|
Title: is there a decent melee class that doesn't require re-active style combat? Post by: rk47 on January 21, 2007, 07:02:40 AM I'm talking about those rogue dagger styles that I liked but unfortunately can't time well due to latency issues (I play from Asia)
So I'm looking for a melee class that I can just dish out the pain at close range without requiring me to do positional input or precise timing. Any vets with ideas here? Title: Re: is there a decent melee class that doesn't require re-active style combat? Post by: Numtini on January 21, 2007, 09:29:21 AM I would look at the DPS fighter classes rather than rogues: monk, bruiser, or berserker. They can lay out a lot of damage.
Title: Re: is there a decent melee class that doesn't require re-active style combat? Post by: shiznitz on January 21, 2007, 10:46:29 AM Soloing a zerk is pretty easy. Fighting is straight up. The only positioning you ever have to do as a zerk is have to mobs in an arc in front of you - which is where they should be anyway so your rogue buddy can flank. Monks are good for soloing because you will realistically never die due to feign death, but death in EQ2 is nothing anyway.
Title: Re: is there a decent melee class that doesn't require re-active style combat? Post by: rk47 on January 21, 2007, 03:17:13 PM ALright thanks I guess I'll make a monk! :)
Title: Re: is there a decent melee class that doesn't require re-active style combat? Post by: Sky on January 23, 2007, 09:09:46 AM Shadowknights can feign, too. Sweet, lovely feign.
|