No Chasity belt comments please.
This question came up in guild-chat the other day and folks were pretty much set to the answer. As the only stubborn holdback from the party line, I come here to seek out the general consensus of the masses.
What is the definition of a "pure caster"?
It seemed that Wizards, Necromancers, Enchanters, and Mages were defined as the only "pure caster" types by my compatriots. So is it just "int based" casters who are "pure caster" class?
My thought would be that any class that is dependent upon their mana to be effective is a "pure caster" no matter if that mana is int or wisdom based. Without mana to cast spells a cleric, for example, is little more than a decently armored speed-bump for any approaching mob, much as any wizard, necromancer, etc. etc. would also be.
I'm curious on everybody's opinions on this.
Ashraven
P.S. First posting on these boards! Wooooo. Took me a while to find them. Now the question is will you be able to get me to shut up.
This question came up in guild-chat the other day and folks were pretty much set to the answer. As the only stubborn holdback from the party line, I come here to seek out the general consensus of the masses.
What is the definition of a "pure caster"?
It seemed that Wizards, Necromancers, Enchanters, and Mages were defined as the only "pure caster" types by my compatriots. So is it just "int based" casters who are "pure caster" class?
My thought would be that any class that is dependent upon their mana to be effective is a "pure caster" no matter if that mana is int or wisdom based. Without mana to cast spells a cleric, for example, is little more than a decently armored speed-bump for any approaching mob, much as any wizard, necromancer, etc. etc. would also be.
I'm curious on everybody's opinions on this.
Ashraven
P.S. First posting on these boards! Wooooo. Took me a while to find them. Now the question is will you be able to get me to shut up.
