Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[PlsNoBan]

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

Jib … it was kind of the point of the thread. An exercise in what can be done without melee.

For 99% of group content and a 6 man group I would take a well geared warrior, cleric, shaman, rogue, monk and enchanter. Sub out monk for an epic bard if they are any good.

If limited to 4 and factoring in ALL content: warrrior, cleric, rog, ench. Defensive disc, rogue to open any needed doors. Too much healing and tons of cc/dps to boot. If the cam really needs FD? Swap the warrior for a sk. Otherwise bring on the trains and for heavy ass beaters you have defensive.

For a duo (xp and named)

Cleric/ench
sham/monk
sham/sk

So refreshing to see someone say things that make sense in this thread

[Troxx]

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

So refreshing to see someone say things that make sense in this thread

I am a realist. Shamans are a stellar class. This was a weird question to pose and given the confines of this thread it is funny that one of the most OP classes didn’t fit well.

As far as dps goes…

my warrior hovers 80-100dps with basic buffs Frostreaver and defensive/evasive
my paladin hovers 70-85 dps with greatspear of dawn and paladin utility
my mage hovers 100-120 dps and no tanking or cc
my necro hovers 70-95dps unless charming but tons of utility
my cleric is practically no dps but keeps any group alive
my shaman is a boss doing tons of shit but actual group dps is meh
my druid rarely gets played but can get a job done with laughable dps
my epic/TStaff monk is barely better dps than my paladin but can FD and do cool stuff
my bard has no epic, is shit dps, but can do amazeballs stuff otherwise

This thread is so far separated from what a real ideal group is it isn’t even funny. With so many years of velious and such gear inflation you can tackle most any camp with a wide range of less than ideal group setups.

But yeah … shamans are gods. They just don’t fit into this narrow, obtuse, exercise in the realm of “what if”

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Jib … it was kind of the point of the thread. An exercise in what can be done without melee.

For 99% of group content and a 6 man group I would take a well geared warrior, cleric, shaman, rogue, monk and enchanter. Sub out monk for an epic bard if they are any good.

If limited to 4 and factoring in ALL content: warrrior, cleric, rog, ench. Defensive disc, rogue to open any needed doors. Too much healing and tons of cc/dps to boot. If the cam really needs FD? Swap the warrior for a sk. Otherwise bring on the trains and for heavy ass beaters you have defensive.

For a duo (xp and named)

Cleric/ench
sham/monk
sham/sk

You keep voting for Shaman and against Mage in every situation.

I am still not sure where the disagreement is, other than your clear desire to troll me.

It is clear you understand DPS breakpoints, the usefulness of redundant utility, etc. It is why you have a Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter in your six man group.
It is also why you aren't saying the best six man group is just Cleric/Warrior/Rogue/Rogue/Rouge/Rogue for max DPS.

So if a six man group can use a Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter just fine, why can't a four man group do the same and be just fine?

[Troxx]

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

You keep voting for Shaman and against Mage in every situation.

I am still not sure where the disagreement is, other than your clear desire to troll me.

Read my most recent post. Stop being a concrete thinker. Expand your mind.

Within the confines of this very narrow and unrealistic group setup …

Ench/mage/nec >>> druid > sham > wiz

It’s not rocket surgery.

And it doesn’t apply to actual in game play. Nobody actually rolls a 4 man (no more
Than 4 … no pocket clerics) group that is ONLY limited to casters.

Ever.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Read my most recent post. Stop being a concrete thinker. Expand your mind.

I did read it. You think Cleric/Enchanter/Shaman works well together. Funny how they don't when you want to troll.

I am also a realist.

[Troxx]

They work great together when you have melee … and when the group can include 6.

What is so confusing to you?

The rules were:

-only casters
-only 4
-best of the best for all content eq had to offer

If you open it up to melee, tanks, up to 6 man … less than 4 man … it all changes.

Quit being a concrete thinker. Shamans are great. They just do NOT fit the confines of this stupid ass thread question as well as other classes.

It

Is

Not

Rocket

Surgery

Shamans excel with melee duos or trios. Shamans can flat out SOLO a lot of this stuff with no help.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

They work great together when you have melee … and when the group can include 6.

What is so confusing to you?

The rules were:

-only casters
-only 4
-best of the best for all content eq had to offer

If you open it up to melee, tanks, up to 6 man … it all changes.

Quit being a concrete thinker. Shamans are great. They just do now fit the confines of this stupid ass thread question as well as other classes.

It

Is

Not

Rocket

Surgery

Its not confusing at all. Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter work really well together, we agree on that. In a four man group you could do Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/X and do really well, which has been my point since page 1:

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

Shaman Enchanter Enchanter Cleric. If you are planning on doing Fungi Tunic camp then probably swap 1 Enchanter for a Necro, so they can pull.

If you actually believed your ideas about DPS and redundant utility, your six man group would look more like Warrior/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter/Monk/Rogue. You keep saying Shamans are redundant with Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter.

Honestly I am just glad you really agree with me. You just want to troll for whatever reason. Probably for fun. I think that is /thread.

[PlsNoBan]

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

Its not confusing at all. Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter work really well together, we agree on that. In a four man group you could do Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/X and do really well, which has been my point since page 1:



If you actually believed your ideas about DPS and redundant utility, your six man group would look more like Warrior/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter/Monk/Rogue. You keep saying Shamans are redundant with Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter.

