What small changes would you make to the unpopular classes?

[Faiding]

ITT: People that want classic classes to be exactly what they are today in Live

[Squabbles123]

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

ITT: People that want classic classes to be exactly what they are today in Live

I don't think anyone actually WANTS these changes, its just fun to theory craft though.

[Faiding]

Originally Posted by Squabbles123 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think anyone actually WANTS these changes, its just fun to theory craft though.

I just thought it was funny that virtually everything suggested in this thread has actually been implemented on live

[mickmoranis]

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

I just thought it was funny that virtually everything suggested in this thread has actually been implemented on live

It suprises you that after 2 decades they figured out how to balance the classes?

Should be more surprising that despite that, they managed to fuck up so much of what makes Everquest good that were here.

[fadetree]

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

wizards get crits

fix 2hs damage so knights are viable

fix archery so rangers are viable

Rangers don't need archery upgrade to be viable. They are perfectly viable as they are in this era. They need it to stand out as doing something special, but that's mostly because people never notice most of the stuff a good ranger does in a group.

[skarlorn]

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

Rangers don't need archery upgrade to be viable. They are perfectly viable as they are in this era. They need it to stand out as doing something special, but that's mostly because people never notice most of the stuff a good ranger does in a group.

True. Same goes for drqqds. I say this as someone who would NEVER allow druids or rangers in my leveling groups *Cringe for myself*

[Lhancelot]

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

Rangers don't need archery upgrade to be viable. They are perfectly viable as they are in this era. They need it to stand out as doing something special, but that's mostly because people never notice most of the stuff a good ranger does in a group.

I know it's strange, but I think most people that play a ranger wish the class had a little more fun with their bows. No one disputes the "good stuff" they do in groups. I also am pretty sure the majority of us actually are fully aware what the ranger brings to a group, that doesn't stop us from wishing they did more with their bows. It's a ranger ffs!

[Check12345]

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

Wizard
Give them Luclin.

Besides that small change, Ancient: Destruction of Ice would help a lot in groups.

[Evia]

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

wizards get crits

fix 2hs damage so knights are viable

fix archery so rangers are viable

I'd add giving warriors an additional clicky taunt. That is on a 30 second timer but Is a huge aggro gainer. With these 4 changes I'd say p99 would be balanced.

[bloodmuffin]

I always thought an easy fix for wizards would be to make harvest targetable and reward a bigger chunk of mana, like a mini CH for mana. Small boost to overall dps in groups as well as survival in raids, also easy to code in.