Continue shaman or play bard?

[Roth]

I have an 18 shaman, but I rerolled a bard planning to take it to teal... level 5. I've decided at this point not to go to teal and just stay green and needing some help making a decision. I have experience playing a shaman but have never played a bard before.

-How much demand will there be for shamans in groups vs bards?(don't sugarcoat answer please) It seems like there are way more shamans and druids on this server than there are bards, and I always consider bards to be pretty useful.

-Does the lack of mana song on green hurt bards significantly?

-Are bards annoying to play at later levels?


Thanks in advance.

[Khorza]

Hard to say, the shaman would probably have a slightly easier time finding a group but that's mostly because people don't quite realize how subpar shamans are pre-Kunark.

Bards are in pretty good shape right now. It might be hard to find CC since less people are playing Enchanters due to some of the changes, and it can be hard to find a puller since a lot of those classes are unpopular atm (people waiting for Iksar to roll Monks, etc).

Of course the main drawback of bards is the exp penalty, and it'll be up to the group to decide if you're going to contribute enough to be worth that penalty. So the group will need to be in a pretty obvious need of a puller and/or CC.

People are a lot more likely to add a shaman "for the hell of it" since they'll only come with a 10-20% exp penalty depending on their race, and people feel safer with the extra buffs and heals. But honestly you just want a cleric in vanilla EQ.

-Are bards annoying to play at later levels?

This is a super preference thing that no one can answer for you. Song twisting has always been annoying to me and I've never been able to get into it. However, shamans have a very similar thing going on at 60 once you get your spells, since you're always losing efficiency any time you're not casting something. Bard is pretty much always a super active class, but Shamans become just about as active at the high end.

[Waedawen]

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

that's mostly because people don't quite realize how subpar shamans are pre-Kunark.

what a dreadfully misinformed thing to say and pass off as truth.

[Khorza]

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

what a dreadfully misinformed thing to say and pass off as truth.

Wow way to substantiate on your claim with any sort of information whatsoever.

Shamans are sub-par in vanilla. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings somehow but I'm sure that anyone who understands classic EQ would agree.

They're kind of like a hybrid. The toolkit is nice, but they don't excel at anything. Their primary role becomes healing, but the best heal spell they get is Greater Heal. Greater Heal is not good. It's the same heal that Paladins have. And Shamans can potentially push out a bit more healing than a Druid or a Paladin through cannibalize, but you don't have the endless reservoir of mana without Torpor. Enchanter slow is even a bit better than Shamans' until Kunark.

Like I said in my last post, Shamans are incredible once Kunark is out. But they're mediocre in vanilla. There's just too much of a gap between Clerics and the other Priest classes.

[Tecmos Deception]

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

Wow way to substantiate on your claim with any sort of information whatsoever.

Shamans are sub-par in vanilla. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings somehow but I'm sure that anyone who understands classic EQ would agree.

They're kind of like a hybrid. The toolkit is nice, but they don't excel at anything. Their primary role becomes healing, but the best heal spell they get is Greater Heal. Greater Heal is not good. It's the same heal that Paladins have. And Shamans can potentially push out a bit more healing than a Druid or a Paladin through cannibalize, but you don't have the endless reservoir of mana without Torpor. Enchanter slow is even a bit better than Shamans' until Kunark.

Like I said in my last post, Shamans are incredible once Kunark is out. But they're mediocre in vanilla. There's just too much of a gap between Clerics and the other Priest classes.

Shaman doesn't have to be overpowered to be better than "sub-par." If you're playing one like a gimpy cleric, no wonder you think they're not great. Their slow may be second best in classic, but it's still miles ahead of the other option. Stat buffs are incredible in a world of classic itemization. Root CC, malo, pet dps are all nice. Etc. Sham is in a good place in classic and only gets stronger going forward.

Hybrids and wizards are subpar. Not shamans.

[Khorza]

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

Shaman doesn't have to be overpowered to be better than "sub-par."

I didn't think I had to define this, but sub-par means below average. That means at least 7 other classes are more useful or perform their roles better than Shaman. I think I could come up with about 9 classes that I'd generally rather have in my group over a Shaman. Therefore they are absolutely sub-par.

I've said this repeatedly throughout the thread, but the mistake that everyone is making is that they remember how amazing Shamans are at 51+, and they think that power must have been a continuation from the state of the class in vanilla. Unfortunately that is not the case, and I've already explained why but I guess I'll do it again because people are stubborn and they choose to believe what they want to believe over actual factual information.

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

If you're playing one like a gimpy cleric, no wonder you think they're not great.

