How OP is ench?

[stormlord]

Here's what inspired me to ask:
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/lets-be-real-enchanters-ruin-early-tlp-play.244446/

I enjoyed playing the ench in OOM missions on live and I also played a chanter to ~71. I boxed off/on. One thing I noticed is how hard it can be, esp. to charm. They SEEM powerful, but it's much trickier in practice.

How common has it been on p1999 for players to complain about overpowered enchanters?

[Rivera]

No one complains about Enchanters. They are very OP though. Best class in game when played well.

[Izmael]

Enchanter on P99 has a high power ceiling, they can be very powerful but require a lot of involvement in order to achieve that power.

The downside to enchanters are

- you're nothing special, everyone has an ench main or alt
- raiding on an ench is dreadfully tedious
- you can only farm that many flawless diamonds or ruby crowns before you're sick of this game

[Gozuk]

Why would anybody complain about an enchanter? Everybody either wants haste of some sort, mind buffs, or to group with you.

[Canelek]

Enchanters are a blast, but definitely require attention due to the instability of the one thing that makes the class so powerful to begin with. Maxed or close to maxed charisma helps a ton, but even then you need to be paying attention lest you wind up a soft splatter of red and hair on the wall.

[sereal]

Bards piss me off.

[Izmael]

Playing an ENC right, you're holding your piss and even looking away for 2 seconds can result in your death.

FTFY

[TheOutdoorNerd]

It's probably the hardest class to play well, so it makes sense that it's the most powerful. It's so much work to play one at that level, though. I like my necro because I get most of that power with about 1/4 of the work, plus being able to FD and go AFK. When you go AFK as a chanter, there's 100% chance charm will break and eat you within a second of taking your eyes off the screen. And the 255 CHA just means the pet will laugh while it's eating you.

[Lulz~Sect]

imaging having a pet festering hag

then imagine killing it for full xp after it kills one for u

scale that up to end game

the end

[dbouya]

Enchanters might be OP, but we need them to be on p99. On daybreak things are just way too easy and so being strong is an actual problem that can make the game less fun. Things are still hard enough on p99 that no matter which OP class you are, it's still fun, because it's still risky.

[Rivera]

Enchanters might be OP, but we need them to be on p99. On daybreak things are just way too easy and so being strong is an actual problem that can make the game less fun. Things are still hard enough on p99 that no matter which OP class you are, it's still fun, because it's still risky. I don't think anyone is saying we don't need Enchanters or even that they need a nerf.

[Faiding]

Bards piss me off.

This. My god this.

Nothing like 4 useless songs eating up spell slot space so I can't rune/bedlam.

[Triiz]

This. My god this.

Nothing like 4 useless songs eating up spell slot space so I can't rune/bedlam.

Start casting Bedlam, click off song, get buffed with Bedlam. Repeat for Rune. It's 1 extra click when you need to rebuff, a slight inconvenience at worst.

[Sonderbeast]

Noob class, try warrior.

[Troxx]

It's probably the hardest class to play well, so it makes sense that it's the most powerful. It's so much work to play one at that level, though. I like my necro because I get most of that power with about 1/4 of the work, plus being able to FD and go AFK. When you go AFK as a chanter, there's 100% chance charm will break and eat you within a second of taking your eyes off the screen. And the 255 CHA just means the pet will laugh while it's eating you.

Hardest class to play well?

Nah.

[Troxx]

This. My god this.

Nothing like 4 useless songs eating up spell slot space so I can't rune/bedlam.

Smart bards don't twist worthless songs. If a group is rolling multiple classes with powerful buffs I generally ask the most buffed person (usually the tank) how many free slots they've got. If it's 4 I don't twist more than 3 so there's always room for a heal over time. Between slows, snares, debuffs, cc, and charm - there's a lot of other useful stuff a bard can sing that doesn't eat up a buff slot. I mean seriously, you can always substitute instant mana pulses in lieu of a redundant haste song with marginal stat increases.

On the flip side, smart players click off buffs they don't need. Do you NEED that stat buff? How much value is it really adding? In those situations, click off the shit you don't need.

[Yasi]

On the early days of Agnarr, a disproportionate share of the people rolled Enchanter, as they are highly gear in-dependent and can basically solo most (krono) camps.

