Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The ever popular "good duo" post

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 6:48:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

I'm thinking about getting back into EQ, as my son has apparantly enough
interest in it that he's saved up enough cash to get his own account going.

In the past, he played EQ when I wasn't, but now I figure we can start
over with a couple of new characters and play together.

That brings me to the question, which two characters to play?

I'm looking for characters which are fun solo or in group, and which
work well together, primarily at low levels, because I think we'll be
low level for a long time.

I've played most classes, some up to 60 or 65... quit just around when
th 66-70 range came in. But I don't think thats an issue, I'm more
interested in say the 1-30 range.


The classes I haven't played much are the fighter classes; I did get a
berserker up to 56 or so, but thats as close as I came

Chatting with my son, though, it looks like he wants to go with one of
the fighter classes again; this would probably mean that we'd get more
milage out of me playing some kind of support, most likely a healing
class. Two "tanks" strikes me as less effective, because the principle
advantage a tank brings to a team is the ability to absorb damage; with
two of us, one or the other would not be using his full potential.

So I'm thinking

Cleric
Druid
Shaman
Bard

combined with his

Warrior
Paladin
Shadowknight
Berserker
Ranger

Well, I've done cleric to 65, shaman to 52, bard to 56... but druid only
to 34. I really enjoy clerics, but its also the class I've played the
most. Shaman was a lot of fun, I think I actually stopped because I
wanted to try out the berserker when it was released, more than because
I was done with it. Bard... well bards are indeed powerful, but they
are also a lot of work, and I'm not sure how supportive they really are;
yes, they are force multipliers, but they can't really pull your bacon
out of the fire in an emergency.

I guess, in part, it depends on which "fighter" type he goes with. SK,
Ranger, and Berserker all have snare, at least sort of; if I pick a
"fear" class we'd have reverse kiting capabilities... that would mean
cleric. If he picked a fear class, meaning SK I guess, then a snare
would be more handy, meaning Druid (bards' don't get snare till 20 or
so, a long time away at the slow rate we'll probably be leveling at)

Shaman aren't, as I recall, really particularly good at healing until
the mid 40s. Low level haste and slow aren't much use either as I
recall; the combination of haste and slow and torpor type heals is a
good one when you get them, but it would be a long journey getting there.

If the boy doesn't go with Paladin, then Cleric has its charms; besides
the fact that its the class I know best, there's the rez factor. Even
without considering the exp rebate (which isn't really a factor at low
levels), just saving the walk back to the fighting grounds is
worthwhile. Heh, considering that, a paladin/cleric combination might
be the best way to go, then we'd have to "wipe" to force any sort of a
long walk!

Druids. Hmm. I actually made my druid strictly to port around the alt
of my in game friend who's main was a druid. Her main could port my
main, and my alt could port her alt; so we could have either duo
wherever we wanted. When they released SOL that became relatively
unimportant and I abandond the project. I did play around a bit with
quadding, and found it "too easy"; same objection that led to me
abandoning necromancer before that. Still, that was at a level thats
probably higher than we'll get to any time soon.

Well, something to think about.

Lance

More about : popular good duo post

Anonymous
July 29, 2005 6:48:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
> So I'm thinking
>
> Cleric
> Druid
> Shaman
> Bard
>
> combined with his
>
> Warrior
> Paladin
> Shadowknight
> Berserker
> Ranger

As you well know, a cleric goes good with anything. Cleric/warrior would
leave you highly dependent on having other people to group with, as they
lack many elements (snare being the thing that leaps to mind first) but at
the same time would be the most powerful pair.

You might consider throwing beastlord into the mix. I've seen beastlords
duoing with other beastlords at all levels of the game, and they seem to do
pretty decent.

You also don't have monk in there. Monks have finally come back into a
semblance of balance in EQ and make a worthy "high dps, more heals required"
tanking option.

All that said, if you don't have any plans or goals of getting to the higher
levels and just wanna "goof off", I don't think you're going to go too wrong
with almost any pair.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 6:48:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

I'll second the suggestion of druid + beastlord. They are probably the
most complementary pair of classes that each solo well. My beastlord
main would love to have the reliable snare and even limited pull
control (harmony) of a druid handy. Clerics are indeed the best
healers, but the other priests do well enough, especially at lower
levels.

