Posted by theNINE on October 29, 2000 at 01:06:18:
I just like to post something that has bugged me infor a long while, and that is the misconception that mages, being as they are a low less 'powerful' at low ranks that thats makes it 'alright' for them to a lot more 'powerful' than warrior classes at hero. (note the use of quotes) Now, ive heard people use it in arguements here, and it really gets on my goat. I think anyone who does is totally mistaken about the nature of low rank mages. The fact of the matter is every mage I have ever played I could rank above thirty within 20 hours, easy. And I think it is unfair for people to justify every new spell that mages get that is considered 'powerful' because they had type where a little bit more because a magic hater might come on pick on them once. Now there is a simple trick, and this is called 'invis' because I have a lowbie rager wannabe, and I have this large problem of being spanked by necromancers 9 ranks above me sitting on the eastern road all too happy to explain to me how under powered they are. Its no picnic, and unlike lowbie mage classes, I have very little means of running or hiding from those who want to kill me. Sure, there are those who have to practice and roleplay and stuff at low level to join masters for example, but that is little different than me having to wait to join the ragers, except I cant see danger coming. All the above arguements however are mere a drop in the ocean; Is the arguement about being 'under-powered' at low ranks even valid when you consider the fact you should only spend about 5% of a characters life in that state anyway? Please discuss.