Curious about Templars

[Vissyli]

Sorry to post this but I could find no difinitive answer from people in game. This is due to the fact the I play primarily Freeport side. However, I am in the process of trying the priest class and finally (after almost 500 days) getting a look at Qeynos. Last I saw of it, we still had to do the Citizen quest. =) So here is my question; are Templars the primary healer type of the priest class? What I mean to say is are they the most "pure" healer? <div></div>

[Supernova17]

All the healers are equally capable at healing a group, though the Templar is more suited to main healing than anything else (ie Shamans have debuffs, Druids have dps). Our class has powerful defensive oriented buffs (HP, Arcance Resists, Wis/Str, Stoneskin) and an array of temporary defensive / protection buffs (Faith line = temp Arcane resists + damage ward, Sanctuary = protection from all control spells ie root & fear). Templars also come with several additional healing lines in the form of a single target 5% proc (Glory line) which heals the group when an ally makes a successful melee attack, healing any melee class that attacks the mob over time (Mark line 20% chance? bah I just know it works!), healing and curing your target when they are attacked (Involuntary line 20% chance?)  and Reverance which adds health whenever your target spends power. Toss in a mit debuff, some control spells, worthless fluff spells and you have a Templar! We're the slowest casting healers and our reactives work both ways as damage prevention and healing so you have to plan in advance and be pre-emptive with the class. Our "pure healer" AA lines can grant us a large increase in heal crits and decreased casting times. I've always been a MT Templar for one raiding guild or another since the beginning of Tier5 almost two years ago, been through all the ups and downs and I'm still playing my Templar (albiet I have alot of tank / dps alts for when I'm not raiding or doing something with the guild =P ). Being a good healer isn't just about the class, it's about the player too. I know several people that would feel comfortable doing zones like Nek3 / HoF ([Removed for Content]!) with just me solo healing, but would ask for two healers if I wasn't available. <div></div>

[socrates3]

I played a templar to 52 or so on Guk and then I quit in frustration. The main problem with the class is that of all the healers it is the lowest DPS (nearly impossible to solo) AND it is the only healer type (including inquisitor) that has a disadvantage in its healing capabilities compared to other healing classes. For example, templars have reactive heals, which fire when a person is hit. I was the main healer in a good group with a monk tanking - needless to say I couldn't keep him alive, and at the end of the fights, I realized I still had most of my power. What happened? In short, reactive heals have a disadvantage when healing avoidance tanks like monk or bruiser.  Because avoidance tanks, well, avoid hits, the reactive heal runs out and I have to resort to direct heals, which are slow. So reactive heals just don't work well on avoidance tanks.So what this means is, overall if you want to be a general healer for any group out there, you really can only perform well on plate tanks - you are essentially crippled to effectively healing only half of the tanks out there. Others can argue this point with me, but we all know it's true - reactive heals are the only heal type that have a disadvantage (HoT's don't have this) - so, basically, if you want to be a general healer, be careful of this disadvantage when considering templar.<div></div>

[Amilique]

<DIV>Reverance ;  210% of targets pwer used will be converted to health ...ummm brawler anyone? not to mention glory line on a brawler tank and if your lucky enough to have a swashy or other fast hitting scout class, that THEN coupled with reactives and a very large single target heal, i have no problems keeping a brawler up when im playing my tempy ;P</DIV>

[Supernova17]

<blockquote><hr>socrates399 wrote:<div></div><hr></blockquote>^^ Obviously misses the pre-emptive part, and the fact we're a healer class not dps, but meh. Brawlers can tank, but as a Templar you should have paired with a plate tank for ease of reactives and better aoe aggro control. And whatever...I've solo healed my old guild's Monk and Brusier through Blackscale, Vaults, Den and HoF back in the first few days of KoS, you know when it was hard? I bet you're one of the Templars that think we're /godmode like we were before LU13, doesn't ever cure and has visions of EQ1 Cleric glory, which we're not.<div></div>

[kenji]

<DIV>thats why templar have Reverence... Mark line, Glory line...and Stun! now templar also got Daze!</DIV> <DIV>all these helps with light tanks...with some good DPS...i really doubt u gotta cast heal 2 times per mob when xping =)</DIV>