Well, I've played a Shaman since 2000, I was one of the top Shamans on Blue when I played, and I frequently played with you and never heard that I sucked. So I'm doubting that the truth is that I'm just bad at the game like you seem to be suggesting.

I don't know what "playing a Shaman like a gimpy cleric" means. That's how the class was designed. There's no player skill that can overcome Greater Healing being your best heal spell, and the 15% healing penalty compared to Clerics. This isn't a "just play better" thing. Don't get mad at me, I didn't design this game. But all of those things are objectively the truth. Shamans get an underpowered heal spell. Non-clerics receive a healing penalty. That is just reality that we live in.

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

Their slow may be second best in classic, but it's still miles ahead of the other option.

Okay sure but this is irrelevant to the discussion. My point was that if you want a slower in your group in vanilla EQ, then you generally want to invite an Enchanter, not a Shaman. This is significant because vanilla EQ is the only time when that's true. That's why I mentioned it.

Shamans also aren't very good at mezzing, stunning, interrupting, charming, lulling, or any of the other utility that an Enchanter would provide. Inviting a Shaman for slow is like inviting a Ranger to tank. Sure they can do it, but only because the better option wasn't available. How is that a point in their favor?

Also worth mentioning that slow in general just isn't as good in vanilla as it in in future expansions. Most things in raids are magic-immune, and everything else in vanilla dies so quickly that the slow isn't as significant. It's also a very mana intensive spell with its cost and chance to be resisted, so it's difficult to utilize without later improvements like unresistable Tash, Malo, Clarity 2, Cannibalize 3, Torpor, etc. The meta in Kunark+ of slowing every mob that you fight just isn't as much of a thing in vanilla EQ.

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

Stat buffs are incredible in a world of classic itemization.

Stat buffs aren't incredible because stats in EQ aren't incredible. Your best stat buff is +40 Stamina. That's 180 HP on a level 50 Warrior if they're not capped. Resolution gives 250 HP and 16 AC. How does that prove that Shamans aren't second-rate Clerics? Sure, they stack, but you're still contributing less.

And a level 50 Warrior is the best scenario. Stamina gives a level 50 caster 80 HP. Wow, incredible. That's one extra Manastone click.

Strength is in a bit of a similar situation. Sure it's going to improve melee dps a bit, but it's not massively significant like it might be in other MMOs that are more stat-based. Dexterity and Agility are niche tank buffs. These aren't game-breaking advantages like you seem to be suggesting.

And other classes get buffs too. Druids get some great buffs like thorns. They get what is essentially Resolution (one of the best buffs in the game) with additional HP regen tacked on. Why don't we discuss how amazing Druid buffs are in groups and raids? Oh yeah, because they don't become amazing in Kunark like Shamans do, so they're relegated to "bad class" territory even though they suffer the same exact problems that Shamans do in vanilla.

And you know what buffs are actually good in EverQuest? Stuff like haste, which Enchanters do much better, mana regeneration, which only Enchanters and Bards do at all, etc.

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

Root CC

You're listing Root as a reason that Shamans aren't mediocre Clerics? Maybe you would be surprised to know that Clerics also receive Root. I'm pretty sure you know this already so I don't why you tried to bring it up like it was relevant.

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

malo

Shamans don't get Malo in vanilla. Again, memory clouded by great Kunark spells. Shamans get Malosi at 44 that reduces resists by 60 for 175 mana. Magicians get Malaisement at 44 that reduces resists by 40 for 100 mana. Neither are unresistable like Malo is, so they're much weaker and more niche spells.

So cool, Shamans can do something slightly better than another class. It's mostly only relevant when grouping with a charming Enchanter. In fact Enchanter + Shaman is a decent duo... if the Enchanter can't find a Cleric to duo with.

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

pet dps

Okay now you're really grasping. Shamans are the second worst pet class in the game. A lot of times you can't even use them because of aoes/pathing. Very cool.

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

Hybrids and wizards are subpar. Not shamans.

Now I'm very confused by the way that you evaluate classes. You think that Shaman, which excels at nothing, is better than Paladins or Shadow Knights which are the best group tanks in the game? An extremely underplayed and valuable group role?

I didn't include Ranger in the "9 classes better than Shaman" list I formulated in my head, but how are they significantly worse than Shamans? They perform consistent DPS, they're even better at cc (root+snare), they can tank in a pinch. With Mistwalker they're absolutely ridiculous, and Shamans don't get any sort of potential like that in Vanilla. And Bards have a way deeper utility kit too.

Wizard is generally one of the most recruited classes for raid guilds in vanilla EQ. You're literally required to have a few of them to enter Plane of Hate or Sky, and the mobility that ports in general afford you is a huge advantage that always gets glossed over whenever Wizards are discussed.

