Moridin_

[ QUOTE ]

Taunt exists becuase Tanks Aren't Scary. Every 4 year old in the Arena knows to kill the Tank last....Taunt in the arena is nothing more than taking control away from players.

If Tanks did enough damage to one-shot most minions and lieutenants, then they'd get attacked more by Players and the AI alike.


[/ QUOTE ]


Target selection is based on what threat that target represents vs the effort required to kill it. To make tanks the primary target on these grounds they would need to be far and away the most dangerous AT on the field. I’m talking damage output an order of magnitude higher then blasters. If this were the case there would be no point in anyone every playing anything but a tank, nor would there be any point with anyone teaming with anything but a tank. You would have tanks and spectators, nothing else.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the Boss patch made a few fights impossible for Blasters without holds.

[/ QUOTE ] Without inspirations or with inspirations against mezzing bosses, I can see that. But popping four Lucks before a fight is better defense than any non-Elude scrapper has inherently. And most secondaries have some sort of immobilize that will stop a boss when double stacked.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lucks would wear off before the boss was dead, and they still don’t provide the additional hit points a scrapper would have. Also, unlike scrappers a blaster would need to be using these all along so there is a good chance there would not be enough suitable insp. While some sets do have decent holds, others do not. (You suggested immobilize, but that will be useless in most cases.)

Unless you were a good player, with the right sets and power selection the tougher bosses were difficult/impossible. For that matter even the regular bosses pose and extreme risk for a blaster. Back when scrappers were whining about “city of blasters” I would frequently challenge them to try a blaster of their own, most got as far as their first mission boss then gave up.

[ QUOTE ]

I do not believe there was or is ever a time where all blaster alpha strikes were consistently lethal, and in a very real sense if that were ever made true, we'd have no need for defense because if there "isn't ever intended to be any survivors from a high-level single target blast" then by definition we are fighting risk-free again. Death is the ultimate damage mitigation.


[/ QUOTE ]

They were and cases still are cases where some blasters are close enough. This is why I almost always qualify any discussion on damage outputs. Fire and AR certainly can reach the levels for AoE damage where the attack itself functions as a defense, and I don’t feel this would be a good thing in an otherwise balanced game. Since the game is way out of balance as it is I do not see this as an immediate issue, but it could become one.

Nova/Inferno/TB are limited by their long recharge and end drain, but 1-2 combinations like fire breath – fireball are not limited in this way, and could very well become a problem again, but only if the baseline isn’t 1 hero = 10 minions, 3 Lt’s, 1 boss all +4.

Blaster mitigation is currently fine if the baseline if 2-4 +2 minions with a Lt mixed in, but if it becomes more then that then something else is required, and even high damage AoE fits the bill better then kiting.

[ QUOTE ]

Pulling, in a very real sense, is the ultimate exploit. What possible justification is there for allowing blasters (or anyone else with a ranged attack, actually) to single out one member of a group and get him to run over and attack you, while the rest of his buddies stand around like turkeys staring up at the rain?


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me what you are really saying is that range should have some sort of importance, and it does. Unfortunately that is mostly look, feel and style. There are a number of other minor benefits as well. There is also the potential to make AoE’s into an important differentiation but this isn’t universally the case now as three of the five blaster sets feel the need to label themselves as single target.

Making ranged damage meaningfully different then melee damage does not mean that difference needs to be as large as the current difference between scrapper and blaster defense, all you really need to do is insure that the benefit is suitable to the advantage it actually it actually brings. The play style will still be so different that there is no danger of a scrappers and blasters blurring into one.

[ QUOTE ]

That isn't true for any other AT - no one else is told, when facing a boss, that they are supposed to die and if they don't something is wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair the current goal for the devs is that when you face a boss one on one you need to be on top of your game to come out on top. This may only be true for blasters and some defenders who can actually have it much worse, but the breakdown isn’t what blasters are being told they should be able to do but what other AT’s do in practice.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All that aside, do you really think kiting is a good or fun thing to have in this game? Do you really want to see blaster play devolve into running away from something for 5 min while you fir an occasional shot and eventually bring t down? Would this really be fun to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the alternative to kiting? One-shotting mobs? Is the entire concept of a "Blaster" broken?

