Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Troxx]

Sorry I did not have the time to write the above dissertation and read through more of the thread. I will pick up where I left off tomorrow

[Duik]

Quote by dsm

Shutting down conversation because it hurts your argument (with me) is impossible

There I fixed it for you.

[Troxx]

Nobody made up a pocket restriction OR admission except you. Nobody else thinks pockets are relevant. Only you think they should be included … and the rationale is obvious. Adults do not ignore all the other adults around them and make up their own rules. We get it. If you can’t have a pocket cleric you lose. That sucks. We get it.

I am sorry you never got help for your neurodevelopmental disability.

Do not take it out on the rest of us who are neurotypical.





Be at peace.









Deep breaths.













(Ignore everything below if you are fragile and need a safe space)











DSM … stop reading now!








No really. You lack the mental maturity or acuity to handle it…







I warned you … stop now ….







Ps: Fuck yo’ pockets and your half-wit arguments that require pocket clerics because shamans need pocket clerics but clerics do not want or need pocket shamans. Your raging pussy-bitch self is too cowardly to rebut this simple fact. You do not answer basic questions cause you’d a basic bitch of mediocre or worse intelligence. You are … literally … the worst.

Pps: thank you for existing. Without you these forums would be boring. Please, by all means, keep being stupid. Your idiocy enriches an otherwise boring and dying forum.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thank you for admitting there is no pocket cleric restriction finally. You agree nobody made a pocket cleric restriction.

Every legal action is enabled by default in every discussion when there is no restriction against it. That is why Crede was able to mention pocket characters in the other thread. There was no explicit enabling or disabling of pocket characters in that thread.

You do not need to explicitly enable legal actions. Otherwise op would have to make a list like this:
1. Mules are enabled
2. Pulling is enabled
3. Meditating is enabled
4. Casting spells is enabled
etc.

No thread does this, and this thread is not an exception.

That admission of being wrong took a lot of effort I can tell. That's why it looks so silly. But I am glad you did it.

Moving forward, you cannot shut down discussions of pocket characters, as you agree there is no restrictions.

Thank you!

[Troxx]

Why do you always thank people for things they didn’t do or say … or things that didn’t happen.

It doesn’t make sense man

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Why do you always thank people for things they didn’t do or say … or things that didn’t happen.

It doesn’t make sense man

The only thing that doesn't make sense is you admit you are wrong, and then say you didn't. Why is it so hard for you to say you are wrong?

You agreed nobody made a pocket character restriction. You simply tried to hide it by claiming that a thread needs to explicitly enable pocket characters.

This clearly isn't the case, as Crede mentioned a pocket cleric in a thread thay doesn't explicitly enable or disable them.

[Vear99]

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

This clearly isn't the case, as Crede mentioned a pocket cleric in a thread thay doesn't explicitly enable or disable them.

A thread about class selection implicitly disables pocket characters because the question has no meaning otherwise. Otherwise the answer is always 'you'll be most effective with a BIS monk, shaman, cleric, enchanter, warrior, rogue, and maybe wizard' like Toxigen's sig. I don't think your overall statements in this thread are bad, but you are so focused on winning every argument that you are churning out some absolutely ridiculous rationalizations and that is why people are getting frustrated and slinging mud at you.

Since the pocket theme is silly, let me say that although I don't think ENC/ENC/CLR ever really needs a 4th wheel, I feel like the only real reason to choose MAG is COH pull shenanigans and when I played COH had been broken here for years. Everything else Shaman does better: more DPS (avatar on both pets alone is +50, especially if you give them big proccing weapons), better pulls (higher HP/AC and breaking rooms with Tigir's), and more help on charm breaks (chloroblast is better than mod rods).

However, if I were picking a 4th I would almost exclusively focus on pulls because you have so much dps and cc anyway. So I think the best is probably Necro or a 2nd cleric (especially HIE) with the dark horse being Wizard who can pull rooms with AE snare and heal themselves with the epic rune. Which I think is pretty much what most people have been saying. If you want to prove them wrong, whip up a group and measure.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Vear99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A thread about class selection implicitly disables pocket characters because the question has no meaning otherwise. Otherwise the answer is always 'you'll be most effective with a BIS monk, shaman, cleric, enchanter, warrior, rogue, and maybe wizard' like Toxigen's sig. I don't think your overall statements in this thread are bad, but you are so focused on winning every argument that you are churning out some absolutely ridiculous rationalizations and that is why people are getting frustrated and slinging mud at you.

