To be clear, I asked that because you cited non-classic changes as a means to make the game feel more classic...presumably as a reason to nerf charm. To me this is a binary perspective--you would either support nerfing charm to make it feel more classic even though its mechanically "the same" here, or you would support nerfing charm because it actually isn't mechanically "the same" and there's an issue with it. I didn't see any other reason you would bring up an objectively un-classic AOE nerf to make the game feel more "classic" other than to use it as a reference to say: "Even if Charm actually did work this way back then, I don't care, it wasn't in the spirit of Classic and it should be changed, just like this unclassic AOE change that we all agree made the game more classic."
Look I totally get that your point is:
"If Charm was this good, then why did no one do this regularly? The answer must be that charm is different here."
And my point is:
"I actually looked through all this stuff and the consensus was clearly that enchanters just didn't know. It's a complicated class and given that a large portion of the playerbase clearly didn't understand how important Charisma was, it's not surprising that the status quo was that Charm was too dangerous and unreliable.
But there actually was a rather common perspective that charm soloing was incredibly fast to level, and really just the existence of a few people saying that invalidates any amount of people who had already made up their mind that enchanters were a grouping centric class."
Also, because I know this was important to you earlier, I also have absolutely no dog in this race. I've never leveled an enchanter past I think.. 8? And that was on live in Kunark era. I've basically never played one and I don't have one here.
|