In classic, the charm pets were superior dps by far due to the shitty gear around.

Because Agnarr is a try-hard pixel paradise, you often ended up with people refusing to join your group if it didn't had an enchanter, because not having one would nerf your kill speed so hard and people were eager to level as fast as possible. Taking some camps, for example LDCs in SolB, the mobs had so much hp, no one would even go there without a chanter with a charm pet.

This changed slightly with Kunark, when higher dps weapons increased the viability of other classes as dps, especially below level 50. It also changed because the chanter share decreased significantly (especially below 50), so there are not enough Enchanters for every group anymore.

What changed it further: charm becomes more dangerous as mobs hit harder (relatively). In Lguk you could easily take your blue froggy, haste it up and let it rampage through your mobs. If charm broke, it might have hit you down to 60-70% before you had it recharmed.

Going forward in expansions, a charm break of a hasted pet might kill you so quick, you won’t have a chance to re-charm. So it becomes a high risk-high reward game, while in early EQ it is just high-reward with limited risk.

Furthermore, on TLPs pet agro works slightly different. In addition to the known Enchanter benefits of Crack, Haste, CC and good dps charm pet, your charm pet can even tank mobs better than most any player tanks. This was especially true for 39+ as the charm tanks had shit loads of hp and would benefit from Complete Heal better than your 1,000 life Langseax warrior tank.

Thus, I think the progression of expansions already decreases the level of overpowerness of the Enchanter class.

They remain a powerful class, but so do others and as Everquest (at least in its early days) was not designed to make every class equally strong, it doesn’t matter. Every class has its benefits and its uses. The gaps were bigger in classic (why would anyone want a rogue in his group in classic?), but they persisted for a long time.

Without ever having played one, I think the Enchanter charm and CC mechanic is pretty cool, I think it is also pretty unique comparing it to other games. They shouldn’t take that away just so everyone feels equally powerful.

Some people forget that EQ’s was designed to be about cooperation, not competition.

[Dulu]

They are the most overpowered class in MMO history.

An enchanter can charm a PET more powerful than the players in his group he's competing with.

But to piggyback off Yasi, I agree that they shouldn't be nerfed.

If they ever do another TLP or a P99 (Teams pvp PLEASE), I'd rather just see some minor tweaks, and perhaps buffs to player-tanks, and maybe Rogue/Ranger/Wizard DPS so that they aren't completely overshadowed by an NPC pet.

[Spyder73]

2 simple changes - Take off the level restrictions on Bard mez/charm and give knights defensive disc, and all of a sudden P99 is actually pretty damn balanced. Druids and Wizards are not in as bad a place as some would make them seem... and they have ports

[Spyder73]

Hardest class to play well?

Nah.

Please keep in mind that P99 is a community of people who think it takes skill to push a dragon in a circle and not eat enrage for the 10 seconds that its active.

[Triiz]

In late Velious, a rich geared monk is super OP too. With the mass amounts of plat and clickies like Puppet Strings on this server, there's few things an Enchanter can solo that a geared monk can't.

Monk also has the advantage of FD to break camps, where as Enchanters are usually using Calm which even with 255 CHA will have a fair amount of crit resists and usually if you get a crit resist on the first mob you're lulling you're either capping, trying to mez and camp, or dead. Add to this the near certainty that charm will break at the worst possible moment, usually as 5 mobs are charging you after a crit resist.

A monk with plat can charm, blind, root, 50% slow, complete heal, DS themselves, insta-cast Rune 4, mass amounts of 300hp heals, on top of the instant 25% of HP Mend heals every 6 min. Even without all of the clickies they can still solo a ton of high end mobs.

[Dulu]

In late Velious, a rich geared monk is super OP too. With the mass amounts of plat and clickies like Puppet Strings on this server, there's few things an Enchanter can solo that a geared monk can't.

Monk also has the advantage of FD to break camps, where as Enchanters are usually using Calm which even with 255 CHA will have a fair amount of crit resists and usually if you get a crit resist on the first mob you're lulling you're either capping, trying to mez and camp, or dead. Add to this the near certainty that charm will break at the worst possible moment, usually as 5 mobs are charging you after a crit resist.

