Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[fortior]

I'm a monk and I'd rather duo with an enchanter than a shaman. The reason I duo with shamans is that I'd just slow down an enchanter, while shamans are so much worse in comparison (but really, which class isn't) that the duo feels like way more of an equitable agreement.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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?

[fortior]

Did this guy just forget you can only have 1 charm pet per character or something? Lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Did this guy just forget you can only have 1 charm pet per character or something? Lol

Not at all. The "redundancy" argument is simply a fuzzy term people use when they can't provide more concrete evidence.

The argument is "Shamans have some overlapping spells with an Enchanter, therefore they are useless in this group".

That logic breaks down because I can say the same thing for both a Cleric and a second Enchanter. The Cleric has Stun/Root/Lull, and the second Enchanter has the exact same spellbook.

If you think there is an issue with the redundancy, you need to concisely explain why, so it can be explored.

[Crede]

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?

Because chars are geared. You don’t need slow. And torpor slows dps and snares you. Monk/cleric has surpassed monk/sham for awhile now. Clerics have stun command. Can blur. Root. Rez. Paci. More than enough to get any job done when healing pets and monks with 5k+ hp. And if ya do need slow, enc can do it. And equip their pet with swarmcaller too.

[Dritzle]

I’m LOVING this late game Druid push.

DSM - apologies if this was already hashed out hundreds of posts ago, but what’s the case against 3x enchanters and a cleric?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Because chars are geared. You don’t need slow. And torpor slows dps and snares you. Monk/cleric has surpassed monk/sham for awhile now. Clerics have stun command. Can blur. Root. Rez. Paci. More than enough to get any job done when healing pets and monks with 5k+ hp.

Torpor snare/slow is mitigated by having the Shaman tank. You don't need the Pet or the Monk to tank. This is why CH really isn't necessary to simply heal a pet. It won't take the damage to begin with.

2 Enchanters should be able to blur/paci/stun just fine, and Shamans have other methods to deal with a terrible charm break. Slow and Root are two quick options.

I've been a part of Shaman/Enchanter/Monk trios recently, and we didn't need CH for the pet, or a Cleric's stun/paci/blur/res.

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

I’m LOVING this late game Druid push.

DSM - apologies if this was already hashed out hundreds of posts ago, but what’s the case against 3x enchanters and a cleric?

3x charmed pets is riskier due to having more charm breaks occur per session, and you are hitting diminishing returns on DPS with 3x Enchanters. A 3-4 player group is not killing mobs with more than 25000 HP. At 200 DPS (2 Enchanters) you are killing trash in 20-40 seconds already. You are killing Fungi King in 90 seconds.

Saving a few seconds on killing Fungi King when he takes 30 minutes to respawn is irrelevant.

[bcbrown]

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

That logic breaks down because I can say the same thing for both a Cleric and a second Enchanter. The Cleric has Stun/Root/Lull, and the second Enchanter has the exact same spellbook.

If you think there is an issue with the redundancy, you need to concisely explain why, so it can be explored.

A second enchanter can charm a second pet. Everythine else is redundant. If the second enchanter couldn't charm a second pet, there would be zero reason to have two enchanters in the group, I would think. But they can charm a second pet, and that's good enough.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

A second enchanter can charm a second pet. Everythine else is redundant. If the second enchanter couldn't charm a second pet, there would be zero reason to have two enchanters in the group, I would think. But they can charm a second pet, and that's good enough.

If redundancy was that bad, you would pick a Mage over an Enchanter, because they would cover the DPS and also not have redundant spells.

[bcbrown]

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

If redundancy was that bad, you would pick a Mage over an Enchanter, because they would cover the DPS and also not have redundant spells.

Sure you convinced me, changing my answer to enchanter/mage/cleric/druid.