Mage + mage or mage + necro?

[Messianic]

^^

Kunark 40ish mobs hit like a ton of bricks compared to old world. It really stiffs tank or melee solo abilities 51-60 as well. As a Monk, I found obscure places to solo in the old world instead of braving groups in Kunark where I was just more DPS when a tank/cleric/chanter was needed or killing trash for hours trying to get Seb groups :P

[Tork]

Well, in fairness, melee only solo well between 1-5 or so - when everyone is forced to melee.

Sometimes we might be over thinking it - he said they were going to level slowly, so RoK/SoV concerns aren't that pressing. He said he wants a mag, and that his wife is new to EQ.

Given those requirements, druid isn't bad at all, even with the 'loss' of thorns, but necro is looking better and better.

[Noleafclover]

Originally Posted by Noraa3903 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Will have to disagree. The shaman would bring more to the table having slows and tossing on poison dots to help burn down the mob quicker. Not to mention at later levels the addition of the pet would allow for much speedier kills then what the cleric would bring. Faster the mob dies less you have to heal anyway not to mention the slow decreases the damage the mage pet would sustain tremendously. I think shaman is a complete better partner for a mage over a cleric.

Noooo don't slow ~ The damage shield... noooooo

You may be right though, never tried it. Just love lull, prolly too much.

unrelated

Lots of people are like - mages are great, why not have two! 2 mages still = 1 fire pet taking hits.

Mage is the worst duo class for mage other than a melee. Other classes bring other utility, 2nd mage just brings greatly weakened dps. If you want that, take a wizzie. You at least get root/snare/ports there.