Solo Melee class

[MikeXG]

Hey all, I am interested in progressing with either my ranger or my SK. they are both in their early 30s and equally geared. I am thinking about dropping a good amount of money on one of them and would like to progress with them, primarily solo. Which class would this be easier with (factoring both ease of play as well as ease to gear them). Which would be better end game for farming purposes? Is one more boring than the other later on? I really like having track and sow and exploring but SK feels more powerful in general. I really enjoy both classes and will most likely keep playing both to some degree. Just curious what the communities take was from a solo perspective. Thanks

-M

[Evia]

given those two class choices I'd go SK for a better solo farm char at 60. Ranger is good though for sniping nameds. (Such as tt spawn cycle mobs) -- but neither is known for their solo camp game. SK FD and ability to fear kite would give them the edge imho.

[Bummey]

Both can fear kite which ups their solo viability way over any other melee classes, even monks. Rangers are limited to animal fears, though, which aren't known for having a lot of valuable drops or even incidental cash. Shadowknights have far lower dps and kills will take longer, but they can fear darn near anything and have the added survivability of feign death and self healing through lifetaps.

[faurkingsheep]

Ranger

[Troxx]

Despite lower dps I'd wager the SK would be capable of downing HARDER mobs with improved defensive, lifetap, and a fear that works on all mob types. Hunting harder content is also infinitely safer as you always have the option of FD if it goes wrong.

For more routine content, ranger will kill faster and have less downtime in my opinion - especially once they can self buff with chloro regen. SK will be stuck with only lifetaps and passive regen.

Neither are really great for solo ... but then again no melee is really. Monks are probably still the best with higher dps, great defense, mend, fd, and bandaids that become pretty awesome at 201 skill and up.

[skarlorn]

rangers eventually get a slow proc weapon which is a pretty huge deal when it comes to soloability

Then again, SKs get FD, which basically makes them 100x better for anything when it comes to solo because you'll eat a lot less CRs

[skarlorn]

that is probably the most aesthetic sig u've had yet swish b t w

[Hitmonkey]

Both can fear kite which ups their solo viability way over any other melee classes, even monks

LOL WHUT? No other melee class can come close to what monk can accomplish solo, it's not even close. it's Monk #1 and every other melee class a distance 3rd place.

Ranger. SK's really can't solo too well at later levels.


This^

Had a main troll sk on live from classic to now, the higher you get up in level the more you fall behind in the ability to solo effectively -especially named -unless they're 20 or 30 levels below you.

Really should just pick a Caster class if you want to solo, the things you can do with a necro or Shaman (the two classes I played) is so far beyond what the few things you're going to be able to solo as a melee class.

Edit- if I had to pick I would definitely pick ranger, SK is incredibly gear dependent along with the other problems as you get up in level versus the Mobs

[paulgiamatti]

LOL WHUT? No other melee class can come close to what monk can accomplish solo, it's not even close. it's Monk #1 and every other melee class a distance 3rd place.

I've soloed Sir Lucan (both versions, with a full guard spawn) on my 60 ranger, self-buffed, without using a single clicky. I challenge any monk to do the same.

[American Standard]

I've soloed Sir Lucan (both versions, with a full guard spawn) on my 60 ranger, self-buffed, without using a single clicky. I challenge any monk to do the same.

Have also seen SK's do this. Time for monks to head back to the Ashy Order and learn a few things.

[Bummey]

LOL WHUT? No other melee class can come close to what monk can accomplish solo, it's not even close. it's Monk #1 and every other melee class a distance 3rd place.

Are we talking end game max gear consumable spamming or leveling? Because I'm talking non-fungi leveling.

[Hitmonkey]

Are we talking end game max gear consumable spamming or leveling? Because I'm talking non-fungi leveling.

I'm talking from level 1 - 60. Twinkled, non-twinked, a monk only gets stronger in solo play vs the same comperable level mobs compared to the ranger and SK. Naming individual mods is just silly because it's a small percentage compared to what a monk can solo and it doesn't mean that the classes are any worse or better than monk, the question was just who solo's better.

