Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If you need more DPS, bring an Enchanter. They will blow the Mage out of the water in that department.
If you need more safety, bring a Shaman. They will blow the Mage out of the water in that department.
If you want something in the middle, a Shaman offers more on average than a Mage. The DPS gap between the two is not large, and Shamans simply have a much broader toolkit.
The reason why redundancy is good is because spell casters can only cast 1 spell at a time. Having a Shaman means you can have him Slow instead of the Enchanters. You can have two people getting healed at once instead of just one person at a time, etc. That is not a trivial advantage hehe, and can even help with your DPS because you can cast more spells in the same time period.
If your Shaman is healing, your Cleric can cast https://wiki.project1999.com/Reckoning which is basically the same DPS as Shock of Steel. It isn't like having two healers adds nothing to the group DPS wise. |
The point is that the more charms you have active, the more liable it is to blow up in your face. We all know this.
So the hypothetical 4th pick is not to increase the safety of the number of charms, which may be only one if the 2nd enchanter is dropping a charm to help with charm breaks, but to increase the efficiency of this group at grinding exp without hiccups.
In which case, the shaman provides absolutely nothing over the mage if we're trying to balance not only DPS, but safety and realism in this scenario.
Why can't you just admit that instead of stubbornly trying to overrate shaman and underrate mage? You're now seriously suggesting that the cleric animation with the shaman healing is more advantageous than the mage constantly throwing his pet in with the cleric healing both it and the charms?
I think you're a troll. I refuse to believe you can't see the logic in this.