Quote:
Originally Posted by Danth
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Admittedly I haven't read most of the past ~250 pages (wow!), but I've read the past dozen posts or so:
Shaman loses some of its power due to some of its best abilities--haste and slow--being redundant in this group. The shaman adds less to this group than what it can do solo or as the anchor of a typical melee duo. So, here, it's merely a strong character rather than an overpowered (or necessarily the best--I like necromancer better, as said before) addition.
Unlike you I do look down on magicians; I consider them little more than a crappier necromancer suited mainly to bad or low-motivated players. At least a shaman has some remaining advantages of its own right even when its best advantages are nullified. Magician looks at necromancer and feels small and useless. Heck, we have another thread on the forum, right now, where there's considerable agreement as to how bad magicians are in a world where necromancers also exist.
Comparing the shaman to a druid makes for an interesting task. Druids didn't get much thought earlier in the thread but in truth druids are one of the game's most popular enchanter partners so obviously they fit in here. They provide ports so the group doesn't have to constantly pay for them or level their own port-mule, they do what they do without needing 100K+ worth of spells, they have a part-time charm option in some of the best high-level zones, they're a fair choice. Compared to shaman it has less mana regeneration, can't really act as a tank, and gives up malo but it does get a lot in compensation. Both of them allow the group to break up into two powerful duos when desired, and both provide buff and heal back-up in case the cleric doesn't log on (a serious weakness for Team Mage--stuff like that happens in the real world). It's pretty close.
Chalk me up as a tie for now. I'm leaning slightly toward druid due mainly to it being so much cheaper, but it's a weak lean and I don't feel very emphatic about it. I might change my mind later if someone makes a particularly sound argument for one over the other but for a few minutes' thought they look pretty close overall.
Danth
|
Of course. Any fourth member can bring interesting options to a group.
In your example where the groups can break up into two powerful duos, the Shaman clearly wins. You really don't see Druid/X duos as a popular choice. Not to say you can't do it, but Shaman is a much more popular duo choice.
Druids basically have the same problem as all of the teleporting classes (Mage/Druid/Wizard). Their toolkits simply aren't powerful enough in the endgame to justify them, and most people don't bother with evac on P99 due to the ease of corpse recovery.
I personally don't consider spell price to be a huge factor when dealing with the scenario of a four man group leveling up to 60 and then farming high level gear. You will get the necessary platinum/gear in that kind of a composition. Enchanters also spend a decent chunk of money on their spells.
If you feel you are highly unlikely to finish the leveling process, then the group composition honestly doesn't matter that much. Any four man group can level up to the 50s really easily. At that point you win simply by having four players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlsNoBan
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I've been trying to figure that out for a long time now. The way I see it is basically there's a couple options.
A: Drugs. Lots and lots and lots of drugs.
B: Actual mental illness/autism of some kind
C: An extremely unintelligent nerd with an obsession for everquest shamans
All are equally possible I think. It's tough to nail down where the truth lies.
|
There is nothing wrong with me. You are simply a troll that prefers to troll over having a conversation, and the hundreds of troll posts prove it.