Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Gloomlord]

So then why would we want a Shaman when we could have a Druid? We don't need extremely efficient heals? I'll get the priest that can still heal small amounts of damage whilst having utility that isn't redundant, possibly another charm, snare for the Enchanter charms, POTG and some nice mobility to move this group around.

You've lost the argument.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

So then why would we want a Shaman when we could have a Druid? We don't need extremely efficient heals? I'll get the priest that can still heal small amounts of damage whilst having utility that isn't redundant, possibly another charm, snare for the Enchanter charms, POTG and some nice mobility to move this group around.

You've lost the argument.

Shamans provide more utility than a Druid in combat, and can solo mobs that Enchanters cannot due to restrictions on Charmable mobs in a zone. Shamans can save your party more mana than PoTG by taking on some of the duties an Enchanter would, while also being able to cannibalize. This means they don't need a med break.

[Gloomlord]

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

Shamans provide more utility than a Druid in combat, and can solo mobs that Enchanters cannot due to restrictions on Charmable mobs in a zone. Shamans can save your party more mana than PoTG by taking on some of the duties an Enchanter would, while also being able to cannibalize. This means they don't need a med break.

If this hypothetical group were indeed going to places where there are restrictions, then they'd go for a Mage and its pet instead. Slow, Mage Malo and Cleric heals? Yes please!

Why the hell would I want a Shaman?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If this hypothetical group were indeed going to places where there are restrictions, then they'd go for a Mage and its pet instead. Slow, Mage Malo and Cleric heals? Yes please!

Why the hell would I want a Shaman?

A Shaman is much tankier than a Mage pet. There is no reason to prefer a Mage in your scenario. That is why Shamans can solo much harder mobs than a Mage.

[Gloomlord]

What exactly are they doing that makes the extra tankiness of this hypothetical Shaman more important? This seems pretty contrived.

Most things this group will be doing is not going to require a Shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

What exactly are they doing that makes the extra tankiness of this hypothetical Shaman more important? This seems pretty contrived.

Most things this group will be doing is not going to require a Shaman.

The tankiness is an extra feature that the Cleric does not bring. It allows the group to do content that the Enchanters could not. WW Dragons are an example here, because they have AoE dispell, which is bad for pets.

The Mage is only offering DPS, so you would pick an Enchanter instead for the DPS slots in this group.

This discussion is about efficiency, not requirements. You don't need 2x Enchanters DPSing to do the content this group would do, and you don't need the CH from Clerics.

[Gloomlord]

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

The tankiness is an extra feature that the Cleric does not bring. It allows the group to do content that the Enchanters could not. WW Dragons are an example here, because they have AoE dispell, which is bad for pets.

The Mage is only offering DPS, so you would pick an Enchanter instead for the DPS slots in this group.

This discussion is about efficiency, not requirements. You don't need 2x Enchanters DPSing to do the content this group would do, and you don't need the CH from Clerics.

So you pick the most contrived circumstances in order to prove Shaman is better than Mage? Really?

This group is going to go to most likely Sebilis, KC, Velks and the like. And you're bringing up the WW Dragons?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

So you pick the most contrived circumstances in order to prove Shaman is better than Mage? Really?

This group is going to go to most likely Sebilis, KC, Velks and the like. And you're bringing up the WW Dragons?

When talking about efficiency you should also be thinking about how many camps you can do. The more camps you can do, the better the composition is. Shamans enable more camps in this composition, a Mage does not.

[Crede]

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

The tankiness is an extra feature that the Cleric does not bring. It allows the group to do content that the Enchanters could not. WW Dragons are an example here, because they have AoE dispell, which is bad for pets.

The Mage is only offering DPS, so you would pick an Enchanter instead for the DPS slots in this group.

This discussion is about efficiency, not requirements. You don't need 2x Enchanters DPSing to do the content this group would do, and you don't need the CH from Clerics.

The enc animations along with a mage pet could easily kill ww dragons. This is a silly argument. WW dragons are child’s play.

[Gloomlord]

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

The enc animations along with a mage pet could easily kill ww dragons. This is a silly argument. WW dragons are child’s play.

May I ask: are there *ANY* scenarios where Shaman is superior to a Mage, Druid and Necro in a 2 Enchanter and 1 Cleric group?

Because, from what I'm gathering, it must be extremely niche.