I like the changes to our persona. Nicely done.

[Chrysostom]

<div></div>Title says it all. I use it mostly for control type stuff anyway and it is much more useful for me now. Thank you. This is very much the kind of pet I as an illusionist want. Could it be improved? yes.  A nice change would be  to halve the damage-per-melee-hit but double the attack speed so I can get my Havoc procs in. OH! and could it cost even one less conc? please? <grin> ( I doubt that last one will happen, but a guy can ask right?) Again, thank you. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Chrysostom on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:37 AM</span>

[Xalibur]

<DIV>prismatic line doesnt proc at all now from pet..you musthave been testing that heavily, are you a dev ?<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[jun]

<DIV>"prismatic line doesnt proc at all now from pet"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hehe... now the OP knows why some of us were a little concerned on the other thread about our ability to solo (using Prismatic + Pet) like before.  I haven't really tested the benefits of switching out the Prismatic with Dynamism yet... so I am not sure how much better/worse it is going to be.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yeah, I'm aware of both tactics (arguements) concerning the pet .vs caster getting Prismatic when solo'n.  Personally, I don't see casting it on myself (even with maxed melee abilities) has a more desirable benefit to solo'n than casting on the pet.  I understand the pet has a lower connect rate than I would, so it may or may not get the 'full' Prismatic payload.  But when I look at the alternative... even a slowed mob (even con or blue) deals out so much damage that I would probably be darn near DEAD before I got the full payload from Prismatic either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lol... Sorry guys, you are just going to have a hard time convincing me that I am more expendable than the Personae <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  And the Prismatic line is just too much of my DPS power to ignore.  So the question to test is... does the Dynamism  + Personae (casting DPS now instead of melee) have the same or better results as Prismatic + Personae ( + Haste)?  If they are similar in the results, no harm, no foul.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At least, that's how I see it.  I'm not really 'married' to one means over the other... as long as I can still achieve my goal... I'm happy.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>VR,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Kailen - 60 Illusionist Faydark</DIV>

[Fizwi]

Grrar!Meleeing a mob does not mean you're tanking it.  Plenty of characters melee without getting hit...they're called scouts.  It's not like you're getting more aggro, since the procs were attributed to you anyway.  And being closer to mob certainly doesn't make it hate you more (much to the dismay of the noobish wizards that run like crazy when they get aggro, making it impossible for the tank to get it back).All you'd lose is about 1.5 seconds of "uh oh" time <b>if </b>you get aggro and the mob has to run to you.  I guess that time could be used to drop a stun and root (of course many people here say the roots are "worthless" and they no longer use them soloing, so...).I don't think Dynamism DPS will equate with Prismatic DPS, but I also see no compelling reason we can't have both and be better off than we were in the first place.<div></div>

[Xalibur]

<P>you ever heard that mobs might use some melee AE  ? no ? if you are in melee i range they will hit you... but im not sure if you have noticed that on your level yet. Besides that, if you outaggro your pet  (sometimes also when root is on) the mob doesnt need to run to you and just beats you.</P> <P>Im sure you like the changes SOE/LA did to SWG too and love the NGE <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Impetus]

I've been casting Prismatic on myself over the past month or so, anyway, so not a big deal for me. I haven't found melee ae's to be a big problem. I usually have the thing stunned half the time anyway, or stifled with color shower.

[Jvaloth]

<P>I like the new pets abilities and lack of a dot.  Working closely with the pet, you can keep a mob stunned/rooted/power drained non stop with pet pulsing in and out and with combination of yoru stuns/debuffs/roots.</P> <P> </P> <P>I was a little disappointed with the LU 18 update though. I had read that pets would scale and look cooler the higher level of the spell.  </P> <P>We my 45 Chanter happens to have 14 Master 1's.   My personae didnt change at all.  My construct looked alot cooler before (Sideways "shattered thing of iron" from RE)  that would break apart and come back together as it attacked.   Now I have this super bright ,  weak looking glowing rubix cube at Master 1.</P> <P> </P> <P>I dunno, was expecting more for the chanter.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>And as an illusionist, where are my [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] illusions?  I want minotaur form, I want cyclop form,  I want group illusions, I want fear spells , I want better graphics on our spells.   I cast phantasmal charge and a little bolt of magic comes out.   etc etc    Lets see some cool graphics, some unique and interesting new spells that actually do something.  A little variety, a little functionality, a little flare!</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[SunT]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jvaloth wrote:<BR> <P>II dunno, was expecting more for the chanter.</P> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Story of my EQ2 life...</DIV>

