Armored Healers..

[LittleHellcat]

I have a lvl 66 Fury, and lately it seems that everyone is asking for "Armored Healers".   Druids are yesterday's news for some reason.  Sooo, a couple of questions. 1. Why are Druids not wanted/needed for the high level instances?  I really enjoy playing a healer role more than fighter role.  So, I thought try.. 2. If I were to make a "Armored Healer", which is better suited for support?  I've read up on all 4, and I think it's down to either Mystic or Templar.  3. Could you tell me the advantages and disadvantages of each?  Thanks in advance for all your comments and suggestions.

[sah]

<cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a lvl 66 Fury, and lately it seems that everyone is asking for "Armored Healers".   Druids are yesterday's news for some reason.  Sooo, a couple of questions. 1. Why are Druids not wanted/needed for the high level instances?  I really enjoy playing a healer role more than fighter role.  So, I thought try.. 2. If I were to make a "Armored Healer", which is better suited for support?  I've read up on all 4, and I think it's down to either Mystic or Templar.  3. Could you tell me the advantages and disadvantages of each?  Thanks in advance for all your comments and suggestions. </blockquote>The problem isn't that druids aren't wanted/needed, it's that there are so many druids out there...if you shout for healers you usually get a bunch of replies from druids and no clerics or shaman...

[TheSource123]

<cite>sahet wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a lvl 66 Fury, and lately it seems that everyone is asking for "Armored Healers".   Druids are yesterday's news for some reason.  Sooo, a couple of questions. 1. Why are Druids not wanted/needed for the high level instances?  I really enjoy playing a healer role more than fighter role.  So, I thought try.. 2. If I were to make a "Armored Healer", which is better suited for support?  I've read up on all 4, and I think it's down to either Mystic or Templar.  3. Could you tell me the advantages and disadvantages of each?  Thanks in advance for all your comments and suggestions. </blockquote>The problem isn't that druids aren't wanted/needed, it's that there are so many druids out there...if you shout for healers you usually get a bunch of replies from druids and no clerics or shaman...</blockquote>QFT, and IMO Druids are too easy to play for a healer class. They are far less "active" than what a healer should be.

[SpritRaja]

I don't know what you mean about the far less "active" part. IMO the reason so many play druids is they are far more "active" than healers are supposed to be in most minds. This makes them more fun.

[Birn]

<cite>sahet wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a lvl 66 Fury, and lately it seems that everyone is asking for "Armored Healers".   Druids are yesterday's news for some reason.  Sooo, a couple of questions. 1. Why are Druids not wanted/needed for the high level instances?  I really enjoy playing a healer role more than fighter role.  So, I thought try.. 2. If I were to make a "Armored Healer", which is better suited for support?  I've read up on all 4, and I think it's down to either Mystic or Templar.  3. Could you tell me the advantages and disadvantages of each?  Thanks in advance for all your comments and suggestions. </blockquote>The problem isn't that druids aren't wanted/needed, it's that there are so many druids out there...if you shout for healers you usually get a bunch of replies from druids and no clerics or shaman...</blockquote>This is very true, if you for some reason want two healers it takes 30 secs to get a druid and 30 mins for shaman/cleric type.

[Birn]

Saphira@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>I don't know what you mean about the far less "active" part. IMO the reason so many play druids is they are far more "active" than healers are supposed to be in most minds. This makes them more fun. </blockquote> People play druids because they can heal just as good as any other healers, best dps of all priests and of course can teleport everyone in a click of a button. They just have everything you need and a bit more.

[Mareth]

<cite>Birn wrote:</cite><blockquote>Saphira@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>I don't know what you mean about the far less "active" part. IMO the reason so many play druids is they are far more "active" than healers are supposed to be in most minds. This makes them more fun. </blockquote> People play druids because they can heal just as good as any other healers, best dps of all priests and of course can teleport everyone in a click of a button. They just have everything you need and a bit more. </blockquote>If you think it's just about dps/heals, then sure, they got it. Now ask a druid to debuff something...

