Since when are SKs a good class in classic EQ?

[Elrood]

Having played EQ from 1999 through luclin, I distinctly recall SKs being considered the worst class in the game. There were next to none on my server (tholuxe paells). As a paladin I remember taking solace in the fact that, well at least I'm not a SK.

Is this a case of EQ players in the first few years not really understanding the class back then or incorrectly believing it to be a weak class? Or is there something about P1999 that does indeed bode well for them. Or are my memories wrong? I ask because they seem to be a hell of a lot more better received on this server.

[Itap]

For the fact that they have great snap aggro spells and in the next expansion, their defensive and offensive caps match warriors.

Not to mention the utility spells they have.

[pharmakos]

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

Is this a case of EQ players in the first few years not really understanding the class back then or incorrectly believing it to be a weak class?

probably mostly this, also mixed in with how slow they level

[Splorf22]

SKs are excellent. I was in a chef group and the tank left 'oh lets get a warrior so we don't have the hybrid xp penalty'. Meanwhile I had been chain rooting because the warrior's aggro was so shitty and we had a bunch of mage pets with rune swords breaking root constantly. SKs are:

1) best pullers in the game, especially with the new FD
2) best aggro in the game
3) defensively identical to warriors when they use shields except for disciplines
4) have snare to stop runners
5) can heal themselves to some extent with lifetaps
6) decent dps between the taps/dots/pets/melee, although still worse than warriors and far from a monk/rogue obviously

No question in my mind that our group would have been better with an SK, hybrid penalty or no.

However in my opinion SKs will get worse in Velious. Right now the fights are so fast I would argue that if it wasn't for mallets warriors wouldn't be tanking shit in Kunark. I'd much rather have the snap aggro of an SK so my wizards and rogues can burn down Trakanon in 45 seconds. Kunark is fundamentally an offensive expansion; the goal is to blow stuff up before you die to the aoe. I would say that except for the broken quadding bosses like Hoshkar or Bazzt SKs can tank anything in Kunark.

Velious on the other hand is a defensive expansion, the goal is to keep your MT(s) alive for 5+ minutes. If you can do that, you win. And for that you really need a defensive warrior. So SKs will be pulling and offtanking.

[Danth]

I'd argue that in the classic period--meaning levels 1 to 49--Shadow Knights are basically worse than Paladins for grouping. They solo somewhat better outdoors from about level 22 onward, but as a group tank in that level range I'd much rather have the Paladin. Both classes will hold aggro, but the Paladin can protect his group in ways the SK cannot.

The relative power curves of the classes has to be considered as well. Most players on EQ-live during the classic era and into the first couple expansions weren't at the level cap. Many never reached it. The Paladin and Ranger suited those people well; those classes are at the peak of their relative power in the mid levels. The Shadow Knight doesn't really start to shine until very high levels. Unlike Live, players on Project1999 have a tendency to pick a class based on its performance at level 60, whether they reach it or not.

With Kunark the Shadow Knight became better while the Paladin stagnated. At 60 the SK is probably the stronger class when all things are considered. However, few players took the class all the way to the cap. In addition, on EQ-live a lot more players avoided the evil classes than do on P1999. As such the SK remained the least-played class during the period P1999 covers. Note that shadow Knights aren't particularly common here, either. They're about fourth from least-played and not a whole lot of them reach level 60. The main reason that they're not at the bottom is because few people play Paladins, Rangers or Wizards.

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

A correction for Itap: SK's and Paladins have their defense skill cap raised to equal to that of Warriors with Velious. They're also put on the same combat table (same chance to miss and same damage for a given strength/offense); however their offense skill cap remains the same as it is in Kunark. Regardless, all hybrids become significantly better during Velious.

Danth

[Itap]

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

A correction for Itap: SK's and Paladins have their defense skill cap raised to equal to that of Warriors with Velious.

You're right, only defensive caps. Just found the patch notes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Splorf22]

Care to give some more details Danth? I guess I don't really see why the SK spells 50-60 are so much better than the Pally/Ranger spells of the same level.

I do agree that all the hybrids were much stronger in classic where they had almost the same skill caps as a warrior and there were no disciplines. A L50 Paladin/Shadowknight is simply better than a L50 warrior in my opinion.

[nilzark]

I played an SK to 52 levels on classic. Never had a prob getting groups or soloing. FD, and Agro being top skills I suppose.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Care to give some more details Danth?

Sure. Note that my comment was directed relative to Paladins specifically; I'm less familiar with Rangers and totally unfamiliar with how well they do 50-60.

Shadow Knights actually gain tolerable scaling at 50+. A level 60 SK can stack up damage over time spells for more than triple the damage per tick as what he had at level 50. The SK's 52 pet and especially the 58 pet are massive upgrades over the wimpy pre-expansion era pets. A 60 SK's lifetap hits/heals for about 5 times as much as what he had at 50 and is also far more efficient. The self damage shield proves useful as well. In short, the SK ends up relatively stronger at 60 than he was at 50. This by no means makes a Shadow Knight anyone's idea of overpowered, but it certainly puts him in a better position than his knightly cousin.

By comparison, a Paladin basically loses ground at high levels. Two of the class's defining spell lines--lulls and stuns--literally don't work on high level creatures. Believe me, that's a major downer by itself. Melee damage becomes increasingly inadequate because monster hit point totals scale more quickly than your melee damage does. Few of the 50+ spells are for combat, and most of those range from underwhelming to outright trash (hello, Divine Favor). Lay on Hands doesn't even keep up with scaling player hit point pools.

Long story short, I figure like this: From 50 to 60, the SK holds its ground or even gains a little, while the Paladin falls off a cliff as he approaches 60. I say that even though the Paladin is my favorite class; just it's a class that's at its best from about levels 30-50.

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

All that being said, Kunark is basically the worst period for all the hybrids. Velious and its class revamps helps a lot. That's a major factor in their relative lack of popularity.

Danth

[Splorf22]

Yeah I guess the SK spells are better, although the huge casting time on drain spirit sucks. The pet upgrade is pretty huge though. I don't really buy 'lulls and stuns not working' though; I mean as an enchanter I abuse those spells all day every day. Sure you can't stun a jugg or lull a shroom but thats not really such a huge problem.