Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Troxx]

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

Riddle me this? If the OP had stipulated that no pockets are allowed - would that change your answer? Or would you still drop the cleric?

If you can’t have a picket cleric. Would you still commit this group to not having a cleric.

Yes or no

This is really easy and as far as most of are concerned - we know the answer.

[Snaggles]

Again, if someone wants to play a shaman…fine. It’s just not bringing much that any other class can’t bring.

- Worse heal than Celestial Elixir (probably won’t mem for this group)
- Debuff line similar to a Mage
- Pet that does like 1/4th dps of a Mage air without a 3-4 second stun
- No premium or free DS
- No way to share their mana with anyone

Outside the quad-ench path I like the Ench/Ench/Cleric/Mage since there is very little overlap of abilities and it mixes two stressful and two very relaxed jobs. The shaman in comparison has to work very hard to be a very committed (and poor) tank. They are doing horrible DPS since it’s likely anything they would survive tanking won’t last the time for the epic to go full-course. Meaning they will have to Bane to maybe keep up with a robe-click DS.

If not for the mage (depending on how helpful mala/o and Malasini is), I would much rather mix in a necro or druid over the shaman if only for snare and more CC, let alone the treasure trove of utility they bring to the table. If hunting outdoors you have three classes that can fear and none that snare. Hell…a SK or ranger would be better than a shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If you can’t have a picket cleric. Would you still commit this group to not having a cleric.

Yes or no

This is really easy and as far as most of are concerned - we know the answer.

If I answer your question now, you will simply dodge the previous question I asked you.

This is your normal tactic for avoiding tough questions, which has been proven more and more with every message you post.

The question that Troxx is dodging: "Where does the no pocket character restriction come from?"

Thus far, we can conclude Troxx has made the restriction up, due to the evidence already provided here:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...postcount=5435

[Snaggles]

At least Troxx doesn’t assume anyone with an opposing opinion is likely just a bad shaman player.

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

I could ask the same thing to you about Shamans. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a powerful trio that doesn't use a Cleric at all, and has a Charmed pet. This is because most content a single small group without a Warrior can do is Torpor tankable. Enchanters can handle most charm breaks solo too.

When you have played the game enough, you realize only a small portion of desireable group content is unslowable, or does enough damage even when slowed to become untankable with Torpor.

[Troxx]

Yep. He will not answer and we all know why. If he or anyone is not allowed to pocket a cleric no 4 man restricted all caster/priest group would never, in their right mind, ever consider leaving rez behind - and this ignores the fact that DSM knows (as do we all) that shamans cannot help on charm breaks nearly as well as clerics.

Your refusal to answer is functionally a concession of defeat.

Pras.

By the by, I am at page 120 of our thread highlight recap. I will continue to post highlights and synopses.

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

The question that Troxx is dodging: "Where does the no pocket character restriction come from?"

From the god damn title of this thread along with the first 100+ pages of the thread.

The more important question is why you are dodging the most obvious question.

I have answered yours. I still bet you are too pussy shit to answer mine.

[Vexenu]

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

If not for the mage (depending on how helpful mala/o and Malasini is), I would much rather mix in a necro or druid over the shaman if only for snare and more CC, let alone the treasure trove of utility they bring to the table.

This is really the most amusing thing - the fact that you can argue, quite convincingly, for filling that fourth spot with either a Mage, Druid or Necro. Depending on the group's specific goals and playstyle, each of those three choices is perfectly viable and could work very well. And in fact, as fortior pointed out, you could even make a compelling case for a Wizard if the group wanted to specialize in Hate minis.

But what you simply cannot do - unless you are DSM - is argue that a Shaman is the best pick for that 4th slot. Because with this particular group composition the class simply does not bring enough to the table compared to the other choices. The Shaman toolkit has far too much practical overlap with the combined abilities of the Enchanter and Cleric to make an ideal fourth man. His contributions are thus largely redundant, and he is mostly dead weight, bringing none of the Mage's DPS or the considerable utility of the Druid and Necro. Therefore the Shaman pick simply does not compute for any knowledgeable and objective player. It never has. And it never will, even if this thread goes another thousand pages.

[Troxx]

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

But what you simply cannot do - unless you are DSM - is argue that a Shaman is the best pick for that 4th slot.

You fool! We are no longer debating who is the 4th. We are debating who is the 3rd! Ditch the cleric and take a shaman instead!!

Lol

[Penish]

another vid of dsm being bad? someone link it, to lazy to look ty ty

also lol

[Troxx]

Now … if you asked for the best all caster/priest 4 man group that can’t utilize charm and/or enchanters? I’d totally bring a shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx has officially admitted he was wrong about the pocket character restriction. His only evidence is his interpretation of the title, which is completely subjective.

Objectively speaking the restriction does not exist. The OP did not say pocket characters are restricted. There are no player agreements on P99 against pocket characters, and there is no evidence to suggest people will give up their pocket characters for this group.

To answer Troxx's question, Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter could potentially do Vaniki, so this is a great combination for doing encounters at the limit of what this four player group of casters/priests could do.

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

At least Troxx doesn’t assume anyone with an opposing opinion is likely just a bad shaman player.

You're the one that asked me if I had a 60 cleric first. And I responded by saying I could ask you the same question. Why is that offensive when you started it?

Troxx does indeed use player skill against other posters, so that assessment is incorrect too.