Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Newbie QuestionsFollow

#1 May 06 2010 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
2 posts
Hey all,

First just a little background on me. I played EQ for...5 years when it first came out. I left EQ to play WoW when WoW was in beta.

About a year ago I left WoW, it got a little too boring for me.

I'm interested in starting up EQ2 and give it a try but I had a quick question on class choice.

In EQ1 my favorite class was a Beastlord, dang I loved that class for some reason. I always had interest in a monk but the BL was perfect for me.

Now, because there isn't a Beastlord class in EQ2 I'm looking for suggestions for a class to start as, here are my interests currently:

Monk (uber dmg + fd?)
Assassin (Like a rogue from EQ1?, massive damage and stealth?)
Illusionist (are they as useful as Enchanters were in EQ1?)
Bard (are these anything like the ultimate bards were in EQ1?)

My usual likes of a class is usually a melee oriented class, but I have played casters as well (hence the illusionist). I really enjoy utility and being able to do *some* things solo. I can't stand playing an overplayed class (like SK but I'm not sure what other classes are overplayed atm). Any help would be appreciated!
#2 May 06 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,897 posts
Several classes have a mez, but it is a watered-down version of the EQ mez (which makes sense, given the way fights go). Illusionist is fun and adds a lot to a group, but they are not entirely equivalent to enchanters.

There are three rogue sub types: assassin, brigand and swashbuckler. Assassins are indeed very good damage. Brigands have good group buffs and swashies have great AOEs. (I may have mixed those two up; I have a hard time keeping them straight). All scouts, including rogues and bards, have a group evac to zone spell. So do druids, dunno about anyone else.

Monks and bruisers are good damage and yes, FD.

Bards are not like EQ bards, no. Don't go into it expecting that. They are, however, very useful and loved by groups and raids for their buffs and debuffs (troubadors have more caster buffs, dirges have more melee buffs).

There really isn't anything exactly equivalent to a beast lord. Defilers have a good pet and similar buffs and debuffs.

The classes that most resemble their EQ counterparts as far as I know right now are assassins, guardians and necromancers. Maybe templars, but I don't play one so I can't say.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 May 06 2010 at 3:05 PM Rating: Decent
2 posts
Thank you very much for your quick response!

After looking over what you've said and reading up on everything more I'm leaning less towards the illusionist and more towards the monk or bards.

I'd love to raid once I get leveled up (which will take a LONG time...) I've read monks aren't really needed, or even liked much, is this true? Would it be hard to get a group/guild as a monk?

How loved in groups are bards? From your perspective what are the main selling points on grouping with both sub-classes of bards? Would it be easier to group and raid as a bard?
#4 May 06 2010 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Empress of News
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
***
2,161 posts
I see requests for bards quite often for groups on chat channels. Currently I think Dirges are in higher demand than Troubs for groups, but both seem to get lovin'.

I do have a Troubadour but I avoid groups like the plague. They're definitely nothing like EQ1 bards and in higher levels it gets more challenging to solo them, but they are a fun class to play in my opinion.

I'm not sure about monks--I never really see anyone request them for groups so your presumption is likely right, that currently they're not in high demand.

Really I suggest trying out each of these classes and see how you like them. Ultimately, you should play something you enjoy. :)

edit: Just thought I should add this... Most of my EQ1 characters were casters (my main is a Mage, then I have a chanter, necro and cleric), but in EQ2 I found that I enjoy melee classes more. I'm sure not everyone who played EQ1 feels the way I do about the opposite "type" being more fun to play, but I think that shows how vastly different these classes are compared to EQ1. :)

Edited, May 6th 2010 5:27pm by Cyliena
#5 May 06 2010 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
Cyliena wrote:
I'm sure not everyone who played EQ1 feels the way I do about the opposite "type" being more fun to play, but I think that shows how vastly different these classes are compared to EQ1. :)

Edited, May 6th 2010 5:27pm by Cyliena


Actually I quite agree with this. I did play a necro in EQ1, and still play one in EQ2. There are some major differences but I still love the class.

