Class and Subclass "Vitae" lines of spells should now stack correctly.

[Talas]

In Moogard's testing update dated 12/16 he states:Class and Subclass "Vitae" lines of spells should now stack correctly.What does this mean?

[Gwynet]

<DIV>Who knows... Something's telling me it means they didn't change SP though. Sigh we'll see...</DIV>

[Talas]

now that I read it after my coffee, I think its saying that SP and BoV stack now. /shrugI'm only level 24 and don't have SP yet. From what I've read, I really shouldn't expect much.

[Gwynet]

<DIV>Would be nice if they stacked, but giving us more work instead of fixing SP, um. It would pretty much [Removed for Content] me off if they did that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh well let's wait and hope.</DIV>

[Fugaci]

<DIV>While our vitae should be in line with the inquisitor spell.  If SP and BOV where always meant to stack, ie give 132+sp every tick, then it isn't necessarily a design flaw that it starts out so low. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On the other hand it would probalby have been better had they just increasted SP but the BOV amount and made them not stack, but there may be some tactical options involved that may make it better to have the two stack.</DIV>

[Ender]

where is moorgard's thread that says this?

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Fugacity wrote:<BR> <DIV>While our vitae should be in line with the inquisitor spell.  If SP and BOV where always meant to stack, ie give 132+sp every tick, then it isn't necessarily a design flaw that it starts out so low. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>It doesn't just start out low. It still only heals for 136 at 36.</DIV>

[Myrn]

<DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=tup&message.id=4#M4" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=tup&message.id=4#M4</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's in the third post down, under the *** Spells *** section.</DIV>

[Fugaci]

<DIV> <DIV>True I shouldn't have said start out low, because the delta, except for the last hit isn't really ever that big, and for a good while it is worse.   But being 132+136 per hit, and a final heal of 13x+2yy makes SP a nice addition. It is still not inline with inquisitors, so that needs to be fixed ASAP as well.  However, then it becomes more of a discussion as to whether or not BOV and SP should stack at all but SP just be double the healing power to begin with, especially since there is still a large power requirement.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What may have happened, and I wasn't in the EQ beta, but I have been in the SWG betas,  so I've only seen this in threads is that during the last part of beta when they tuned things BOV and SP did stack, so although people may have complained, balance wise with the increase of MOB hitting power it worked out OK in their spreadsheets.  Then during live a developer noticed they stacked and stopped them from stacking, leaving us with a gimped upgrade.  Since they can't take the time right now to fix SP, they at least reversed what the developer did to [Removed for Content] SP.  Leaving SP defective but not competely broken.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Alternatively BOV and SP could have always been meant to stack, and they broke it during a patch.  At least if you have two templars one can BOV and one can SP, though SP is still not right because of the power usage as well as difference in it between ours and the inquisitor's spell.</DIV></DIV>

[Kharzho]

<DIV>If they stack, I will consider it a wonderful X-mas present from Sony.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sure, you can tune us relative to Templars; but that is the fine tuning that will always continue in the game. To allow both those spells to stack is amazing; and I hope that it is true.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just imagine being able to stack Bestow, SP and SS all at the same time .... <drool></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Kharz</DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>Actually the first 2 days I got SP I was able to stack them. It was pretty neat. I'd much rather be able to stack BoV and SP than having to use the group reactive as I have been. Doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have SP fixed though.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kyrakath]