[aaezil]

Those are both terrible soloing classes (at endgame, you can solo on anything with enough gear on you)

[paulgiamatti]

The question was,

Which would be better end game for farming purposes? Is one more boring than the other later on?

and both monk and SK easily fall behind ranger and bard. The tracking hybrids can efficiently do cycles such as those in TT and FM, not to mention Sir Lucan which is also a farmable mob. Even at seafuries bard and ranger have the upper hand due to tracking, speed, and bow range.

Ranger is particularly great for farming because of the TT and FM cycles, and because of their huge tracking range in general - a bard/druid's paltry tracking ability makes these cycles mostly a ranger's domain. Another thing I've seen people doing is selling Coldain shawl/ring quest items, which is made a million times easier with long-range tracking, so that would also be a thing rangers could capitalize on. Not to mention material farming for trade skills, Pegasus Feather Cloak loot rights, other tracking services that people usually pay handsomely for, etc.

[fadetree]

If you have good gear (fungi, swarmcaller, haste, good weaps & bow) then you can do a lot with either one solo. I do have to say, I think the SK would be better from a purely performance outlook, although ranger bow kiting is pretty damn good if you have patience. Still, I'd say go with SK unless you like a real challenge.

[paulgiamatti]

I agree - one thing bards and SKs have over a ranger is the ability to solo summoning mobs due to fear and charm. Monks obviously can level up solo way more efficiently, and their pulling & tanking ability allows them to duo a ton of stuff with a shaman, but from a purely solo perspective there isn't really a whole lot (if anything) that a monk can farm that a ranger/bard/SK/etc. can't.

If you have good gear (fungi, swarmcaller, haste, good weaps & bow)

Also, ranger epics are cheap as hell these days. Just buy the Swiftwind and Earthcaller bottlenecks for like 30k each.

[Jimjam]

Swiftwind is hardly a bottleneck, vsr often up for over 24 hrs and spawns fairly often.

[paulgiamatti]

Swiftwind is an epic, not a bottleneck. The Pulsing Green Stone is the bottleneck in that portion of the quest. VSR being up a lot doesn't mean you get your Pulsing Green Stone. There's this misconception that spawned Venril Sathir and spawned Trakanon are lesser versions of the real thing, which isn't true - they're identical. They are not easy by any stretch of the imagination (cue nerds chiming in with how easy they are). You still have to get about 30 people together (yes yes, VS can be killed with like a group if you're insane neckbeards and you have a Bladestopper, blah blah). You still need a guild that's willing to kill that target, or a guild that's willing to award you one of the stones in their bank. For anyone who isn't lucky enough to be in one of those guilds, it's much easier to just farm seafuries for a week or two and shell out the 30k.

[welly321]

Swiftwind is an epic, not a bottleneck. The Pulsing Green Stone is the bottleneck in that portion of the quest. VSR being up a lot doesn't mean you get your Pulsing Green Stone. There's this misconception that spawned Venril Sathir and spawned Trakanon are lesser versions of the real thing, which isn't true - they're identical. They are not easy by any stretch of the imagination (cue nerds chiming in with how easy they are). You still have to get about 30 people together (yes yes, VS can be killed with like a group if you're insane neckbeards and you have a Bladestopper, blah blah). You still need a guild that's willing to kill that target, or a guild that's willing to award you one of the stones in their bank. For anyone who isn't lucky enough to be in one of those guilds, it's much easier to just farm seafuries for a week or two and shell out the 30k.

Bottlenecks are mobs that are heavily contested. Even the most casual guild can pretty easily put together a force to kill VS when they have ample time to prepare it.

[paulgiamatti]

Bottlenecks are mobs that are heavily contested.

Not necessarily. A bottleneck is a component of something bigger than itself - the actual bottle. Everything that comes before the Pulsing Green Stone is much easier within the context of that quest. It's a point in the bottle where progress slows down, assuming you're completing each step consecutively, because flow is constricted - it's not as constricted as the warrior epic's Green Dragon Scales, or the magician's Staff of Elemental Mastery: Earth, but it's still a bottleneck. It's just a wider bottleneck.

[welly321]

Not necessarily. A bottleneck is a component of something bigger than itself - the actual bottle. Everything that comes before the Pulsing Green Stone is much easier within the context of that quest. It's a point in the bottle where progress slows down, assuming you're completing each step consecutively, because flow is constricted - it's not as constricted as the warrior epic's Green Dragon Scales, or the magician's Staff of Elemental Mastery: Earth, but it's still a bottleneck. It's just a wider bottleneck.

