Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[bcbrown]

I'll take that as agreement.

One of the areas of synergy is with stuns. Enchanters have their own stuns, so it's not necessary, but it is helpful. If a cleric is quick with a stun, when the enchanter is interrupted or otherwise fails to get a stun off, that can save the enchanter a lot of trouble.

[fortior]

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

Doing things like low man ST clears is a cool idea for prismatic dragon scale MQs. It has a lofty requirement of four ST Keys, but it could be done eventually if all four group members are active in raiding guilds. Or if the group can somehow pool enough plat to buy four ST Keys.

I think PL on your server is theorycrafting a hyper low man vindi. Maybe you can do it with 4 but you’d definitely need logged characters to swap to and not lv 46 shitters

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'll take that as agreement.

One of the areas of synergy is with stuns. Enchanters have their own stuns, so it's not necessary, but it is helpful. If a cleric is quick with a stun, when the enchanter is interrupted or otherwise fails to get a stun off, that can save the enchanter a lot of trouble.

Indeed. But Enchanters can save them selves when soloing via their own stuns. As you say, it is merely helpful.

Malo reduces how often charm breaks occur, which is also helping the Enchanter when to comes to charm breaks.

The problem is reduced to "which scenario has a higher chance of saving the Enchanter". Neither party knows this answer, so it's not really clear which one is obviously better.

[bcbrown]

Stun is clearly better than Malo when it comes to charm breaks, but if necessary a mage could also bring Malo. But the dissent is noted, and I'll move on.

Lulls and pulls: clerics have Pacify and Atone, and can play the role of puller sometimes. The two DAs combined with enchanter aoe mez is a handy tool to have for breaking tough rooms.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Stun is clearly better than Malo when it comes to charm breaks, but if necessary a mage could also bring Malo. But the dissent is noted, and I'll move on.

No, you need to explain this. I could say "Malo is clearly better", and we would be at an impasse. You do not get to claim you are correct without evidence and move on.

[bcbrown]

It is my opinion that stun is clearly better than malo at helping an enchanter with charm breaks. Charm will always break. If you disagree with me, that's fine.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

It is my opinion that stun is clearly better than malo at helping an enchanter with charm breaks. Charm will always break. If you disagree with me, that's fine.

Since you admit this is an opinion without basis, Cleric Stuns are no longer a consideration for this debate. You cannot explain or prove why Cleric Stun is better than Malo, so your opinion holds no weight.

[bcbrown]

I'm at a loss for words.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

I am not sure why. If person A says Vanilla is better, and person B says Chocolate is better, you are at an impasse until one person provides evidence supporting their claim that Vanilla or Chocolate is better. Person A does not simply get to declare victory by stating Vanilla is better.

Here is some made up math that shows how Malo can be better. Let's say you get 5 charm breaks per hour. Cleric Stun has a 20% chance to be helpful, based on things like spell resistance and how quick the Cleric reacts. Lets say Malo reduces charm breaks by 2. In the end, Malo prevents 2 charm break disasters, while Cleric Stun only prevents 1.

You need to explain why you think Cleric Stun helps more, ideally with some evidence. Otherwise you just have an unsupported opinion.

You are not going to get away with simply saying "Clerics are better, moving on", while providing nothing of substance to back up your claims. If that was your entire plan for this debate, you can just stop wasting everybody's time. You already lost.

[cyxthryth]

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

I am not sure why. If person A says Vanilla is better, and person B says Chocolate is better, you are at an impasse until one person provides evidence supporting their claim that Vanilla or Chocolate is better. Person A does not simply get to declare victory by stating Vanilla is better.

Here is some made up math that shows how Malo can be better. Let's say you get 5 charm breaks per hour. Cleric Stun has a 20% chance to be helpful, based on things like spell resistance and how quick the Cleric reacts. Lets say Malo reduces charm breaks by 2. In the end, Malo prevents 2 charm break disasters, while Cleric Stun only prevents 1.

You need to explain why you think Cleric Stun helps more, ideally with some evidence. Otherwise you just have an unsupported opinion.

Even with Malo, a charm will inevitably break. Period. They have maximum durations.

When the inevitable break happens, a stun from cleric can save the chanter. Malo can help the chanter's own stun not resist, but Malo can't stun the mob for the chanter, and cannot save the chanter from being pushed or stunned.