<DIV>Fix Supplicant's Prayer yourself. Get Adept 3 and shut up please. So BoV and Supp's will stack now? Rad. Thats another reactive I can throw on Intercession. With mark of princes that's four reactives going off at once. Add in Radiance on a named and thats 5. That's absolutley sick. I hope all you peeps who claimed or worried that templar was a [Removed for Content] healing class have your foot in your mouths. In the next few days Im going to get adept 3 intercession too. I recommend everyone does eventually.</DIV> <DIV>Supp's Prayer isnt broken. Think about it in terms that at one time you had one reactive heal. Then when you got to level 26 you got your second. Now you have 2. Thats the eq upgrade youre thinking youre getting. This is EQ2. The higher in levels you get the more Supp's prayer will heal for. Supp's prayers heals dont max out until level 36 or 37 i believe. I bet by 37 it will be doing 210 per hit. Combined with intercession which does 286 per hit at adept one at level 35 there is simply no reason to fix a spell that works under a different spell system you just havent grasped yet.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas Dark Elf 35 templar of Unrest</DIV><p>Message Edited by Kyrakathas on <span class=date_text>12-17-2004</span> <span class=time_text>10:43 AM</span>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kyrakathas wrote:<BR> <DIV>Fix Supplicant's Prayer yourself. Get Adept 3 and shut up please. So BoV and Supp's will stack now? Rad. Thats another reactive I can throw on Intercession. With mark of princes that's four reactives going off at once. Add in Radiance on a named and thats 5. That's absolutley sick. I hope all you peeps who claimed or worried that templar was a [Removed for Content] healing class have your foot in your mouths. In the next few days Im going to get adept 3 intercession too. I recommend everyone does eventually.</DIV> <DIV>Supp's Prayer isnt broken. Think about it in terms that at one time you had one reactive heal. Then when you got to level 26 you got your second. Now you have 2. Thats the eq upgrade youre thinking youre getting. This is EQ2. The higher in levels you get the more Supp's prayer will heal for. Supp's prayers heals dont max out until level 36 or 37 i believe. I bet by 37 it will be doing 210 per hit. Combined with intercession which does 286 per hit at adept one at level 35 there is simply no reason to fix a spell that works under a different spell system you just havent grasped yet.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If it's not broken, then how do you explain that the inquisitor equivalent heals for 35 more hit points? Sure, it has an AC buff too. Well, why does the inquisitor version have an AC debuff AND heals for 35 more hit points?</P> <P>At 36, adept 3, SP heals for 170. It's pretty far from the 210 per hit you are assuming (the inquisitor one is pretty close though).</P> <P>Yep, spells improve. But if it heals for too little at the start, it will still heal for too little in the end. I'm 36, I *think* I have an idea of how the spell system works, thank you.</P> <P>For intercession though, I wouldn't be surprised if it was never intended to be that powerful and got fixed soon as well. I'd rather have SP fixed when it happens.<BR></P>

[Kyrakath]

<DIV>If they nerf Intercession Ill be in here whining about both. </DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>To be honest I'd much rather they fixed the inquisitor version of the group reactive instead of nerfing ours <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </DIV>

[khrokh]

I fear an intercession nerf since i have been using it ... It more than doubles our reactive healing power.However it doesnt prevent me to agree that SP is broken. I do not expect my new spells to be more mana efficient than the previous, but that much worse, sorry it s just a bug.

[Dozer44]

<DIV> Kyrakathas:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ripping on Gwynet is only going to make you look like a noob.  Any templar that reads posts about templar topics knows that Gwynet knows what she is talking about.  She is clearly the single most active templar on the boards, and almost always backs up her posts with numbers from the game.  Try reading a few posts before you go off half cocked and tell people to shut up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also wanted to let Gwynet know her posts are appreciated.</DIV>

[HerrD]

<DIV>Help me out here, when didn't bov and supp stack?  I've been able to cast both on a party member for quite a while, and they both appear to be working.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, a poster above said they'd be getting intercession adept 3 in a day or two, yet I was told that the book needed for that adept was borked.  Can we get adept 3 of intercession now or not?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Herr</DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<DIV>There are two main factors to our effectiveness as templars; overall healing per duration and power efficiency.  SP is broken in both respects.  Having to stack a group reactive to heal a single target fulfills the first but fails the second.  Having to stack the broken SP on BoV does the same.  The best xp is being able to chain kill the highest possible target without any downtime.  If both factors aren't at a sufficient level then we either have to fight lower stuff or rest more which makes the grind even longer and makes us inferior to others of our archetype.</DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> HerrDoc wrote:<BR> <DIV>Help me out here, when didn't bov and supp stack?  I've been able to cast both on a party member for quite a while, and they both appear to be working.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, a poster above said they'd be getting intercession adept 3 in a day or two, yet I was told that the book needed for that adept was borked.  Can we get adept 3 of intercession now or not?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Herr</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> If I had to guess I'd say they mean both reactives will go off simultaneously; true stacking instead of queuing.<p>Message Edited by DeythCombine on <span class=date_text>12-17-2004</span> <span class=time_text>03:49 PM</span>

