Wizards! Do you regret it?

[Slust]

As I recall, the DPS "hierarchy" went something like:

1. Rogues
2. Wizards
3. Monks
4. Mages
5. etc.

Every class has a mix/balance of: (generalizing)

Tanking Ability

• Damage Mitigation
  • Disciplines
  • Disarm
  • Absorption (Spells)
  • Etc.
• Damage Avoidance
  • Block
  • Dodge
  • Parry
  • Etc.
• Armor Limitations
• Skill Limitations/Caps
• Threat
  • Taunt
• Etc.

Healing Ability

• Healing Skills/Spells
  • Direct Heals
  • Heal of Time
  • Mend
  • Etc.
• Buffs
  • HP Buffs
  • AC Buffs
  • Stat Buffs
  • Resist Buffs
  • Etc.
• Resurrection
  • Resurrection Spells
  • Convergence
• Bind Wound
• Etc.

Damage (DPS)

• Equipment Limitations
• Crits
• Skills
  • Kick
  • Bash
  • Flying Kick
  • Backstab
  • Etc.
• Spells
  • Direct Damage
  • Damage Over Time
  • Damage Shields
  • Area Effect
    • Self-Based Diameter ("Point-Blank")
    • Target-Based Diameter
  • Etc.
• Skill Limitations/Caps
• Etc.

Utility

• Movement Impairment
  • Snare
  • Root
  • Stun
• Movement Increasement
  • Gate
  • Teleportation
  • Buffs
    • Spirit of the Wolf
    • Spirit of Scale
    • Wolf Form
    • Etc.
  • Levitate
• Invisibility
  • Regular
  • Undead
  • Animals
  • Hide
  • Sneak
• Pets
• Etc.

Certainly the "Utility" list(s) can go on for quite a while. The point is -- Every class has a balance of Tanking, Healing, Damage and Utility that defines what roles they can perform and how well they can perform them.

Rogues are top DPS because they have very low Tanking ability, virtually no Healing ability and very low Utility. This "frees up", if you will, theoretical "points" that then get spent in the Damage department.

Wizards have their own checks and balances. Certainly the limitation of Mana is one to consider, but that has its own pros and cons associated with it. Wizards do the most "Burst" DPS of casters (possibly all classes in regular case scenarios?), but also have the best mana:damage efficiency of all casters. I believe wizard nukes are an average of 10% more efficient than a mage's nukes.

The territory also comes with additional utility like Invis, Group Teleports and Root, as well as some baked in resist modifiers that make some spells have an easier time passing resist checks.

I am not a wizard, nor have I played one, but I've never seen anything necessarily "wrong" with them. Every class just offers a flavor certain people find more desirable than others. Utility wise, Wizards are a little "bland" with the exception of Group Teleports, but the real strength of a wizard is on the back end of the mechanics anyhow.

All in all, I'd say Wizards are a pretty good class. The only class, I feel anyways, that is deserving of pity is the Ranger, whom saw their "fix" really come in during Luclin when they got AA's to bolster their previously "inadequate" Bow DPS.

Possibly Paladins as well, since their mitigation deficiency compared to a Warrior wasn't quite made up for through their defensive/healing twist on the class. Whereas a Shadowknight got more DPS for their reduction in Tanking ability (which was always useful), Paladins never really assumed a healing role and the group still required a dedicated Priest class for healing. On the other hand, Knight aggro was pretty fast and pretty snap... so they did make really good tanks for exp groups...

(I concede I'm really caffeinated right now and borderline rambling too much, so I'll shut up now)

[Zigfreed]

Yeah I'm a touch biased I admit (main was a wizzy, man I rocked..) but the dps difference really isn't that huge even if it isn't teentsy.

Please.. No more facts proving me wrong, ty. Wizards rock, end of story

/declaresvictory
/closesdiscussion

[Striiker]

I played a wizard to 50 on live. I wound up abandoning him in favor of playing an enchanter. The reason for this choice was my extreme addiction to clarity. As a wizard, I could not stand being without it. I would port out of dungeons to get a refresh when I could. I really love playing the enchanter as it is very challenging to play in some situations but they can save the day.
Wizards are great and I always welcome them in my groups. (even those stinky gnomes) [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Estu]

I made a wizard because I wanted a porting character. The reason I didn't make a druid is because I already had two priests (a shaman and a cleric) and wanted something a bit different. I don't regret making a wizard in that sense. However, the wizard was really boring to level up, not much value in groups, and slow solo. I don't recommend the class.