A monk with plat can charm, blind, root, 50% slow, complete heal, DS themselves, insta-cast Rune 4, mass amounts of 300hp heals, on top of the instant 25% of HP Mend heals every 6 min. Even without all of the clickies they can still solo a ton of high end mobs.



Yeah, the difference is you're talking about less than 0.5% of the Monk population. Where as Enchanters, particularly on the TLP's (where death is meaningless) can be as effective right out of the box, naked.

I think the most pressing question is, "If you removed X from Enchanter, are they still OP?" if you answer yes, then they certainly are OP with X intact.

X could be:

-Charm
-Mez
-Clarity
-Haste / STR / Aug

Combined with the fact that Enchanters are almost entirely gear independent, and you have a broken class.

[Kohedron]

Definitely super good and definitely one of the best if not the best class when it comes to group/solo

Wouldn't go quite as far as that guy did though

[Triiz]

Yeah, the difference is you're talking about less than 0.5% of the Monk population. Where as Enchanters, particularly on the TLP's (where death is meaningless) can be as effective right out of the box, naked.

I think the most pressing question is, "If you removed X from Enchanter, are they still OP?" if you answer yes, then they certainly are OP with X intact.

X could be:

-Charm
-Mez
-Clarity
-Haste / STR / Aug

Combined with the fact that Enchanters are almost entirely gear independent, and you have a broken class.

I'm mostly talking about level 60. I don't know anything about TLP's, but on p99 a lot more than 0.5% of the level 60 monk population has access to most of those clickies excluding bladestoppers and Bio orb. Maybe puppet strings, but a lot of people in casual guilds have puppet strings and/or 200k now. Slows, roots, DS, 300hp heal, Complete heal are all relatively cheap or easily farmed and can make up for things like lack of TOV gear.

Sure Enchanter's are more powerful naked and at low levels. An Enchanter with like 100 CHA is going to have a shit load of charm breaks and no HP to survive them though.

[Dulu]

I'm mostly talking about level 60. I don't know anything about TLP's, but on p99 a lot more than 0.5% of the level 60 monk population has access to most of those clickies excluding bladestoppers and Bio orb. Maybe puppet strings, but a lot of people in casual guilds have puppet strings and/or 200k now. Slows, roots, DS, 300hp heal, Complete heal are all relatively cheap or easily farmed and can make up for things like lack of TOV gear.

Sure Enchanter's are more powerful naked and at low levels. An Enchanter with like 100 CHA is going to have a shit load of charm breaks and no HP to survive them though.

The math for CHA's impact on charm is shoddy at best.

Also, if you need to invest 200k worth of gear onto a class to make it compete with a naked version of another class. Perhaps there is an underlying issue we should address?

[Triiz]

The math for CHA's impact on charm is shoddy at best.


Are you talking about TLP's? On p99 the difference between Enchanter charming on a CR with low 100's CHA and Enchanter charming with 255 CHA is night and day.

Comparing naked classes doesn't really make sense. A naked Bard can sustain way more DPS than a naked Rogue even without the bard charming. Does that make bard a super OP DPS class?

Classic Everquest was never about every class having the exact same level of power, especially naked.

[dbouya]

I mean in anarchy online enchanters (renamed to bureaucrats) have everything enchanters have but they also get an experience gain group buff :-p

Although a level 10 mage can also just be buffed to summon a level 50 mage pet :-p (engineer/meta).

AO basically just cribbed EQ1 (came out 1-2 years later) only it was sci-fi and way more janky (although AO basically pioneered everything sony stole back for LDON in the base game).

[Dulu]

Are you talking about TLP's? On p99 the difference between Enchanter charming on a CR with low 100's CHA and Enchanter charming with 255 CHA is night and day.

Comparing naked classes doesn't really make sense. A naked Bard can sustain way more DPS than a naked Rogue even without the bard charming. Does that make bard a super OP DPS class?

Classic Everquest was never about every class having the exact same level of power, especially naked.

Show me the evidence.


It does make sense. Not naked necessarily, but with the same amount of cash invested in them. You can't compare a stock enchanter to a monk with 200,000 platinum worth of toys invested into it. Not to mention, in a fresh world where these items either A.) Don't exist, or B.) are much more expensive. AKA,
a vacuum.



A fresh player rolling a monk, or an enchanter right now? Enchanter blows the monk out of the water in every conceivable situation.

