Latest test server patch
Ed Wheeler
movement components in a more consistent pattern.
> Banish Undead and Banish Summoned (LVL 49 CLERIC, NECROMANCER, MAGICIAN,
DRUID, etc.) have been changed from All or Nothing saving t> > throws to a
regular saving throws. This will make them easier to use against high level
creatures.
> Magician summoning spells that produce multiple items have been changed to
summon more items as the Magician's level increases.
> All Poison and Disease DOT spells have received tuning.
> Druid DOT's (stinging swarm series) has been adjusted to do more damage
over a shorter period of time.
> Immolate (DRUID) now does more damage, but has a shorter duration.
> Mesmerization (ENCHANTER) has been changed to a straight AOE radius
spell - it will no longer hang in the area. The AOE radius has been
increased, as has the range.
> Ice (LVL 49 DRUID) has been changed from an AOE spell to a single target
DD spell.
> Rage (SHAMAN) has been upgraded to a LVL 49 spell - Fury remains level 34.
> Invisibility spells (Invisibility, Gather Shadows, Camouflage, etc.) will
now blink before they wear off.
> Hitting F1 twice, or /pet target will now target your pet. The Duration on
Pack Regeneration (DRUID) has been increased.
> Shield of Lava (MAGICIAN) has had its mana cost reduced.
> The Research entries for Intensify Death and Hungry Earth (NECROMANCER)
have been updated.
> New high level Necromancer spells have been added to vendors.
> A new Wizard spell Chill Sight has been added to the Wizard vendors.
> The Magician's Summon Heatstone and Summon Coldstone spells will now work
as long as the Stone is held or worn (the spell effect will never wear off).
> The Insight spell (ENCHANTER) now adds Wisdom, not Intelligence.
Brilliance still adds Intelligence.
> The Tashan series (ENCHANTER) has had the recasting time reduced.
> Research for higher level spells has been made a bit easier.
> Spells that Add HP now work better on pets.
> The Necromancer's replacement spell for Charm (Screaming Terror) is on the
vendors. Play with this spell - it is different from any other spell of this
type that you have ever seen.
> Shrink (SHAMAN) has been put in to the game. It is a Level 19 spell, and
available in all Shaman starting cities. This spell will only be castable in
dungeons. It will not leave an icon on your screen - Shrink will last until
you zone.
> High level Bard song (LVL 40+) will be slightly easier to sing (less
missed notes).
Spells spells and more f**king spells.
Do they actually employ ANYONE who works on melee classes? Sheesh...
--
Keef - Lvl 16 Paladin
Erollisi Marr
Martin
<ed.wh...@eu.anritsu.com> wrote:
>Spells spells and more f**king spells.
>Do they actually employ ANYONE who works on melee classes? Sheesh...
Fuck, haven't you fucking heard of the fucking warrior enhancement
they fucking made on fucking Test?
And fucking why do you have to fucking swear all the fucking time?
Martin (fucking, too at least sometimes)
Ed Wheeler
Yes I heard of the warrior enhancement on test - a couple of minor warrior
beefs compared to about 4 of these patch updates FULL of spell changes, how
wonderful when at least 1 melee class is completely useless.
Martin wrote in message <378b55d3....@news.germany.net>...
Roadkill[PCR]
Dundee
<ed.wh...@eu.anritsu.com> wrote:
>> Banish Undead and Banish Summoned (LVL 49 CLERIC, NECROMANCER, MAGICIAN,
>DRUID, etc.) have been changed from All or Nothing saving t> > throws to a
>regular saving throws. This will make them easier to use against high level
>creatures.
Oh good, I was worried Druids were getting a bit weak.
>> Druid DOT's (stinging swarm series) has been adjusted to do more damage
>over a shorter period of time.
Oh lucky day!
>> Immolate (DRUID) now does more damage, but has a shorter duration.
Yay!
>> Ice (LVL 49 DRUID) has been changed from an AOE spell to a single target
>DD spell.
Woohoo! Surgical bombing.
>> Invisibility spells (Invisibility, Gather Shadows, Camouflage, etc.) will
>now blink before they wear off.
Thank goodness. Those casters were having a REAL hard time recovering
their warrior friends' corpses before.
>The Duration on Pack Regeneration (DRUID) has been increased.
More good news!
>> Research for higher level spells has been made a bit easier.
I just want to fall over and DIE, I am so very thrilled by all these
Make Casters More Powerful changes!
>Do they actually employ ANYONE who works on melee classes? Sheesh...
Obviously not.
--
Dundee - http://dundee.uong.com/
Dundee
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:08:50 +0100, "Ed Wheeler"
><ed.wh...@eu.anritsu.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Spells spells and more f**king spells.
>>Do they actually employ ANYONE who works on melee classes? Sheesh...
>
>Fuck, haven't you fucking heard of the fucking warrior enhancement
>they fucking made on fucking Test?
There are other melee classes, you know.
Adjyktyv
> Do they actually employ ANYONE who works on melee classes? Sheesh...
What is so f***ing wrong with the melee classes? You buy armor, you
put it on, it protects you. You buy a weapon, you swing it, it does
damage. You find monsters, hit 'em, kill 'em and loot 'em. Repeat as
necessary.
Try buying a spell that you've been saving up for, for over a week only
to find out that it's worthless, because
a) They haven't got around to implementing the code for that spell yet.
b) The casting time is so outrageous, that by the time you finish
casting, your melee mates have sliced the target into tiny pieces
(that's a mulch, and that's beneficial....)
c) The spell drains half of your mana and does absolutely no damage, or
only lasts for 0.1 seconds (Whirl-til-you-Hurl after a certain bad
patch, most enchanter spells prior to another patch)
d) Some idiot finds a way to misuse a spell and creates a huge exploit
so they have to nerf the spell for everyone (Druid's Treeform, for
example)
What is it your complaining about? The melee classes are exactly as
they are described in the manual. You wear armor, you carry weapons,
you beat the snot out of monsters. Period. What more did you expect?
Have you ever even played another RPG game where melee people did more
than that? You already get more HP than any other class, you get a far
greater selection of weapons and armor than I can ever hope to get!
What about those of us who read all the pre-release materials, bought
the $15 book and believed all the crap about Enchanters being able to
enchant weapons and armor and played an enchanter for that very
reason? I've got 16 days of play time (384 HOURS!) into my Enchanter
character and they're still not sure if we'll ever get to enchant
weapons and armor! If anyone should be pissed, it's me, not you!
If you have a legitimate problem with the game, discuss it, I'm willing
to listen. But if all you want to do is bitch, piss, whine and moan
that some other class is getting 'fixed' and not yours (when yours is
fine as is) then it's too f***ing bad, man. Too f***ing bad.
Wow, did I really say all that?
Adjyktyv the Disgruntled Enchanter (cazic-thule)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mark Asher
snip
>I just want to fall over and DIE, I am so very thrilled by all these
>Make Casters More Powerful changes!
Heh. I thought you were just the guy who wanted to play a character type?
Does it matter if a caster is more powerful than a monk or the reverse?
