Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbrown
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
When did you change your mind on mages?
|
I think you might have misunderstood what I meant. I was saying if you truly believe "redundancy" is bad, you wouldn't suggest multiple Enchanters. I do not subscribe to this strange "redundancy" theory.
I am not trying to force anybody to play any class. If one of your players really likes Mage, great! A Mage won't destroy your group.
I am trying to rebut the strange argument that Shamans cannot be included in this four man group, and are a bad pick or a bad class.
The discussion has been about what the most efficient four man group is, not which groups are unplayable. I don't think anybody is saying Mage/Ench/Cleric/Druid is going to be bad.
For a highly efficient group, Mages simply don't work out, because Enchanters provide great DPS plus a bunch of extra utility. That is why people are suggesting Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric, and not something like Enchanter/Mage/Mage/Cleric.
This is why the "redundancy" argument is silly, because you are NOT simply picking a second Enchanter for DPS. Having 2 copies of an Enchanters spellbook is more useful than a Mage's spellbook, unless you need CoTH.
Ironically, the same people who are arguing for redundancy (3x Enchanters) use that same argument to try and say Shamans are bad because of redundancy. It is nonsensical.
My disagreement with 3x Enchanters does not stem from overlapping spellbooks. I disagree because you don't need that much DPS, and you are increasing the risk of charm breaks for not a ton of reward. 2x Enchanters is good enough to cover the DPS due to breakpoints.