[Canelek]

Not sure if anyone has gathered any numerical evidence on CHA, but it is pretty easy to have a subjective test by removing CHA gear and trying to charm the same things you've been XPing on. Charm "seems" much more reliable over 200, 225, etc. Especially when charming mobs that are fairly close in level.

At level 45 and forgetting to buff Radiant Visage in Grobb, I was having a miserable time. With the CHA buff, and back up to 231, things went much smoother. This was against the level 39 guards, btw.

Subjective, yes, but it is pretty easy to tell the difference (so it seems). If someone has actual numbers, I am sure they will post.

That said, I wouldn't bother to compare to TLPs since those aren't even the same game anymore.

[Dulu]

Not sure if anyone has gathered any numerical evidence on CHA, but it is pretty easy to have a subjective test by removing CHA gear and trying to charm the same things you've been XPing on. Charm "seems" much more reliable over 200, 225, etc. Especially when charming mobs that are fairly close in level.

At level 45 and forgetting to buff Radiant Visage in Grobb, I was having a miserable time. With the CHA buff, and back up to 231, things went much smoother. This was against the level 39 guards, btw.

Subjective, yes, but it is pretty easy to tell the difference (so it seems). If someone has actual numbers, I am sure they will post.

That said, I wouldn't bother to compare to TLPs since those aren't even the same game anymore.

I stopped focusing on CHA, and went for +HP/AC and +Mana, and found myself charming/mezzing the same, but slightly tankier when mobs would break.


Without hard evidence to back it up, I don't think CHA even works in PVE. (It works for vendoring items)

[Canelek]

I stopped focusing on CHA, and went for +HP/AC and +Mana, and found myself charming/mezzing the same, but slightly tankier when mobs would break.


Without hard evidence to back it up, I don't think CHA even works in PVE. (It works for vendoring items)


Interesting. I am curious if anyone has done extensive testing. Again, my experience is entirely subjective and my level is rather low @ 45.

[wwoneo]

I stopped focusing on CHA, and went for +HP/AC and +Mana, and found myself charming/mezzing the same, but slightly tankier when mobs would break.


Without hard evidence to back it up, I don't think CHA even works in PVE. (It works for vendoring items)

Testing was already done back in Kunark by Save, Loraen and Tecmos. CHA does have a significant effect on charm times. They already posted their data in the past. If you're interested I suggest you go find it.

[Dulu]

Testing was already done back in Kunark by Save, Loraen and Tecmos. CHA does have a significant effect on charm times. They already posted their data in the past. If you're interested I suggest you go find it.

Significant is a subjective term.

Are we talking 5%? 7%?

Show your math, because playing p99 right now with NO CHARISMA bonus, seems exactly the same as playing with Charisma bonus.

[wwoneo]

Significant is a subjective term.

Are we talking 5%? 7%?

Show your math, because playing p99 right now with NO CHARISMA bonus, seems exactly the same as playing with Charisma bonus.

It's not my math. The data was thrown up here somewhere. And i said, I don't really care. I'm not your researcher. Go find the data they posted if you're interested. And by significant, it was enough data and an increase in power that all of them decided to go CHA and not HP as a primary stat.

[Dulu]

It's not my math. The data was thrown up here somewhere. And i said, I don't really care. I'm not your researcher. Go find the data they posted if you're interested. And by significant, it was enough data and an increase in power that all of them decided to go CHA and not HP as a primary stat.

Why are you posting in the thread exactly then?

Because I've done the research, and to me - it makes practically no difference.

85 vs 200ish makes essentially no difference at all in my gameplay.


Bring two sets of gear next time you enchanters are out playing. Swap them. See if you notice any difference.

[wwoneo]

Why are you posting in the thread exactly then?

Because I've done the research, and to me - it makes practically no difference.

85 vs 200ish makes essentially no difference at all in my gameplay.


Bring two sets of gear next time you enchanters are out playing. Swap them. See if you notice any difference.

I'm posting to enlighten people, and not have them be misinformed by you. Also, I have tested it myself (without producing any data). I tested it after reading their data several years ago. I came to the same conclusion they did. There was still variance, but the amount of time charm lasted was a lot better on average than without the charisma.

[wwoneo]

Why are you posting in the thread exactly then?

