Conjecturs about spell lvl really are unbackable, since I doubt any of the imms will say (if they do then roast crow for me!)
Best defence is easily a shield + mace, staff is ok, but not nearly as effective. I personally liked shield + whip.
On your new shaman, did you pick a diff race? int/wis play a big part in succesful mals.
Viri once said, "Shield block is the best defense against weapons you have no proficiency in."
AKA? It's what you should be using.
Two-handed is comparable to shield block, but only when you can see.
As a shaman you should always be using a shield. Always. The only time a shaman should ever have a staff wielded is if he's a giant, because he can wield a shield with it.
Don't use a two handed staff for shaman, simple because,
A: It leaves you with one defense
and
B: When you get disarmed, it leaves you with no defense
At least with a one hand and shield you have a backup just in case and you won't be completely open.
First, Viri gave guide lines in the essaies, not godspell.
I personally know which is better. And you can easily test it in PK.
But since i do not like shamans, i will be silent. Someone ask Celerity.
"Conjecturs about spell lvl really are unbackable, since I doubt any of the imms will say (if they do then roast crow for me!)"
Viri gave some hints (the 3 levels), and some took a wrong logical conclusion.
I'm actually pretty sure I recall one of the Imms stating that Shamans cast at lvl 53 base for their mals but lvl 50 for everything else and Invokers cast lvl 53 afflictive spells under certain circumstances but everything else is lvl 50. Not sure if the Imms would back it up or anything, but I'm almost positive that that's the case, in fact I'm like 90% sure that that's the case.
And that is why i do not believe something to be true just because someone said it, until i can verify it for myself.
You know, if it actually turns out that shamans do not cast at lvl 53, then I am gonna laugh hard 
Another question about Shamans ... spirit bind worth it at pinn? I like the extra attack, but I don't like how awful it is to your regen...thoughts?
Another question about Shamans ... spirit bind worth it at pinn? I like the extra attack' date=' but I don't like how awful it is to your regen...thoughts?[/quote']
Depends on how you play - its an extra attack that does some damage, which is money for jam as far as a shaman is concerned. It costs you nothing and means they hp has a slight more drain as you mal them.
Over a long fight (one to three hours RT) think of the damage the spirit will deal to a target and how much harder it gets to maintain their hp while your mals eat at them as well.
Mya: I know I've been saying lvl 53, but it could be lvl 52 for shaman. I do know they cast over lvl 50 and I do know that everyone else (eg necro) cast at lvl 47 (one of the reasons behind the soul tap skill).
Voodoo casts even higher than their regular mals (ever wondered why you almost never fail?).
Basically, they are a class that has all their stuff pumped up becaue Virigoth though it was a good idea. I disagree with him here a lot, with shaman's -svs ability I believe they should cast at lvl 50.
I also believe that all other mals (necro, dk, etc) should also be put to lvl 50.
Another good idea would be ot make shaman like invokers and necro's with some +mal skills that require a price to use.
The way spell lvl is measured is the duration of some spells - use your invoker and check durations and then cancel and use +spells and you'll find them. Mal lvl on a shaman is also a spell duration - but not detect invis
L-A
Some of that is correct. Some of it is not.
Actually, I distinctly remember Virigoth stating that shaman voodoo skill casts spells at a much shorter spell duration, though at a much higher rate of success.
He gave me advice once to use voodoo deteriorate on the tough foes and mal them up before it wears off.
I've wondered this ever since I played Tezdal, and I've gotten several different answers when I've asked.
Which is better defensively for a Shaman:
Wielding a staff
or
Wielding a mace and a wearing a shield
I was always confused, because shamans don't have two-handed, but I've had people swear up and down wielding a staff is more defensive than a shield and a mace.
Your thoughts?
Wearing a staff the shaman can parry.
Wearing a mace and shield you parry and shield block.
Maces dont parry as well as a staff, BUT, shield block a better defense than parry. So, you end up with a better defense and a medioker defense instead of a good defense.
UC
Actually, I distinctly remember Virigoth stating that shaman voodoo skill casts spells at a much shorter spell duration, though at a much higher rate of success.
He gave me advice once to use voodoo deteriorate on the tough foes and mal them up before it wears off.
Good advice.
Or, you could always get the 1h staff.
Voodoo is good to poll your opponents saves, if you understand the mechanics of deteriorate you will know what I mean.
This way when you do engage them you ca save some time by knowing exaclty wht method of save reduction you should open with and what mals to land first.
I found spirit bind very useful with my shaman. Sure, your main strength isn't melee, but if you're cranking out hard to block magic damage once per round then it really can make your fights a lot easier.
It leaves them in a much worse position when you've landed the mals you want on them, because they have less hp and therefore less time to hide or make it to healers before they wind up dead.
I'd recommend before tougher fights summoning something easy and killing it, then using the spirit in your PK. You won't exactly be sleeping back a great deal of HP in the heat of a PK anyway, so don't worry a whole lot about the penalties to mana gain.
The beauty of spirit bind is that it will hit harder depending on the strength of the spirit you bind. So go find a relatively easy to kill but high level mob to use. I had a great one when I played a shaman, but I am not gonna tell you which mob it is 
shield plus exotic....
wait, shamans get parry and shield block
