman whom doesn't know their role.
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 11:25:13 -0700, "Gladimir" <cfen...@san.rr.com>
wrote:
Keil
>
>Brian Hance <bha...@primenet.com> wrote in message
>news:37c9f051...@news.primenet.com...
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:34:02 -0700, "Marshall" <sm...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You're a disgrace to our profession. And besides, I know many people who
>> >will group with a Druid at any level, because they are a fair melee
>class,
>> >with some good buffs and the ability to heal.
>>
>> A fair melee class? Then why the hell am I getting spanked by light
>> blues? What am I doing wrong? :-)
>>
>
>Nothing, probably. The original poster was probablly under level 20.
>Druids start losing melee ability after level 10, at 20 the decline is even
>more rapid, and by 30 it's almost all gone.
>
>> >And it is sort of nice when
>> >your group gets run over by mobs to have that SoW and run away.
>>
>> Druids best asset to any group is our buffs. I'd say that we're
>> second only to Clerics in that department.
>>
>
>Shamen are the best buffers in the game. They can buff anything. Any stat,
>any ability. Druids are probably second. Clerics are 3'rd. They get a few
>powerful buffs, but they only affect hit points and armor class.
>
How about we just say that a tank would prefer to get buff'd by a
shaman, then cleric, then druid, then enchanter? this sounds about
right what a combo. Two tanks would be very happy in this group
>Davian
>
>
Sam Schlansky
>Hell i just have to respond to this ignorance
I'm just here to help! Heheh.
>On 28 Aug 1999 22:02:09 -0500, s...@deletethis.operation3d.com (Sam
>Schlansky) wrote:
>>
>>1) Druids' evacuate line casts the same speed and uses the same mana as a
>>wizards', however druids, being a wisdom-based class, have less mana
>>overall.
>
>Wiz's are good at two things only blast and evac. (they can not heal
>period)
When did I say they could heal? And what's your point? All I was saying is that
wizards are just as good as evac'ing as druids-- if anything better since
wizards have more mana.
You're saying nothing.
>>2) Druids' indoor DD spells are all fire-based until level 49; every
>>monster is resistant to fire. The exception is the level 19 careless
>>lightning, which is resisted versus magic... I see lvl 40 druids casting
>>this all the time. 99 damage at level 40.
No response to this, eh. This is a major point.
>>3) Druids' DoT spells are useless due to the DoT bug.
No response to this, eh. This is a major point.
>>4) Druids' root spells suck. Rangers (snare), shadowknights
>>(darkness), necromancers (darkness), and rogues (serrated bone dirk proc)
>>can do the same thing (basically) as snare, which is a great spell.
>
>Druids can snare too, and no one does root no reason to in a group.
Of course druids can snare too... I mentioned that in my post. What's your
point? MY point was that 4 other (actually 5, including bards) classes can
essentially snare as well... giving no reason to get a druid to do it.
Again, you're saying nothing.
>>5) Druids' buff spells are inferior to both the clerics' and shaman's. The
>>only good buffs they get are nice damage shields. Thats the only good thing
>>they've got, and magicians have better ones... although there are NO high-
>>level magicians around.
>
>Your damage shields are great if you cast them, I find very few Druids
>that like to but they definatley can do some damage. And as for buffs
>I prefer clerics or shamans, but that is there specialty
When did I say damage shields suck? I said like they had "nice damage shields".
Again, cleric/shaman buffs are far superior, since druids aren't specialized.
Again, you're saying nothing to disprove my postulation that druids are
mediocre in a group before lvl 49.
>>6) Druids only get greater heal, the same as shamen and paladins (!).
>>Greater heal only does a bubble or two... it's NICE, but nothing great.
>
>Yes but you have a group regen, which is very nice and a plus in my
>book.
I think I mentioned HoT (I just coined that, Heal over Time, get it? :) spells
in a section you snipped out. Shamen get HoT too; it makes up for their
pedestrian DH. (Direct Heal of course!) Regardless, regen is only good for
reducing downtime and for casters with manastones, not in battle, so.....
...you're saying nothing again!