Others have already mentioned the other natural pairings:
SK + Shm
Rng + Clr - to constantly rez the ranger, of course. :p 
Pal + Dru/Shm

If the kid goes with a WIS hybrid (Pal/Rng/Bst), he will have at least
rudimentary healing, so you might consider an enchanter or a DPS type
instead.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 8:42:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Faned wrote:

> <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote:

> As you well know, a cleric goes good with anything. Cleric/warrior would
> leave you highly dependent on having other people to group with, as they
> lack many elements (snare being the thing that leaps to mind first) but at
> the same time would be the most powerful pair.
>
Innoruuk cleric could get the snare neck, which isn't useful in terms of
fear kiting, but which generally covers the more important "stop
runners" part of the snare job. A warrior/cleric team should do a
decent job of duoing, and yet serve as the core of any good larger
group, allowing us to group up with pretty much anyone.

Trouble is, I'm not thinking -only- of grouping, but of each of us being
able to solo as well. While warriors and clerics -can- both solo (I've
yet to see a class I couldn't solo, although I haven't tried rogue very
far at all) neither could be considered "good" at it.

> You might consider throwing beastlord into the mix. I've seen beastlords
> duoing with other beastlords at all levels of the game, and they seem to do
> pretty decent.
>

We've both played low level beastlords before, him to 14 or so, me to
around 25. Just not that enjoyable a class in my experience. Might be
different nowadays, of course, that was back shortly after release of
SOL, when we went thru and played every Vah Shir class a bit just for
the fun of it. Vah Shir Bard eventually became my main for a while, 57
levels or so worth anyway.

That aside, I'm not really interested in "two of the same class" as a
combo; I like the way EQ allows a "the whole is greater than the sum of
the parts" effect; in fact its my general experience that two of the
same class is usually less than the sum of the parts, because you can't
overlap some of the effects; AC on one of the pair is wasted, two people
slowing aren't any better than one, and so on. Thats not always the
case, two warriors is better than one warrior, for example, if they are
good at trading off aggro... but are they as much "better" than a
warrior plus cleric?

> You also don't have monk in there. Monks have finally come back into a
> semblance of balance in EQ and make a worthy "high dps, more heals required"
> tanking option.
>
Monk is another one of those classes I played into the 20s and gave up
on, there simply didn't seem to be any legs to the class at the time. I
remember in the pre velious and early velious days I used to group with
a monk a -lot- as a cleric, and had a great time, but that was in a time
where monks did good damage and didn't take a lot of damage... they had
small HP pools but took little damage, so paired with a good healer they
could be kept alive well on relatively little mana.

If I'm understanding the current situation right, monks now have high
DPS, roughly the same HP as everyone else, but take damage faster than
"real" tanks, so they'd actually take more healing to keep alive, but as
their targets would die faster, perhaps about the same actual heal
expenditure over time.

At any rate, the choice of "tank" is largely out of my hands, I'm
letting the 8 year old pick what he wants, and then fitting myself to
his pick. I'm under the impression he's leaning towards a tank of some
kind, which is where I came in with the healer plan. So, if he happens
to pick monk, what would you think would make a better partner? Looks
like cleric would get the nod, with the better healing over short time
span that would be demanded.

> All that said, if you don't have any plans or goals of getting to the higher
> levels and just wanna "goof off", I don't think you're going to go too wrong
> with almost any pair.

Of course that goes without saying, and trust me, I'm aware of that
effect. I was simply thinking aloud, if you will, about what might be
interesting to try under these constraints.

Another factor to consider is that I'm also thinking of joining
Rumbledor's "do it yourself or do without" guild, which makes ideas like
soloing a warrior a bit more daunting; without... grr whats the name of
that dagger that procs bandages?... access to some items hard to acquire
without using the bazaar, this would be a lot more difficult than when I
did it.