[Celestian_]

I tend to think templar's are probably the most "healing" focused of the healers. I have a 70 templar, defiler and fury. My favorite of the 3 is the defiler, they heal like a templar (their castable heals at least and at a lot less mana) and have very useful debuffs. They ward versus reactive but it will get ya to the same places pretty much. They also have just about the same HP buffage and they also stack with templars buffs. I get a little frustrated with my templar at times in raids mainly cause I get to reactive, buff, heal and debuffs, which are mostly more heals that proc asside from the mit reduction. Our stuns and daze do not work at all on epics.If you're moving to Qeynos I'd definately say Templar, if you're going to stick in Freeport, Defiler all the way.<div></div>

[Bjerde]

I agree 100% with Celestian. I think the two best classes for healing are Templar and Defiler and I have played them both at 70. Since wards trump reactives in the healing line-up, Defilers can outheal us (in raid or group) if they can keep the wards up all the time. Shaman wards are tough to beat. We as Templars have more healing tools. Reverence, Glory of Battle, Divine Intervention, Mark of the Celestial,  Focused Intercession. All these are things that help us heal when it turns bad.The Defiler has a ward proc off the dog (if they took that aa) which is great and they also have Bane of Protection which is another ward proc. When the battle goes bad with a Defiler, I would be looking on my hotbar for things to help and there are none except the oh [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]e wards. The instant heals have loong recast timer like us. As a Templar I hardly ever need my emergency reactives, as a Defiler I would use them much more often since that is your last line of defense. That said, the Defiler has two very nice debuffs one slow, and one that reduces all stats of mob by x amount.I think they are both great healers and it really comes down to playstyle to make your final choice. Also, there are much fewer Defilers out there than Templars.<div></div>

[Rast]

I just started a templar myself to give myself a real change of pace as I've not played a healer since DAoC back in 2001...  So far it has been fun, but I'm not very far in yet (only level 16)

[DeadGopher]

<DIV>Just a few random comments...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have no problem healing Monks/Bruisers.  It is a myth that reactives are ineffective with a Brawler tank, Brawlers get hit plenty often for reactives to be effective.  The real question is why are avoidance tanks less effective than mitigation tanks in some situations...but that's for another thread.  Yes, Brawlers get hit less often than plate tanks, but not so much less that reactives are useless.  Also, not having to recast reactives as often leaves more time for me to cast direct heals, so I can heal for just as much in the same amount of time, but at a slightly higher power cost, but power has never been an issue for my Templar outside of raiding.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another small advantage that Clerics have over Druids and Shaman is survivability.  Due to our ability to wear plate armor we can take a beating for a short while longer than the other healer classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All the healer classes can be fun, and have different advantages.  I like them all.  :smileyhappy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Adamos</DIV>

[Timaarit]

As a monk I can directly say that reactives are the worst method to heal a brawler. Yes, you do need to keep them up if you want the brawler to live. But the group reactive will often expire before all its charges are used. Also stoneskin is not very useful. When tanking with a templar or dirge, I can often see the icon pop, see the 10s countdown and then see it expire before I get hit again. But when I do get hit, I need direct healing even if all 3 reactives were up when I got hit. Also with a templar, my monks stuns are pretty much useless, templar just doesn't have the true healing power of a druid. Even a shaman is better since the wards will heal up to their potential even if I start stunning. Reactives will just expire and reduce the overall healing capability of a templar. As a templar, I need to work really hard to keep a monk alive when fighting high blue con and stronger mobs. With a plate tank, all I usually need to use is one reactive. So as a templar and a monk I can say that clerics are really by far the worst healers with brawlers. And the sad thing is that we are roughly equal to everyone else with plate tanks. So in all, clerics are worst healing class since we are the worst with avoidance tanks and not the best with plate tanks. <div></div>

[Archill]

I said it before and I'll say it again.. find a better monk, Tim. I have no problem healing my monk friend when she tanks hof. Throw on both reactives+mark and she's good to go for the entire fight.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