[LittleHellcat]

OK, so can you give me advice on which other type would be best to make, if I were to make another type of healer?  I've read up on them, and in short (in a nut shell)  it seems the Templar has more reactive heals, and the mystic has more debuffs.  Can anyone give me some imput?  I've only played Druid types (both) I'm very unfamilar with clerics and shamen.

[silentpsycho]

<cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>OK, so can you give me advice on which other type would be best to make, if I were to make another type of healer?  I've read up on them, and in short (in a nut shell)  it seems the Templar has more reactive heals, and the mystic has more debuffs.  Can anyone give me some imput?  I've only played Druid types (both) I'm very unfamilar with clerics and shamen. </blockquote>Defilers are the bomb.  2nd choice would be Mystic.  You can't go wrong with a good shaman who keeps the wards up.

[Cassend]

<cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>OK, so can you give me advice on which other type would be best to make, if I were to make another type of healer?  I've read up on them, and in short (in a nut shell)  it seems the Templar has more reactive heals, and the mystic has more debuffs.  Can anyone give me some imput?  I've only played Druid types (both) I'm very unfamilar with clerics and shamen. </blockquote> I noticed you haven't mentioned what you play the game for? Is it for grouping or raiding? You mention "high level instances" but it is unclear if you mean from a raiding perspective or not. I assume raiding, because grouping for the most part doesn't involve a rigorous class-demand procedure that raiding does. Having said that, templars, defilers, and mystics are probably the most desired healers that aren't druids in either case. Templars seem to be relatively more common than the latter two, with mystics being the least common. If your selection for which class you want to play is based on which is least common, play a mystic. Wards are an extremely important part of the end game because certain mobs hit harder than heals can heal. Debuffs are a blessing when facing yellow/orange content and are welcome in any group. I would advise you to play a shaman either way, however there are many more defilers running around level capped than mystics from what I've seen.

[Laiina]

<cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a lvl 66 Fury, and lately it seems that everyone is asking for "Armored Healers".   Druids are yesterday's news for some reason.  Sooo, a couple of questions. 1. Why are Druids not wanted/needed for the high level instances?  </blockquote><p> I think that many or most who replied missed the single most common reason for asking for plate or "armored" healer (not sure what that is...).</p><p>Healer buffs, HOT's, DOT's, and debuffs do not stack among the same type. So if you have 2 Fury or 2 of any type healer in group, you essentially have about 1.2 healers - the 2nd one is essentially good for nothing but direct heals. Druids are pretty common, the hard part is often getting a 2nd healer that is NOT a Druid type. (the idea that many groups think they need two healers is a whole other issue with me, but that is a different topic).</p><p>And there are other reasons - Many Druid type tend to concentrate their spell upgrades, items, AA, and special abiltities towards nuking and damage. Most Templar types tend to try and maximizer healing. So, while in theory both a Fury and a Templar CAN heal equally well, in fact some Furies do not heal as well as a Templar because they have focused their abilities elsewhere.</p>

[Innermirror]

<cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>OK, so can you give me advice on which other type would be best to make, if I were to make another type of healer?  I've read up on them, and in short (in a nut shell)  it seems the Templar has more reactive heals, and the mystic has more debuffs.  Can anyone give me some imput?  I've only played Druid types (both) I'm very unfamilar with clerics and shamen. </blockquote>Shamans have so-called wards to absorb incoming damages before they hurt people. A good shaman can keep his/her wards up to prevent damages. When damages actually land on someone, it's up to cleics and druids to efficiently amend wounds. Cleics have reactive healings that people auto-received healings while got hurt, if those wounds haven't kill them though. I think you already know the way druids heal.... Both Shamans and Cleics have debuffs. Briefly, Shamans' debuffs concentrate on lowering the DPS output of mobs, and Cleics's on making mobs received more physical damages. Hope this help 

[DarrkElf]

<p>Your best bet is to try rolling a templar or defiler/mystic and see what you think of the play style.</p><p>I can tell you that going from the play style of my fury, to trying to play a defiler I almost went insane.</p><p>Defilers seem to be majorly needed in raids, and plate healers are always in demand, however the playstyle of warding is very different to the instant heals done by the Fury.  You need to change your playstyle quite a bit, especially if you plan to solo at all.</p><p>I just could not get the hang of using debuffs and wards when I was solo, and frankly the first 20 levels you are pretty much stuck soloing unless you 2-box.</p><p>In raids in particular having that mix of healers (warders, reactives & instant) is fantastic to see in action.</p><p>Classes in this game are dependant on how you personally enjoy playing, so give the other classes a go and see if they're for you  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Marytaten]