Because I've done the research, and to me - it makes practically no difference.

85 vs 200ish makes essentially no difference at all in my gameplay.


Bring two sets of gear next time you enchanters are out playing. Swap them. See if you notice any difference.

Also, I recommend using max CHA for lull purposes.

[wwoneo]

Why are you posting in the thread exactly then?

Because I've done the research, and to me - it makes practically no difference.

85 vs 200ish makes essentially no difference at all in my gameplay.


Bring two sets of gear next time you enchanters are out playing. Swap them. See if you notice any difference.

Here's a small portion of the data... you can find the rest. They posted a lot more data out there. This is just to prove my point.
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92423

[Triiz]

Why are you posting in the thread exactly then?

Because I've done the research, and to me - it makes practically no difference.

85 vs 200ish makes essentially no difference at all in my gameplay.


Bring two sets of gear next time you enchanters are out playing. Swap them. See if you notice any difference.

I'd pay to watch you farm something like SG with 85 CHA.

[wwoneo]

I'd pay to watch you farm something like SG with 85 CHA.

Me too. Anyway, I would just ignore anything that guy has to say. He's a red player.

[Samoht]

Here's a small portion of the data... you can find the rest. They posted a lot more data out there. This is just to prove my point.
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92423

Oh, man. Please do not link this steaming pile of shit and pretend like it's some sort of bible on CHA. This test is not nearly extensive enough to account for RNG. 11 iterations each? It's a joke.

Because I've done the research, and to me - it makes practically no difference.

85 vs 200ish makes essentially no difference at all in my gameplay.

And this isn't any sort of proof, either. It's anecdotal at best.

If someone really wants an answer, they will set up tests using different levels of CHA and different levels of targets with and without tash and repeat the tests a few hundred times each at the minimum.

What you will find is that low level targets will almost always have a high duration charm and that targets near your level will almost never last long no matter what your total CHA is for either instance, which 100% supports both of your points of view.

What you'll also most likely find is that tashed targets significantly below your level (but still blue) will last longer with more CHA.

This server uses modified spell files, so there's no way for us to know the mechanic for sure, but test from Raev is nonsense at best.

The two of you need to stop arguing semantics. You're just arguing past each other and getting nowhere. Try working together on this.

Also remember that CHA affects more than charm and vendor prices.

[wwoneo]

Oh, man. Please do not link this steaming pile of shit and pretend like it's some sort of bible on CHA. This test is not nearly extensive enough to account for RNG. 11 iterations each? It's a joke.


If you actually read what I wrote I clearly state that is a SMALL portion of the data that has been posted out there. If you want to find the rest go for it. I'll do it for you if you pay me. If you have proof to the opposite, then post it. Otherwise, GTFO with your trash talk kthx.

Also, we aren't discussion what affects charm durations the most. We are only discussing if CHA has an effect on charm durations. So we dont give a shit about mob levels and stuff as you posted. It has nothing to do with this conversation. You need lessons in deep reading.

[Samoht]

If you actually read what I wrote I clearly state that is a SMALL portion of the data that has been posted out there. If you want to find the rest go for it. I'll do it for you if you pay me. If you have proof to the opposite, then post it. Otherwise, GTFO with your trash talk kthx.

No it's not. Check the time stamps. Raev's test was shit. I don't need some new moron to come along and try to tell us otherwise.

Also, we aren't discussion what affects charm durations the most. We are only discussing if CHA has an effect on charm durations. So we dont give a shit about mob levels and stuff as you posted. It has nothing to do with this conversation. You need lessons in deep reading.

Oh wow, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

[wwoneo]

And this isn't any sort of proof, either. It's anecdotal at best.



I love how you immediate ridicule that guy and then post your own understanding of CHA without evidence. Don't bother coming back to this thread.

[wwoneo]

No it's not. Check the time stamps. Raev's test was shit. I don't need some new moron to come along and try to tell us otherwise.

Ummmm yes it is. That ONE SMALL thread isn't the only information posted on the subject... derp. Anyway, I'm off to go have fun in the sun. Have fun diddling your dangle while contemplating why you still physically can't roll yourself out of bed.

[Samoht]

Ummmm yes it is. That ONE SMALL thread isn't the only information posted on the subject... derp.

Oh really? Post more.

