Is mitigation interaction gimping cleric and mystic alike?

[BigDa]

<DIV>Hello, there, you templar folk <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  30 Mystic here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>While discussing Ward over in the mystic forum it struck me that maybe templars and mystics are both being affected by weird interaction with armor mitigation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Am I right in thinking that vitaes don't trigger if an attack doesn't make it through to the tank's 'flesh'?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If so, then surely the devs have things backwards?  Surely vitaes should ignore armor mitigation (and fire on every hit) and wards should only 'trigger' <EM>after</EM> armor mitigation.  This would also avoid our wards 'shielding' your vitaes and making them ineffective.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, if I'm right, it looks like we are both gimped by high AC subjects?  And further gimped by our spell interaction.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think this goes further than making heals something that need more thought and cooperation, it makes things overly awkward and seems just 'wrong'.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hmm.  What do you folks think?</DIV>

[Heiro]

<DIV>Not sure, as I havent really paid attention <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But my interpetation of how wards/reactives work, is that the ward is is like a shield that surrounds the target, blocking attacks from getting through... where as the Reactives only fire if any damage has actually been done.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>that is what I think I have seen happening, but then again.. I dont really pay attention to the times, as I am usually keeping an eye on the health bars <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Auria]

<DIV>       Heiro is completely correct. Our reactive <STRONG>heals</STRONG>, with emphasis on the heal bit, mean that they should trigger after AC has been factored, and damage taken. Ward, by definition, is something that shields and protects the recipient from damage. Both reactives and wards are triggering at the right time, considering what they're meant to do.</DIV> <DIV>       As for cleric/shaman interaction. It is true that a shaman's ward has more visible effect, but here's why. Assume a cleric's reactives and shaman's wards are equal. Then assume that as a cleric (or shaman in BigDave's case), you could solo heal an encounter. If you could solo heal, then the shaman could solo heal, as all classes are meant to be equal healers. If both could solo heal the encounter, and the shaman's wards trigger first, then it will look like the cleric's reactives aren't as powerful, which is a bogus claim (it's merely one processing before another). Many people would claim two healers in one group is a waste (I tend to disagree and like the extra safety, but I can see the point.). When any two priest types are in the same group, it isn't likely the group will suffer any major catastrophe, bar insane pulls, difficult adds, linkdead, etc: and this is a result of different classes working well together.</DIV> <DIV>       </DIV>

[TROri]

<blockquote><hr>Auria wrote:<DIV> Heiro is completely correct. Our reactive <STRONG>heals</STRONG>, with emphasis on the heal bit, mean that they should trigger after AC has been factored, and damage taken. Ward, by definition, is something that shields and protects the recipient from damage. Both reactives and wards are triggering at the right time, considering what they're meant to do.</DIV><DIV> As for cleric/shaman interaction. It is true that a shaman's ward has more visible effect, but here's why. Assume a cleric's reactives and shaman's wards are equal. Then assume that as a cleric (or shaman in BigDave's case), you could solo heal an encounter. If you could solo heal, then the shaman could solo heal, as all classes are meant to be equal healers. If both could solo heal the encounter, and the shaman's wards trigger first, then it will look like the cleric's reactives aren't as powerful, which is a bogus claim (it's merely one processing before another). Many people would claim two healers in one group is a waste (I tend to disagree and like the extra safety, but I can see the point.). When any two priest types are in the same group, it isn't likely the group will suffer any major catastrophe, bar insane pulls, difficult adds, linkdead, etc: and this is a result of different classes working well together.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><hr></blockquote>I can almost always (templar 26) keep a group alive as well as a shaman (I have adept 3 on BOV). The difference is that I end at 40% mana and the shaman ends at 60%. Assuming both are smart enough to debuff etc.If the encounter is going to kill our party, it seems like it's not a power issue though, it's a "wow, that mob came in and hit us for 2700 hp in 3 seconds" issue and both the cleric and shaman are equally buggered. And even if you have 2 healers there are good odds that they would be oop by the end and the party = dead. Hopefully the evacer got us out.Biggest advantages:Single Target: the shaman does a phenomenal job. Those big hard hits never get through the wards. Cleric is spot healing.Group Target: cleric reactive takes the tank from 50% to full almost instantly. Shaman are spot healing.Biggest problem:Most shaman and clerics don't understand how to talk to each other so they know what the plan is.Biggest help:-communication-druidsIf I can get a druid in a group with me there is no stopping us. Druids rock and everyone ignores them.

[Mystiq]

<DIV>I agree with Heiro as well. I think both reactive heals and wards are implemented the same way I'd imagine them to be. I would love for wards to absorb damage after an AC check, but it just doesn't jive with the whole "protection from harm" thing. I honestly can't give a solution to either the problem of wards being a little underpowered vs. the way mobs' damage scales, or the problem of wards and reactive heals not working well with each other. Not one that I think the devs would implement anyway.</DIV>

[Zabumt]

<DIV>There was a time I thought Shaman wards were all important.  Mostly from the feedback given on this particular board.  It wasn't until I asked a shaman to ward with me (a 28 Templar) doing touch-up that I found wards to be on par with our reactives.  At times, the tank came close to and did die.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As far as reactives under wards, I love that style of play.  Ward breaks, reactive takes over.  Gives us all enough time to get our main heals back up and running.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Personally, I don't see much of a problem here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Muxxu]

<DIV>I'm a 22 Templar and group with a 22 Fury all the time.  Her Regen and Damage Shields plus my reactives allow us to easily take down big mobs in our regular group which consists of 24 Guardian, 22 Berz, 22 Temp, 22 Fury, 21 Chanty.  Debuffs are huge and I reapply them when I see them fade.  We have our HOs worked out perfect plus we're all in voice chat.</DIV>