Mystics, Races, and Lore

[NoteworthyFellow]

I'm brand new to EQ2 and I've played a Warden up to 15, but something about being a Warden brings back memories of being a Druid in WoW and I just don't like those.  Both Templars and Mystics offer a different look at healing than I would see in WoW, and as I quite like to heal, those two seem to be the best classes for me.  I'm leaning towards Mystic right now just because I enjoy the overall lore or "fluff" of it moreso than a Templar, but I have a couple questions. 1) How are Mystics for soloing?  Is melee or casting better for a solo Mystic?  I love to group, but sometimes I just don't have time, so I solo quest often. 2) Lore-wise, what would be the most logical race for a Mystic?  I'd like to be a Wood Elf, but it occurs to me that they are probably a more druidic than shamanistic culture.  I don't much care about stats as I understand that racial stats eventually matter very little. Thanks!

[Erithorn]

<p>Mystics are good for solo play... we will not kill things as quickly as a Fury might, but we can survive easier.</p><p>Shaman are based on debuffs and slows to lessen damage, with wards to stop damage. Direct heals are the fill ins to replenish health.  We can also wear chain armor and carry a shield, that helps with mitigation during melee.</p><p>Lore wise, I believe the barbarian race is most in tune with shaman characters.... though in truth, contact with dead ancestors is a  part of every culture that embraces nature and the existance of a here-after.</p><p> Enjoy whatever race choice you like, the class is great.</p><p>Erithorn Silverleaf</p><p>67 Mystic of Oasis</p>

[Bobbette]

I'd suggest the melee for soloing.  I leveled my shaman to high 60s before EoF came out.  It was a slow painful process, with even solo quests taking ages to complete.  I've since gotten her the CA line and the difference is night and day. There's a few benefits to getting the CA line early.  The first is interrupts.  Our spells cast pretty slow and that leaves alot of opportunity to be interrupted mid-cast.  Combat arts "cast" immediately and thus are prone to less interruption.  Add the KoS agility line and suddenly she can do solo quests in a reasonable time frame with far less frustration (due to the interrupt thing).  The other benefit is that the combat arts scale to your level so they are constantly upgrading as you level.  Spells upgrade once every 10-14 levels.  Basically if you get the combat arts at the outset you won't need to buy the spells as you level up and can spend that money on your heals and debuffs ... plus you'll always be doing level consistent damage (no more omg I can't wait for the next level so my spell gets a big bump in damage). As for races, someone suggested barbarians and that's a good choice, they were one of the shamanistic races in EQ1.  Humans would work imo.  Perhaps dwarves or halflings also.  Even maybe Kerra given their race's strong tie to heritage and ancestors.  To me, woodelves are more nature & druidic; high elves, gnomes and frogloks are more scholarly and thus templar comes to mind.  But honestly, you can make a good case for just about any race to be a shaman.

[Inphina]

Mystics aren't as good for soloing as Wardens, but they solo OK. Like Erithorn said, we don't kill as fast as druids, but we don't get killed so fast either. Thanks to wards that absorb more damage for less power than most heals can heal, Mystics can solo almost anything as long as the power lasts. Not sure about epics though, I think only summoners can effectively solo them. Shamans are mostly priests of the more primitive races of Norrath, such as barbarians, kerra, trolls, iksar and so on. You can be a wood elf if you like though, some description of wood elves said that most wood elves become druids but a few also practice shamanism. My shamans are high elf and dark elf. They probably aren't very logical races for shaman, but in my opinion it'd be even stranger to see a physically weak elves wear plate mail (as clerics), or to see an evil dark elf protect nature (as a druid). Mystic's heals are slow to cast and not as powerful as those of druids' and clerics', so if you're just looking for a powerful healing class, then you might want to be a cleric. On the other hand, Templars can hardly solo, so you will either have to be Inquisitor or stay as a druid. Mystics mainly use buffs and debuffs to protect friends from damage, and they usually heal the main tank (as far as I know). I suggest that you make an alt and see how you like the class first before using too much gold or time on it. Just see if you enjoy playing it -- keep playing if you did, delete it if you didn't.

[Kaharthemad]

<cite>NoteworthyFellow wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm brand new to EQ2 and I've played a Warden up to 15, but something about being a Warden brings back memories of being a Druid in WoW and I just don't like those.  Both Templars and Mystics offer a different look at healing than I would see in WoW, and as I quite like to heal, those two seem to be the best classes for me.  I'm leaning towards Mystic right now just because I enjoy the overall lore or "fluff" of it moreso than a Templar, but I have a couple questions. 1) How are Mystics for soloing?  Is melee or casting better for a solo Mystic?  I love to group, but sometimes I just don't have time, so I solo quest often. 2) Lore-wise, what would be the most logical race for a Mystic?  I'd like to be a Wood Elf, but it occurs to me that they are probably a more druidic than shamanistic culture.  I don't much care about stats as I understand that racial stats eventually matter very little. Thanks! </blockquote><p> I did alot of soloing in the two years I have play my mystic. They are very enjoyable to play and once you get the hang of them can do ok at soloing.</p><p>As for traditional. In eq1 frogs, Ogres, trolls and barbies were the main ones. However most primative cultures have shamanistic beliefs. So alot of other classes work. I play a betrayed Ratonga and enjoy him immensly. </p>