Do templars seem to be a [Removed for Content] healing class?

[Slaa]

I am currently a level 25 Templar, and from what I have seen, Mystics get better heals than us at my current level and they get wards which just rule. I am wondering if we get better because so far, eveyone wants Mystics in a grp because of the wards and better heals, and also I currently have every heal spell app3/ad 1

[Con]

<DIV><FONT color=#ff9999>Templars just owns mystics. Our reaktive heals is really great espesially when enganging groups. but also when combat against solo mobs ^^ ... just put weakness and sign of weakness then they wont be able to kill your tank <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV></FONT>

[khrokh]

our AC debuffs also have a great impact on scout DPS.BoV stacks with our lvl 26 reactive heal as well, when fighting groups of mobs it is usually enough to keep a tank alive and it s pretty cheap.Wards generate also a lot more agro than reactive heals, which becomes potentialy dangerous when chain healing is needed.I don't see shamys as overpowered versus us.

[Zabumt]

<DIV>Not a shaman-related experience but a druid one.  I was primary healer in a centaur group in Thundering Steppes.  I got tired and wanted a break so I invited a slightly lower level druid to take my place.  I log off and then log on much later and ask the tank I was healing how everything went.  His answer was, "Not Good."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Take that with a grain of salt though.  The druid could've been less than experienced at dealing with challenging encounters or scatter-brained enough to apply damage over time spells instead of debuffs and heals.  Who knows.  Only thing I know is that I can't stop feeling guilty about turning down group requests and people seem to "friend" me after a decent xp group has broken up or I've left.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>By the way, I'm a Templar.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Zabumtik on <span class=date_text>11-29-2004</span> <span class=time_text>03:44 AM</span>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> khrokhro wrote:<BR>our AC debuffs also have a great impact on scout DPS.<BR>BoV stacks with our lvl 26 reactive heal as well, when fighting groups of mobs it is usually enough to keep a tank alive and it s pretty cheap.<BR><BR>Wards generate also a lot more agro than reactive heals, which becomes potentialy dangerous when chain healing is needed.<BR><BR>I don't see shamys as overpowered versus us.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Our 26 heal is broken, is way less efficient than BoV and the similar inquisitor spell, and it doesn't even stack anymore since an update last week. Well, the icons stack, but only one heal will take effect, while both heals lose their charges.</P> <P>Without this big problem, we would probably be pretty equal though.</P>

[Frobozz]

<DIV>Shamans get a ward, which technically isn't even a heal.  I'm a 26 templar and have had no problems keeping any group alive even as the solo healer.  I don't know why people are crying [Removed for Content] because i've seen the Druid numbers and they ain't pretty,  Sure Supplicant's prayer is broken, but i'll take an App 3 BoV over that horrible druid tick any day.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[AsraiBe]

<DIV>Ward is a relative heal.  It gives the tank 700 health they would not otherwise have.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From a 30 Templar, yes, we're gimped.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm going to give it a bit of time to see if game changes are made to Templars.  Otherwise I reroll.  I'm just so tired of being the support healer.  I hate playing second fiddle to druids and shamen when healing is supposed to be my class' focus.</DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>Shaman wards work before mitigation though, keep that in mind.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Before rerolling, I suggest just making a shaman alt and see if you like it - I did that on beta, thinking I would go shaman instead... and I hated it. It just wasn't natural for me to have to heal people before they got hit I guess. Question of taste I suppose.</DIV>

[Curati]

<DIV>I am digging being a Templar.</DIV> <DIV>I dont think we ar broken at all.</DIV> <DIV>We could use some improvements though:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Better graphic for lvl 20 class weapon</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Combat heal could use a touch more healing power</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>the distract line shouldnt aeo other mobs not in locked encounter</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>there is some terrible lag between the actual hit points of the character being healed and the representation of them in the group list. Sometimes I have casted two heals thinking the forst didnt take for some reason only to have it update after i cast the second heal</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>our Bov Should stack with the druid shaman line.... same but different somehow. Make the effect work differently when its combined berhaps a longer duration or lower duration but stronger healing power.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>replace the kneel spell with something more appealing. A wisp (a devine ball of light) that works as a light source or something</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>or allow the spell to work on mobs! How cool would it be to make a rock golum bow before your group ( 3 second stun)</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>as you can see we need a few imporvements that IMO wouldnt over power us the main thing I see  though is having the three priests able to work thier spells together better since it is almost mandatory for duel priests in a group in many of the High level encounters. If you were actually thie and you were with another priest, wouldnt you work with them to weave your magics?</DIV>

[ThikNogg]

<DIV>I like those ideas.  You have my vote.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not that our votes count for anything</DIV>

[Xald]

<DIV>26 Hitting 27 very soon and for most part other healer classes defer to me in groups even if they're a level or two higher. There some things that seem to work strangely when combined but overall I seem to be very efficient about keeping people alive, moreso than most other healing classes. The key I think is knowing how to use what you have and understanding what they have to combine the effects nicely. Without that understanding the healing classes stomp all over each other and someone's going to get the feeling that they aren't effective when its really how they combine with the others.</DIV>

[kerev]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Curative wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>there is some terrible lag between the actual hit points of the character being healed and the representation of them in the group list. Sometimes I have casted two heals thinking the forst didnt take for some reason only to have it update after i cast the second heal</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I know everyone loves implied targetting, but I noticed that when I target my group mate directly for a heal, the target window usually shows his health jump up immediately while the group window does take a bit longer.  Perhaps the network engine requests more frequent updates when you actually have a groupmate targetted. </DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR> <DIV>Shaman wards work before mitigation though, keep that in mind.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Before rerolling, I suggest just making a shaman alt and see if you like it - I did that on beta, thinking I would go shaman instead... and I hated it. It just wasn't natural for me to have to heal people before they got hit I guess. Question of taste I suppose.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> A reactive and a ward are both cast before people get hit.  I'm also unconvinced about wards not taking mitigation into account.  From my experience in beta and live they do adjust for the target.  The most important difference is that you can't die with a ward on but you can with a reactive.<p>Message Edited by DeythCombine on <span class=date_text>11-30-2004</span> <span class=time_text>04:09 PM</span>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kereven wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Curative wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>there is some terrible lag between the actual hit points of the character being healed and the representation of them in the group list. Sometimes I have casted two heals thinking the forst didnt take for some reason only to have it update after i cast the second heal</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I know everyone loves implied targetting, but I noticed that when I target my group mate directly for a heal, the target window usually shows his health jump up immediately while the group window does take a bit longer.  Perhaps the network engine requests more frequent updates when you actually have a groupmate targetted. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=ui&message.id=1967" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=ui&message.id=1967</A>

[meskeebo]

I have yet to group with another class that has been able to do a better support job than me as a main healer.However I do belive for overall grouping and power conservation a Templar/druid/shammy mix is better than any two same class healers.Here is what sets us apart. Wards are very nice but do not regen hitpoints. SO if a druid/shammy are the only healer.... they will have to throw a heal spell or two (cause mass aggro).What shines for us is soothing sermon and BoV, which stack, are very little aggro for a heal spell. While a druid can ward and heal they will take massive agrro during a fight in later levels (22ish up)again I think each class is pretty even but the deveolpers have made it so the healing stacks from the differnt classes are the best!

[Foible]

<DIV>If you want an idea of whether Templars are gimped, compare the threads on the Templar boards to the threads on the other subclass boards.  I just toured around to the other boards for a look, and most of the complaining seems to be going on here, in the Templar subclass.  Based on experience in other games, gimped classes have threads that talk about problems, strong classes have threads that talk about tactics.   I just didn't see any threads like "I cannot keep up with heals" on the other boards.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our buffs/debuffs and reactive heals need to be stronger. </DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<DIV>It's because the whole reactive concept is stupid.  They're trying to be creative and screwing up royally.  I've been saying this since beta; a proactive ward is always superior to a reactive heal.  You can't die with a ward on but you definitely can with a reactive heal.</DIV>

[Bobfish]

<DIV>From a druid point of view.. some of your comments are way off the mark, it's all opinion and what you've seen, not how the classes play on the whole.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All healing post 25 appears to be off the mark, this is felt less by the Shaman than the other two, because spamming wards is somewhat more effective than spamming reactives or regens, but they aren't really better. Agro management is a player thing, my Fury has no problems managing agro, even when grouped with higher levels and the tough fights, it's just player skill. My Mystic in beta had a few issues not many, and in beta I saw a lot of Templars with agro management issues, though in release I haven't seen this much.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What you guys need to do, like us druids, is just sit back, keep the posts about healing coming, and wait for SOE to sort it out, build up a good friends list of people who you have successfully grouped with and stick with them, and ignore those who ask for a particular type of healer, they don't know what they are talking about but are going on what a good player previously played with them, not what a good class is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Player skill means so much more in EQ2 than EQ1 or many other PvE mmorpgs. And anyone who has issues with my regens, when you get a Fury or Warden up, and then complain about them.. I might listen, otherwise shutup. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[benedic]

<DIV>dunno about you, but my debuffs RARELY hit against oranges and low reds, make it  VERY RARELY, so rarely that I just stopped even trying.  Why do my damaging spells land almost always yet my debuffs never do?  Then that means I should only use debuffs against yellows and down, but they die so fast it's not worth it either, so all in all, I only use debuffs when soloing whites or yellows.  That sucks</DIV>

[Ogrelicio]

<DIV>Funny I found this thread.  I'm just level 20, but I'm starting to see the writing on the wall.  I hope SOE does address this sometime soon.</DIV>

[Orid]

<DIV>There are a few bugs with our spell line but overall we aren't a broken class. The two reactive heals do stack and work well togeather, when one runs out of charges, the other takes over. You can't expect them both to fire heals at the same time because it would be overpowering then.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are times when shaman's ward is the best spell for an encounter, and other times it's our reactive heal. In all honesty the three priest classes are meant to complement eachother. There is nothing better then ward + reactive heals to keep the tanks and group alive.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, something that wasn't mentioned about our tear 2 reactive heal, when the tank gets hit, it procs an AC buff and from my testing the ac increase is pretty substantial (100 or more). When you first get a new spell, it isn't going to be as effective as it's predassor because the spell is still orange (meaning as you level, it's effectiveness increases wheras your old spell has already reached it's maximum effectiveness). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A big point to compare is that we can wear heavy armor and our brother priests cannot.</DIV>

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oridio wrote:<BR> <DIV>Also, something that wasn't mentioned about our tear 2 reactive heal, when the tank gets hit, it procs an AC buff and from my testing the ac increase is pretty substantial (100 or more). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A big point to compare is that we can wear heavy armor and our brother priests cannot.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The AC buff proc comes from symbol of transal.</P> <P>Inquisitors do not get heavy armor? <BR></P>

[Kyrakath]

<DIV>BoV and Suppilcant's Prayer do stack. You just have to be a little more observant as to how they do. Plus Supplicant's Prayer gives like a 100-150 ish AC buff when hit which lessens the damage. Whatever reactive you cast on your MT is going to go off first but then followed immediately behind by the second. I use both at first then I use the adept 3 BoV to keep the tanks health from depleting, especially when under a group of mobs. When the MT is under the attck of say 8 mobs or so i.e. Runnyeye goblins our reactives are sick and can save a lot of mana for the possible mezzed named thats standing in the middle of them all. Templars are not [Removed for Content]. You are. Im sick of your crap Gwynet su and go play another class. Do you think that shamans get AoE concussion? And do you see shamans taking hit from mobs well at all? Were different they have their strengths but we definitely have ours. My only complaint is having to argue with the MT over whether he automatically gets the plate armor that just dropped from the named you just kept him alive for to kill.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Use disgrace, use sign of weakness, use both reactives, use amelioration, use distract, use placate, and use radiance in emergencies and use your new AoE nuke that hits multiple mobs for 130-150 dmg. Templars freekin pwn. End of story. Next thread k? plz thx.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas 32 Dark Elf Templar of Unrest</DIV><p>Message Edited by Kyrakathas on <span class=date_text>12-06-2004</span> <span class=time_text>11:26 AM</span>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

<blockquote><hr>Oridio wrote:<DIV>A big point to compare is that we can wear heavy armor and our brother priests cannot.</DIV><hr></blockquote>Not so big when you remember that they get more HP than we do. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Or...well, does AC count for more than HP in this game? I haven't had an opportunity to compare my survivability with that of any druids/shaman of similar level and gear.<p>Message Edited by FoxeyeVaeltaja on <span class=date_text>12-06-2004</span> <span class=time_text>12:28 PM</span>

[Atanvar]

There's an easy fix to this, make the Templar more efficient in combat. We're supposed to be the fighting clerics, right? Give us some more offensive capability (melee, not nukes) and I know I wouldn't worry about wards any longer.