This is just a slippery slope argument, and has already been debunked multiple times. Creating a new pocket Cleric in a group purposely starting new characters together is clearly not the same thing as using a stable of existing BiS mains/alts. Those characters already exist. A new pocket cleric is made by this group and they level it up together.

No, a thread about class selection does not implicitly disable pocket characters. It doesn't implicitly disable mules either. Mules are also characters that exist outside of the picked class to provide utility. Same with pocket characters. Plenty of people use pocket characters in static groups, and will continue to do so regardless of this thread.

You seem to be ignoring the other posters like Troxx who is so hell bent on winning he will spam the thread, troll, and lie about what other people have said. It is always amazing that people ignore this bad behavior and think it is ok. This thread would have been over long ago without this kind of nonsense.

You say I need to provide evidence. I have done a lot more of that than the opposition. Why don't you do this yourself, or ask someone else to do so? Evidence would be great, but it's mostly coming from me and nobody else. This seems one sided don't you think?

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

I postured the same question god knows how many pages back.

I bet you dont get an answer either.

I've answered this question many times. You can Torpor Tank and do other things. Just watch one of my many videos:

https://youtu.be/KPs_VghU-v4?feature=shared

You can Torpor tank and deal with a charm break, I've done it before.

The root/rotting scenario has always been a DPS focused Shaman, doing that instead of normal Shaman duties. I didn't say you would be Torpor Tanking and root/rotting 5 mobs at the same time anywhere in this thread. It is just another straw man.

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

If you can torpor tank something an enchanter can probably just solo it. That's a pretty low bar.

Yes, most content this group can do is Torpor Tankable and/or Enchanter soloable. That is why a Cleric main is generally not going to be at their best in this group. There is no Warrior to be CHed. The Enchanter can handle most charm breaks solo. You'll be using things like Shaman Slow and Malo more often than Cleric Stun and blast heals. You won't need to CH the pets with Torpor tanking.

Pocket the Cleric for Chardok Royals and the occasional Res. People already do this.

[Vear99]

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

lol im nowhere near bis

i always went for the budget items spread across alts with my 5% RA

I know, but I always thought you managed to get close enough!

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

This is just a slippery slope argument, and has already been debunked multiple times. Creating a new pocket Cleric in a group purposely starting new characters together is clearly not the same thing as using a stable of existing BiS mains/alts. Those characters already exist. A new pocket cleric is made by this group and they level it up together.

The slippery slope is not a logical fallacy per se; it depends on the probability of the implied events. For example, the wikipedia page for the slippery slope shows a cartoon from 1895 about how weddings would look in 2001 if women got the right to vote with an extremely large woman in a tux and a tiny, feminine man. They are clearly intending to mock the cartoonist - but in our age of 2SLGBTQI+ was he wrong?

In this case the probability of additional steps is extremely high. If you are willing to to add a pocket cleric to a 4 man group, there is no reason not to add a pocket druid for ports, or a pocket necro for corpse summon, and then you might as well get them a little gear so that they can help 'with key encounters'. The probability of these steps is even higher on the forums where no actual effort is involved and the egos of the debaters are on the line!

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

You seem to be ignoring the other posters like Troxx who is so hell bent on winning he will spam the thread, troll, and lie about what other people have said. It is always amazing that people ignore this bad behavior and think it is ok. This thread would have been over long ago without this kind of nonsense.

I don't think Troxx has covered himself in glory in this thread, and he knows it. But you should ask yourself why you are triggering so quite many people.

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

You say I need to provide evidence. I have done a lot more of that than the opposition. Why don't you do this yourself, or ask someone else to do so? Evidence would be great, but it's mostly coming from me and nobody else. This seems one sided don't you think?

When you want to prove X empirically, the best thing to do is to measure X, not measure Y and then claim that Y implies X using Z logic. If you can setup ENC/ENC/CLR/SHM vs ENC/ENC/CLR/MAG groups, even in something like like the Chef/Bar camp and prove that SHM kills more frogs, you will put Troxx & co in a very difficult place. Alternatively, you can type out another 1800 posts.

[Elizondo]

DSM needs a pocket cleric because he plays shaman so badly