Seems to me it only matters if you are trying to keep up with the Jones.
Mark Asher
Dundee
wrote:
>What is so f***ing wrong with the melee classes? You buy armor, you
>put it on, it protects you. You buy a weapon, you swing it, it does
>damage. You find monsters, hit 'em, kill 'em and loot 'em. Repeat as
>necessary.
You forgot: You die. You're worthless without all the crap that's
back on your corpse. You get your mage friend to invis you so you can
recover it.
>Try buying a spell that you've been saving up for, for over a week only
>to find out that it's worthless, because
Oh cry me a river.
Go read the "Magicians rule" post talking about how they're killin
yellow and red mobs solo and tell me again how hard you poor
spellcasters have it.
>What is it your complaining about? The melee classes are exactly as
>they are described in the manual. You wear armor, you carry weapons,
>you beat the snot out of monsters. Period. What more did you expect?
>Have you ever even played another RPG game where melee people did more
>than that? You already get more HP than any other class, you get a far
>greater selection of weapons and armor than I can ever hope to get!
Game Balance would mean that melee-types are better at killing mobs
that spellcasters, and they aren't.
>If you have a legitimate problem with the game, discuss it, I'm willing
>to listen. But if all you want to do is bitch, piss, whine and moan
>that some other class is getting 'fixed' and not yours (when yours is
>fine as is) then it's too f***ing bad, man. Too f***ing bad.
>
>Wow, did I really say all that?
Yeah, but it makes no sense to even *try* and claim that any melee
type is "fine as it is". That's crazytalk from a disenchanted
enchanter.
Adjyktyv
> You forgot: You die. You're worthless without all the crap that's
> back on your corpse. You get your mage friend to invis you so you can
> recover it.
Uh, except when you die and respawn you have 500+hp. I have < 300.
>
> >Try buying a spell that you've been saving up for, for over a week
only
> >to find out that it's worthless, because
>
> Oh cry me a river.
Easy for you to say, you've never bought a weapon or armor only to
find out that it doesn't work.
> Go read the "Magicians rule" post talking about how they're killin
> yellow and red mobs solo and tell me again how hard you poor
> spellcasters have it.
I can't hardly take a Blue mob solo, with my pet. I don't know how
the heck these guys are doing what they claim. I still get killed by 2
or more green and/or blue mobs.
> Game Balance would mean that melee-types are better at killing mobs
> that spellcasters, and they aren't.
>
I agree. Warriors should be able to do more damage AND take more
damage than a spell caster, in melee combat. They can. It's only when
we use our VERY Expensive spells (when was the last time you saw a mob
drop a spell?) that we can do more damage. We pay for that ability, in
cash, and in experience.
> Yeah, but it makes no sense to even *try* and claim that any melee
> type is "fine as it is". That's crazytalk from a disenchanted
> enchanter.
Warriors are warriors. Period. That's the way it is. Read the manual,
they are EXACTLY what they are supposed to be. Unlike the mage
classes, ESPECIALLY the enchanter.
Adjyktyv
Dundee
wrote:
>Heh. I thought you were just the guy who wanted to play a character type?
Yeah, I want to play a monk. I don't want monks to suck though.
>Does it matter if a caster is more powerful than a monk or the reverse?
Game balance matters.
>Seems to me it only matters if you are trying to keep up with the Jones.
The only yardstick by which we can measure our classes is: How
useful/powerful are they relative to the other classes.
Dundee
wrote:
> Dun...@SPAMSPAMSPAM.COM (Dundee) wrote:
>> You forgot: You die. You're worthless without all the crap that's
>> back on your corpse. You get your mage friend to invis you so you can
>> recover it.
>
> Uh, except when you die and respawn you have 500+hp. I have < 300.
When *I* die and respawn, I'm fine. My characters a monk. But we
were talking about warriors.
You're saying warriors have an easier time recovering their corpses
than spellcasters? That's whacko.
Sylverlokk (the enchanter) has recovered my corpse almost as often as
I have. And I have it *way* easier than warriors.
>I agree. Warriors should be able to do more damage AND take more
>damage than a spell caster, in melee combat. They can.
Then we don't agree, because I'm not talking about melee combat, I'm
talking about combat, period. You get to do all sorts of kewl Other
stuff and the *balance* for that ought to be that you can't kill mobs
as well as warriors can, no matter what.
>It's only when
>we use our VERY Expensive spells (when was the last time you saw a mob
>drop a spell?) that we can do more damage. We pay for that ability, in
>cash, and in experience.
Money is worthless. And I don't think you want to compare the price
of spells to the price of a warrior's gear anyway.
>Warriors are warriors. Period. That's the way it is. Read the manual,
>they are EXACTLY what they are supposed to be.
They aren't as *good* as they ought to be, period. That is the way it
is.
Lucky for warriors, Verant agrees.
Silverlock
wrote:
Then you are very useful to casters.
Silverlock
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:23:13 GMT, Adjyktyv <msch...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>What is so f***ing wrong with the melee classes? You buy armor, you
>>put it on, it protects you. You buy a weapon, you swing it, it does
>>damage. You find monsters, hit 'em, kill 'em and loot 'em. Repeat as
>>necessary.
>
>You forgot: You die. You're worthless without all the crap that's
>back on your corpse. You get your mage friend to invis you so you can
>recover it.
That is definitely true, but would involve the kind of major changes
to the game that simply aren't going to happen after its release to
balance. Either all spells would need talismans or reagents, or our
books would need to be left on the corpses. The latter is simply not
acceptable because even without armor a meleer has at least some
chance of doing damage.... hmmmm a compromise. Spells X ranks below
your current one are so ingrained and instinctive that you
automatically retain them on death but everything else stays on your
corpse on your spellbook. Course the UI isn't set up to have spells on
the corpse and on the player and the only way to show the spells is in
a book but those are minor problems. Would that be an acceptable
compromise though?
>
>>Try buying a spell that you've been saving up for, for over a week only
>>to find out that it's worthless, because
>
>Oh cry me a river.
>
>Go read the "Magicians rule" post talking about how they're killin
>yellow and red mobs solo and tell me again how hard you poor
>spellcasters have it.
>
Again though, they have a BIG downtime between each attempt. And you
could kill 5+ blues maybe while they are doing that. That same mage
could not do those 5 blues because he would run out of mana and his
pet while tough isn't THAT tough.
>>What is it your complaining about? The melee classes are exactly as
>>they are described in the manual. You wear armor, you carry weapons,
>>you beat the snot out of monsters. Period. What more did you expect?
>>Have you ever even played another RPG game where melee people did more
>>than that? You already get more HP than any other class, you get a far
>>greater selection of weapons and armor than I can ever hope to get!
>
>Game Balance would mean that melee-types are better at killing mobs
>that spellcasters, and they aren't.
>
True and True.
>>If you have a legitimate problem with the game, discuss it, I'm willing
>>to listen. But if all you want to do is bitch, piss, whine and moan
>>that some other class is getting 'fixed' and not yours (when yours is
>>fine as is) then it's too f***ing bad, man. Too f***ing bad.