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kyrakathas wrote:<BR> <DIV>BoV and Suppilcant's Prayer do stack. You just have to be a little more observant as to how they do. Plus Supplicant's Prayer gives like a 100-150 ish AC buff when hit which lessens the damage. Whatever reactive you cast on your MT is going to go off first but then followed immediately behind by the second. I use both at first then I use the adept 3 BoV to keep the tanks health from depleting, especially when under a group of mobs. When the MT is under the attck of say 8 mobs or so i.e. Runnyeye goblins our reactives are sick and can save a lot of mana for the possible mezzed named thats standing in the middle of them all. Templars are not [Removed for Content]. You are. Im sick of your crap Gwynet su and go play another class. Do you think that shamans get AoE concussion? And do you see shamans taking hit from mobs well at all? Were different they have their strengths but we definitely have ours. My only complaint is having to argue with the MT over whether he automatically gets the plate armor that just dropped from the named you just kept him alive for to kill.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Use disgrace, use sign of weakness, use both reactives, use amelioration, use distract, use placate, and use radiance in emergencies and use your new AoE nuke that hits multiple mobs for 130-150 dmg. Templars freekin pwn. End of story. Next thread k? plz thx.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas 32 Dark Elf Templar of Unrest</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Kyrakathas on <SPAN class=date_text>12-06-2004</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:26 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This isn't stacking, Stacking is when two effects work at the same time. And it's not the case.</P> <P>And yes, in Runnyeye on multiple mobs having BoV and SP is great, but supplicant's prayer is still broken, and until it is fixed we will still only heal for 134/hit, if we are lucky to have the adept 3 of BoV, instead of the 160+ we should. If it's good enough for you, well I'm glad. I won't be happy with himp heals personally.<BR></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh and I tested SP, more comments below.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Gwynet on <span class=date_text>12-07-2004</span> <span class=time_text>09:59 AM</span>

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Atanvarno wrote:<BR>There's an easy fix to this, make the Templar more efficient in combat. We're supposed to be the fighting clerics, right? Give us some more offensive capability (melee, not nukes) and I know I wouldn't worry about wards any longer.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Personally I'd like to see the templar a best healers. If/when someone gets the chance to crunch numbers on wards versus heals and other things it'll be interesting to see the spread.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

<blockquote><hr>Celestian_GC wrote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Atanvarno wrote:<BR>There's an easy fix to this, make the Templar more efficient in combat. We're supposed to be the fighting clerics, right? Give us some more offensive capability (melee, not nukes) and I know I wouldn't worry about wards any longer.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><P>Personally I'd like to see the templar a best healers. If/when someone gets the chance to crunch numbers on wards versus heals and other things it'll be interesting to see the spread.</P><P> </P><P> </P><hr></blockquote>You should know better Celestian...for them to make TEmplars the best healers they'd be re-defining the core philosophy behind the archetype system. I'm personally not real keen to see them forego that just yet. (Unless by heal you refer to direct heals, rather than the simple ability to keep your group members alive.)

[Sanans]

Though I am still a cleric, I have completed my Templar quest and I am waiting for the level up. Awhile ago I was grouped with a shaman. His regular instant heals seemed to heal alot more than mine. His were healing upwards of 300 while my combat healing was barley healing half that. Even arch healing heals a noticible amount less. It could just be but my combat healing is Adept 1 and the Arch healing is Aprentice 2 so maybe they just aren't upgraded enough.

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oridio wrote:<BR> <DIV>When you first get a new spell, it isn't going to be as effective as it's predassor because the spell is still orange (meaning as you level, it's effectiveness increases wheras your old spell has already reached it's maximum effectiveness). </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Nonsense.  A new spell that has half the power efficiency of its predecessor is inexcusable.  We're not talking specific amounts, the ratio is all that matters.</DIV>

[Zabumt]

<DIV>When you get  a new spell it is not only app1 but also orange con to you.  Basically, a spell that you have no experience in using.  In this case, it IS better to use your old mastered spell and forget about the new one.  I know, it's different from other games, but in some ways, I kind of like it.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Later on, when you level up a bit and upgrade your spell, you'll not want to use your lower spell to get the job done.  As for the random AC buff, boy it really seems my tanks take less damage when I use SP than when I use BoV.   Admittedly this is against yellow-blue^^ cons and not reds.  If you're fighting reds really, I think you're wasting your time.  Hehe...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Zabumtik wrote:<BR> <DIV>When you get  a new spell it is not only app1 but also orange con to you.  Basically, a spell that you have no experience in using.  In this case, it IS better to use your old mastered spell and forget about the new one.  I know, it's different from other games, but in some ways, I kind of like it.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Later on, when you level up a bit and upgrade your spell, you'll not want to use your lower spell to get the job done.  As for the random AC buff, boy it really seems my tanks take less damage when I use SP than when I use BoV.   Admittedly this is against yellow-blue^^ cons and not reds.  If you're fighting reds really, I think you're wasting your time.  Hehe...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Again, nonsense.  Not only is that ridiculous but the ratio NEVER gets better.  Where's your theory now?</DIV>

[Kyrakath]

<DIV>The ratio does get better <A href="mailto:st%$@#up" target=_blank>st%$@#up</A>! Use your **mods 4 teh win!!1!** brain.</DIV> <DIV>Gwynet solo some orange mobs in EL. Put your persona window up. Look at your AC. See it? Now cast Supplicant's prayer (which at app2 should be doing 102 health per hit of mob.) Just cast it on the mob case you didnt know that it will automatically heal you. After the mobs first hit look at your AC in your persona window. Compare to your first look. Yes your eyes havent deceived you nor have I. Your ac has jumped over 100 points. Now use  BoV. Oh and at 40% into 32  you get a new big heal. Restoration. Which at app1 (yes app 1) does 385 per heal for about the same power cost as arch healing at adept one.</DIV> <DIV>Now for you eq1'ers who refuse to let go of complete healing, compare the amount of health Supplicant's prayer gives at app2 to BoV at adept 3. Kinda close.... (so adept 3 supplicant's prayer must be more if not by a lot) Also use intercession at adept one. Ever used it anyone? I bet most ignore it cuz ya cant adapt. It costs i think around 146 power per cost BUT it does 285 per hit per mob. Thats a 285 reactive heal that everyone in the party receives from one cast. Thats over 1k of health for a reactive that can save not only the tank but the whole group from "one" cast.</DIV> <DIV>And some more advice. Buy or make homeade coffee or buy flagions of water for those times when you dont have a chanter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas 32 Dark Elf Templar of Unrest</DIV>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

<blockquote><hr>Kyrakathas wrote:<DIV>The ratio does get better <A href="mailto:st%$@#up" target=_blank>st%$@#up</A>! Use your **mods 4 teh win!!1!** brain.</DIV><DIV>Gwynet solo some orange mobs in EL. Put your persona window up. Look at your AC. See it? Now cast Supplicant's prayer (which at app2 should be doing 102 health per hit of mob.) Just cast it on the mob case you didnt know that it will automatically heal you. After the mobs first hit look at your AC in your persona window. Compare to your first look. Yes your eyes havent deceived you nor have I. Your ac has jumped over 100 points. Now use BoV. Oh and at 40% into 32 you get a new big heal. Restoration. Which at app1 (yes app 1) does 385 per heal for about the same power cost as arch healing at adept one.</DIV><hr></blockquote>Just for clarity...you are doing this testing without Symbol of ___ on (I have no idea when we get our upgrade to Symbol of Transal)?Edit: NM, I read on another thread that the description of SP actually mentions the AC buff. Between that and what you say, I'll take your word for it. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><p>Message Edited by FoxeyeVaeltaja on <span class=date_text>12-07-2004</span> <span class=time_text>07:10 AM</span>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kyrakathas wrote:<BR> <DIV>The ratio does get better <A href="mailto:st%$@#up" target=_blank>st%$@#up</A>! Use your **mods 4 teh win!!1!** brain.</DIV> <DIV>Gwynet solo some orange mobs in EL. Put your persona window up. Look at your AC. See it? Now cast Supplicant's prayer (which at app2 should be doing 102 health per hit of mob.) Just cast it on the mob case you didnt know that it will automatically heal you. After the mobs first hit look at your AC in your persona window. Compare to your first look. Yes your eyes havent deceived you nor have I. Your ac has jumped over 100 points. Now use  BoV. Oh and at 40% into 32  you get a new big heal. Restoration. Which at app1 (yes app 1) does 385 per heal for about the same power cost as arch healing at adept one.</DIV> <DIV>Now for you eq1'ers who refuse to let go of complete healing, compare the amount of health Supplicant's prayer gives at app2 to BoV at adept 3. Kinda close.... (so adept 3 supplicant's prayer must be more if not by a lot) Also use intercession at adept one. Ever used it anyone? I bet most ignore it cuz ya cant adapt. It costs i think around 146 power per cost BUT it does 285 per hit per mob. Thats a 285 reactive heal that everyone in the party receives from one cast. Thats over 1k of health for a reactive that can save not only the tank but the whole group from "one" cast.</DIV> <DIV>And some more advice. Buy or make homeade coffee or buy flagions of water for those times when you dont have a chanter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas 32 Dark Elf Templar of Unrest</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I checked SP, as I said. The spell itself says it *can* increase AC, and to my experience it almost never does, like Mark of Pawns or Princes procs like once a fight. What a waste if you ask me. Even if it worked all the time, I couldn't care less about 100 AC more, it's going to make NO difference if the tank already has 2100 AC buffed, what I want is a heal.</P> <P>Now, at 33, which is <STRONG>7 </STRONG>levels after I got the spell, the app2 of SP would heal for 114 for 80+ power... BoV is 134 at adept 3 for 55 power... Kinda close? Lol I don't think so. I think you are forgetting that you are using a level 26 spell, not 32.</P> <P>Restoration - finally a heal that isn't broken. At 33, one level after I got it, the app2 heals for 13 more than the adept 1 of archhealing, for 20 more power or so (server went down, can't check). Why isn't it broken? Because, even if it costs more power, it heals for <STRONG>more</STRONG> than the other spell, even though it's only an app2 and the other is an adept 1. In comparison, the app2 of SP starts healing for the same amont than the adept 1 of BoV <STRONG>7</STRONG> levels later.</P> <P>Intercession - yeah I have the adept 1. For 220ish power cost though (not 145), and the long casting time, I only use it when I have more than one person being beat up in the group, which happens pretty regularly, and it's really efficient.</P> <P>So intercession and restoration are great ! Absolutely not an excuse for not fixing a [Removed for Content] spell, which is supposed to be our main heal, and even less for not caring that it is broken and flame the people who are trying to get it fixed. We all find workarounds and use the other spells, and it's a good thing that they seem to be working as intended (ok maybe not bravery <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />), it doesn't mean that they should not fix what is broken. SP fixed would increase my healing potential of about 20% on regular mobs, and it's not something I want to just forget about.</P> <P>Now, could you clarify something please, I don't understand it - how can you compare the fact that we want a reactive heal fixed to not being able to let go of complete heals? I am pretty curious about this. Oh, and I wasn't playing a cleric in EQ1.</P><p>Message Edited by Gwynet on <span class=date_text>12-07-2004</span> <span class=time_text>07:25 AM</span>

[Ogrelicio]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oridio wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are times when shaman's ward is the best spell for an encounter, and other times it's our reactive heal. In all honesty the three priest classes are meant to complement eachother. There is nothing better then ward + reactive heals to keep the tanks and group alive.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>When is a reactive better than a ward?  Not being argumentative - This is an honest question.</DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>For AE pulls. Basically, they act like a direct heal that costs less than half the power cost.</DIV>

[Myrn]

<DIV>It was mentioned earlier how Mark of Pawns doesn't proc much, so I just wanted to throw in my own experience with it.  I've used Mark of Pawns fairly regularly and, when I'm able to get in there and do some meleeing, I've noticed it proc quite a bit.  Maybe it's just been me getting lucky every time, but I don't think so.  Didn't want to derail anything, just adding how Mark of Pawns has worked very well for me.</DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>Yeah I'm not sure what's up with it lol. When I use it, I see it proc maybe once per combat.</DIV>

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> FoxeyeVaeltaja wrote:<BR><BR>You should know better Celestian...for them to make TEmplars the best healers they'd be re-defining the core philosophy behind the archetype system. I'm personally not real keen to see them forego that just yet. <BR><BR>(Unless by heal you refer to direct heals, rather than the simple ability to keep your group members alive.)<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Hum, aren't clerics suppose to be the "best" healers? We don't get anything like shamans or druids because we're suppose to be healers+buffers. </P> <P>How is making us the best (or better) healers anything but what we're suppose to be.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

<blockquote><hr>Celestian_GC wrote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>FoxeyeVaeltaja wrote:<BR><BR>You should know better Celestian...for them to make TEmplars the best healers they'd be re-defining the core philosophy behind the archetype system. I'm personally not real keen to see them forego that just yet. <BR><BR>(Unless by heal you refer to direct heals, rather than the simple ability to keep your group members alive.)<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hum, aren't clerics suppose to be the "best" healers? We don't get anything like shamans or druids because we're suppose to be healers+buffers. </P><P>How is making us the best (or better) healers anything but what we're suppose to be.</P><P><BR> </P><hr></blockquote>No, Celestial, we <b>aren't</b> supposed to be the best healers. That is the point of the archetype system. Maybe better at a particular kind of heal, but all subclasses are supposed to be equally good at fulfilling the archetype role, and that "role" is buffing and healing. SOE has been quite clear on that point.

