Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Dritzle]

I’m LOVING this late game Druid push.

DSM - apologies if this was already hashed out hundreds of posts ago, but what’s the case against 3x enchanters and a cleric?

[Crede]

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

I’m LOVING this late game Druid push.

DSM - apologies if this was already hashed out hundreds of posts ago, but what’s the case against 3x enchanters and a cleric?

Really no good case against this. Dps is king. You could also have one enc be the dedicated puller and the other 2 focus on dps. Or 3 slows/mezzes going to lock things down quick. Malo isn’t that necessary to hold pets. Tash and pet kits work fine.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Really no good case against this. Dps is king. You could also have one enc be the dedicated puller and the other 2 focus on dps. Or 3 slows/mezzes going to lock things down quick. Malo isn’t that necessary to hold pets. Tash and pet kits work fine.

Sadly DPS is not king in a small group scenario once you hit the DPS threshold for what you are killing.

If DPS was king, every XP group would be running 6 players.

[Dritzle]

Makes sense, thanks. I think I was thinking about this as a 1-60 group not farm fungi king group but I imagine the diminishing return dps argument still holds either way

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Makes sense, thanks. I think I was thinking about this as a 1-60 group not farm fungi king group but I imagine the diminishing return dps argument still holds either way

No problem! And yes, you are correct about diminishing returns on DPS. There is a point at which you aren't really getting more kills per hour without consecutive play for hours at a time.

As a quick example:

We have a mob with 4000 HP that has a 30 minute respawn timer.

At 20 DPS, it takes 200 seconds to kill the mob.

At 200 DPS, it takes 20 seconds to kill the mob.

At 400 DPS, it takes 10 seconds to kill the mob.

When you jump from 20 DPS to 200 DPS, you are getting an extra spawn cycle for this mob every 5 hours if you kill the mob without a break. In a group playing an all day session, you can see this improvement.

When you jump from 200 DPS to 400 DPS, you are getting an extra spawn cycle for this mob every 90 hours if you kill the mob without a break. Nobody is going to play this long in a single session.

The same thing applies to lower level mobs. There is simply a threshold at which increased DPS is just not worth it. This is why you don't see a lot of 6 player XP groups. The increase in DPS typically isn't worth the XP loss.

[fortior]

With that much dps a utility pick isn’t crazy but if you add a shaman that shaman is getting carried hard by just mechanically better classes

[Jimjam]

As the OP considers 1-60, presumably untwinked, having a shaman instead of an enc may do well. A levelling enc can be a bit of a paper bag, especially as part of an inexperienced group.

For 1-60 I quite like the mag,enc,cleric,druid suggestion too.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

As the OP considers 1-60, presumably untwinked, having a shaman instead of an enc may do well. A levelling enc can be a bit of a paper bag, especially as part of an inexperienced group.

For 1-60 I quite like the mag,enc,cleric,druid suggestion too.

Yeah a Mage/Ench/Cleric/Druid would work well for sure.

[bcbrown]

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."

> 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.

[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.