[StormY]

<blockquote><hr>HerrDoc wrote:<DIV>Help me out here, when didn't bov and supp stack? I've been able to cast both on a party member for quite a while, and they both appear to be working.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Also, a poster above said they'd be getting intercession adept 3 in a day or two, yet I was told that the book needed for that adept was borked. Can we get adept 3 of intercession now or not?</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Thanks</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Herr</DIV><hr></blockquote>Books 28 and 29 are indeed broken, checked again this morning ( like I do everyday <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ). They have been broken since launch I beleive, so no one can claim to pocess or getting an Adept 3 of any 28 and 29 spells at the moment. I don't know what is the hold on fixing these, but I have the 2 books rotting in my bank until I can scribe them <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ....

[HerrD]

<DIV>Thanks Storm.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is really discouraging given that our latest group insta heal, group reactive heal, single insta heal, and buff all fall under the effects of this bug.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lame.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Herr</DIV>

[En]

I had hoped this meant that the react would stack with wards. Wards and reactive heals in unison would be nice, and the fact that they don't is what makes the reactives gimped imo. The reason I say gimped is because it's just wasted power, cast time, and refreshes on my part. I really have no desire to play my templar until that's addressed. I think that makes us more undesireable than the fact that SP is 40 hps short. Reactives not going off at all on a warded target is much more disconcerting to me that a couple hundred hits deviation.Yeah, I'm a noob.

[Auria]

<DIV>In my experience, which could be completely wrong, reactives stack perfectly fine with wards. A reactive heal reacts to damage done to a character. A ward prevents damage from being taken. Therefore the reactive has nothing to do until the ward goes down. It isn't that they don't stack, just the reactive has nothing to do. I'm sure the Dev's made it this way to prevent invincible tanks.</DIV>

[En]

Right.So while the target is chain warded, my reacts just sit there rotting, which is as I said, wasted power, wasted casting time, and time waiting on refresh timers. I don't understand why one priest archtype gets a spell that renders another priests archtype specialty spell useless. My concern is the fact that the devs probably did design it this way on purpose. If I'm in a group with a main tank that can ward himself and with a shaman, I end up casting priest heals and debuffs (not that debuffing is bad mind you), my my most powerful heals are just begging me to use them. Anyways, I'm done ranting about this, I'm just anxious to see what moorgard meant when he says the vitae line stacking issues have been fixed.Peace.

[Nyat]

<DIV>Adept 3's are not candy tossed from a parade.  I don't know what servers some people are on, but please put yourself in my shoes:  on my server the scholars/sages are either WAY behind the curve, not listing their wares, or only supplying people privately.  The only cleric/templar Adept 3 I ever see on broker (and I check both brokers multiple times a day) is SMITE.  Not Admonishing Smite, not Reproving Smite...<STRONG>SMITE</STRONG>.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(I've been tempted to buy it just to see what it did, if only it wasnt 12-25g.  oi.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I thought that I would be able to buy crafted spells with the gold I earned adventuring, and I was more than happy to do that and support crafters.  I just don't see any being listed, though, and honestly the brokers on my servers are seeing inflation at alarming rates that really stink of plain greed.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So now I went out and got my harvesting skills up, spent a lot of time and found a coral, and now I'm trying to balance my XP grind with my tradeskill grind so I can just make the dang spells myself.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To make a long story short (too late):  getting Adept 3 is not a fix for a broken spell.  It should be a significant/noticeable upgrade to a functional/comperable/competitive spell.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-- Nyatar</DIV>

[Kyrakath]

<DIV>Well I have read all of her/his posts since joining this forum and I havent liked her/his posts since day one. Theyre full of whining and the inability to adapt and overcome. In other words theyre weak. She/he stated they were going to quit the class back at 26 or so and I wish she/he did so because in my point of view all she/he has done has made the Templar class look bad. If you dont agree with me I really dont care because that will never take away the fact that I know how to play effectively and if you listened to me a little bit more maybe youd change your whining into wails of victory. I hope you like the leash youre wearing. I refuse to listen to him/her. Read my posts too because youll see Ive been arguing with her/his ideas for the past few weeks now. I know [Removed for Content] Im talking about to and theres no reason you can jump on me like that. Youre doing to me what you think that Im doing to him/her. Take some of your own medicine and sthu. I have read her/his posts. i think they all suck.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas 35 Dark Elf Templar of Unrest</DIV>

