Continue shaman or play bard?

[Keza]

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

So you're just going to pretend like I didn't just respond to every single point you just made in depth? What exactly am I not noticing or understanding? Why are we being so vague all of a sudden?

Are you going to refute any of the points that I just made? Or are you going to just stubbornly stick to your position despite being unable to defend it? It's okay to admit that you're wrong once in awhile, you know. It's a good look, too.

You're making gigantic posts claiming your experience on a shaman as proof of intelligence and nitpicking shit like the short-term 'malo' by saying the actual spell 'malo' didn't exist until Kunark.

Responding isn't the same as being right.

[Khorza]

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

You're making gigantic posts claiming your experience on a shaman as proof of intelligence

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Not only is it not a very coherent statement, this conversation has nothing to do about my intelligence (???). It's about the quality of the Shaman class in vanilla EQ.

As far as experience, you don't have to be any sort of expert to understand what a class is capable of. The wiki is publicly available to everyone. Anyone can browse the spell lists, compare abilities between classes, and determine relative strengths and weaknesses. Anyone should be able to do these things, however apparently they're unable to. And even when someone does the work for them, the current meta is to stubbornly cling to your original opinion no matter how much people prove it to be incorrect.

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

Responding isn't the same as being right.

Um, okay, sure. You seem to be trying to suggest that I was incorrect about something, so do you want to actually contribute to the discussion and state what you feel was incorrect?

[Gatorsmash]

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

So you're just going to pretend like I didn't just respond to every single point you just made in depth? What exactly am I not noticing or understanding? Why are we being so vague all of a sudden?

Are you going to refute any of the points that I just made? Or are you going to just stubbornly stick to your position despite being unable to defend it? It's okay to admit that you're wrong once in awhile, you know. It's a good look, too.

Oh so your one of those fucking idiots, lol I stopped reading after "Stat buffs aren't incredible because stats in EQ aren't incredible..... EQ is literally all about maxing stats.

[Danth]

Khorza is correct; Shamans are middle tier during the pre-expansion era. Funny watching him go up against the hive-mind that's been trained "Shaman is OP" due to P1999 being Kunark+ since 2011. Middle tier power is still strong enough to do what it'll want to do, though, and even in this era it's usually a nicer melee duo partner than Clerics are. Its multi-role nature makes it an excellent "6th man" for groups since it can handle numerous roles in the event somebody else leaves.

Bards are Bards, and players tend to either love them or loathe them. their mechanics are sufficiently unique that I find it hard to recommend the class: If a player will enjoy it, he generally doesn't need to be told.

Danth

[zanderklocke]

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

what a dreadfully misinformed thing to say and pass off as truth.

Petros, I just looked at your stream, and you kind of look like me in real life. See signature photo below.

[bwe]

Since there aren't enough hybrid tanks, can shamans realistically main tank in classic leveling groups?

[Modwolf]

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

Since there aren't enough hybrid tanks, can shamans realistically main tank in classic leveling groups?

Having been in all sham groups in SRO. I'd say sub-par.

[Frug]

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

Oh so your one of those fucking idiots, lol I stopped reading after "Stat buffs aren't incredible because stats in EQ aren't incredible..... EQ is literally all about maxing stats.

That people do it doesn't mean it's effective. And it's "you're", Mr. Einstein.

[MrPanther]

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

That people do it doesn't mean it's effective. And it's "you're", Mr. Einstein.

Yeah I've always wished EQ classic had more variability from stats. Like I wish the curve was a bit deeper i.e. items with actual stats were available at lower levels and I wished those stats made more meaningful impacts to the game.

I'm definitely nitpicking but all the questing and looting for low-level gear didn't really do much of anything for any of the classes, and what it turned into was farming plat in order to head to the tunnel to buy level 30-40+ farmed gear to use while you are level 10-15. Would have been nice to have slightly more powerful armor available at lower levels - and a way to have done that would be to give higher multipliers to stats.

[Zeboim]

In a Classic world being a Jack of All Trades is more than sufficient. Theres only 6 slots in a group after all, and most places in Classic cannot support 6 people anyways. In a duo or trio that flexibility makes a Sham well above average.

But everyone knows the main reason to play a sham in classic is to be level 50 and ready to go when Kunark drops.

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

Having been in all sham groups in SRO. I'd say sub-par.

A Sham in Sro has maybe 5% of their toolkit and is basically a melee with inner fire to heal.