[Torven]

Anybody who says wizards are a viable DPS class either doesn't parse logs or joins terrible groups with very low uptime.

I played a wizard from day one March '99 until '04. I also rolled a warrior from Kunark to '04, and boxed them both everywhere. At no time did my wizard, or any other wizard, outdamage my warrior in non-aoe exp group situations. Not even in PoP. I had arguments with wizards on Graffe about it, because most people are incompetent and don't understand the concept of uptime. Learn to pull before mobs die to keep your melee swinging as much as possible.

Wizards are the only class that gets worse the better your group plays. Wizards need downtime to recharge, and if you play well enough to not have downtime, then your damage relative to the total damage done by the group declines. So, if you're a terrible player and you group with terrible players, then a wizard just might be for you.

If a wizard is not casting PBAoE spells on many mobs or nuking raid mobs, then a wizard is doing some of the lowest damage in the game. Only a cleric does less damage. That said, wizard damage on raid mobs is quite respectable starting in Kunark, especially in PoP. However spell aggro and resists on P99 are worse than they were on live so wizards are in even worse shape here.

[Messianic]

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

Anybody who says wizards are a viable DPS class either doesn't parse logs or joins terrible groups with very low uptime.

I played a wizard from day one March '99 until '04. I also rolled a warrior from Kunark to '04, and boxed them both everywhere. At no time did my wizard, or any other wizard, outdamage my warrior in non-aoe exp group situations. Not even in PoP. I had arguments with wizards on Graffe about it, because most people are incompetent and don't understand the concept of uptime. Learn to pull before mobs die to keep your melee swinging as much as possible.

Wizards are the only class that gets worse the better your group plays. Wizards need downtime to recharge, and if you play well enough to not have downtime, then your damage relative to the total damage done by the group declines. So, if you're a terrible player and you group with terrible players, then a wizard just might be for you.

If a wizard is not casting PBAoE spells on many mobs or nuking raid mobs, then a wizard is doing some of the lowest damage in the game. Only a cleric does less damage. That said, wizard damage on raid mobs is quite respectable starting in Kunark, especially in PoP. However spell aggro and resists on P99 are worse than they were on live so wizards are in even worse shape here.

[Zuranthium]

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

Wizards don't climb up the dps scale for groups till they get innate spell crits. Till that happened they are warriors dps wise.

Wizards are far, far below Warriors in DPS.

Wizards are below Paladins DPS.

They are even below fully-hasted Bard melee DPS.

That's what happens when you have a game where only the melee characters get equipment that really improves their abilities and there are better avenues for increasing melee DPS - haste vs. the mana regen a Wizard can get at best...haste wins. Not to mention melee characters (aside from Bars) get disciplines and that Strength/Dexterity buffs improve DPS whereas increasing stats relevant to casters doesn't.

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

or, OR! if you're into killing dragons and the like, 2-3 wizards can KS entire raid forces because melee dps is garbage now! ^_^ Wizards out damage -everyone- on boss mobs now. Point blank.

Wizards are indeed helpful for killing bosses but, in my experience, the gap shrunk when Kunark came out. Back in Original EQ, melee classes didn't do much damage against the Dragons/Gods and Wizards were the only casters that could really damage them because of resist rates.

In Kunark, melee DPS vastly increased from what it was in Original EQ while at the same time caster DPS became relatively worse. Wizards are still useful for blasting bosses but it isn't really necessary like it was in Original EQ (although it wasn't 100% "necessary" there either since you can beat anything if you simply have enough Clerics to endlessly C-heal, but it was certainly MUCH more sought after and it's more realistic to have some Wizards around rather than a shitton of Clerics).

When Velious comes out the gap will widen even further. Melee will get even better equipment and monsters will resist even more and have even more HP.

[Kaedain]

lets just be honest here.. as long as youre not playing a druid youre fine

[karsten]

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

or, OR! if you're into killing dragons and the like, 2-3 wizards can KS entire raid forces because melee dps is garbage now! ^_^ Wizards out damage -everyone- on boss mobs now. Point blank.

[Azazel]

As far as grouping goes, wizards are terrible, far worse than rangers. Great to have on raids tho.