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ve said it before, but IMO two things need to happen. First, the large difference between tank/scrapper defense and blaster defense needs to be narrowed. How doesn’t really matter, but my preference is for it occurring in a way that removes the exponential increases in defensive effectiveness that currently exists.

The second thing that needs to happen is some set specific tweaking that brings blaster damage to the correct level when compared to other AT’s scrappers in particular. IMO this means comparable sustained single target damage prior to scrapper critical, and AoE damage that is superior across the board in a practical sense. (And still useful if there happens to be a general AoE nerf)

[ QUOTE ]
How many times, Moridin, did I say "Blasters need help" in THIS thread, in the last 24 hours?



[/ QUOTE ]

I was commenting on is your blatant refusal to accept facts that suggest that at the current time scrappers are a higher damage AT then blasters are when played as intended. Simply saying something has to change if you can’t bring yourself to accept reasonable targets for change because you refuse to believe what the evidence is telling you.

[ QUOTE ]

In fact, there are very few "tactical" options available to blasters that aren't, in fact, actual "glitches" in the game engine. There are two ways to look at that. One is to say that things like pulling around corners or jump-shots, are unintended by the game engine, and defacto exploits.


[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not sure what you are trying to get at here, are you really suggesting that because other borderline exploits of game mechanics exist that other should be created?
[ QUOTE ]

But an alternative point of view that I tend to subscribe to is that if blasters are intended to actually *have* and *use* tactical options, to make up for their gasoline-soaked gauze-like defenses,


[/ QUOTE ]

While blasters certainly do use these types of techniques for just that reason, I find it highly likely that it’s intended. More likely is that it just doesn’t create and imbalance so the devs feel no need to remove it, but that doesn’t mean it will not go the way of the exit mission for health bug if it ever makes the radar.
[ QUOTE ]

I used to kite trolls in Skyway. Took forever to kill them. Was that an exploit, because I did it "risk free?" If it was, why, why, why do range enhancements exist in the game?


[/ QUOTE ]


The game mechanics seem pretty clearly designed to prevent kiting, so whatever the dev justification is for range enhancements kiting almost certainly isn’t it. If I had to speculate I would think that there was an unformed belief that if range had value, greater range had greater value, even though they were already working to prevent the very thing that made range so valuable in earlier games, but again I’m not in a position to do more then speculate since I can’t read minds.

[ QUOTE ]

Because it seems odd to me to say "if you want to be virtually unhittable and unkillable for 30 to 60 seconds, while standing perfectly immobile and shooting at things, thats fine, but if you want to run around, jump around, maneuver all over the place, and be significantly less unhittable and unkillable while doing that, that is unacceptable."


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with your logic is the situations where you could sit beyond a mobs range and attack it with impunity have been systematically removed from the game, so the devs are not in fact saying “if you want to be virtually unhittable and unkillable for 30 to 60 seconds, while standing perfectly immobile and shooting at things, thats fine” In fact they are saying just the opposite and the fact that they have not bothered to remove a handful of unprofitable cases doesn’t change this.

All that aside, do you really think kiting is a good or fun thing to have in this game? Do you really want to see blaster play devolve into running away from something for 5 min while you fir an occasional shot and eventually bring t down? Would this really be fun to you?

[ QUOTE ]
Moridin: People like you are why I have my sig.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it rather amusing that you put something like that in your sig because you yourself are determined to believe what you want to believe no mater what the evidence says. Perhaps you even manage to convince yourself that it’s other people that are believing the flaw lies in other people beliefs and not your own or perhaps you truly believe you can’t make educated conclusions about anything by examining the facts, but either way I find is amusing to see you put it in your own sig not realizing you are really talking about yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
While I could say things like "Fire Breath does 4.8 Brawls Cone AoE? Yow!" and otherwise argue details, I'm going to give the short version of my speech- you've heard it before, see my sig .

Blah blah Aim AND Buildup beats Buildup. Blah blah four times the Area Effected. Blah blah regular application of nukes.

Blah blah ability to hit same guys with Cone and Sphere AoEs.

Blah blah Blasters end up doing more damage for the same Brawl Index.

Blah.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words you have nothing. Every feeble argument you have tried to present has been shoot down leaving only the obvious conclusion that you are spewing propaganda in an attempt to maintain the status quo since that so heavily favors scrappers and you thing that as a scrapper you deserve special consideration even if you can’t justify it.