[Kikmaid]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kyrakathas wrote:<BR> <DIV>Well I have read all of her/his posts since joining this forum and I havent liked her/his posts since day one. Theyre full of whining and the inability to adapt and overcome. In other words theyre weak. She/he stated they were going to quit the class back at 26 or so and I wish she/he did so because in my point of view all she/he has done has made the Templar class look bad. If you dont agree with me I really dont care because that will never take away the fact that I know how to play effectively and if you listened to me a little bit more maybe youd change your whining into wails of victory. I hope you like the leash youre wearing. I refuse to listen to him/her. Read my posts too because youll see Ive been arguing with her/his ideas for the past few weeks now. I know [Removed for Content] Im talking about to and theres no reason you can jump on me like that. Youre doing to me what you think that Im doing to him/her. Take some of your own medicine and sthu. I have read her/his posts. i think they all suck.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rhoulicas 35 Dark Elf Templar of Unrest</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Well if you think you're going to get anybody to listen to you more by being far too unecessarily harsh and dismissive of what Gwynet's been posting so far with nothing other than a "I know how to play effectively and if you listened to me a little bit more maybe youd change your whining into wails of victory", then I think you're sorely mistaken.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As I said in another post, I'm not, and from what I can judge nor is Gwynet or many other templars incapable of healing well.  I keep teams alive often when they don't expect to be kept alive and regularly get congratulations for it.  Also, I am still happy enough with my Templar's current healing power.  But so what?  Who cares if I do a good job?  I don't think I should have to make that point just to demonstrate that I have equal player skill or ability with you, nor should anybody else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The point is, why should we have to put up with one of our main heals, if not our main heal being stupidly calculated to the point of being broken?  Why would we want to just sit back and see that Inquisitors have more healing power than us, but also get better offense as well?  Why would we want to wish that a level 26 spell be more effective than our a level 12 spell, when instead it could just be fixed?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No matter what you say, our level 12 spell being more efficient and a better heal than our level 26 one is just wrong - this is not the case for any other spell we have, why should it be for this one, our main heal?  Who cares if you can adapt and survive?  Support your community and help them get the fixes they deserve or go somewhere else to gloat about how you can survive even with the spell being broken.  Nobody cares if you can, we can too, but we don't need to sit and be 'happy' that it's not fixed.  For some people the fact that it's broken is a demotivating enough factor that it stops them playing, others keep going but are annoyed that it's not fixed - and there's just no reason for that when instead it could be fixed, right?</DIV>

[Auria]