Honestly I am just glad you really agree with me. You just want to troll for whatever reason. Probably for fun. I think that is /thread.

This is the very root of the problem in this thread. You're completely unable or unwilling to understand the nuances and differences between these different scenarios. You think changing variables somehow produces the same results. You take it personally because you love your class so much (I get it. No shame in it) when people say a different class is better at x or y. Nobody and I mean NOBODY is denying that shamans are an extremely powerful class. Probably 2nd only to enchanter in overall power? All people are arguing is that in this VERY SPECIFIC niche scenario that isn't all that common in the "real world" that shaman isn't the ideal choice. This seems to offend you to your core. So much so that you were willing to post 1200+ times arguing over it against literally every other poster here that disagrees. AGAIN shaman is a VERY POWERFUL class. Nobody is dissing shamans. In this specific situation someone is asking what the BEST COMBINATION of 4 caster/priest classes is OVERALL. Not the best 4 person caster/priest group for ixiblat or root rotting adds all over. Shaman simply doesn't make the cut here for a variety of reasons already discussed ad nauseum.

Why is this so hard for you? Admitting this very obvious fact doesn't diminish your class in the least. I realize you've dug too deep at this point to ever admit defeat or say anything different. I suspect there's part of you that realizes there's merit to what everyone is saying though. I refuse to believe you're actually this dense.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This is where you failed DSM. You assumed I hate shamans and therefore you.

I never assumed this at all, nor did I say it anywhere. This is one of many strawmen you have created in your head. I still find it amazing at how many fictions have been created in this thread that people assume are facts. You are projecting the fact that you keep saying I hate mages, which I don't. I have said many times I like Mages.

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

My dislike for YOU is entirely separate from my sentiments on the shaman class. Unlike you, I can engage in abstract thought and understand that just because a shaman is god solo or in the right group setup … that doesn’t mean it is always the ideal choice for everything.

More projecting. I am the one engaging in abstract thought by extrapolating simple solo DPS data to a group. You are the concrete thinker who cannot think about DPS outside of group data. You cannot fathom the concept that you can output the same DPS in a group and solo. Your concrete thinking is precisely why you keep thinking my data is invalid, when it isn't.

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

Am I a bit of a mage fan-boy? Yes. I will admit that.

This is the real reason you don't like me. You don't like that I pointed out Mages don't really fit to well here due to their limitations. You should be happy with my Enchanter/Shaman/Necro/Mage concept, since it does include them for CoTH.

Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter work really well together, we agree on that. In a four man group you could do Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/X and do really well, which has been my point since page 1:

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

Shaman Enchanter Enchanter Cleric. If you are planning on doing Fungi Tunic camp then probably swap 1 Enchanter for a Necro, so they can pull.

If you actually believed your ideas about DPS and redundant utility, your six man group would look more like Warrior/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter/Monk/Rogue. You keep saying Shamans are redundant with Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter.

Honestly I am just glad you really agree with me. You just want to troll for whatever reason. Probably for fun. I think that is /thread.

[Troxx]

DSM,

I will not argue with you what my preferred 6, 4, 3 or even 2 man group looks like if you include hybrids and melees.

This is where you failed DSM. You assumed I hate shamans and therefore you. My dislike for YOU is entirely separate from my sentiments on the shaman class. Unlike you, I can engage in abstract thought and understand that just because a shaman is god solo or in the right group setup … that doesn’t mean it is always the ideal choice for everything.

I love shamans. It was my second class to 60 after bard. My main (warrior) came much later and far after torpor as did my necro, druid, mage, cleric, monk and paladin. I know how classes work. I know what works and what doesn’t and how some classes complement each other so well that other classes become irrelevant.

Shamans are a great class. They just DO NOT belong in this unrealistic group as much as other classes might.

Am I a bit of a mage fan-boy? Yes. I will admit that. Mages are seriously underrated given they are tippy top best group dps and fill CRUCIAL raid roles no other class can fill. Outside of raids they are stellar dps and outperform any other class I have played within the confines of damage dealt and mobs being made dead. Important caveat is that I have NOT leveled an enchanter. This has been consistent to include necromancer. Necro can only charm undead. When they do it is really good dps but also risky … and for what? Maybe a pinch more dps than my mage could do? Without outside help it does add risk and time spent recharming that 100-120dps pet is time not spent doing dps. If external help is needed to cc, tash/malo my pet … is mana not spent on target. Anywhere without undead to charm the ONLY class that can challenge/beat my mage is a charming chanter.

Don’t misinterpret the above. Necros are stronger than mages. Zero question about it. But if the group just wants dps from a member, few if any do it better than a mage.

A fully velious geared rog? Sure. But when do you find them in xp groups. My warrior who is max xp and hovers just a few dps less fully buffed? Sure but how often do you find them in groups. Even then my mage has room to grow (epic, phinny staff, velks boots). My warrior already has THE BEST weapon for combined threat, dps and ripostes avoided. Are there better dps weapons? Yes. Better threat setups? Yes. But Frostreaver puts it all in one convenient package. My paladin likewise has THE BEST weapon for dps and tanking. My monk with TStaff wouldn’t see an actual bump without velious raid gear.