4 pallys 1 druid

[nodoze]

Well, arguing about the PvP/PvE viability of different setups is a good thing.
Keep in mind that it will take A LOT of time to level to 60 as a multiboxer. I rather want to make the right decision and level the overall most viable comb than realising on max lvl that the setup is suboptimal.

That beeing said I don't think that the warriors are bad. When it comes to 5 man dungeons 3-4 warriors with 1-2 healer seem like the best setup to me. Its a hard decision if its resto shami or holy paly that would fit better to that comb. WF totem sounds powerful but blessing of freedom as well. Maybe the lack of blessing of freedom could be compensated with free action potions when it comes to PvP.

When it's only about pvp then I guess that something like 3 locks 2 rshamis or 3 ele shamis 2 resto shamis would work overall better than the warriors but it's questionable if it's worth to roll such a setup when follow in BGs doesn't even work. Both setups sound kinda sucky in PvE compared to the warriors.

I agree on the value of discussion but I guess it just seemed to me that we were beating a dead horse & that the party composition was being given short shrift. I am realizing right now that I am pretty tired and I can get cranky when I get tired so maybe that factored in earlier as well (sorry if it did)...

In the 3 Warrior/2 Healer options I don't know that BoF is as important in PVE as I mainly think of it as a PVP blessing (though I could be wrong). For PVE I think of more BoKings & BoMight for the Warriors with seal of light passive healing. Totems (especially WF) and Chain heals may put the Shaman group ahead of the Paladin group on DPS if they can keep from going OOM but I don't know which is actually better. I am not that concerned about it as I want to main a Paladin so Shaman(s) aren't an option for me anyway.

Warriors with Paladins should be able stack/chain the Free Action Potions with BoF so you get both.

My assumption has been that the only PVP Multi-Boxing that will be viable is in the Open World (not BGs) though I don't know if that is 100% confirmed yet.

I agree that 5 Shaman could be very crazy in PVP but likely would at most spec 1 deep Resto as the Elementals can all heal pretty well.

In PVE with 5 Shaman I would have grave concerns with mana in PVE and the lack of a tank option so maybe 3 Warlocks/2 Shaman would be better for a PVE/PVP team (assuming a method of /focus is devised). That or do a Druid Tank+4Shaman (& the Druid can switch to ranged for PVP allowing you to still have an all range team).

In the end my dungeon team is mainly for feeding gear/gold to our 2 Paladins, 1 Warrior, & ideally a Druid so what I personally care most about is PVE efficiency for my team (I am likely going switch from 3W+2P to 1 Druid+2 Warriors+2 Paladins). For PVP I assume I will only be taking a single character per player into BGs so I don't care that much if I end up doing the same for Open World PVP.

[Gala]

My post was a bit misleading. I ment BoF for pvp purpose. I don't think that it has much value in PvE.

When it comes to shami boxing I assume that x3 LB/CL + x3 shock will be enough to oneshot players on max lvl. So maybe it makes sense to have 3 ele and 2 resto for the mana tide totems. The resto shamis could still use instant CL and shock with the team, just hardcasting lightning spells would probably be not worth it with the restos.

[Dawkinz]

I'm also planning on doing a 5 man dungeon crawl setup. I'm conflcited between three comps: 1 Warrior 3 Paladins 1 Druid, 2 Warrior 2 Paladins 1 Druid, and 3 Warriors 2 Paladins. I'm leaning first setup for all the extra buffs (thorns, MotW, Leader of the Pack, wisdom, might and kings from the pallies).

Thoughts?

[nodoze]

I'm also planning on doing a 5 man dungeon crawl setup. I'm conflcited between three comps:

-1 Warrior 3 Paladins 1 Druid,
-2 Warrior 2 Paladins 1 Druid, and
-3 Warriors 2 Paladins.

I'm leaning first setup for all the extra buffs (thorns, MotW, Leader of the Pack, wisdom, might and kings from the pallies).

Thoughts?

I am a huge fan of Hybrid Druids and Paladins (even Shaman) and would love option 1 in theory but unfortunately in 1.12 the following are key considerations:

Druids and paladins are two of the lowest DPS classes in the game. If IWT is working you could probably manage dungeons fine but it'll be slow, you'll have no real AoE damage or any way to CC mobs and you'll need to drink often. 1.5 gold per stack of level 45 water really adds up multiplied by [4 or] 5 characters over time. You might use 2 stacks of water over an our or two in a level 55+ dungeon if you're conservative -- that's 15 gold worth of water out of whatever profit you're making farming dungeons (30-50g per run, usually.) ...

