allakhazam poll: shadowknights undesirable?
eguad
I get the general opinion from this group that shadow knights
suck. Even Allakhazam has a poll for the least desirable class
in a group and shadowknight is number two (rogue is #1 last
I checked).
What's so terribly wrong with shadowknights? Seems like a
pretty fun class so far, I'm only 20 though. Am I going to have
problems finding groups to take me later?
Eric
BlueAcid98
(even though we have more problems and issues than fingers on my hands). Later
on, we can even outdmg SKs if we are lucky :)
Sam Schlansky
The problem is that the vast majority of people going to his site are low
level, and thus don't know what they're talking about, much like yourself. I
don't mean to be insulting, you just don't have the knowledge, that's all.
That much is obvious when they say that rogues are the least desirable in a
group-- rogues can produce the most unresistable melee damage of ANY class.
Rogues are absolutely wonderful at high levels, and with their new evade skill
they can actually backstab without being instantly killed. Then again, they DO
pickpocket from the monster's main pool of loot... well... suffice it to say
that rogues really don't suck any more. They certainly aren't #1 on the list of
least desirable classes.
Until fairly recently, I would have said that shadowknights bite the big one...
but now my feelings are somewhat mixed on shadowknights. I'm 100% certain that
medium-race (human, dark elf, erudite) shadowknights are total crap... the lack
of slam is a huge decrease in power... but ogre (and to a lesser extent troll)
shadowknights are actually fairly good now with the recent increase in
hitpoints and taunt skill.
If a fair number of *good* one-handed medium-race-only shadowknight-only
weapons are added for all level ranges, then medium-race shadowknights will be
fairly viable with a shield for slam, but right now they're pretty badly off.
Ogre shadowknights can tank almost as well as warriors and also get some
minorly useful spells. They do have a MASSIVE xp penalty though, especially
the trolls... just MASSIVE.
In the expansion pack, shadowknights get by far the best offensive hybrid spell
list including the level 44 necro pet which quad attacks for 48 and a 1100
damage DoT. Paladins also get a REALLY good spell list defensively, and rangers
are pretty much screwed.
But I digress... the class least useful in a group? Wizards, by far. Any high-
level player will say the same.
Sam
--
/| Sam Schlansky <sam[at]operation3d[dot]com>
/| I speak for myself only unless noted otherwise.
/| PGP Key ID: 0x63A9D707
/| 3DNews.net: News With Perspective!
/| 3DHardware.net: Taking Your Machine To The Third Dimension!
/| Remove "deletethis" to email.
Billy Shields
: eg...@usa.net (eguad) wrote in <8ammcm$c...@news.or.intel.com>:
:>I get the general opinion from this group that shadow knights
:>suck. Even Allakhazam has a poll for the least desirable class
:>in a group and shadowknight is number two (rogue is #1 last
:>I checked).
:>
:>What's so terribly wrong with shadowknights? Seems like a
:>pretty fun class so far, I'm only 20 though. Am I going to have
:>problems finding groups to take me later?
: The problem is that the vast majority of people going to his site are low
: level, and thus don't know what they're talking about, much like yourself. I
: don't mean to be insulting, you just don't have the knowledge, that's all.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
: That much is obvious when they say that rogues are the least desirable in a
: group-- rogues can produce the most unresistable melee damage of ANY class.
: Rogues are absolutely wonderful at high levels, and with their new evade skill
: they can actually backstab without being instantly killed. Then again, they DO
: pickpocket from the monster's main pool of loot... well... suffice it to say
: that rogues really don't suck any more. They certainly aren't #1 on the list of
: least desirable classes.
I'm not so sure the damage output of rogues is so clearcut. Couldn't
a warrior or rogue wielding dual planes weapons outdamage a rogue?
Sure you can factor in backstab but it cycles what? Every 8
seconds? And probably doesn't hit all the time either (I haven't
seen enough high level rogues to judge).
And ranger/warrior weapons tend to get better procs as well. While
a 50 rogue might be using an Eyerazzia and a Crystalline Spear the
other two classes have Ykeshas, Fluxbladed Axes, Revultant Whips
(excellent taking into account magic number theory though it
doesn't have a proc), Bloodfire, Mistwalkers, etc.
