Best solo melee class?

[Snaggles]

Originally Posted by zelld52 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are such a sad, sad person.

By your arbitrary “toe to toe” definition most rangers won’t qualify exping in this way either. Rogues either.

[zelld52]

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

By your arbitrary “toe to toe” definition most rangers won’t qualify exping in this way either. Rogues either.

I'm genuinely curious whether you just didn't read my post, or are too dense to understand what I mean.

People are mentioning swarming and charming. THESE ARE NOT MELEE COMBAT.

[Snaggles]

Originally Posted by zelld52 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm genuinely curious whether you just didn't read my post, or are too dense to understand what I mean.

People are mentioning swarming and charming. THESE ARE NOT MELEE COMBAT.

I’m not the one redefining bards as “not a melee class” when people use them to swarm and charm stuff. Use does not redefine role…you can break up a bag of ice with a screwdriver but that doesn’t make the screwdriver an ice mallet.

Melee is one of the ways they can kill things. A Druid with a primal and shovel of the harvest does around 7-10dps on a raid mob, bards often do 25dps on AoW. Which do you feel is more of a melee archetype? Also, a bard meleeing like this to 60 (ie the least efficient way) is still on par or faster than normal melees outside maybe a monk.

If you are trying to shift the status quo of the game understanding, try being objective and less emotional. The bulk of the players don’t agree with you so try a bit harder to convince them or realize your logic is flawed and stop pouting.

[Zuranthium]

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

A Druid with a primal and shovel of the harvest does around 7-10dps on a raid mob, bards often do 25dps on AoW. Which do you feel is more of a melee archetype?

Neither of those numbers feel like a melee archetype. Bard is obviously "more melee" than a caster but nobody plays them because of their pure melee capability, and it would be misleading when a new player asks "I want to play a melee character, which one would I like most" to ever tell them to play a Bard. People play melee either because they want to be a tank or because they want to see big damage happening when they swing their weapons. Those are not things Bards excel at. You need to twist songs every 3 seconds to excel as a Bard, which are things that can be interrupted when getting hit, the same as spells. Bards are more caster than they are melee.

[zelld52]

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

Neither of those numbers feel like a melee archetype. Bard is obviously "more melee" than a caster but nobody plays them because of their pure melee capability, and it would be misleading when a new player asks "I want to play a melee character, which one would I like most" to ever tell them to play a Bard. People play melee either because they want to be a tank or because they want to see big damage happening when they swing their weapons. Those are not things Bards excel at. You need to twist songs every 3 seconds to excel as a Bard, which are things that can be interrupted when getting hit, the same as spells. Bards are more caster than they are melee.

i dont understand why others keep choosing a semantical argument about a rock solid fact like this.

Melee characters are characters that rely primarily on their auto attack to be effective in combat.

Bards clearly were not designed to, as evidenced by lack of the most crucial melee skill: Double Attack

There are no "official" class categories in Everquest. *MOST* gear is more typically split into type (Plate, Leather, Chain, Cloth)

And everyone in this thread suggesting to someone (OP) who stated they want a break from their druid to play a melee , and then suggesting charming or swarming on a bard is missing the mark by a mile.

What most people want to play when they express such feeelings is to play something uber simple like a monk, warrior or rogue - that dont require buying spells / songs, dont require any casting in combat - and rely more simply on auto attack and not much else.

Ranger, Paladin, Shadowknight could be classified as melee (even though they are colloquially known as "Hybrid") because they generate most of their offensive output through MELEE COMBAT.

A SWARMING OR CHARMING BARD IS NOT USING MELEE COMBAT

[Ennewi]

Are monks, rogues, and warriors melee classes? Yes.
Are rangers, shadow knights, and paladins melee classes? Yes and...
Are bards melee characters? Yes but...
Are the other classes melee characters? No but...

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by zelld52 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm genuinely curious whether you just didn't read my post, or are too dense to understand what I mean.

People are mentioning swarming and charming. THESE ARE NOT MELEE COMBAT.

Can you please keep your insults to the Rants and Flame section of forums? Thank you. This is your last warning.

[Zuranthium]

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

Are bards melee characters? Yes but...
Are the other classes melee characters? No but...

Bards should be in the "No but..." category, really. If you just stand around auto attacking as a Bard, you're not contributing much. Any actual melee class, they can do that can contribute a significant amount. Just make sure people understand root proximity aggro and that's all there is to it, to reach a workable level of effectiveness as a melee for a casual group.

Bards can solo while fighting in melee the whole time if they want, but it's only effective because of their magic (songs), not because of their melee capability. Similar to Shaman fighting in melee all the time when slow tanking. Like yeah you're in melee, but it's mainly to exploit the non-melee abilities you have.

[Ennewi]

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

Bards should be in the "No but..." category, really. If you just stand around auto attacking as a Bard, you're not contributing much.

Bards can solo while fighting in melee the whole time if they want, but it's only effective because of their magic (songs), not because of their melee capability. Similar to Shaman fighting in melee all the time when slow tanking. Like yeah you're in melee, but it's mainly to exploit the non-melee abilities you have.

I went with "yes but..." mainly because their groupwide weapon procs are unique to the class and require that they engage in melee, consistently, due to the short duration of those procs. Along with the benefits gained from those procs (atk, str, haste), this indicates that the developers wanted them to be in the fray auto-attacking with other melee classes so the effect(s) would land. Even ignoring the better/bis weapons though, the devs still provided them with Melodious Truncheon which, again, encouraged the class to auto-attack. Guardians Mace can be added to the list as well, to a lesser extent. And the same idea applies to the PoS spear, but with it needing a different proc altogether to be worth a damn.

Of course, all classes have access to procs but it's the presence of groupwide procs that emphasizes the many hats role that bards were granted. They can opt into meleeing and, in some cases, would be questioned for not doing so. DPS is addicted to ATK and haste wasn't so readily available back in classic I imagine, so procs from any of the Velious weapons and/or the epic were probably desired all the more.

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

Bards can solo while fighting in melee the whole time if they want, but it's only effective because of their magic (songs), not because of their melee capability. Similar to Shaman fighting in melee all the time when slow tanking. Like yeah you're in melee, but it's mainly to exploit the non-melee abilities you have.

Hmm I would say that bard magic compensates for their physical damage, whereas the magic of other hybrids complements it. To me, bards are melee-lite. The devs gave them dual wield, parry, and riposte. Nothing to write cshome about, but good enough, especially when compared to other classes.

[Snaggles]

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

Neither of those numbers feel like a melee archetype. Bard is obviously "more melee" than a caster but nobody plays them because of their pure melee capability, and it would be misleading when a new player asks "I want to play a melee character, which one would I like most" to ever tell them to play a Bard. People play melee either because they want to be a tank or because they want to see big damage happening when they swing their weapons. Those are not things Bards excel at. You need to twist songs every 3 seconds to excel as a Bard, which are things that can be interrupted when getting hit, the same as spells. Bards are more caster than they are melee.

It’s a hybrid melee for that reason. Otherwise it would have bind and gate.