Enchanter vs Shaman. Who is the better money maker?

[Snaggles]

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

I have both at 60 and honestly can’t stand farming on my Shaman. I can’t stand the constant canni/torpor/dot play style and it’s way slower. Enchanter also doesn’t require a 50k spell in order to farm gear. You can basically farm anything with a basic tunnel gear setup and the only spell you want that’s semi expensive is Bedlam. I do all my farming on my Enchanter.

I have a 60 sham and 60 mage. Besides double-loot week I haven’t been to Chardok in over a year. I prefer to farm with the mage because it’s less annoying (if one can believe it).

No ench but also a 60 Druid. I think I’d rather gear it and play in Chardok tbh. Like you said the dot/torp/epic song and dance is just a painful ordeal.

I’d definitely put necro and enchanters above the sham. If you have a sham and like the class it’s ability to farm is nice…it’s just not the main perk of the class.

[Crede]

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

I have a 60 sham and 60 mage. Besides double-loot week I haven’t been to Chardok in over a year. I prefer to farm with the mage because it’s less annoying (if one can believe it).

No ench but also a 60 Druid. I think I’d rather gear it and play in Chardok tbh. Like you said the dot/torp/epic song and dance is just a painful ordeal.

I’d definitely put necro and enchanters above the sham. If you have a sham and like the class it’s ability to farm is nice…it’s just not the main perk of the class.

See the 400 page mage Vs shaman thread….shamans are better in 100% of scenarios bc they are a dps class, lawl.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I have a 60 sham and 60 mage. Besides double-loot week I haven’t been to Chardok in over a year. I prefer to farm with the mage because it’s less annoying (if one can believe it).

No ench but also a 60 Druid. I think I’d rather gear it and play in Chardok tbh. Like you said the dot/torp/epic song and dance is just a painful ordeal.

I’d definitely put necro and enchanters above the sham. If you have a sham and like the class it’s ability to farm is nice…it’s just not the main perk of the class.

Mages can certainly farm low level areas like Droga efficiently. If you don't mind the endless grind it will get you solid plat. That usually comes down to a personal preference of guaranteed pp per hour vs. camping items which are more hit/miss.

Shamans are quite good at farming a lot of items, and even grinding plat. It is indeed one of their perks, since they can solo very well. The question of which class to use when farming usually comes down to what characters you have. If you have a 60 Enchanter, a 60 Shaman, and a 60 Mage, you have more choices for picking the optimal (or lazy) class for the situation, depending on preference.

If you only have a 60 Shaman like myself, you don't have that option. I can farm plat quite efficiently on my Shaman at a lot of different camps. Even something like Droga isn't bad since you can just pull 9 mobs and root/rot them. That is around 135 DPS, closer to 150 DPS if you are also using your pet. A Mage with Epic pet is doing 80-90 DPS with the pet, with around 25 DPS from Epic Pet damage shield, and probably using a clickie like Burnt Wood Staff or Boots of Bladecalling to save mana. That is 90 DPS + 25 + 25-35 depending on the clickie, so 140-150 DPS. Depending on how many goblins the pet can tank simultaneously, you will get 25 extra DPS per goblin hitting. Since most Mage's don't have their Epic pet, this DPS number would be a bit lower, I just don't have any logs from other Mage pets at the moment to give exact numbers.

[Crede]

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

If you only have a 60 Shaman like myself, you don't have that option. I can farm plat quite efficiently on my Shaman at a lot of different camps. Even something like Droga isn't bad since you can just pull 9 mobs and root/rot them. That is around 135 DPS, closer to 150 DPS if you are also using your pet. A Mage with Epic pet is doing 80-90 DPS with the pet, with around 25 DPS from Epic Pet damage shield, and probably using a clickie like Burnt Wood Staff or Boots of Bladecalling to save mana. That is 90 DPS + 25 + 25-35 depending on the clickie, so 140-150 DPS. Depending on how many goblins the pet can tank simultaneously, you will get 25 extra DPS per goblin hitting. Since most Mage's don't have their Epic pet, this DPS number would be a bit lower, I just don't have any logs from other Mage pets at the moment to give exact numbers.

This is a really horrible example of napkin math. You aren't factoring in root casting time, canni time to regain root mana, and casting time on the epic.

