New to Mage Class

[David Vestal]

Thanks! Yes, I have wins as everything else except rogue (rogues are annoying). I'll probably be sticking to warriors from here on out, with the occasional break for a priest.

Mages are just so very, very boring to play that inevitably I'll get careless for a turn or two somewhere around cl35, die, and remember why I hate playing mages.

[Pete Mack]

OK, I will bite. Why is rogue class annoying? It is essily my preferred class. Excellent stealth, good melee, and useful spells makes for a lethal combination. Ranger. Ranger is an annoying class, going from underpowered at the start to ridiculously OP at the end.

[David Vestal]

In general, I enjoy playing the "pure" classes (mage/warrior/priest) more than I enjoy the hybrids, so I rarely play a hybrid at all. But of them, rangers play as warriors with utility spells, paladins as warriors who have easier access to healing than is usually available, and rogues just don't seem to have any fun extras other than detection.

I tend not to rely too much on stealth, so I undervalue it. Stealth is like the rogues 5% minimum fail rate on a spell: you wouldn't trust your @ to it.

[Derakon]

This is what we get for having two hybrid classes that use arcane magic. It's hard for players to tell what they're good at.

Rangers are marginally better spellcasters than rogues are, but nowhere near good enough for spells to be reliable for them. And they have notably worse melee and physical stats in general. Rogues meanwhile have melee that's almost exactly as good as paladins. So if you want to play as a warrior with utility spells, be a rogue; rangers are for if you want to play as a mage that doesn't immediately crumple in melee, and then later to kill everything with arrows.

[Pete Mack]

Yes. Rangers have the same melee as priests, and have exactly 2 important spells that rogues lack: rune and destruction. Both are very powerful, but come late. Stacked up against Object Detection... like I said, annoying early, and OP late.