Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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? |
Yet again you missed my point (or as usual you're twisting words to fit your own argument). It's not that redundancy is a problem. It's that everything the Shaman can offer, another class does BETTER. Better haste/slows, better CC, better healing and buffs overall.
So, yes, I'd much rather have 3 Enchanters all with hasted charm pets and a Cleric mowing through shit in like 5 seconds. That is likely the top 4 person combo in this argument. There's no real combination that can be legitimately argued as better here. A Shaman brings nothing to the table in the optimal combo.