Though from what I have been told, once one does get all of the freaking expensive warrior stuff, and a good offense/defense, you easily outstrip those below you in terms of survivability and killability. Maybe I misunderstood.

Avoid Guardian, Warrior, and Moondancer. Shadowdancer is viable with two Trans abilities.

Monk and Bard are your best bet for low credit guilds.

Why is that, exactly? I know it's basically because certain guilds "require" more trans skills to be considered "effective" (in what, though? PK?), and/or are more reliant on artifacts....

But what is it about Music/ that makes it so versatile and less dependent on additional skill sets than wiccan/druid classes? And what benefits do wiccans and druids reap from needing to invest in more skills to achieve that "baseline effectiveness"?

Monk is your best bet, because your core skills are really all in one skillset. Kata->Specialization.

Bards are kind of the same.

If you're a druid/mage, you need your tertiary (near-transed runes/dreamweaving or psionics, respectively).

If you're a wiccan or guardian, you need all three guildskills transed or near trans.

As a warrior, you need all three near transed and preferably weapon artifacts.

Coincidentally, this is also the strength and difficulty of said classes in ascending order. Bards are easy to play, but ineffective. Warriors are strongest, but hardest to play.

Wait, really? So if I choose a Monk or Bard, and three years later I have all available skills trans, several artifacts, a good system and lots of experience, my character's going to be easier to play but weaker than a Warrior with similar achievements? Just automatically?

Well... that kinda sucks. I'd rather work harder at mastering a class and have it actually be good, and not regret it later on, either.

I'll have to reconsider my choice of profession now. Lessons shouldn't be a problem for me starting out, what with the sale and all that.

By three years from now, the balance of power will have shifted six more times about which class is "more powerful" or "better for low credits" or whatever you like. Lusternia never stands still. You can either chase the guild-du-jour that meets your intent (and spend gobs on changing), or play it like the mutual funds market, ride out the ups and downs by staying firm. (Or, you can choose based on things other than butt-kicking potential.)

You're over thinking this. Either you're a good combatant regardless of class, or you're not. If you're good, you're going to be scary to people no matter what guild you select. Because most people (myself included) are not really good.

Now, there's a few guilds/skillsets out there that can be really obnoxious, especially in groups, with very little effort, but A) you seriously don't want to open that can of worms here, and Bee) it won't save you 1v1 against someone good.

So, if you want to devote the time and energy to be "really" good, then pick a class that you like to play with, theme wise, RP wise, mechanically wise, whatever, and run with it.

...or, hop wildly from guild to guild looking for that next thing that's "balanced" when you have it, but broken by any other analysis! (and then hop again when it gets changed).

Now, strictly anecdotally, and apart from the issue of "you need X lessons/credits with this guild", the characters I've seen become the "bestest the fastest" all have been guaridan/wiccans of some sort. (edit- well, not "ALL" but, a noticeable number that spring to mind)

I agree that selecting a class primarily because of its future combat potential would be rather silly. I wouldn't choose a class for that reason alone (or even primarily), nor would I play a class I'm not terribly fond of thematically just because it's supposedly the strongest.

However, this thread is about low-credit guilds. Ultimately, choosing a guild because it's considered inexpensive is really not so different from choosing a guild because it's considered the strongest — they are both rather arbitrary reasons, and if the inexpensive guilds do suffer from being somewhat inferior at fighting later on down the line, it's worth thinking twice about choosing a class because it's "low-credit."

In my mind, "ineffective" is rather strong language to use when describing a guild. That made me sit up and pay attention. "Warriors are the strongest" wouldn't have bothered me at all, but if Bard guilds are considered ineffective, I'd certainly like to know why that is, or if anyone else shares the same opinion.

Yes, I realize that a good player will still be good no matter which class he or she is playing, but I don't think that's the point here.

If you look around, you can find posts about how overpowered bards are.

Hmmm... one person thinks bards are "ineffective," while others think they're "overpowered." Color me unsurprised that this is all very much a matter of perspective and personal opinion, as with most things in life.

From this point forward, I'm going to assume that all guilds are equally powerful in their own way, and that any statement to the contrary is nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay — unless said statement is reinforced by specific examples that can be confirmed or refuted by other posters.

Bards are strong, they're just a bit tricky because their kill condition is a little more flexible and less definite than those of most other classes. Thus, not many people use them right. Narsrim uses Cacophony very effectively, though.

Ah yes, I read a thread earlier today wherein someone was asking about kill conditions for Bards.