[ QUOTE ]

1)remove rooting. This is perhaps the single point I agree with most


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad idea. The only thing this would do is allow kiting of mobs that have shorter range then blasters. Kiting isn’t what blasters should be looking for. It isn’t fun it isn’t strategic, and it’s barely more then a exploit. The devs tried to keep kiting out of the game for a reason and I would not want to see them deliberately introduce it now.

[ QUOTE ]

I know your pain, although for me, it was as a scrapper, the blasters would get the kills, and I'd spend endurance on corpses.

I guess to whom it happens depends primarily on level - I got it a lot up to 30, not so much afterward.


[/ QUOTE ]

What scrappers missed then and some blasters miss now is that no every damage dealer will feel this way with lots of other damage dealers around. Double the number of damage dealers on the team and you cut the individual contribution of each in half. That’s just the way it is. Since the fights are already short this is bound to be perceived as competition rather then support. Play your eng blaster with a fire controller and you will feel the exact same thing.


[ QUOTE ]

From the Brawl Index thread [and from my own experience] Whirling Sword is 2.777 + (3* .277) . Note the decimal points: that's 3.6 total, not 11.1 .

Whirling Sword is probably more like M30- I don't know, I never got an assault blaster past level 6 or something. It's fairly comparable to Fire Ball, except for covering about 1/4 the area.


[/ QUOTE ]

That’s a lot more the M30 or Explosive blast which are basically the same attack. It’s also still quite a bit more then fireball, which has the same 2.5 base damage as EB and M30. Fire ball does an average of 0.7 worth of DoT of course, but it isn’t really the damage attack for fire blasters, fire breath does most of the damage, fire ball is just enough to put them over the top and get the kill on the follow up attack.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm only arguing specific facts here; I agree that "Blasters need help" but I will never agree that "Scrappers outdamage Blasters" because. . . we don't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless blasters give up attacking from range scrappers have the same base damage, same formula for balancing attacks, more usable attacks, critical hits and higher damage caps add up to more damage. As long as blasters play as blasters scrappers are clearly the higher damage AT.

[ QUOTE ]

Let's try and be a little more accurate with this statement. Using the BI as any accurate indication of what goes on in battles can only be justified by a biased attempt to misrepresent the truth.


[/ QUOTE ]

In other words stop clouding the issues with facts so you can live in a fantasy world where everything you get to believe anything you want.

Making the appeal that “the facts don’t mean anything” is the last resort of an argument badly lost.

[ QUOTE ]

So you're saying the for the last 7 or so levels of the game, it's outrageous that some controllers, if they they choose the right powers, can equal blaster damage? I hardly find that a compelling argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is outrageous for controllers to equal blasters at blasting no matter what the level.

[ QUOTE ]

Increasing your damage won't do it. I can already kill all the mobs quickly.


[/ QUOTE ]

So your early rant about damage types was just so much BS?

[ QUOTE ]

Of course. My fire tank runs around with SJ on (forgot to switch over to CJ), and it takes awhile before I even stop and realize *hey these are taking too long to die.*


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn’t really hurt fire tanks much because burn accuracy isn’t affected by this change.

[ QUOTE ]

Man, if one of the side effects of adjusting the average power level downward is to cut way back on the mezzing in the game, I'm all for it.
[ QUOTE ]


I think that is a given. IMO the reason all the mez, etc was brought in in the first place was to create challenge and risk for some AT’s that didn’t really face any. The problem was that a tank getting mezed dies far to quickly, (just like blasters) because of the amount of raw damage floating around and the huge difference between having defenses up and not having defenses up. The end result it that the devs needed to make them essentially immune to status effects, which undid the additional risk for the AT’s that needed that risk but created additional risk for AT’s already facing plenty.

[ QUOTE ]


I think you and Scott are hung up on a misconception. I want the Invinc setting to be a death march for a veteran. I want to heroic to be challenging to a first time player. Challenging =/= death march. You two are fixated on this and hell bent on combining the two concepts into one idea that the entire game has to be a death march. A father and his 8 year old daughter should be able to log on and do heroic missions with risk and success.