I said it is much more difficult for a templar to heal a brawler than other classes. Every class can have problems with healing at some point, but with templars in combination with an avoidance tank, those problems are far worse than with any other combination. As a monk, I have far more difficulties tanking HoF when a cleric is solohealing than with any other priest. And as a templar, I have the same issues when healing a monk. Doable yes, but very random. Granted, part of the problem is the broken avoidance (which hopefully will be fixed with EoF), but the other part is the fact that with avoidance tanks,  reactives dont work even close to what HoT's and wards do. <div></div>

[Bjerde]

I have grouped with monks plenty and a lot of times reactives go to waste. A Cleric has to use his instant heals more when healing a monk and this is not always the way that they are used to healing.We can heal brawlers fine, other priests are more effective at it. If I were a brawler, I would 'prefer' a shaman healing me for a tough zone. <div></div>

[MoonSorceror]

I have solo healed monk tanks through HoF, so yes, it's doable. It is not as easy as with other tanks, but I think tha is more than offset by the templars outstanding performance with plate tanks. I for my part tend to win the heal parse on our raids against the other healers including 2 shammies even when I'm not in MT grp...

[mcavellero]

<DIV>I have a 70 Fury, 70 templar and now working on a Defiler.  I think each healer is special and more useful than others depending on the situation.  Quick Summary:  Druids have the fastest yet smallest heals, Shamans have wards, and the Templar has nice Mit/Hp Buffs.  However one point that I find a bit frustrating is "crisis" utility..templars have none.   The timers/recast timers are way too slow to save people(for those that say you have to plan ahead..you can only plan so much...)  A Shaman's wards will protect the group from this spike damage, a druid can bring the grp's HP up very quickly,  but the templar's grp reactive of around 500 will not offset a 5k hit followed by more damage and there's nothing you can do if your spells are on their recast timers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Bjerde]

All healers wait on timers when it is critical. Shamans and Druids actually have less tools than us, yes a Druids' heals might be up...but thier first one didn't heal as much the first time around. A Shaman sitting waiting on wards to refresh is no better off either. You can use emergency wards and they will do better than emergency reactives... if they are up. Cast Reverance, Focused Intercession (potentially very powerful, not so great on single target raid mobs in emergency), make sure you have Mark on. The one life-saving spell we do have is Divine Arbitration, it isn't used often, but that is the one spell that can save the day. The casting speed has been increased on that (from original) and it has no range to it (zonewide).<div></div>

[Timaarit]

Well Bjerde, in case you have missed it but templar heals are unique in the manner those heal. HoT's will heal even when the target is not hit and wards will 'heal' before any damage is taken. So in a critical situation wards can prevent death by blocking enough damage and HoT's have a chance to heal enough before that damage is taken. Reactives will do neither, they will attemp to heal after the target is dead.<div></div>

[DeadGopher]

<P>...and in case you missed it Timaarit, Reactives have greater healing potential than HoTs or Wards, therefore, good Clerics don't get into "critical situtations" as often as other healers.  Cleric direct heals also heal for more hitpoints than other priest classes, but they cast slower.  Because of our long cast times, Clerics must learn to be preemptive and start casting before the healing is needed, both with Reactives and with direct heals.</P> <P>Don't get me wrong, Wards are the most powerful form of healing in any situation, but there are trade-offs for having them as a Shaman.  HoTs are the more powerful way to heal an entire group that is taking damage, but again, there are trade-offs.</P> <P>The most powerful way to heal is to combine all the types of healing.  That's why the main tank group in most raids have all three priest classes.  :smileyhappy:</P> <P>Adamos</P>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>ADAM0S wrote:<div></div> <p>...and in case you missed it Timaarit, Reactives have greater healing potential than HoTs or Wards, therefore, good Clerics don't get into "critical situtations" as often as other healers.  Cleric direct heals also heal for more hitpoints than other priest classes, but they cast slower.  Because of our long cast times, Clerics must learn to be preemptive and start casting before the healing is needed, both with Reactives and with direct heals.</p> <p>Don't get me wrong, Wards are the most powerful form of healing in any situation, but there are trade-offs for having them as a Shaman.  HoTs are the more powerful way to heal an entire group that is taking damage, but again, there are trade-offs.</p> <p>The most powerful way to heal is to combine all the types of healing.  That's why the main tank group in most raids have all three priest classes.  :smileyhappy:</p> <p>Adamos</p><hr></blockquote>Well I'd like to see the trade-offs. Druids already are better at healing when reaching for top potential. It is only special scenarios when clerics can get close. Also clerics are much worse healers when target is hit for high damage but fairly rarely. Clerics have 1/2 of the real healing capability of other classes because reactives just dont heal if target is not hit. So after target has been hit, clerics have a bit over 1/2 of the capability to heal. So clerics are good with fast and small hits if they come in 5 hit bursts every 8 or so seconds. But as a trade-off, clerics have the worse ability to deal with single hard hits. Now what is the trade-off for HoT's? Best real healing capability after damage is done? By far the highest capability to heal AE damage?<div></div>