Unless I'm mistaken, "kill conditions" for Bards apply primarily to 1 vs. 1 PK scenarios, which don't concern me in the least... not right now, anyway. From what I've been able to determine, Bards have a wide variety of powers with short durations that are distributed into customized songs. These powers often take effect simultaneously as the song is played, lingering around the Bard to aid allies and afflict enemies. There are a number of one-off "spells," too, like Minor Second.

This is pretty much what I'd expect from the archetype, given that video and computer game bards have been doing exactly this since the days of EGA.

I presume people tend to judge a class by its ability to win 1 vs. 1 PK duels, then? Seem a bit foolish to me.

I said 'ineffective', but I meant 'ineffectual'. As in, if you're a bard (Cacophony somewhat excluded, because they've the best spec by far) then you're going to have to do more work than, say, a Shadowdancer who can pretty much win by ordering fae to attack and Choke.

And I say 1 vs 1, specifically, because when you talk about group combat, all balance, expectation, et al goes straight out the window. In groups, bards are pretty much as good as anyone else, since they can make use of their instakill (which, again, doesn't work solo unless you're Narsrim with Necroscream).

Bards are the best bashing class, second only to Warriors, because of their speed and damage.

Other than that, I'd echo what Akui said. You can be a one-to-watch combatant as any class, but the people who've risen the ranks the quickest were either supremely talented or using the flavor-du-jour powerful classes.

I'm going to go ahead and say I don't agree with a lot of the post above me.



This is pretty accurate though, that's why we judge a class by its ability to 1v1 (aka 'real' PK).

Bards are useful. They can fight 1v1 too. Can make a hefty contribution in group fights due to passive song effects. If the idea and theme of a bard guild interests you, do it.

How about the "best bashing class second to Warriors" part?

I assume that at least indicates Bards are relatively good at bashing, rather than being bad at it. Are their any guilds that have problems bashing efficiently?

Bashing is a speed and health issue. The faster you hit, the more crits you're likely to get, the faster you can kill things. The more health you have, the more and stronger mobs you can kill at one time.

Warriors are both fast and tanky.
Bards are fast and do a lot of damage but are less tanky, so they come in at second. They're still pretty good, though, by virtue of their songs and things like Illusoryself.
Monks are less tanky than Bards, depending on specs, but arguably faster.

Everyone else is pretty much tied together at the bottom end, but I'd say:
Wiccans,
Mages/Guardians,
Druids.
is the order from there.

I think it was something like:

Warriors(1handers)>Monks>Bards>=Warriors(2handers)>Wiccans>Mage/Guardian>Druid.

At lower levels, caster classes bash faster, but at higher levels, crit chance starts to increase. More attacks per seconds = more crits. Theoretically the damage should be amplified by the same amount regardless of attack speed but because mobs' health are finite... larger, more powerful but slower attacks(ie caster classes) tend to overkill more often.

If you're Transcendant Influence, it is a lot faster than bashing for the lower levels (I'd say at least up to circle 85-90 but depends on what class/race) and bards have good charisma.

Also, caster classes have a hunting attack skill (which is a lot better than the basic 'newbie' one) at Mythical or Transcendant in their main skill.

Though not to necessarily ruin the vibe and jive of things, what exactly are Guardians for, then? They seem to be horrible at bashing, and are quite expensive to bulk up for in PvP... So, exactly what are they for, then, if ever you decide to invest on them, what can they do?

I'm just kinda curious since I'm considering moving to Gaudiguch to join the hopefully soon coming Illuminati... You guys are making me consider waiting for their Bards, which may take forever, sadly...

At this point, it sounds to me like the best reason to pick anything in Lusternia (commune/city, race, guild, choice of tertiary skills) is because you like that thing. If you think the people in Hallifax are cool cats, you like the idea of role-playing someone whose mother was a chandelier, and you want to distribute clouds and lightning bolts over a large area for your personal amusement, you're looking at Lucidian Aeromancer as your best choice.

Now as for Guardians... well, I know as much about them as I do about the geothermal processes of Io. But Nicholo brings up a good point. Basically, you "do" four potentially combative and/or risky things in Lusternia:

bashing
1 vs. 1 PK
group PK
influencing

Anyone can do influencing (though it's much easier for, say, Shadowsinger faelings), balance gets thrown out the window in group PK regardless, we've already established that they're not great at bashing, and they're supposedly expensive to prepare for 1 vs. 1 PK.

What do they do well? Personally, I would hope that they are particularly effective in group PK, above and beyond any other individual class (all things being equal).

You're overthinking this. Just pick something that sounds like fun and give it a try.