My argument was that VSR is not difficult whatsoever to take down because hes up alot.

[paulgiamatti]

And my argument is that taking down a spawned VS, or even just saving up 30k and finding a person selling a Pulsing Green Stone, is in fact much more difficult than everything else that precedes that step in the quest. Hence it is a bottleneck.

[georgie]

I've seen an sk solo year on red. I hope this solidifies your decision.

[Foxplay]

There are only a few key mechanics to consider in terms of solo power when it comes to the melee classes.

As anyone who has played EQ should know, NPC's scale faster than players. Level 60 warrior player = lets say 4k hp depending on gear . Level 60 warrior NPC 10k+ some higher. But also there melee damage also scales higher, even with good weapons melee players will be hitting in the 40s - 80s, mid 100s to low 200's for a 2hander. While NPC's can quad for 120 - 150 in just the 50s, some mobs higher.

So the key mechanic is to avoid melee damage entirely, prevent it or mitigating it comes secondary, out-healing or out damaging it is 3rd rung

Monks only real way of entirely avoiding melee damage (while still hurting the mob themself) is via stun proc's such as Tstaff. Their mitigation is pretty decent. And for healing they have mend, which is pretty good and scales with gear but its limited use due to its cooldown. As for damage depending on gear they can have really good damage. But by not having a significant method of completely avoiding melee damage monks fall short in terms of solo power due to scaling. *epic adds to dps capability

Shadowknight can completely avoid most if not all melee damage via (snare/fear) kiting, thus it becomes their mana pool and melee dmg versus just a health pool *so long as the fear is safe and does not run into more mobs*. Their mitigation is good being a tank class and able to wear plate. For out healing they have life taps which can go a long way but I wouldn't expect any miracles, the more mana used on life taps means less mana to keep snare/fear up constantly which avoiding damage entirely > healing damage in EQ. Damage wise SK is ok but nothing to write home about unless you are geared to the absolute teeth (TOVN weapons), Due to the ability to completely avoid melee damage SK is definitely a rung above monk - *epic adds to SK healing capability

Ranger like SK can completely avoid melee damage provided it is a non-summoning mob via Bow-kiting, all this requires is snare (very low mana) lots of arrows (can be summoned with tolan bracer but takes a lot of time) and a decent amount of space. Although this method can be slow it can kill anything unable to summon that is not a caster aka straight melee npcs the main cost being only time as spell wise this is very mana efficient. However due to its stipulations it does limit the areas that it can be used. Mitigation rangers are decent not as good as SK, but better than monk if similar gear if you don't count mend. Without bow-kiting rangers can snare/fear too but are limited to animals which again limits where the method can be used, but will save a lot of time not summoning arrows. In a straight up melee fight rangers are fairly decent, with self regen, and thorns and decent melee dps + dot ticks. Healing wise without running any numbers id say rangers are on par with SK who is using a lot of mana for lifetaps, as constant regen, and small little heals after fights do add up. *Epic adds greatly to melee mitigation via a slow proc

If we consider these major mechanics, and compare 3 equally geared to the teeth + epic . Monk / SK / Ranger

I would say Ranger is strongest solo, but not by much mainly because is more situational. I would personally rate ranger just ever so slightly above SK due to the slow proc on their epic. (Slow = Lots of dmg mitigation)

Shadowknight is best well rounded, and less situational melee solo power

Monk, while better than rogue and warrior really cant compare to mechanics that can completely avoid melee damage that the ranger and SK hybrids have in their spells when considering simply for flat out solo power

If you throw bard into the mix just forget it, they win, no contest.

[Troxx]

Rangers are better at mitigating (combining AC mitigation and avoidance here) than monks?

Lol.

No.

Your other points are very valid but that bit is insanely wrong. Monk mitigation is better than, comparable to, or second only to warriors depending on gear.

[Jimjam]

And my argument is that taking down a spawned VS, or even just saving up 30k and finding a person selling a Pulsing Green Stone, is in fact much more difficult than everything else that precedes that step in the quest. Hence it is a bottleneck.

Clearly we have a different perspective. Perhaps you at thinking of the pre-VSR days?

