c
2009-12-04 16:56:10 UTC
Well hello! Have you missed me as I missed you?
Upon returning I'm again, as always, trying to build a perfect group.
I am under the impression that both a shaman and a bard could do
*lots* of damage if it was their aim, but I'm unconvinced as to which
class might be capable of more damage on the whole.
This is a question relevant to ALL levels up to 75. I can't quite
shake it.
Let's review:
Bard
-------------
Can increase melee/caster dps by around 30-40%, approx.
Has dots.
Has melee damage.
Can do burst damage.
Can charm (though not for very high damage).
Has nice buffs, selo's, and is an amazing puller <----not relevant to
the DPS question, but it's not a perfect world.
Has snare.
Shaman
------------
Can increase melee damage by a little ... maybe 15-30%, approx. (am i
far off w/ that number?)
Can likely not increase caster dps (have i missed something?)
Has meager melee damage.
Can do decent burst damage (chain nukes, i suppose).
Can do excellent dot damage -- second only to necro, and that's saying
something.
Has pet...that's very low damage, isn't it? Probably less than the
caster's melee itself, no? Valid only because the pet can be chipping
away while the caster is doing something else.
Has wonderful, wonderful buffs, and that slow sure never hurt.
There will likely be an enchanter in the group, but we might swap the
chanty out for a wizard since we have no other true snare (look, a
druid just isn't part of a perfect group, and no one wanted to play a
ranger after 9 years of this crap!). Then again, if we do bard over
shaman and have snare, that wizzy might switch to a rogue.
SO, what say you? The person playing the bard-or-shaman has lots of
experience as a bard, lots of high-end experience, and wants to play a
shaman because it's new to him ... but if we asked him to reprise his
roll as our bard he would jump at it. He said he's on the fence. And
isn't a shaman a little more dull than a bard?
thanks, all
FAZA
Upon returning I'm again, as always, trying to build a perfect group.
I am under the impression that both a shaman and a bard could do
*lots* of damage if it was their aim, but I'm unconvinced as to which
class might be capable of more damage on the whole.
This is a question relevant to ALL levels up to 75. I can't quite
shake it.
Let's review:
Bard
-------------
Can increase melee/caster dps by around 30-40%, approx.
Has dots.
Has melee damage.
Can do burst damage.
Can charm (though not for very high damage).
Has nice buffs, selo's, and is an amazing puller <----not relevant to
the DPS question, but it's not a perfect world.
Has snare.
Shaman
------------
Can increase melee damage by a little ... maybe 15-30%, approx. (am i
far off w/ that number?)
Can likely not increase caster dps (have i missed something?)
Has meager melee damage.
Can do decent burst damage (chain nukes, i suppose).
Can do excellent dot damage -- second only to necro, and that's saying
something.
Has pet...that's very low damage, isn't it? Probably less than the
caster's melee itself, no? Valid only because the pet can be chipping
away while the caster is doing something else.
Has wonderful, wonderful buffs, and that slow sure never hurt.
There will likely be an enchanter in the group, but we might swap the
chanty out for a wizard since we have no other true snare (look, a
druid just isn't part of a perfect group, and no one wanted to play a
ranger after 9 years of this crap!). Then again, if we do bard over
shaman and have snare, that wizzy might switch to a rogue.
SO, what say you? The person playing the bard-or-shaman has lots of
experience as a bard, lots of high-end experience, and wants to play a
shaman because it's new to him ... but if we asked him to reprise his
roll as our bard he would jump at it. He said he's on the fence. And
isn't a shaman a little more dull than a bard?
thanks, all
FAZA