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> FoxeyeVaeltaja wrote:<BR><BR>No, Celestial, we <B>aren't</B> supposed to be the best healers. That is the point of the archetype system. Maybe better at a particular kind of heal, but all subclasses are supposed to be equally good at fulfilling the archetype role, and that "role" is buffing and healing. SOE has been quite clear on that point.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Really? Where did they say this? I don't recall clerics not being defined as the healer/buffer class anywhere. I do not recall them saying druids and shamans would be healers or buffers. If they are then why do they get things like animal forms, run buffs, dots and other things that we do not? Why are we not all just the same single class?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you read the cleric profession it clearly says we're healers and augment health. Druids and shamans have their own paths that are not like ours. There should be a difference.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templars specifically "mend the wounded and purge ilness and suffering." Wardens perhaps have the closest description to ours.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templars are suppose to be healers according to their description. If we're just healers and disease removers we should be better at it than others. Just like defilers are better at boosting the capabilities of the defilers companions than templars.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>This discussion is moot unless someone can produce some numbers on healing/wards/etc between the 3 subtypes of priests anyway. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

<blockquote><hr>Celestian_GC wrote:<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>FoxeyeVaeltaja wrote:No, Celestial, we <B>aren't</B> supposed to be the best healers. That is the point of the archetype system. Maybe better at a particular kind of heal, but all subclasses are supposed to be equally good at fulfilling the archetype role, and that "role" is buffing and healing. SOE has been quite clear on that point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>Really? Where did they say this? I don't recall clerics not being defined as the healer/buffer class anywhere. I do not recall them saying druids and shamans would be healers or buffers. If they are then why do they get things like animal forms, run buffs, dots and other things that we do not? Why are we not all just the same single class? </DIV><hr></blockquote>WEll, for starters, they say this in the FAQ on these boards. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Whether it says so as clear-cut in the manual I cannot say off the top of my head.<blockquote><hr>Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively. Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level. <b>Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well</b>. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; <b>if you're a priest, you can heal for a group</b>; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. <hr></blockquote>Out of curiosity, did you play a cleric in EQ-L? And did you follow the news on EQ2 prior to launch? I actually had a sticky thread here in the Priest's Sanctuary on PRECISELY this subject pre-launch, with links and quotes, because this issue kept coming up. Alas, it was lost at launch. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />And honestly, I think SOE isn't doing such a bang-up job of balancing the non-healing aspects of the priests. I agree...druids and shaman get some fun stuff. But then...I hear rumours that our AC does actually count for more than their extra HP. And our debuffs seem effective to me...possibly even as effective as their debuffs.

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> FoxeyeVaeltaja wrote:<BR>WEll, for starters, they say this in the FAQ on these boards. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Whether it says so as clear-cut in the manual I cannot say off the top of my head.<BR><BR>Out of curiosity, did you play a cleric in EQ-L? And did you follow the news on EQ2 prior to launch? I actually had a sticky thread here in the Priest's Sanctuary on PRECISELY this subject pre-launch, with links and quotes, because this issue kept coming up. Alas, it was lost at launch. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The information I used to "choose" my class was from their website here. It gives an overview of all the priest classes. It's pretty clear that templars are healers and thats about it while the others heal+do other things.</P> <P>I played a cleric as an alt in EQ, my main character was an enchanter. Not sure what this has to do with this topic.</P> <P>I picked templar because according to their web site information they are healers, not nukers, debuffers and dotters. The other priests get other abilities at the expense (one would think) of a "healing" focus class like templars. Sure a shaman can heal, but since they get dots/debuffs/buffs and other special abilities due to their "focus" we should have better healing ... which we might have if someone crunches the numbers... I suspect myself that right now it's not as good as it should be for templar healing.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P>

[Myrn]

<DIV>Celestian I think you completely glossed over half of FoxeyeVaeltaja's post:  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"<STRONG>Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well</STRONG>. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; <B>if you're a priest, you can heal for a group</B>; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. "</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This specifically states how EVERY priest can heal equally well, which means every subclass that is a priest can heal just as well as the other.</DIV>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

<blockquote><P>I picked templar because according to their web site information they are healers, not nukers, debuffers and dotters. The other priests get other abilities at the expense (one would think) of a "healing" focus class like templars. Sure a shaman can heal, but since they get dots/debuffs/buffs and other special abilities due to their "focus" we should have better healing </DIV><hr></blockquote>I'm sorry if you feel misled by SOE...I think that's what I'm reading here... but we DO get debuffs and nukes and potentially the best surviveability, so I don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be. Whether someone informed you that "all priest subclasses are equal healers" or not at the time is, well, sadly beside the point. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The situation is, no matter what you think they did or did not explain to you, SOE has intended from the beginning that all subclasses be created equal in their primary roles. Perhaps different in different scenarios, but all-in-all, equal.Now...that being said...SOE has been known to re-write the rules of the universe and to completely do 180's. So maybe they would return to the days of clerics being the main healers and druids/shamans being only support. But like I said, that'd be overturning the entire <b>foundation</b> of how they set up the classes in this game.OK, yes, it's SOE, they just might do something like that. Would they do it because a lot of templars complained? No. Would they do it for some obscure reason they never explain to anyone. Prooobably.I don't want to argue with you Celestian, but honestly, I'm not making this up. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Bloodweav]

<DIV>I've been watching this thread for a bit, and would just like to add my 2cp worth.....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've played alot of of MMO's (EQ was my main one) and understand where you all are coming from. I think a good solution to this issue (which alot of Templars are feeling) is make us the prefered Healing class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you work out a 'Group utility' type chart of what other priest classes get, we are behind. A little love in the healing department may encourage alot of Temp's to stay. Its not a dramatic change, but if you think logically on this, a Shaman and Druid types can add alot more to a group currently, with heals, buffs, dps etc...much more than a Templar can. With Templars being slightly enhanced with heals, I think it would add to thier value as being a group main healer, with the other priest classes being able to focus on chaotic stuff while also serving as a backup healer in emergencies.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think this thread is primarily people who have played Healer types (ie. Clerics) before, and are used to certain people taking certain roles. At the moment, we are kind of pushed aside as far as healing goes...where all three types double or triple up on heals when only one person should be main healer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not all classes can tank as well as a Guardian...its why they are Guardians...but they come close.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not all classes should heal as well as Templars....its why we chose Templars....but....they should come close.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not asking for alot of love....just a little to give us a bit of identity.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just my 2cp worth...feel free to Flame at will...as Im sure some will :smileywink:</DIV>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

I'm honestly not sure what I'd want. On one hand, I really enjoy, in groups, doing nothing but healing. Call me lazy, but it's hard to balance out whether it's more mana efficient to add DPS or to use heals to keep up endurance. :/ So if I can just heal heal heal I"m a happy lizard. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But at the same time...I'm terrified that if we were the best healers, even by a margin, that it would be license to remove anything else that might make it an interesting class. Yes, 90% of the time there's nothing I love more than having to be solo healer in a crazy, dangerous encounter...but I don't know if I'd want to sacrifice any utility and flavor at ALL.

[Bloodweav]

<DIV>I think changing our reactives up slightly would correct this. We're not asking for more utility (ie. buffs, nukes etc) as this would throw out the balance with the other two classes that are also priests. I think what we are striving for is a prefered healing class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Im quite happy to let Shamans buff and slow, and for Druids to DS, buff and Nuke...and Im quite happy to buff and debuff.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Im more keen to see Shammies stacking on DoTs, and Druids laying down nukes, and killing mobs quicker rather than having us resigned to the fact that our nukes are average (and they are average....we arent a nuking class), and we have no DoTs or anything of that sort, but we should have to fight for heals because others are having the same kind of identity issues, and and both are doubling up on heals. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We're a class that assists others, so a slight increase on reactives would give us group identity, but not push things to the point where we make Shamans and druids obsolete. Far from it, in tight situations I call for wards...'cause wards....and it pains me to say it....ROCK. :smileyvery-happy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Druid heals and especially Heals over time are just lifesavers also....but when it comes down to the crunch, if I aint nukin', and I aint DoTing...then let me keep the group alive.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think as the game is only STILL young in release, there are still some 'class idendity' issues to be worked out, but with constractive conversation we can either work out our thoughts amongst each other, or project a united view of our classes to the Development team.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>No offense, but we really don't need any 'clerics should be best healer' stuff. What we need to ask for is balance, they have stated that NO healer will be better than the others, so it would be pretty useless to ask for that.</DIV>

[Bloodweav]

<DIV>No offense taken here :smileyhappy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess personally (and this is a personal feeling) I've come from other MMO's and have a sense of identity with the classes I have played (ie. you heal, you tank, your dps, you pull, your CC)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At the moment, its a blending of classes that make that happen now, and it honestly is a bit difficult to get used to. I guess thats why Im asking for a bit of identity. I dont feel we are a [Removed for Content] class, just that our utility for a group seems to differ from the other priest classes, and that maybe by changing the Reactive heals (possibly reduce the timer, maybe increase it a little....and Im not saying by alot, its not broken).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is more of a wish for me personally. I do see how others are feeling a bit 'gimped'...but it all comes down to now we have a larger variety of alternatives (as in subclasses) that are blending together in some ways, and are unique in others.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Taken Crowd Control for example...they are uniquie, its what they do. Melee....you get your hybrids, your dps, your pullers.....and then there are the rangers :smileywink: ...j/k</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For the priest classes, we're a bit too meshed, so I guess thats why alot of Templars are feeling a bit lost when it comes to the fact that other classes are adding so much to a group, and yet all our heals are the same (except for those **mods 4 teh win!!1!** cheaty Wards :smileywink: )</DIV>

[benedic]

<DIV>Those that say we are good buffers/debuffers could please enlighten me a bit?  My buffs are fine, but really, my debuffs NEVER land when I'm in a group (since we're fighting orange/red stuff).  I'm saying NEVER in a practical sense, maybe they land 1 out of 10 casts, but am I supposed to spam weakness while our tank is getting pummeled?  Same with Mark of X, it just never lands.  </DIV> <DIV>When I'm soloing they work fine, on blues/whites/yellows they work.  But in a group, maybe my char is bugged, but debuffing is pretty much useless, a waste of time, and dangerous for the party.</DIV> <DIV>I'd rather if my debuffs landed with less effectiveness, at least I didn't waste my time and mana, but as it is now, debuffs are useless. </DIV> <DIV>Which could add to this discussion, since if we compare with druids and shaman, druids get damage shields and shaman get buffs, they always hit since they are cast on friends, but our debuffs... they simply suck.</DIV> <DIV>BTW my debuffs are either adept 1 or app 3, not app 1 just in case someone is wondering.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

It's true...I've only used my debuffs against white and below mobs. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> That said, does anyone know if shaman slow is resisted as often? If it is, then there's not much we can say. If it *isn't*...then there's something very wrong with that balance!

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR> <DIV>No offense, but we really don't need any 'clerics should be best healer' stuff. What we need to ask for is balance, they have stated that NO healer will be better than the others, so it would be pretty useless to ask for that.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>I am not asking to be better than others. I am asking that our primary focus as given on the website gives us a edge on other priests. Since they get shapeshifting, sow, dots, slows and what not and we do not. I do not want more powerful nukes or dots. I enjoy taking care of people, healing for me is fun. Again this is why I picked Templar as the description was pretty clear that their "field" of specialization was healing/curative.</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Celestian_GC on <span class=date_text>12-08-2004</span> <span class=time_text>12:54 AM</span>

[IlluvatorBrightst]

They've stated every time asked, that no healer has the edge on others in healing. Do not make us the best healers. Fix supplicant's prayer, bring us into line with the others and it's all good.

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IlluvatorBrightstar wrote:<BR>They've stated every time asked, that no healer has the edge on others in healing. Do not make us the best healers. Fix supplicant's prayer, bring us into line with the others and it's all good.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Please show me where they said that. Link me.</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>With the spell selection we have we have no choice but to be a healer. Druids and Shaman's do not have the same limits. If we have other options than healing... what are they? Nukes? Debuffs? -ac and -str are useful, but please that is not the core of this class.</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>We heal... I can't think of any valid points to say we're not suppose to be prime healer. Even the class description says we're healers. We have nothing but healing potential.</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>We're not the same as druids and shamans and repeatedly saying "no healer has an edge" on others in healing doesn't make it true. Templars have no choice but to heal because ... thats what templars are.</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>I picked this class to heal, if I wanted a nuker/healer I'd have went druid. If I wanted someone with slow/wards and heals I'd be shaman. There is no secondary for Templars ... except healing!</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>Why do people insist on believing we can't be better at something than another class? Do they think SP won't get fixed because of that? Just comparing SP to BoV alone shows it needs adjustment.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV></FONT> </DIV>

[BlackFlowe]

benedicto,98% of the time I have no trouble debuffing an orange or higher con mob at level 29 - however both of the debuffs I use (Disgrace and Sign of Weakness) are Adept I. If you can find the Adept I version of your spells, they do make a big difference.MalumTemplar, Nektulos Server

[IlluvatorBrightst]

You keep naming all these advantages that druids and shams have, but I personally fail to see many of them myself. Shamans get a slow that in all honesty doesnt make that much of a diff, and druids get what... sow? My sign of weakness helps mitigate incoming damage as well as slow most the time. They get animal form we get plate, again, I'll keep my plate any day. I'm just not seeing this gross imbalance outside of healing you all see. In fact, with the exception of our broken supplicant's prayer, my experiance would lead me to think Templar/Inquis are the most balanced of the classes out there. Now, I'll go hunting for that link you wanted.

