Shaman vs. Necro (loot)

[Vasuki]

I currently have a level 38 necromancer and was recently wondering what my options are for obtaining big loot.

Is necromancer the wrong class to play if I do not like afk camps that take hours of sitting to get 1 big ticket item?

I have always been more a fan of dungeon crawling with full groups. Some of the most memorable times in the game for me are going deep into zones like LGUK and Cazic Thule.

This information given I am wondering if you guys think I would be better off in the later levels of the game playing a Necro or Shaman. Its also worth mentioning as of right now I have no interest in raiding.

[Lhancelot]

Originally Posted by Vasuki [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have no interest in raiding.

Smart man. ^^^

My take on the two classes...

Shaman might not kill things quite as fast, but the shaman is not as limited as to what it can fight. Due to OP'd slows, the shaman can tank mobs while the necro has to rely on pouring damage out quick enough so as to not lose it's pet and to not end up having to facetank a mob. There's only so much a class can do without slows when it comes to soloing higher end mobs.

The cons of a shaman is how much money you have to invest. Whether it's spells, a fungi tunic or gears, a shaman is extremely expensive to gear up.

Also, shamans are a slower developing class. You really won't feel how the class plays until much later in the 50s, wheras a necro develops it's play style quite a bit earlier.

Necros are very sufficient without having to have uber gears and their spells generally are fairly affordable whereas a shaman benefits greatly when using a fungi, having torpor, and other extremely expensive spells that literally cost thousands of plats each.

Necros have a lower ceiling in performance but also are easier to gear and are still a very strong solo class.

If you want a strong solo class for dungeons or higher end mobs, I would go with either a shaman or enchanter and then perhaps a necromancer.

Enchanters are equally cheap to gear like a necro, and ultra powerful solo or in groups so you might consider playing one them over a necro or a shaman.

[Vasuki]

Originally Posted by Lhancelot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Smart man. ^^^

My take on the two classes...

Shaman might not kill things quite as fast, but the shaman is not as limited as to what it can fight. Due to OP'd slows, the shaman can tank mobs while the necro has to rely on pouring damage out quick enough so as to not lose it's pet and to not end up having to facetank a mob. There's only so much a class can do without slows when it comes to soloing higher end mobs.

The cons of a shaman is how much money you have to invest. Whether it's spells, a fungi tunic or gears, a shaman is extremely expensive to gear up.

Also, shamans are a slower developing class. You really won't feel how the class plays until much later in the 50s, wheras a necro develops it's play style quite a bit earlier.

Necros are very sufficient without having to have uber gears and their spells generally are fairly affordable whereas a shaman benefits greatly when using a fungi, having torpor, and other extremely expensive spells that literally cost thousands of plats each.

Necros have a lower ceiling in performance but also are easier to gear and are still a very strong solo class.

If you want a strong solo class for dungeons or higher end mobs, I would go with either a shaman or enchanter and then perhaps a necromancer.

Enchanters are equally cheap to gear like a necro, and ultra powerful solo or in groups so you might consider playing one them over a necro or a shaman.

My main question is about my options doing higher end grouping with either class. I REALLY like grouping in dungeons, so if a necromancer is not wanted in SEB groups for example that might be a reason for me not to play a Necro anymore.

[katrik]

I'd say sham > ench > nec for fighting big scary stuff

[Swish]

Originally Posted by katrik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd say sham > ench > nec for fighting big scary stuff

Agreed. Can't beat the FD button when things go to shit very quickly. Shammies can root and hope for the best but depending where you are it can be a dicey choice to try and run to the zone line or gate with many mobs running to you.

Still want to do Freeti solo someday on my enchanter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Maelstrom]

Originally Posted by Lhancelot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Smart man. ^^^

My take on the two classes...

Shaman might not kill things quite as fast, but the shaman is not as limited as to what it can fight. Due to OP'd slows, the shaman can tank mobs while the necro has to rely on pouring damage out quick enough so as to not lose it's pet and to not end up having to facetank a mob. There's only so much a class can do without slows when it comes to soloing higher end mobs.

The cons of a shaman is how much money you have to invest. Whether it's spells, a fungi tunic or gears, a shaman is extremely expensive to gear up.

Also, shamans are a slower developing class. You really won't feel how the class plays until much later in the 50s, wheras a necro develops it's play style quite a bit earlier.

Necros are very sufficient without having to have uber gears and their spells generally are fairly affordable whereas a shaman benefits greatly when using a fungi, having torpor, and other extremely expensive spells that literally cost thousands of plats each.

Necros have a lower ceiling in performance but also are easier to gear and are still a very strong solo class.

If you want a strong solo class for dungeons or higher end mobs, I would go with either a shaman or enchanter and then perhaps a necromancer.

Enchanters are equally cheap to gear like a necro, and ultra powerful solo or in groups so you might consider playing one them over a necro or a shaman.

Ever heard of root rotting? It's a thing.

[meanhappyguy]

Higher end groups generally aren't looking for a necromancer to fill a dps slot. I have a friend in a similar situation--he has a high level necro, but is thinking about rerolling due to wanting to dungeon crawl more.

I don't think necromancers are necessarily bad to fill a dps spot, it is just that they are kings of damage over time, and the mobs tend to die so quickly that their dots don't do nearly their full damage. Also, the necro pet can be a liability when travelling and agroing things it shouldn't--not due to any fault of the necro, just the pathing NPCs take.

When I'm looking for dps, it is usually enc/rog/monk I'm looking for.

Necros can do very well in duos and trios, which is where I find myself grouping most of the time. Their dots do more of the mob's health, and the necro utility really shines in smaller groups.

A lot of 6-man content can be done by fewer players, and I find it is usually more fun.

If you are interested in 6-man high level content, a reroll might be worthwhile. If you are enjoying the necromancer, and think some 2-4 man groups trying to tackle some hard spots is fun, I think necromancer is a great class for that.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Vasuki [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My main question is about my options doing higher end grouping with either class. I REALLY like grouping in dungeons, so if a necromancer is not wanted in SEB groups for example that might be a reason for me not to play a Necro anymore.

Necromancers are a strange class. On the one hand they get a number of great abilities: Feign Death, efficient heals, efficient lure dots, and undead charm. On the other hand, putting yourself in a position to use those abilities is not easy. Necromancers are great at splitting some camps, but you'll never match the instant FD, sneak, and vastly superior durability of a monk. 125 hp/tick is great long term but insufficient to keep your skeleton up vs a L55 mob or let you main heal a group. Groups will kill things long before your dots tick efficiently, and multiple necromancers can't stack the same spell. Undead aren't present in many useful zones, and Necromancers don't have nearly as many tools to recharm as Enchanters.

When I rolled a necromancer, I always felt like either a gimp monk or a gimp enchanter and in the end I gave it up.

[Egilmn]

Originally Posted by meanhappyguy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think necromancers are necessarily bad to fill a dps spot, it is just that they are kings of damage over time, and the mobs tend to die so quickly that their dots don't do nearly their full damage.

Shouldn't be using any dots in a group besides leach dot. Charm or hasted rogue summon, or dual wielding summon before the rogue plus nukes/lifetaps, as well as healing your group thus allowing the group to pull more often to get more exp. Noobs think necros are bad in groups, and many people don't know how to group as a necro.

[derpcake]

Originally Posted by Lhancelot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, shamans are a slower developing class. You really won't feel how the class plays until much later in the 50s, wheras a necro develops it's play style quite a bit earlier.

A torpor shaman plays just like a level 1 troll shaman.

Slow as fuck, melee dps is crap, but you sure as heck facetank stuff and outregen it.