Here's my thought process as of late..
I used to play a druid, which i liked, but it sucked getting a group high level even on live. now, with ranger being a hybrid of a druid and a warrior, it makes sense why people wouldn't want you: you offer versatility, but everyone is better than you at anything you can do. The up-side of this (i read somewhere on the boards) is that my arsenal would give me the opportunity to make good decisions and impress others; the opposition of this being a pure melee where gear matters more, and it's mostly about rolls. Ranger gear has a small market, so the prices should be good (helps with equipping the melee-aspect of the char since it'll be my first character).
Bard, half enchanter half warrior? so, utility and damage. slightly more soloability than a ranger, and eventually a faster. Less damage (from what i've read), but the make up for the damage comes in utility such as haste, str buffs, etc.
Enchanters can solo, and always have groups. They have little HP, so they die fast. Also, from looking at the pie chart made a few months ago showing pops of classes, enchanters were the most populous at max level; rangers and bards were 4% and 5% respectively.
Shamans are strong in groups and solo. They also have a high % of population, but they survive better than enchanters (clearly best min/max choice).
I think in the spirit of things, I am not going to min/max, and thus not choose enchanter/shaman (tough for me because i am pragmatic by nature).
Activating my trap card would cause me to just roll another druid because they are boss.
|