Are Shaman even shaman now?

Ocellus

Fundamental to Shaman since the old school EQ days has been that furry blob that went with them everywhere, allowed them to solo effectively, got separated in dungeons causing either a complete wipe or an evac.

With the shaman side kicks gone and the canni dance nerfed, I ask the collective, are shaman still shaman, or are they now some chain wearing Druid that, on their best day, is little more than a buff/debuff vendor?

Denerik

Given that this isn't EQ, I'd say yes, the shaman is still a shaman. I would argue it's more a shaman now than before because now it's an MnM shaman, not an EQ clone shaman. It's also not a DAoC shaman nor a WoW shaman.

Ocellus

Denerik Fair enough. I was worried that mentioning EQ would bring this type of response. I guess my question is, given shaman are to be constantly in touch with the spirit world, it seems odd to take their spirit partner away. No?

Velthorian

They need a bit of tweaking still. This is not their final form. But i understand the concern.

Growlron

Nope. There is no shaman class in MnM.

Fell

The EQ shaman didn't get a pet till level 34, eq. to about level 45 in MnM ... and it was initially very weak: little dmg and totally unable to tank; shamans primary damage was dots.

Ignoring EQ and focusing solely on the archetype, a shaman spirit guide might inform you, help heal or cure you, or impart wisdom -- but not attack other creatures for you.

odz

me, tapping a sign that says "this game isn't everquest"

Phlyn

Ocellus

I recognize people are attached to different aspects of classes but its fairly dismissive to say "i knew mentioning EQ" would bring the obvious response that this isn't EQ. you already knew the answer

Canni dance is back and stronger now if you wanna use the new canni.

i'm confused as to how removing a pet from shaman ... make them the same as a druid ... which also used to have a pet but doesn't anymore?

shamans purpose has always been buff/debuff vendor and thats not a negative.

Fell

odz Which is why the argument that 'Shamans must have pets because EQ did' is a specious one.

Fell

I'd like to attack this question from a different angle. The entire point of different classes isn't just for window dressing, but to cater to different player psychologies and play styles. We have three priest classes at present: to justify that, there should be a single, short, easily-expressed reason explaining precisely why a particular player would choose a shaman vs. a druid vs. a cleric. And -- balance zealots aside -- if we make all three of those classes equally effective at soloing, grouping, and dpsing, in all situations and against all mob types ... then we have just one class with window dressing. Not three.

Given that-- what's the Dev vision for WHY a person would pick shaman? I'm not sure they have one at this point. Are they intended to be the priest equivalent of the elementalist DPS class? I.e. they're able to heal with less attention / engagement than other priests through the use of slow and longer lasting, stronger HoTs?

odz

Fell

i also don't think shamans should have pets ¯_(ツ)_/¯

odz

Fell

i've talked about this a quite a bit in the shaman deep dive thread, but my "ideal" version of shaman would lean more into the debuff/debilitate + attrition healing archetype. i'm fine and dandy with shaman having dots, but they're a secondary concern of mine after enfeeble/slow + heal over time effects.

the mechanics of achieving that class fantasy, imo, should be expressed through the pact of consume "sickness" mechanic which i've mentioned in another thread.

Mesh

odz

i've talked about this a quite a bit in the shaman deep dive thread, but my "ideal" version of shaman would lean more into the debuff/debilitate + attrition healing archetype.

I can't see why Shaman would ever be desired by groups if their niche is providing overlapping debuffs in a game where dedicated support classes exist.

Doesn't this archetype lead to Druid and Cleric being generally superior in any full group content?

If I'm in a group with an Enchanter or Bard (assuming Bard gets "fixed") looking for a healer and my choices are a Shaman who will provide some redundant buffs/debuffs or a Cleric who will do double the Shamans HPS, I'm choosing the Cleric every time.

odz

Mesh

well keep in mind there is an outstanding deep dive slated with our largest overlap contender, and i'm partly suspicious that one of the reasons why the shaman deep dive was relatively underwhelming is because they're intending to prune some of the debuff lines from enchanter to allow a shaman niche to emerge in that void.

Fell

Mesh I think the balance between cleric and druid is pretty decent right now: cleric is significantly better at healing, but a druid counters with better dps when healing needs are low, and also has better soloing potential.

While druids have good burst healing, their low ratio means they go OOM fast ... and they take a looong time to recover that mana. Shamans I think should be better than druids at (a) sustained heals (infinite canny mana pool) and better on very tough content, where slow & debuffs (and melee buffs) count for more than they do on blue mobs.

Mesh

odz
Ideally, you want one healer and one support per group. You invite the healer to heal and the support to buff/debuff and CC. If they removed the most important buff and debuff (haste and slow) from the supports it'd make Shaman mandatory in every group.

Doesn't seem likely to me. I also think it'd be much worse for the game overall if they did since late game mobs are balanced assuming they will be slowed. A late game 6man without haste and slow would be awful.

It puts Shaman in a weird situation. Sort of like bringing an Inquisitor tank when you have an Enchanter in the group. Half their purpose becomes redundant and you'd be better off with a different tank that overlaps less.

Fell
DPS Capability is an entirely separate subject. You invite a healer to your group to heal.

If I die because some healer wasted all their mana trying to DPS they're getting kicked regardless what class they are.

Fell

Mesh In 98% of game content now (i.e. everywhere but FW) your group priest is going to be DPSing also ... or being lazy. The only time any healer is going to be using all their mana exclusively healing is if you're camping content above your level. Even ignoring that, DPS is relevant to overall class utility. If Class A can solo/duo much more effectively than Class B, it seems self-obvious that Class B should have more full-group utility.

Mesh

Fell
That may be so but it has nothing to do with my point.

As long as Shamans healing capability is reduced in order to compensate for providing slow and haste in a game where the support classes already provide slow and haste, they're likely to remain the least desirable group healer.

That's all I'm saying.

Fell

Mesh As it stands now, a shaman is a better group healer than a druid in most situations -- and in all situations where you don't have another slower.

I also think you're fundamentally wrong to claim that the game is built for "ideally one healer and one support per group". There is NO dedicated "support" class, nor would any group take a class that did nothing but "provide support". The reality for "ideal" group content is more like:

Easy grind content: 1 puller, 1 tank, 1 priest, 3 DPS
Tougher content: 1 puller (maybe), 1 tank, 1 priest, 1 CC, 2-3 DPS.
Very tough content: 1 puller (maybe), 1 tank, 2 priest, 1 CC, 1-2 DPS.

Most classes provide some level of "support" -- but they also have a core function that is NOT support.

riverbender

shaperson