>>Basically, from level 30 through 48, druids just aren't all that good. They
>>can't heal well, they can't DD well, DoTs are useless due to the bug, snare
>>is shared with four other classes, and evacuate (which they used to be the
>>best at) is now the same as wizards. Previously, Druids *did* have a raison
>>d'etre-- Evacuate. But no longer.
>
>Well now to sommerize really quick. For one with the Wiz thing.
Huh? What wiz thing? Is English your second language? Oh, and the
word is "summarize".
>Druids are a good utility caster inwhich they have great things for
>the group,
Such as... bad grammar?
>cast your damage shield and your regen and everyone is
>happy, and a heal to a pure caster will save there life and fully
>restore there hp.
Magicians have better damage shields (although druids' are quite nice), shamen
also get regen spells, shamen are equal healers and clerics are much better.
It's "their" by the way. Most people mispell it "thier", which is equally
wrong, but perhaps less amusing.
I tried (and failed) to refrain from spelling/grammar flames throughout, but
you spell and write like a 13 year old. It was just too easy.
>I'll take a druid over a wiz (i'm a ranger) mostly
>do to the healing regen and dmg shield.
I'm a ranger too... for long battles with blues I'd *always* rather have
another healer, even one with only gheal, than a wizard. The damage shield is
just a bonus. HOWEVER, I'd rather have a cleric than a druid any day of the
week.
>On one particular fight with
>8 minos in lower guk and a couple wans that damage shield had to do
>atleast over 1000hp, most of the minos had knock themselfs to half
>health just because they were hitting me in the back.
You battled EIGHT greater minos and a few wan knights? Wow... even though
they're green to me now, unless I was in a really well balanced group, we'd be
toast. Those suckers hit hard. Excuse me if I doubt it.
I never said damage shields sucked; I just said that they weren't good enough
to make an entire class-- especially since magicians get better ones anyway.
In conclusion... I'm right, you're wrong.
Thanks for trying though!
Davian
Keil <now...@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:37ca5e4e...@news.mcit.com...
Actually I'd put the enchanter higher. ;) Aclarity kicks ass ;)
guess away
>Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
>news:8E31C7593vi...@news4.newscene.com...
>> I was talking about damage shields. Damage shields can't be resisted.
>>
>
>I didn't know that. I would think a fire based damage shield would be
>resisted vs. fire first. Probably an oversight in the code.
Nope, that was put in specifically like that. Just like necros and the
lifetap series, and the druidic damage shields.
JubJub McRae
>necessarily... but druids are pretty mediocre at pretty much everything.
>They're flexible but mediocre-- good qualities for a soloer, bad qualities
>for a group.
>
>Sam
Now we've heard the cup is half empty account, how about the cup is
half full. Flexible but mediocre? Second best DD in the game - fire
based is a problem though, in many but not all dungeons, and you beat
magicians hands down on mana efficiency and overall damage by the end
(and at many times in between). Second best healing in the game, tied
with shaman (you conveniently don't mention regeneration spells - not
all healing is emergency combat healing - half the game is downtime,
and reducing that is a wonderful thing). Second best HP/AC buff in
the game. Second best damage shields (barely - in 30's magicians
beat you in damage, but below 29 and at 49, it's a one point
difference, for vastly less mana on the druid version). Travel
spells, SoW. Druids have a healthy meal in their plate, and a nearly
full chalice, while most classes are either starving or dying of
thirst.
John
can get.
Mal...@EQ.com wrote:
> >I love to group with druids. Only because of their spells.
> >
> >SoW, Heals, Skin like <____>. That's it.
>
> Well, Druids are casters. You should like us for our spells.
> But I just with the Druds out there (due to kiting) weren't see as a
> selfish solo class. I LIKE GROUPING!!! And ya know what? I cast my
> damage shield on damn near everyone I see in melee combat. Am I
> missing something or do ppl just not see how good these things are?
> Or (please don't let this be true) do the future damage shields suck?
> Shield of Thisltes is honestly one of my fave spells. Even at lvl 16
> the 6dmg per hit is great. Is shield of barbs no good?
>
> Sorry, got more than a little off topic.... hehe
>
> -Enreldt