Games which offer no risk of failure are not games...they are by definition exercises. Scott says he likes the game because of the story arcs. This game would have failed the first day if all you did is go around and click on story arcs. This game would have failed the first month if the mobs couldn't kill you ..at all.

Risk v Reward

Risk v Reward

Risk v Reward

We have plenty of reward in the 30's...just very little risk. The devs understand it. Do you?



[/ QUOTE ]
While I strongly agree with you in principle, I think it’s too late to put a more viable risk vs reward curve into this game. It’s human nature to try and manipulate their surroundings so they get the most reward for the least risk. The satisfaction for doing this is what makes a game enjoyable in the first place. Of course it’s also human nature to look for bigger challenges that also offer bigger rewards. This is why “games” that give you to much reward for to little risk can’t survive.

The dilemma facing the CoH devs is that not everyone has the same perception of what suitable reward should be for the risk they face. Thus some get bored more quickly when they face little risk, others stick it out longer. This game has had its risk vs reward screwed up for so long that most of the people looking for bigger challenges to face have long since moved on leaving only the ones who think more reward for lower risk is a better thing to have in a game and have not drifted away from boredom yet.

The former would readily adapt to a better risk vs reward curve but they are long gone. The latter don’t know what they are missing and would object strongly to fixing the curve, and those who are already suffering the boredom brought on by the very thing they are defending would probably quit as well.

In other words if they fixed the problem now thy will have alienated both groups instead of just the first. I think the devs will eventually decide that a small player base and a substandard game is better then a much better game with no player base. It’s sad to say that because this game has so much potential, but I think it’s what we will see happen.

[ QUOTE ]
i've done it many times with my fire tank.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, same here. It does depend on what you are fighting though. Against minions they will be dead long before you get your coffee. A +3 mission boss however will take a while to die so setting burn on auto and getting a drink just makes sense as long as it's a smash/lethal boss.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't what it will take to cinvince someone who has not played a blaster to the upperlevels that blasters move more than scrappers but I think I have layed out the arguements pretty well.


[/ QUOTE ]


You have but think its going to be hard for someone without a blaster background to get their minds around. To truly understand how to play a blaster requires knowledge that can only really be gained from first hand play with a blaster because there is no formula. Every situation is different and requires different movement which is why you can’t even explain it to a new blaster coming here looking for help because he is in debt.

The way defense scales and stacks encourage scrappers and tankers to do everything by formula. Until they go ahead and put the hours in on a blaster to learn how they are played they will be stuck in that formula mindset and in all likelihood will simply not get it.

[ QUOTE ]

I am not sure why we are still talking about this scrapper VS. blaster movement question. It is very clear to anyone that has played both a scrapper and a blaster that blasters move more in combat. They just move more. Why?


[/ QUOTE ]
I know this question is rhetorical, but I wanted to include my own thoughts on the matter.

If you remember, the topic came up because some of the visiting scrappers seemed to think not needing to move was an advantage blasters hold. Any really good blaster is going to know this is ludicrous. Playing a blaster is all about position and timing, and the thing that ties these together and makes them possible is movement.

People from other AT’s often comment on the lack of “build threads” in the blaster forum, but in reality except for AoE vs single target attacks you can’t have a good blaster simply by following some canned build. There are a few good power and technique combinations to know about but ultimately the real difference between successful blaster and an unsuccessful one is how, when and where you move.

For scrappers movement is a minor inconvenience at best, sure there are some attacks that work better if you move, but for blasters movement your whole game. That being the case the original suggestion that “blasters don’t have to move and therefore have an advantage” simple makes zero sense.

[ QUOTE ]

You played the ONE scrapper primary that has no Cone AoE's to benefit from movement. The only movement MA has to do is to chase the guy who they just Crane kicked. Two scrappers have ...no..make that three scrappers are telling you that movement is critical for scrappers and you refuse to accept it.


[/ QUOTE ]

He is still up on you in that he has at least played both AT’s to this level. He may only have one scrapper at these levels but you have no blasters whatsoever.

To further deflate your argument, my mid 40’s scrapper is dark melee, and it does not need to move as much of my blaster. It can have some very precise movements and it’s easy to get caught in the trap of trying to maximize shadow maul, but ultimately this is generally counter productive because the other attacks DM has access to are so good.

