templars are supposed to be the best

[calabusdab]

<DIV>well like the title says templars were supposed to be the main healer and the others were there for secondary heals and buffs, this is not the case</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>as a 30 templar i am easily being out healed by shamans by there stupid ward and some do a higher instant heal.... now there is just something wrong all the spells i use are app2+ then how in the world am i getting out healed by a shaman, SOE screwed us by giving us semi-decent nukes (only bout 100) and then dumbing down our heals like nuts im sorry but there is no way shamans and druids should out heal templars by any degree our reactive heals do much much less than a shamans ward</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>any thoughts i say lower our nukes we dont use em and raising our instant and reactive heals much more and lowering the shaman and druid healing wards by a bit</DIV>

[Nanochler]

I don't agree with everything you said but I kind of feel cheated as a templar. I definetly expected us to be the best healing class and druid/shamans would be secondary. It doesn't feel that way at all. I'm only 24 so maybe our usefulness becomes more apparent as we go on.The even worse part, imo, is that I think the templar is expected to be the primary healer by the community but we aren't designed that way. I like to play a priest even though they are usually a little more work, but as it stands we're getting kinda screwed. We have the expectation to do more then other healing classes but we really aren't any better in terms of the spells we get.

[MaeveAlleine]

<DIV><FONT face=Garamond size=4>Hmmm...I get compliments all the time about how well my char heals *shrug*  I can't say I agree with you here.</FONT></DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>You're misinformed. All healers are supposed to heal as well, templars were never supposed to be better healers. This isn't EQ1.</DIV>

[Dragonreal]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR> <DIV>You're misinformed. All healers are supposed to heal as well, templars were never supposed to be better healers. This isn't EQ1.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Ditto; no one class/subclass was <STRONG>meant</STRONG> to be te main healer. Any healer can be a main healer; whether you are or not is dependant on your preferences and, if there's anything else it depends on, probably the lvl to which your spells are upgraded to. I know all mine are at least app3 if not adept1 since reading these forums has made me almost deathly afraid of post-20 grps and broken heals for all classes.</DIV>

[Shat in the H]

<blockquote><hr>Gwynet wrote:<DIV>You're misinformed. All healers are supposed to heal as well, templars were never supposed to be better healers. This isn't EQ1.</DIV><hr></blockquote>Your misinformed, druids get offensive nukes, shamans get wards. To make it up Templars WILL be the best all around healer, wait till lvl 50, and the first expansion you will see, Templars & Inquisitors, then the rest.<p>Message Edited by [Removed for Content] in the Hat on <span class=date_text>12-12-2004</span> <span class=time_text>09:34 PM</span>

[Celestian_]

<DIV>You guys keep saying all that but the fact remains the class description on Sony's own website says thats all we do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If thats all we do we better do it better than everyone else. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I dunno why this is such a big deal really. Everytime people are looking for healers (not backup) they say "Templars or Inquisitors" not druids or shamans.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Heh, people keep saying this isn't EQ1 but look how much they used from EQ1. Lets stop trying to seperate the two, this is after all EQ2.  Guardians are tanks, monks/bruisers and scouts are not. Paladins and SKs like to try and tank but guardians (my experience) out taunt and out tank all others.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Can we just get past this and focus on what we do instead of some "idea" that we're all the same when in fact we are not.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[CashM]

Its not possible to have all three classes be 'equal healers' without turning them into the same class.Druids are capable of dealing more damage than clerics. But clerics are better at buffing HP/AC then druids are. Different skills, but both are usefull.For instance: If a Templars other, non-healing, spell lines (HP/AC, Str debuffs, etc) will keep the party alive better than another classes offensive side spell lines (nukes, dots, etc), then this makes a templar a 'better' healer. (not saying this is a great example)The bottom line is that if one of the priests is better offensively, then another will be better defensively...AND that the class that is better defensively becomes the better healer even though the actual heals are close.Priest1: Good Heal and Good NukesPriest2: Good Heal and Good SlowPrist2=Better healer

[asmodeus51]

<DIV>I think we got it pretty good being able to wear heavy armor, having a 1200 defense if pretty cool.  I can normally brush off a stray hit or two from some of the toughest mobs while I'm healing, just getting interrupted sucks :smileymad:</DIV>

[Lut]

Heavy armour, and heals that dont stop tank re-active skills like reposte.But its nice to have more than one healer class, just need people to stop trying to change this game into EQ1 and we'll all be fine.Lutok/Cedok et al

[Twizz]