[wwoneo]

Oh really? Post more.

Go find it yourself lazy fuck.

[Samoht]

Go find it yourself lazy fuck.

So then you have no evidence to back your claim? That's because there is none.

[wwoneo]

So then you have no evidence to back your claim? That's because there is none.

So far, im the only one who has posted ANY evidence. Where's yours? After you show me more evidence than what I've posted, we'll talk again. Until then, youre nothing to me.

[Samoht]

So far, im the only one who has posted ANY evidence. Where's yours? After you show me more evidence than what I've posted, we'll talk again. Until then, youre nothing to me.

You haven't posted anything. You linked Raev's 11 iterations each of two tests that didn't show anything besides that he was really bad at testing Charm duration. So, as you say, until you've posted any more evidence yourself, then none exists. Until then, you're just another raging liar on the elf-sim forums that needs to re-evaluate his life choices.

[Qtip]

Level of mob>cha>resists of mob.

Hp means really nothing to an enchanter. You shouldn't be taking many hits regardless. Maybe lvls 1-50 it does. But 50+ a charm break will equal death if you're not fast with stun, mez and recharm.

I would take cha over an extra 200 hp when a fully hasted pet quadding in the 200s with a mob is coming at you.

[sereal]

Some people forget that EQ’s was designed to be about cooperation, not competition.

If that's the goal then why is group XP so damn slow? Even if your group is melting mobs with zero breaks it's still quite a bit slower XP than a enchanter + some other class duo'ing and effectively as safe.

Only reason I can see why enchanters ever join a group < 60 is because they want to be able to take it easy and not have to give 100% focus and possibly if they are after some loot?

I dunno enchanters are pretty cool but it sure seems like they were gifted more than other classes.

[TheOutdoorNerd]

When I rolled my chanter, everyone told me to max my CHA, and as it went up the charms seemed to last longer. Even if it's just anecdotal, I'm a believer.

Having Rune up helps for charming, but damn, those peridots get expensive. But it's mostly just insurance since getting hit with a hasted pet usually = death.

[Raev]

I didn't feel like spending 10 hours glued to the keyboard waiting a charmed ilis knight to break 200x for really accurate conclusions. I felt like it was enough data to conclude that 200 -> 255 cha probably does not give a huge difference in average charm duration, perhaps 10%. For comparison, here is Propo's post showing the huge difference between 85 and 210 charisma: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=738889&postcount=52 Or you can look at that post and see that even with a sample size of 10 the difference between L46 and L53 pets is huge and obvious.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

The cold and timid souls would be you, of course. Or you could do the test yourself and prove me wrong!

[mcoy]

but damn, those peridots get expensive.

Preach it, brother!

-Mcoy

[Troxx]

I love how you immediate ridicule that guy and then post your own understanding of CHA without evidence. Don't bother coming back to this thread.

Trash talking and slinging insults is Samoht's modus operandi.

[Diogene]

Getting cha over 200 buffed is a necessity for charming. Of course there is a huge gap between 85 and 200+ in charming duration. Now, I think 225 buffed for charming is plenty enough, it gives you room for HP slots, and HP is king when charming at high level. Two more hundreds hit points can save your butt easily. Now concerning calming and lulling, thats another story because the checks are alot more based on cha. Get a lull set for those critical jobs, aim at 255

[Ahris]

If that's the goal then why is group XP so damn slow? Even if your group is melting mobs with zero breaks it's still quite a bit slower XP than a enchanter + some other class duo'ing and effectively as safe.

Only reason I can see why enchanters ever join a group < 60 is because they want to be able to take it easy and not have to give 100% focus and possibly if they are after some loot?

I dunno enchanters are pretty cool but it sure seems like they were gifted more than other classes.

Us who remembers the early days of EQ knows that the game was designed for it to take a really long time to reach lvl 50 and for the first years noone really knew for sure how the spells, stats and mechanics worked. It was a much harder game than it is now because of that. You never saw enchanters soloing like they do now because it was too risky to fight without group support.

[Izmael]

Calming mobs is an important enchanter every day activity and CHA definitely affects the crit resist rates very much - don't think anyone will deny that.

So yeah, CHA is paramount for enchanters, for crit calm resists if anything. Maybe I don't know how to play this game but getting a crit on the first or second mob in a group of 5-6, at high levels, usually means I'm probably going to have at least quite some downtime.