>>
>>Wow, did I really say all that?
>
>Yeah, but it makes no sense to even *try* and claim that any melee
>type is "fine as it is". That's crazytalk from a disenchanted
>enchanter.
Have things really changed that much since last week? I mean I admire
the way you can go thru blues all day, no way could I come close to
that. Is that the entire base of the problem; that there are no more
fields of blues?
Silverlock
wrote:
What exactly is it you want though? 11 out of 14 classes are casters I
believe. Casters power and utility is dependant on their spells
whereas melee classes are based on a far less variable set of
circumstances. For casters each spell must be both usable and not too
powerful and with however many spells they have that's going to be the
primary focus for a while.
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:08:50 +0100, "Ed Wheeler"
><ed.wh...@eu.anritsu.com> wrote:
>
>>> Banish Undead and Banish Summoned (LVL 49 CLERIC, NECROMANCER, MAGICIAN,
>>DRUID, etc.) have been changed from All or Nothing saving t> > throws to a
>>regular saving throws. This will make them easier to use against high level
>>creatures.
>
>Oh good, I was worried Druids were getting a bit weak.
>
>>> Druid DOT's (stinging swarm series) has been adjusted to do more damage
>>over a shorter period of time.
>
>Oh lucky day!
>
>>> Immolate (DRUID) now does more damage, but has a shorter duration.
>
>Yay!
>
>>> Ice (LVL 49 DRUID) has been changed from an AOE spell to a single target
>>DD spell.
>
>Woohoo! Surgical bombing.
>
>>> Invisibility spells (Invisibility, Gather Shadows, Camouflage, etc.) will
>>now blink before they wear off.
>
>Thank goodness. Those casters were having a REAL hard time recovering
>their warrior friends' corpses before.
>
>>The Duration on Pack Regeneration (DRUID) has been increased.
>
>More good news!
>
>>> Research for higher level spells has been made a bit easier.
>
>I just want to fall over and DIE, I am so very thrilled by all these
>Make Casters More Powerful changes!
>
>>Do they actually employ ANYONE who works on melee classes? Sheesh...
>
>Obviously not.
Weird
time.
When I worked my Paladin to 22 level, I only picked up 2 spells, the other 5
are crap. I got Center (big deal, the casters in the group can buff me
better) and Root (at least this one I can use). The spells I got at 15 level
I only use 3 of them. I can't speak for the other classes, I only have a
Paladin, Cleric and Druid, the Paladin is the only one I feel is broken. And
this sucks, because I love being a Paladin, it's been my favorite class for
20 years. When has anything been tweeked for the Paladin? Archery still
doesn't work right.
Weird
Ed Wheeler wrote in message <7mfkq3$p7n$1...@soap.pipex.net>...
>Spells spells and more f**king spells.
>Do they actually employ ANYONE who works on melee classes? Sheesh...
>
Desdinova
>The only yardstick by which we can measure our classes is: How
>useful/powerful are they relative to the other classes.
I disagree. I measure my class by how powerful it is relative to
the MOBs.
Desdinova
Richard Cortese
news:845DD4A277CC8A9B.4B48EA5D...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:48:08 -0500, "Mark Asher" <ma...@cdmnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Heh. I thought you were just the guy who wanted to play a character type?
>
> Yeah, I want to play a monk. I don't want monks to suck though.
>
> >Does it matter if a caster is more powerful than a monk or the reverse?
>
> Game balance matters.
>
> >Seems to me it only matters if you are trying to keep up with the Jones.
>
> useful/powerful are they relative to the other classes.
We have different tastes in most things, only thing we seem to aggree on is
that everyone else is silly including each other.
But don't start a necro, don't start a rogue, don't start a wood elf bard,
that is for sure. Even a kill stealer is probably not right although the
comic possibilities are endless.
IMNHO: Run a magician for a few levels. You seemed to really enjoy the
whole tamer/pet thing in UO. Magician is EQ is about as much fun, doesn't
even seem like summoning vs taming.
It is not nearly as strong as some people indicate, but it is that much fun.
Have Shade buff the hell out of you for 4 levels, then you get your first
pets. Then have Shade join you with another silly character type that will
just be fun to run. Maybe a SOW type.
I give it 5-10 hours before you are in double digits. After 5-10 hours of
newbiedom, you will be happy to be a 30 something monk again.
You really should not have spent so much time doing the "monk and not much
besides a monk" thing. I mean it does suck really hard to be a newbie in
this game, but it sucks even harder playing the same chr for 600 hours.
FWIW: I am getting tired of your monk stories, I need some other foolish
adventures to keep me entertained.
Davian
Adjyktyv <msch...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7mg7nj$tq7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Dun...@SPAMSPAMSPAM.COM (Dundee) wrote:
> > You forgot: You die. You're worthless without all the crap that's
> > back on your corpse. You get your mage friend to invis you so you can
> > recover it.
>
>
>
And all of your spells.... Those 500 hit points wont help a warrior if he
has to try and fight something using 2 damage punches.
ka...@wwwaif.net
wrote:
<snip>
>
>> Go read the "Magicians rule" post talking about how they're killin
>> yellow and red mobs solo and tell me again how hard you poor
>> spellcasters have it.
>
> I can't hardly take a Blue mob solo, with my pet. I don't know how
>the heck these guys are doing what they claim. I still get killed by 2
>or more green and/or blue mobs.
I'm just not sure how you can manage *not* to take on blues solo, with pet,
that is. I'm no supermagician, but I take soloing blues for granted, even if
I'm probably more cautious picking on a yellow than some of my mage buddies.
You see a blue mob, you send the pet to attack, you stand well back, you cast
till it's dead. If it comes after you, you run in circles, not fighting,
hoping it gets bored really soon and goes back to the pet. Ideally, you
should finish the fight without losing more than a half bubble of health, and
without draining more than a bubble or two of mana.
With two mobs (blue or green), yes, it gets more tricky: usually, I wind up
playing dodge-the-new-guy while my pet takes down my original target, and
then hope to hell that I have enough mana - and it has enough hps - to finish
off the second. It doesn't always work - I've died to two blues, or even a
green and a blue when particularly unlucky. But that's definitely the
exception, not the rule.
Honestly, I'm trying to figure out how this isn't working for you. Are you
trying to melee the thing? Are you taking beats for your pet? Explain exactly
how you're failing to solo blues, and maybe someone out here in newsgroupland
can help you.
Alright, so that wasn't the point of your post. I just can't see a fellow
magician miss out on one of the things that makes their class great :)
K
Marcus Stafford
Silverlock wrote:
>
> >Go read the "Magicians rule" post talking about how they're killin
> >yellow and red mobs solo and tell me again how hard you poor
> >spellcasters have it.
> >
>
> Again though, they have a BIG downtime between each attempt. And you
> could kill 5+ blues maybe while they are doing that. That same mage
> could not do those 5 blues because he would run out of mana and his
> pet while tough isn't THAT tough.
>
Try being a rogue and soloing a blue above level 18 or so. Dead rogue.