If you are wondering how much slower? How much less DPS? Relatively:

Paladins are excellent healers in both PvP and PvE in classic. It's not the healing that's the problem, it's the damage. A paladin will do around 1/3 of the damage of an equivalently geared warrior on a single target. On trash where you can cleave and whirlwind the gap is even worse.

This is the fury/prot build I use for leveling https://classicdb.ch/?talent#LZVVzA0xoVoxfzox

You sit in defensive stance and basically spam sunder, revenge and blooodthirst with a 2H weapon, or switch to 1H/Shield if you feel like you're taking too much damage. [With a Warrior] You'll do twice as much damage as an equal level mage.

...
I've done this with a single warrior/paladin and it works really well. The warrior was out DPSing my casters consistently from 20-60 while tanking. 3-4 Warriors with IWT would be ridiculous.

Some other similar comments regarding relative DPS from different group composition options:

... No idea the exact numbers but I imagine most preraid BiS warrior will do around 400-500DPS anywhere up to 700+ depending if there are adds to cleave. An enhance shaman will be more like 150-200DPS. ...

Warriors have stronger AE [damage] on standard mob packs (4-6) with cleave/whilrlwind. Mages and warlocks have stronger AE [damage] on larger packs because their AE skills have no cap. However, you only really utilize large scale AE farming in dungeons that are significantly lower level than you. ...

In the later phases the balance does shift toward casters due to AQ40 and Naxx gear but you have to be able to raid on all your character to get that gear on every character and regardless those phases are likely way off in the future relatively...

With all the above in mind, of the options you posed, I would generally recommend for most people your option 3 (3 Warriors+2 Paladins).

That being said, if you like Druids and want to have a Druid option for stealth scouting, Flag Running, etc I would recommend strongly considering option 2 (1 Druid+2 Warriors+2 Paladin);

Personally I was originally going with 3 Warriors+2 Paladins but now am strongly leaning toward swapping 1 Warrior for a Druid (1 Druid+2 Warriors+2 Paladin)...

[Lewsifur]

If you like world pvp then 2 druids. 3 rogues is fun ... just leave one unstealthed. Also a good melee team for dungeons, but have to manage rogues combo points using the advanced system

[Dawkinz]

I am a huge fan of Hybrid Druids and Paladins (even Shaman) and would love option 1 in theory but unfortunately in 1.12 the following are key considerations:



If you are wondering how much slower? How much less DPS? Relatively:



Some other similar comments regarding relative DPS from different group composition options:





In the later phases the balance does shift toward casters due to AQ40 and Naxx gear but you have to be able to raid to get that gear and those phases are likely way off in the future relatively...

With all the above in mind, of the options you posed, I would generally recommend for most people your option 3 (3 Warriors+2 Paladins).

That being said, if you like Druids and want to have a Druid option for stealth scouting, Flag Running, etc I would recommend strongly considering option 2 (1 Druid+2 Warriors+2 Paladin);

Personally I was originally going with 3 Warriors+2 Paladins but now am strongly leaning toward swapping 1 Warrior for a Druid (1 Druid+2 Warriors+2 Paladin)...

That was extremely helpful and thorough. I'm going 3 wars 2 paladins. You've sold me lol.

[nodoze]

That was extremely helpful and thorough. I'm going 3 wars 2 paladins. You've sold me lol.

Thanks though much of the credit goes to Apatheist as he is the original source of that info and has actually boxed those combos. I am just the hybrid research guy who literally opens 1,000s of browser/spreadsheet tabs and then tries to crams all the info into my head that I can (and then tries to bookmark everything so I can try go back to it). I am only an expert on healing Warriors (not playing them) as for me the other classes in my groups are mainly there to feed my Hybrids or other Mains (or my brother's Main(s) which may be one of our Warriors) so I can't really speak from personal expertise on things like Warriors...

It would be helpful if you could post at the end of the 'List of Classic WoW Multibox Teams' thread your team composition including answering the following questions (don't worry about the formatting or abbreviations as I can take care of that):

Which of the group, if any, would you consider as your "Main" for content where only Mains are welcome/viable (like maybe in "Progression Raids" & BattleGrounds)?