[Ond]

As I see this long discussion, there's too much focus on how much we can heal, BoV pulls X amount, a ward protects for Y and so on. Yesterday I was in a group with a Mystic, at one moment I saw him pulling 5xx heal, I was stomped, exactly the same level 22 as me, I've never seen anything above 250. Of course it could be an Adept or even Master level spell, against my no higher than app3. Now I could go balistic and scream NERF! or FIX ME!*, but I don't, simple reason really: So far I've yet to be the reason a group died.I've been in quite a few goupe wipes, but always it's been because of bugs (invisible aggro, random invisible pops), bad pulling (no Mr Wizard, you shouldn't make an intermediate pull while the tank is away), sheer bad luck (had a tank pulling a giant, suddenly 2 giants popped right on top of us waiting) or just bad teamplay (group members running everywhere). Take away these situations, I can only come up with wipes where the reason of death was us consentual as a group trying to take on something way too hard.Looking at the "way too hard"-situations, the question comes up, would a shaman or druid have made us win? I say no, it has to be speculation, but the usual way the fight has gone is: I BoV (sometimes SS), tank pulls. I prepare to debuff (usually weakness first) the one targeted by the tank. Here's where the problem starts, the tank may already have gotten such a beating on the way back, BoV needs refresh or (s)he is in orange due to the mob packing a punch. Another scenario is someone else than the tank incidentally getting aggro, and the tank is unlucky with getting it off that person. Again, any druid or shaman would also be in trouble here, next time you group with a such, try taking notice of how much aggro they get using wards, it's a killer for them.There's a lot more to it than pulling the higher number on life given back on instants and reatives/wards/HoTs, it's the entire package that counts. If I get weakness and/or rebuke in on most of the mob, they're doomed, unless we have situations as mentioned in the second paragraph of this post. Weakened mobs DO seem to cause a lot less damage, helping my "gimped" heals. Rebuked mobs go down quite a bit faster, again, having me giving out a lot less heals, conserving power. Amending Faith (sometimes) assure me getting a slight break after a mob kill, leaving me to debuff the next in line mob.It's a package solution, sure, I did envy that 5xx heal I saw, but then again, same player weren't the cause of our tank taking less damage per hit from Weakness, maybe that less damage combined with my 2xx heal equaled the same amount, it's not possible to say. I do not find any other priests to be preferede over templar, neither do I find Templars to be prefered, is there anything wrong with this?*Yes, if some spell is disfunctional, it should be fixed, in this I mean bugged and not working as developer intented, not as player intented.

[BlackFlowe]

<blockquote><hr>IlluvatorBrightstar wrote:You keep naming all these advantages that druids and shams have, but I personally fail to see many of them myself.<hr></blockquote>Me too.

[Atanvar]

I'd still like to see a little better melee, since we're supposed to be the healer counterpart to the pallies/guardians... toe to toe in plate etc.

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Celestian_GC wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IlluvatorBrightstar wrote:<BR>They've stated every time asked, that no healer has the edge on others in healing. Do not make us the best healers. Fix supplicant's prayer, bring us into line with the others and it's all good.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Please show me where they said that. Link me.</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT></DIV> <DIV>With the spell selection we have we have no choice but to be a healer. Druids and Shaman's do not have the same limits. If we have other options than healing... what are they? Nukes? Debuffs? -ac and -str are useful, but please that is not the core of this class.</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT></DIV> <DIV>We heal... I can't think of any valid points to say we're not suppose to be prime healer. Even the class description says we're healers. We have nothing but healing potential.</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT></DIV> <DIV>We're not the same as druids and shamans and repeatedly saying "no healer has an edge" on others in healing doesn't make it true. Templars have no choice but to heal because ... thats what templars are.</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT></DIV> <DIV>I picked this class to heal, if I wanted a nuker/healer I'd have went druid. If I wanted someone with slow/wards and heals I'd be shaman. There is no secondary for Templars ... except healing!</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT></DIV> <DIV>Why do people insist on believing we can't be better at something than another class? Do they think SP won't get fixed because of that? Just comparing SP to BoV alone shows it needs adjustment.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV></FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Again, this isn't EQlive, you were misinformed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They have been saying since the game started being developped that all healers would do the job as well. Sorry there is no link to show you, but it was everywhere on the beta forum, and to be honest I am starting to get annoyed that there are some many templars around just because people are misinformed and are thinking in the terms of EQ1 again. I'm sorry there is no link anymore to Moorgard's quotes, but it was said there... repeatedly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, our role is to heal. But we can also do other things, like you said, buff, nuke, debuff. And we actually have to if we want to be efficient.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Shamans and druids are healers too, they are not nukers or slowers, again it is not EQ1. Our nukes are as efficient as the druid nukes actually, just divine instead of cold. We don't get slow, but we get an AC debuff that they don't get, so it's pretty balanced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We can't be better at something because it's not the way it's supposed to work. Period. I'd rather we spent our energy fixing what is broken (like SP)  than asking for things we won't get.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Ogrelicio]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR> <DIV>For AE pulls. Basically, they act like a direct heal that costs less than half the power cost.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> Sorry for asking these off-topic questions, but I still don't get it.  How is that any better than a warded group?

[Gwynet]

<DIV>Wards are kinda wasted when 3+ mobs are hitting someone at once. As they work before mitigation, they will take the max hit of every mob, so they will drop pretty fast. Then the shaman will have to use direct heals to heal inbetween. With clerics, you can just cast one reactive at 60% and it will heal the tank right away, as every hit will make it proc. Of course it's better after 26 when you can chain 2 reactive heals though.</DIV>

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR>Again, this isn't EQlive, you were misinformed.</BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P>Misinformed?!?!? The information I got about Templars comes from <A href="http://everquest2.station.sony.com/" target=_blank>http://everquest2.station.sony.com/</A></P> <P>If I am misinformed then it's because of that.</P> <P>I have no "misconceptions" from EQ. I know exactly what Templars are suppose to do by reading just what SoE said Templars are suppose to be.<BR></P> <P>I suggest you take a look at the individual classes listed there, Templar/Inquisitor, Warden/Fury, Defiler/Mystic and then see what options each of those has. Each has healing listed but Templars and Wardens are the only ones that have healing and curing only.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>We can't be better at something because it's not the way it's supposed to work. Period. I'd rather we spent our energy fixing what is broken (like SP)  than asking for things we won't get.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Regardless what you and I believe on what Templars are it's clear that SP needs to be looked at.</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Celestian_GC on <span class=date_text>12-08-2004</span> <span class=time_text>12:44 PM</span>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Celestian_GC wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Misinformed?!?!? The information I got about Templars comes from <A href="http://everquest2.station.sony.com/" target=_blank>http://everquest2.station.sony.com/</A></P> <P>If I am misinformed then it's because of that.</P> <P>I have no "misconceptions" from EQ. I know exactly what Templars are suppose to do by reading just what SoE said Templars are suppose to be.<BR></P> <P>I suggest you take a look at the individual classes listed there, Templar/Inquisitor, Warden/Fury, Defiler/Mystic and then see what options each of those has. Each has healing listed but Templars and Wardens are the only ones that have healing and curing only.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I don't know, all the descriptions mention healing really. I agree that these descriptions are pretty silly though. </DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<DIV>It's true; the reason they added reactives was to maintain the basic premise that the priest archetype should be equally good at keeping groups alive.  That's from beta, I don't know what they've documented.</DIV>

[rtoub]

<DIV>I have to admit I didn't read the descriptions very carefully but I chose Templar because I loved the cleric in EQ and my impression from the description from memory that Templars help the group.  I enjoy helping the group so this seemed like a good choice for my play style.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Based on my experience so far I was not mislead.  We heal and rez.  We buff the party and debuf the mobs.  All directly aiding the group.  So far least effective is nuking but I still do it when I have extra mana and on weak monsters.  It is fun to compete against other nukers to see how many I can get in before the mob goes down.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As an added bonus I don't have to stand, heal, sit repeat.  I have good armour and can run up to the mob and hack away.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In every combination of other priest classes I always have a role.  It is fun to experiement and adjust to playing styles of other people and classes.  Other than with really bad players, I have never found my role in the group to be less than others or had trouble aiding the group structure in some way.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I will leave to the number crunchers to show how one thing may be better than the other.  That is their role and I hope they will improve things.  For me I will just keep having fun.</DIV>

[IlluvatorBrightst]

Couldn't find the old MG index anywhere <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But im 100% sure it's mentioned in there.As to the descriptions, that's basically a general background more than anything.

[kcirrot]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Celestian_GC wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR>Again, this isn't EQlive, you were misinformed.</BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P>Misinformed?!?!? The information I got about Templars comes from <A href="http://everquest2.station.sony.com/" target=_blank>http://everquest2.station.sony.com/</A></P> <P>If I am misinformed then it's because of that.</P> <P>I have no "misconceptions" from EQ. I know exactly what Templars are suppose to do by reading just what SoE said Templars are suppose to be.<BR></P> <P>I suggest you take a look at the individual classes listed there, Templar/Inquisitor, Warden/Fury, Defiler/Mystic and then see what options each of those has. Each has healing listed but Templars and Wardens are the only ones that have healing and curing only.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>We can't be better at something because it's not the way it's supposed to work. Period. I'd rather we spent our energy fixing what is broken (like SP)  than asking for things we won't get.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Regardless what you and I believe on what Templars are it's clear that SP needs to be looked at.</P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by Celestian_GC on <SPAN class=date_text>12-08-2004</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>12:44 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ok, having read this entire post, can I ask you a question.  Where do you see, "Templars are the best at healing/buffing"?  You don't because it isn't there.  Templars are not the best healers and they aren't intended to be.</P> <P>Let's read the FAQ one more time:</P> <P></P> <HR> <P></P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level.<SPAN>  </SPAN><STRONG>Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and <U>each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well</U>.</STRONG><SPAN>  </SPAN>If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; <STRONG><U>if you're a priest, you can heal for a group</U></STRONG>; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> <BR>Note the underline and the bold.  See, I play a Fury, another sub-class of PRIEST.  So reading that why would I be remiss in thinking that I can heal just as well as a Templar. <P></P> <P>Next, let me recount for you the story of how clerics wound up with reactive heals.  During beta, clerics were the masters of instant healing.  However, instant healing as a specialty gave clerics a small advantage over shaman and druids in a group.  It was because instant heals, by definition, stacked much better than regens and wards.  For that reason, they up-ended the cleric class and priest AT and gave clerics a persistent heal (the reactives) in order to make sure that clerics had NO advantage over druids and shaman in healing.</P> <P>It would be UNFAIR to give Templars superior healing at this point.  You see the rest of the priest players chose our class and subclass based on what SOE said (and not what you THINK they said) and I'm very happy I can heal for a group.</P> <P>Now if you want non-healing advantages for the cleric class, I'm all for that.  If you want flashy spells like our transforms, cool.  But healing is a priest specialty, not a Templar specialty.</P> <p>Message Edited by kcirrot on <span class=date_text>12-08-2004</span> <span class=time_text>08:06 PM</span>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

OH, good to see you around kcirrot! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Got my head so stuck in the Templar forums I've lost track with druids and shaman from "the old days". (yee gads, I sound like one of those people now...the type that talk about "back in beta" and the like)

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kcirrot wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Ok, having read this entire post, can I ask you a question.  Where do you see, "Templars are the best at healing/buffing"?  You don't because it isn't there.  Templars are not the best healers and they aren't intended to be. <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Perhaps there was some confusion in my post. What I said, if that isn't what you saw, is that the website for our class says Templars heal and cure. Thats it. With the exception of wardens on that same website, everyone else has other "abilities" in addition to healing. I don't think I ever said templars are the best at buffing either.</P> <P>If we are not suppose to be healers then what are we. I choose Templar because of that description because I wanted a class that WAS focused on healing and should be better than other classes that do NOT focus on just healing.</P> <P>Without knowing the number crunched values I think we probably are that. Though that is personal feelings with no hard data to back it up (i.e. healing power of templar versus say a shaman or druid).</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Celestian_GC on <span class=date_text>12-09-2004</span> <span class=time_text>12:58 AM</span>

[Zabumt]

<DIV>Well, okay think of it like this, each time our reactive goes off, heal!  Throw in an instant heal or two and another one or two heals!  We "heal" alot during combat.  Most of it just comes from our reactive.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Hopefully that clears it up to some extent.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know I'm kind of being patronizing with this post.  But really, I knew going into this, all priests would be good at their respective professions.  It all depended on what you wanted to be.  For me, I wanted to be the grizzled old dwarf in shining platemail armor saving the day and taking a few hits when things got away from me.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for SP, it's my standard reactive according to game experience.  If I use BoV, the tank takes more damage than if I use SP.  At least that seems to be the case since I end fights at lower power when using BoV at 28 (app3 BoV) than when I use SP (app3 SP).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Really this whole argument can't be put to rest until we see parsed logs.  For now, I'm sticking with SP, it just SEEMS to work better.  Looking at just the numbers from the spell examine window will get you nowhere.  If you've refused to use SP because it heals the same for slightly more power despite the description saying it randomly improves AC on each heal... well that's your choice.  I'll keep doing what I'm doing, it seems to work better than using BoV.</DIV>