And rogues are anything but "exactly described in the manual."
Adjyktyv
>
> Try being a rogue and soloing a blue above level 18 or so. Dead rogue.
>
> And rogues are anything but "exactly described in the manual."
>
This is what I'm talking about. The pre-release documents and the
manual spell out what each is class is capable of doing, and all of
their skills. The melee classes basically say "you get your choice of
a broad selection of weapons and armor and you go fight stuff."
Period.
Rogues are supposed to get Pick Locks and Detect Traps and lots of
other class-specific skills that define who they are. Unfortunately,
the people at Verant haven't taken the time to get all those things
working, or put locked doors/chests and/or traps in the game for the
rogue to be a really useful class (not saying they are worthless,
honest!).
Encanters biggest strength, according to the manuals is the ability to
permanently enchant armor and weapons, as well as placing temporary
enchantments on existing weapons. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE GAME THAT
ALLOWS THIS YET!! Yet, the melee classes are moaning that they are
getting the short end of the stick, because they spellcasters are
getting all the attention. I find it hard to feel sorry for them when
their class is working exactly as described.
I've played RPG's since 1978, and I can't remember any game system
where warriors could dish out more damage than a spell caster after the
first 5 or 6 levels of exp.
Think about it, in AD&D, at 6th level, a fully decked out fighter
(18/00 strength, 2-Handed Sword) could do a max of around 14-15 points
of dmg per round to one target. A 6th level wizard whips out a
fireball spell with a dmg range of 6-36 points of damage and totally
wipe out the contents of a small room.
6 levels later, the fighter class is still doing the SAME amount of
damage while the wizard is now dropping fireballs that do 12-72 points
of dmg at a time.
6 levels later, the warrior is still doing the SAME amount of damage,
and now the wizard can do 18-108 points of dmg with that same fireball
spell. Of course, the average 18th level fighter has around 150-200
hit points, and an 18th level wizard has a max of 74 hit points.
In Everquest, the HP difference isn't quite as extreme, and mages do
get to wear some armor. One important difference still, if you are
going toe-to-toe with Emperor Crush and he hits you while you are
swinging, you still hit and do damage. If he hits me while I'm
casting, there is a very good chance that my spell will be interrupted
and I'll DO NO DAMAGE. You have a VERY DEFINITE ADVANTAGE over mages.
I'm not saying that the melee classes couldn't use a little tweaking,
the probably could. I'm just saying that until they get the other
classes working as advertised, they shouldn't try and change a class
that is working.
Adjyktyv the Enchanter
Stephen Tsai
Dundee <Dun...@SPAMSPAMSPAM.COM> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:08:50 +0100, "Ed Wheeler"
><ed.wh...@eu.anritsu.com> wrote:
>>> Invisibility spells (Invisibility, Gather Shadows, Camouflage, etc.) will
>>now blink before they wear off.
>
>Thank goodness. Those casters were having a REAL hard time recovering
>their warrior friends' corpses before.
Unfortunately this is not the case. I tested this last night
and Inv drops without warning just as it did before.
Stephen Tsai aka Caeeorny of Karana
--
Kimagure Productions| http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Ginza/1604/
--present-- | http://www.dhc.net/~stsai/koc/
Orange College #37 | http://www.dhc.net/~stsai/bssr/
Sailor Ranma #21 | Stephen Tsai st...@netcom.com
Mark Muller
>The only yardstick by which we can measure our classes is: How
>useful/powerful are they relative to the other classes.
How about "my character is fun" ? If you want to be "better" than
everyone out there, go play UO.
Bruce Z. Lysik
A> 6 levels later, the warrior is still doing the SAME amount of
A> damage, and now the wizard can do 18-108 points of dmg with
A> that same fireball spell. Of course, the average 18th level
A> fighter has around 150-200 hit points, and an 18th level wizard
A> has a max of 74 hit points.
A> In Everquest, the HP difference isn't quite as extreme, and
A> mages do get to wear some armor.
Maybe the hitpoint difference /should/ be this extreme?
--
Bruce Z. Lysik <eld...@logrus.com> http://www.logrus.com/~eldrik
Rtheb the Monk, Master Brewer, on Rodcet Nife. "Run away! Run away!"
Dundee
<rico...@netmagic.net> wrote:
>You really need a monk break.
I am *really* a one-character kinda guy. 'Took me a long time to make
any other characters in UO, and then those were just mules because I
wanted to buy a house. And a tower.
But I do need to take a break from the powergaming thing. I think
I'll go get my monk sashes. That should be fairly harmless.
>Have Shade buff the hell out of you for 4 levels, then you get your first
>pets. Then have Shade join you with another silly character type that will
>just be fun to run. Maybe a SOW type.
I was just thinking about that... Shay could turn a newbie with 20
hitpoints into something like a 520 hitpoint newbie? I mean she buffs
me all the time, but I'm not sure how it works exactly. It's just a
straight +hitpoints kinda thing or is it a percentage increase? She
buffed some guy around BB and he shouted "I HAVE 750 HIT POINTS!" as
we were leaving... so I'm not sure like maybe before he only had 200?
Pretty cool buffs, anyway.
>I give it 5-10 hours before you are in double digits. After 5-10 hours of
>newbiedom, you will be happy to be a 30 something monk again.
heheh. Now I might do that. Heck it's only for 5 or 10 hours. Maybe
I'll make a mage and have Shay make a monk.
Or I could make a cleric.
>You really should not have spent so much time doing the "monk and not much
>besides a monk" thing. I mean it does suck really hard to be a newbie in
>this game, but it sucks even harder playing the same chr for 600 hours.
That's just the way I play these sorts of games.
>FWIW: I am getting tired of your monk stories, I need some other foolish
>adventures to keep me entertained.
Oh I think if I try running a mage or a cleric, even, and Shay's
running a monk or a warrior or what have ya... that would be kinda
interesting.
Or maybe we'll make halflings. Halfling women are the most ridiculous
looking little things.
Brian Cully
Adjyktyv <msch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Encanters biggest strength, according to the manuals is the ability to
>permanently enchant armor and weapons, as well as placing temporary
>enchantments on existing weapons. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE GAME THAT
>ALLOWS THIS YET!! Yet, the melee classes are moaning that they are
>getting the short end of the stick, because they spellcasters are
>getting all the attention. I find it hard to feel sorry for them when
>their class is working exactly as described.
I, for one, don't think the enchanter needs that particular ability
to have balance. They're /already/ a must have in a group, and
they're one of the only classes I can think of that's like that
(perhaps the only).
Archi Tuttle
Monk at Large
Innoruuk
Adjyktyv
> I, for one, don't think the enchanter needs that particular ability
> to have balance. They're /already/ a must have in a group, and
> they're one of the only classes I can think of that's like that
> (perhaps the only).
On behalf of all the enchanter of Norrath, thank you for your kind
words. For the first 11 levels of my career, my regular teammates
treated me like an experience leech because I wasn't able to a lot to
kill monsters. Now they are a lot more grateful.