<DIV> <DIV>"Heh, people keep saying this isn't EQ1 but look how much they used from EQ1. Lets stop trying to seperate the two, this is after all EQ2.  Guardians are tanks, monks/bruisers and scouts are not. Paladins and SKs like to try and tank but guardians (my experience) out taunt and out tank all others."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It does not have to be the way you say. Also brawlers make better use of wards then guardians does, Guardians make better use of ractive heals.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Looking at the spell lists I don't see that much difference in number of heals so not sure where people get that from. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I haven't seen any issues with groups only wanting templars, inquisitors. Nor have I read it on other boards, even though every class have complaints. It's either due to cleric-loving server comonity or to many people that don't want to see this is a new game. Same goes for tank. My experiance is that people will take what's available as long as the tank is of proper level and doesn't have bad rep. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All these issues is more due to player skills (or lack of it) then class balance issues. I see complaints on every class board.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just realize it, templars isn't the one and only healer anymore. Clerics were overrated even in EQ1 by some people and I could see this kind of posts coming once people started to get higher level.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My bet before release was that templar and guardian would be the most popular classes and I think I was right... This says something about people expectations.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I really hope these balance issues doesn't go to far and hope every class will be needed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV>

[WinterNeuroMu]

<DIV>I disagree with the original poster. Obviously you haven't learned much in playing 30 levels. If you think that a shaman is out healing you, then you need to upgrade the spells you are using, and/or fall back on the older ones until you have a few more levels. This is the one thing that I see that most of the Priest players are making the mistake of. Once they get a new spell, they stop using the older one in favor of the newer one.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our reactive heals rock over a ward. Take this example: Shamanic ward will stop 800 damamge. Our BoV will heal 600 damage. A mob hits for 200 damage. It seems that the ward could block 4 hits, while our BoV will only block 3... but the ward is taking pre-AC damage, while the BoV is healing after AC damage. Figure your tank has good AC, and the damage the mob is doing is halved. Now the BoV is countering 6 hits vs. the wards 4. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another thing to think about also is how much power the heals are using. Get in a group and have the druid/shaman heal the tank one battle by themselves, and you the next. Watch how much power they have at the end of the fight. Look at how much you have at the end of the fight. It has been my experience that I will have 2-3 more bubs of power then they do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Nukes we never use?!!? For 100 damage?!  When I am in a group with another healer (almost always), and have a breeze going, inbetween heals I am either casting combative faith or Admon. Smite. CF is hitting for 200+ right off the bat, + 50-60 a tick. AS is hitting for 130+. Mind you, I am only 28. With 2 more levels, I imagine that I will be hitting for 20-30 more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And let's not forget about the debuffs that we get. If you aren't debuffing the mob right after you BoV or SP your tank (you do do this at the beginning of the fight, right?), no wonder you are having problems.  I notice a huge difference in the amount of damage the tank is taking, and how quickly the mob drops when debuffing vs not debuffing. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And, last and not least, the ability of templars to melee. I rarely ever see shaman/druids melee mobs anymore (25+). A few hits and they are healing themselves over the tank. Due to our heavy armor, we can get in there and add some more precious DPS with our hammers. We shrug off hits that would have the other priests stepping back. I realize that we aren't doing 100's a hit, but with a good weapon I am hitting for 30-50 a swat, making the mob drop that much quicker. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[RioR]

<DIV>The author of this thread is one of the main problems with EQ2 right now. A lot of old EQ1 players did not read up and educate themselves about EQ2 before they started to play it. This is not EQ1. There is not suppose to be one class better than the other under each archetype. All healers are suppose to end up being equal. That is the whole point of the archetype system. </DIV>

[asilverf]

<DIV>Give me a good tank and I bet i can outperform any other healing class.  The key is A) adept healing spells, B) get good drink, C) debuff mobs.  Was single healer in a grp with tank 2 lvls below me pulling 4 yellows and had np (amazingly).  No way in hell a shammy was gonna be able to insta heal/reward tank at same time as spot healing the warlok that overagroed and grp heal the aes.  Templars pwn.  </DIV>

[CashM]

Rio no one said that one class will be better overall than anohter under a given archtype, but in certain areas different classes have there strengths (or there wouldn't be different classes!)You don't see enchanters complaining that they don't nuke as hard as wizards, because they have other skills that make up for the loss in damage output. Priests are the same way, there is no reason each class should heal 100% equally...they just can't. The problem lies in a broken spell (Supplicants Prayer) that leaves Templars as poorer healers WITHOUT other class skills that make up for the loss.

[Tinkletoy]