<cite>DarrkElf wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Your best bet is to try rolling a templar or defiler/mystic and see what you think of the play style.</p><p>I can tell you that going from the play style of my fury, to trying to play a defiler I almost went insane.</p><p>Defilers seem to be majorly needed in raids, and plate healers are always in demand, however the playstyle of warding is very different to the instant heals done by the Fury.  You need to change your playstyle quite a bit, especially if you plan to solo at all.</p><p>I just could not get the hang of using debuffs and wards when I was solo, and frankly the first 20 levels you are pretty much stuck soloing unless you 2-box.</p><p>In raids in particular having that mix of healers (warders, reactives & instant) is fantastic to see in action.</p><p>Classes in this game are dependant on how you personally enjoy playing, so give the other classes a go and see if they're for you  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote> LOL I can see why you would go insane going from a Fury to defiler. Very different playstyle but still fun. And if you want to roll out a defiler now, the best way would be to do it with a buddy lol..the more help the better with dps <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[da5idblacksun]

Because lots of spells of healers of the same class do not stack, groups like to get different classes to maximize the healing.  My guess is that the groups looking for 'armored healers' already have a druid.

[MaryJane666]

<cite>silentpsycho wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Defilers are the bomb.  2nd choice would be Mystic.  You can't go wrong with a good shaman who keeps the wards up. </p></blockquote><p> I have to agree.  Defilers are WAY fun with debuffs and dots and of course....wards.  Plus as I always advertise when I'm looking for a group..."Tired of taking damage? Tired of needing to be healed?  Then get a Defiler today!  Prevent DAMAGE before it happens to YOU!! Get your wards today!"</p><p>Almost always gets a giggle and hey...it's really nice to see the tank stay green throughout the fight<img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Vonotar]

<cite>DarrkElf wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just could not get the hang of using debuffs and wards when I was solo, and frankly the first 20 levels you are pretty much stuck soloing unless you 2-box.</blockquote> My Mystic has never had any trouble getting groups from level 11 upwards :o))

[Hollyf]

<cite>TheSource123 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>sahet wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a lvl 66 Fury, and lately it seems that everyone is asking for "Armored Healers".   Druids are yesterday's news for some reason.  Sooo, a couple of questions. 1. Why are Druids not wanted/needed for the high level instances?  I really enjoy playing a healer role more than fighter role.  So, I thought try.. 2. If I were to make a "Armored Healer", which is better suited for support?  I've read up on all 4, and I think it's down to either Mystic or Templar.  3. Could you tell me the advantages and disadvantages of each?  Thanks in advance for all your comments and suggestions. </blockquote>The problem isn't that druids aren't wanted/needed, it's that there are so many druids out there...if you shout for healers you usually get a bunch of replies from druids and no clerics or shaman...</blockquote>QFT, and IMO Druids are too easy to play for a healer class. They are far less "active" than what a healer should be. </blockquote>I cannot speak for any other Druid player out there but that it totally laughable about how we are "far less active." I personally do both healing and curing from groups to Raids and am quite busy doing so, especially on Raids. Single/group heals as well as curing dot's. I have more than enough invites and requests to come and be a part of something going on and have never ever had my "LFG" up all the way to 70. Far less active, hmmm.