[kcirrot]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> FoxeyeVaeltaja wrote:<BR>OH, good to see you around kcirrot! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Got my head so stuck in the Templar forums I've lost track with druids and shaman from "the old days". (yee gads, I sound like one of those people now...the type that talk about "back in beta" and the like)<BR> <HR> </P> <P><FONT size=5>Hi! It's nice to see you.  I'm glad you decided to join us after all. </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><p>Message Edited by kcirrot on <span class=date_text>12-09-2004</span> <span class=time_text>04:26 AM</span>

[kcirrot]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Celestian_GC wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kcirrot wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Ok, having read this entire post, can I ask you a question.  Where do you see, "Templars are the best at healing/buffing"?  You don't because it isn't there.  Templars are not the best healers and they aren't intended to be. <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Perhaps there was some confusion in my post. What I said, if that isn't what you saw, is that the website for our class says Templars heal and cure. Thats it. With the exception of wardens on that same website, everyone else has other "abilities" in addition to healing. I don't think I ever said templars are the best at buffing either.</P> <P><STRONG><U><FONT size=5>If we are not suppose to be healers then what are we.</FONT></U></STRONG> I choose Templar because of that description because I wanted a class that WAS focused on healing and should be better than other classes that do NOT focus on just healing.</P> <P>Without knowing the number crunched values I think we probably are that. Though that is personal feelings with no hard data to back it up (i.e. healing power of templar versus say a shaman or druid).</P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by Celestian_GC on <SPAN class=date_text>12-09-2004</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:58 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You ARE healers.  You're also buffers, and undead killers.  You're debuffers as well.  You have spells which attack the mind and spirit (mental and divine).  While somewhat frailer than we who get outside and run once in awhile instead of being cooped up in some temple all day, you have plate armor which protects your own body where your faith cannot.</P> <P>This is what a Templar is.  You need not be the best healer to be needed.  But you need to stop playing like healing is all you contribute.</P> <P>One of the biggest frustrations I've had when I play with clerics is that they refuse to nuke, debuff or do anything other than cast BoV over and over.   We were fighting undead one time and a cleric was just standing there casting instant heals (because we had a shaman in the party) when the tank needed.  The group was already slow because we had three priests, so I asked the guy why not throw some undead nukes.  He said, "Well they only do 60 damage".  He hadn't upgraded them, not even to App II.   Even still the fighters only did more than 20 damage with their Arts.</P> <P>I think the problem many people have is that they think Druids and Shaman have so many more spells and roles than Templars.  Well they don't.  Druids and Shaman have a very similar spell list to clerics.  They buff different things, nuke with different types of damage, and they can turn into animals.  But at the core, they're all priests and they are not better or worse at it than cleircs are.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by kcirrot on <span class=date_text>12-09-2004</span> <span class=time_text>04:25 AM</span>

[Atanvar]

<blockquote><hr>kcirrot wrote:</P><P>Now if you want non-healing advantages for the cleric class, I'm all for that. If you want flashy spells like our transforms, cool. But healing is a priest specialty, not a Templar specialty.</P><span class=time_text>08:06 PM</span><hr></blockquote><b>QFE</b>

[ken]

<DIV>Just to add my two cents, if you had followed the beta stuff Sony was repeatedly stating that all healers heal equally.  This isn't really the case but they are trying to make them very close.  They had problems in EQ where druids weren't getting group invites because they couldn't heal as well and they wanted to fix that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know this has been discussed before but aren't we the best healers for tanks because of their AC?  Most groups have a tank and a healer so I would think that makes us the best healers overall.  It seems like they just need to fix a couple of our spells that appear broken and then we are set.</DIV>

[Orid]

<P>You guys got to remember that this is a team game, each class contributes their specialties to the over all goal of killing monsters. My static group consists of: beserker, swashbuckler, enchanter, wizard, shaman, templer (me). </P> <P>The shaman and I shine in different areas but ultimately our abilities complement eachother to the overall power of the group. With wards and reactive heals, the game is almost too easy.</P> <P>From my experience, the shaman can do a direct heal for more then I can.. but thing you guys need to realize is that is the *only* heal they have. We have reactive heals and two types of direct heals; the combat heal line and the arch heal line. Combat healing may not heal for the most damage, but it's refresh time is short and is mana efficient. Our group reactive heals are insane, 8 charges for 253 with an AC proc for me at level 32. The way I see things, if I have to do a direct heal then the mob is either very tuff or I'm not doing my job correctly in the group situation I'm in. </P> <P>Typical mob fight: <BR>1. pre-pull, shaman does his ward thing and I do my group heal.<BR>2. pull arrives, I re-apply group heal and then debuff the mob, rebuke, weakness, mark of pawns, and sign of weakness if anything was resisted.<BR>3. re-apply reactive heal if needed<BR>4. if the mob isn't dead yet, it gets a dose of combative (which does pretty good damage) and I move behind the mob to melee because the blessing proc is insane.<BR>5. mob dies and rinse / repeat</P> <P>because the enchanter has adept 3 breeze, the shaman and I are always full power.</P> <P>If it came down to who can keep the tank alive longer -- it would depend on the encounter. If it was a multiple encounter, no question in that I would win. If it was a single encounter, it would be a close call, possibly a tie.</P> <P>Our tank went LD last night for 20 minutes and we got bored.. I stack my reactives up and go pull and do all I can to keep agro. Funny thing is that aside from lack of taunt, I was taking hits better then the beserker. Druid's and Shaman's can have all the forms they want, but when a mob hits them, they go splat. (if we got a form, I wouldn't use it because plate armor looks cool!)</P> <P>To sum it up: <BR>Druids have regeneration as their niche healing ability... sorry to say that it gets wasted if the tank is full health. other then that, I'm not too familiar with them.</P> <P>Shamans have wards and big direct heals as their niche... Wards get burned up fast in multiple mob encounters and their only healing ability is direct heals.</P> <P>Templars have reactive heals and direct heals... Reactive heals sometimes don't cut it if it's a single mob that hits really hard... but wait! we have a group heal that heals 8 charges for 253 each with an ac proc -- haven't found a mob yet within 7 levels that can burn the tank's hp with that on, excluding a couple group x2's. If there is one out there, we can stack 4(+1 instant) reactives on the tank and recycle as refresh is available.. honestly, if there is a mob that requires that healing that isn't a raid encounter, then it's too high of level and shouldn't be attempted with a single group for exp =p</P> <P>One thing that does need to be looked at is amending fate -- my problem is that it doesn't say how much it heals for and I'm thinking it's right around 200 - look at it as a free heal for the hp -> mana converters in the group.</P> <P>We are fine as a class and I don't think we need any attention save for minor tweak of SP (which in my opinion the jury is still out on as being a problem.). I would rather the tank get hit for less then for SP to heal for more damage.</P> <P>Ballinor Irrybis  - 32 templar - Defenders of Qeynos - Guk Server</P><p>Message Edited by Oridio on <span class=date_text>12-09-2004</span> <span class=time_text>07:09 AM</span>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>Honestly, 2 healers with one enchanter is overkill.</DIV>

[rtoub]

<DIV>I have to say if there is one class that sticks out and makes a huge difference in a group it is an enchanter.  I had a guild group with a chanter and a tank.  The three of us got as an add a flock of antelope, about 5 or 6 of them.  We figured we were headed for exp debt but decided to stick it out and see.  It was dicey at the beginning but I was actually gaining power near the end of the battle.  Since then I keep my dwarf hopped up on coffee and am and wishing my nukes did more damage as I have more power to use them.</DIV>

[Orid]

<DIV>to each their own I guess.. personally, I like the fact that when I log in, I have a competant, well balanced group waiting for me. Plenty of mobs die, we level quickly (varsoon died easily last night on Guk), and we have fun. It's fun being able to kill group x2 mobs -- being able to go afk for a couple of pulls instead of the whole group having to wait for me to get back -- if that's overkill then please give me more of it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your sig says fix supplicant's prayer -- what would it take to be "fixed" in your opinion? So far I've seen plenty of people say fix this, fix that, but not offering any solutions. Would 20 more pts per proc be fixed? 30 more? At what point does that become overkill? Bringing problems to the table without offering solutions is as useful as a poop flavored popcicle. Either offer up a solution to the problem, or back your claim with real data. I'd go through the work of justifying SP being broken, but then again I think it's fine the way it is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Knowing how Verent .. err Sony works -- they don't improve anything, instead they nerf the grounds for comparison. I don't know about you but I don't like it when other classes get nerfed, even if they are healing "competition". </DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<DIV>Fixing SP would be to bring it to the same or better heal to power ratio as BoV and then making the actual heal tick amount be superior at any spell level to spell level comparison.</DIV>

[Orid]

<DIV>Should the ac buff not be considered in the heal to power ratio? from what I've seen, the ac buff is substantail and basically a free daring adept 3 buff in terms of ac. If the ac proc causes the mob to hit for 20, 30 less points of damage, that effectively brings the ratio of the spell up, right? The problem is, no one has taken the time to substantiate that this spell is bugged but taking the time to complain about it. Unless someone does the number crunching, I doubt the power that be will bat an eye to it along to the other hundreds of complaints about abilities people make without data to back it up. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Does anyone here feel strongly enough about this spell being broke to properly bring a case to Sony?</DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oridio wrote:<BR> <DIV>Should the ac buff not be considered in the heal to power ratio? from what I've seen, the ac buff is substantail and basically a free daring adept 3 buff in terms of ac. If the ac proc causes the mob to hit for 20, 30 less points of damage, that effectively brings the ratio of the spell up, right? The problem is, no one has taken the time to substantiate that this spell is bugged but taking the time to complain about it. Unless someone does the number crunching, I doubt the power that be will bat an eye to it along to the other hundreds of complaints about abilities people make without data to back it up. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Does anyone here feel strongly enough about this spell being broke to properly bring a case to Sony?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Although you have somewhat of a point about the ac buff it's still way too far off BoV's ratio.</P> <P>Does anyone else feel strongly about it?  Here's a 6-page thread of nothing but: <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=3661&page=1" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=3661&page=1</A></P>

[Kyrakath]

<DIV>SoE!! Don't listen to them! (which Im sure youre not listening to the whining in these posts) Don't fix Supplicant's Prayer!! Make us work and earn our experience!! Challenge us please!! Adept one intercession heals for too much the fights are all too easy please lower the amount of healing per cast!! 1500 hitpoints on the tank per cast is too much and makes shamans and druids feel useless! Dear SoE Im talking to you!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas 34 DarkElf Templar of Unrest <U>Don't Fix Supplicant's Prayer!</U></DIV>

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kcirrot wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>This is what a Templar is.  You need not be the best healer to be needed.  But you need to stop playing like healing is all you contribute.</P> <P>One of the biggest frustrations I've had when I play with clerics is that they refuse to nuke, debuff or do anything other than cast BoV over and over.   We were fighting undead one time and a cleric was just standing there casting instant heals (because we had a shaman in the party) when the tank needed. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Well, the reason I heal (and yeah I always toss out weakness and -ac debuffs) is because it's what we do well. Our nukes are not on par to what others do as far as I can tell (again I haven't crunched numbers) and there is 0 difference in damage to undead. I've tested it against same level mobs before. Bear and skeleton, my combative faith nuke/dot did the exact same damage to both.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The description of the spell says it does more damage to undead but I certainly don't see where.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When I play with druids and shamans they always take on the role of damage dealers... either they have some misconception of their class also or they do it better than we do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Celestian_GC on <span class=date_text>12-09-2004</span> <span class=time_text>03:01 PM</span>

[Ender]

lol. nice joke on not fixing Templar's SP, coming from an Inquisitor.Seriously though, a minor tweak to up the power of SP is what we need. There is nothing else the Templar community needs other than that small fix. I take pride in playing a Templar IMO and I do well in all aspects of the game.

[Gwynet]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oridio wrote: <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your sig says fix supplicant's prayer -- what would it take to be "fixed" in your opinion? So far I've seen plenty of people say fix this, fix that, but not offering any solutions. Would 20 more pts per proc be fixed? 30 more? At what point does that become overkill? Bringing problems to the table without offering solutions is as useful as a poop flavored popcicle. Either offer up a solution to the problem, or back your claim with real data. I'd go through the work of justifying SP being broken, but then again I think it's fine the way it is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Just asking our spell to be in line with the inquisitor spell isn't asking for too much, I think (the inquisitor spell heals for 20ish% more). You want real data? There is plenty of it <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=3661" target=_blank>here</A>. It's pretty long, but all the data is in there, including what the inquisitor spell heals for at the same level.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Kirakathas, I don't understand why you want us to keep our spell broken and unbalanced compared to our evil side, but I really don't think that having our heal improved by 20% as it should will trivialize in any way encounters and the need of a minimum of skills to be a good templar. There is plenty of challenge if you know where to look for it. Intercession? Sure, that spell heals for quite a bit, but at 220+ power cost and with its long casting time I hardly think it is unbalanced. Remember, druids and shamans have an upgrade to their group regen and wards, too. I don't know how good it is, but if it isn't good, I would rather ask for it to be balanced than to enjoy seeing it broken as well.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Gwynet on <span class=date_text>12-09-2004</span> <span class=time_text>01:21 PM</span>

[Cassusdy]

<DIV>36 Templar here and #1 on my server Antonio Bayle.  Templars rock...period</DIV>

[Cassusdy]

<DIV>36 Templar here and #1 on my server Antonio Bayle.  Templars rock...period there are no healing classes that even come close to me in power now. My de buffs are stronger and my heals do over 500 easy. I use druids and wardens only as a back up when I feel lazy.</DIV>

[Ender]

Well. . .there is a 6 page thread on fixing our lvl 26 reactive in Spells and Abilities and this is thread is 4 pages already. The data is there, compiled by Gwynet demonstrating why it needs to be fixed. We're all just waiting for Sony to fix it. We are not calling for a nerf of other classes. We simply want to fix our own. Furthermore, if you're not a Templar, what do you care? lol.