[Whitemane]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ADAM0S wrote:<BR> <P>...and in case you missed it Timaarit, Reactives have greater healing potential than HoTs or Wards, therefore, good Clerics don't get into "critical situtations" as often as other healers.  Cleric direct heals also heal for more hitpoints than other priest classes, but they cast slower.  Because of our long cast times, Clerics must learn to be preemptive and start casting before the healing is needed, both with Reactives and with direct heals.</P> <P>Don't get me wrong, Wards are the most powerful form of healing in any situation, but there are trade-offs for having them as a Shaman.  HoTs are the more powerful way to heal an entire group that is taking damage, but again, there are trade-offs.</P> <P>The most powerful way to heal is to combine all the types of healing.  That's why the main tank group in most raids have all three priest classes.  :smileyhappy:</P> <P>Adamos</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well I'd like to see the trade-offs. Druids already are better at healing when reaching for top potential. It is only special scenarios when clerics can get close. Also clerics are much worse healers when target is hit for high damage but fairly rarely. Clerics have 1/2 of the real healing capability of other classes because reactives just dont heal if target is not hit. So after target has been hit, clerics have a bit over 1/2 of the capability to heal.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff6600>Say what? Ive seen this arguement used before and I still dont get it. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff6600>Please explain to me how the Druid heals for more than anyone else if the tank is not getting hit. No one heals anything if the tank isnt hit. The Druids HoT's are just marking time in that case along with the wards reactives what have you.  We have the largest heals matched only by Defilers ( for now ). The numbers do not match what you are saying at all. Second is that the druid , in theory will be even more so screwed in an oh hell situation due to the smaller size of their heals it takes them longer to get out of the whole than use especially when we use our "Fluff" abilities as they have been called to cut down the damage. Do we have a harder time healing avoidance tanks over a Shaman sure, I'll give you that but to say we have 1/2 the healing power of another Healing class is just flat out wrong. If you have this much trouble I'd suspect you have issues with the templar healing "Style" hell I've done 4 people through HoF being the only healer and with a Bruiser as the MT its easy. ( Sure we're also not normally equiped either but thats another story). But again huh? No one heals anything if the tank isnt hit</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff6600></FONT><BR>So clerics are good with fast and small hits if they come in 5 hit bursts every 8 or so seconds. But as a trade-off, clerics have the worse ability to deal with single hard hits. Now what is the trade-off for HoT's? Best real healing capability after damage is done? By far the highest capability to heal AE damage?<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>AoE damage on low mit healies sure but even then its a matter of ease not flat out numbers I can keep the "mage group" alive through the gazers in DT not much fun but doable. We do have more than 1 heal which is the example you're giving above.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Can you explain what the heck you mean by real Healing capacity? Im not getting it as you either mean we are 1/2 the healers of a druid in which case Im going to have to say "ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaha <breathe> ahahahahahahahahahhahaah No." Or we have 1/2 the " emergency heal capacity"  Or are you saying that reactives have the most heal capacity once the damage is done ( which I'd agree with )? </FONT></P> <FONT color=#ff3300>One thing I've noticed is the now predominance of 2 healer groups wich is a waste of space really for anywhere but possibly Nizara with the mass influx of druids ... hmm concidence? ;p </FONT><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Whitemane wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote: <p>Well I'd like to see the trade-offs. Druids already are better at healing when reaching for top potential. It is only special scenarios when clerics can get close. Also clerics are much worse healers when target is hit for high damage but fairly rarely. Clerics have 1/2 of the real healing capability of other classes because reactives just dont heal if target is not hit. So after target has been hit, clerics have a bit over 1/2 of the capability to heal.</p> <p><font color="#ff6600">Say what? Ive seen this arguement used before and I still dont get it. </font></p> <p><font color="#ff6600">Please explain to me how the Druid heals for more than anyone else if the tank is not getting hit. </font></p></blockquote><hr></blockquote>What can I say. If you cannot comrehend what you read, well, I will not read what you try to say. Read again what I wrote. Then reread. Now WHERE did I say that tank is not getting hit? That is right. I didn't. So no wonder you 'dont get it', you are just making things up.<div></div>

