Best Trio That Doesn't Use Enchanter

[Zuranthium]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes they do. Unless you are claiming PatChapp is lying.

You have a serious problem. Repeating for the 3rd time, THAT WAS WITH ENCHANTERS, and it barely worked. Does this thread allow Enchanters? NO.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In other words, you can't name the camps where a level 52 cleric couldn't do it, but a level 60 cleric could do it in the context of a trio. If you were "qualified", you'd be able to list them instead of dodging the question

There have already been others listed throughout the course of the discussions in the past week. You simply never listen. People who are qualified don't need to waste more time talking to riff raff like you, someone who can't even comprehend a simple discussion and makes ludicrous strawmans about completely different scenarios. People also don't necessarily want to give privileged info either.

Originally Posted by plzrelax [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bard and a couple wizards for leveling

I brought that up earlier, 2 Bard and a Wizard is best. Swarming being justly limited to 25 MOBs means there is benefit to doing 2 swarms simultaneously, and 2 Bard is wayyyyyyy better in general than 2 Wiz.

Originally Posted by Vexenu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What do you rank above it?

Bard + Monk + Cleric/Shaman

Whatever the group is, it can't claim to be the overall best if it doesn't have a Bard. The universal charm ability and incredibly versatile toolkit, along with the fastest run speed in the game, is such a powerful package. In places where undead charms are available a Necro can outperform, but that's not everywhere, so Bard is better overall.

[Penish]

bard / monk / cleric is the cleanerist

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You have a serious problem. Repeating for the 3rd time, THAT WAS WITH ENCHANTERS, and it barely worked. Does this thread allow Enchanters? NO.

I would love for you to name a camp this trio (without Enchanters) would be doing that a 52 Cleric couldn't do, but a 60 Cleric could do. My Chardok Royals example simply shows that higher end single group content can be done with pocket characters.

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There have already been others listed throughout the course of the discussions in the past week. You simply never listen. People who are qualified don't need to waste more time talking to riff raff like you, someone who can't even comprehend a simple discussion and makes ludicrous strawmans about completely different scenarios. People also don't necessarily want to give privileged info either.

Please link the posts that mention these camps. Alternatively, summarize. You seem to be suggesting you read these posts that supposedly exist. It would take you less time to do that as opposed to dodging the question.

I am not sure how information that was supposedly already posted earlier this week is "priviledged". It's pretty tough to hide camp information these days too. P99 has been around for 14+ years at this point.

[Troxx]

A posting trend is emerging ….

Tox I think your thread is being hijacked

[Penish]

surprise, surprise, dsm is an idiot /cough

also lol

[Vexenu]

MAG/MAG/MAG would struggle versus really challenging stuff but would be stupidly powerful and fun while leveling. Three air pets (throw in some Gnoll Hide Lariats when possible) to keep mobs perma-stun locked, along with triple Burnt Wood Staff spam. Mobs melting as fast as they can be pulled, pets barely taking damage.

[Keebz]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Chardok Royals can be done with a level 52 Cleric.

Yea clerics are really good when logged in and actively played. That's my whole point.

[PatChapp]

I'm sorry I did this to everyone.

[Solist]

Who in their fucking mind said ranger for anything? Obviously have only ever played ranger here, or have never played ranger. There is no point where you have played a ranger AND something else where you would suggest a ranger is useful for anything in the game, let alone part of a 3man group. These forums never cease to amaze me when rangers which are inherently (by mechanics and bugs) broken here are ever spoken about.


Anyway back on topic.
I'd make the argument that CLE / SHM / MNK is the best.

The addition of pacify, memblur, cheap rezboxes, stun interrupts, and hitpoints cant be scoffed at, a properly played cleric is something this server mostly hasnt seen. There's like 5 people who aren't inbred on this class.

I would suggest the endurance would be higher on single fights with this over necro given the extra HP and healing efficiency. The general agility of the group with the addition of a charisma buff is fairly solid. Great ability to save the cleric on a fail.

For general levelling the necro would be superior especially from low 50's. From 60 onwards except for crawling with undead charmable I'll take the mnk/cle/sham almost exclusively.

[Rimitto]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Definitely agree that Bard + Cleric is the necessary setup to beat the hardest encounters, but Monk is better than Ranger. Monk tanks better and does more DPS and has FD pulling.

I've been in this party setup before and I can attest to it's durability, however, it has it's limitations as well. The monk doesn't have any specialty to it other than taking a beating, and if the monk becomes overwhelmed by pulling 2 many mobs or some type of magic like a DoT or root, then the conversation immediately goes from "is he the better tank" to "is there a cleric with a good ress in the zone". Monks are a niche class that really can only do things in a single way, and once that paradigm is broken, they can't do much else. The bard and cleric would additionally have to pick up the slack for rooting any adds, pops, or extras that the monk doesn't have, which would cause more stress on them.

Ranger also has a larger HP pool than monk which is noticable. You can buff the HP pools and AC of the tank/puller as a cleric, which is something that other combos like necro/shaman just simply don't do or can't do. The closest is what, shaman's talisman's? In other words, the cleric can turn a ranger into a psuedo-warrior, but the monk's best can be a psuedo-ranger in durability.

I'm talking about real-time parties btw, not enclosed situations in a bubble. Shit goes down all the time, and you need to react to it. In those moments you never think "oh darn, I think we really needed a monk to help us out of this jam". It's always "a ranger would've helped", "could use a bard", or "some good healing would be nice."

The question really comes down to Shaman vs Cleric as healing goes, and the statements of shaman utility vs clerics superiority comes into question, but having a Ranger in the party cuts down on Shaman's utility, while Cleric's usefulness is only multiplied by having a class that can tank.

At that point, you'd have to start a different argument of what's better...
Shaman-Necro-Bard vs Ranger-Cleric-Bard

Originally Posted by Toxigen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

holy shit you're bad at eq

before torpor the necro is the main healer with the shaman there for emergency burst heals

before 60 the necro is the main healer.... is a better way to say that statement. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's factually wrong, but keep going with that.
The reason people keep playing clerics is because of the sheer difference in their healing ability vs other classes that simply get by from having healing.

It's like having a glass of water on a hot day vs swimming in a pool or a lake on a hot day. The cleric's innate superior healing abilities allow the parties to pull more and harder targets. You can claim that the necro "is a better healer" if your party isn't taking damage, but the second that shit goes down, you'll be praying your ass off that there's a cleric in the zone. That's why people have pocket clerics to begin with, if they truly didn't need them, the concept of "pocket" wouldn't even exist.

Anyone arguing otherwise and still arguing FOR pockets is just in denial about this hard fact.