Best trio to self farm gear/dungeons

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I guess I look at this question different than most. Self farm gear is way more fun with classes that can't solo nakid in my opinion. Just do 3 troll or ogres, one of each class. 2 of the 3 classes will really benefit from each upgrade.

Yeah a big boi group would be fun. SK can pull/tank, with Shaman slowing and Warrior DPSing.

[spoil]

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

It mostly depends on what OP's trio wants to farm, and at what level. If they take a standard leveling path and farm gear after they are a bit over leveled for the content, you really don't need a cleric. Enchanter, Shaman, and Monk can solo to 60 just fine, and when you solo you don't have a cleric.

That's great but the OP is interested in the "best" trio from 1-60. Obviously you can make anything work, but there's no replacement for a cleric or enchanter if you're aiming for efficiency. Otherwise just play whatever you want and don't worry about what's the best.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

That's great but the OP is interested in the "best" trio from 1-60. Obviously you can make anything work, but there's no replacement for a cleric or enchanter if you're aiming for efficiency. Otherwise just play whatever you want and don't worry about what's the best.

You don't need a cleric for efficent trio leveling 1-60. Downtime is already heavily reduced by having 3 players with most content. Slowing and non-CH heals are more than sufficient.

[spoil]

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

You don't need a cleric for efficent trio leveling 1-60. Downtime is already heavily reduced by having 3 players with most content. Slowing and non-CH heals are more than sufficient.

Best and sufficient mean different things.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Best and sufficient mean different things.

I think you misread "efficient" and "sufficient".

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

You don't need a cleric for efficent trio leveling 1-60.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Let me break it down in a bit more detail. A lot of people don't think about why CH is efficient, so they just assume it is always better.

A Cleric gets CH at 39, so from 1-38 you don't have it. Therefore, when you talk about clerics being efficient for leveling, you are really talking about leveling from 39-60.

From levels 39-52 roughly speaking, you really aren't healing more than about 1200 HP per cast of CH. This is because your tank (or charmed mob) isn't going to have more than 2k HP, especially on a non-twinked run, and most clerics will CH around 40% life. My 51 Monk with decent twink gear like Fungi, IFS, and Epic only has 1800HP for reference.

At 39 a Shaman can slow for 40% at 125 mana, and heal for 540 with 300 mana. 40% of 1200HP = 480 HP, so for 425 mana a Shaman is mitigating 1020 damage. With the 10 HP/Tick regen the Shaman is providing, that is another 100 damage mitigated per minute. That is very comparable to a cleric in terms of mana to hp from levels 39-52 or so.

CH really starts to shine like 54-60 when the enchanter is starting to charm mobs with 4k HP or more, and your gear/HP buffs are pushing the tank player closer to 3k+ HP. Even then, a Shaman is doing better than you think. At 3k HP CH is typically healing about 1800 HP when you start healing at 40% life. Turgurs insects slows for 66%, so it is mitigating roughly 1200 HP, and Chloroblast is healing 385 HP for 175 HP. So again for 425 mana you are mitigating basically 1600 damage instead of 1800 damage when compared to CH. If you add regen (150HP per minute), the difference is pretty small.

The nice thing about having the Shaman slowing instead of the Enchanter is it saves the Enchanter more mana for CC and pet management. A Shaman being able to cannibalize means they have more mana to play around with than the Enchanter, so you can manage mana usage a bit better for more balanced meditate sessions. You aren't being very efficient if your cleric is always sitting at full mana and your enchanter is running low.

CH is obviously more efficient when you have a tank with 5K+ HP, or are keeping a pet with like 8k+ HP, but that is really an end game scenario, when you can think about getting Torpor for your Shaman, a full spellbook for your Enchanter, etc.

[Absinthium]

I have found a trio of Wizard, Enchanter, and Shaman to be fantastically flexible

[Vivitron]

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

Let me break it down in a bit more detail. A lot of people don't think about why CH is efficient, so they just assume it is always better.

A Cleric gets CH at 39, so from 1-38 you don't have it. Therefore, when you talk about clerics being efficient for leveling, you are really talking about leveling from 39-60.

From levels 39-52 roughly speaking, you really aren't healing more than about 1200 HP per cast of CH. This is because your tank (or charmed mob) isn't going to have more than 2k HP, especially on a non-twinked run, and most clerics will CH around 40% life. My 51 Monk with decent twink gear like Fungi, IFS, and Epic only has 1800HP for reference.

At 39 a Shaman can slow for 40% at 125 mana, and heal for 540 with 300 mana. 40% of 1200HP = 480 HP, so for 425 mana a Shaman is mitigating 1020 damage. With the 10 HP/Tick regen the Shaman is providing, that is another 100 damage mitigated per minute. That is very comparable to a cleric in terms of mana to hp from levels 39-52 or so.

CH really starts to shine like 54-60 when the enchanter is starting to charm mobs with 4k HP or more, and your gear/HP buffs are pushing the tank player closer to 3k+ HP. Even then, a Shaman is doing better than you think. At 3k HP CH is typically healing about 1800 HP when you start healing at 40% life. Turgurs insects slows for 66%, so it is mitigating roughly 1200 HP, and Chloroblast is healing 385 HP for 175 HP. So again for 425 mana you are mitigating basically 1600 damage instead of 1800 damage when compared to CH. If you add regen (150HP per minute), the difference is pretty small.

The nice thing about having the Shaman slowing instead of the Enchanter is it saves the Enchanter more mana for CC and pet management. A Shaman being able to cannibalize means they have more mana to play around with than the Enchanter, so you can manage mana usage a bit better for more balanced meditate sessions. You aren't being very efficient if your cleric is always sitting at full mana and your enchanter is running low.

CH is obviously more efficient when you have a tank with 5K+ HP, or are keeping a pet with like 8k+ HP, but that is really an end game scenario, when you can think about getting Torpor for your Shaman, a full spellbook for your Enchanter, etc.

I think you are getting 6k unbuffed hp charm pets as a 51ish enchanter, probably hitting 8k unbuffed on your charm pets at 55ish.

[Lampolo]

clr/ench/tank. monk if you need splits, war if you dont need splits. IMO theres not a lot of wiggle room on this. There will be no way to win this argument with words. You have to farm a lot with a few different classes to learn for your self. I would say ench/clr/war overall for better xp tanking and less limits on what you can tank at 60.

[Lampolo]

yah is war/clr/ench and its not up for debate