Worst Group (not raid) Classes?

[eqravenprince]

Please delete thread, I can't figure out how.

[Cruger]

Ranking them in somewhat of an order and purely my own opinion:

Enchanter
Shaman
Shadowknight
Cleric
Paladin
Monk
Magician
Necro
Rogue
Druid
Ranger
Warrior
Wizard

Ranger would get bumped up a couple of slots if in an outdoor zone.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Worst Group (not raid) Classes? Can pick multiples, maybe limit yourself to 6.

Honestly all classes are pretty useful in groups. The only reason why some classes are bad in raids is because they have skill/spell redundancy that is great is solo/group play, but useless in raids due to another class being able to do the same thing but way better.

The only time classes can be bad in a group is if the player is bad, or if the class is being used for the wrong role. Like if you had the rogue as the main tank because he is the only melee class in your group, that would be bad. Or having your only healer in the group focus on nuking instead of healing. And I am not saying it is impossible for either of these examples to work in some situations, but overall it would be an ineffective way to use the classes.

[Toxigen]

The best 6 man group is cleric, enchanter, shaman, warrior, monk, rogue.

The worst ones are wizard, mage, and ranger...druid too unless they're charming an animal.

[starkind]

BRD, SHM, WAR, ROG, ROG, ROG <3

[Jibartik]

monk monk monk monk monk shaman

[starkind]

I want to do classic groups were everyone tells the enchanter not to charm [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Jibartik]

It's amazing that EQ was able to make a game where they were like, oh cant find another person to play a healer? Well no gamin for you and these 5 other people tonight.

[starkind]

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

It's amazing that EQ was able to make a game where they were like, oh cant find another person to play a healer? Well no gamin for you and these 5 other people tonight.

u dont need a healer to play eq there is a lot ot do under lvl 40 lol

two meeleee can easily duo aviaks, giant scarabs and stuff with bandaids

i just wish there was more 1-40 content that woulda been smart

it's nice there's a zone full of dragons to distract the gnoll elites a bit though.

[Danth]

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

It's amazing that EQ was able to make a game where they were like, oh cant find another person to play a healer? Well no gamin for you and these 5 other people tonight.

It works out. A group wants a healer. Out of 14 classes you have a one main healer type, a couple of secondary healers and a couple more tertiary heal-capable classes. That's not a bad breakdown. It's enough, usually, except for that segment of the population who refuses to settle for something besides a cleric. EQ has a way of rewarding the players who can adapt to what's available and make stuff work.

----------------------------------

As a rule I think wizards have to be at about the bottom of the heap on P1999 insofar as grouping is concerned, mostly because P99's environment differs from that of original EQ. In the original game wizards brought some kill-steal protection and frequent downtime meant meditating wasn't a big deal. P1999's a different environment. Kill-stealing isn't such an issue here and routine chain-pulling means the mana-dependent wizard doesn't necessarily deal appreciably more damage per hour than even a paladin might.

Danth