We have reached an impasse, where neither side of the debate can provide an example of a mob where the four man group NEEDS either a Cleric or a Shaman. I think everyone can recognize that this is because a group that already consists of ENC/ENC/XXX has the horsepower to kill just about anything possible with EITHER a Shaman or Cleric as the fourth man.
That being the case, we must consider the additional utility that each class provides. Given that Enchanters can already slow and Clerics can obviously heal, the only relevant unique ability the Shaman contributes from 1-59 is literally SoW (which you could easily get from potions). In contrast, the Cleric provides DA, ranged stuns, CH and rez, all of which are highly useful and synergize well with the group.
From this perspective, it becomes clear that the Shaman basically contributes nothing to the group besides limited healing and SoW until he acquires Torpor, at which point he can FINALLY start carrying his weight. But if you'd have gone with the Cleric, you have someone substantially contributing from 1-60. And the fact is, any group that is pushing the envelope is inevitably going to wipe on a regular basis, which makes having a rezzer in-group almost a necessity. This further tilts the argument in favor of the Cleric and against the Shaman.
|