A Study Of N00bs

[mjdoom]

And, you don't *have* to have ideal groups.  They're nice, but I've played with many that were not.
[right][snapback]82165[/snapback][/right]

I went back and reread my post to be sure and in no way did I say that things couldn't be done with less than ideal groups. I have run many instances with less than ideal groups and had varying levels of success in those runs. However, even though these things can be done doesn't mean I want to do them all that often. It can be very frustrating to do a large part of an instance and then fail due more to group composition than player skill. Of course it can feel good to overcome those odds; but I'm not going to consistently set myself up in situations that are begging for failure if not everything is perfectly executed.

Originally Quark had mentioned a situation with a group with only a druid as a rezzer (and this had led to issues) and very quickly this thread turned it into "duh; don't bring only a druid for rez duty." Everyone who has made a comment along those lines is already assuming a second class slot (pally/shaman) based on your choice of main healer (druid vs. priest). Sure this may not be workind toward the ideal group, but it is suggesting group compositions solely based on one group member. If you want to intentionally gimp yourself (or simply have no option due to the resources available) that is perfectly fine. I have done it personally many times and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. But I still stand by my statement that there are certain things that I don't have an inclination try without a priest as main healer unless I was feeling particularly sadistic. Contrasted to that I don't think there are many situations where you would say I would much prefer a druid healer or wouldn't try it without a druid as main healer.

- mjdoom

Edit: silly quote tags