Personally, it took me far more time and effort running around foraging rare items, or farming orc pawns for a rare spawn elf, than it did to hand in a 100pp item and politely ask someone to bat phone 2 groups of players (who kindly) killed VS in like 40 seconds with me. Obviously it was even less work for whoever got the second stone for free just by showing up to help.

I suppose a single data point (or two if you include the Omni druid) is just an anecdote, but that is my experience.

[Foxplay]

Rangers are better at mitigating (combining AC mitigation and avoidance here) than monks?

Lol.

No.

Your other points are very valid but that bit is insanely wrong. Monk mitigation is better than, comparable to, or second only to warriors depending on gear.

And you prove how little you know, mitigation wise if a ranger procs slow sword they are absolutely better at mitigating damage than monks + self regen and some buffs . On a pure solo basis monk has no self buffs at all (unless you count staff of sheilding proc?) Yet it does not matter in the slightest in terms of the original question. The full question was pertaining to each classes toolkit for solo strength. In which Ranger wins over monk hands down. A monk has no way of completely avoiding melee damage, self slowing the mob (without using clicks) while their base mitigation / avoidance AC may be slightly higher than a ranger, after you count regen, self buffs, and slow proc ranger takes a huge lead *mostly with the proc* mitigation is not soley how much AC and avoidance you have you have to take into account abilities and healing that dramatically increase your effective hp, and slow is an enourmas contribution to that

If you are considering total mitigation to be just standing there, no buffs, no slow at all then a monk > ranger. Also in group situations with other classes buffs Monk > Ranger. But this discussion is about solo power which narrows it down to each classes specific toolkit assuming no outside help.

[Jimjam]

Interesting discussion, Foxplay/Troxx.

I did a parse fairly recently of the average damage taken by different melees in hands against the highest level mobs in Karnor's Castle (the circa 48-51 stuff).

Basically every class level 51 + took similar average hits, and it was actually avoidance that separated the classes (Monk>knight>paladin from the examples I parsed). Basically, against some xp content it is possible to trivially 'cap' mitigation. If you were soloing lower level mobs I imagine this margin in avoidance would narrow also.

While Troxx is right if you exclusively consider mitigate+avoidance, I feel if you add in Earthcaller (or at lower level swarmcaller?) the ranger might actually do better against some mobs, especially if the monk doesn't play within his weight superlimits.

[paulgiamatti]

Personally, it took me far more time and effort running around foraging rare items, or farming orc pawns for a rare spawn elf

The errand-running stuff is just a multitude of low-difficulty, easily soloable tasks. Time-consuming, sure, but that's literally all it is: a timesink.

than it did to hand in a 100pp item and politely ask someone to bat phone 2 groups of players (who kindly) killed VS in like 40 seconds with me. Obviously it was even less work for whoever got the second stone for free just by showing up to help.

Most people will not be able to do that, even if they are guilded. And if they are, there's a very good chance their guild will have no idea about how to kill VS and will just throw 40 players at him, watch them all get lifetapped into oblivion, wipe, and then he despawns. Try again in 12 hours or whatever. It's a high-difficulty step in the quest when compared to the preceding steps.

CSG has that fight down to a science. They make it look easy, but to pretty much any other casual raiding guild on the server, VS is not a walk in the park. So more often than not that is the bottleneck in the quest. It wasn't for me, but it'd be myopic of me to say, "Oh, that shit was easy for me, so that must mean it's easy for everyone!"

[welly321]

The errand-running stuff is just a multitude of low-difficulty, easily soloable tasks. Time-consuming, sure, but that's literally all it is: a timesink.



Most people will not be able to do that, even if they are guilded. And if they are, there's a very good chance their guild will have no idea about how to kill VS and will just throw 40 players at him, watch them all get lifetapped into oblivion, wipe, and then he despawns. Try again in 12 hours or whatever. It's a high-difficulty step in the quest when compared to the preceding steps.

CSG has that fight down to a science. They make it look easy, but to pretty much any other casual raiding guild on the server, VS is not a walk in the park. So more often than not that is the bottleneck in the quest. It wasn't for me, but it'd be myopic of me to say, "Oh, that shit was easy for me, so that must mean it's easy for everyone!"

just admit your bad at everquest

[Jimjam]

I think Paul raises a good point.

If you are unwilling to group up in the 20s, or are in an unrest group, then it is unfair to expect to loot goblin ears.