[Pins]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xalibur wrote:<BR> <P>you ever heard that mobs might use some melee AE  ? no ? if you are in melee i range they will hit you... but im not sure if you have noticed that on your level yet. Besides that, if you outaggro your pet  (sometimes also when root is on) the mob doesnt need to run to you and just beats you.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Most melee ranged AoEs are frontal, you know what to do then right?  Go behind the mob, wait you should be behind the mob anyway so you can hit the mob more often anyway!  As for if you out-aggro the pet, if you got lucky with root, just step back 3-4 steps, and walla it turns back on the pet, then just stun, run in, havoc it down.</DIV>

[Fizwi]

I like the changes to the spell lineup too.  The pet casts control spells like a thing possessed...stun, root, stun, root...pretty much hugely mitigating incoming damage, or nearly stopping it altogether if I dump a spiffy new 2-second-cast stun on as well.  With havoc and color shower going it's impossible to not have aggro, but with all the stuns and roots it doesn't really matter.<div></div>

[Gyukst]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Fizwick wrote:<BR>Grrar!<BR><BR>Meleeing a mob does not mean you're tanking it.  Plenty of characters melee without getting hit...they're called scouts.  It's not like you're getting more aggro, since the procs were attributed to you anyway.  And being closer to mob certainly doesn't make it hate you more (much to the dismay of the noobish wizards that run like crazy when they get aggro, making it impossible for the tank to get it back).<BR><BR>All you'd lose is about 1.5 seconds of "uh oh" time <B>if </B>you get aggro and the mob has to run to you.  I guess that time could be used to drop a stun and root (of course many people here say the roots are "worthless" and they no longer use them soloing, so...).<BR><BR>I don't think Dynamism DPS will equate with Prismatic DPS, but I also see no compelling reason we can't have both and be better off than we were in the first place.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Actually, your wrong.. by definition:</P> <P><STRONG>me·lee</STRONG>   <A href="https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dmelee" target=_blank><IMG alt="Audio pronunciation of " src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/[Removed for Content].jpg" border=0></A><SPAN>(</SPAN><SPAN> P </SPAN><SPAN>)</SPAN>  <A href="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html" target=_blank><B><FONT color=#0033ff>Pronunciation Key</FONT></B></A>  (m<IMG height=15 alt="" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gif" width=7><IMG height=22 alt="" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif" width=4>l<IMG height=15 alt="" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gif" width=7><IMG height=22 alt="" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif" width=3>, m<IMG height=15 alt="" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gif" width=7>-l<IMG height=15 alt="" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gif" width=7><IMG height=22 alt="" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif" width=4>) also <B>mê·lée</B><!-- PR:M0206200 --> (m<IMG height=15 alt="" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gif" width=7>-l<IMG height=15 alt="" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gif" width=7><IMG height=22 alt="" src="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif" width=4>)<BR><I>n.</I></P> <OL> <LI> <OL> <LI>Confused, hand-to-hand fighting in a pitched battle.</LI> <LI>A violent free-for-all. See Synonyms at <A href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brawl" target=_blank><FONT color=#0033ff>brawl</FONT></A>.</LI></OL></LI> <LI>A confused tumultuous mingling, as of a crowd: the rush-hour melee.</LI></OL> <P> </P> <P>Melee is hand to hand.  Its close combat.  It hurts.  Firing a bow from a mile away is not melee... thats ranged attack.   BIG difference.</P> <P> </P>

[Fizwi]

Not even sure how to respond to this post, which:a.) responds to post almost 2 weeks oldb.) attacks a point that is now moot, given recent bug fixesc.) employs an argument that really doesn't apply.  Lots of terms in EQ2 aren't used in accordance with the almighty dictionary.com.  I'd suggest looking up "tank" and seeing if it matches up.../boggle<div></div>