<DIV>I hate to play Devil's advocate, and I know Gwynet quite well (same server and all), so this isn't to detract from her message - but I think there's one thing that has been left out in all this:</DIV> <DIV>             What if Bestowal of Vitae is too powerful, rather then Supplicant's prayer being under-powered?</DIV> <DIV>Remember at low to low-mid levels when you could practically cast your reactives and go to sleep, using little power and with little fear of anyone dropping into yellow, let alone red?  I think the point is, we may never know <EM>if</EM> SP is healing for 40pts. too little, or if it was designed that way to force Templars to utilize other spells in their spellbook. If there has not been an official "Supplicant's Prayer is broken" statement, then maybe we should stop assuming the spell is broken, and instead look more towards BoV being too powerful. Also, while I dissaprove of how Kyrakathas expresses himself about Gwynet, suppose he feels as strongly that SP isn't broken as Gwynet feels it is - obviously a huge clash, and let me tend to agree with him that Supplicant's Prayer is not broken. I have read the arguments, respect both sides, but have to say SP is not broken, and if it is, it isn't major, I'll explain further on.</DIV> <DIV>               Also - this is why Templars seem whiney. Kikmaidog said in the above post: "<EM>No matter what you say, our level 12 spell being more efficient and a better heal than our level 26 one is just wrong - this is not the case for any other spell we have, why should it be for this one, <STRONG>our main heal</STRONG>?" </EM>While I agree that our reactives are a wonderful tool, our main heals are entitled, at the lowest forms, Combat Healing and Arch Healing. In no way are our reactives supposed to be our main heals, they're simply our class-specific tool to maintain our target's health bar, complementing direct healing, which is the foundation of each Priest class. If we were meant to use reactives as a crutch, as our main heals, EQ2 would not have the archtype - tree system of advancement. There would be Clerics, Druids, and Shamans, with no common traits. Templars need to get out of this mindset real quick or be dissapointed, like Gwynet at times. Also, tell me exactly how Supplicant's Prayer isn't "as efficient" as Bestowal of Vitae... does it heal for more at equal spell levels? Yes. Do you need higher heal numbers as you get higher levels? Yes. Does it cost more power then Bestowal of Vitae? Yes. But guess what... it's supposed to be that way. At higher levels you have a larger power pool.</DIV> <DIV>               Also - don't forget to take into account that by level 26, or beyond, you've already missed out on 10 or so character traits, broken in the game currently. I received one at level 40, giving me a huge bump in my power regeneration that has helped immensely. I can't imagine having nearly 19 more. You also get better food at higher levels, or should be able to afford it, which regenerate far more power and are far more "efficient" then what you used when Bestowal of Vitae was excellent. Everything else in this game as far as I can tell isn't exactly linear, why should we assume our falsely claimed main heal is broken, simply because it doesn't match a linear regression?</DIV> <DIV>                End of point, I'm sure the Dev's have heard about Supplicant's Prayer, they created it afterall. But I'm also sure we aren't looking at the entire picture when crying out broken. Perhaps SP doesn't have the exact linear heal/power ratio as BoV because other factors need to be put into the equation. Food and gear are just two, power+power regen traits are a third. If you want to scream broken at something, Character Traits are broken... At higher levels, we have multiple, awesome, group heals. We have Intercession which is incredibly powerful. Other classes gain increased abilities to mitigate damage, the game is designed for inter-class interaction, so perhaps SP is balanced off fighter classes. Anyway, while I hear ya', SP isn't going to get the fix you want anytime soon - and perhaps that it is because it is working as intended (speculation :smileyhappy<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>P.S. - There was no offense intended to either Kikmaidog or Gwynet in this post. Also, Gwynet would never quit EQ2, she's hooked on the "crack". :smileywink:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>        </DIV><p>Message Edited by Auria on <span class=date_text>12-18-2004</span> <span class=time_text>01:51 PM</span>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>You're totally correct Auria, it could be just BoV that is broken.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The reason I don't think it is, is because there is an unbalance between the inquisitor spell and ours. The inquisitor also has a side effect (AC debuff on enemies), but it heals for 35ish more than SP. So either it's broken, or it's by design that templars get a bad upgrade, but that wouldn't really make me feel better, lol, because I'm not so sure how classes can be equal if one gets this joke of a spell for which the level 12 is still better after 10 levels. And I disagree totally that just because the devs didn't reply means it's not broken. How many dev replies have you seen in the spell forums in the last 3 weeks?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And yes... I still think that SP should be our 'main' heal. Because it's the way of healing that the devs gave us, and because reactives are just way more efficient that direct heals. Yes, I use other spells a lot, but if I have to heal someone, in 80% of situations I will use the reactive heals first. No question. Combat Healing and Archhealing are just here to patch up for those rare times when you need a fast heal, and are in no way my main heals as far as I am concerned, because they take way too much power for a 1/8 HP heal. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>'tell me exactly how Supplicant's Prayer isn't "as efficient" as Bestowal of Vitae... does it heal for more at equal spell levels? Yes. Do you need higher heal numbers as you get higher levels? Yes. Does it cost more power then Bestowal of Vitae? Yes. But guess what... it's supposed to be that way. At higher levels you have a larger power pool.'</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV>I'm not gonna post the numbers again, they've been all over the forums, but SP doesn't heal for more at equal spell levels until 2+ levels after you get the spell, yet still cost 60% more power. It's not supposed to be that way, sorry. Check your other heals, and you'll see it's not quite the case, as soon as you get them they will cost more power, sure, but will also heal for more, so the ratio will still be worth it. It's not the case for SP.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seriously, I understand your arguments and I could probably agree with you if the inquisitor version wasn't healing for 30+ than SP. That's the only thing I need to justify my first impression, I don't need any more proof that SP should heal for more, like I said earlier.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For the comments about food/gear etc... Yeah, it gets better as you level, it still is no excuse for a spell that costs more power to have a way poorer heal/power ratio than a level 12 spell.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Gwynet on <span class=date_text>12-18-2004</span> <span class=time_text>09:08 AM</span>

