Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Gloomlord]

There is no redundancy in this group. The 2nd Enchanter brings an extra charm pet. The cleric is casting CH on the charm, and faster heals on the Enchanter should they get into a bit of trouble.

There is nothing of worth Shaman brings to the table here that isn't already covered.

You know who can output decent damage whilst breaking even less of a sweat? Mage. And they don't need to expend mana to do so either. They can also cast a slightly weaker version of Malo that still does the trick.

Does anyone else want to take over? I don't see what else I can say at this point. The man is wilfully ignoring the reality here.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

There is no redundancy in this group. The 2nd Enchanter brings an extra charm pet. The cleric is casting CH on the charm, and faster heals on the Enchanter should they get into a bit of trouble.

There is nothing of worth Shaman brings to the table here that isn't already covered.

You know who can output decent damage whilst breaking even less of a sweat? Mage. And they don't need to expend mana to do so either. They can also cast a slightly weaker version of Malo that still does the trick.

Does anyone else want to take over? I don't see what else I can say at this point. The man is wilfully ignoring the reality here.

2 of the exact same spellbook is not redundancy? It is the definition, in fact! I am sorry, but you don't even know what the word means, nor can you explain why the redundancy is bad. You just keep saying it in the hopes it will make sense.

You would sound better if you didn't say "Shaman brings nothing to the table". Torpor and Malo are two things they bring to the table, are powerful spells, and aren't redundant with an Enchanter. You can't even be bothered to try and make an argument.

This is why you are almost certainly a troll.

[Gloomlord]

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

2 of the exact same spellbook is not redundancy? It is the definition, in fact! I am sorry, but you don't even know what the word means, nor can you explain why the redundancy is bad. You just keep saying it in the hopes it will make sense.

You would sound better if you didn't say "Shaman brings nothing to the table". Torpor and Malo are two things they bring to the table, are powerful spells, and aren't redundant with an Enchanter. You can't even be bothered to try and make an argument.

This is why you are almost certainly a troll.

Torpor is redundant. We have Complete Heal. Mage also brings their own version of Malo. A 2nd Enchanter is not redundant because they bring a 2nd charm. Enchanter and Cleric are the cornerstone of this group, so it's basically more DPS at that point. In which case, Enchanters bring some of the best DPS in the game, and so the 2nd Enchanter is not redundant.

What does Shaman bring? Unneeded healing and crappy damage by comparison.

Your last sentence proclaiming me to be a troll is just you projecting yourself to me when it becomes clear you've lost.

[Jimjam]

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

2 of the exact same spellbook is not redundancy? It is the definition, in fact! I am sorry, but you don't even know what the word means, nor can you explain why the redundancy is bad. You just keep saying it in the hopes it will make sense.

1) It is a really big spell book so they can avoid stepping on toes

2) skeleton crews are terrible - some level of redundancy is good. Idk if you’ve ever gone to a bar or diner which is crewed to accommodate an average night but it is busier than normal - service is terrible. It is better to have redundancy so that when you really need it then it will be there.

Redundancies helps out when things go wrong or are too busy (interrupts, resists, summons, dirtnaps etc). Arguably a cleric covers an enchanter sufficient enough to not also require a second enc. The cost of redundancy when things go well/as expected is small. The cost to skipping redundancy can be catastrophic.

Having the right level of redundancy and contingency is important and the right level certainly is not zero.

[Gloomlord]

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

1) It is a really big spell book so they can avoid stepping on toes

2) skeleton crews are terrible - some level of redundancy is good. Idk if you’ve ever gone to a bar or diner which is crewed to accommodate an average night but it is busier than normal - service is terrible. It is better to have redundancy so that when you really need it then it will be there.

Redundancies helps out when things go wrong or are too busy (interrupts, resists, summons, dirtnaps etc). Arguably a cleric covers an enchanter sufficient enough to not also require a second enc. The cost of redundancy when things go well/as expected is small. The cost to skipping redundancy can be catastrophic.

Having the right level of redundancy and contingency is important and the right level certainly is not zero.

He seems to have forgotten that the 2nd Enchanter isn't redundant if he brings a charm pet, which as we know is some of the highest DPS you can muster in this game.

Shaman is redundant because his utility means nothing in this composition and his DPS, quite frankly, sucks in a 2 charm group. Shaman Dots don't last their entire duration, so are wasteful, and their nukes are mediocre at best.

That's why nearly everyone in this thread has said it's redundant. We can make arguments about whether a larger group impacts exp gains and loot, but it is indubitable that if this composition must have 4, then I'd gladly take a Mage, Druid or Necromancer over a Shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

1) It is a really big spell book so they can avoid stepping on toes

2) skeleton crews are terrible - some level of redundancy is good. Idk if you’ve ever gone to a bar or diner which is crewed to accommodate an average night but it is busier than normal - service is terrible. It is better to have redundancy so that when you really need it then it will be there.

Redundancies helps out when things go wrong or are too busy (interrupts, resists, summons, dirtnaps etc). Arguably a cleric covers an enchanter sufficient enough to not also require a second enc. The cost of redundancy when things go well/as expected is small. The cost to skipping redundancy can be catastrophic.

Having the right level of redundancy and contingency is important and the right level certainly is not zero.

I think you misread my post. I wasn't saying redundancy is bad, and I agree with what you said here. The people who are arguing against Shaman disagree with this post, because they think redundancy is bad. Its nonsense of course. They think you can't have redundancy, therefore a Shaman is bad. But they forget this argument would also mean you can't bring a second Enchanter or Cleric lol.

This is hardware redundancy, not superfluous redundancy just so everybody is on the same page.

[Gloomlord]

You're not willing to accept them because you know you've lost.

As if you bringing in root rotting in a charm group and bringing "pocket" classes wasn't already an admission of your defeat.

Now you're claiming the 2nd Enchanter is redundant. Your insanity is spiralling further and further out of control.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You're not willing to accept them because you know you've lost.

As if you bringing in root rotting in a charm group and bringing "pocket" classes wasn't already an admission of your defeat.

Now you're claiming the 2nd Enchanter is redundant. Your insanity is spiralling further and further out of control.

I didn't create the requirement of no pocket classes, nor did OP. There is no reason for me to stick to this requirement.

The issue here is you think redundancy is bad. Perhaps we are using different variations of the word? I am thinking of hardware redundancy, where you have multiple pieces of hardware to prevent a failure. Redundancy is a good thing in this case.

If you are using redundancy to mean superfluous, then you are completely wrong that a Shaman offers nothing in a group of four players. Spell overlap isn't a bad thing, as 2 Enchanters have complete spell overlap.

[Gloomlord]

They pad out the group more, sure. But then Mage, Druid and Necromancer is just a better padding.

Better DPS on single target, which requires only 2 keybinds to enact, and still brings a Malo to help the 2 Enchanters. Mage is better in this group.

It's done; it's dusted. Give up.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

They pad out the group more, sure. But then Mage, Druid and Necromancer is just a better padding.

Better DPS on single target, which requires only 2 keybinds to enact, and still brings a Malo to help the 2 Enchanters. Mage is better in this group.

It's done; it's dusted. Give up.

It's done. Give up. See? I can do the same thing.