Again, they have better CC than Shamans (root, stun, snare) and they're a competent DPS class that does unfortunately get screwed a bit by bad game design and the resists of high tier raid mobs. But like Shamans they improve by quite a bit in future expansions.

I don't know, I don't see hybrids or Wizards as being significantly worse than Shamans but maybe you can expand on why you think that a bit more.

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

Strongest buffs

I already explained why this is false. The best buffs in the game are haste and mana regeneration. Shamans get a lame haste spell (Shamans don't get Enchanter's vanilla haste SLTW until Planes of Power), but it's still their best buff just because of how good haste is. They don't get any form of mana regeneration buff.

So no, Shamans do not get the best buffs. Nothing that Shamans get are as good as SLTW or Clarity. And it just so happens that the same class gets both of those. I guess that would make that class the best at buffing.

The next best buffs are magic resistance and the raw HP/AC buffs. The best magic resistance buff is yet again exclusive to Enchanters, and Clerics get the best HP/AC buffs. Talisman is pretty good, though.

I guess that makes Shamans the third best buff class in vanilla EQ.

I've been ignoring Bards because they don't get static buff spells. But if you include them, Shamans drop to 4th for obvious reasons.

So the class that's known for buffing is the 3rd or 4th best buffing class in the game. Doesn't that just scream "above average" to you?

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

Strongest debuffs

The best debuff is slow, and Enchanters do that slightly better. So this seems false as well. They can debuff resists slightly better than Magicians, as I mentioned above. They get the same melee debuff that Enchanters do (Incapacitate).

So, Shamans are competent at debuffing. They don't excel at debuffing since Enchanters have an edge until Kunark.

Again, maybe you're confusing Kunark Shamans with Vanilla Shamans.

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

Haste, slow, heals (+regen) and can tank, play with a group or one of the strongest solo classes even in classic from lvl 1 to 50.

Yaaaa real dogshit class that shaman

You're doing this thing that people on the internet do when they realize that they're arguing a position that's factually insufficient. You're trying to change my position by suggesting that I called Shamans "dogshit." I in fact never once said that Shamans were dogshit, I said they were sub-par or below average. There's a pretty big difference there.

So let's use your own list to once again summarize why that is. You mention haste, but their haste is half as effective as an Enchanter's, and it only lasts a few minutes. Shamans had to wait over 3 and a half years just to receive the same haste spell that Enchanters get in vanilla.

You mention slow, but Enchanters do that better. You mention heals, but Clerics do that way better. You mention regen, but Druids get the same regen spell. They can "tank," but worse than Warriors, Shadow Knights, Paladins, Monks, Rangers, and possibly more.

So please explain, how is this class above average?

[Gatorsmash]

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

Wow way to substantiate on your claim with any sort of information whatsoever.

Shamans are sub-par in vanilla. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings somehow but I'm sure that anyone who understands classic EQ would agree.

They're kind of like a hybrid. The toolkit is nice, but they don't excel at anything. Their primary role becomes healing, but the best heal spell they get is Greater Heal. Greater Heal is not good. It's the same heal that Paladins have. And Shamans can potentially push out a bit more healing than a Druid or a Paladin through cannibalize, but you don't have the endless reservoir of mana without Torpor. Enchanter slow is even a bit better than Shamans' until Kunark.

Like I said in my last post, Shamans are incredible once Kunark is out. But they're mediocre in vanilla. There's just too much of a gap between Clerics and the other Priest classes.

Strongest buffs
Strongest debuffs
Haste, slow, heals (+regen) and can tank, play with a group or one of the strongest solo classes even in classic from lvl 1 to 50.

Yaaaa real dogshit class that shaman

[NegaStoat]

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

Wow way to substantiate on your claim with any sort of information whatsoever.

Shamans are sub-par in vanilla. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings somehow but I'm sure that anyone who understands classic EQ would agree.

I don't agree. The route to leveling from 1-24 is painful unless you're grouping. From 24 to 34 isn't that much fun either excepting the rare cases you can make use of your animal charm for that last push. Permafrost comes to mind with the wolf you can grab. But at level 34 shaman are strong, and my feelings absolutely aren't hurt with how wrong you are when you look at a 49 shaman's full spell book. If they want something dead in Classic that isn't a straight up raid target, they will make it dead. If they want an undergeared melee to become a tenacious, heroic killer their buffs and slow will make it happen.

[zanderklocke]

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

what a dreadfully misinformed thing to say and pass off as truth.

Petros, I just looked at your stream, and you kind of look like me in real life. See signature photo below.

[oldhead]

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

It might be hard to find CC since less people are playing Enchanters due to some of the changes,

what changes with enc???