[ QUOTE ]

You've been told by two scrappers that knock backs can equal death,


[/ QUOTE ]

Playing on a team isn’t just soloing with people around you. If you do not leave yourself enough breathing space that missing one single move gets you killed then you have no one to blame but yourself. Rule number one about playing on any team is that sometimes your team mates will do something unexpected that changes your planes. A good player will be able to adapt to this and have a backup plan in place so they will not even put themselves in a position where a single unexpected event gets them killed.

[ QUOTE ]

You are not supposed to able to do what scrappers are doing solo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scrappers are not *supposed* to be doing what they currently can solo either. If you want to go by they way things are supposed to be, the gap between what scrappers and blasters is not supposed to be anywhere near as large as it is. There are two ways to fix it, give blasters a very large buff of give scrappers a very large nerf, which do you prefer?

[ QUOTE ]

Kali and Rooftop not only are correct in their assertions, too, but they're going about expressing them in an appropriate manner.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kali is merely saying that scrappers have to move, and on team they do have to move a little. Still not as much as blasters however. Rooftop is simply out to lunch You can’t play an eng blaster well an not move. Knockback alone makes it impossible even if you didn’t have to work with at least 4 distinct position requirements. The only way you can even remotely come close to playing without moving as an eng blaster is to do nothing but cycle power bolt and power blast, and the DPS for that is horrible.

[ QUOTE ]

So yes a Fire Blaster would have to position himself more than an Energy Blaster.


[/ QUOTE ]

A good energy blaster is moving constantly as well. Power burst has a short range, you need to work in a melee attack if you don’t want your DPS to be abysmal, but you can’t afford to stay at these ranges the whole time, even if knockback didn’t change the range on you anyway. Of you chose to use energy torrent it needs different positioning again.


In the higher level game every blaster has to move or they will get hammered with the cone attacks mobs like the nems are throwing around.

[ QUOTE ]

But you can still get alot more mobs in the area of Fire Breath than you can with other Scrapper cone attacks. Closest I can think of that compares is Eviscerate, and it's a pale shadow of Fire Breath at that.


[/ QUOTE ]
Spines AoE attacks are comparable in area to blaster AoE. Even with the smaller AoE’s however all a scrapper has to do is aggro a some mobs run around a corner and almost all of them will pile into your AoE.

[ QUOTE ]

My second character after my DM/DA was a Spines/Regen scrapper, and I found the first twenty levels to be pretty easy...

...because I knew the game better after having already played through those levels and knew what to expect. My defenders have had it even easier.


[/ QUOTE ]

But this wasn’t my second character, well it was, but I took another to 50 before I gave it any real attention and one more after I drifted away from it. My comment wasn’t that it was easier then my blaster but that it was the easiest of all my characters. The reason is that it is very much like a blaster with a couple self heals which is more then I had as a blaster. Not only that it effectively had infinite end at a low level, something I also never had with my blaster.

I may find something that is easier at these levels but frankly I very much doubt I will unless I roll another regain. I suspect anyone who has played a blaster would experience much the same thing, which is exactly the point I was trying to make. The poster I was responding to was making the claim blasters had “sub par” skills while at the same time admitting to struggling with something that any blaster would have found easy. Blasters at higher levels are in fact all the difficulties a low level regain can face take to extreme.

[ QUOTE ]

Point is you thought I was against blaster's getting love this is your mistake you may start taking me seriously again not that you ever should not have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another refrain of “I’m not saying it, but I really am”. Sorry, but I am just not buying it.
[ QUOTE ]

I dont agree it's very wide, I agree it is noticable and needs adjustment I would perfer buffs to blasters over nerfs to others as I play all archtypes personally


[/ QUOTE ]
You are mistaken. Scrappers and do as much if not more raw damage and can survive the attacks of 10+ times as many mobs. With the multiplying effect of AoE’s this amounts 10 times greater survivability and much more damage the gap between them is, to put it simply, insanely large. Large to the point that it makes zero sense for them to even be on the same team fighting the same mobs.

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you are talking about DPS without deaths your way off base here.)