For an example, Rooting & killing 9 mobs with 1 epic click each is around 193.5 seconds including casting times. That's 66 dps(12825 total epic damage). Then you'd have to go off and find other mobs to root, click epic,. And by the time you root rot a 10th mob, the first 1 will die. Before you get to the 11th cast off, the 2nd mob dies. The reality is you're doing 75-80ish dps when you factor in canni + pet + epic. A mage is easily doing around ~150.

There's no comparison here, I'm not sure why you think shaman dps = mage dps, when you've constantly been proved wrong time and time again.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This is a really horrible example of napkin math. You aren't factoring in root casting time, canni time to regain root mana, and casting time on the epic.

For an example, Rooting & killing 9 mobs with 1 epic click each is around 193.5 seconds including casting times. That's 66 dps(12825 total epic damage). Then you'd have to go off and find other mobs to root, click epic,. And by the time you root rot a 10th mob, the first 1 will die. Before you get to the 11th cast off, the 2nd mob dies. The reality is you're doing 75-80ish dps when you factor in canni + pet + epic. A mage is easily doing around ~150.

There's no comparison here, I'm not sure why you think shaman dps = mage dps, when you've constantly been proved wrong time and time again.

If you want to take "time to find mobs" into account, then Mages lose DPS too hehe. It also takes time for the Mage to run and find other mobs. It also takes time for Mages to manage their pet. You can't simply claim this for one class and not the other. Napkin math is there because I can't predict the precise play style of every player in P99, so mileage will always vary a bit[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can root the 9 mobs before you start applying the Epic clicks. So yes, you can have 135 DPS + Pet DPS once you get that rolling. It takes around 30 seconds to root all of those mobs using paralyzing earth, so yes, you are losing DPS if you want to take that time into account. But as I said before, most Mages don't have their Epic. The numbers I gave for Mages is using the EPIC PET. Not only do Mages probably have lower DPS by not having their epic pet, but you also need to take into account the time/mana it takes to chain cast pets and re-apply your damage shield, burnout, and maybe mask of mardu if you are using it.

The issue here is you have some weird idea that I am trying to say Shaman DPS = Mage DPS. What I am saying is Shamans can do a lot of DPS, and for some reason people don't believe it. Mage DPS is better at single target fights, there is no question. But when a Shaman can root/rot multiple targets, you are killing a lot faster than you think.

[Raj]

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

This is a really horrible example of napkin math. You aren't factoring in root casting time, canni time to regain root mana, and casting time on the epic.

For an example, Rooting & killing 9 mobs with 1 epic click each is around 193.5 seconds including casting times. That's 66 dps(12825 total epic damage). Then you'd have to go off and find other mobs to root, click epic,. And by the time you root rot a 10th mob, the first 1 will die. Before you get to the 11th cast off, the 2nd mob dies. The reality is you're doing 75-80ish dps when you factor in canni + pet + epic. A mage is easily doing around ~150.

There's no comparison here, I'm not sure why you think shaman dps = mage dps, when you've constantly been proved wrong time and time again.

DSM doesn't like to think or talk about these kinds of things! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Andyman1022]

Completely agree with Trebaloon

[unsunghero]

Enchanter can be stressful when RNG not going your way. Having charm break 2-3 times in a row quickly on a very low blue con mob even at 250 cha can be annoying. Luckily these events can be semi rare

Enchanter needs lots of careful prep, and as someone else mentioned, fast reaction with the stuns and cc. Because without heals any significant hp loss = lots of downtime sitting in troll illusion

[Encroaching Death]

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

Enchanter can be stressful when RNG not going your way. Having charm break 2-3 times in a row quickly on a very low blue con mob even at 250 cha can be annoying. Luckily these events can be semi rare

Enchanter needs lots of careful prep, and as someone else mentioned, fast reaction with the stuns and cc. Because without heals any significant hp loss = lots of downtime sitting in troll illusion

This sounds like when I learned how to charm on my Necro in HS.

I hated it. I didn't like it.

It was cool to pull an entire room of like 6 mobs and chain charm and kill them only using like 20% of your mana.

But screw that mess. I couldn't imagine doing it without FD.

[Trexller]

enchanters have a much better time charming that druids or necros, of course ench charming is still alot of work, but its not nearly the headache that necros or druids will experience.