Class like EQ1 shaman

[Jedi_Knight_Jr]

<p>Just a quick question what class is most like the shaman class from EQ1?</p><p>And could you put how they are different and similar.</p><p>Thnx in advance</p>

[Hoppytehubah]

The shaman and the beastlord were extremely unbalanced classes in EQ1, so because of this, there is no beastlord in EQ2 and the shaman is now a "mystic" but without the power of the original shaman. Very good buffing line though. I haven't played the mystic in EQ1 though. Someone who has can post a better explanation. If you liked the shaman, you might like to play a mystic, or even a warden, they are close to what a druid was in eq1 but have a better tanking ability (more like the shaman's tanking ability). My suggestion is to play a few classes to lvl 10 and then make a decision.

[Norrsken]

Defiler or mystic. Play the different classes to 24 before making a decision though. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> classes dont get into their right feel until about htere.

[Brigh]

<cite>Hoppytehubah wrote:</cite><blockquote>The shaman and the beastlord were extremely unbalanced classes in EQ1, so because of this, there is no beastlord in EQ2 and the shaman is now a "mystic" but without the power of the original shaman. Very good buffing line though. I haven't played the mystic in EQ1 though. Someone who has can post a better explanation. If you liked the shaman, you might like to play a mystic, or even a warden, they are close to what a druid was in eq1 but have a better tanking ability (more like the shaman's tanking ability). My suggestion is to play a few classes to lvl 10 and then make a decision. </blockquote> If you never played a shaman then how can you say it is an extremely unbalanced class? I know of one person that replied to a similar post/comment about beastlords that said they were powerful at first then got a little nerf.

[sayitaintso]

<cite>Hoppytehubah wrote:</cite><blockquote>The shaman and the beastlord were extremely unbalanced classes in EQ1, so because of this, there is no beastlord in EQ2 and the shaman is now a "mystic" but without the power of the original shaman. Very good buffing line though. I haven't played the mystic in EQ1 though. Someone who has can post a better explanation. If you liked the shaman, you might like to play a mystic, or even a warden, they are close to what a druid was in eq1 but have a better tanking ability (more like the shaman's tanking ability). My suggestion is to play a few classes to lvl 10 and then make a decision. </blockquote>You have no idea of what you speak. I played a shaman up to level 65 in EQ1 and we were hardly unbalanced. We had good abilities true, but we also had our short comings. Pets that were 10 levels below us that meleed like they were 20 levels below us, nearly no melee ability ourselves, Our heals wern't nearly as good as clerics or druids and because we all started out as races with limited wisdom, we never had the mana pool of a cleric or a druid. We were powerful, but we were in no way unbalanced. As for a class similar to a shaman? There really isn't one in this game. I tried playing a mystic when I first started playing EQ2 at release. They may be powerful at higher levels, but I didn't have the patience to stay with him past level 35. They are quite boring at lower levels. A few buffs and ward ward ward. They have no powerful arcane skills and they have almost zero melee ability...If you can get past the first 35 levels at least it might get better. I can't tell you because I don't the experience. I started a Fury. They have more Shamanesque skills that the mystic...good heals over time, decent DoTs and DD spells and they don't melee half bad in a pinch. If it's a healer you seek I would go with a fury. About the only thing they lack is the ability to directly slow attack speed...But in this game that isn't all that important except maybe during boss mob raids..IF slows even affect epic boss mobs...Which I am told is hit or miss...If you have a good balanced group things die so fast in EQ2 that slowing isn't needed like it was in EQ1

[tass]

in this game every class is either a dpser and soloer or they just suck. If u play a healer u can probably solo anything some faster than other. If you play a mage u can solo anything. If ur a scout (most scouts) u need good armor to solo but u still gte the dps. If ur a fighter... hmm I suppose it would depend on the class u choose.

[Lornick]

Quite a few misleading posts in this thread.  Mystics are most like shaman of EQ1 imho.

