Badaf
05-31-2000, 10:32 AM
Not sure why i thought of this question. Ive been playing around with several other classes and then posed this question to myself. I know at our first levels we are pretty much the same so this begins after those intitial "melee" stages
First i would immediately dismiss the other 2 priest classes for obvious reasons (healing & buffing) and paladins for the somewhat the same reason.
Next we look at the other melee types. This would seem a logical chose at first for opposite cleric. Well I have played a warrior for a combined 58 levels (31 and 27). There are some similarites. Not sure if these are just from my view point being as ive played both or not.
But warriors have certain "duties" in group combat as do clerics. Both have to keep their eyes on the health bars of casters and react accordingly when they get agroed. And many clerics often "tank" mobs, meaning they agro them on purpose to focus their attacks on themselves and away from less protected party members. So therefore i dismiss them as opposite.
Since rangers are "kinda" tanks and have preist based spells i will toss them in as well.
Lets turn our focus to pure casters for a minute. I know that each class is its own special class but they do have a binding thread. Mana. It this one regard clerics and pure casters are the same. We all must use our avaliable mana in the most effective mannner to benifit the party the most. Some might argue that Wizards deal damage and clerics heal damage but to me thats not enough to classify as opposite. Necros and Mages are not as mana dependent as the rest of us because their pets can contribute substanially after they have used all their mana. So these 2 class are more opposite the cleric in this regards.
Back to meleers now. That leaves 3 more melee types. SK, Rogue, and Monk. Ill go ahead and throw in the SK cause it has taunt and has mana to cast. Its tough for me to judge these 2 as i have not played them. Both are high damage dealers with no taunting other than thier damage output. But since these and clerics compliment each other im not going to call them opposites.
Well we are winding down somewhat on my views. Im left with 2 classes basically. Necro and Bard. I have limited experience with both (9th lvl necro and 12th level bard) so my analysis is far from complete. Necros are probably the least group dependent class whereas cleric are, by design, almost group requirements. Both still rely on mana managment in a party though.
Therefore i will have to go with the bard. When playing my bard i lose focus on what any of my party members are doing. My "job" is to twist my songs and do it well while im attacking a monster. Maybe its just because im still new to the bard class relatively speaking but the constant switching of songs and instruments/weapons is quite a challenge in itself at the moment.
Badaf.
(note these are just my rambling thoughts. please dont take offense if you think i have somehow "degraded" another of your characters in my comparisons. that is not my intent.)
First i would immediately dismiss the other 2 priest classes for obvious reasons (healing & buffing) and paladins for the somewhat the same reason.
Next we look at the other melee types. This would seem a logical chose at first for opposite cleric. Well I have played a warrior for a combined 58 levels (31 and 27). There are some similarites. Not sure if these are just from my view point being as ive played both or not.
But warriors have certain "duties" in group combat as do clerics. Both have to keep their eyes on the health bars of casters and react accordingly when they get agroed. And many clerics often "tank" mobs, meaning they agro them on purpose to focus their attacks on themselves and away from less protected party members. So therefore i dismiss them as opposite.
Since rangers are "kinda" tanks and have preist based spells i will toss them in as well.
Lets turn our focus to pure casters for a minute. I know that each class is its own special class but they do have a binding thread. Mana. It this one regard clerics and pure casters are the same. We all must use our avaliable mana in the most effective mannner to benifit the party the most. Some might argue that Wizards deal damage and clerics heal damage but to me thats not enough to classify as opposite. Necros and Mages are not as mana dependent as the rest of us because their pets can contribute substanially after they have used all their mana. So these 2 class are more opposite the cleric in this regards.
Back to meleers now. That leaves 3 more melee types. SK, Rogue, and Monk. Ill go ahead and throw in the SK cause it has taunt and has mana to cast. Its tough for me to judge these 2 as i have not played them. Both are high damage dealers with no taunting other than thier damage output. But since these and clerics compliment each other im not going to call them opposites.
Well we are winding down somewhat on my views. Im left with 2 classes basically. Necro and Bard. I have limited experience with both (9th lvl necro and 12th level bard) so my analysis is far from complete. Necros are probably the least group dependent class whereas cleric are, by design, almost group requirements. Both still rely on mana managment in a party though.
Therefore i will have to go with the bard. When playing my bard i lose focus on what any of my party members are doing. My "job" is to twist my songs and do it well while im attacking a monster. Maybe its just because im still new to the bard class relatively speaking but the constant switching of songs and instruments/weapons is quite a challenge in itself at the moment.
Badaf.
(note these are just my rambling thoughts. please dont take offense if you think i have somehow "degraded" another of your characters in my comparisons. that is not my intent.)