Question:

If you aren't spending thousands of plat on MQs/items and aren't doing raidforce stuff (so no epics, no sky quest items, no cloaks of flames or fungis) then how do monk/ranger compare for soloing?

[paulgiamatti]

while their base mitigation / avoidance AC may be slightly higher than a ranger

It's actually significantly higher. Rangers have an absolutely miserable defense cap, so when we're talking about overall damage mitigation, monk and ranger are probably a lot closer than you're imagining. Monk DPS is significantly higher, which means the mob dies faster - that combined with their vastly superior defense skills means they sustain significantly less damage per fight. Also take into consideration that iksars have innate regen which stacks with fungal regrowth, and mend being about an 8-minute cooldown.

And all of that's 100% consistent. A slow proc isn't guaranteed. Buffs also require upkeep, which is more downtime to mem and cast, and more downtime to recover mana. The monk just keeps on rolling, with maybe a short sit break here and there.

[Jimjam]

While we are brainstorming, another tick in the monks favour, is if you are into a high clickrate gameplay monks are better at battle bandaging (it does not stack well with spells at all) and can juggle 2handers/off hand much more effectively.

[MikeXG]

Wow I did not expect to wake check my post and be on page 4! hot damn.

I appreciate all of the replies and I think everyone is making some good points, especially with the slow proc, I actually have a swarm caller waiting in the wings for level 46 (i think that is when it procs).

Just to be clear - I did ask about farming and end game. But Despite having played since original launch date on live I think I've made it to 60 once.... Sad I know. So yes, I want to have the end goal of 60 and being able to farm, but the journey there and making money along the way to buy said 30k epics for example is also a factor in my decision. Right now I have my 31 ranger and 33 SK and both seem fairly even in terms of overall power. The Ranger pumps way more dps but the SK isn't a scrub in this department (woodsman staff and noct blade respectively).

The fact that the epic is actually obtainable for someone without the guild to back him up is appealing. farming 30k for an epic is doable and that is certainly a huge win for the ranger.

Fear kiting is obviously the way to go for melee solo (main is bard and I fear kited a ton on him, in addition to all of the other goodies a bard can do). I think from a leveling standpoint ranger wins between SK and Ranger for fear kiting simply because all mobs gives XP and animals, despite having bad loot and coin, cost way less to snare and fear - not to mention the higher dmg output for faster killing. BUT killing nameds and farming harder mobs that are not animals later on obviously the SK would win that fear kite.

It is a tough choice as I enjoy both very much and that is ultimately what it comes down to. and both, although melee is horrible at solo, seem capable to do it, one way or another.

So I alter the original question: Between SK and Ranger which would be easier to get to 50? How about 60? Primarily solo. Which is easier to gear (easier could be self obtained gear or cheaper gear)

And lets assume no fungi but 20-25kish worth of gear each. Saving for the fungi right now and whichever I pick gets it pretty much.


Thanks again everyone!

[paulgiamatti]

Tranquil Staff's stun proc also mitigates a ton of damage, which is why it's sort of the ultimate solo weapon. When a monk kills a mob in 30 seconds, a few 12-second stuns means they take zero damage.

[Tenlaar]

Also take into consideration that iksars have innate regen which stacks with fungal regrowth

At higher levels rangers can give themselves 12 hp/tic regen through spells, which actually puts them at a higher regen rate than an iksar.

[Jimjam]

Ranger and SK are both easy to get to 50, so I'd focus on other factors to make your decision.

Velious added a tonne of solo options to Ranger by adding panic animal (22) and lowering the level required to cast sow (30).

Sk has always been a fun melee soloer with fear kite options (especially vs undead) as well as straight up tank and spanking. Feign death and lifetaps makes it a forgiving class; perfect if you are a little rusty.

This is a 18 year old emu; Most of us have grown up and run businesses, have jobs or have house spouse responsibilities, etc so guilds aren't as demanding as they were on live.

I was without guild for years, but when I decided to guild up I got my Swiftwind within a couple of days on my rather under-levelled ranger. Maybe I was lucky, but I'm sure you could have a similar story and save yourself 30k plat... or whatever a Swiftwind costs once you hit level 46-50ish.

SK epic has a pretty rare fear drop off rarer minibosses. Definitely more of a bottleneck than both halves of the ranger epic combined!