[Orid]

<DIV>cool, checking it out now. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>I added the link in my sig, and updated the first post with numbers. Really, I'm not complaining for the sake of complaining. I'm not asking for all our spells to be changed in order to be the most powerful, I'm just asking for balance between our heal and the inquisitor one, and an upgrade that is actually an upgrade, and not 10 levels after you get the spell.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gwynet on <span class=date_text>12-09-2004</span> <span class=time_text>01:47 PM</span>

[kerev]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Celestian_GC wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>The description of the spell says it does more damage to undead but I certainly don't see where.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>When you use your nuke  against undead, you should see two damage numbers float over its head - the larger one is your normal damage, the lower is the extra undead damage.  If you have those numbers turned off, you might want to turn them on to test. If you are only seeing one damage number, you might be fighting things that aren't really flagged undead? dunno.  For my druid, I think I remember getting about 10 to 15% extra damage against elementals . Can't really remember the numbers right now.</DIV>

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kereven wrote: <DIV>When you use your nuke  against undead, you should see two damage numbers float over its head - the larger one is your normal damage, the lower is the extra undead damage.  If you have those numbers turned off, you might want to turn them on to test. If you are only seeing one damage number, you might be fighting things that aren't really flagged undead? dunno.  For my druid, I think I remember getting about 10 to 15% extra damage against elementals . Can't really remember the numbers right now.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I get that same double damage/dot thing to living creatures as well as dead. The total damage is around 300 or so (I have adept 1). Tell ya what ill do a log session sometime and double check again but I did this once before and could see no difference.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[kcirrot]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Celestian_GC wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kereven wrote: <DIV>When you use your nuke  against undead, you should see two damage numbers float over its head - the larger one is your normal damage, the lower is the extra undead damage.  If you have those numbers turned off, you might want to turn them on to test. If you are only seeing one damage number, you might be fighting things that aren't really flagged undead? dunno.  For my druid, I think I remember getting about 10 to 15% extra damage against elementals . Can't really remember the numbers right now.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I get that same double damage/dot thing to living creatures as well as dead. The total damage is around 300 or so (I have adept 1). Tell ya what ill do a log session sometime and double check again but I did this once before and could see no difference.</P> <P><BR> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> Weird.  Maybe you're the spell's broken IN FAVOR of clerics.  Shh.. Don't tell anyone.   :smileyvery-happy:

[Dakure]

<DIV>Templars do not seem to be [Removed for Content] to me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Perhaps if you compare them to clerics in EQ1 yes, maybe.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Having played a cleric to templar since I started 2, I have had little complaint!  I rarely go without groups.  I get made main healer (unless a higher level templar is present).  Templars seem to get preference over other healing classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for healing ability... if you keep your healing spells as high as possible (app3 or better), use them wisely you should rarely have trouble.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My only complaint is that the healing spells refresh too slowly.  That and fizzles are the rare things that cause me to lose a tank (or if I go OoP (OoM)).</DIV>

[FelixDomesticus]

I have mystic and I can say that wards that you say rule actually suck. Ward takes damage unmitigated unlike your heals. That causes that I go oom when templar still has 35-50% of power left. I am sort jealous to templars about that.Since ward takes unmitigated damage I must chain cast it to keep it up (harder mobs drop ward in one combat round) --> oom...<p>Message Edited by Felix Domesticus on <span class=date_text>12-10-2004</span> <span class=time_text>10:22 PM</span>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Felix Domesticus wrote:<BR>I have mystic and I can say that wards that you say rule actually suck. Ward takes damage unmitigated unlike your heals. That causes that I go oom when templar still has 35-50% of power left. I am sort jealous to templars about that.<BR><BR>Since ward takes unmitigated damage I must chain cast it to keep it up (harder mobs drop ward in one combat round) --> oom... <P>Message Edited by Felix Domesticus on <SPAN class=date_text>12-10-2004</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:22 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> We also have to chain cast reactive, stack it, or alternate with direct.

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Felix Domesticus wrote:<BR>I have mystic and I can say that wards that you say rule actually suck. Ward takes damage unmitigated unlike your heals. That causes that I go oom when templar still has 35-50% of power left. I am sort jealous to templars about that.<BR><BR>Since ward takes unmitigated damage I must chain cast it to keep it up (harder mobs drop ward in one combat round) --> oom... <P>Message Edited by Felix Domesticus on <SPAN class=date_text>12-10-2004</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:22 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>The only reason why it seems this way is because templars don't use their reactive heals at all when grouped with shamans, because it would be a waste. Often too, the shamans I group with do wards and direct heals, leaving me with nothing else to do. Of course in these conditions I often end up with 50% power left.</DIV>

[Nefariouso]

<blockquote><hr>Felix Domesticus wrote:I have mystic and I can say that wards that you say rule actually suck. Ward takes damage unmitigated unlike your heals. That causes that I go oom when templar still has 35-50% of power left. I am sort jealous to templars about that.Since ward takes unmitigated damage I must chain cast it to keep it up (harder mobs drop ward in one combat round) --> oom...<p>Message Edited by Felix Domesticus on <span class=date_text>12-10-2004</span> <span class=time_text>10:22 PM</span><hr></blockquote>Your problem is that you don't let the armor do any work for you. If you have another healer in the group, you shouldn't keep your tank warded 100% of the time. Let the armor do a bit of the work and the other healer toss a Regrowth or Bestow to even him back out again.<p>Message Edited by Nefariousone on <span class=date_text>12-10-2004</span> <span class=time_text>02:49 PM</span>

[LeadStati]

I think the only problem is how some players are playing Templar incorrectly, as if they only have 3 spells or something. A few weeks back I wanted to dive through my monitor and choke whoever was playing the other healer in my group because all the stupid **mods 4 teh win!!1!**er would do is just cast Soothing Sermon over and over again, and various group members would be low on HP while I fought to keep debuffs and instant heals going. We would be in rough situations like that and he would be nearly FULL ENERGY and wouldn't heal.I finally got [Removed for Content] and told him to do something, and he said something along the lines of "**mods 4 teh win!!1!** man, I'm casting vitae and sermon and all you are doing is casting useless heals and stuff".

[Kyrakath]

<DIV>Why do you think that intercession would be a waste when a shammy is casting wards?? O_o Why do you think at all? o_O Just do something for me please. Go deep into RE and fight groups of gobos. Miners, assitants, warlocks, menders, torturers all that jazz. Use intercession give it a try and let supp's prayer go youre not level 28 anymore.</DIV> <DIV>Me and my guildmates even let one no arrowed mob stay up when fighting a ++ named because he triggers the reactives to go off faster. The whole time were laughing in the named's face because he cant get the tanks health to drop.</DIV> <DIV>Dude. Bro. Friend. Lad. Im not a [Removed for Content] inquisitor. I am a templar and this class's heals freekin rock.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas 34 Dark Elf Templar of Unrest Dont Fix Supplicant's Prayer! And stop rating me one star out of five for being right and trying to help peeps!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Jukk]

<blockquote><hr>LeadStation wrote:I think the only problem is how some players are playing Templar incorrectly, as if they only have 3 spells or something. A few weeks back I wanted to dive through my monitor and choke whoever was playing the other healer in my group because all the stupid **mods 4 teh win!!1!**er would do is just cast Soothing Sermon over and over again, and various group members would be low on HP while I fought to keep debuffs and instant heals going. We would be in rough situations like that and he would be nearly FULL ENERGY and wouldn't heal.I finally got [Removed for Content] and told him to do something, and he said something along the lines of "**mods 4 teh win!!1!** man, I'm casting vitae and sermon and all you are doing is casting useless heals and stuff".<hr></blockquote>Situation:Your group buffs up and are ready to pulling a named badass mob.Templar put on Soothing Sermon (group), BoV (MT only), Supp.Prayer (MT only)Pull is done.BAM - Tanking is taking a beating.2-3 seconds later the tank is at 50% health. The reactive (BoV) is healing for abit over 100 points...wich barely moves the MTs healthbar.Templar is already midcast Arch Healing, it hits perfectly and MT is healed up ok.2-3 seconds later the tank is at 50% health again. Reactives barely moves the health bar up at all.Arch Healing is still on re-cast timer...Combat Healing is the only way. It hits and MT survives.The three reactives are still on the MT, they last a good amount of time...too bad the heal for **mods 4 teh win!!1!**.The good direct healing spells are both on re-cast....MT dies...while all three reactives are still on him.What did the cleric do wrong?-----Same situation with a shaman instead of a cleric:BAM - Tanking is taking a beating.2-3 seconds later the tank is at 100% health. The ward is doing it's job...wich barely moves the MTs healthbar.2-3 seconds later the tank is at 50% health, since ward is gone. Shaman heals MT with direct heal and re-applies ward.2-3 seconds later the tank is at 100% health. The ward is doing it's job...wich barely moves the MTs healthbar.Repeat...MT stays alive with no problem. Mob dies.What did the shaman do right? (apart from having a spell that is actually doing something, more then just lasting a long time)-----Cleric and shaman have the same healing powers?Ya, right...

[Ond]

<blockquote><hr>Jukken wrote:Situation:Your group buffs up and are ready to pulling a named badass mob.Templar put on Soothing Sermon (group), BoV (MT only), Supp.Prayer (MT only)Pull is done.BAM - Tanking is taking a beating.2-3 seconds later the tank is at 50% health. The reactive (BoV) is healing for abit over 100 points...wich barely moves the MTs healthbar.Templar is already midcast Arch Healing, it hits perfectly and MT is healed up ok.2-3 seconds later the tank is at 50% health again. Reactives barely moves the health bar up at all.Arch Healing is still on re-cast timer...Combat Healing is the only way. It hits and MT survives.The three reactives are still on the MT, they last a good amount of time...too bad the heal for **mods 4 teh win!!1!**.The good direct healing spells are both on re-cast....MT dies...while all three reactives are still on him.What did the cleric do wrong?<hr></blockquote>The cleric didn't start by doing a Weakness and Rebuke as soon as the mob was within range, this cleric also didn't take the time to cast Mark of pawns, it's a little, but still helps. No, BoV doesn't keep the tank up alone, neither does SS or the later 26 spell, not on hard mobs, but those combined with debuffs and instants does.

[Jukk]

<blockquote><hr>Ondal wrote:<blockquote><hr>The cleric didn't start by doing a Weakness and Rebuke as soon as the mob was within range, this cleric also didn't take the time to cast Mark of pawns, it's a little, but still helps. No, BoV doesn't keep the tank up alone, neither does SS or the later 26 spell, not on hard mobs, but those combined with debuffs and instants does.<hr></blockquote>Sign of Weakness may lower the dps on the mob a tiny bit, agreed.How Rebuke makes the tank survive easier is beyond me. It is also a very low level spell, no idea why you still use it at 30? Replaced by Disgrace I think. It is an ac lowering spell...so melee dps (rogues etc) will like it. It does nothing to help the MT stay alive.Mark of pawns does almost nothing, pretty useless in all to keep MT up. "it's a little, but still helps" - perhaps when spell was new...but higher up, it's just useless. Hits for 300-400 and heal for 10 points...lol.Many tiny heals does not make up for a big heal. The MT will be long gone while all the reactives and debuffs will still be up, doing nothing.Shaman on the other hand...big ward and heal some and there is no problem keeping MT up during high damage mobs.