As for charm durations, my gut feeling is that it does affect it but again, gut feeling ain't worth much. I wish someone would parse it with a decent sample already.

[Troxx]

I would imagine charisma is more important the higher the mob is relative to you. From high 50s to 60, charming a low dark blue or light blue likely doesn't favor high charisma as potently as charming content that hits in the 120-130+ range and higher. As others have pointed out, having a mob that quads for 140-200 and is hasted represents risk. When you include other pull/group dynamics into the equation - being less likely to have a charm break can make a huge difference. We've all been in that scenario where the charm break magically happens when a pull of 3-5 hits camp.

Enhancers are stupidly powerful and not all that hard to play. The difference between a bad enchanter and a good enchanter boils down to situational awareness and being quick on the draw (and not afk or semi-afk watching Netflix or fapping).

Between a good enchanter and great? There's a lot more involved and the skill needed climbs exponentially.

I'm just happy if an enchanter I group with knows their spell book (i.e. low level cc spells work fine and are practically free to cast) and promptly mezzes. If charming? Pay attention and quickly fire off stun and cc your pet adequately until charmed.

Unfortunately there are a lot of bad enchanters out there - wrong spells at wrong time and really slow to actually lock down adds.

[dbouya]

it wasn't just that it was too dangerous to fight without a group, but that every room in basically every zone already had a group at every camp. enchanters would join the group because otherwise they'd be camping a single hallway spawn.

I remember the days where lguk had like 60-100 and even cazicthule dungeon had like 30+

[Samoht]

Hi, Kettle, I'm black!

Yes, yes you are, Pot. Now get off my tip.

[Raavak]

I remember the days where lguk had like 60-100 and even cazicthule dungeon had like 30+In classic prior to Kunark the life expectancy of an undead froglok was .5 seconds.

[wwoneo]

Yes, yes you are, Pot. Now get off my tip.

You're still in this thread? I thought the entire community already established we don't want you here because you don't have anything of value to add nor do we like you. You may now resume your daily masturbation and crying into a bucket of ice cream.

Maybe we'd let you back in if you stopped being a jackass every single post.

[Samoht]

Maybe we'd let you back in if you stopped being a jackass every single post.

How do you spell hypocrisy? W - W - O - N - E - O

[Bristlebaner]

Enchanters are very capable. They are also very stressful to play properly. You have to buff, mez, watch adds, keep charm up etc. If you're cool with being very active and not having any downtime, it's a very rewarding class.

I have a mage alt for those times I'd rather just chill and not be a neurotic mess at the keyboard.

Also, don't play one if you have to AFK.

[Transylvania]

Have not tried the phantasmist but im in love with the torpor shaman

[trite]

When the server first came out, charm and enchanter single target stun were ridiculously overpowered....stun got nerfed first but then charm got seriously nerfed just before kunark release...enchanters could charm much higher level mobs for much longer periods of time...instead of charming a mob and having it fight on par with another mob you could charm the baddest mob in the zone and wreck everything else with it and people didn't worry about magic resistance on the mob.... the biggest danger was that when charm did eventually break your pet was seriously beast and would wreck you instantly if you didn't pay attention....i remember soloing through the 40s as an enchanter by charming the troll warrior guild leaders and going through the zone and killing all of the guards .....and then you could still sell to the merchants because troll faction didn't go low enough ...so collaboration + troll illusion let you sell to the merchants when you had max bad faction

it was before my time but i heard the issue with stun was that whirl-till-you-hurl was like a 12 second stun that let you keep a mob stunned indefinitely in a mana efficient way

[Izmael]

Lvl 4 mez is a 24 seconds stun and costs 20 mana, how is whirl till you hurl better? Honest question.

[Canelek]

Lvl 4 mez is a 24 seconds stun and costs 20 mana, how is whirl till you hurl better? Honest question.

I believe that the stun wouldn't break upon damage like mez does. So, you could DD, DoT or melee until Whirl wore off.

[Triiz]

Lvl 4 mez is a 24 seconds stun and costs 20 mana, how is whirl till you hurl better? Honest question.

