Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[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.

[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.

Wait, hold on...

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.

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

The Enchanters are providing the vast majority of the DPS via charmed pets. The Mage pet isn't doing that much hehe.

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

Most DPS is still coming from the Charmed pets.

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

Remember, I never said underpowered = bad. It just means Mages don't bring a lot to the table (which they sadly don't outside of CoTH). I wouldn't bring a Mage if that's all they can do.

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

The argument isn't "Mage is better because of preference", people are arguing "Mages objectively do a ton of damage, therefore bring them instead of another class."

But at least for the Seb example, the numbers aren't adding up to make Mages special at all.

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

The only delusion here is your assumption the game can only be played in a manner that makes Mages look good.

I am sorry, Mages really just aren't that good.

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

We aren't talking about Enchanters. We already agree we are bringing at least 2 lol.

When did you change your mind on mages?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

When did you change your mind on mages?

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant. I was saying if you truly believe "redundancy" is bad, you wouldn't suggest multiple Enchanters. I do not subscribe to this strange "redundancy" theory.

I am not trying to force anybody to play any class. If one of your players really likes Mage, great! A Mage won't destroy your group.

I am trying to rebut the strange argument that Shamans cannot be included in this four man group, and are a bad pick or a bad class.

The discussion has been about what the most efficient four man group is, not which groups are unplayable. I don't think anybody is saying Mage/Ench/Cleric/Druid is going to be bad.

For a highly efficient group, Mages simply don't work out, because Enchanters provide great DPS plus a bunch of extra utility. That is why people are suggesting Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric, and not something like Enchanter/Mage/Mage/Cleric.

This is why the "redundancy" argument is silly, because you are NOT simply picking a second Enchanter for DPS. Having 2 copies of an Enchanters spellbook is more useful than a Mage's spellbook, unless you need CoTH.

Ironically, the same people who are arguing for redundancy (3x Enchanters) use that same argument to try and say Shamans are bad because of redundancy. It is nonsensical.

My disagreement with 3x Enchanters does not stem from overlapping spellbooks. I disagree because you don't need that much DPS, and you are increasing the risk of charm breaks for not a ton of reward. 2x Enchanters is good enough to cover the DPS due to breakpoints.