Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

And yet you've beaten in logic every single time. You refuse to admit the logic.

You are not some noble hearted man on a mission to show everyone the truth. You are a psychotic man-child living in denial, then having the gall to act self-righteous.

There is nothing more to you than that.

Back to trolling I see.

[Gloomlord]

Am I trolling by harshly calling out a man engaging in childish and immoral behaviour?

Pretty sure I'm not.

[bcbrown]

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

Am I trolling by harshly calling out a man engaging in childish and immoral behaviour?

What makes you a troll is contributing nothing to a thread but insults while being thoroughly dislikeable in the process, with the sole purpose of getting a rise out of someone with whom you disagree.

Three more pages to go!

[Gloomlord]

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

What makes you a troll is contributing nothing to a thread but insults while being thoroughly dislikeable in the process, with the sole purpose of getting a rise out of someone with whom you disagree.

Three more pages to go!

I actually don't want to get a rise out of him. I want him to stop posting in this thread, because you and I and both know he's not right. I know you've called out someone before in your real life harshly, so please spare me your hypocrisy.

Have I not been making counter arguments to him in my insulting demeanour? I am contributing to the thread by vainly trying to dismantle his arguments.

And also, why are you saying "three more pages to go" whilst calling me a troll? Seems pretty damn hypocritical...

"Better do a self-righteous 180 in this thread, despite seeing the clear signs that DSM shows anti-social behaviour" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[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.

[TomisFeline]

Important detail: charm pet is the highest dps (not “some of the highest” dps)

[TomisFeline]

If “best” is defined as most exp over time in a specific zone (not considering the time cost of moving around), there’s not much room for argument. It’s 4 charmers (ench or necro or mix thereof depending on zone) because 4 well controlled charm pets will be putting out the most sdps by a huge margin compared to other group comps, and therefore most exp (since those group comps also solve pulling/cc)

If “best” means something else, probably start with defining that to get to more specific answers.

[TomisFeline]

(I should mention this is excluding fringe strats like bard swarming or stun locking)

[fortior]

You basically never need a shaman, they’re just nice to have. Until melees get their raid gear and primals. It’s a good thing that a class so useless for high level grouping can solo decently, at least.