: Until fairly recently, I would have said that shadowknights bite the big one...
: but now my feelings are somewhat mixed on shadowknights. I'm 100% certain that
: medium-race (human, dark elf, erudite) shadowknights are total crap... the lack
: of slam is a huge decrease in power... but ogre (and to a lesser extent troll)
: shadowknights are actually fairly good now with the recent increase in
: hitpoints and taunt skill.
I still think they suck. Its nothing to do with their spell lists.
Its everything to do with them not having dual wield. The same
applies to paladins. If magic number theory is true and continues
into the expansion then that disparity is simply going to worsen.
: If a fair number of *good* one-handed medium-race-only shadowknight-only
: weapons are added for all level ranges, then medium-race shadowknights will be
: fairly viable with a shield for slam, but right now they're pretty badly off.
It still suffers from the non-dual wielding problem.
: Ogre shadowknights can tank almost as well as warriors and also get some
: minorly useful spells. They do have a MASSIVE xp penalty though, especially
: the trolls... just MASSIVE.
Yeah its pretty ridiculous. A troll SK needs nearly DOUBLE the exp
of a halfling warrior (according to ShowEQ data posted on various
message boards and newsgroups like this one).
: In the expansion pack, shadowknights get by far the best offensive hybrid spell
: list including the level 44 necro pet which quad attacks for 48 and a 1100
: damage DoT. Paladins also get a REALLY good spell list defensively, and rangers
: are pretty much screwed.
Rangers stil lhave dual wield though. :-) But yes the expansion list
for SKs is excellent--especially that pet (wow).
: But I digress... the class least useful in a group? Wizards, by far. Any high-
: level player will say the same.
Couldn't agree more. The race for the next four slots is between
SKs, pallys, druids and clerics (imho).
Dave Clark
to play, you don't hit as hard as a warrior or have as many HP for that
matter.
So usually if a group needs a tank they prefer a warrior. But we do have all
kinds of little 'card tricks' we can provide to a group. When equipped well
we
can do decent damage and be a decent tank. Not as good as a warrior, but not
terrible either. I haven't used my pet since level 25 or so, it's worthless.
Just
play the game well, don't be a prick, and be prepared to wait on lists for
groups
in a few more levels. You may have to wait a bit, but you will get a group.
Oh yeah, life gets a lot easier at level 30. Feign death and invis, 2 very
useful
spells.Through the good and the bad, I have grown to love this guy. Good
luck to you.
Ronak Gloomblade
34th Shadowknight
<Order of the Helping Hand>
Xegony
eguad <eg...@usa.net> wrote in message news:8ammcm$c...@news.or.intel.com...
> Hi,
>
> I get the general opinion from this group that shadow knights
> suck. Even Allakhazam has a poll for the least desirable class
> in a group and shadowknight is number two (rogue is #1 last
> I checked).
>
> What's so terribly wrong with shadowknights? Seems like a
> pretty fun class so far, I'm only 20 though. Am I going to have
> problems finding groups to take me later?
>
> Eric
>
>
Ratbert
on big monsters, and sometimes pulled more than we wanted.... harm touch
saves lives. heh horray for SK's
My friend lvl 20 sk wielding a dark reaver does a good 40 dmg, and i believe
SK's get double attack at 20? can't remember.
--
Ratbert, Magician (Unity's Might) ZONE: news
<Erollisi Marr>
Dave Clark <dcl...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:g5Iz4.20766$Z5.3...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Lwalgee
>
>: group-- rogues can produce the most unresistable melee damage of ANY class.
>
>: Rogues are absolutely wonderful at high levels, and with their new evade
>skill
>: they can actually backstab without being instantly killed. Then again, they
>DO
>: pickpocket from the monster's main pool of loot... well... suffice it to
>say
>: that rogues really don't suck any more. They certainly aren't #1 on the
>list of
>: least desirable classes.
>
>I'm not so sure the damage output of rogues is so clearcut. Couldn't
>a warrior or rogue wielding dual planes weapons outdamage a rogue?