Although I'll be able to live a happy life without the ability to
enchant weapons and armor, it was spelled out in detail in the pre-
release material, and the Official Playing Guide, this could be
construed as false advertising and lead to a potetional law suit (not
by me!).
My big rant (and what I tried get across here) was that, as described,
there is nothing wrong with the melee classes. This doesn't mean that
all melee'ers are happy, just that they work as designed. Out of the
hundreds of miscellaneous spells in this game, it's not too surprising
that a sizable percentage of them were broken or could be exploited in
some manner or another. Likewise, it's not too surprising that more
and more spell tweaks have had to be implemented in the game.
Especially as more and more spellcasters reach higher levels and start
buying and using new spells.
If you're not a spell caster, hang in there, I'm sure more changes are
coming.
Adjkytyv the enchanter
Rob Beckett
said:
>
>Or maybe we'll make halflings. Halfling women are the most ridiculous
>looking little things.
>
>--
>Dundee - http://dundee.uong.com/
Naw. Try a Wood Elf female, they are so darn cute people will twink
you all the time.
Rob aka Auman Estanesse
"1935 will go down in history! For the first time,
a civilized nation has full gun registration!
Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient
and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolf Hitler, 1935
ja...@gpd-global.com
Adjyktyv <msch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> What is it your complaining about? The melee classes are exactly as
> they are described in the manual.
You wanna take this statement back? A hint... think Rogue. And don't
even ask, "Why, what's wrong with the rogue?" We've hashed that
enough!
Do a little research before you deepthroat your foot man!
Deviant of Rathe
Jean Valjean
<AD03067C43100912.764607D4...@lp.airnews.net>, thus spake
Dun...@SPAMSPAMSPAM.COM:
>I just want to fall over and DIE, I am so very thrilled by all these
>Make Casters More Powerful changes!
Correction: all these changes make Druid more powerful. Good thing because
Druids needed some serious help.
Sean Kennedy
Adjyktyv wrote in message <7mg060$qfk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>What is it your complaining about? The melee classes are exactly as
>they are described in the manual. You wear armor, you carry weapons,
>you beat the snot out of monsters. Period. What more did you expect?
>Have you ever even played another RPG game where melee people did more
>than that? You already get more HP than any other class, you get a far
>greater selection of weapons and armor than I can ever hope to get!
>
>What about those of us who read all the pre-release materials, bought
>the $15 book and believed all the crap about Enchanters being able to
>enchant weapons and armor and played an enchanter for that very
>reason? I've got 16 days of play time (384 HOURS!) into my Enchanter
>character and they're still not sure if we'll ever get to enchant
>weapons and armor! If anyone should be pissed, it's me, not you!
>
>Adjyktyv the Disgruntled Enchanter (cazic-thule)
>
>
Of course, I'm not sure WHY you would want to make your own
magic weapons and armor, as by that time, the glut of magic
weapons and armor farmed and passed around will make it
impossible to make money making them.
Silverlock
Cully) wrote:
>In article <7micbr$k4e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Adjyktyv <msch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Encanters biggest strength, according to the manuals is the ability to
>>permanently enchant armor and weapons, as well as placing temporary
>>enchantments on existing weapons. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE GAME THAT
>>ALLOWS THIS YET!! Yet, the melee classes are moaning that they are
>>getting the short end of the stick, because they spellcasters are
>>getting all the attention. I find it hard to feel sorry for them when
>>their class is working exactly as described.
>
>I, for one, don't think the enchanter needs that particular ability
>to have balance. They're /already/ a must have in a group, and
>they're one of the only classes I can think of that's like that
>(perhaps the only).
>
>Archi Tuttle
>Monk at Large
>Innoruuk
I agree. It was my idea originally when I first started beta testing
that the Enchanter should be an item, person, and place buffer. Verant
had other ideas. I can't really complain because their hybrid
Illusionist/mindmesser turns out to be pretty darn fun to play.
Ingot Head
Dundee <Dun...@SPAMSPAMSPAM.COM
> Oh I think if I try running a mage or a cleric, even, and Shay's
> running a monk or a warrior or what have ya... that would be kinda
> interesting.
Eh, Shay doesn't like Melee much, but she DOES like "things", cool stuff.
Now, I know she LOVES helping people out, so the Cleric was perfect, but if
she's going to try for something different, sounds to me like a
Enchantress/Jeweler would be good for her.
Gaellic
E'Ci
DG
Ed Wheeler <ed.wh...@eu.anritsu.com> wrote in message
news:7mfkq3$p7n$1...@soap.pipex.net...
> > Root spells will now overwrite spells with both positive and negative
> movement components in a more consistent pattern.
> > Banish Undead and Banish Summoned (LVL 49 CLERIC, NECROMANCER, MAGICIAN,
> DRUID, etc.) have been changed from All or Nothing saving t> > throws to a
> regular saving throws. This will make them easier to use against high
level
> creatures.
> > Magician summoning spells that produce multiple items have been changed
to
> summon more items as the Magician's level increases.
> > All Poison and Disease DOT spells have received tuning.
> > Druid DOT's (stinging swarm series) has been adjusted to do more damage
> over a shorter period of time.
> > Immolate (DRUID) now does more damage, but has a shorter duration.
> > Mesmerization (ENCHANTER) has been changed to a straight AOE radius
> spell - it will no longer hang in the area. The AOE radius has been
> increased, as has the range.
> > Ice (LVL 49 DRUID) has been changed from an AOE spell to a single target
> DD spell.
> > Rage (SHAMAN) has been upgraded to a LVL 49 spell - Fury remains level
34.
> > Invisibility spells (Invisibility, Gather Shadows, Camouflage, etc.)
will
> now blink before they wear off.
> > Hitting F1 twice, or /pet target will now target your pet. The Duration
on
> Pack Regeneration (DRUID) has been increased.
> > Shield of Lava (MAGICIAN) has had its mana cost reduced.
> > The Research entries for Intensify Death and Hungry Earth (NECROMANCER)
> have been updated.
> > New high level Necromancer spells have been added to vendors.
> > A new Wizard spell Chill Sight has been added to the Wizard vendors.
> > The Magician's Summon Heatstone and Summon Coldstone spells will now
work
> as long as the Stone is held or worn (the spell effect will never wear
off).
> > The Insight spell (ENCHANTER) now adds Wisdom, not Intelligence.
> Brilliance still adds Intelligence.
> > The Tashan series (ENCHANTER) has had the recasting time reduced.
> > Research for higher level spells has been made a bit easier.
> > Spells that Add HP now work better on pets.
> > The Necromancer's replacement spell for Charm (Screaming Terror) is on
the
> vendors. Play with this spell - it is different from any other spell of
this
> type that you have ever seen.
> > Shrink (SHAMAN) has been put in to the game. It is a Level 19 spell, and
> available in all Shaman starting cities. This spell will only be castable
in
> dungeons. It will not leave an icon on your screen - Shrink will last
until
> you zone.
> > High level Bard song (LVL 40+) will be slightly easier to sing (less
> missed notes).