Monk is pretty easy epic if you are still interested in that class. Another you can just pay for MQ to if you prefer.

[Danth]

If you're on a 25K budget things like fungis or cloak of flames or t-staffs are out of the question. Which brings us back to Monk....it's a fine class, but not for 20K. Some folks have been using expensive gear for so long I suspect they've forgotten what it's like to be low-end. A Monk with maybe a Peacebringer, a FBSS for haste, no epic, and no regen makes for a really lousy soloist. Either the Ranger or the Shadow Knight will fare better than the Monk would on the budget discussed. The Monk becomes a really attractive option if you plan to play through to the high end (north temple veeshan or equivalent) since the class benefits so strongly from that top-end gear.

Danth

[paulgiamatti]

At higher levels rangers can give themselves 12 hp/tic regen through spells, which actually puts them at a higher regen rate than an iksar.

Yep, although it is quite a bit of upkeep. Chloroplast only lasts about 20 minutes and depletes a lot of mana. I think I'm at 32 hp/tick on my ranger with Fungal Regrowth, Chloroplast, and Skin like Nature. Iksar innate regen is comparable to Chloroplast when sitting - it's 11 more hp per tick than standard innate regen sitting, 9 more feigning death, and 8 more standing. That's pretty significant. I feel bad for human monks.

If you're on a 25K budget things like fungis or cloak of flames or t-staffs are out of the question. Which brings us back to Monk....it's a fine class, but not for 20K. Some folks have been using expensive gear for so long I suspect they've forgotten what it's like to be low-end. A Monk with maybe a Peacebringer, a FBSS for haste, no epic, and no regen makes for a really lousy soloist. Either the Ranger or the Shadow Knight will fare better than the Monk would on the budget discussed. The Monk becomes a really attractive option if you plan to play through to the high end (north temple veeshan or equivalent) since the class benefits so strongly from that top-end gear.

I disagree - you could roll a monk with absolutely nothing except a fungi tunic and do extremely well, assuming you can afford just the fungi. They have naturally high AC as long as you stay under the weight limit - just equip a bunch of cheap stuff like Wu's and fill in the upgrades as you go. Fists by themselves are decent, and monk weapons are pretty cheap. You can't use your epic until level 51 anyway. I guess haste would be your only other concern, and you could grab SCHW for real cheap, or pay a little more for Sash of the Dragonborn or something.

[MikeXG]

Love the monk class but it is really between sk and ranger as ive done monk several times before (yea iksar fte, also my sk is an iksar. Figured the downtime was worth thr lack of plate

[Jimjam]

If you're on a 25K budget things fungis are out of the question.

I disagree - you could roll a monk with absolutely nothing except a fungi tunic, assuming you can afford just the fungi.

(quotes cropped, obviously) I have no idea how to make these two posts fit together in to a narrative that makes sense.

[paulgiamatti]

The fungi is a given. He has 20-25k to spend in addition to a fungi, which is what Danth glossed over. I was merely speaking to the advantages monks have over other melee classes when undergeared - they're actually the class you'd most want to roll if you're going light on gear. You can take the fungi out of the equation and that's still true.

[Danth]

And lets assume no fungi but 20-25kish worth of gear each. Saving for the fungi right now and whichever I pick gets it pretty much.

I ignored the fungi because he doesn't have one yet and might not for some time depending on how rapidly he does or doesn't make money.

I strongly disagree with respect to a minimum-budget Monk. I don't care about alts that much so on the rare occasions I fuss around with a low-level character, it's going to be wearing junk...banded or bronze, some 100p bank vault weapon, just crap I have laying around. The hybrid melees vastly out-perform the Monk in that type of situation, at least for me. The spellbooks make the difference. Being able to kite becomes critical when you have little or no healing and 700 HP and those aviaks are hitting you for double 45's a round.

Strictly between Ranger and Shadow Knight it seems like the Ranger might be closer to what he's looking for....although I'm not sure what a Ranger could do that his Bard main couldn't already do. I don't want to suggest the Shadow Knight, however, because I feel they make relatively poor alts due to only coming into their own at very high levels.