<DIV>Stupid shammy ward?  Are you insane?  As a lvl 27 Templar, I'm in hog heaven if there's a shammy in my group sharing the heals.  If not, I'm okay as the sole healer as well.  You need to learn how to play your class bud.  App2 spells at lvl 30 are inexcusable.  Mine are all either adept1 or adept3 at lvl 27.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Dragonreal]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CashMcL wrote:<BR>Rio no one said that one class will be better overall than anohter under a given archtype, but in certain areas different classes have there strengths (or there wouldn't be different classes!)<BR><BR>You don't see enchanters complaining that they don't nuke as hard as wizards, because they have other skills that make up for the loss in damage output. Priests are the same way, there is no reason each class should heal 100% equally...they just can't. <BR><BR><STRONG>The problem lies in a broken spell (Supplicants Prayer) that leaves Templars as poorer healers WITHOUT other class skills that make up for the loss.<BR></STRONG> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>The thing with this statement is that ALL healers have a broken heal at around the same lvl (early-mid 20s I'm guessing); every healer's 20ish heal is worse than the class lvl heal and all have to deal with it the same way: utilizing every other spell they have to make that 10+lvl old heal keep up with things. Go look on all the other healer boards if you don't believe me; there's a several pages long thread on every classes board complaining about broken upgrades to old heals.</P> <P>Personally I think that since this is a problem with ALL classes, a thread should be made on the main priest boards about it and see if maybe all the classes on one board fighting for a fix will get the job done faster than 6 different threads on 6 different boards.</P><p>Message Edited by Dragonrealms on <span class=date_text>12-13-2004</span> <span class=time_text>09:37 AM</span>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> [Removed for Content] in the Hat wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Your misinformed, druids get offensive nukes, shamans get wards. To make it up Templars WILL be the best all around healer, wait till lvl 50, and the first expansion you will see, Templars & Inquisitors, then the rest.</BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Message Edited by [Removed for Content] in the Hat on <SPAN class=date_text>12-12-2004</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:34 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>There is nothing to make up for. Our nukes do the same damage as druid nukes, and we get reactive heals instead of wards. </DIV>

[Shat in the H]

There is nothing to make up for. Our nukes do the same damage as druid nukes, and we get reactive heals instead of wards. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Look at the level 50 spell for each class and what it does, then get back to me.</DIV>

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> [Removed for Content] in the Hat wrote:<BR>There is nothing to make up for. Our nukes do the same damage as druid nukes, and we get reactive heals instead of wards. <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I'm not entirely sure Wards are all that great. I've had several folks tell me they do not mitigate damage. Meaning when they are up the person takes full damage not accounting for armor. I've also had a bard/dirge tell me when he has ward up her ability to dodge/parry or whatever is also not taken into account.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Reactives don't have this problem.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I spoke to a druid/fury in my group last night asking what he thought about his healing powers and his response was... "I am pretty much like a EQ1 druid." He said his dots and nukes are good, he has regens and heals that are ok but clerics have much better insta heals than he does so he is rarely more than a backup healer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Granted this was just one fury but from my experience it is not out of the ordinary. I've got 4 other druids in my guild and none of them disagree with the general statements.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Personally I am glad I choose Templar because I wanted to be optimized for group healing and curing. For those of you that think the SoE website says we do differently, I suggest you read their class descriptions.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> [Removed for Content] in the Hat wrote:<BR>There is nothing to make up for. Our nukes do the same damage as druid nukes, and we get reactive heals instead of wards. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Look at the level 50 spell for each class and what it does, then get back to me.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Yeah, and our 50 spell is a reactive heal actually. Your point?</DIV>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

We need a red-name to come in here, tell us once and for all what our place is, and then sticky their post. It's hurting the templar class, honestly. If we can't agree on precisely what problems we might have, we'll have little hope of having them addressed. Not to mention that if we aren't meant to be the best (which is what I still believe is the case, from all the evidence), there are going to be a lot of bitter folks feeling misled or let down.

[Gwynet]

<DIV>Yeah I agree... I'm sure the reason there are 100% more templars than other priests is because they are expecting to be the best healers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And I agree that our class won't improve at all if we can't get anything fixed because too many people are complaining about not being the best healers.</DIV>

[RioR]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gwynet wrote:<BR> <DIV>Yeah I agree... I'm sure the reason there are 100% more templars than other priests is because they are expecting to be the best healers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And I agree that our class won't improve at all if we can't get anything fixed because too many people are complaining about not being the best healers.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Do you actually mean "the best <STRONG>instant</STRONG> healers"? Because no where did SOE promise that clerics would be the best "healers" in EQ2. That is EQ1's way of thinking. All priest are to be equal in EQ2. It may not be exactly equal right now, but you can bet that SOE will evaluate and tweak over the next 3 months. Expect changes to many classes until the classes are equal in their "key roles". As they are suppose to be under the archetype system. </P> <P>I hope I am not misunderstanding the complaints here.</P> <P>Incase you're wondering my interest here. I am thinking of rolling up a templar. </P><p>Message Edited by RioRio on <span class=date_text>12-13-2004</span> <span class=time_text>12:05 PM</span>

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

Hey RioRio <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I think you might have misread Gwynet a little...shes not talking about what she believes, but what others are expecting. And others ARE expecting to be the best healers.Oh, and FWI RioRio, it's not even that TEmplars/Inq. are the best instant healers anymore. They changed that in beta so that all are made equal in instant heals. Templars are now the ones who do reactive heals.In fact, y'know how they used to say everyone would get wards, just low-level ones, same with regen and instant? That was scratched. Only druids have HoT, only shaman have wards, only clerics have reactive, and EVERYONE has instant.