Richard Cortese
news:378de...@news.iglou.com...
magician. It would make a lovely couple.<grin>
>
>
>
Tatter_D
wrote:
>Dundee wrote in message ...
>
>snip
>
>>I just want to fall over and DIE, I am so very thrilled by all these
>>Make Casters More Powerful changes!
>
>
>Heh. I thought you were just the guy who wanted to play a character type?
>Does it matter if a caster is more powerful than a monk or the reverse?
>Seems to me it only matters if you are trying to keep up with the Jones.
Actually, it matters no matter how you play. Y'see, along with all
the good newsies, they also add bad newsies that never seem to find
their way into the EQNEWS.TXT file. Such as Brewing getting returned
to the nerfdom from which it came. Other changes, however, are done
to monsters so high-level Druids, after getting obscenely beefed, will
still have a challenge or two. Which results in all the classes that
don't get beefs, end up being unable to fight monsters their level,
group or no group. In the end, it will get to where warriors and
rogues literally will be unable to advance beyond level 40, unless
they can find a charitable team of druids willing to have him along as
a mascot/+25% exp provider. No other class, even in six-person
groups, will be able to take on monsters that aren't above deep-green
level.
Nigel Tzeng
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:48:08 -0500, "Mark Asher" <ma...@cdmnet.com>
>wrote:
>group or no group. In the end, it will get to where warriors and
>rogues literally will be unable to advance beyond level 40, unless
>they can find a charitable team of druids willing to have him along as
>a mascot/+25% exp provider. No other class, even in six-person
>groups, will be able to take on monsters that aren't above deep-green
>level.
Oh please people. The LAST thing you want in your high level party
(40+) is a druid. What good are they? Okay...they're good for
succors but do you really want to burn a precious party slot for that?
What do you need in a high level party? At least 1 cleric (only one
with raise dead). 1 monk (best puller in the game). A bard or an
enchanter (mana regen anyone?). A wizard or maybe mage (gotta have a
nuker). That's four. Shaman for back up heals and nice buffs as
number 5 (a fully buffed tank from enchanter, cleric and shaman is
mighty impressive). A second tank, cleric or wizard or a
bard/enchanter (whichever you didn't get) for number 6. Maybe a mage
or a necro or something interesting for flavor.
Druid? What for? I'd rather do a 4 person group over a 5 if I had to
add a druid (and just play a little more conservative) to get more xps
per mob.
I'd add a druid as a 6th if I had a hole in a five-some simply as Mr.
Succor and very strict rules on not getting engaged by mobs IF I feel
the dungeon is dangerous AND I can't fight near a zone line AND I
can't find someone else. They better have high AC items and forget
about being very active other than damage shields, DoTs, and after
action heals. If they burn or get engaged too much it's disband and
"Get lost 'cause you can't succor with mobs on you or if your low on
mana. Go kite a SG or something..."
I'd still prefer a second cleric over a druid. 2.5 healers is very
nice and cleric DDs aren't all that bad since they aren't fire based.
Druids tend to use Careless Lighting (99 damage) until lvl 49. The
fire based DDs simply get resisted to much to bother with. I'd also
prefer a second tank over a druid...although with a monk puller the
amount of deadly pulls (of your own) should be minimized.
I play a druid and you bet I'm not soloing and am building (hopefully
lasting) friendships because it aint the druid giving handouts at lvl
40. Those druids that solo through the easy years are gonna be crying
(more likely whining) when no groups want them at high levels to go in
the fun dungeons.
So a word to the wise lvl 14 druids...there are many groups who would
love to get SoW in the teens. Join a few and hope that one of them
still wants you around 25 levels later. 'Cause if they don't no one
else will.
Solo to catch up or just for the fun of taking down a new red by
yourself (trust me...the 23rd time around it's pretty boring) but stay
with a party for the most part. I doubt you'll regret it...
Nigel
Chris Conway
wrote:
>Oh please people. The LAST thing you want in your high level party
>(40+) is a druid. What good are they? Okay...they're good for
>succors but do you really want to burn a precious party slot for that?
1. Best Group Teleports and Evac
2. Pack Regen/Chroplast
3. Pack Wolf Form or SoW
4. Nice STR buff
5. Great damage shields
6. Decent direct damage
7. Decent melee damage
8. Very capable healers
9. Excellent (and recently improved) DOTs (assuming bug fix)
10. Decent resistance buffs
Basically they're a nice addition to a party that has the basics
(tanks, cleric, and a nuker)...roughly equivalent to a Shaman (as they
should be) in usefulness.
I believe that when you creat a Druid you are informed that the class
is an easy one. This explains why they are so powerful at lower
levels. Part of the penalty for this should be reduced effectiveness
at higher levels, in my opinion.
Nigel Tzeng
>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:34:40 GMT, nob...@nowhere.com (Nigel Tzeng)
>wrote:
>
>>Oh please people. The LAST thing you want in your high level party
>>(40+) is a druid. What good are they? Okay...they're good for
>>succors but do you really want to burn a precious party slot for that?
>
>1. Best Group Teleports and Evac
I did list evac but you generally do have a wiz in your group. If
not, get one.
>2. Pack Regen/Chroplast
Rather have a bard. They have a healing song OR simply mana song the
healers so they can drop a couple heals around. Nice to have but
don't want to give up something else to get it.
>3. Pack Wolf Form or SoW
Useless in most HL dungeons and by lvl 40 you can get jboots if you're
willing to camp for it.
>4. Nice STR buff
Rather have a shaman
>5. Great damage shields
>6. Decent direct damage
Damage shields are nice but I'd rather have a good nuker. Which at
lvl 40 Druids are not...unless you really think spending large amounts
of mana to get resisted down to 20 damage a good nuker OR that
Careless Lightning is an effective DD spell against lvl 40 mobs...
>7. Decent melee damage
Enough to give up a 2nd tank?
>8. Very capable healers
At 40th when mobs do more damage a round than the greater heals? It's
certainly better than nothing but if someone is at 2 bulbs don't
expect to keep them alive like you could in the 30s.
Useful enough to keep your cleric alive when the mob goes aggro on
them for the few rounds it takes for someone to pull it off...if they
start with a decent amount of health that is.
>9. Excellent (and recently improved) DOTs (assuming bug fix)
Depends on whether or not you are willing to risk the DoT bug. But
DoTs are nice...but I'd rather have a good nuker. You want DoTs
enough to give up that 2nd mage or wizard?
>10. Decent resistance buffs
Rather have clerical, shaman or enchanter buffs. Which of those 3 are
you willing to dump for druid buffs?
>Basically they're a nice addition to a party that has the basics
>(tanks, cleric, and a nuker)...roughly equivalent to a Shaman (as they
>should be) in usefulness.
I'd rather have a shaman for their nice combat buffs. Adding agility
and dex to the tank is a heck of a lot nicer than a damage shield or
anything else a druid can do for them.
>I believe that when you creat a Druid you are informed that the class
>is an easy one. This explains why they are so powerful at lower
>levels. Part of the penalty for this should be reduced effectiveness
>at higher levels, in my opinion.
