Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Jesus, it really can be tiring to try to debate you.

> I am not trying to force anybody to play any class. If one of your players really likes Mage, great! A Mage won't destroy your group.

> I am trying to rebut the strange argument that Shamans cannot be included in this four man group, and are a bad pick or a bad class.

These two paragraphs are diametrically opposed. No one else is forcing you to not play a shaman. If you really like playing a shaman, great! It won't destroy your group. No one is saying "cannot be included" or "bad pick", especially not "bad class".

>The discussion has been about what the most efficient four man group is, not which groups are unplayable.

Yes, that's EXACTLY why no one is saying you can't play a shaman in this hypothetical group. They're saying it's not the "most efficient". They aren't saying it's a "bad pick". Saying "a mage is a better pick than a shaman" is not saying "a shaman is a bad pick."

You are misreading things and getting frustrated. You are the one who quoted me thinking I said Mages should be included. I am simply clarifying what my points were from all those quotes you posted. Don't blame me when you are quoting a bunch of my posts. Shamans are a top pick for efficiency, because Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a highly efficient trio. If you understand why that trio is strong, you will understand why it translates to a four man group.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [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. ... 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.

You're aggressively misunderstanding the redundancy argument, I think. The reason redundant enchanters are good is because of the charm pet. A shaman cannot charm a pet. That's it. If a group could only have a single charm pet then absolutely no one would be advocating triple-enchanter groups.

I am not aggressively misunderstanding the redundancy argument. People are being very clear about it. You wouldn't put multiple Enchanters in a group if having multiple copies of a single spellbook was extremely inefficient. It is really that simple.

People would say "Enchanter/Mage/Necro/Cleric", because you are getting good DPS from the three pets, and different spellbooks.

In reality a Shaman's spellbook synergizes well with an Enchanter, and having 2x Enchanter spellbooks is great. Charming is NOT the only reason to take multiple Enchanters.