[Whitemane]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Whitemane wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote: <P>Well I'd like to see the trade-offs. Druids already are better at healing when reaching for top potential. It is only special scenarios when clerics can get close. Also clerics are much worse healers when target is hit for high damage but fairly rarely. Clerics have 1/2 of the real healing capability of other classes because reactives just dont heal if target is not hit. So after target has been hit, clerics have a bit over 1/2 of the capability to heal.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff6600>Say what? Ive seen this arguement used before and I still dont get it. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff6600>Please explain to me how the Druid heals for more than anyone else if the tank is not getting hit.<BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What can I say. If you cannot comrehend what you read, well, I will not read what you try to say.<BR><BR>Read again what I wrote. Then reread. Now WHERE did I say that tank is not getting hit?</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>RIGH HERE:</FONT></P><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <FONT color=#ff0000>Clerics have 1/2 of the real healing capability of other classes because reactives just dont heal if target is not hit. So after target has been hit, clerics have a bit over 1/2 of the capability to heal</FONT> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Pretty clear to me right there</FONT><BR><BR>That is right. I didn't. So no wonder you 'dont get it', you are just making things up.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>If you insist.  You wrote the words pretty sure not only I can seem them. Scroll up to your original post if you'd like. I didnt not put words in your mouth or change your sentance in any way.</FONT><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You seem to have forgotten what you wrote : See above in red</P> <P><BR>My point is that no ones heals anything this case. You could make an argument for wards I suppose but HoT's and reactives you cant. Its just not the case.</P> <P>I think its pretty clear that you do not like the templar healing "Style" Thats fine enjoy your fury but to say that Templars are 1/2 the healers of druid is just factually wrong or Im missing what you are trying to say.</P> <P>Gemmas</P> <P>Message Edited by Whitemane on <SPAN class=date_text>10-19-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:34 PM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Whitemane on <SPAN class=date_text>10-19-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:35 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Whitemane on <span class=date_text>10-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:35 PM</span>

[Celestian_]

