Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I apologize, you did read it correct.
|
I appreciate and accept the apology. I apologize for getting frustrated with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is why the "redundancy" argument is silly, because you are NOT simply picking a second Enchanter for DPS. Having 2 copies of an Enchanters spellbook is more useful than a Mage's spellbook, unless you need CoTH.
Ironically, the same people who are arguing for redundancy (3x Enchanters) use that same argument to try and say Shamans are bad because of redundancy. It is nonsensical.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
2 Enchanters have the same spell book, and Clerics share Lull/Root/Stun with Enchanters. I cannot believe you think this argument makes you look good. You need to explain why the "redundancy" is a problem.
|
If you find an argument (subscribed to by most other participants in this thread) nonsensical, I would posit that either A: it's not worth interacting with those participants as they are equally nonsensical as the argument; or B: your understanding of the argument differs materially from the understanding of the other participants, who are sensible. Are you interested in the possibility of B? Are you willing to extend the debate principle of charity to me, and listen to what I say without accusing me of bad faith or not understanding what you say?
Are you willing to accept the following postulates as precondition for this discussion between the two of us?
* No "pocket characters" are to be included. The group of four casters must be completly self-sufficient, except from one port into their destination from Dial-A-Port. No pocket rez, no pocket POTG, no pocket buffs.
* The original question includes no real context. Your perspective is colored by a focus on named camps where everyone is 60 with ~more or less~ epic and full gear. My perspective is colored by a focus on leveling 1-50 untwinked, especially random adventuring through an entire dungeon, instead of camping a single named mob. Both of these perspectives are subjective.
* The group is to stay together and not to split their focus. I understand and accept your argument that a shaman can add DPS by root rotting away from or ahead of the rest of the group. I'm glad you can find groups that let you play the way you like to play, but I find the scenario abhorrent, and I do not wish to consider it any further.
* Can we agree that some spells can be almost completely redundant (two shamans can't both cast Bane Of Nife on the same mob), and some spells can be almost completely non-redundant (two wizards casting the same nuke on a mob that's not insta-killed by the first one that lands)?