[RioR]

<DIV>Oh...ok. So I was misunderstanding the complaint.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Don't worry though. If the clerics are not up to par with the rest of the priest. I do feel that SOE will tweak them. You have to give SOE time to evaluate the game with us 1000's of players playing it. That way they make the correct changes the first time. I think all classes feel like they need a few changes. Even us paladins feel this way. </DIV>

[rtoub]

<DIV>To be honest I think there are too many variables to say if we are the best healers or not.  There are good and bad players.  There are many different character types.  There are people stuck in EQ mode and not adjusting.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Personally I think I am the variable that makes my Templar the best healer.  I spend all my money on upgrading spells.  I learn and experiment with all my spells.  I didn't play EQ long enough to get stuck doing things a certain way.  Most importantly I have fun.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I like the way reactives work over wards and regens so it makes me a better Templar.  I would hope that players that like the way regen and wards work can make them work as well as I can make reactives work.  I doubt I could and would get frustrated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The "Templars best healers" and "Templars gimped/nerfed" threads are getting old.  Not very constructive</DIV>

[Ender]

/yawnIt never mattered what class you played for EQ2. As long as you know how to play your character, you're fine. People who come to become Templar because they think Templars are the "best" are going to be disappointed. They expect to heal easily and effortlessly. Well, kiddo, easy is not a word to be used in this game and in EQ2, healing is not for the faint of heart. You have to have your balls screwed on tight and focused completely on the battle. A small mis-timing of your spells could result in a group wipe. Combat is a fluid and dynamic situation and it's up to your mind to process everything instantaneously, make snap judgements, and take resposibility for the consequences. If you can't do that, don't bother to become a Templar or a priest for that matter. The templar is the force that prevents the group of teetering over into the abyss.

[FoxeyeVaeltaja]

<blockquote><hr>EnderMX wrote:/yawnIt never mattered what class you played for EQ2. As long as you know how to play your character, you're fine. People who come to become Templar because they think Templars are the "best" are going to be disappointed. They expect to heal easily and effortlessly. Well, kiddo, easy is not a word to be used in this game and in EQ2, healing is not for the faint of heart. You have to have your balls screwed on tight and focused completely on the battle. A small mis-timing of your spells could result in a group wipe. Combat is a fluid and dynamic situation and it's up to your mind to process everything instantaneously, make snap judgements, and take resposibility for the consequences. If you can't do that, don't bother to become a Templar or a priest for that matter. The templar is the force that prevents the group of teetering over into the abyss.<hr></blockquote>Oh yeah. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> You pretty much described why I love being a templar. Can't compare it to any other healing class, but it PWNs the shiny-golden-heinie of my EQ-L ranger (bless her heart, Foxeye will always be dear to me, but as a class she wasn't all that great). My skill, reactions, cleverness, research, and attentiveness really MATTER and that is such a rush.

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> EnderMX wrote:<BR>/yawn<BR><BR>It never mattered what class you played for EQ2. As long as you know how to play your character, you're fine. People who come to become Templar because they think Templars are the "best" are going to be disappointed. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I think you are wrong. Clerics are currently the prefered main healers and we do it well. What the heck is wrong with that?<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It most certainly matters what class you play. Just play one you like yes, but picking one randomly just because its a priest and expecting them to be optimal healers is not a good choice. Yeah a druid can heal as can a shaman but the same player playing a cleric will probably be able to keep a group alive longer and in more furious battles.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This has nothing to do with "stuck in a rut" or "want it effortless" or "eq1 modes". It's about min/maxing and optimizing your role based on the abilities you get.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How many druids/shamans picked their class to be main healers? How many picked cleric to be main healers? Just look at the spell lists and class descriptions and you can see which classes have more of a healing focus.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/slap</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Ender]

show me a cleric that could get the job done and i'll show you a mystic that could get it done just as well.

[Dragonreal]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> EnderMX wrote:<BR>show me a cleric that could get the job done and i'll show you a mystic that could get it done just as well.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> And I'll show you a warden that can do as well as the clr and the mystic

[Ender]

and i've never said they couldn't. =)

[Dragonreal]

<DIV>I know you didn't hehe jsut puttin' my 2 cents in and balancing it out; you ahd the shammy side in there so I felt it needed the drd touch too ;P</DIV>

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> EnderMX wrote:<BR>show me a cleric that could get the job done and i'll show you a mystic that could get it done just as well.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>And the same person playing a cleric could do it better.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Andar]

<DIV>From reading some of the other posts in these forums, it seems that Shamans are the preferred main healers.  However when I am in a group I am the preferred main healer - not because I am a Templar, but because I rock <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Ender]

ummm sorry to burst your bubble but I AM that same healer. I have a lvl 35 templar and a lvl 29 mystic. LOL.