[Vonotar]

Hollyfia@Blackburrow wrote: <blockquote>I cannot speak for any other Druid player out there but that it totally laughable about how we are "far less active." I personally do both healing and curing from groups to Raids and am quite busy doing so, especially on Raids. Single/group heals as well as curing dot's. I have more than enough invites and requests to come and be a part of something going on and have never ever had my "LFG" up all the way to 70. Far less active, hmmm. </blockquote> If you know how to use your cures you'll get a good reputation in no time.  The number of healers I have grouped with who never seem to cure is rather scary. On the subject of 'activity' my Fury seems to have to work harder to look after the group whereas my Mystic breezes along. However if you accept that a Fury is somewhere in the middle ground of healer-dps this makes sense. P.s. anybody else get confused with the fact that Warden's don't ward (even tho it's the first four letters of their name)

[LittleHellcat]

Thanks for all the replies! Some answers to some questions that were asked previously.  My playstyle is pretty relaxed.  Meaning, If I'm needed for a Raid, I raid, if I'm needed in a group I group, if a friend or guildie needs me, I go there.  Basically I go where I'm needed.  I'm not a hardcore raider, but enjoy being asked.  I truely love my profession, healing.  As a healer, I have almost all of my AA pts in healing and not nukes.  I basically "hit like a girl" but heal pretty nicely.  I do lift debuffs from my party and try to stay on top of that.  I also debuff if needed , which alot of people don't even realize furies can do.  No we don't have alot, but do have some. Two boxing is out of the question, no offense to people who do, it's just not for me. So, I took my own advice (and others that mentioned it) that I give people that can't decided between two classes, and made one of each.  I have a Mystic and Templar.  I know it's too early to measure if one is easier/harder, more fun etc. Please keep the replies coming, I enjoy reading all your opinions.  Some good points were brought up that I never new about these classes.  Thanks again

[MullenSkywatcher]

(My 2cp) Soloing - Fury / Inquisitor (dps) Grouping - Any (Gear/Skill > class) Raiding - One of each of the 6 The best raiding healer is the one your guild doesn't have.  As a Fury, your contributions to the caster dps group mean a big jump in dps for the raid.

[gita]

<cite>Magnamundian wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hollyfia@Blackburrow wrote: P.s. anybody else get confused with the fact that Warden's don't ward (even tho it's the first four letters of their name) </blockquote> wardens not ward but...  got one spell line who its a heat/cold "Ward" and does similar to mystic/defiler ward but just on cold/heat damage, the Untamed line lvls 29, 43, 57. As Warden its fun out-heal a shaman when do crab x2 instance in the last adv. pack <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> On the cures completelly agree, its really big the number of slackers.. err healers who not cure, even in hardcore raid guilds.

[liveja]

<cite>MullenSkywatcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>The best raiding healer is the one your guild doesn't have. </blockquote><p>Truer words never written.</p><p>For my money, if I wanted to play a healer of any type, I'd choose a Shaman, mostly because they're so bloody rare & most raid guilds look for good ones.</p>

[Malchore]

<p>Healing diversity is important.  That point has been made already.</p><p>A group might already have a fury who wants to primarly nuke and heal as required, so they look for a cleric as primary healer.</p><p>Also, because clerics debuff mitigation, it allows the melees in the group to parse higher.  People like higher parse numbers -- makes them feel more special and "powerful".  It also means the group can kill mobs faster.</p><p>And finally, clerics tend to be better suited to healing plate tanks.  I know when I play my zerker, I much prefer a cleric as the healer.</p><p>All three of those are reasons why groups would prefer cleric over shaman or druid.  Also, druids and clerics can stack their healing.  But shaman + cleric is a bit more difficult.  If the shaman's wards are enough to nullify the need for healing, then the cleric is useless.  However if the mobs are eating through wards creating a need for healing, the shaman is useless.</p><p>So I think it's one of two things:  either a group already has a druid and knows a cleric is a better fit.  Or the group has a plate tank (Warrior) and prefers a cleric as the group healer.</p>

[Specteral]