Lance
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 9:43:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
>
> Faned wrote:
>
> > You also don't have monk in there. Monks have finally come back into a
> > semblance of balance in EQ and make a worthy "high dps, more heals required"
> > tanking option.
> >
> Monk is another one of those classes I played into the 20s and gave up
> on, there simply didn't seem to be any legs to the class at the time. I
> remember in the pre velious and early velious days I used to group with
> a monk a -lot- as a cleric, and had a great time, but that was in a time
> where monks did good damage and didn't take a lot of damage... they had
> small HP pools but took little damage, so paired with a good healer they
> could be kept alive well on relatively little mana.
>
> If I'm understanding the current situation right, monks now have high
> DPS, roughly the same HP as everyone else, but take damage faster than
> "real" tanks, so they'd actually take more healing to keep alive, but as
> their targets would die faster, perhaps about the same actual heal
> expenditure over time.
>
> At any rate, the choice of "tank" is largely out of my hands, I'm
> letting the 8 year old pick what he wants, and then fitting myself to
> his pick. I'm under the impression he's leaning towards a tank of some
> kind, which is where I came in with the healer plan. So, if he happens
> to pick monk, what would you think would make a better partner? Looks
> like cleric would get the nod, with the better healing over short time
> span that would be demanded.

I think both are doable. Either will lead to easy group formation. I'd
probably lean toward the shaman due to haste alone. Complementary ability.
Slow can't be ignored either, easily rivaling CH in all its overpowered
glory.

> > All that said, if you don't have any plans or goals of getting to the higher
> > levels and just wanna "goof off", I don't think you're going to go too wrong
> > with almost any pair.
>
> Of course that goes without saying, and trust me, I'm aware of that
> effect. I was simply thinking aloud, if you will, about what might be
> interesting to try under these constraints.
>
> Another factor to consider is that I'm also thinking of joining
> Rumbledor's "do it yourself or do without" guild, which makes ideas like
> soloing a warrior a bit more daunting; without... grr whats the name of
> that dagger that procs bandages?... access to some items hard to acquire
> without using the bazaar, this would be a lot more difficult than when I
> did it.

Monk actually looks a bit better under those circumstances. Without
mudflation, the monk's innate advantages are actually advantageous. =)
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 9:53:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in
news:LpudnTyIxNF35HffRVn-qA@dejazzd.com:

> I'm thinking about getting back into EQ, as my son has apparantly
> enough interest in it that he's saved up enough cash to get his own
> account going.

/wave and welcome back

> Well, something to think about.
>
> Lance

I think you're over-thinking the thing. As you are well aware, almost
any duo works at lower levels. If each of you play what you like, you'll
find ways to make it work. And in some cases, the fun of overcoming
things you're not supposed to be able to is well worth the effort.

Also, it's really a tough call until you know what he ends up playing:
IE: If he ended up playing a Paladin I'd probably stay away from a pure
healer and go for a hybrid with light healing, decent DPS and utility
(ranger and BL come to mind).


--
Arch Convoker Mairelon Snapbang
Feral Lord Bosra Snowclaw
Lanys T'vyl (Retired)

Mairelon, 36th Paladin
Silver Hand
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 9:59:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in
news:78GdnanU_ahcCXffRVn-ug@dejazzd.com:

> Another factor to consider is that I'm also thinking of joining
> Rumbledor's "do it yourself or do without" guild, which makes ideas
> like soloing a warrior a bit more daunting; without... grr whats the
> name of that dagger that procs bandages?... access to some items hard
> to acquire without using the bazaar, this would be a lot more
> difficult than when I did it.
>
> Lance
>


You know, that guild really made it tempting to reactivate just one of my
accounts. I still struggle with the addiction :) 

--
Arch Convoker Mairelon Snapbang
Feral Lord Bosra Snowclaw
Lanys T'vyl (Retired)