[Celestian_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> EnderMX wrote:<BR>ummm sorry to burst your bubble but I AM that same healer. I have a lvl 35 templar and a lvl 29 mystic. LOL.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>See the previous posts about problems with wards and why cleric reactives are superior.</P> <P> </P>

[Shat in the H]

<DIV>Good job people you all have understood that the low levels mean jack, the true healer's/cc's/tanks's will shine post 50, and if you keep going by this "sony" said non sense then your living a lie. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sony said, solo content would be just as viable an option for leveling as group....</DIV> <DIV>Sony said, you can only have 4 character slots..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My point is Sony changes their minds alot I remember them saying in EQ1 that no class will be able to solo raid mobs, then they gave Wizards manaburn..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My point is sony say's alot of things, does not make it true.</DIV>

[Twizz]

<DIV>"How many druids/shamans picked their class to be main healers?"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know alot of people that did...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And no, I don't think templars are intended to be the best healers in all situations. No matter what people are saying. If this is the case, something is wrong.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Most people I talk to do a /who all priest lfg when looking for healers so I don't think there are any preferred healers right now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As many have said allready, many people picked classes like templars and guardians cause they are stuck in EQ1 thinking. On the server I'm on there was like 25 guardians and 4 berzerkers from Freeport a few weeks ago. Doesn't that say soemthing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now things are getting better, I see about the same amount of every class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I hope all classes will be needed, but none taken over another. For other things maybe, but not for their heals.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Twizz]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CashMcL wrote:<BR><BR>The problem lies in a broken spell (Supplicants Prayer) that leaves Templars as poorer healers WITHOUT other class skills that make up for the loss.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>All the priest classes seem to have the same issues with level 20+ spells not being useful.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[ken]

<P>This topic seems to be rehashed every day...  During beta templars where the best healers and where being invited to groups leaving shamens/druids in the cold so Sony nerfed us.  They want us to all heal about equally.  I don't think that's the case but that is the intent. </P>

[Lut]

With all the comnplaints about level 20+ healers, you would think it was impossible to play the game above level 20...Lutok/Cedok et al

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> [Removed for Content] in the Hat wrote:<BR> <DIV>Good job people you all have understood that the low levels mean jack, the true healer's/cc's/tanks's will shine post 50, and if you keep going by this "sony" said non sense then your living a lie. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sony said, solo content would be just as viable an option for leveling as group....</DIV> <DIV>Sony said, you can only have 4 character slots..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My point is Sony changes their minds alot I remember them saying in EQ1 that no class will be able to solo raid mobs, then they gave Wizards manaburn..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My point is sony say's alot of things, does not make it true.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>They never said solo content would be as viable as grouping. Never. They did say there would be solo content but you would get much more rewards in terms of exp and loot as a group.</P> <P>They never said anything either about the 4 character slots. They always totally ignored the topic. </P> <P>Manaburn got fixed, it was never intended that wizards could solo raid mobs.</P> <P> </P> <P>It's not even the point, the point is that templars were never supposed to be best healers, period. I agree that they didn't do as well with other classes about the 'class equality' thing, especially with enchanters vs other mages, but priests is probably the most balanced archetype as it is, and apart from a few bugs, I don't see it changing anytime soon.<BR></P>

[Dragonreal]

<DIV>I picked my drd to be a main healer and I'm very confident in saying that I've done very well as such; just last night I spent 10 minutes while I was lfg arguing with a templar because I declined to join their grp. I wanted a grp with an enc, not a second healer and I said as much to this person. So they spent the next ten minutes trying to tell me I could not handle that after I'd been doing it for hours already. The only reason I can think of why this person seemed to feel I couldn't successfully be a grp's sole healer is because they can't do it themselves. This one incident is more than enough to convince me that the classes (or the clr and drd classes at the least) are equal healers.  Do I think that a templar couldn't have done it too? nope, but I DO think that with comparable spell upgrades and experience, anyone else could do it too.</DIV>

[Celestian_]

<DIV>I find that if there is not an enchanter in group a backup healer is a good thing. With enchanter I almost never need a backup healer. In some groups (with enough DPS) I can be solo healer w/o either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dragonrealms wrote:<BR> <DIV>I picked my drd to be a main healer and I'm very confident in saying that I've done very well as such; just last night I spent 10 minutes while I was lfg arguing with a templar because I declined to join their grp. I wanted a grp with an enc, not a second healer and I said as much to this person. So they spent the next ten minutes trying to tell me I could not handle that after I'd been doing it for hours already. The only reason I can think of why this person seemed to feel I couldn't successfully be a grp's sole healer is because they can't do it themselves. This one incident is more than enough to convince me that the classes (or the clr and drd classes at the least) are equal healers.  Do I think that a templar couldn't have done it too? nope, but I DO think that with comparable spell upgrades and experience, anyone else could do it too.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> It depends a lot on the group really. If you have tank + healer and DPS, it works. If the tank doesn't have really good gear (or don't use a shield... I HATE tanks who don't use a shield), it's getting much harder. Heck, I was grouped with a berserker that had less AC than me yesterday, because he wasn't using a shield...

