Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Thanks for responding with a veiled dig.

Ok, do you have a 60 cleric?

What veiled dig?

I've played level 60 Clerics and have grouped with plenty. I hope your argument isn't "you can't understand how a class works unless you level it to 60". How many people on these forums have actually leveled every class to 60? It's not many I'd wager. This is just an argument from authority fallacy.

[Troxx]

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

I could ask the same thing to you about Shamans. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a powerful trio that doesn't use a Cleric at all, and

You have a short memory. This was already addressed. Shaman/monk is a powerful duo. It stands to reason that adding the single most capable solo class to an admittedly powerful duo is going to be even stronger. Unfortunately, this is just a distraction from the topic at hand and entirely irrelevant to the discussion of which 4 characters, all casters, provide the best synergy.

/facepalm

[Troxx]

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

When you have played the game enough, you realize….

That veiled dig. The implication that Snaggles just hasn’t played the game enough to understand what he is talking about.

[bcbrown]

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

As a sidebar discussion, I’ve always wondered if the bard class would be best classified as a caster - not a hybrid. Rangers are half warrior/druid. Paladins are half warrior/cleric. SKs are half war/necro. Bards aren’t really half/half anything. What they DO do best doesn’t involve their weapons. Their weapons aside from having epic for the proc and instrument mods is unrelated to anything substantial they do - and this very unlike any of the other hybrids or the melee characters.

I think of them as being enchanter/warrior hybrids. They have haste, slow, mez, lull, charm, mana regen. But they’re less like enchanters are than any of the other hybrids are from their “parent” caster classes.

Early on in this thread when bards came up you made a persuasive case that a bard wouldn’t be a good fit in this group, but I’m not gonna try to find it.

[Vivitron]

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

Another definition that I think could bear fruitful exploration is that shitposting is an artistic form exploring the boundaries of poe's law: any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

That effort post was a surprise 500+ pages deep. I like this definition of shitposting. I've chuckled at some gems from Jimjam in particular that fit this definition and still come across as friendly and in good faith.

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

As a sidebar discussion, I’ve always wondered if the bard class would be best classified as a caster - not a hybrid. Rangers are half warrior/druid. Paladins are half warrior/cleric. SKs are half war/necro. Bards aren’t really half/half anything. What they DO do best doesn’t involve their weapons. Their weapons aside from having epic for the proc and instrument mods is unrelated to anything substantial they do - and this very unlike any of the other hybrids or the melee characters.

Having said that, they are neither intelligence casters nor wisdom casters. I question how our discussion would be different if bards were part of our consideration in this thread.

Rimitto, you are very much correct. I am inclined to agree. The lack of malo on high level slow-able targets could be painful, but generally in the locations you will find these targets, the available pets to charm have massive hp so you could just push through healing the pet(s) without a slow.

Bards having unique songs instead of a base-class-caster's spells is a big difference for sure. Despite that I've thought of them as an enchanter/ranger hybrid. Kind of a hybrid-hybrid, taking them one step closer to caster.

But Jimjam made a good post in the best melee/hybrid group thread; "I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve always viewed shaman as more of a melee hybrid than a pure caster so …" And bards are a bit closer to the melee side than shaman, so maybe shaman and bard should both be disqualified here[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Can you name a camp this four player group would be doing that can't be Torpor Tanked?

Chardok Overking and sleepers trash.

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

I see we are still using pocket cleric concept to rationalize bringing an inferior priest (for this party) to the party

Funny how the shaman needs a pocket cleric to make the group viable yet the cleric doesn’t need a pocket shaman.

Truly giggle worthy

Thanks for conceding DSM.

Did the OP specify a timeline? We've only been planning for two years, so I would still call the pocket cleric a major investment. But I think if we drag the prep stage out to 5 years or so we can start calling it a minor cost, relatively speaking.

[Snaggles]

It’s sunken cost vs authority fallacy then.

You assume playing a shaman for thousands of hours instead of tens of thousands of hours means someone can’t crack the cypher of alternating torp and canni.

My point is having more toons makes someone more objective and less biased. They all have flaws. I’m not proud of my 8.9 level 60’s. It’s very sad, TBH.

If a buddy has an enchanter, or two of them do, I will pick my class based on the need of the group. Not the need for me to prove I’m right about my favorite class. I can play a good ranger but am not so deluded to think it’s optimal.

I’ll let the poll I posted vote for me. I know how to best support enchanters based on my perspective but would appreciate theirs. Frankly, the best four person group is likely 4 enchanters with a cleric parked out.

[Troxx]

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

Early on in this thread when bards came up you made a persuasive case that a bard wouldn’t be a good fit in this group, but I’m not gonna try to find it.

Sounds like something I would do. Regen is obviously powerful - but probably not needed. Chant dots add dps but not by much. They can pull - but you all ready have 3 classes with pacify. They can provide CC but you already have 2 enchanters.

Ok ok … you convinced me Bcbrown. I find myself agreeing with myself [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Snaggles]

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

I think of them as being enchanter/warrior hybrids. They have haste, slow, mez, lull, charm, mana regen. But they’re less like enchanters are than any of the other hybrids are from their “parent” caster classes.

Early on in this thread when bards came up you made a persuasive case that a bard wouldn’t be a good fit in this group, but I’m not gonna try to find it.

A bard would be quite good, just didn’t fit the caster/priest requirement. A good drum OOS debuff is on par with Malo. Mana regen for days making rods and twitches looks sad. Run speed isn’t ports but it’s something (and damn fun!).

Note: Bards lacking pet debuff (sini) may or may not be a big deal. Deferring to the enchs if 19 mins of -60 MR is worth it.

[Zuranthium]

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

Again though, I don’t think anyone is trying to seriously debate a sham OR cleric. The 4th seat is up for debate here.

It does become a debate of Shaman vs Cleric if a group is playing on a server where the only ports available is if your group has it, therefore making Druid a necessity if you don't want to waste a ton of time running on foot around the entire world.

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

A bard would be quite good, just didn’t fit the caster/priest requirement.

Bards are casters, tbh

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You have a short memory. This was already addressed. Shaman/monk is a powerful duo. It stands to reason that adding the single most capable solo class to an admittedly powerful duo is going to be even stronger. Unfortunately, this is just a distraction from the topic at hand and entirely irrelevant to the discussion of which 4 characters, all casters, provide the best synergy.

/facepalm

I don't have short term memory. Troxx just dismisses anything out of hand he cannot rebut. Shaman/Enchanter synnergy does not go away when you remove the Monk.