Squares inferior to Pures?

[Bombadil]

Is it me or do squares just suck compared to say a sorc. I mean I play a sorc and recently have been hunting with a warrior friend. I've been noticing in regards to multiple opponents,my maelstrom compared to his umm...attacking several times, is in no way a comparison.In general, I would die way less (short of cman attacks) then he will in any hunting trip (50-55th level range) Not only that, it just seems the sheer amount of things I can have fun with, eye spy to torment to shifting far outweighs anything his warrior can do.I told him about this (he's never played a Pure) and I asked him if he would like to switch chars (we know each other in RL) for a month. We did. Suffice to say, he is now rolling up a wizard and has effectively stopped playing his warrior. Any thoughts on this?

[Bobmuhthol]

A square vs. a same-level sorcerer makes for a dead sorcerer.

I can't stand leveling a wizard, and my highest level characters are an empath, a warrior, and a warrior.

[Gan]

Pures definately have more inherent options available to them that are made available by level (ie. training in different spells).

Squares do have guild and cman options, of which only the latter are inherent based on training (cman) while the former requires additional effort and time in training.

I think a more appropriate title to your thread/questions would have been "Squares more difficult to develop than Pures?".

As to which class is superior (versus each other)? In the later levels of training it usually is whomever is the quickest or first with the attack. Speed trumps innate ability every time, whether its via macro, script, or who can hit the attack key the fastest over the quickest connection to the game.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I have a 79 mage and a 48? maybe 49 warrior, and hands down, the warrior is more viable. The mage cannot survive getting hit, and at his level, manuever attack guarantee he'll get hit.

Also, the warrior can pick up and go, the mage has to spell up for 10 minutes before he can hunt.

Personally I'm disappointed that my mage with some pretty awesome gear is inferior to a like aged warrior in terms of critter hunting, but shit happens. If you take out manuever attacks, he's pretty invincible.

[AnticorRifling]

I have a 79 mage and a 48? maybe 49 warrior, and hands down, the warrior is more viable. The mage cannot survive getting hit, and at his level, manuever attack guarantee he'll get hit.

Also, the warrior can pick up and go, the mage has to spell up for 10 minutes before he can hunt.

Personally I'm disappointed that my mage with some pretty awesome gear is inferior to a like aged warrior in terms of critter hunting, but shit happens. If you take out manuever attacks, he's pretty invincible.

If you had a warmage you wouldn't have these problems, muffin.

[Latrinsorm]

Pures are always better vs. swarms.
Pures are also ridiculously easy to kill.

There are always going to be some hunting grounds where the pure is far more viable than the square. There are also always going to be some hunting grounds where the square is far more viable than the pure.

Both pures and squares have strengths and weaknesses. Neither is "inferior" except in the realm of personal taste. I don't personally like hunting as a pure, but that doesn't mean my pure is incapable of hunting as well as my square.

[mgoddess]

Both pures and squares have strengths and weaknesses. Neither is "inferior" except in the realm of personal taste.

This is how I feel as well. No profession is better then another inherently...it really all depends on how they're trained. A warrior not trained in MoC is going to suck in swarms compared to a warrior who is trained in MoC....a pure trained in CMan will last better against maneuvers compared to one not.

[Daniel]

Semi FTW

[Drew]

Pures are much easier to script hunt with, and I know a good number of them who have made a high level with very little actual gemstone skill. So you end up with a lot more old noobs in the pure classes. Both have their advantages, but for a long time there actually was no comparison between a sorcerer and a warrior; sorcerers were the superior class hands down. Now, it's closer.

[AnticorRifling]

Giantman wizard w/ polearm greater than pure or square. Real simple.