Mairelon, 36th Paladin
Silverhand
July 29, 2005 11:08:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:LpudnTyIxNF35HffRVn-qA@dejazzd.com...
> I'm thinking about getting back into EQ, as my son has apparantly enough
> interest in it that he's saved up enough cash to get his own account
going.
>
> In the past, he played EQ when I wasn't, but now I figure we can start
> over with a couple of new characters and play together.
>
> That brings me to the question, which two characters to play?
>
> I'm looking for characters which are fun solo or in group, and which
> work well together, primarily at low levels, because I think we'll be
> low level for a long time.
>
> I've played most classes, some up to 60 or 65... quit just around when
> th 66-70 range came in. But I don't think thats an issue, I'm more
> interested in say the 1-30 range.
>
>
> The classes I haven't played much are the fighter classes; I did get a
> berserker up to 56 or so, but thats as close as I came
>
> Chatting with my son, though, it looks like he wants to go with one of
> the fighter classes again; this would probably mean that we'd get more
> milage out of me playing some kind of support, most likely a healing
> class. Two "tanks" strikes me as less effective, because the principle
> advantage a tank brings to a team is the ability to absorb damage; with
> two of us, one or the other would not be using his full potential.
>
> So I'm thinking
>
> Cleric
> Druid
> Shaman
> Bard
>
> combined with his
>
> Warrior
> Paladin
> Shadowknight
> Berserker
> Ranger
>
High-end game, Shaman and SK combo is tough to beat, don't know that they'd
be the same at lower levels though.
Cleric and Ranger strikes me as a good duo, you have SoW, DS, Snare, Buffs,
Rezzs, Heals all before 30.
Cleric and Paladin you have the problem of lacking DPS, unless you stick
exclusivly to undead.
Shaman and Paladin might work alright, bit low on DPS unless the shammy is
dotting though.

Ultimatly, I'd pick the class that was the most fun to play, and have him do
the same, don't worry about a "good duo" too much, EQ is still a game, ment
to be fun :-)
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 11:19:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in
news:LpudnTyIxNF35HffRVn-qA@dejazzd.com:

> I'm thinking about getting back into EQ, as my son has apparantly
> enough interest in it that he's saved up enough cash to get his own
> account going.
>
> In the past, he played EQ when I wasn't, but now I figure we can start
> over with a couple of new characters and play together.
>
> That brings me to the question, which two characters to play?
>
> I'm looking for characters which are fun solo or in group, and which
> work well together, primarily at low levels, because I think we'll be
> low level for a long time.
<snip>
>
> So I'm thinking
>
> Cleric
> Druid
> Shaman
> Bard
>
> combined with his
>
> Warrior
> Paladin
> Shadowknight
> Berserker
> Ranger
>
<snip>

At the levels you are talking about, 1-30ish, you can solo/duo with any
combination of the above. Shaman and Druid healing is a bit weak when
you are getting close to getting your next heal spell, but otherwise, is
close enough to cleric healing to not really be an issue.

My level 32, mildly twinked warrior still solos well when I feel like
dragging him out. Adding any of the healer classes to a reasonable tank
class will let you duo in most places where you don't need a lot of crowd
control.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 12:50:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:LpudnTyIxNF35HffRVn-qA@dejazzd.com...
> I'm thinking about getting back into EQ, as my son has apparantly enough
> interest in it that he's saved up enough cash to get his own account
> going.
>
> In the past, he played EQ when I wasn't, but now I figure we can start
> over with a couple of new characters and play together.
>
> That brings me to the question, which two characters to play?
>
> I'm looking for characters which are fun solo or in group, and which work
> well together, primarily at low levels, because I think we'll be low level
> for a long time.
>