>Sure you can factor in backstab but it cycles what? Every 8
>seconds? And probably doesn't hit all the time either (I haven't
>seen enough high level rogues to judge).
>
>And ranger/warrior weapons tend to get better procs as well. While
>a 50 rogue might be using an Eyerazzia and a Crystalline Spear the
>other two classes have Ykeshas, Fluxbladed Axes, Revultant Whips
>(excellent taking into account magic number theory though it
>doesn't have a proc), Bloodfire, Mistwalkers, etc.
I had a rogue partner for a long time but have finally left him behind as he
plays other characters. Especially when he was 5 to 8 levels below me and I
could keep the mob taunted on me (warrior). Mobs went down _fast_ after Verant
fixed the backstab and the addition of evade made it far easier to do.
Bob Marley
wizard does to one mob during a fight? If you dont know then find
out. I generally do about 1/3 of the total damage on a mob in every
fight, and no it doesnt take more than one or two casts on a blue to
do that much.\, and I can use my highest level spell about 10 times in
one bar of mana. Thats one third of the total hps on that mob in a 6
member group. That is what wizrads are for, killing mobs, nothing
else, and they do it well.
I think if our damage was displayed to evryone else, people would have
a second opinion.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 03:15:49 GMT, s...@deletethis.operation3d.com (Sam
Schlansky) wrote:
>eg...@usa.net (eguad) wrote in <8ammcm$c...@news.or.intel.com>:
>
>>I get the general opinion from this group that shadow knights
>>suck. Even Allakhazam has a poll for the least desirable class
>>in a group and shadowknight is number two (rogue is #1 last
>>I checked).
>>
>>What's so terribly wrong with shadowknights? Seems like a
>>pretty fun class so far, I'm only 20 though. Am I going to have
>>problems finding groups to take me later?
>
>The problem is that the vast majority of people going to his site are low
>level, and thus don't know what they're talking about, much like yourself. I
>don't mean to be insulting, you just don't have the knowledge, that's all.
>
>That much is obvious when they say that rogues are the least desirable in a
>group-- rogues can produce the most unresistable melee damage of ANY class.
>Rogues are absolutely wonderful at high levels, and with their new evade skill
>they can actually backstab without being instantly killed. Then again, they DO
>pickpocket from the monster's main pool of loot... well... suffice it to say
>that rogues really don't suck any more. They certainly aren't #1 on the list of
>least desirable classes.
>
>Until fairly recently, I would have said that shadowknights bite the big one...
>but now my feelings are somewhat mixed on shadowknights. I'm 100% certain that
>medium-race (human, dark elf, erudite) shadowknights are total crap... the lack
>of slam is a huge decrease in power... but ogre (and to a lesser extent troll)
>shadowknights are actually fairly good now with the recent increase in
>hitpoints and taunt skill.
>
>If a fair number of *good* one-handed medium-race-only shadowknight-only
>weapons are added for all level ranges, then medium-race shadowknights will be
>fairly viable with a shield for slam, but right now they're pretty badly off.
>
>Ogre shadowknights can tank almost as well as warriors and also get some
>minorly useful spells. They do have a MASSIVE xp penalty though, especially
>the trolls... just MASSIVE.
>
>In the expansion pack, shadowknights get by far the best offensive hybrid spell
>list including the level 44 necro pet which quad attacks for 48 and a 1100
>damage DoT. Paladins also get a REALLY good spell list defensively, and rangers
>are pretty much screwed.
>
>But I digress... the class least useful in a group? Wizards, by far. Any high-
>level player will say the same.
>
>Sam
David
or just do some non-static camps.
Then you'll realize how badly you were misled by Verant.
If you do 1/3 the damage, you will be sitting through the
next 3 fights. Guaranteed.
(Or for a preview, just visit L.Guk and listen to the
Wizards petitioning for groups..until they give up and
camp)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
dstep
Shadowknight is just a fairly weak class for what you have to put
up with. They are better than a warrior in some situations and worse
in others. Your range of weapons are far more limited, mostly you will
stick to some big 2 hand slasher. Your pet is semi useless except for
soloing some things you fear and beat on with your pet. Fear actually
makes sk better than warrior in one aspect starting at level 15.