<div><blockquote><hr>ADAM0S wrote:<div></div> <p>...and in case you missed it Timaarit, Reactives have greater healing potential than HoTs or Wards, therefore, good Clerics don't get into "critical situtations" as often as other healers.  Cleric direct heals also heal for more hitpoints than other priest classes, but they cast slower.  Because of our long cast times, Clerics must learn to be preemptive and start casting before the healing is needed, both with Reactives and with direct heals.</p> <p>Don't get me wrong, Wards are the most powerful form of healing in any situation, but there are trade-offs for having them as a Shaman.  HoTs are the more powerful way to heal an entire group that is taking damage, but again, there are trade-offs.</p> <p>The most powerful way to heal is to combine all the types of healing.  That's why the main tank group in most raids have all three priest classes.  :smileyhappy:</p> <p>Adamos</p><hr></blockquote>I was curious so I broke down the healing for reactives and wards (and defiler cast heals/templars).Defiler single ward (master)1788 point ward, 190 powercast time 2 secondsDefiler Group Ward (adept 3)2928, power 356cast time 5 secondsDefiler Fast Cast Heal (adept 3)757-926, power 146cast time 2 secondsDefiler Slow Big Heal (master 2)1648-2015, power 254Cast time 3 secondsTemplar Single Reactive (master 1)3x433-530 (2165-2650), power 190casting 2 secondsTemplar Group reactive (adept 3)9x392-480 (3528-4320), power 356casting 5 secondsTemplar Fast Cast Heal (adept 3)757-926, power 170casting 2 secondsTemplar Big cast heal (master 2)1648-2015, power 308casting 3 secondsAs you can see the defiler castable heals are exactly the same amount as Templar but they do cost less mana (they also cost an equal amount of health to use). However if you look at the reactives they can out "heal" a ward. If you notice I put the amount they could heal in ()'s. Even the low end out performs a ward by a large margin even if it only heals for the minimum. There are situations where wards will be better suited and others where reactives will be. Adam is correct though with the 3 priests in the MT group. We do it always, 1 templar, 1 defiler, 1 warden. Having all 3 healing types on the MT is very nice. One of my favorite things about wards is they always get their use. They go off before reactives and work well with HoTs. Warders can easily out heal most priests simply because of the that fact alone.Anyway, I did this mostly for myself to see how they both compare at the number level as I never looked.  I like templars and defilers and furies. That's why I have a 70 of each... I have to say though I play my defiler more than the other 2.</div>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Whitemane wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Whitemane wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote: <p>Well I'd like to see the trade-offs. Druids already are better at healing when reaching for top potential. It is only special scenarios when clerics can get close. Also clerics are much worse healers when target is hit for high damage but fairly rarely. Clerics have 1/2 of the real healing capability of other classes because reactives just dont heal if target is not hit. So after target has been hit, clerics have a bit over 1/2 of the capability to heal.</p> <p><font color="#ff6600">Say what? Ive seen this arguement used before and I still dont get it. </font></p> <p><font color="#ff6600">Please explain to me how the Druid heals for more than anyone else if the tank is not getting hit.</font></p></blockquote> <hr> </blockquote> <p>What can I say. If you cannot comrehend what you read, well, I will not read what you try to say.Read again what I wrote. Then reread. Now WHERE did I say that tank is not getting hit?</p> <p><font color="#ff0000">RIGH HERE:</font></p><font color="#ff0000"></font></blockquote> <blockquote> <font color="#ff0000">Clerics have 1/2 of the real healing capability of other classes because reactives just dont heal if target is not hit. So after target has been hit, clerics have a bit over 1/2 of the capability to heal</font> <p><font color="#ff3300">Pretty clear to me right there</font>That is right. I didn't. So no wonder you 'dont get it', you are just making things up.</p> <p><font color="#ff3300">If you insist.  You wrote the words pretty sure not only I can seem them. Scroll up to your original post if you'd like. I didnt not put words in your mouth or change your sentance in any way.</font></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>You seem to have forgotten what you wrote : See above in red</p> <p>My point is that no ones heals anything this case. You could make an argument for wards I suppose but HoT's and reactives you cant. Its just not the case.</p> <p>I think its pretty clear that you do not like the templar healing "Style" Thats fine enjoy your fury but to say that Templars are 1/2 the healers of druid is just factually wrong or Im missing what you are trying to say.</p><hr></blockquote>Ah the good old Quote Mining. Well, you are doing just that. Read again. I did not say target is not getting hit, I said target is getting hit rarely. The part you mined was from sequence 'getst hit - is not hit - is not hit - is not hit -  gets hit'. So you are either a troll or just cannot understand what you read.<div></div>