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kyrakathas wrote:<BR> <DIV>Why do you think that intercession would be a waste when a shammy is casting wards?? O_o Why do you think at all? o_O Just do something for me please. Go deep into RE and fight groups of gobos. Miners, assitants, warlocks, menders, torturers all that jazz. Use intercession give it a try and let supp's prayer go youre not level 28 anymore.</DIV> <DIV>Me and my guildmates even let one no arrowed mob stay up when fighting a ++ named because he triggers the reactives to go off faster. The whole time were laughing in the named's face because he cant get the tanks health to drop.</DIV> <DIV>Dude. Bro. Friend. Lad. Im not a [Removed for Content] inquisitor. I am a templar and this class's heals freekin rock.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas 34 Dark Elf Templar of Unrest Dont Fix Supplicant's Prayer! And stop rating me one star out of five for being right and trying to help peeps!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Actually, you don't need to use intercession at all in these circomstances. If you do, it will heal too fast and half the heal will be wasted, and at 220 power it's too much of a waste for that power. For a templar, not letting the tank go below 80% health is a waste of power. If a shaman is grouped with you when you do those mobs, just tell him you have heals covered, and alternate BoV and SP. Much more power efficient and does the job as well (the HP of the tank will go a bit lower when SP is used, but the next BoV round will catch up).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In my experience on single mobs though, I've wasted lots of my reactives when grouped with a shaman, as they tend to just time out, so I can imagine that with intercession it would just be 150+ power wasted. Intercession is situational, and costs way too much power to make it your only heal. It's just not viable in a group if your power really matters.</DIV>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jukken wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ondal wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> The cleric didn't start by doing a Weakness and Rebuke as soon as the mob was within range, this cleric also didn't take the time to cast Mark of pawns, it's a little, but still helps. No, BoV doesn't keep the tank up alone, neither does SS or the later 26 spell, not on hard mobs, but those combined with debuffs and instants does.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Sign of Weakness may lower the dps on the mob a tiny bit, agreed.<BR>How Rebuke makes the tank survive easier is beyond me. It is also a very low level spell, no idea why you still use it at 30? Replaced by Disgrace I think. It is an ac lowering spell...so melee dps (rogues etc) will like it. It does nothing to help the MT stay alive.<BR>Mark of pawns does almost nothing, pretty useless in all to keep MT up. "it's a little, but still helps" - perhaps when spell was new...but higher up, it's just useless. Hits for 300-400 and heal for 10 points...lol.<BR><BR>Many tiny heals does not make up for a big heal. The MT will be long gone while all the reactives and debuffs will still be up, doing nothing.<BR><BR>Shaman on the other hand...big ward and heal some and there is no problem keeping MT up during high damage mobs.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I agree, disgrace is an AC debuff, so you should really start by casting sign of weakness first, it's more important.</P> <P>/agree on Mark of Pawns as well, on a side note the upgrade, Mark of Princes, seems to proc quite a bit and it heals for 25-30 with app2, which gets pretty useful when it procs 10 times per fight.</P> <P>I don't know how shamans do, I know that on high HP mobs I have to often chain instant heals because my reactives are not efficient. that's why I'm fighting to have SP fixed. It will probably not totally fix the problem, but it will partly.<BR></P> </BLOCKQUOTE>

[LeadStati]

I think another thing the Cleric is probably doing wrong, is going into battles with his spells at App1 or something. When I do my spells in a fight and we get going, those alone can keep the tanks health floating between 70%-90% as the spells are going off, and gives me enough time to cast some other spells before I need to finally refresh the reactives and give him 1 heal to catch his HP back up. That is against normal-medium strength mobs. Against really tough ones its understandably harder to keep his HP up. I just need to use instant heals to keep him caught up.The spells I have seem just fine, and I don't even have this mark of princes, or supp prayer that you guys are talking about. Either some people are using terrible strategies, or they are are just taking their App1 spells and never upgrading them.<p>Message Edited by LeadStation on <span class=date_text>12-11-2004</span> <span class=time_text>03:08 PM</span>

[MaeveAlleine]

<DIV><FONT face=Garamond size=4>Again, I get many compliments on my healing. I don't think the class is gimped...I thinks some players are.  Not to be mean or anything but the game is not going make up for someone who sucks at playing it.</FONT></DIV>

[Jukk]

Try taking on a single red con hard hitting mob.Reactives are pretty useless...spamming direct heals is the only way to keep the MT up. Once all the direct heals are on re-cast...bye bye MT. No matter if all the reactives are still up...MT will die.'You should not fight such a hard mob' - Spare me the bull. Why should there be not problem at all with a shaman doing his best warding and healing...and no chance with a cleric doing his best?'Some people don't know how to play' - Spare me the bull. I know both templar and mystic. Mystics own templars bigtime.Wards 100% do their work, reactives do 25% work.MT hit for 600 - healed for reactive 130With 2000hp tank...he will die with three more hits unless healed with a "real" heal.MT hit for 600 - ward prevents 600With a 2000hp tank...the MT is att full hp coming up on hit number two. Ward is still up and will absorb a little more and then will be reapplied.It matter not if the templar reactive is reapplied...MT will die anyway.Mystic can heal and ward with a nice rythm...Templar has to spam directheal constantly to keep up.Wards do 100% work on the MT, reactives do 25%.PS.This is on single HARD mobs, not low trash crap.Reactives suck bigtime.DS.

[Ender]

i like reactives and i do well with them, even with a crap lvl 26 reactive. thats why i'm a templar.you hate reactives because you can't do jack with them, try another class?no cry please.

[Andar]

<DIV>Templars can stack single target reactives and group reactives... and yes they both fire off on the same hit.  So reactives can do significantly more than:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"MT hit for 600 - healed for reactive 130"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At level 26 I can heal around 275 per hit with reactives.  At Level 28 with intercession this becomes significantly more.  Once SP is fixed this should become even better.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also I've heard that wards dont take into account AC which further complicates the comparison.</DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>Nm I didn't read.</FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>You can, it's just not power efficient at all.</FONT></DIV><p>Message Edited by Gwynet on <span class=date_text>12-14-2004</span> <span class=time_text>11:07 AM</span>

[DeythCombi]

<DIV>That we have to use group reactives to supplement our single-target healing is poor design.  Sure, we are a functional class.  I'm not saying otherwise, I just think our spells are very poorly designed and in some cases broken or fatally flawed.  What's really informative about this whole problem is how Sony haven't bothered to address any part of this publicly.  That shows arrogance and contempt for their customers.</DIV>

[Andvar]

<DIV>Its funny is you cant even disgrace/weaken mobs that are red anymore...Well you can but it drains more mana then just healing.  Which is where class discrepencies come up btw shaman/cleric/druids.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lets face it if your 30+ fighting reds like most of my groups do ward is alot more time efficient and life saving than just reactives/regen. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Cause that pop of nightbloods on the mage in your group there is no way reactive heals/regens are gonna save him.  However, a ward that blocks all the dmg will.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And for all you saying stuff about the group heals for casters.  The only reason they are even worthwhile is because casters suck at dealing AE dmg.  Ive never gotten hit for more than 300+ hps of dmg from a group attack spell.  And its not like shamans dont have group wards, shamans get group wards they just dont use them because there single target wards cost less and actually work. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Having to cast intercession/bov + arch healing/Ameleoration every battle just to keep the main tank full where a single ward + like on of there equivalent arch healing spells does like 300+ mana worth of work from me tells me that something is seriously wrong with reactive heals.</DIV>

[Andar]

<DIV>I'm not into doing mathematical analyses of computer games, but I believe you will find that stacking a group reactive with a single target reactive is more power efficient than spamming straight heals to make up for what a single target reactive cant heal.</DIV>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> AndaraX wrote:<BR> <DIV>I'm not into doing mathematical analyses of computer games, but I believe you will find that stacking a group reactive with a single target reactive is more power efficient than spamming straight heals to make up for what a single target reactive cant heal.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>If our main heal wasn't broken though, we wouldn't have to waste so much power doing both. Honestly though, if you use the group one, most of the time you already waste power on it because half of it will proc when the tank is already at full health, so no need to stack a single reactive.<BR>

[Myrn]

<DIV>I know this has been pointed out before, but this thread comming from the Mystic's forum is one of the most interesting in terms of what's constantly being discussed here.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=19&message.id=643" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=19&message.id=643</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Some of the comment highlights include how Shaman's Slow 'sucks' or that other healers have equivalent debuffs & that they should get an improvement in Slow to compensate.  Also, a general feeling that Reactives are usually better than Wards, with emphasis on how Templar heals will be much better in the high-end game.  And since there are both people attacking and defending Wards/Slows, I'd say they are equally lacking in a consensus as we are here. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm not saying we don't have problems, but both threads can't be 100% correct.  At the very least this probably demonstrates how there is a decent amount of exaggeration on the weakness of both classes.  Or both classes are just generally broken.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Moreover, it's not surprising that SoE hasn't done anything about any of these issues.  When all the communities are giving these contradictory messages, it all just comes out sounding like class envy.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Myrnin on <span class=date_text>12-14-2004</span> <span class=time_text>01:35 PM</span>

[LeadStati]

I was in a group last night. 6 people levels 25-29, I was the Templar and there was a Fury. The rest were melee fighters. We were fighting level 33 monsters, sometimes grouped, which all conned double up RED to us.The entire night we only had 1 death, the tank dieing when he was pulling and a couple popped on him on his way out, and his HP dropped before we could get any heals off. I had no problem at all doing my job and the Fury had no problem doing theirs. I appeared to be doing the bulk of the healing while the Fury used other spells. I took advantage of my spells as well.We did just fine against ^^ reds. So again, I'm not saying there are no problems at all, but in my experience I'm able to do just fine in groups and I don't have any paranoid expectations that I should be a god vs any of the other priest classes.Another thing worth mentioning was near us was another group of equally able people in the same level range as us, and they were fighting the same things as us. Every fight we watched them almost wipe, and one fight their priest got wasted and had to get someone to join their group just for a res because he hadn't even given any of them a Divine Awakening. So right next to eachother there are two groups in the same range fighting the same things and one does great while one does crappy and eventually wipes and never comes back.

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LeadStation wrote:<BR>I was in a group last night. 6 people levels 25-29, I was the Templar and there was a Fury. The rest were melee fighters. We were fighting level 33 monsters, sometimes grouped, which all conned double up RED to us.<BR><BR>The entire night we only had 1 death, the tank dieing when he was pulling and a couple popped on him on his way out, and his HP dropped before we could get any heals off. I had no problem at all doing my job and the Fury had no problem doing theirs. I appeared to be doing the bulk of the healing while the Fury used other spells. I took advantage of my spells as well.<BR><BR>We did just fine against ^^ reds. So again, I'm not saying there are no problems at all, but in my experience I'm able to do just fine in groups and I don't have any paranoid expectations that I should be a god vs any of the other priest classes.<BR><BR>Another thing worth mentioning was near us was another group of equally able people in the same level range as us, and they were fighting the same things as us. Every fight we watched them almost wipe, and one fight their priest got wasted and had to get someone to join their group just for a res because he hadn't even given any of them a Divine Awakening. So right next to eachother there are two groups in the same range fighting the same things and one does great while one does crappy and eventually wipes and never comes back.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> Of course there are idiots everywhere.  How was their gear compared to yours?  Quite often templars are expected to be the main healer based on previous stereotypes, not realistic analysis.  And none of this takes away from the fact that SP is broken and the way our spells scale is very poor, especially when we get our 50th level reactive heal.

[Shat in the H]

All you people do is complain, every class board has whining on it, "oh god our class sucks". If i was a programmer at EQ2, i'd never change anything in design based by class boards. EDIT:Jukken, Last night had a 42 shaman in my group in Everfrost, could not keep the MA up worth a crap. He would Ward him and he's 0ac ward would be gone in 1 hit. However your ward might be useful at your level, those mobs in the wailing caves sure do hit hard!<p>Message Edited by [Removed for Content] in the Hat on <span class=date_text>12-14-2004</span> <span class=time_text>03:48 PM</span>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> [Removed for Content] in the Hat wrote:<BR>All you people do is complain, every class board has whining on it, "oh god our class sucks". If i was a programmer at EQ2, i'd never change anything in design based by class boards. <BR><BR>EDIT:Jukken, Last night had a 42 shaman in my group in Everfrost, could not keep the MA up worth a crap. He would Ward him and he's 0ac ward would be gone in 1 hit. However your ward might be useful at your level, those mobs in the wailing caves sure do hit hard! <P>Message Edited by [Removed for Content] in the Hat on <SPAN class=date_text>12-14-2004</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:48 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> At which point that shaman could recast his most efficient ward right away.  If it was a templar that high hit would be met with a lower tick that wouldn't match the damage requiring a direct heal because the reactive would still be up.  Now, I may be wrong about that reactive behavior since my testing has been observational instead of analytical but too many times I've seen my tank take massive damage in a single hit and not lose his reactive so I think I'm right about it.  Not to mention having died myself with my own reactive on me.

