Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[cd288]

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

But if an Enchanter is running out of mana due to hasting, slowing, ccing, and charming, then your group is losing efficiency anyway. You still have an efficiency problem if your Cleric is FM and your Enchanter is OOM.

A Shaman can share those duties, alleviating the mana loss on an Enchanter. The Cleric cannot share those duties as easily.

You have 3 Enchanters and a Cleric. You'll be fine.

[Gloomlord]

Suppose you should also be agreeing with the fact that mages might be better at one thing than the shaman, but alas, here we are.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Suppose you should also be agreeing with the fact that mages might be better at one thing than the shaman, but alas, here we are.

I agree with you that Mages do better single target DPS when compared to a Shaman.

I simply disagree that roughly 50 extra single target DPS over a Shaman is necessary in a four man group already doing 200+ DPS with 2 Enchanters.

The Shaman's utility far outweighs DPS that has already hit significant diminishing returns, and the group can have the Shaman do more DPS via root rotting in XP groups if they care. As other people have mentioned (and I agree), that is typically overkill because players intuitively understand diminishing returns on DPS. It is the same reason why you don't normally see 6 player XP groups, because the additional DPS of 2-3 more players simply doesn't make up for the XP loss each player is getting.

[Gloomlord]

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

I agree with you that Mages do better single target DPS when compared to a Shaman.

I simply disagree that roughly 50 extra single target DPS over a Shaman is necessary in a four man group already doing 200+ DPS with 2 Enchanters.

The Shaman's utility far outweighs DPS that has already hit significant diminishing returns, and the group can have the Shaman do more DPS via root rotting in XP groups if they care. As other people have mentioned (and I agree), that is typically overkill because players intuitively understand diminishing returns on DPS. It is the same reason why you don't normally see 6 player XP groups, because the additional DPS of 2-3 more players simply doesn't make up for the XP loss each player is getting.

The thing is: most would prefer a bit of extra DPS on a single target in a charm group than redundant utility and utterly worthless root rotting that you only brought up to childishly spite mage.

If I wanted utility here in this group, I'd take a Necromancer or a Druid.

We've already covered this over multiple pages last year.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

The thing is: most would prefer a bit of extra DPS on a single target in a charm group than redundant utility and utterly worthless root rotting that you only brought up to childishly spite mage.

If I wanted utility here in this group, I'd take a Necromancer or a Druid.

We've already covered this over multiple pages last year.

I didn't do anything to "spite Mages". That is a fabrication on your part. It is not my fault Mages are not very strong on P99, nor did I advocate to nerf them. This is the inherit problem with a time locked box, some classes get screwed more than others.

I am simply pointing out that Mage DPS is redundant in a group with high DPS, and a Shaman can increase their DPS in XP groups if necessary.

Shaman/Enchanter/Necro/Whatever is a great four man group, so I agree bringing a Necromancer is a good option, and you could even do Shaman/Enchanter/Necro/Druid. With the Shaman, Enchanter, and Necro pets the group is hitting close to 200 DPS, and you can easily get over that with Shaman/Necro/Druid spells.

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

Then why can't the other enchanter take over? You're telling me two enchanters can't make a decision on how to split their mana on which tasks?

Think, DSM, think!

Both Enchanters are still using a lot of mana on CCing and Charming. You aren't going to have only one Enchanter charming. If your Enchanters are at FM, I am not sure why you think the group is doing content challenging enough to need Cleric heals to begin with.

The only lack of thinking here is assuming you need maximum efficiency heals, while also claiming the Enchanters are never going to have mana problems.

[Toxigen]

If your cleric is FM and the enchanter is low, all he has to do is downrank slow for a while.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If your cleric is FM and the enchanter is low, all he has to do is downrank slow for a while.

Or you could have a Shaman, and the Enchanter isn't slowing at all[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Gloomlord]

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

Or you could have a Shaman, and the Enchanter isn't slowing at all[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Then why can't the other enchanter take over? You're telling me two enchanters can't make a decision on how to split their mana on which tasks?

Think, DSM, think!

[Toxigen]

Awww yeah we're definitely hitting 400 boys.

[fortior]

There's also no way to add more utility to any 3 man caster/priest group than by adding a Druid. Ports alone are massive, potg is mana regen, long snare on charm pets makes breaks a breeze, and damage shield is insane dps on unslowed mobs. If you want beef you add a chanter, if you want heals you add a cleric, if you want utility you add a druid. No other class even registers.

Saying you can just grab a dial-a-port in your non-druid 4 man is essentially the same as saying you can just get outside buffs from a shaman. Any 4 man needs a porter or you're behind from the very start