Danth

[paulgiamatti]

Love the monk class but it is really between sk and ranger as ive done monk several times before

If high level farming is part of your criteria, go ranger. Tracking is indispensible, even just for leveling. I mean the tracking list gives you the con color for each mob with the ability to filter out what you don't want. The SK might fare a little better in the fight, but that doesn't really matter when the ranger already pulled the mob.

[Cecily]

60 Ranger's aren't a good solo farmer. Best farmer in the game for greens, blues.. I'd take fear kiting on anything and FD splits.

There's very little outdoors worthwhile to track, and there's very little dungeon content ranger friendly. I love rangers and hate SKs, but rangers are outmatched for big named hunting. Druids are better than either for sub 51 mobs, terrible at green farming.

Really what you wanna do is make an enc or shaman, sadly. Ideally enc, because their cost to be solo-worthy is a fraction of a shaman's.

[Cecily]

If high level farming is part of your criteria, go ranger.

Just wanted to laugh at this comment in specific.

[skarlorn]

Really what you wanna do is make an enc or shaman, sadly. Ideally enc, because their cost to be solo-worthy is a fraction of a shaman's.

i made a fortune soloing willowisps on my rogue in the teens

I would really like to see someone take rogue soloing to the next level

[Kesselring]

I've soloed Sir Lucan (both versions, with a full guard spawn) on my 60 ranger, self-buffed, without using a single clicky. I challenge any monk to do the same.

What do u mean by full guard spawn? Also hes pretty easy when it comes to using magic. The dude stays rooted for like 60 seconds when I use a root net to pull him to commons zoneline. I think it would be do-able with a monk who has 1200AC+ self buffed and has utility and uses bandage trick. Also has to be an Iksar for obvious reasons unless your human is decked out. But hes not disarmable. (At least he wasn't the 5 times I killed him, and I got the message that he was disarmed twice during combat and he still was holding 2 swords). Hes a pretty tough fight without magic. I guess a monk could use a slowstone but that would be overdoing it tbh, you just need a fungi you can outregen him with enough ac.

[paulgiamatti]

If high level farming is part of your criteria, go ranger.
Just wanted to laugh at this comment in specific.

Name something a shadow knight can farm that a ranger can't. If you pose that question the other way around you have the TT and FM cycles, for starters. Not to mention the added ease of just popping into a zone and instantly knowing whether something is up. Not to mention being able to farm tons of other stuff with efficiency like trade skill materials, Coldain quest items, etc. And again, it doesn't matter if a shadow knight can fear kite something when they're unequipped to FTE the mob or even know if the mob is up.

[fadetree]

Yadda yadda.
OP, If your sole concern is getting to 50, then I don't know why you are talking about melee. What's so important about 50? Roll a chanter or necro. You'll get back to 30 and probably still hit 50 faster than either melee.
In my opinion, having to wonder whether you should play your Ranger or not means you shouldn't.

[Sirelk]

I would really like to see someone take rogue soloing to the next level

I soloed a gnome rogue from 1-60 in about 10-11 months. Untwinked and no outside buffs.

I streamed most of it on Twitch. Sqid the soloing rogue.

[georgie]

I've seen an sk solo year on red. I hope this solidifies your decision.

Yendar*

[Cecily]

Yendar*

That's pretty impressive.

[MikeXG]

Leaning towards doing the SK as it may be easier to find a pick up group and also just an easier class tonplay despite it being slower. With that I can than use the sk to farm plat and gear to truly twink the ranger with a fungi and maybe those epics way down the line. Because a decked out ranger sounds like a fun class to just run around with!

[ketzerei84]

rangers eventually get a slow proc weapon which is a pretty huge deal when it comes to soloability

Then again, SKs get FD, which basically makes them 100x better for anything when it comes to solo because you'll eat a lot less CRs


Earthcaller slow is 50%, SK can use a willsapper(if you can GET one that is) for a 35% slow, which will come out about the same if you take into account the differences in mitigation, defense, etc between the two. Go SK, flop around and gank names.

[Troxx]

if your goal is to get xp and farm cash/loot

.... with both of these classes you're barking up the wrong tree

Casters (nec/ench/shm) own that aspect of the game. Rangers have their niche but their drawbacks. SKs? yep them too. Of the two ranger will kill faster but SK will be able to kill single mobs in all zones (fear + snare) that rangers may or may not be able to kill.

Both classes are fun.

Neither class is IDEAL.