I like beastlord & druid, both can solo fine when not grouped. Both are
pretty fun classes, and they both use leather so you can hunt the same mobs
for drops.
You have a decent tank and travel once you get there, druid can SOW earlier
so you have that going for you. Druid buffs are great for the BL as and pet
as well with DS etc.
July 30, 2005 1:08:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <w8vGe.18950$aY6.18530@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Joshua@fakeemail.net says...
>
> "Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
> news:LpudnTyIxNF35HffRVn-qA@dejazzd.com...
> > I'm thinking about getting back into EQ, as my son has apparantly enough
> > interest in it that he's saved up enough cash to get his own account
> going.
> >
> > In the past, he played EQ when I wasn't, but now I figure we can start
> > over with a couple of new characters and play together.
> >
> > That brings me to the question, which two characters to play?
> >
> > I'm looking for characters which are fun solo or in group, and which
> > work well together, primarily at low levels, because I think we'll be
> > low level for a long time.
> >
> > I've played most classes, some up to 60 or 65... quit just around when
> > th 66-70 range came in. But I don't think thats an issue, I'm more
> > interested in say the 1-30 range.
> >
> >
> > The classes I haven't played much are the fighter classes; I did get a
> > berserker up to 56 or so, but thats as close as I came
> >
> > Chatting with my son, though, it looks like he wants to go with one of
> > the fighter classes again; this would probably mean that we'd get more
> > milage out of me playing some kind of support, most likely a healing
> > class. Two "tanks" strikes me as less effective, because the principle
> > advantage a tank brings to a team is the ability to absorb damage; with
> > two of us, one or the other would not be using his full potential.
> >
> > So I'm thinking
> >
> > Cleric
> > Druid
> > Shaman
> > Bard
> >
> > combined with his
> >
> > Warrior
> > Paladin
> > Shadowknight
> > Berserker
> > Ranger
> >
> High-end game, Shaman and SK combo is tough to beat, don't know that they'd
> be the same at lower levels though.

/agree

I've duoed an SK Cleric at many levels of the game, but they were built
for a trio with an enchanter. If I were to do it just as a duo I'd go
with a SHM SK to pick up slow/haste and dots.

> Cleric and Ranger strikes me as a good duo, you have SoW, DS, Snare, Buffs,
> Rezzs, Heals all before 30.

Rezzes before 30 aren't worth the downtime waiting to get your mana
back, unless only the SK dies, and he was bound a long way away and the
cleric is by the body.

Clr Rng is pretty good.

> Cleric and Paladin you have the problem of lacking DPS, unless you stick
> exclusivly to undead.
> Shaman and Paladin might work alright, bit low on DPS unless the shammy is
> dotting though.
>
> Ultimatly, I'd pick the class that was the most fun to play, and have him do
> the same, don't worry about a "good duo" too much, EQ is still a game, ment
> to be fun :-)

While that's noble, if you know your going to be a duo, you'll have more
fun if you can go more places and do more stuff. A good duo can do a lot
mroe than a poor duo. A -lot- more.

My vote for best duo involving a fighter class would be SK + SHM. Hands
down unstoppable. The only thing they lack is a solid stun. And that's
not critical for most mobs, and at low levels you can fear-snare-nuke
healers.

If a fighter isn't required, there are several excellent caster duos...
a pair of necros is very powerful. Or a necro enchanter.

Or a charming enchanter coupled with a shaman or druid or cleric.

If you want both want to play fighters, then Beastlord+ Pali, Ranger,
Beastlord, SK, or Monk

would all be not bad. (Bsts are the only melee slower so they're
indispensible really in a pure melee duo, longer term) They also heal
and have substantial dps, as well as bring some mana regen later on too.

A 2nd beastlord is just more beastlord goodness, but lack of other
abilities hurts a bit. A pali rounds out the healing adequately, and
adds multipurpose stuns (poor man snare, and spell interuption). A
ranger adds some ghetto healing, snare, solid dps, and track is always
nice to have. A monk gives you some good pulling tools, solid dps, and
mend actually is a pretty damn viable heal in a pinch. An SK has some
leech abilities eventually that are relevant as a fighter duo, as well
as snare, pulling, and fear.

I'd also recommend trolls and iksars where available for any duo
especially for a double fighter one, or any duo without a "real" healer
the double regen is markedly nice especially at the lower levels where
you aren't loaded up with long term buffs and +regen equipment, and if
you aren't concerned about levelling the xp hit is pretty irrelevant.

Also I'd think more about the 30-55 game than the 1-30 game. Unless you
go out of your way not to lvel you'll be in your mid 20s VERY quickly
the EQ's low game is now.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 1:46:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:48:08 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
wrote:

>I'm looking for characters which are fun solo or in group, and which
>work well together, primarily at low levels, because I think we'll be
>low level for a long time.

For sheer fun, my friend and I play a couple of Beastlords, and find
we have a blast with them, so, bearing in mind your criteria, try two
of those. They are fun solo and in a group, even at low levels.

