Quote:
Originally Posted by Troxx
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Thanks for the laugh.
Your points have all been thoroughly discussed in the first few hundred pages of this thread. Ironically … let us circle around to the very first reply of this thread. I wonder who it was:
I’m curious on the “why” behind the fundamental shift. Clearly you saw the value of a cleric for this theoretical group. You didn’t even bother to mention leaving cleric off the table until dozens (possibly a few hundreds) of pages in. Actually, you know what? I’m not going to lie … I’m not curious about the why. I already understand it.
You lost the argument hundreds of pages ago. If a cleric is present - the shaman adds little to no value that isn’t redundant. So what’s a DSM to do after losing multiple arguments multiple times? Kick the cleric out of the group and advocate for allowing pocket clerics to be considered to cover the severe gaps in the shaman’s toolkit when managing multiple buzz-saw charm pets.
|
I never said Clerics were bad in this group. I certainly see value in them. Discussing whether a Shaman or Cleric is better if you have to pick one is not the same thing as saying a Cleric is bad. But Clerics can be pocketed, so there is less need to main one the more I thought about it. I look at reality, where pocket clerics exist and are common practice. OP did not rule them out, so they are fair game.
As you can see, Troxx cannot rebut the points I made, or supply counter points. He just continues to concede via trolling. He's made it clear multiple times he doesn't understand the Shaman class very well.
If Troxx ever wants to actually win an argument instead of pretending to win like a child, he can read this post and attempt to rebut it
https://project1999.com/forums/showp...postcount=4843