[Zuul]

<DIV>Celestian wrote:</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>I think you are wrong. Clerics are currently the prefered main healers and we do it well. What the heck is wrong with that?<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It most certainly matters what class you play. Just play one you like yes, but picking one randomly just because its a priest and expecting them to be optimal healers is not a good choice. Yeah a druid can heal as can a shaman but the same player playing a cleric will probably be able to keep a group alive longer and in more furious battles.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This has nothing to do with "stuck in a rut" or "want it effortless" or "eq1 modes". It's about min/maxing and optimizing your role based on the abilities you get.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How many druids/shamans picked their class to be main healers? How many picked cleric to be main healers? Just look at the spell lists and class descriptions and you can see which classes have more of a healing focus.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff>While you of course are entitled to your opinion I would not presume to represent the majority of the EQ2 playerbase by making a blanket statement such as, "Clerics are currently are the preferred main healers".</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have played a warden to 21, Shaman to 16, and I came to this forum to see how clerics/templars feel regarding their profession as I have an interest in trying a cleric. For the record, I was a 65th Shaman in EQ1 with all my spells and 100+ AA's.</DIV> <DIV>Mathematically, if you compare the Reactive/HoT/Ward at the appropriate level (all app3) the end result is very similar. In addition, each direct heal is also very similar. If you read the Dev's comments regarding balance it occurrs at the arch-type level. If it currently is unbalanced then they will take steps to realign. The entire system was developed to ensure one priest is not "the best"; same for the other arch-types.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your mindset is a curious trend that seems to exist. Perhaps it is the many EQ1 players that come here with that preconceived notion. While I agree that the Clerics CH + AA's could not be touched by Shaman or Druids in EQ1, that simply does not hold true here. As a side note I would like to see how well you did vs Tier 4 mob's with no slow. (back on topic)Situation circumstances do lend to a specific sub-class. For example, logicaly speaking a ward should be more effective (min/max) on an avoidance tank since no dmg mitigation is taken into effect atm. Reactive/HoT more effective on dmg mitigation tanks. The benefit gained is relatively small.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You will see major advantages happening at the spell level. You get all your Templar spells to app3 and I'll get my Warden spells to adept3 and we'll compare. I think you'll find that you wont be a more proficient healer because of your sub-class choice. I have a particular interest in the Templar because I rather like the look of heavy armor, not because the cleric is, "The uBeR Healer"..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Solaufein</DIV> <DIV>Mahalito</DIV> <DIV>Zuulax</DIV></DIV> <P> </P>

[Xran]

Why are we digging 1 month old post? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />While the statement cleric is the main healer is debateable among different players...If you compare the spells among everyone, including Inquisitor, Templar's spells arevery pure healing related. Heal heal heal, some offensive ones - but leaning to puristic heal.While Inquisitor are tad more offensive as with Shaman and Fury - they have a variety ofmore things other than pure healing spells. Templar basically kinda suck at everything elseexcept healing and getting beaten.

[Cassusdy]

<DIV>I used to complain about this stuff too till I figured out (learned) that your healing ability is directly related to the upgrades on your spells. If you are using all app 2 or 3 and the druid is using adepts, then of course he will heal better then you! Upgrade your spells or be doomed to being mediocre.</DIV>

[MilkToa]

<DIV>I have never read anything written by SOE that indicates that clerics are suppose to be the best healers. It is my understanding that all healers should be able to function as a primary healer, each class just heals differently. I have no direct evidence that this is not true. It is also my experience that you must upgrade your main healing spells if you expect to be able to heal effectively. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The one area that I do think templars excel in is healing without drawing aggro. I almost never draw aggro while I see other healing classes draw aggro several times during a group session.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[kenji]

<DIV>well...Clerics are the best healer with Guardian type heavy tank</DIV> <DIV>Shamans are best healer with Monk type avoidance tank</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>if u wanna say your shaman can do the same as clerics... never</DIV> <DIV>your ward total hp less than templer RH amount</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Shaman can never outheal Templer in total amount, just go try RED^^ after lvl 30+, then u will easily notice that Templer is much better at RH than Shaman's useless 0ac Ward <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Putka]

<DIV>Reply to thread starter and the rest who think like him:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>LOL, you have got to be kidding me :smileyvery-happy: I'm so happy that you feel cheated</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Added: Oh and gotta love him picking high elf race to be the best possible priest lol.. oh man thats rich, thanks for this topic =)</DIV><p>Message Edited by Putka on <span class=date_text>01-13-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:58 PM</span>

[Xran]

Templars are really fantastic healer. IMO, the best healer even though SOE designed it to be balanced.Of course I have more problems healing monk classes. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Zero aggro healing. The reactives are really efficient. The group reactives are evenmore insane at healing. Pulling constant single^^ orange mobs are pieceof cake to heal the tank.I hate multiple mobs now. They hit way too hard and consumes my powerway too fast to keep healing reactives. The rate the tank's hp reach orange coloris really quick. I hate multiples!!!