[Gyukst]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Fizwick wrote:<BR>Not even sure how to respond to this post, which:<BR><BR>a.) responds to post almost 2 weeks old<BR>b.) attacks a point that is now moot, given recent bug fixes<BR>c.) employs an argument that really doesn't apply.  Lots of terms in EQ2 aren't used in accordance with the almighty dictionary.com.  I'd suggest looking up "tank" and seeing if it matches up...<BR><BR>/boggle<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Your best bet would have been to read it and understand it because:</DIV> <DIV>A) My response was valid regardless of whether it was 2 hour, 2 weeks or 2 years</DIV> <DIV>B) Did not attack your point, merely pointed out that your interpertation and use of the word "melee" is flawed.</DIV> <DIV>C) Argument is valid, since the you were using the word neither as slang nor as a l33t speak word in any context other than its true meaning.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I had no intent to attack you, other than to point out you were using the word incorrectly.  Unfortunately scouts are not the brightest and may have actually read that and thought they were meleeing while using a bow.  I would hate for that disservice to be done.</DIV>

[Impetus]

Awesome. I've always said that what the illusionist board really needs is a pedant.

[Kurai_Mitsukai]

<DIV>I really like how much better it taunts.  I did some informal testing, would take a 54^^ to 50% life, then cast personae, root mob, and set pet on it.  Pet would have agro within like 5-10 seconds so root break was no biggie.  Still died quick, of course.  Speaking of which, considering it doesn't compare to either a conj. or necro. pet or a coercer pet for that matter, I really don't agree with the 3 conc. requirement.  Seems stupid that all pets cost the same when our is clearly inferior, least in many ways it is.</DIV>

[Pins]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kurai_Mitsukai wrote:<BR> <DIV>I really like how much better it taunts.  I did some informal testing, would take a 54^^ to 50% life, then cast personae, root mob, and set pet on it.  Pet would have agro within like 5-10 seconds so root break was no biggie.  Still died quick, of course.  Speaking of which, considering it doesn't compare to either a conj. or necro. pet or a coercer pet for that matter, I really don't agree with the 3 conc. requirement.  Seems stupid that all pets cost the same when our is clearly inferior, least in many ways it is.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Conj and Necro pets only cost 1 conc.  Their pet stances add the extra 2, though our pet is weaker than their pets without a stance.  Would be nice to have our pet and of course charm for coercers drop to 2 or even 1 conc slot.

[Arja]

<div></div><div></div><p>Or maybe some pet based spells? Not stances as we are not a pet class, but maybe some Spells that can only be cast when we have a pet up?</p><p>Example. Extra Debuffs based on the Illusion of ourselves. Dizzy effects of the pet running around the mob in circles. Silence effects etc..</p><p>The Illusionist is supposed to mess with mobs minds so we need more status altering spells and debuffs.</p><p>I personally love the addition of the pet and its now a very nicely balanced spell. I think as a whole though, the Illusionist needs more debuffs.</p><p>I totally agree on the Concentration points though. It should be a max of 2 Conc. so we can cast dynamism on ourselves/pet.</p><p>Message Edited by Arjacy on <span class="date_text">01-06-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:52 AM</span></p>

[MyChatBot]

<div></div>Roots worthless? What do you do when your pet dies and that mob comes running for you, DoT's still blazing away?First I ever heard of that.What I'd like to see is spells that actually make us illusionists. I mean, exactly what "illusions" do we cast? Might be nice if we could do things like cloak the tank in an illusion that would raise the hate of the mob or something.<div></div><p>Message Edited by MyChatBot on <span class="date_text">01-07-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:09 PM</span></p>

[Barobra]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>MyChatBot wrote:<div></div>Roots worthless? What do you do when your pet dies and that mob comes running for you, DoT's still blazing away?First I ever heard of that.What I'd like to see is spells that actually make us illusionists. I mean, exactly what "illusions" do we cast? Might be nice if we could do things like cloak the tank in an illusion that would raise the hate of the mob or something.<div></div><p>Message Edited by MyChatBot on <span class="date_text">01-07-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:09 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I agree we are missing some kewl illusions. But, IA is definatley an illusion. Group gnoll lost its appeal after a while. I think they need to throw a few more in there somewhere. Maybe something else besides making myself a half-elf...maybe some kind of mob? I think human and half-elf (group versions) should be tossed and something that no one else or totem can turn you into. Would definatley be neat to have a group illusion that turns everyone into a RANDOM monster maybe a pick from 30 or so (ones that are already in memory) maybe mobs of that zone. Would be fun, and would not hamper performance too much.</span></div>