[Auria]

<DIV>                 If we were meant to be perfectly inline with Inquisitors, we'd just all be labelled Clerics and thrown back to EQ1. :smileytongue: While sub-classes are inherently similar, they are unique, distinct, and aren't intended to be used as: their's heals for exactly X more, ours is broken. I'm sure Inquisitors have many abilities that don't scale to the .01% to ours, which I am quite happy with/for, because if I had the same numbers and pro/cons as Inquisitors, I might of well not done the Betrayal Quest. Plus, Greater Intercession, from as far as I can tell, is the same story as BoV to SP, except Greater Intercession is on the same timer as SP, so no stacking or overlapping is possible. So if 2 of 3 target reactives work in a "broken" way, including both Templar specific ones, maybe it's a class-feature, and intended.    </DIV> <DIV>                 BoV and Inquisitor spells are both not Regimens spells, therefore, I don't think they can be used as a comparison unless every aspect and angle is added. BoV had to be powerful, because it was the only thing we had as Clerics, Inquisitors have to have a higher target reactive, because at higher levels when mobs are hitting for 700-1000 points of damage at times, their lower instant heals wont cut it, nor will their group heals, etc etc. I would honestly suggest we all play to 50 before assuming something is broken. I agreed with the "SP is broken", when I was at 26, at 43, I can't say that I do, in hindsight.</DIV>

[Gwynet]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Auria wrote:<BR> <DIV>                 If we were meant to be perfectly inline with Inquisitors, we'd just all be labelled Clerics and thrown back to EQ1. :smileytongue: While sub-classes are inherently similar, they are unique, distinct, and aren't intended to be used as: their's heals for exactly X more, ours is broken. I'm sure Inquisitors have many abilities that don't scale to the .01% to ours, which I am quite happy with/for, because if I had the same numbers and pro/cons as Inquisitors, I might of well not done the Betrayal Quest. Plus, Greater Intercession, from as far as I can tell, is the same story as BoV to SP, except Greater Intercession is on the same timer as SP, so no stacking or overlapping is possible. So if 2 of 3 target reactives work in a "broken" way, including both Templar specific ones, maybe it's a class-feature, and intended.    </DIV> <DIV>                 BoV and Inquisitor spells are both not Regimens spells, therefore, I don't think they can be used as a comparison unless every aspect and angle is added. BoV had to be powerful, because it was the only thing we had as Clerics, Inquisitors have to have a higher target reactive, because at higher levels when mobs are hitting for 700-1000 points of damage at times, their lower instant heals wont cut it, nor will their group heals, etc etc. I would honestly suggest we all play to 50 before assuming something is broken. I agreed with the "SP is broken", when I was at 26, at 43, I can't say that I do, in hindsight.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, I don't want EQ1. I am just convinced that having spells similar in power for all priests of a same subclass is necessary for balance. As it is, it's not balanced. I'll keep trying to get it fixed, until it's fixed, or I hear a dev say it's not broken, and that templars are meant to have their heal much less efficient than inquisitors... and then I will just play my bard full time, because I don't think it's fun to still have to use a level 12 spell 10 levels after I got its upgrade.</P> <P>My main issue being that I don't trust devs at all on that one. Actually, I don't trust them on anything spell-related ever since they changed them one week before the end of beta and we got no time at all to actually test anything. As a reminder, both inquisitors and templars shared the same spells for BoV upgrades on beta. And yes, it was direct upgrades, same way all priests got smite and their upgrades. Then there was that patch, and they changed everything : added a few effects to make a difference, changed the names. Then after that patch, inquisitor and templar spells were not healing for the same amount anymore. </P> <P>I have a hard time thinking that a change that was done in a few days was well thought of and didn't let any bug go through. All priests more or less lost their 'equality' in the patch, as some got their spell upgrades earlier than others. That some would get the upgrades at the same time, but one is actually and upgrade and the other isn't? Sounds clearly like a bug to me.</P> <P>Really, the only reason this issue has been going for so long is because there has been no answer from the devs at all. Just a 'we're looking into it' would not have made me feel like talking to a wall. I guess we'll see what happens with the patch. Maybe the stacking thing will be fixed too, perhaps they were referring to SP and Greater Intercession with their 'vitae spells should now stack properly'?</P> <P><BR>Finally though, there is still one thing I don't understand, is how someone of the same class can flame or troll the posts of someone who thinks something is broken, gives reasons, and is just asking for a dev to look into it. Especially when 80% of the class agrees. Would it hurt templars in if SP was looked into and maybe improved a bit? Well, I really don't think so. I guess it's just human nature again.</P><p>Message Edited by Gwynet on <span class=date_text>12-18-2004</span> <span class=time_text>09:37 AM</span>