[DeythCombi]

<DIV>I also forgot to add that I don't buy that 0 ac comment.  I do believe there's an ac reduction but no one has done conclusive testing including removal of all ac items for good comparisons.</DIV>

[Sen]

<DIV>I will just say, the player is the greatest factor when healing.  Bad healers can't do crap, good ones can.  The good ones analyze the situation and know who to heal when to heal and how to heal.  They know how to most efficiently use their mana, and it is just that simple.  Funny thing is in EQ2 it is more about skill than EQ1 was. I am just starting to notice that now.  I believe that the shaman and cleric heals are about equivalent. I like how the compliment each other too.  So many times you hear you should have 2 healers in this game, which is true it helps a lot and keeps the battles rolling. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On the reactive/ward argument I believe that wards are handy at keeping people alive, although I have a speculation that they are not as efficient on a good MT due to them not taking the tanks AC into account.  That is where the reactives come in, they heal after the tank takes damage so they techniquely should be more effective.  I particularly can't stand people saying you can't die with a ward on so their better ... Well that is all good except does that make them more efficient just because you can't die with one on. I don't believe it does, but taking into account the skill of a good templar the reactive heals can work just as effectively.  When reactives are doubled up they are extremely efficient.  The level 12 BoV heals with an efficency of 10 hp to 1 mana, which is very good when you look at the insta heals ( which are a waste to spam ). In the end, since im a cleric of course im bais towards the reactives and would like to think them better.  The only reason for this is that they take a tanks AC in to account where the Wards do not.  I think that is the biggest point of all considering that is who you are healing when you have a good tank.  If you had a bad AC tank then the wards are likely best. Everything is situational though, but in the end it all comes down to you (the healer).  </DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Senej wrote:<BR> <DIV>I will just say, the player is the greatest factor when healing.  Bad healers can't do crap, good ones can.  The good ones analyze the situation and know who to heal when to heal and how to heal.  They know how to most efficiently use their mana, and it is just that simple.  Funny thing is in EQ2 it is more about skill than EQ1 was. I am just starting to notice that now.  I believe that the shaman and cleric heals are about equivalent. I like how the compliment each other too.  So many times you hear you should have 2 healers in this game, which is true it helps a lot and keeps the battles rolling. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On the reactive/ward argument I believe that wards are handy at keeping people alive, although I have a speculation that they are not as efficient on a good MT due to them not taking the tanks AC into account.  That is where the reactives come in, they heal after the tank takes damage so they techniquely should be more effective.  I particularly can't stand people saying you can't die with a ward on so their better ... Well that is all good except does that make them more efficient just because you can't die with one on. I don't believe it does, but taking into account the skill of a good templar the reactive heals can work just as effectively.  When reactives are doubled up they are extremely efficient.  The level 12 BoV heals with an efficency of 10 hp to 1 mana, which is very good when you look at the insta heals ( which are a waste to spam ). In the end, since im a cleric of course im bais towards the reactives and would like to think them better.  The only reason for this is that they take a tanks AC in to account where the Wards do not.  I think that is the biggest point of all considering that is who you are healing when you have a good tank.  If you had a bad AC tank then the wards are likely best. Everything is situational though, but in the end it all comes down to you (the healer).  </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>What do you base that AC comment on?  Have you done ward tests with and without any AC-adding items?  I haven't seen anyone put forward those results.  I admit there seems to be an AC-penalty of some sort but it hasn't been quantified.  How can you say not dying with a ward on isn't more efficient?  Aside from the obvious death, there is the fact that I just spent x amount of power and y amount of time putting on a reactive that didn't fulfill its purpose.</DIV>

[Sen]

<DIV>Haha I can't believe you posted something like that. Look at the shaman forums. Ac does have a factor. Which is why wards for monks.  Reactives for tanks boyo. Plus it is obvious. Maybe you should spend some time playing the game and doing some testing and getting observations.</DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Senej wrote:<BR> <DIV>Haha I can't believe you posted something like that. Look at the shaman forums. Ac does have a factor. Which is why wards for monks.  Reactives for tanks boyo. Plus it is obvious. Maybe you should spend some time playing the game and doing some testing and getting observations.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> Oh?  Link me to someone who tested the wards with and without AC items.  Just because we all see there's an AC penalty doesn't quantify it.  Is it 100%?  Is it 50%?  Is it on some sort of scale or part of a formula?  Maybe you should back with facts instead of regurgitating what the next guy believes.  Boyo.

[Gwynet]

<DIV>I think it's been widely known since beta that wards don't take AC into account, but the max hit of the mob.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Don't even need to test it really, people do not get hit with a ward on, so there is no way AC and mitigation could change anything.</DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR> <DIV>I think it's been widely known since beta that wards don't take AC into account, but the max hit of the mob.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Don't even need to test it really, people do not get hit with a ward on, so there is no way AC and mitigation could change anything.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> That is no way to test something.  Just because a person sees a ward take more damage than he would without it isn't exactly a precise measurement.  I've never really tested them so I am curious.  I know that wards take hit avoidance into account.  If they don't take any AC at all then they will be pretty much worthless against major mobs at 50.  All I want is for someone to test with and without any AC items on and in each case try with and without a ward.

[Gwynet]

<DIV>If people are not getting hit, AC doesn't matter. Wards prevent people from actually being hit. So you don't need to test it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Avoidance is different, it will test if you should be hit, and if you avoid it, the ward won't be hit.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just repeating what I said in my other post <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't think wards will be worthless at all at 50 though, as they basically increase the HPs of the tank by 30% or so.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gwynet on <span class=date_text>12-15-2004</span> <span class=time_text>11:30 AM</span>

[snai]

<DIV>Look, theres 6 pages of comments here, no winning battle will be made unless there are logs and testing data that show what does what vrs what, etc. Granted were all probably at work, waiting for some server to come up, and the like. But honestly is there a point to be made out of all this? I think so, ..  there are areas that can be improved, we can heal, we can rebuke (sorry, only lvl 18 atm), we can weaken, we can nuke. What are we designed for? To follow the desires of our God and meet the requirements of being a priest. Everything will come in due time, but making a non winning argument isnt going to prove anything. Get some test data posted and go through the numbers, then we will see where the improvements can be made. Right?</DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR> <DIV>If people are not getting hit, AC doesn't matter. Wards prevent people from actually being hit. So you don't need to test it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Avoidance is different, it will test if you should be hit, and if you avoid it, the ward won't be hit.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just repeating what I said in my other post <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't think wards will be worthless at all at 50 though, as they basically increase the HPs of the tank by 30% or so.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Gwynet on <SPAN class=date_text>12-15-2004</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:30 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>You're trying to use a common sense argument to prove a spell's effect.  That would imply that Sony shares that same common sense and implemented it successfully.  Think about that.</P> <P>It wouldn't really be a 30% increase because you're not weighting it by AC.  2000 hp on a guardian is not the same as 2000 hp on a wizard.</P>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DeythCombine wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>It wouldn't really be a 30% increase because you're not weighting it by AC.  2000 hp on a guardian is not the same as 2000 hp on a wizard.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yeah I know. It will still add some HPs to the guardian, and wards are big enough so that it will still reduce the hits by a lot.</P> <P>I haven't played a shaman high enough, but I think it's pretty obvious that all priests will shine in different situations... I really don't think we have any reason of saying that one is better than the other. Once spells are fixed of course.<BR></P>

[DeythCombi]

<DIV>At this point in the conversation I'm not even comparing classes, I'm challenging the no AC-mitigation comment that everyone seems to accept without solid proof.  I'll happily accept it if we can get some real tests done.  I'm out of town this week or I'd do it myself.</DIV>

[ken]

<DIV>Well Deyth I think your going to be stuck testing it yourself.  It was widely stated during beta.  Its been widely stated after beta.  So why would someone want to spend time to test it in order to convince you?  Personally I accept the thousand or so statements people have made as most likely true. </DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>It's pretty hard to actually test too. I was killing mobs that ward themselves yesterday. The ward was absorbing whatever damage I would do with my nuke or melee, but it fluctuates of course, as the damage you do is random in itself, even before mitigation/resists. It indeed seemed to absorb more than I usually hit them for though.</DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenih wrote:<BR> <DIV>Well Deyth I think your going to be stuck testing it yourself.  It was widely stated during beta.  Its been widely stated after beta.  So why would someone want to spend time to test it in order to convince you?  Personally I accept the thousand or so statements people have made as most likely true. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I was in beta too and it's the same thing I see now, everyone assuming without any conclusive tests.  Does this mean if I get a number of people to repeat what I've said then it becomes truth without any actual verification?

[Zabumt]

<DIV>Need some verification.  Fortunately.  Otherwise devs would be turning us healers upside down everyday trying to balance us.  From what I've seen in groups warders basically have to chain ward to make a tank live.  Templars, like myself, cast a reactive and have to touch up with a combat heal or something similar.  I prefer combat heal for a touch up at 28 because it's, yet another AC buff.  So Combat Heal + SP equals quite a bit of ac over what the tank has.  No not alot... but enough to make a difference in my experience.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, you can die with a reactive on.  I know this.  Maybe this just requires more careful attention than chain-warding?  So far, at 28, I haven't had much problem keeping up with the proper amount of dps classes in the group.</DIV>

[Xran]

The grass is always greener on the other side. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Shaman forum has similar threads saying that Wards are weak and Templar's Reactive heal way better.Here we have some Templar saying that Wards are way more powerful. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Either way, from the responses, it seems that there are a lot of Templar that would give positivefeedback that Templar's Reactive heal is indeed powerful.

[Gwynet]

<DIV>They're not powerful on their own. Stacked, they are good, but it's often overhealing and you waste tons of power keeping your tank at 100%. But /shrug, I guess shamans also keep their tank at 100% after all <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Dakure]

<DIV>Getting back to the original topic, somewhat, I have more insight now that I'm higher level as a Templar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm finding (25th Templar) that I can keep the MT alive through all but the worst of encounters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm also finding that if I have to heal more than the MT, I run OOP very quickly.  I've actually been forced into the choice do I let X person die who stole aggro (to save power and heal MT)- or heal MT only and let aggro stealer die.  And yes, I've done the "lecture aggro stealer about stealing aggro" speach a few times.  Aggro pong happens from time to time...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As I get higher level, I'm finding I'm the lone healer in the group more and more often.  While not entirely a bad thing, if I run OOP everytime someone steals aggro and I keep them alive this could be...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I usually have a fair amount of power compared to all but the intel caster's in my group.  I had more than a Templar of the same level I was grouped with the other night.  I also have most of my healing and debuffing spells at app3 or ad1.  I try to heal conservatively (I dont mind seeing MT at yellow HP total as long as I have a reactive on him).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm grouped with people of like level in zones appropriate for my level.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I tend to cycle spells.  BoV on pull, combat heal to fill in for Arch Heal while is refreshes.  I also have my other lower level heals ready just incase- but they only help when I'm OOP and slowly regenning power and need a quick, small heal to keep MT going...  IF MT gives me enough warning and time I'll group reactive before pull, med back to full then BoV as mob is coming in- this seems ideal as I dont have to heal as much in the long run- but some MTs are too hyper for this option and often pull even before I'm at 80% power...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is the trend towards Templar being MT healer only and druids/shamans heal everyone else?  I'm beginning to think that maybe the 2 healer requirement is accurate...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Still forming an opinion on this, any advice from 26+ templars = gud</DIV>

[The Da]

<DIV>From a level 33 templar: We're not gimped, the mystic's wards lose their effectiveness around level 27-28 when mobs just blow through the m in a hit or 2. Our reactives at my level heal for 133-250+ per hit (i have a few adepts and a lot of wisdom). These also stack with each other, making them espeacially effective on the harder hittting mobs. I have a direct heal that heals for 500+ hps, as well as other that heal from 225-450+. If a tank is getting in serious trouble use one of them and he's topped off again. Mystics simply can't match us in staying power, period. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>P.S. I rarely actually use my direct heals, they cos as much as Intercession and they heal for less. If a tank is getting hit for more than SP can handle and she gets around half hps i cast Intercession, which heals for something like 2000-2500, gross. This is more than enough to top off the tank in most cases and is much more power cost effective. The direct heals i use when the tank is being hit for only slightly more than the reactive is healing for, gradually reducing his hps. In that case i cast my strongest DH, and recast my reactive. I stack only for big groups or named ^^ mobs.</DIV><p>Message Edited by The Dark on <span class=date_text>12-17-2004</span> <span class=time_text>11:12 AM</span>

[Bolr]

Re: wardsNo mystic seems to have any sort of (significant) empirical data, either. I may have missed something, but I have done quite a bit of looking.Most people are taking "they said that in beta", and running with it.I don't have any data, either, but personally, as a mystic, the only odd thing I find is that mobs "special moves" on a warded target seem to sometimes do outrageous damage. For example (levels 28-29), doing 550-590 damage in a situation where an unwarded target will not take more than, say, 180-220. Usually, this is the first or second attack after a pull.

[Auria]

<DIV>             There's no way that Templars are gimped. While some have exaggerated in this thread (Maybe Intercession heals for 2000-2500 at Master10 :smileywink<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, others need to think about a few things before calling [Removed for Content]. There are a few minor annoyances I have with our class, mainly that my regular defiler friend direct heals for ~16% more with a spell equivelant to our Restoration (upgrade to Arch Healing), both at Adept1. Also, I think Inquisitors are slightly more useful in the same roles as we are. But the main reason I think people complain about Templars is the lack of use of some of our more obscure spells, and most people expect reactive heals to be the end-all, without taking direct heals into effect.</DIV> <DIV>              I know many templars who don't use spells such as Mark of Pawn or Amending Fate, maybe because they don't have it Adept'd and figure it too weak or maybe because they don't understand it. The dev's gave us every spell line for a reason (yes, they aren't totally incompetent). What makes every healing class equal is that each class uses a specialty (ours being reactive heals) to complement direct heals, which will always be the foundation of healing power. The key is mastering every line of spells to make oneself as efficient as possible.</DIV> <DIV>             Oh yes, and there's also the EQ1 factor. Templar is the closest thing to a Cleric in EQ1, which means people expect the same from them. People need to realize this isn't EQ1, you wont have a Complete Heal, and other classes will be equally capable of keeping people alive if they play with equal proficiency. So, are Templars [Removed for Content]? Maybe if you expect reactives to be 100% of it, but I suspect if you give every spell line a try, you'll have a better experience.</DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>Lol @ at your sig Auria.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yeah I agree with you, templars are definitely not [Removed for Content] healers, and it's using all our spells that makes the difference.</DIV>

[Kyrakath]

<DIV>Yeah I agree with Auria too. That is exactly what Ive been trying to say. Thanks. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas 35 Dark Elf Templar of Unrest</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>P.S. Intercession does 286 health 6 times. That's a 1716 heal, (at 35). Thank you good bye.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Kyrakathas on <span class=date_text>12-17-2004</span> <span class=time_text>11:54 PM</span>