Yes, it works out except for the fact that people whine all the time
about Druids being the Uberclass which is plain wrong.
They kick butt at low and med levels. They're a step above rogues at
high levels...and honestly, if you have a party with a tank, wiz,
shaman, cleric, enchanter I'd pick the rogue over the druid. Tank 1
keeps the mob busy, enchanter speeds up rogue (and tank), rogue
backstabs mob for obscene damage very quickly.
And I'd most def pick a bard over a druid to add with the enchanter.
Mana is everything...a bard singing manasong DURING a battle means
that the clerics and wizards who are OOM cen get a bulb back very
quickly for another heal or nuke.
A second cleric is a no brainer if you can get one.
A second wizard or mage is nice too...nicer than adding a druid.
6 people isn't enough for a lot of areas. Just who do you want to
give up to include a druid? Yah, you pick one if you're missing
something and have no other choice but otherwise why?
This wasn't a rant about druid capabilities (which I think are now
fine since the spell change at lvl 49...although lvls 38-48 will still
be a bear) but rather a rant against the inane comments about the all
druid parites at high levels and how no other classes will exist.
Druids are real fun...but you do pay for that fun later when you plain
suck in HL dungeons...which is where all the fun items are.
Nigel
Chris Conway
are better at #2, clerics at #8, shamans at #4, warriors at #7, etc)
then of course they don't stack up. Overall, Druids are a great
class, even at higher levels. Perhaps they aren't the uber-class at
higher levels that they are at lower-levels, but you can't have it
all, can you?
Now you wanna talk about a class that's screwed, try Paladins. If
there is a cleric in the group (i.e. always) their spells are useless
(rougly equivalent to a lvl 14 Cleric at lvls 39-48), and their
fighting is nowhere near as good as warriors (lower skill caps, lower
HP, less powerful weapons, worse armor, no critical hits, no dual
wield, etc).
My single biggest disappointment as being a high level Paladin has
been the inferiority of holy swords to other (sometimes warrior-only)
weapons. Not to mention that they are generally more difficult to
obtain than the more powerful warrior weapons. Fiery Avenger is a
nice pipe dream, but the amount of work it takes to get Soulfire
(which is inferior to the Razing Sword, Mithril Blade, and
Executioner's Axe, among others) is a joke. And the spells are
extremely disappointing.
Oh yeah, and we get an exp hit since we're a hybrid class. Argh.
-- Chris
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 23:25:04 GMT, nob...@nowhere.com (Nigel Tzeng)
Jürgen Pünter
>
>Well, if you're gonna pick on each 1 thing that druids do well (bards
>are better at #2, clerics at #8, shamans at #4, warriors at #7, etc)
>then of course they don't stack up. Overall, Druids are a great
>class, even at higher levels. Perhaps they aren't the uber-class at
>higher levels that they are at lower-levels, but you can't have it
>all, can you?
Must be a specific mindset: I am only 2nd best at this,
only 3rd best at that, only 2nd best here and even only
4th best there. Waaaaahhh - Druids are soooo bad, soooo
useless. We have noooo area where we are best :-(
Juergen Puenter
Vorlin
<90% snipped>
>This wasn't a rant about druid capabilities (which I think are now
>fine since the spell change at lvl 49...although lvls 38-48 will still
>be a bear) but rather a rant against the inane comments about the all
>druid parites at high levels and how no other classes will exist.
If you look at who is bitching about druids it's mostly people looking for
to solo all the way to 50, who thought they had it made with overpowered
shaman dots before and now are lost at sea since they've been 'nerfed' back
to a reasonable level. I guess they figure if they complain about druids
enough then shamans will be restored to their former state, I dunno. Their
comments are inane because their agenda is insane (Jesse Jackson, eat your
heart out).
Ingot Head
Nigel Tzeng <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3794a2ab...@news.bcandid.deja.com...
> >>Oh please people. The LAST thing you want in your high level party
> >>(40+) is a druid. What good are they? Okay...they're good for
> >>succors but do you really want to burn a precious party slot for that?
[snip]
> 6 people isn't enough for a lot of areas. Just who do you want to
> give up to include a druid? Yah, you pick one if you're missing
> something and have no other choice but otherwise why?
The facts I agree with, the analysis I don't
Druids are DESIGNED to be travellers, and generalists. The long list of
things a Druid can do can almost ALWAYS be countered with another class that
can do it better.
You state that group spots are valuable at high levels, which means that a
generalist can be very valuable. A druid is very flexible, and can be a
great hedge against the unexpected. A character that can effectively Burn,
AND buff, AND SoW, AND Heal, AND damage shield, and who can't be matched for
Travel is a valuable addition. Shaman dies? Druid buffs until he comes
back. Cleric went linkdead? Who's going to heal his motionless body until
he gets back on? The Druid can. The idea is that when the Druid finishes
his period of power that starts at level 14, he is good enough in enough
areas to make him valuable to groups as a backup in most things, and a
travel guide.
Still, there are times when you KNOW what you are going to face, and you
KNOW how you are going to fight it, and you can therefore plan for ONLY the
abilities you must have. In these cases, getting the specialist is each
area is desirable.
Most adventuring isn't that predictable though.
Gaellic
E'Ci
Nigel Tzeng
>Well, if you're gonna pick on each 1 thing that druids do well (bards
>are better at #2, clerics at #8, shamans at #4, warriors at #7, etc)
>then of course they don't stack up. Overall, Druids are a great
>class, even at higher levels. Perhaps they aren't the uber-class at
>higher levels that they are at lower-levels, but you can't have it
>all, can you?
That's not the point. The point is who are you willing to lose to get
a druid in a high level group?
Answer: Nobody.
>Now you wanna talk about a class that's screwed, try Paladins. If
>there is a cleric in the group (i.e. always) their spells are useless
>(rougly equivalent to a lvl 14 Cleric at lvls 39-48), and their
>fighting is nowhere near as good as warriors (lower skill caps, lower
>HP, less powerful weapons, worse armor, no critical hits, no dual
>wield, etc).
Yah...but you guys do get greater heal right? Which puts you on par
with Shamans and Druids in healing. Granted your wisdom is generally
lower than ours but you can tank.
And don't worry, Clerical buffs override Druid buffs too. They're the
same track with different names and tend to be slightly better.
Having a Paladin as a 2nd tank is probably better than having a Druid
since they can heal as well and do more damage during the fight.
Yah...I think that a paladin can dish out more damage than a 24pt
damage shield the 99pt careless lightings a druid is dishing. ;)
A pally and an enchanter make a good 2 person combo for the times you
can go light like that. Better than a warrior and enchanter since
greater heal can reduce your downtime quite a bit. It's not effective
as a combat heal though.
Nigel
Nigel Tzeng
<cle...@spamstinks.iglou.com> wrote:
>You state that group spots are valuable at high levels, which means that a
>generalist can be very valuable. A druid is very flexible, and can be a
>great hedge against the unexpected. A character that can effectively Burn,
>AND buff, AND SoW, AND Heal, AND damage shield, and who can't be matched for
They can't burn...but that's an old beef and fixed at 49.