[Auria]

<DIV>              I wasn't flaming or trolling, if you were referring to me :smileysad: , I'm just recommending that all aspects of a sub-class be factored, before an assumption is made. Also, the hope that Greater Intercession will be stackable with SP is highly unlikely, as they're both sub-class spells; and the statement was about Class and Subclass.</FONT></DIV>

[Gwynet]

<DIV>No I wasn't referring to you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For the statement, I'm still unsure as the class and subclass spells are already stacking.</DIV>

[Gobbwin]

<DIV>my 2 cp</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The reactives are meant to be our main heals (as far as most often used), just like the shaman's wards and the druid's regens.  All 3 classes have their own means of accomplishing the same task.  Something has to be broken in that templars are ment to be better healers than inquisitors, hands down.  Example, mystics are better healers than defilers, just like Wardens are better healers than furies.  The good classes are suppost to be better healers (defensive), while the evil ones are ment to be better at offence, but slightly worse at healing.  The fact that the Inquisitor reactives are healing for more is one example of the fact that something isn't working right.  Also if reactives weren't ment to be our main heals, then why did they re-enable them to be stacked?</DIV>

[Deej]

First things first,..who the hell is this Kyrakathas guy? Some sort of Inquisitor troll? Every post I'm looking at has him bashing someone for being whiney. What a lamer.Second. I am a 27 templar and my wife is a 26 mystic. As far as I know when she wards I can lay on BoV and it is definitely not worthless. Here is what I've observed. When the ward is active and the tank gets hit he is healed without taking dmg. The reactive parts of both spells should work based on successful hits, not on whether the tank takes dmg or not. So the visual cue that I get is the tank, who normally would sit about level with BoV healing same or slightly higher than the dmg he takes, now climbs in health rapidly due to the "dmg free" heals.Anyone else observe this?

[Mooz]

Re:Talasyn>Class and Subclass "Vitae" lines of spells should now stack correctly.>What does this mean?Maybe none of the reactive should stack at all.....Re: Enwe>So while the target is chain warded, my reacts just sit there rotting,>which is as I said, wasted power, wasted casting time, and time waiting>on refresh timers. I don't understand why one priest archtype gets>a spell that renders another priests archtype specialty spell useless. The Shaman ward should have a max damage absorbed per hit so that some of the damage gets though and triggers the reactive and other proc when hit buffs.Damage absorbed should be from the post mitigated damage.This way if you have a druid,cleric and shaman in a group and the tank is hit for say 200 hps, the ward takes 80 (say) the cleric reactive heal, heals back 80 and the druid Hot heals back the 40hps and any missing hpAND... any procing buffs on the tank have a chance to go off.