Do you want to Guild with other boxers?:
Y:Yes, N:No, ?:Unsure;

What Realm Type are you interested in:
P:PVP, E:PVE, ?:Unsure;

What is the name of the Server you plan to be on:
?:TBD;

Do you plan to join World PVP with your Multibox team?:
M: Main Only, Yes:Y, No:N,?:Unsure;

Do you plan to go into Battle Grounds with your Multibox Team?:
M: Main Only, Yes:Y, No:N,?:Unsure;

Do you plan to go into Dungeons with your Multibox Team?:
D=Dungeons: M: Main Only, Yes:Y, No:N,?:Unsure;

Do you plan to go into Raids with your Multibox Team?:
R=Raids: M: Main Only, Yes:Y, No:N,?:Unsure;

[pobdoq]

Why take 3 warriors and 2 paladins? Isn't it better to just take 4 warriors and 1 paladin? I don't see what 2 healers are good for.

I don't have much experience with multi-boxing in instances, so sorry if this is a stupid question.

[Gala]

Why take 3 warriors and 2 paladins? Isn't it better to just take 4 warriors and 1 paladin? I don't see what 2 healers are good for.

I don't have much experience with multi-boxing in instances, so sorry if this is a stupid question.

Palys have two kind of main healing abilitys: Flash of light heals like a wet noodle but is very mana efficient and Holy light does tons of heal but drains your mana quickly.
When you have just one hpala for the dungeon then the incoming dmg will force you to cast holy light quite frequently so you'll need lots of mana breaks.
With two palys you can spam mostly flash of light and you'll need significant less mana breaks.

When it comes to pvp you'll have huge issues when you have just one paly in your team because opponents will just focus him and interrupt all his healing spells while your warriors have almost nothing to back him up. However, two palys can heal each other. Also, 2x blessing of freedom is better for the warrs than just one.

[nodoze]

Why take 3 warriors and 2 paladins? Isn't it better to just take 4 warriors and 1 paladin? I don't see what 2 healers are good for.

I don't have much experience with multi-boxing in instances, so sorry if this is a stupid question.

If 4 Warriors you would likely be running PVE as 1 Tank-Warrior+3 DPS Warriors+1 Healing Paladin;
If 3 Warriors you would likely be running PVE as 3 DPS Warriors + 2 Healing Paladins;

The DPS of the 2 Groups is somewhat comparable (both have 3 DPS and the the 3+2 has an extra buff/aura/seal);

In the 3+2 the Paladins run in melee range and both Seal/Judge and regen BOTH health and mana (warriors only health). In 4+1 you have to decide whether you regen Health or Mana and you only have 1 mana pool for healing...

In the 4+1 the Threat management is more controlled and the subsequent incoming damage is more mitigated due to a dedicated Tank in Defensive stance with a Shield and more suited to a single healer; Play-style-wise the 4+1 is more like a traditional pro-active "Tank and Spank".

In the 3+2 the threat ping-pongs more and incoming damage is higher such that 2 Paladins help provide better stability & more healing output; Play-style-wise the 3+2 is more like a re-actionary gaggle where, in harder content, any of the 3 Warriors needs to be ready to switch on the fly to Sword & Shield and Defensive stance and then back to offensive stance and weapons once incoming damage is better. While you don't have a 4th Warrior doing damage, you do now have 2 Paladins in melee range doing some DPS and smites which helps offset the 4th Warrior. Note also that a 4th Warrior locked in Tank spec/stance/gear/weapons doesn't do as much damage as the other warriors so the 3+2 doesn't really lose as much DPS compared to the 4+1 as one might think...

In PVP the 4+1's single Healer would be easier to CC and then wipe the party and even with the healer up it would be twice as easy to just burst through a single healer's output to burn down one or more Warriors with half as many counters (like Lay on Hands or Blessings of Protections);

In PVP the 3+2 gives both more output and more redundancy to the Healing/Cleansing making it to where the enemy really has to hard CC both Paladins at the same time (likely multiple times) to stop the party (see this post for discussion/examples);

In the end it somewhat comes down to whether you care more about PVP or PVE...

The 4+1 is likely somewhat better for PVE.

The 3+2 is likely significantly better for PVP.