[Rast]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Celestian_GC wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ADAM0S wrote:<BR> <P>...and in case you missed it Timaarit, Reactives have greater healing potential than HoTs or Wards, therefore, good Clerics don't get into "critical situtations" as often as other healers.  Cleric direct heals also heal for more hitpoints than other priest classes, but they cast slower.  Because of our long cast times, Clerics must learn to be preemptive and start casting before the healing is needed, both with Reactives and with direct heals.</P> <P>Don't get me wrong, Wards are the most powerful form of healing in any situation, but there are trade-offs for having them as a Shaman.  HoTs are the more powerful way to heal an entire group that is taking damage, but again, there are trade-offs.</P> <P>The most powerful way to heal is to combine all the types of healing.  That's why the main tank group in most raids have all three priest classes.  :smileyhappy:</P> <P>Adamos</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I was curious so I broke down the healing for reactives and wards (and defiler cast heals/templars).<BR><BR>Defiler single ward (master)<BR>1788 point ward, 190 power<BR>cast time 2 seconds<BR><BR>Defiler Group Ward (adept 3)<BR>2928, power 356<BR>cast time 5 seconds<BR><BR>Defiler Fast Cast Heal (adept 3)<BR>757-926, power 146<BR>cast time 2 seconds<BR><BR>Defiler Slow Big Heal (master 2)<BR>1648-2015, power 254<BR>Cast time 3 seconds<BR><BR>Templar Single Reactive (master 1)<BR>3x433-530 (2165-2650), power 190<BR>casting 2 seconds<BR><BR>Templar Group reactive (adept 3)<BR>9x392-480 (3528-4320), power 356<BR>casting 5 seconds<BR><BR>Templar Fast Cast Heal (adept 3)<BR>757-926, power 170<BR>casting 2 seconds<BR><BR>Templar Big cast heal (master 2)<BR>1648-2015, power 308<BR>casting 3 seconds<BR><BR>As you can see the defiler castable heals are exactly the same amount as Templar but they do cost less mana (they also cost an equal amount of health to use). <BR><BR>However if you look at the reactives they can out "heal" a ward. If you notice I put the amount they could heal in ()'s. Even the low end out performs a ward by a large margin even if it only heals for the minimum. <BR><BR>There are situations where wards will be better suited and others where reactives will be. Adam is correct though with the 3 priests in the MT group. We do it always, 1 templar, 1 defiler, 1 warden. Having all 3 healing types on the MT is very nice. <BR><BR>One of my favorite things about wards is they always get their use. They go off before reactives and work well with HoTs. Warders can easily out heal most priests simply because of the that fact alone.<BR><BR>Anyway, I did this mostly for myself to see how they both compare at the number level as I never looked.  I like templars and defilers and furies. That's why I have a 70 of each... I have to say though I play my defiler more than the other 2.<BR><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The only thing I see here is the obvious issue in regards to avoidance tanks.  A ward will be up until it runs out or runs out of 'absorbsion'.  If that is one hit or 15 it doesn't matter, as long as the ward is up you will have some benefit from it.  While with a reactive (and especially true for avoidance tanks), you have a cap as to how much the reactive heals on each hit.</P> <P>I honestly do not see this as a bad thing in and of itself though.  But unfortuntately, without causing healers to become more broken hybrids (see paladins), I don't really see an adequate solution either.</P>

[Bjerde]

Well Bjerde, in case you have missed it but templar heals are unique in the manner those heal. HoT's will heal even when the target is not hit and wards will 'heal' before any damage is taken. So in a critical situation wards can prevent death by blocking enough damage and HoT's have a chance to heal enough before that damage is taken. Reactives will do neither, they will attemp to heal after the target is dead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOL, so you are saying that the only heals we have are reactives? You might want to open your spell book and read the descriptions of some of the spells you have. The heal procs will be going the whole fight, so hopefully that add just that little bit more over the length of the fight so you don't get in the red. Sorry, HoTs will not catch up a tank fast enough if he is on the brink of death. I did mention that the emergency wards of a shaman will help greatly. But, our Divine Arbitration will do a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] fine job of pulling a tank out of the red and giving you time to catch the tank up.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Bjerde wrote: LOL, so you are saying that the only heals we have are reactives? You might want to open your spell book and read the descriptions of some of the spells you have. The heal procs will be going the whole fight, so hopefully that add just that little bit more over the length of the fight so you don't get in the red. Sorry, HoTs will not catch up a tank fast enough if he is on the brink of death. I did mention that the emergency wards of a shaman will help greatly. But, our Divine Arbitration will do a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] fine job of pulling a tank out of the red and giving you time to catch the tank up.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Well why dont you read my posts again and you might have a clue what I am saying. As for the procs, they are about 1 to 2% of all the heals I do. In groups, they are even less. Also in groups, reactives are about 50% of all the heals I do. What does that mean, well, druids have a fixed healing potential. Their healing doesn't depend on target getting hit. Shamans have slightly adjusting potential as their wards heal when they time out but the duration is longer than recast. Clerics potential on the other hand depends massicely on the mobs ability to hit. If there are very few hits, reactives will lose a massive amount of the healing capability and as the game is, the target is still taking huge damage. In the end, this means clerics can have even 50% less healing capability as druids do because clerics can only use direct heals in between the hits. My UI currently shows the procs left on my single target reactive which helps me recast it in time. But it doesn't show that on my group reactive. This means that either I waste situational potential by recasting it too early, or then I start recasting it too late. In first case, I could have cast some other heals and in the second one, there is a time when the reactive is not up. Situations where target takes 9 hits in 15 seconds are very rare (yes, they do occur though). But my observation is that reactives live up to their potential only in raids when a group is pulled or in groups when MT pulls up a full room. The latter is something you dont see ib pugs and in the first case, the reactives lose several ticks due to wards absorbing hits.<div></div>