With the two pets and our (rudimentary) heals/bandages we used to do
very well anyway, even under lvl 20, but nowadays we also have the
Healing/Clarity potions to keep us tanking even longer between meds.

For extra effectiveness, bum or buy a couple of suits of Summoned
Plate Armour for the pets, then when they can use pet toys, hit the
Bazaar and get the pets a couple of Hands of Ixiblat apiece and maybe
a Crystal Belt (for the extra hp on those) and the pets are quite
formidable!

We like all our other alts, admittedly, but when we want to kick back
and just have fun, we load up the Beastlords.




Palindrome
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 3:39:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> writes:
> At any rate, the choice of "tank" is largely out of my hands, I'm
> letting the 8 year old pick what he wants, and then fitting myself to
> his pick. I'm under the impression he's leaning towards a tank of some
> kind, which is where I came in with the healer plan. So, if he happens
> to pick monk, what would you think would make a better partner? Looks
> like cleric would get the nod, with the better healing over short time
> span that would be demanded.

I've never tried duoing my monk and druid (as they're on the same
account), but each of them has occasionally duoed with others
playing the other class, and it's worked well. The druid is a fine
soloer and duos well with most tanks, bringing healing, damage shield,
SOW, and other buffs, and eventually tracking, ports, etc. And don't
forget evacs. :-)

If your son picks a tank that includes some healing (Paladin or BST),
you could consider a DPS class. I haven't run my BST/WIZ duo for a
while, but we generally did fine (and again, had evac if things went
sour). Mage would probably work also. Biggest problem with many of
these combos is lack of crowd control and/or splitting techniques.

And as others have noted, you should expect to hit at least level 20
pretty quickly unless you're actively avoiding it. And a couple of
hours of decent xp (e.g., LDONs) at level 20 is easily a level.

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 56 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 52 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- Teviron, Knight 21 on E. Marr
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 3:43:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:LpudnTyIxNF35HffRVn-qA@dejazzd.com...
> I'm thinking about getting back into EQ, as my son has apparantly enough
> interest in it that he's saved up enough cash to get his own account
going.
>
> In the past, he played EQ when I wasn't, but now I figure we can start
> over with a couple of new characters and play together.
>
> That brings me to the question, which two characters to play?
>
> <snip>
> Lance

A duo my daughter and I are having fun with is necro/mage (or necro druid at
other times). We have some very serious dps going and have a good bit of fun
trying to kill each other (I took over the necro after she trained me to
many times and fd'd at my feet... child is pure evil!) The classes damn near
seem built to duo together, we can straight out tank the mobs with mage pet
if yellow or lower cons till around 50, above 50 we started agro kiting or
fear kiting where agro was going nuts. between necro dots/taps and mage
nukes and the combo of pets mobs drop extremely fast. Never a dull moment
though playing with a 10 year old, but she's getting to be a good player
hehe :) 
Seriously, we are having a great deal of fun with this combo.

Ocura- 65 human (doh) mage- 7th/Lanys
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 10:03:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

> "Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
> news:LpudnTyIxNF35HffRVn-qA@dejazzd.com...
> > I'm thinking about getting back into EQ, as my son has apparantly enough
> > interest in it that he's saved up enough cash to get his own account
> going.
> >
> > In the past, he played EQ when I wasn't, but now I figure we can start
> > over with a couple of new characters and play together.
> >
> > That brings me to the question, which two characters to play?
> >
> > <snip>
> > Lance

One thing which doesn't often get mentioned when discussing class
combinations (at least I don't see it much) is how incredibly useful
the pacify/harmony line of spells are.

My wife and I have played an Enchanter/Beastlord duo up to 62 and, more
recently, a Shaman/Necro duo up to 54. Pacify makes such a difference
to where and how we can hunt. As the Shaman/Necro we often have to
leave mobs which we'd really like a crack at because we have no easy
way to split them and know that we can't handle 4 at a time. With the
Enchanter's Pacify not only can we split camps but we can use it to
bypass mobs we don't want to fight to get to the ones which we do.

