Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasslehofp99
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If you don't mind walking/bugging people for ports go with sham in 4th slot. But in reality a druid is still very effective in small groups situations. Having a druid would make charming mobs much safer and more effective for the enchanter just because snared mobs are easier to recharm. Also having evac in tight spots always helps and can save you loads of time avoiding CR's. Since enchanters have slow/clarity the shaman to me becomes less attractive and the sheer utility of having the druid for ports/snares/evacs among other things becomes more attractive. Also take into account that druids can do some cool shit using charmed pets throughout the levels in combination with an enchanter.
|
At lower levels, say 40 45 and below a Druid is pretty damn good in a group. I agree with Tass with a Enchanter already in the group why have a Shaman also when a druid can work?? Harmony and snare is killer for pulling outdoors. Druids have pretty much same heals, regen as a Shaman all the way up till 60. They fall behind without Canni but you have a Chanter in there for C. And Thornes is no slouch. Snare takes so much pressure off a healer because the mob turns and does not hit the tank below like 18% health unlike root where the mob keeps on hitting till the end. And root is agro hell also if it doesn't stick. That is not fun.
I think I would put a Warrior or a SK ahead of a Paladin. Paladins just do not have much DPS.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I know this is a dirty word but a Ranger has the same DPS as a Warrior and has snare, root Harmony, track, etc. So maybe Ranger and the Shaman??