<cite>Malchore wrote:</cite><blockquote>And finally, clerics tend to be better suited to healing plate tanks.  I know when I play my zerker, I much prefer a cleric as the healer.<p>All three of those are reasons why groups would prefer cleric over shaman or druid.  Also, druids and clerics can stack their healing.  But shaman + cleric is a bit more difficult.  If the shaman's wards are enough to nullify the need for healing, then the cleric is useless.  However if the mobs are eating through wards creating a need for healing, the shaman is useless.</p><p>So I think it's one of two things:  either a group already has a druid and knows a cleric is a better fit.  Or the group has a plate tank (Warrior) and prefers a cleric as the group healer.</p></blockquote> Just wanted to touch on a few points here.  In my normal group (as a 70 mystic) I usually have a 70 Templar around.  It is not uncommon for her to be able to focus on dps/cures/etc during easy fights, but on some of the hard ones we both have to go all out (very rare, but it happens, lol).  Neither one becomes 'useless', but depending on the circumstances our healing ability is diminished.  The other thing is that if something's shattering my wards left and right, it does not mean my wards are useless as I would have absorbed between 2 and 5k mitigated damage pre-breaks.  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Anyway, play both chars till ya get a feel for 'em.  I have trouble playing cleric/druid types (though druid is growing on me) because I'm too used to the warding style (and too lazy to adapt, woo! ...  erm, ignore that..).  Pick either what feels right or what the guild/friends need and you'll be golden. EDIT:  Almost forgot (ok, ok, did forget then remembered a few minutes later..), shaman [mystic/defiler] wear chain armor and clerics [templar/inquisitor] wear plate.  In my experience as a largely legendary/low fabled (relic) mystic, is that the templar can take much better hits than I can with comparable or lower gear.  So if you want the truly 'armored' healer, it'd probably be the plate wearers. That's not to say we mystics can't take a beating, but usually she can take more of a beating than I can.

[DeathRider69]

Well I have had an Inquisitor since I started playing 2+ years ago.  I had him in mothballs because I was jamming a Zerker and then a Necro to 70.  But what I did notice, even after they nerfed all the CA spells to X procs versus procs over time, what that I was much more able to be in the middle of a fight versus having to hang way back.  It did make it a lot easier to debuff as well as get off some AOEs to the mobs where when I was in the back, it was just not happening.  Also as a plate healer, I was much more able to survive when rezzing trying to prevent a wipe.  I know that when playing a fury I was never able to stay up long enough if the rest of the group went down.  Being in plate allowed me to cast reactives on myself, do some melee as well as kick off the group rez.  At that point I could still keep myself up as well as get off the group heal and group reactive heals while the tank(s) were buffing.  I would then hit the massive de-hate spell and the tank would take back over.  Based on the raids I have been on where a Inquistor/Templar was used, I noted that they also hold up much better to the raid mobs AOEs that can normally take out the casters and druids.  It makes a heck of a difference in a raid when the healer is still up after a AOE versus a pet-class having to try to rez the other healers <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[mellowknees72]

<cite>Innermirror wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>OK, so can you give me advice on which other type would be best to make, if I were to make another type of healer?  I've read up on them, and in short (in a nut shell)  it seems the Templar has more reactive heals, and the mystic has more debuffs.  Can anyone give me some imput?  I've only played Druid types (both) I'm very unfamilar with clerics and shamen. </blockquote>Shamans have so-called wards to absorb incoming damages before they hurt people. A good shaman can keep his/her wards up to prevent damages. When damages actually land on someone, it's up to cleics and druids to efficiently amend wounds. Cleics have reactive healings that people auto-received healings while got hurt, if those wounds haven't kill them though. I think you already know the way druids heal.... Both Shamans and Cleics have debuffs. Briefly, Shamans' debuffs concentrate on lowering the DPS output of mobs, and Cleics's on making mobs received more physical damages. Hope this help  </blockquote><p> I can't speak for Wardens, but I know Furies also have debuffs.</p><p>I'm going to hope that the reason that "armored healers" are wanted is because a fury/warden is already in the group and not because of some boneheaded prejudice against druids (as there was in EQ1).  Since druids in EQ2 are really equal in healing ability to shaman and clerics, it's likely that the group is looking for someone with whom abilites will stack.</p>

[Kendricke]