Of the three healing classes it's only Shaman who don't get any kind of
pacify although, as I'm sure your're aware, the cleric's line is more
versatile than the druid's as it doesn't have the outdoor-only
limitations of harmony. I think Pally's get Pacify too don't they?

On the subject of which duo, I'd heartily recommend either of the above
combinations though neither really fit with your current thinking of a
healer + tank.

Whatever combination you choose I hope you have fun.

Xanthalas
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 12:56:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<xanthalaseq@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> As the Shaman/Necro we often have to
> leave mobs which we'd really like a crack at because we have no easy
> way to split them and know that we can't handle 4 at a time.

Necro can split mobs that are immune to pacify...
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:19:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

xanthalaseq@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > "Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
> > news:LpudnTyIxNF35HffRVn-qA@dejazzd.com...
> > > I'm thinking about getting back into EQ, as my son has apparantly enough
> > > interest in it that he's saved up enough cash to get his own account
> > going.
> > >
> > > In the past, he played EQ when I wasn't, but now I figure we can start
> > > over with a couple of new characters and play together.
> > >
> > > That brings me to the question, which two characters to play?
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > Lance
>
> One thing which doesn't often get mentioned when discussing class
> combinations (at least I don't see it much) is how incredibly useful
> the pacify/harmony line of spells are.
>
> My wife and I have played an Enchanter/Beastlord duo up to 62 and, more
> recently, a Shaman/Necro duo up to 54. Pacify makes such a difference
> to where and how we can hunt. As the Shaman/Necro we often have to
> leave mobs which we'd really like a crack at because we have no easy
> way to split them and know that we can't handle 4 at a time. With the
> Enchanter's Pacify not only can we split camps but we can use it to
> bypass mobs we don't want to fight to get to the ones which we do.

The real advantage of pacify/harmony is being able to split mobs
quickly. Cast the spell and pull. You don't have to wait while the
other mobs reset. The other advantage that you mentioned is also nice,
being able to harmo something and run by it. (That was nerfed for
rangers after 65, not sure about Cleric, Chanter and others.) However
I would say that the feigning classes have a wider assortment of mobs
that they can split. For a couple duoers who may not be too worried
about sometimes waiting an extra 30-60 seconds for a pull, the
advantage of a "feigner" probably outweigh the advantages of a
pacifier.

The shaman can keep the necro SoWed and regenning, which is sooooo nice
for any necro.

> Of the three healing classes it's only Shaman who don't get any kind of
> pacify although, as I'm sure your're aware, the cleric's line is more
> versatile than the druid's as it doesn't have the outdoor-only
> limitations of harmony. I think Pally's get Pacify too don't they?

Up to 55.

> On the subject of which duo, I'd heartily recommend either of the above
> combinations though neither really fit with your current thinking of a
> healer + tank.

Necro and shaman would be a lot of fun IMO. Necro pets are reasonable
tanks, especially at the right levels. All my necro lacked (unless
fighting undead) was a slow spell. If I had slows and the healing
power of a shaman, I could have taken on a lot higher level mobs for
pet tanking. There is a lot of diversity here. Agro kiting, tap
tanking, pet tanking, fear kiting. You have a reasonable puller, a
snarer, a SoWer, a slower, a healer, a tank, a rabbit, and lots of
utility.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 7:13:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

xanthalaseq@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
news:1122987793.256150.169540@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>> "Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
>> news:LpudnTyIxNF35HffRVn-qA@dejazzd.com...
>> > I'm thinking about getting back into EQ, as my son has apparantly
>> > enough interest in it that he's saved up enough cash to get his own
>> > account going.
>> >
>> > In the past, he played EQ when I wasn't, but now I figure we can
>> > start over with a couple of new characters and play together.
>> >
>> > That brings me to the question, which two characters to play?
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> > Lance
>
> One thing which doesn't often get mentioned when discussing class
> combinations (at least I don't see it much) is how incredibly useful
> the pacify/harmony line of spells are.
>
> My wife and I have played an Enchanter/Beastlord duo up to 62 and,
> more recently, a Shaman/Necro duo up to 54. Pacify makes such a
> difference to where and how we can hunt. As the Shaman/Necro we often
> have to leave mobs which we'd really like a crack at because we have
> no easy way to split them and know that we can't handle 4 at a time.
> With the Enchanter's Pacify not only can we split camps but we can use
> it to bypass mobs we don't want to fight to get to the ones which we
> do.