[Cef]

<DIV>I am still happy with my templar and he feels very balanced at the moment (he is level 41 atm). I feel oke compared to the other healingclasses and it seems there is a pretty good balance between the priestclasses.</DIV> <DIV>I am used to play a healerclass. I played a doctor in anarchy online and i must say that the healing and the underlying system in this game is very different compared to that game. In my previous mmorpg there was a huge difference between healingclasses and there was 1 class that was the king (or queen :smileyvery-happy<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> of healing. In this game there is another system, which is called the archtype-system (for more information about the archytype-system in general, i would like to refer to the other posts on this forum :smileyindifferent<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. </DIV> <DIV>I have to admit that i sometimes miss the good old feeling of being the best healingclass (i was a bit used to that from my previous mmorpg), but i can handle it, since it is an archetype-system after all. </DIV> <DIV>I am aware that the healing-tools of other priestclasses are different but equal (they are really equal, imo). The other priestclasses get wards and hots, which obviously work different compared to reactive heals. Besides that, it seems to me that the other priestclasses get different debuffs and buffs . I have no troubles with those 'things'  that the other priestclasses get, because i see those 'things' as healingtools and i realize that we also have good buffs and even some debuffs too.</DIV> <DIV>The nature of this post is going towards the conclusion: 'happy, happy, joy, joy; we are all happy and balanced, wee, it is a small world after all :smileyhappy: make peace!'. Before i jump to that conlusion i want to say something about the archtype-system. </DIV> <DIV>The archtype-system gives every priesclass the following layout: equal (but different) healtools + minimal dps. The thing that bothers me is that this system leaves little to no room in making differences between the priestclasses. Whatever scenario of making differences one could think of; the contra-argument of implementing those differences always lies in the spirit of the archtype system. For example; if SOE is giving the druids-archetype more damage (let's say: making them as effective as a 70% wizzard) then the other priestclasses would say: 'nerf druids, because we have no good dd spells while our healingpowers are equal'. Another example; if we get superior healing compared to other classes, then other classes would say: 'hey this is unfair, since we (all priestclasses) are supposed to heal equally' and do minimal dps.</DIV> <DIV>I guess the beauty of the 'of the archtype system lies in balance, while the price of this system lies in the fact that it is hard to implement 'balanced' differences. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Cefir</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Cefir on <span class=date_text>01-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:33 AM</span>

[MrDiz]

Totally disagree. Lvl 29 now and i am without doubt a better healer than the other priests. if i join a group with another healer I always take over as primary unless its another templar. Stacking SP, Intercession, BoV and Sermon is just an awesme combo. I have had RoV parties that quit when I leave even though they still have a shaman. I have never been in a party that quit because the shaman left and I was still playing <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Putka]

<DIV>sorry but that just tells how clueless those people are =)</DIV>

[Danm]

I *suspect* a warden will be close or better than a templar at healing at 50, but no other class will. Right now, templar are a better solo *healer* than an Inquisitor at 50, from the numbers I have seen. With adept3s Auria is doing 726 a tick reactive, and my projections show Inquisitor topping out at around 600ish a tick reactive. Does this make an Inquisitor useless? I don't think so, and here is why. For one, the templar single target reactive tops out at 249/tick, and I am estimating the Inqusitor version will do around 320ish a tick at adept3. Combining Inq and Templar healing will provide an edge pushing the tick per react to around 800/tick. So an Inq + Temp combo is better than 2 Inqs or 2 Temps. Second, the Inq brings other things to the table, that depending on the group setup might not be otherwise available: stifle dot, mana destroy dot, a strong mob ATK debuff, str/stam debuff dot, etc. I can't speak for other classes, but with the damage I have seen raid mobs dishing these days (3K melee on just a groupx2 is an example), you are going to need to max out the stacked healing with as many efficient heals as possible. This will mean wards, regens, and reactives will all need to be stacked on the MT. -Dan48 Inq

[Unmask]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> rtoub wrote:<BR> <DIV>Personally I think I am the variable that makes my Templar the best healer.  I spend all my money on upgrading spells.  I learn and experiment with all my spells.  I didn't play EQ long enough to get stuck doing things a certain way.  Most importantly I have fun.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's the most important thing.  I don't think most players really understand just how much better they become if they spend a little money to upgrade their spells.  My main spells are all adept 3 or master and I can easily out heal/damage a templar that does not.  I would not be surprised if a templar with similarly upgraded spells would out heal me in most situations, though I would be surprised if he could outdamage me (I am stuck wearing leather armor for a reason).</P> <P>Wards, reactives and HoTs each has a weakness.  HoTs can waste healing if the target gets to full health.  Reactives can waste healing if the target does not take sufficient damage in the duration of the spell. Wards don't take armor into account.  But it's all good, I don't think the MT will care who is healing as long as he doesn't die. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[Shat in the H]

Are you kidding, the Druid base is the worst healing base. Take a Fury, been grouping with a 43 one with my Assassin, holy crap do they suck, and no they cannot be the main healer.IF anything it will be Clerics--> Shamans

[Unmask]

<DIV>Maybe you're grouping with a lousy fury who doesn't upgrade his spells or is too busy nuking/debuffing that he forgets to heal.  Give me a good tank and I can solo heal just fine as a warden.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know I've grouped with lousy assasins before but I don't judge them all by that one.</DIV>

[hammong]

<DIV>I hate to be so blunt, but it's healers like this that make me scared to play my Shadowknight.     You're running around at level 30 with Apprentice II spells and no idea of the power and flexibility of your chosen class.    Did you expect to pay 4 silver for your spell upgrades and be "everything you can be" ??     </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Don't be such a cheapskate - go out and upgrade your important spells to Apprentice IV at least.     My Templar is running around with every spell at Apprentice IV or Adept I, and I can keep even the weakest equipped tank alive with multiple even-con group mobs.     My group reactive heals are unparalleled when everybody starts taking a little bit of loose aggro damage.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you don't spend at least 50% of your "cash" on spell upgrades, you're doing everybody you play with a huge disservice. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>    Jorg</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Ender]

Actually, not all of your spells need to be fully upgraded. Just the ones you use the most.