My little 16 sk de girl can kill white kodis without usually taking
much damage at all, Darkness for control, fear. My level 8 pet can
take 2 hits maybe while i step back to darkness and fear then we both
beat on it.
>Hi,
>I get the general opinion from this group that shadow knights
>suck. Even Allakhazam has a poll for the least desirable class
>in a group and shadowknight is number two (rogue is #1 last
>I checked).
>
>What's so terribly wrong with shadowknights? Seems like a
>pretty fun class so far, I'm only 20 though. Am I going to have
>problems finding groups to take me later?
>
>Eric
>
At high levels ive seen an sk solo giants. I don't think a level 50
warrior can really solo a giant still.
By solo, i mean with what they came with, I don't mean soloing with
jboots (many people won't even have those now by level 47) or soloing
after someone else casts sow on you.
how can they? Like a druid easily soloing griffons they simply have
the tools. they can slow the giant with darkness possibly and fear
it if it doesn't res, free hits time.
My druid would much prefer grouping with an sk on outside stuff
instead of a warrior. I can snare, the sk can fear and beat on it.
However, the main complaint is true. Sks get a HUGE xp penalty, bigger
than warrior, ranger, paladin. They get the most of the hybrids
(paladin ranger). They get this penalty for having necro spells like
fear and darkness i guess... though these spells don't really make
them that great.
Basically id say this, if you want to run around as a race like a de,
and group with troll and ogre shamans, and de clerics and necros, on
things like treants and druids and be the designated tanky person
who can darkness or fear in a pinch too, then sk is for you.
Ive always seen sks in groups doing those things.
If you want to be a caster of dark horrible magics with a skel pet
who is also a tank, sk is not really for you. Instead you should drop
the tank part and cut to the chase and be a necro - your pet is the
tank. If you just want to be a warrior tanky type who can heal
themselves some id say paladin. They get things like greater heal
and sk lifetaps really suck.
mostly sk seems like the class which is played the most by a
roleplaying type person. If you want to play an evil knight character,
this is the class for that even if it is not so super powerful, self
sufficient, or easy to level. In fact, those types of people often
welcome that adversity, along with not being welcomed hardly
anywhere.
D
Bob Marley
<triffid_9...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>All I can say in response to that is..wait till 40,
>or just do some non-static camps.
I am lev 43 actually.
We normally kill blues. High blues and tougher I cant say I do 1/3
damage, but at least 1/4. How much does the avarage lev 40 mob have?
4000hps? I do 400 per blast, so two blasts and ive done almost 1/4
damage. Since I can blast 10 times, thats 5 mobs total on one bar of
mana. With clarity and/or bard mana song, It just doesnt matter much
if I blast 2-3 times per mob even.
Alasdair Allan
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:43:02 -0800, David
><triffid_9...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>All I can say in response to that is..wait till 40,
>>or just do some non-static camps.
>
>I am lev 43 actually.
>We normally kill blues. High blues and tougher I cant say I do 1/3
>damage, but at least 1/4. How much does the avarage lev 40 mob have?
>4000hps? I do 400 per blast, so two blasts and ive done almost 1/4
>damage. Since I can blast 10 times, thats 5 mobs total on one bar of
>mana. With clarity and/or bard mana song, It just doesnt matter much
>if I blast 2-3 times per mob even.
Blast as much as you like, I still won't group with you. I don't like
sitting around waiting for a Wizard to say "ready". I prefer the
efficient way a tank does more damage with less downtime (and most tanks
at 43 will do a lot more than 400 damage in the time it takes you to cast
*and* med it back).
It takes arounnd 12 minutes to med back 2000 mana. that means you need 80
seconds meditation per cast. in 80 seconds a Rogue will do over 1200
damage. You can double that with an Enchanter or Shaman casting a spell
that lasts 6 to 10 minutes.
Why would I give that up for a Wizard that can cast for 400 damage (if not
resisted) in that time?
--
Alasdair Allan
I want my MSIN back