Well, necros actually can make decent pullers. Snare/FD is a good
combination to have for splitting mobs. Not to mention that there are
mobs that are immune to pacify, which a necro can still split.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:25:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <1123017593.984429.255810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Negloid <negloid@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The real advantage of pacify/harmony is being able to split mobs
>quickly. Cast the spell and pull. You don't have to wait

The advantage of 100 quicker pulls is negated by the one time
harmony is resisted and 50 mobs chase you down, chop you up, and camp
your corpse for an hour :-)
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:33:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in news:D cooc0$s2p$1
@reader2.panix.com:

> In article <1123017593.984429.255810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Negloid <negloid@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>The real advantage of pacify/harmony is being able to split mobs
>>quickly. Cast the spell and pull. You don't have to wait
>
> The advantage of 100 quicker pulls is negated by the one time
> harmony is resisted and 50 mobs chase you down, chop you up, and camp
> your corpse for an hour :-)
>

The big disadvantage that used to cause has been eliminated with DoN and
the guild lobby corpse summoning. The only thing they left out is the rez
NPC in the guild hall. :b

Hmm, I wonder how long til they add that to the game too...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:17:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96A69E59029EErichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>Hmm, I wonder how long til they add that to the game too...
>

Well, hmmm, they have clarity potions, and fortitude potions, so....

Rez potions!


The trick will be getting your corpse to drink them.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:23:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

the wharf rat wrote:
> In article <Xns96A69E59029EErichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >Hmm, I wonder how long til they add that to the game too...
> >
>
> Well, hmmm, they have clarity potions, and fortitude potions, so....
>
> Rez potions!
>
>
> The trick will be getting your corpse to drink them.

Druid rez, Shaman rez, veteran rez...
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:40:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1123078985.298749.249900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> the wharf rat wrote:
>> In article <Xns96A69E59029EErichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
>> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Hmm, I wonder how long til they add that to the game too...
>> >
>>
>> Well, hmmm, they have clarity potions, and fortitude potions,
>> so....
>>
>> Rez potions!
>>
>>
>> The trick will be getting your corpse to drink them.
>
> Druid rez, Shaman rez, veteran rez...
>
>

Well, druid rez and shaman rez hardly qualify as no xp is returned on
them. It's strictly a summon the person to their corpse spell available
to the druid/shaman at level 70. It's great for getting a rezzer back
quickly to actually take care of rezzing people though.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:00:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <1123078985.298749.249900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Beal <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Druid rez, Shaman rez, veteran rez...
>

The first two are really just interzone corpse summons sort of but
backwards :-) and the vet rez only works like once a week and I die
lots more than that :-)
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:13:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in news:D cr489$kj1$1
@reader2.panix.com:

> In article <1123078985.298749.249900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Beal <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Druid rez, Shaman rez, veteran rez...
>
> The first two are really just interzone corpse summons sort of but
> backwards :-) and the vet rez only works like once a week and I die
> lots more than that :-)
>

What? You don't think it's useful to be able to run all the way to your
corpse, then hit that shaman/druid AA rez get no xp back, and be right at
your corpse?

The veteran AA rez is handy, but, as you said, at once a week, not that
significant in fame terms.

The one thing the shaman/druid AA rez is good for is summoning a rezzer
to his corpse so that he can then rez himself and others, or summoning a
single person who died to their corpse so that you can continue with what
you were doing, and hope he can get a real rez afterwards.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:19:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

the wharf rat wrote:
> In article <Xns96A69E59029EErichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, I wonder how long til they add that to the game too...
>>
>
>
> Well, hmmm, they have clarity potions, and fortitude potions, so....
>
> Rez potions!
>
>
> The trick will be getting your corpse to drink them.

Its more of a pill, and the chocolate coating makes it go down easier.
But you have to wait a good hour before the rez effects wear off.
!