Quote:
Originally Posted by cd288
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Of course a Shaman doesn't offer nothing. The point is that everything it offers (outside of Torpor) is also covered by other classes that are more useful to have. Sorry about it.
|
That argument is silly, because 2x Enchanters are also completely redundant in terms of spells. But you aren't arguing that people shouldn't take 2x Enchanters
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Nobody would say 3x Enchanters and a Cleric is a good combination if redundancy was a problem.
You cannot actually define why the redundancy is bad. Somehow having slow on 2x Enchanters is good, but slow on 1x Enchanter and 1x Shaman is bad. What is the logic here?
Using this logic Clerics are bad too, because they have Stuns/Root/Lull, which also overlap with an Enchanter.
I am amazed people seem to forget that Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a very strong trio that has been used for years. What is the logic that has invalidated this trio?