It's not now, Whirl Till You Hurl is nearly useless. Back in the day on Live (and apparently here?) it was a guaranteed 12 second stun with a 6.5 second recast time and a 2.5 second cast time. An Enchanter could keep a mob stun-locked from a distance starting at level 12. It got super nerfed on Live relatively quickly because it was so OP.

[REMEZ]

Enchanters are OP.

9 out of 10 groups you are the group.

[Diogene]

Everybody seems to agree chanters are capable to solo stupid high lvl camps. While it may be true, only the greatest (and they are very few on this server) are able to do so. The difference between a good chanter and a great one is self control. When you just spent 2h setting up a Drusella kill, you really have to be calm and not loose control. I admire people like Tecmos, Nybras and co. These guys show so much assurance, its almost unreal.

[Dulu]

I would imagine charisma is more important


That's all most people in this thread are doing.

Imagining.

Meanwhile, playing with my 85 Charisma Enchanter right now and feeling literally no difference.

[Diogene]

That's all most people in this thread are doing.

Imagining.

Meanwhile, playing with my 85 Charisma Enchanter right now and feeling literally no difference.

Imagining and feeling belong to the same category : subjective perspectives

[shuklak]

Subject to rl results that is!

[Troxx]

That's all most people in this thread are doing.

Imagining.

Meanwhile, playing with my 85 Charisma Enchanter right now and feeling literally no difference.

On a subject like this where we have 18 years of people's practical experience and player-run tests (albeit short with regards to what has been referenced within this thread) that back up said experiences/knowledge/opinion ...

Sorry, but if you want to change people's minds you're going to have to definitively prove it. Until then, the general consensus/wisdom of the community stands. The word of a single ench willfully choosing to rock 85 charisma while charming is insufficient.

[Dulu]

On a subject like this where we have 18 years of people's practical experience and player-run tests (albeit short with regards to what has been referenced within this thread) that back up said experiences/knowledge/opinion ...

Sorry, but if you want to change people's minds you're going to have to definitively prove it. Until then, the general consensus/wisdom of the community stands. The word of a single ench willfully choosing to rock 85 charisma while charming is insufficient.

One of the laziest, drug-addicted communities.

World of Warcraft, Dark Age of Camelot, RIFT, League, etc.. people have this stuff mapped out with math from day 1.

[Sethius Marlowe]

One of the laziest, drug-addicted communities.

World of Warcraft, Dark Age of Camelot, RIFT, League, etc.. people have this stuff mapped out with math from day 1.

Cool. Looking forward to your math.

[Ikon]

On live CHA had no effect on charm duration until 50 after which it has a 4%, 8%, 16%, 32% and 64% chance of saving the charm on a break roll for ever 50 CHA you have.

The code was set:

ChanceToBreak = if(Level > 50, ((50/CHA)*4%), 4%+(4% * (YourLevel - MobLevel))) + 3

That was then converted with a still secret formula into an ASCII character and sent to the mob and if the ASCII character was not a smiley the charm would break.

I have proof but I'm not your researcher so I won't post it.

[Lhancelot]

I have proof but I'm not your researcher so I won't post it.

Why not, you play here right? Help the server out! They could probably use legitimate classic information regarding code stuff like this.

[Argh]

Loraen does all the math 'round these parts.

[kjs86z]

I'd say a full BiS w/ all spells (Torpor) Shaman is more powerful than an apples to apples enchanter.

This is coming from a good level 60 enchanter. Not top tier, because there are a few mechanics / clickies / etc I just refuse to micro...but damn I love filling a pet up w/ -MR items, a swarmcaller + torch, tolp robe, and going to town w/ my level 60 cleric buddy.

There isn't much we can't absolutely mow down with a full hasted, hardly-breaking pet that slows for us so I can use the spell slot for something else. Sometimes when we feel froggy we hit up HS w/ a staff of undead legion and just laugh as the pet procs a 585 undead nuke while quadding.

[dbouya]

does attack speed effect proc rate at all?
what I've read from interviews from like 2001 era indicate that proc rate is normalized into per minute calculations. if hitting more rapidly increases proc rate it's probably a non-classic bug?

[fadetree]

No, it doesn't.
A massive dex buff like garou sure does, though.

[MappaEQ]

Chanters are so much fun and very powerful. But you'd better be good..it's not the easiest thing to do.