Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Oh lawdy lawdy

(Post the video!)

Toolbag McGee 400+ pages later still advocating for pocket clerics so he can shoehorn a shaman into a group that otherwise has no rez.

Here is Troxx trying to pretend pocket characters don't exist, so he can shoehorn in a Cleric/Mage instead of other classes that cannot be pocketed easily.

Necromancers have Res as well, in case you didn't know.

Troxx doesn't understand group dynamics well enough to know why an Enchanter/Shaman combo is good, based on his previous analysis. Nor does he understand how much DPS is typically needed in a group.

He also doesn't understand the word "redundancy". He is advocating for 2 enchanters, while complaining about spell overlap from a Shaman. He forgets that two Enchanters have more spell overlap than a Shaman/Enchanter.

When multiple people can cast a spell like slow, you can slow multiple mobs in camp simultaneously. You can also free up a spell slot on a caster for something else if that is not needed. A Shaman slowing allows an Enchanter to focus more on pet control and cc.

[Troxx]

I’m sorry you’re upset that shamans don’t fit into this ideal group. Unfortunately I don’t think you’re smart enough to understand the why behind this even if this thread were to live another 4,722 additional posts (half or more of which would still be yours).

Best thread ever [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I’m sorry you’re upset that shamans don’t fit into this ideal group. Unfortunately I don’t think you’re smart enough to understand the why behind this even if this thread were to live another 4,722 additional posts (half or more of which would still be yours).

Best thread ever [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am sorry Mages don't fit into this group, and can be pocketed as CoTH bots. Shamans certainly fit, as Enchanter/Shaman/Monk is already one of the strongest trios out there for content that doesn't need Warrior Discs.

Swap the Monk for a Necro to work within the thread and you have the same group. Fourth member is flexible, as there isn't any content I can think of that needs four players instead of three.

Remember when you also admitted you would take a Shaman/Enchanter combo over a Mage?

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

For 99% of group content and a 6 man group I would take a well geared warrior, cleric, shaman, rogue, monk and enchanter. Sub out monk for an epic bard if they are any good.

There isn't really a reason to make this six player group with a Shaman if you actually believed what you were saying about Shamans and their contribution to the group.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=114

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

Look guys, I’m an honest fella. I will readily admit to having engaged in trolling behavior with regards to DSM. You all have functioning brain cells … so I know that you all already know this. I also know that many of you also have done this. I’m not apologetic in the slightest sense of the word either.

The problem is you are an admitted troll, so we can't really take anything you say seriously. You have no problem saying whatever you think will troll someone, regardless of the truth.

[Troxx]

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

Remember when you also admitted you would take a Shaman/Enchanter combo over a Mage?

Warrior monk rogue ench shaman cleric is not restricted to the whole “4 person all caster group” concept.

It isn’t relevant to this thread at all.

Moving goalposts again?

[Vexenu]

Let's be honest, ENC/ENC/CLR is such a busted trio that the fourth player hardly matters, anyway. Assuming those first three are skilled players, whatever else you add at that point isn't really going to be carrying their weight in comparison. Mage would be nice for some extra DPS, but with two well-controlled charm pets it's kind of overkill. Necro adds some DPS and utility, but just like with the Mage, it's not really needed. This is why I like fortior's suggestion of the Wizard, because for leveling you don't really need to use him anyway (although he can still contribute somewhat with stuns on charm break, root CC, snares and flux staff aggro ripping), but at endgame he's suddenly super useful for mobility, TL boxes, Hate ports and burning down big mobs. ENC/ENC/CLR/XXX will be a powerful group regardless of the fourth man, but ENC/ENC/CLR/WIZ is a gank squad par excellence that really gets full value out of the Wiz more than any other class. Just four dudes just porting around Norrath sniping named at will.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Warrior monk rogue ench shaman cleric is not restricted to the whole “4 person all caster group” concept.

It isn’t relevant to this thread at all.

Moving goalposts again?

It's 100% relevant. You have to explain why a Shaman/Enchanter combo suddenly doesn't work in a four player caster group, but it works fine in a six player group.

Remember saying:

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

-shaman: gives you redundant slows you don’t need, heals you won’t need, buffs you won’t need, a pet that sucks and malo (value added). Dots will not add much as with 2 ench pets nothing is alive long. Malo is good but shamans don’t have a monopoly on this line. Shaman isn’t a terrible choice, but you’re bringing along a class that can’t contribute as much as other options

How does this nonsensical assesment change in your six player group example? It must change, because otherwise why would you pick a Shaman?

What are the strengths of an Enchanter/Shaman combo? Please explain.

[bcbrown]

Surely you'd agree that some combinations of classes can have synergy, while other combinations do not? For example, a duo of two paladins or a duo of two rogues has less synergy than a duo of a paladin and a rogue, because a rogues benefit from someone else tanking, while paladins are good tanks but do not really benefit from someone else tanking? Or, say a shaman has good synergy with any melee class, because the shaman has fantastic stat buffs that are helpful for any melee class?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Surely you'd agree that some combinations of classes can have synergy, while other combinations do not? For example, a duo of two paladins or a duo of two rogues has less synergy than a duo of a paladin and a rogue, because a rogues benefit from someone else tanking, while paladins are good tanks but do not really benefit from someone else tanking? Or, say a shaman has good synergy with any melee class, because the shaman has fantastic stat buffs that are helpful for any melee class?

That is essentially what I am asking Troxx. Maybe he'll answer you instead. He cannot explain why he thinks Shaman/Enchanter synnergies change based on group composition.

[bcbrown]

So you agree that shaman classes have a synergy with melee classes?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

So you agree that shaman classes have a synergy with melee classes?

We are discussing Shaman/Enchanter synnergies. I'll wait for Troxx to respond, as his assessment of Shamans doesn't match with his six player group composition.