<cite>Mareth wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Birn wrote:</cite><blockquote>Saphira@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>I don't know what you mean about the far less "active" part. IMO the reason so many play druids is they are far more "active" than healers are supposed to be in most minds. This makes them more fun. </blockquote> People play druids because they can heal just as good as any other healers, best dps of all priests and of course can teleport everyone in a click of a button. They just have everything you need and a bit more. </blockquote>If you think it's just about dps/heals, then sure, they got it. Now ask a druid to debuff something... </blockquote><p>Exactly.  A geared up Templar or Defiler is putting nearly 2000 health on the group's tank.  At best, a druid can put less than 400 health on that same fighter.  Also, druids have next to no debuffs, especially compared to shamans or even clerics.</p><p>In addition, the idea that druids "can heal just as good as any other healer" isn't necessarily accurate.  It's truly situational.  In a raid setting, druids can put out some incredible healing numbers because they have the best AE healing capabilities, but as far as concentrating heals on just one target, they have a harder time - especially when fighting larger encounters with tons of damage coming in fast and furious.  That just happens to be an area where shamans and clerics do much better.</p><p>Don't get me wrong.  I think druids have some incredible strengths.  I just don't buy into the "all healers are equal" line that I see so often.</p>

[Thrashercat]

<cite>TheSource123 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>sahet wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a lvl 66 Fury, and lately it seems that everyone is asking for "Armored Healers".   Druids are yesterday's news for some reason.  Sooo, a couple of questions. 1. Why are Druids not wanted/needed for the high level instances?  I really enjoy playing a healer role more than fighter role.  So, I thought try.. 2. If I were to make a "Armored Healer", which is better suited for support?  I've read up on all 4, and I think it's down to either Mystic or Templar.  3. Could you tell me the advantages and disadvantages of each?  Thanks in advance for all your comments and suggestions. </blockquote>The problem isn't that druids aren't wanted/needed, it's that there are so many druids out there...if you shout for healers you usually get a bunch of replies from druids and no clerics or shaman...</blockquote>QFT, and IMO Druids are too easy to play for a healer class. They are far less "active" than what a healer should be. </blockquote>Yeah because saving the tank after the shammy's ward breaks or cleric's reactive drops with a split second to do so is easy....Druids are the most active class because of their heals, they have fast, quick heals for spike damage. They have a few debuffs, and are more suited for caster's than tank groups. However, druids are perfectly capable of solo healing any zone, save Nizara maybe. Please don't insult the class because it happens to be popular. There are plenty of good ones out there.

[Kendricke]

Pipes@Najena wrote: <blockquote>Since druids in EQ2 are really equal in healing ability to shaman and clerics, it's likely that the group is looking for someone with whom abilites will stack.</blockquote><p>As an alternate perspective:  In a pinch, I can stack five separate reactives (Radiance, Beneficence, Glorious/Dire/Focused Intercessions) that heal for a total of 43 reactive triggers of healing.  The total amount of healing available to the MT is absolutely staggering.</p><p>For the first 5 triggers, the MT is receiving 1884-2417 health PER HIT.  For the next 4 triggers, it drops to measly 1265-1571 health per hit.  Then, the poor fighter has to somehow make due with a mere 587-715 health per hit for the next 7 hits.  In a big encounter when I'm precasting, if the fight goes south, that's something like 18,000-22,500 health that can be pushed in just one second if needed.  Since the heals trigger as the hits come in, the faster the fight, the faster the healing.  Chances are I'm not ever going to need to stack all five of my reactives, but the fact remains that if needed, I can drop them quickly enough to generally save the day.  </p><p>Realize, the numbers above aren't even all mastered and only count my Templar's reactives.  In addition to those, Templars have all of their direct heals, sanctuary, proc heals, the fate line of kill heals, arbitration, daze, and stun.  In an average group fighting typical content, any priest can solo heal a group.  In a group like that, the sheer amount of healing most Templars can put forth is wasted.  Frankly, the amount of healing any priest can put forth is wasted in a typical group.  It's when you really get into the harder content that the more dedicated healers start to truly shine.  </p><p>All that being said, I fully realize that druid players can blow me out of the water when it comes to group heals.  Their group regenerations hit everyone equally (meaning that in a full group with a 5 tick regeneration, it heals for 30 total triggers), whereas my group reactives are only triggered 9 times total (and typically, the MT tends to soak up most of those).  However, when it comes to healing just one target (especially a mitigation tank), druids simply can't touch the numbers I can put out.</p><p>Is all this healing really required?  Most of the time, it's not.  However, it's my understanding that groups don't form with best case scenarios in mind - they want to make sure they're covered for those times when the fur's really flying.  Clerics and shaman add more health, tend to have more heals, and can generally block or mitigate more damage than druids.  I've been in a lot of groups as the main healer - and asked to join quite a few of them that already had a druid.  In general, this tends to work out since most groups see my Templar as a "true" healer, and the druid as a damage dealer that also heals.  </p><p>Is it a fair perception?  Perhaps not, but perception tends to be reality, and that happens to be the prevailing reality I've encountered most often.</p>