[/ QUOTE ]

No I am not. Statesman has outright said scrappers are the highest damage AT. You may want to look at this thread where I compared the attacks of a spines scrapper vs a fire blaster. Even though the fire blaster is often cited as having the best damage output of any blaster it does not win even a single match up.

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showf...b=5&o=&fpart=3

From my own personal experience I have 3 level 50 characters, a tank, a controller and a blaster. The blaster has the lowest damage output by far even going full out. In fact it isn’t even a close comparison. The controller does 2-3 times the sustained damage while the tank wins by an even larger margin.

[ QUOTE ]

Traditionally, most of our suggestions for blasters are considered to be seperate ideas; that is, pick one or two and implement, to bring us almost up to par.

Most of the time, anyways.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but this isn’t’ something I subscribe to. There are a few consistent themes, but where blaster damage problems occur it is usually set specific. The solution therefore also needs to be set specific. I.E. all ice really needs is one more AoE, and possibly a shorter animation and recharge on freeze ray. Elec really needs one and possibly 2 more single target attacks and probably one more AoE because SC usually gets slotted for end drain. Eng needs a more damage and/or longer range on power burst, one more single target attack and to have energy torrent and explosive blast more team friendly. A shorter recharge may also help these attacks.

Fire is strong in both single target and AoE damage, so it’s a pretty well balanced set. AR is a little weak in the single target department but it’s cone attacks make it the best AoE damage dealer in the game other then a herding fire tank or spines scrapper. If AoE’s were nerfed AR would need some single target love.

[ QUOTE ]

Pay attention to peoples responses and you wont be so off base with your counter arguments.


[/ QUOTE ]

When those responses are based on the fundamental principle that blasters are fine, need no improvement and should have to “trade” something to have any adjustment made then there is not really any point in taking that person seriously. Even if it wasn’t for the input of people with level 50 blasters who have also played other AT’s there have been any number of analysis’s performed that show blasters are less powerful then scrappers, tankers, controllers, and even some defender builds by a VERY wide margin.

If you wish to debate this do so in an appropriate thread instead of coming to one where the discussion centers on what to do about the problem and try to deny it even exists. It does exist and it starts to get very annoying when you try to have a discussion about what to do about it and trolls drop by and try to derail that discussion by insisting 300 pages of posts rehashing things that have already been discussed at length in order to prove to them personally that a problem actually exists.

Just to clarify some things you certainly didn’t get probably because you have not read any of the discussion on what the problems are.


Range: Blasters are a ranged AT that have far more melee and short range attacks then they do ranged attack. Only 1 blaster set has more then 2 non interruptible single target attacks with a range of more then 20 feet. How well do you think scrappers would do if they were limited to just 2 attacks?

Damage: three of the 5 blaster sets need to do more damage as they are regularly out damages by tanks, scrappers, controllers and some defender builds. The question is how can this be done other then by just a blanket increase to blaster damage. Of course Concern’s proposals increase damage in some cases, this is exactly what they are supposed to do. They do not, however, come in the form of a blanket increase to blaster damage which is exactly the type of solution needed.

[ QUOTE ]

The other factor which is just as much to blame based on my experience is that many blasters, if not most blasters, dont' have the foggiest notion of how to modify their playstyle.


[/ QUOTE ]
Most blasters modify their play style from encounter to encounter. In fact there is no other AT in the game that is even remotely as good as modifying their play style to fit the situation as blasters. Even a bad blaster will be better at this then someone who has never played one.

Take even a mediocre blaster who has played into the 40’s and give them a regain scrapper and they will laugh at how easy it is even in the supposedly “difficult” time prior to instant healing. This is precisely because they know how to assess a situation and adapt accordingly. Short of being power leveled of leveling up on winter lords no blaster can get out of their 20’s without learning these skills and no blaster can get out of their 30’s without mastering them.

[ QUOTE ]

Go play a claws/regen and get back to me. A class like BS/Inv is a comparative calk walk...


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a level 40 DM/regain and it is simply the easiest character I have ever played from 1-30. It isn’t quite as fast leveling after that due to the emphasis single target damage but all things considered it’s still easier to play in these levels even if it doesn’t level quite as fast as my tank or controller.

I know a BS/regain who says exactly the same thing about these early levels, and play nightly with someone who has a level 50 claws/regain and freely says that getting to 20 wasn’t hard at all.