Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Keebz]

If you can torpor tank something an enchanter can probably just solo it. That's a pretty low bar.

[bcbrown]

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

There is no rule on these forums stating pocket characters must be admitted into a thread before they can be discussed. The proof of this is the thread with Crede. That thread does not have an explicit rule stating pocket characters are allowed, or not allowed. Crede posted about a pocket cleric anyway, and nobody said "pocket characters are not allowed".

If you still want to claim you haven't admitted you are wrong after you literally said there is no pocket character restriction, that just doesn't make sense.

Of course there's no rule about when pocket characters can be discussed. You're always free to bring up pockets in your arguments. But, crucially, anyone (or everyone) else is free to disregard any argument that relies upon pocket characters. No one else agrees with you, as far as I can tell. You haven't convinced anyone. Sorry.

[Elizondo]

So apparently the shaman is torpor tanking, heaiing enchanters during bad charm breaks, rooting 5 mobs to dot at the same time and maloing on charm breaks too

Not to mention keeping buffs up

Did I forget anything?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Of course there's no rule about when pocket characters can be discussed. You're always free to bring up pockets in your arguments. But, crucially, anyone (or everyone) else is free to disregard any argument that relies upon pocket characters. No one else agrees with you, as far as I can tell. You haven't convinced anyone. Sorry.

Glad we agree there is no rule against pocket characters. This means all arguments claiming there was a rule are irrelevant, and are no longer part of the discussion.

More people on P99 play with pocket characters than people who disagree with me in this thread. Crede included, who's had a pocket cleric since 2014. This means more people agree with me via their actions than you. That is reality.

If you want to close your eyes to the world and claim you've won via consensus, you are free to do so. But you haven't convinced anyone to stop using pocket characters. They will still do so. The illusion of consensus is all you have.

[Duik]

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

So apparently the shaman is torpor tanking, heaiing enchanters during bad charm breaks, rooting 5 mobs to dot at the same time and maloing on charm breaks too

Not to mention keeping buffs up

Did I forget anything?

I postured the same question god knows how many pages back.

I bet you dont get an answer either.

[Vear99]

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

This clearly isn't the case, as Crede mentioned a pocket cleric in a thread thay doesn't explicitly enable or disable them.

A thread about class selection implicitly disables pocket characters because the question has no meaning otherwise. Otherwise the answer is always 'you'll be most effective with a BIS monk, shaman, cleric, enchanter, warrior, rogue, and maybe wizard' like Toxigen's sig. I don't think your overall statements in this thread are bad, but you are so focused on winning every argument that you are churning out some absolutely ridiculous rationalizations and that is why people are getting frustrated and slinging mud at you.

Since the pocket theme is silly, let me say that although I don't think ENC/ENC/CLR ever really needs a 4th wheel, I feel like the only real reason to choose MAG is COH pull shenanigans and when I played COH had been broken here for years. Everything else Shaman does better: more DPS (avatar on both pets alone is +50, especially if you give them big proccing weapons), better pulls (higher HP/AC and breaking rooms with Tigir's), and more help on charm breaks (chloroblast is better than mod rods).

However, if I were picking a 4th I would almost exclusively focus on pulls because you have so much dps and cc anyway. So I think the best is probably Necro or a 2nd cleric (especially HIE) with the dark horse being Wizard who can pull rooms with AE snare and heal themselves with the epic rune. Which I think is pretty much what most people have been saying. If you want to prove them wrong, whip up a group and measure.

[Toxigen]

lol im nowhere near bis

i always went for the budget items spread across alts with my 5% RA

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Vear99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A thread about class selection implicitly disables pocket characters because the question has no meaning otherwise. Otherwise the answer is always 'you'll be most effective with a BIS monk, shaman, cleric, enchanter, warrior, rogue, and maybe wizard' like Toxigen's sig. I don't think your overall statements in this thread are bad, but you are so focused on winning every argument that you are churning out some absolutely ridiculous rationalizations and that is why people are getting frustrated and slinging mud at you.

This is just a slippery slope argument, and has already been debunked multiple times. Creating a new pocket Cleric in a group purposely starting new characters together is clearly not the same thing as using a stable of existing BiS mains/alts. Those characters already exist. A new pocket cleric is made by this group and they level it up together.

No, a thread about class selection does not implicitly disable pocket characters. It doesn't implicitly disable mules either. Mules are also characters that exist outside of the picked class to provide utility. Same with pocket characters. Plenty of people use pocket characters in static groups, and will continue to do so regardless of this thread.

You seem to be ignoring the other posters like Troxx who is so hell bent on winning he will spam the thread, troll, and lie about what other people have said. It is always amazing that people ignore this bad behavior and think it is ok. This thread would have been over long ago without this kind of nonsense.

You say I need to provide evidence. I have done a lot more of that than the opposition. Why don't you do this yourself, or ask someone else to do so? Evidence would be great, but it's mostly coming from me and nobody else. This seems one sided don't you think?

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

I postured the same question god knows how many pages back.

I bet you dont get an answer either.

I've answered this question many times. You can Torpor Tank and do other things. Just watch one of my many videos:

https://youtu.be/KPs_VghU-v4?feature=shared

You can Torpor tank and deal with a charm break, I've done it before.

The root/rotting scenario has always been a DPS focused Shaman, doing that instead of normal Shaman duties. I didn't say you would be Torpor Tanking and root/rotting 5 mobs at the same time anywhere in this thread. It is just another straw man.

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

If you can torpor tank something an enchanter can probably just solo it. That's a pretty low bar.

Yes, most content this group can do is Torpor Tankable and/or Enchanter soloable. That is why a Cleric main is generally not going to be at their best in this group. There is no Warrior to be CHed. The Enchanter can handle most charm breaks solo. You'll be using things like Shaman Slow and Malo more often than Cleric Stun and blast heals. You won't need to CH the pets with Torpor tanking.

Pocket the Cleric for Chardok Royals and the occasional Res. People already do this.

[Duik]

Posted by YouKnowWho...

I've answered this question many times. You can Torpor Tank and do other things. Just watch one of my many videos:

Only the dumbest of fucks watches videos of others playing video games. Or children. Like my 10yr old does to find out how to progress in various games.
Only you seem to value the videos you have in your (fully ignorable) worthless and easily forgettable sig (lolocaust).

At the risk of being blodgened to death with boredom, I did check out the video that Troxxigen (one of those two) mentioned at 1:50 where you 3%ed one chanter. Good work no one.
So no thanks. Your videos suck, sorry but you needed to hear that. I'd rather stand in front of a fast moving train.

[Troxx]

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

Of course there's no rule about when pocket characters can be discussed. You're always free to bring up pockets in your arguments. But, crucially, anyone (or everyone) else is free to disregard any argument that relies upon pocket characters. No one else agrees with you, as far as I can tell. You haven't convinced anyone. Sorry.

Bolder and highlighted that for DSM. He seems to have stopped reading after the first sentence. DSMs case for shaman is so un-compelling and weak that that the only way viability is possible is if pockets are allowed.

Funny how shamans will need a pocket cleric but clerics do not need (or want pocket shamans).

This entire side debate is even more straightforward than the early arguments where the clerics was guaranteed a spot and we were bickering/dickering about who should be 4th