[Xran]

I have grouped with Fury couple of times. Those that upgrade their spells properly, Fury can really heal very well.Granted, I still have to say that I love Templar's healing and their efficiency.I like the fact that Fury's healing have cool variations of HoT, instant heal + minor regen and pure instant heal.Their main HoT line is great, albeit a little slower in ticks and gains aggro. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I have played Shaman, Druid and Templar. I believe all can heal well, and brings to the group different style of doing"healing". I guess dev's term of "healing" is not just about bringing tank's hp bar to green. We would have to takea look at the entire picture.Templar's line of healing is very pure. Tons of spells that replenish HP and some debuffing. For me, Templar's DD lineis a little weak. Shaman and Druid has their variation of debuffs, slow and DS. Their DD and DoT line are significantlystronger too.Now if you strip all 3 priests of their DD, DoT and debuff spells - I believe according to the numbers posted so far,Templars have the best efficiency and higher numbers in replinishing HP ---> thus the reason why peeps keep saying Templars are the best healers. But AFAIK, I love druids healing ability. I don't really like Shaman's ward becausethey don't actually replenish hp, but wards can be really crucial.

[kata]

<DIV>Its not fair to talk about healing and then not consider the impact of buffs & debuffs (and nukes/dots for that matter!).  In EQLive, slow+torpor made shamans the far and away best healers at 60 for xp grinding until Planes of Power came out.  Both buffs and debuffs work to make it either harder for the mobs to hurt you, or easier for you to kill them, or both.  In a sense debuffing (and slow from EQLive is a form of debuff) is "proactive" healing in the sense that damage not taken is damage that doesn't need to be healed.  Also, mobs that die faster do damage for less time.  Barring the effect of chests, I haven't seen many dead mobs wipe groups! <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Enkan]

<DIV>Calas,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You came to Everquest II with EQ1 mind frame and you are totally wrong.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Moorgard specifically stated that every ArchType is balanced to perform the job they where created for.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So any healer type whether its a Templar, Mystic, Warden can heal as effectively as the other. There are NO better healers in EQ2.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am sorry that you missed Moorgards post on this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Every healer class while different under the same Archtype is able to perform their jobs as expected. There is NO longer a better healer or a secondary back up healer. They are ALL equal. It's just a matter of style.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The same rules applies to the Archtype for figthers, Scouts and mages with a slight difference for Wizards and Enchanters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One can argue that Enchanters can in the end do the same amount of damage as a wizard if u take into account that they have placed a monster on sleep. While their party kills each encounter 1 by 1. In the end it will be the same mana effeciency as having a Wizard nuke each encounter. Everyone will end up with the same amount of mana pool after each encounter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All Archtype are supposed to meet their expectation, if they are not Moorgard said to /bug it so they can balance them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Peace!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[icetower]

<blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<DIV> 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. 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. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system.</div><hr></blockquote>Get a clue people.There is not supposed to be any "best" healing class nor any "best" tank class.nuff said.

[Loiceni]

Heh, bloom + adept 3 regrowth (and/or the adept II level 20 HoT spell) + effloresce does not make me think a templar heals any better than i do. And i know for a fact I get a huge boost at 29 with Nature's Caress. I have yet to witness any evidence that templars are better healers than me. #1: I picked a warden to be a main healer. I'm confident it will continue that way.#2: Any group that says "oh we don't want you, we need a main healer" is probably a good group to avoid anyway LOL.Honestly, at the moment with SS III and Cold Snap III with frost I and chill III, i contribute significantly to DPS and can heal well enough to be the only healer in a group chain pulling orange group mobs. It is a good situation.Loicenick

[Big Da]

<DIV> <P><SPAN>The system seems to give each healing class their own niche in a group, in my experience the templar excels when they have a strong tank in the group. Their reactives kick in after damage is taken so stack well with AC, parry..... (when compared to a ward)</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Wards are also far and away the best choice when protecting the weaker members of the group.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I think the people who know about the classes don’t really care what type a healer is as long as they can play his class.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>On the other hand, there is a general view that Templar / Inquisitor is the main healing class right or wrong.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I say this because any time I join a group I am always assumed to be the primary healer over an equivalent class. Just as with tanks you would assume the Guardian is the tank over a Monk.</SPAN></P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Big Dave on <span class=date_text>01-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:53 PM</span>