>Travel is a valuable addition. Shaman dies? Druid buffs until he comes
Wizards (which you probably have) can get you close. JBoots get you
the rest of the way...or Selo which is very nice.
If you have a wizard and have the option of Bard or Druid...pick Bard
for straight travel. Selo IS that much faster...
>back. Cleric went linkdead? Who's going to heal his motionless body until
>he gets back on? The Druid can. The idea is that when the Druid finishes
So can...uh...the Shaman, Paladin and I think Ranger. In any case if
something is beating on the Cleric and the Cleric is LD you don't cast
heal to save them you cast Succor unless there are two of you casting
greater heals. Of course you take the whole party with you...
Clerics in trouble are probably better off casting their
invulnerability spell than letting the secondary healers cast on them
(this is at 40+).
Word of warning though: That spell seems to keep you from Evac or
Succor. Have to do more testing.
[snip]
>Still, there are times when you KNOW what you are going to face, and you
>KNOW how you are going to fight it, and you can therefore plan for ONLY the
>abilities you must have. In these cases, getting the specialist is each
>area is desirable.
Gee...you mean like in a dungeon?
>Most adventuring isn't that predictable though.
On everquest? When was the last time you went somewhere without
having a clue as to what you were going to fight? It's not hard to
get intel simply by asking around which is allowed even to roleplayers
eh?
>Gaellic
>E'Ci
I'm not complaing about druid power levels. We get a decent burn now
at 49 so if you can get to 50 you do have some purpose in the group.
But it still doesn't make them some uberclass that needs to be nerfed.
Nigel
Bruce Z. Lysik
N> A pally and an enchanter make a good 2 person combo for the
N> times you can go light like that. Better than a warrior and
N> enchanter since greater heal can reduce your downtime quite a
N> bit. It's not effective as a combat heal though.
My monk used to do a lot of teaming up with a druid. Made a great 2
person team. I'm straight melee, and I can minimize my downtime a
little.
He can heal me more, and help out with some dd against mobs, a couple
buffs on me, and a damage shield. If we were higher levels he could
also SoW me.
Druids might not be great in a /large/ group, but their ability to
fill multiple positions seems pretty damn good to me in small groups.
--
Bruce Z. Lysik <eld...@logrus.com> http://www.logrus.com/~eldrik
Rtheb the Monk, Master Brewer, on Rodcet Nife. "Run away! Run away!"
Nliben the Gnome on Rallos Zek.
Reedo
looked up their spell list one day. I was amazed by the versatility. I
greatly prefer playing in groups of 2 or 3 at the most and in groups that
size a druid with huge range of abilities comes in very handy.
--
Mark
Amazing $14,000 Opportunity. Click below for details.
http://www.9898.com/mreed
Morgan
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:15:47 GMT, cco...@ea.com (Chris Conway) wrote:
>
> >Well, if you're gonna pick on each 1 thing that druids do well (bards
> >are better at #2, clerics at #8, shamans at #4, warriors at #7, etc)
> >then of course they don't stack up. Overall, Druids are a great
> >class, even at higher levels. Perhaps they aren't the uber-class at
> >higher levels that they are at lower-levels, but you can't have it
> >all, can you?
>
> a druid in a high level group?
>
> Answer: Nobody.
If the Druid will keep SoW on everyone, then they are quite valuable.
In a full group of six, I think my ideal composition would be:
Tank: Warrior, Paladin, Ranger, Monk or Shadowknight
Second Tank: Another Tank or a Rogue or Bard
Two Healers: Cleric, Druid or Shaman
One Bomber: Wizard, Magician or Necromancer
One Enchanter: me, of course :)
I would prefer that one of the healers be a Cleric and the other
be a Druid or Shaman so that we get a good variety of buffs on
the tanks. I also like to have a Paladin or Monk as one of the
tanks because they are best at pulling prey: Paladins have Lay
on Hands and Monks have Feign Death.
Of course my views are colored by the fact that I have only
played through the teen levels. I imagine that the healers become
far less effective in melee at later levels and the difference
between hybrid fighters and pure melee classes becomes more
striking.
--
Morgan
Xymarra, High Elf Enchanter on E'Ci
(who made level 20 last night!!!!!)
Dennis Francis Heffernan
wrote:
|the tanks. I also like to have a Paladin or Monk as one of the
|tanks because they are best at pulling prey: Paladins have Lay
|on Hands and Monks have Feign Death.
A L22 or better Ranger will blow both out of the water at pulling because
of Harmony.
Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture (E'ci) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"There's no easy way to be free."
-- Pete Townshend, "Slip Kid"
Jeff K.
Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote in message <3797d9af.375167037@news>...
>|the tanks. I also like to have a Paladin or Monk as one of the
>|tanks because they are best at pulling prey: Paladins have Lay
>|on Hands and Monks have Feign Death.
>
> A L22 or better Ranger will blow both out of the water at pulling because
>of Harmony.
How do you figure? Paladins get the lull line of spells starting at level
15, which works any *anything*, while harmony works only on animals. See how
useful harmony is in most dungeons and then get back to me. : )
Jeff K.
Nystramo on Cazic-Thule
Davian
Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
news:3797d9af.375167037@news...
> |tanks because they are best at pulling prey: Paladins have Lay
> |on Hands and Monks have Feign Death.
>
> A L22 or better Ranger will blow both out of the water at pulling because
> of Harmony.
>
The Ranger will beat the Paladin at pulling anyday (harmony is better than
lull/soothe), but *nobody* can beat a Monk at it.
Harmony works, but it can fail, and if they resist it, you're in trouble....
Against almost all mobs, a monk can simply attack, run a bit back towards
thier group, then Feign Death. The NPC's who were chasing him will stand
around for a while, then one at a time wander back to thier assigned
positions. The monk stands up once he's down to 1 or 2 (or however many
he wants) enemies waiting, hits one, and leads the perfect amount back to
his group.
Davian
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|Harmony works, but it can fail, and if they resist it, you're in trouble....
Feign Death fails too; and Rangers can pull at range. If Harmony goes up
on you at least you have running room.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|How do you figure? Paladins get the lull line of spells starting at level
|15, which works any *anything*, while harmony works only on animals. See how
|useful harmony is in most dungeons and then get back to me. : )
Harmony works on everything too. It doesn't work indoors, but Rangers
don't want to go indoors anyway ;-). (Also, some dungeons count as outdoors,
like Blackburrow, Crushbone and Unrest.)
Davian
> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:49:17 -0400, "Davian" <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> |Harmony works, but it can fail, and if they resist it, you're in
trouble....
>
> Feign Death fails too; and Rangers can pull at range. If Harmony goes up
> on you at least you have running room.
>
If Feign Death fails, nothing happens. The monk just gets up and uses it
again until it works. (actually, the getting up isn't even necessary)
The worst case scenario (when using it for pulling) is either you need an
extra heal when you get back to the group, or you have to let all of the
mobs wander back, get healed and try again.
If Harmony fails, you're running for the zone.
Davian