The best 3rd?Follow

Of those two I would say wizard because of the DPS (wizards can port too). Otherwise I'd say something maybe like a monk, berserker, or ranger. Those classes benefit the most from having a shaman. Ports are nice and all but no point in having a shaman healer if you're only going to have the warrior benefit from the sweet shaman buffage.

Of Wiz and Druid I'd pick Druid for ports, buffs, dots, back up heals, snares, roots, evacs, forages, tracking, etc

With Wiz alls ya get is nukes and ports/evacs.

edit:

Like Rehogan said while I was on the phone:D


..

Edited, Aug 1st 2006 at 9:28am EDT by Elinda

I 3-box a War, Shm, Clr combo and find that the dps lacks, a great deal, but I can take on some pretty heavy hitters with this combo. Both the Shaman and the Cleric add dps when it's feasible to (Maw can add 50%+ to weapon DPS and DS potions add a considerable amount even when slowed.) Kills were quite slow the few levels before maw and are slowing down again with 55+ mobs.

I thought of all the other classes the other posters have mentioned, but my intention with this combo was to test myself and what I could take down during levelling/aaing.

I will say that if I didn't have the cleric and had a dps class instead, that my shaman would be stressed in his mana (considering I get up and go - I don't wait around for buffs.) That's not to say that I could have a more dps setup and still grind xp in easier content; grinding xp isn't my goal though.

Between the two classes you mentioned, I would probably choose a druid for their utility. Pick something you would have the most fun with.



Edited, Sep 9th 2006 at 11:30am EDT by sprucecln

Edited, Sep 9th 2006 at 11:39am EDT by sprucecln

It would be a tough call for me tween two healers, to be honest, Cleric or Druid. You will hate one of two things either way for not having one of both. If you dont have a Druid with your War/Shmn you wont have someone to snare (other benefits to the druid but boiled down to me thats the big one), if you dont have a cleric you wont have someone to rez ( again other benefits but boiled down to me thats the big one).

Personally I would probably go Cleric cause I would rather deal with rooted mobs then lack of rez.

Course without your Shaman you have no slower so not really viable shoving druid in there instead as to me slow>snare.

My personal oppinion rez>slow>snare ymmv.

Just something I think no one has mentioned yet, don't forget that wizards can also snare so if i comes down to that aspect a wizzy will do the job almost as good as a druid. If it were me I would do a wizzy. True in the 50's shm's heals as pathetic but with 75% slow its amazing how little you have to heal anyways, plus I used to 2box a war/healer class and I couldn't stand the horrible dps (although better than knight's imho). Hope this helps.

I know this does not answer your question, but i am not making a new thread with all the other like this one, but i am making a trio with a SK, Druid, and Necro(will be Drakkin). Strange combo, but it should work.

I agree, a Shaman would be much better then a Druid. Slows are much more important then ports. Also, the DoT combo from a Shaman and a Necro are VERY nice. On the other hand, if you've already got a levelled Druid then it should still work, it will just require much more healing.

I haven't seen any SK/Necro/Shaman trio's, which is odd since the DPS would be unreal. Too many people buy into the holy trinity myth.