[Kasias81]

The short answer- Yes the Templar is (one of) the best "pure" healers in the game.  If you want your main job to be to keep your group alive, then this is a great class to play!!!

[Bjerde]

/agree <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<P>Aye, it's a fine class for healing.  No other class has as many methods for controlling, removing, or healing damage as Templars.  That's not opinion, either.  Count up the buffs, the dazes, the stuns, the heals, the wards, the reactives, the damage reducers - all of it.  We're fairly bristling with ways to keep fighters standing.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Echgar]

I have seen a few posts in this thread that are resorting to insults to make a point.  Please do not let a difference of opinion become personal.  I am reluctant to remove any posts at this point as there is some decent discussion/debate here, but if the insults continue we may have little choice.<div></div>

[Rast]

I can't say I've had any issues with my Templar so far.  To be honest, I've not noticed much solo difference (at this point) from my Paladin (I nuke more, melee less).  Granted, the lack of AoEs will make a difference in the future as well.  But like the paladin, it is about picking your targets carefully and staying on top of things in groups.

[Sirenta]

<P>Whats that fuzz all about?</P> <P>Man i wouldn't swap with a shaman or druid...</P> <P>I'm the man behind the Tank.</P> <P>He stands coz I am the Base.</P> <P>2 Anti-Damage Buffs (Shield Ally, Stoneskin)</P> <P>Raw HP Buffs, not those crappy Stamina Buffs.</P> <P>Miti, Resist all (Str+Wis buff)</P> <P>Huge Emergency Heal (12k Tank+5x8k Pals... when on brink of death (Tank approx. 2k HP) thats a whoopin 5k Heal)</P> <P>Anti-Stun,fear,Charm</P> <P>Man a templar rocks [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]. throw in a Ward-Caster ... Bingo...</P> <P> </P> <P>This is a group play, this is a Raid play.</P> <P>If you wanna PVP and Solo and heal, lets just say play an other game =) You cannot have it all...</P> <P> </P> <P>We DO have issues but there will be a time, where some Devs register what they actually do, and that they swing with a verey large bat directly in the face of clerics.</P> <P> </P> <P>Just my 2 Cents</P> <P> </P> <P>Mighty Morphin' Power Schleifer, the Yellow Ranger :smileysad: , member of the VME-Space-Patrol-Delta-Raidforce</P> <P> </P> <P>:smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>:smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>:smileyvery-happy:</P>

[Timaarit]

Reminds me of a saying... Image is everything <div></div>

[Sirenta]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>Reminds me of a saying...<BR><BR>Image is everything<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Hmm.. is there anything else that does matter?</P> <P>I could whine alot about templars, but why?</P> <P>They're good as they are. They lack some things that others have, and they have to live their chars to fulfill their role best,<BR>but who doesn't?</P> <P>You say your proc Heals are 1-2 % of your healing capacity.</P> <P>Well on good days  they are up to 20% of mine. The shaman wards the MT,  and my procs heal the whole raid-melees.</P> <P>On AE Mobs and on the rare occasions everyone melees with the mob (Vyemm, Tarinax come to mind) these procs are serious healing.</P> <P>Remembering furthermore that EVERYTIME the proc actually procs, you get bonused with an heal-spell-trigger</P> <P>This means every proc can proc the Plate Helm of the Ether, Anashti Sul, Arm of Errolisi, Mystical Orb...</P> <P> </P> <P>This is my Image. This is me. Schleifer, Templar. Executing Hand of Marr.</P> <P> </P>