Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[cyxthryth]

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

I'm not sure why you all think this is very risky.
When root breaks,the mob isn't going to attack the enchanters it's going for the shaman. Anyone can reroot it.
Why wouldn't a shaman,with the extremely common epic poker, dot rooted mobs while the group kills the rest?
Do I think it's the best strategy for hard camps? No but it would work well for xp grind groups especially.
In hard camps at 60 your trying to kill the named ph and don't care about the rest of the trash.

I am not sure why the above Quote's content would seem to include you attempting to move the goalpost from discussing a particular - objectively false - claim that there would be "no additional risk" introducing additional mobs to an encounter, to - somehow/for some reason - being about whether or why others "think it is very risky"?

That would simply seem to be an example of a strawman that you have built to argue against. Why have you - seemingly - done that?

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

Exactly.

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

If you were to attempt to utilize the fact that another particular/specific poster seemed to agree with you on one or more particular points to attempt to claim, state, or otherwise imply/reveal/betray/expose (intentionally or otherwise) that you believe that could, would, or did somehow strengthen your argument, that would simply be an example of you claiming your argument is strengthened due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum - like you previously (intentionally or otherwise) attempted to claim by attempting to claim/imply that it was relevant that you and OP both (apparently) believe that "OP's post was/is general", and that that somehow meant there are no goalposts and/or that you have not moved the goalposts, simply due to you (and OP) making and agreeing with that claim. You have - laughably - still not provided the meaning that you were attempting to convey by "general" (or what meaning you believed the OP was attempting to convey causing you to - seemingly - agree with them).