Talk:Mystic

Low pdef?

"Low physical defense" is listed as a con. Surely, since they have a physical defense self-buff, this is not the case, as they have significantly higher physical defense than other casters, apart from wizards and venos when in foxform. -- PJFraser (talk)

Well, the other two magic classes are psychic, which has five different defensive buffs versus physical attacks, including White Voodoo (which gives +66 Defense Levels when the skill is at level 10), plus a temporary invulnerability buff, and clerics, who also have five defensive skills (not including BB's Bless effect). Mystics, on the other hand, only have three, one of which only lasts 8 seconds and one for which they need to summon their Salvation pet and power up it up before they can use it. Furthermore, due to the mystics' need for tons of MP, a LA build is counterproductive, where it would be feasible on any other mage class. A LA cleric with Greater Protective Aura (+60% PDef) would easily have more PDef than an AA mystic with Verdant Shell (up to +80% PDef), and even with AA, clerics also have easy access to Plume Shell which absorbs 80% of physical damage for 20 seconds (not to mention the Guardian Light and Wings of Protection skills at level 79+). The mystic's +80% PDef is less than the wizard's +100% PDef and veno's +120% PDef as you mentioned above, all of which means they have relatively low physical defenses, with only the AA psychics possibly being lower. -- Sangodoc - PWI wiki mod (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (PST)

Well, I disagree on the LA point, mostly due to not caring that much for mana cost. Of course, that can be argued back and forth all day... So yeah, an AA cleric would have less pdef (although of course they do have their plume shell). Bear in mind also that vanguard can be cast on others, i.e. mystics, while verdant shell is a self-buff. A wiz has higher pdef through their stone barrier, of course, and venos do have their foxform. But in human, which is how most venos usually operate, their hp is usually lower. So I understand your points, but would still argue that their pdef isn't a con (though in comparison, you could easily enough argue their pdef isn't high enough to be listed as a pro). --Pjfraser 02:18, 30 November 2011 (PST)