> You'll miss out on any of the better druids then. Playing the way you
> ask is suicidal in the long run for cleric types, as it means your
> offence and defence skills stagnate, as you never get a chance to get
> improvements. This means when they get the inevitable frenzy occurs from
> casting that heal they get ripped up because they have such low defence.
They can practice on their own time. Not on the group's. If a
L50 cleric doesn't have his defense max'd by now, that's his
fault, not mine. I made sure I max'd all my offense/defense
skills between L39 and L44. A cleric is there to heal, not
to take hits. I'm surprised you'd even suggest it as such.
Even if somehow the cleric was under attack, most tanks I
group with are instantly on the mob, or the enchanter has
it mez'd in less than a few seconds. You probably should
rethink this counterpoint some. You are implying that healers
should attack in battle, so that they can take dmg and raise
their defense. I'm not sure many people will agree with you
on this. I for one don't.
> Cough cough. Double attack mean anything to you? I think you'll find a
> similarly equipped ranger would make your melee look like the joke it
> is.
That's true, I never said I was a better meleer than the
other tank classes. However, I do notice the difference
when I don't melee. I am certain I am doing a fair ammount
of damage, when the monsters stick on me about 25% of the
time. And I'm only playing manasong (Nil taunt). I proc
Yks about 5-8 times every battle, that is a huge amount of
damage that double attack just doesn't make up for. I rate
the ammount of dmg I'm doing based on how long a monster
is attacking just me. But I never said I always or often
outdmg the tanks, unless I have lots and lots of dex/speed
buffs. If they had the same buffs, they would then outdmg
me. There is no song that we have that warrants you not
using your weapons at this high a level.
Harmonic.