[Goozman]

<p>And the shaman was incredibly imbalanced in eq1, how could someone who played one not agree? Completely debilitated even raid mobs, incredibly high damage through dot's (what, second only to necromancer? or were they even stronger... I vaguely remember), could make melee players godly, and once they added the big heal, they could heal easily too.</p><p>Like the second poster said, there is no class in this game that completely replicates what the shaman was... but there are shamans jeje. Mystic is probably i tiny bit closer to what Shaman was than Defiler based solely on the names of spells and the elements used.</p>

[Slapfish]

<cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>And the shaman was incredibly imbalanced in eq1, how could someone who played one not agree? Completely debilitated even raid mobs, incredibly high damage through dot's (what, second only to necromancer? or were they even stronger... I vaguely remember), could make melee players godly, and once they added the big heal, they could heal easily too.</p><p>Like the second poster said, there is no class in this game that completely replicates what the shaman was... but there are shamans jeje. Mystic is probably i tiny bit closer to what Shaman was than Defiler based solely on the names of spells and the elements used.</p></blockquote><p> I played one and I don't agree. It was a well-balanced class, but hardly over powered. Like everything, if you compare to a few uber players with every bit of equipment money can buy, perhaps they were, but that hardly goes for the average Shaman.  It was an enjoyable class, but I was right about average in what I could take on, or contribute to a group. </p><p>I think for EQ2 the Mystic was meant to be like a Shaman of EQ, however they gimped the class to such an extent that it's not a very enjoyable to play. </p>

[Illmarr]

<cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>And the shaman was incredibly imbalanced in eq1, how could someone who played one not agree? Completely debilitated even raid mobs, incredibly high damage through dot's (what, second only to necromancer? or were they even stronger... I vaguely remember), could make melee players godly, and once they added the big heal, they could heal easily too.</p><p>Like the second poster said, there is no class in this game that completely replicates what the shaman was... but there are shamans jeje. Mystic is probably i tiny bit closer to what Shaman was than Defiler based solely on the names of spells and the elements used.</p></blockquote> When exactly did you stop playing EQ1? Ever hear of slow mitigation, which when introduced was broken and actually hasted the mob instead of partially slowing it? Raid mobs after PoP were immune to slow more often than not, and mitigated it greatly if not immune (Perhaps the Gods in Time were immune also) Starting with Gates of Discord mob damage output was increased, mob HP were relatively low meaning DoTs lost effectiveness because once you've Malo'd and slowed the mob your DoT didn't have the time to run it's course to do it's full damage. Slow mitigation was added to trash mobs with OoW, so now the one huge trick Shaman were blessed with was trivialized even more, since with mitigation the gap between Shaman/Chanter/Beastlord slows was even less. Shaman paid the price for being Godly in Kunark and Velious for years. Their healing spells were made more inefficient compared to Druids and Clerics due to the almighty slow. Their spell mana costs were more inefficient due to Canibalization, even as Canni upgrades lagged behind mana pools and increasing mana costs. Their stat buffs became less and less needed as more people capped their stats through gear (These were hardcaps, not even allowing diminishing returns for being overcap). At least they changed str and agi buffs to instead add a % to damage and dodge with Omens. The state of Shaman started to improve then and continued with DoN and DoDH. I finally gave up EQ1 full time with PoR, so I can't say first hand what the state of Shaman is currently.

[KonnySylverstar]

<p>I guess it really depends on what you are looking for when you say shaman of EQ1.  I played a shaman to level 70 before I left the game.  I always played my shaman as a support class.  My role was to slow the mob, help with dps and backup heal.  </p><p> I have a mystic in EQ2 that is level 70.  My role as a mystic is still support but the priorities are different.  My main role in EQ2 is to buff and heal with slowing and dps as secondary.  As a mystic in EQ2 you will find you are needed for the buffs you offer rather than your slowing ability, which was paramount in EQ1.</p><p> I also have a defiler that is level 40.  The mystic and defiler are both of the shaman line and they share the wards and slows.  They are slightly different when it comes to buffing.  </p><p> So all in all if you are looking for a support class toon, mystic and defiler are good choices.  If you want a class you can solo with you might consider going with a Fury, which is a druid class.  In the end there is not a class that is just like the shaman in EQ1 only classes that are somewhat close.</p><p> Hope that helps.</p><p>Kilea Sylverstar</p>

[Talz]

<cite>Jedi_Knight_Jr wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Just a quick question what class is most like the shaman class from EQ1?</p><p>And could you put how they are different and similar.</p><p>Thnx in advance</p></blockquote>Go with either a mystic or defiler.  With the achievement abilities you can tweak them to what type of character you want it to be.  They don't have the buff ability that they did in EQ1 but are both very needed classes.  Check the class boards to see what one best fits you of the two and don't make a decision based on what disgruntled players say. The main difference you will see here is that fights aren't like they were in EQ1.  Keeping something slowed isn't enough here.  If you die it will probably be from spike damage that you can't always control. On a side note for all you LDoN newbies from EQ1... stop talking about overpowered beastlords... please.  You just look like idiots.  When the new Lake of Ill Omen comes back you can newb up the /ooc all you want.

[firemonkey5]

The Druids probably are most like Shamans from EQ1.