[DeythCombi]

<DIV>I must be missing something.  I was out of town and the game for a week and a half and when I played last night my reactives didn't behave any differently than before the patch proclaiming they should now stack correctly.  What changed?</DIV>

[Kikmaid]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DeythCombine wrote:<BR> <DIV>I must be missing something.  I was out of town and the game for a week and a half and when I played last night my reactives didn't behave any differently than before the patch proclaiming they should now stack correctly.  What changed?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>The patch didn't end up happening.  They decided to delay it.. and then they had 24 hours worth of 'hardware/DB problems' and servers were down all last Saturday delaying the patch even further.  So in other words - yes it's still exactly the same as it was for now.</DIV>

[Zabumt]

<DIV>Again, we're talking about this?  I understand the complaint but let's look at it from another perspective.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Temp Reactive = Reactive Heal (inq's reactive -35 (according to others)) + ac buff</DIV> <DIV>Inq Reactive =  Reactive Heal (35 + temp's reactive (according to others)) + ac debuff</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Given this scenario... a Temp reactive heals a tank and the tank takes less damage from the ac buff and gets healed a little less.  But the Inq reactive heals a bit more and the tank takes the same amount of damage but the people hitting it do a bit more damage, and maybe kill the critter a bit faster.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Okay let's take it a bit farther.  How much more health does a critter have than a pc?  My guess is ALOT!  Unless it's a solo encounter.  So, a small ac debuff from a reactive might help the fight go just a bit faster.  How much damage mitigation comes from the Templar's ac buff from his/her reactive?  A bit.  So the fight might last a bit longer but the tank might take a bit less damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From what I can tell this may be nearly perfectly balanced.  What is 35 points of extra heal going to do for a tank?  Not all that much.  35 extra points with an ac debuff?  I don't, know, something.  35 less points with an ac buff on the target tank?  I don't know, something.  Once again, looking at pure healing numbers is not advancing this argument at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The fact is, at 28 anyway, SP simply seems to work better than BoV (especially when combined with ac buffing instant heals and templar debuffs).  Comparing a few measly reactive heal points without taking into account the buffs/debuffs from the spell, the class  AND not providing a damage log is pointless chatter in my opinion.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<DIV>SP is inferior to BoV at 32 AND it costs more power.</DIV>

[Kikmaid]

<DIV>Ok, and lets repeat again..... the point isn't an extra 35 more or less HP, the point is that level 12 spell is better than level 26 spell, not just at level 26, but all the way up to level 35 at least from what people have reported so far.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sure, I often use both spells stacked on each other, so one kicks in after the other.  Sure, SP is a benefit to have.  But when I am only going to cast one single target reactive at level 30 I will still choose BoV over SP, which I don't do with any of my other spells such as Healing Touch, Intercession or Amelioration.  If that changes in a few levels it still makes sense, but everyone reports that won't be changing in at least 5 levels, if ever.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Kikmaidog on <span class=date_text>12-27-2004</span> <span class=time_text>10:01 AM</span>

[Zabumt]

<DIV>And as I've said in other posts, I seem to use less power when using SP combined with buffs, debuffs and combat heal touch-ups than I use when I try going with BoV (at 28 with both reactive spells at app 3 and my buffs/debuffs at mostly app3).  Variables include... is the tank in decent gear?  Does the tank have app3 abilities?  Is the tank using a shield?  What other buffs or debuffs are the other members of the group using?  Are you debuffing on every fight?  Are you touching up with arch healing type of spells or combat healing type of spells?  What con of mob are you fighting?  Are you fighting mage mobs or melee mobs?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As you can see it gets really complicated.  And at 28, I'm using SP exclusively (all but shutdown my use of BoV unless SP isn't refreshed fast enough).  And it just works better.  Yes it costs more power.  Yes it heals for about the same amount of damage at app3 and level 28.  But it seems to just work better in terms of power consumption.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Provide a good parse and an outline of tank gear and other spells/abilities in the group and we can take the argument farther.  At this point, it's just an argument of power vs heal numbers not taking into account other effects.</DIV>

[Kikmaid]

<DIV>Do we have any figures on how much AC SP adds and how often it adds it?</DIV>

[DeythCombi]

<DIV>There is no way at all that SP is as or more efficient than BoV.  Zero.</DIV>

[Momolicio]

SP is and was utilising a Theurgy base for its skill calculations, hence the stacking issue.SP needs to have a code check done on it to assure that the skillcheck for spell efficiency (Min skill max skill) is not Theurgy but Regimins.All this is conjecture though on my part. It simply makes sence that its in the spell database as theurgy based spell, hence the stacking issues. Just a guess.