As for tanks, I tried various tanks in EQ1 and absolutely hated them there! However I have so much more fun playing them in EQ2. I still prefer casters overall, but it's definitely worth trying out classes that you may have not liked in the first one and see how they have changed with this game.
____________________________
Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
#6 May 06 2010 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Samira wrote:
There are three rogue sub types: assassin, brigand and swashbuckler. Assassins are indeed very good damage.

Depending on who you talk to, Assassins might output the highest DPS of any scout class.

Samira wrote:
All scouts, including rogues and bards, have a group evac to zone spell. So do druids, dunno about anyone else.

Actually, of the two druids only wardens get an evac spell. Furys get something else instead.

Samira wrote:
The classes that most resemble their EQ counterparts as far as I know right now are assassins, guardians and necromancers. Maybe templars, but I don't play one so I can't say.

Rangers are also pretty much just like the original class...
____________________________
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
~ Mal Reynolds
#7 May 07 2010 at 4:38 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,229 posts
OldBlueDragon wrote:
Samira wrote:
There are three rogue sub types: assassin, brigand and swashbuckler. Assassins are indeed very good damage.

Depending on who you talk to, Assassins might output the highest DPS of any scout class.


/preen
#8 May 07 2010 at 8:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
149 posts
Dirges will be in higher demand because not only do they benefit all melee dps but they also benefit the tank(s) with threat and survivability, which allows dps to output as much as possible without holding back. Troubs increase caster dps and heals, but if healing isn't a problem, troubs won't increase group's or raid's dps as much as, say, another wizard.
#9 May 07 2010 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
Yes Dirges are always in high demand for Tank/Melee groups, but us Mages LOVE those Troubs in a raid.
____________________________
Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
#10 May 07 2010 at 9:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,897 posts
Quote:
edit: Just thought I should add this... Most of my EQ1 characters were casters (my main is a Mage, then I have a chanter, necro and cleric), but in EQ2 I found that I enjoy melee classes more. I'm sure not everyone who played EQ1 feels the way I do about the opposite "type" being more fun to play, but I think that shows how vastly different these classes are compared to EQ1. :)


This is very true. I could never get the hang of a bard in EQ. I loved them, but it just wasn't my bag. My dirge is my EQ2 main, and although I find her somewhat tedious to solo I adore playing her in groups. I haven't raided with her yet.

I played a druid, rogue and enchanter in EQ. I love the differences in the Warden class as opposed to my EQ druid (although I prided myself on getting my druid into a raiding guild and playing her very well, it was *never* a slam dunk).

I find that I enjoy healing again, after never liking it at all in WoW, for example. I did like it in EQ, though, so maybe it's pretty similar. It's been a while.

I'm rambling. Classes are different here; don't assume that a similar class will be exactly the same. And yeah, I missed rangers being nearly the same in EQ2. They're even still easier to rez than to keep alive. Smiley: mad
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#11 May 07 2010 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,229 posts
Samira wrote:
And yeah, I missed rangers being nearly the same in EQ2. They're even still easier to rez than to keep alive. Smiley: mad


Working as intended.
#12 May 07 2010 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Empress of News
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
***
2,161 posts
Another thing to keep in mind: Swashbucklers are the bomb.

Of course, I may be biased. Smiley: grin
#13 May 07 2010 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,897 posts
At what level do swashies really start to shine? I like mine, but she's pretty squishy and harder to play than my assassin of the same level.

Yes, I play multiple sub-types for comparison. Smiley: laugh

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#14 May 07 2010 at 5:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Empress of News
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
***
2,161 posts
I felt pretty "meh" until my 50s or 60s when I started just ripping stuff new ones. I'm probably considered to be a terrible swashy too since I spec'd to tank (but really, if you solo, the str AA line is the way to go). ;)
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (21)