[Dirty Jack Rackham]

<cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a lvl 66 Fury, and lately it seems that everyone is asking for "Armored Healers".   Druids are yesterday's news for some reason.  Sooo, a couple of questions. 1. Why are Druids not wanted/needed for the high level instances?  I really enjoy playing a healer role more than fighter role.  So, I thought try.. 2. If I were to make a "Armored Healer", which is better suited for support?  I've read up on all 4, and I think it's down to either Mystic or Templar.  3. Could you tell me the advantages and disadvantages of each?  Thanks in advance for all your comments and suggestions. </blockquote>There are two Armored (read Plate) healers in Everquest 2, Templars and Inquisitors (with the Inquisitor being the Templar's Freeportian conterpart). Arrmored equates to plate, not chain.

[Espyderman]

<cite>LittleHellcat wrote:</cite><blockquote>OK, so can you give me advice on which other type would be best to make, if I were to make another type of healer?  I've read up on them, and in short (in a nut shell)  it seems the Templar has more reactive heals, and the mystic has more debuffs.  Can anyone give me some imput?  I've only played Druid types (both) I'm very unfamilar with clerics and shamen. </blockquote><p> Templars are the Ubah Healah's with debuffs. Nukeability sucks. Longevity is outstanding. Tankability is possible, lacking dps and taunts for that though, but gaining aggro doesnt get you killed as often as a chain wearing mystic or a leather wearing druid. Druids are the more fun class, and more active class then templar. Templar is repetitive, cast the same 7 or 8 spells over and over, you needn't worry over mobs position, tanks position, or DPS positions. You dont need to offtank ads. The most a Templar does is vitae, heal, debuff, rinse and repeat.</p><p>Druids, well they seem more fun cause their spells are not as effective as a templar's, however their casting times are quicker so they can heal as good as a Templar even though heals are less effective they are cast much quicker. As a druid, you also can nuke very well and utility for either druid class is useful (wardens with evac, fury's with group invisibility etc...)</p><p>Each class plays differently and i enjoyed them all, warden, fury, and templar. I can say with certainty that if i wanted a pure power healer, i pick my templar hands down. If im looking to assist in healing, or heal less intense mobs, and maybe get in on some nuke action, or even want to be helpful in utility i'd go with my fury.</p><p>Im not saying one class is better then the other, they are different and are effective at what they are meant to do.</p>

[raydenwins]

<p>Can the warden wear chain armor if their strength was increased?  If so, is it worth it?  I heard a rumor about this possibility.</p>

[liveja]

<cite>raydenwins wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Can the warden wear chain armor if their strength was increased?</p></blockquote>AFAIK, Wardens & Furys are limited to leather only, regardless of their strength.

[Seagoat]

<p>I lean toward priest classes anyway (my main is a Templar, and I also have a Fury, Mystic, Inquisitor, Defiler, and Warden), and while I have to say that I get the most tells about joining groups on my main -- not sure if that's because she's level 61, or because she's a cleric, or because I play her most often -- my Fury is a load of fun to solo with.</p><p>I haven't played my Mystic or Inquisitor in a while, and my Defiler and Warden are still lowbies.  I'm not sure about your #1 question, but #2, IMO, is Templar.  Templars make great MHs, especially when you know the class well and are good at "reading" groups and raids.  Mystics I'm not so sure about, but I do know one thing: clerics and shaman don't play well together.  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>All in all, it depends on your play style.  You can make a class into just about anything you want, thanks to AAs.  If you decide to start a different priest alt, pick a class you enjoy and then build them into something that might be more useful in groups or raids.</p><p>PS - This thread's like a Seagoat-made-my-healer's-sig-fest, LOL.  <img src="/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>