Any reason why you blindly changed templars Divine Arbitration?

[Kizee]

<p>The spell has been out since DoF (3.5 years?) and has always been a equalize health for group zonewide on a 15 MINUTE REUSE.</p><p>It was a very powerful spell in EQ1 however how it is coded in this game it was very very situational. I think most templars thought the zonewide range was one of the perks because it was on such a long recast.</p><p>I threw a point into making it raidwide the other night (last line of the shadow tree) and noticed that a range of 50 meters was added.</p><p>Was this intentional? I can't see this spell being so overpowered recently that it waranted a nerf after it has been that way for so long.</p>

[Kendricke]

<p>If we're going to have an effect radius (not my first choice, but at least one I can understand), shouldn't we at least see a decrease in the recast timer (at least to 10 minutes).  Then, even if we take the new Holy Arbitration achievement, we'd only be able to cut the recast timer down to 5 minutes or so...hardly balance-breaking, I'd submit.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If we're going to have an effect radius (not my first choice, but at least one I can understand), shouldn't we at least see a decrease in the recast timer (at least to 10 minutes).  Then, even if we take the new Holy Arbitration achievement, we'd only be able to cut the recast timer down to 5 minutes or so...hardly balance-breaking, I'd submit.</p></blockquote><p>I have to agree.</p><p>The line was mildly useful if your tank charged ahead while you were busy doing something else.  It was a single 'heal' you could get off while you sprinted back to heal range.  If the range is nerfed, the recast should go down, even if it requires aa points spent to lower the recast.</p><p>I'm not a big fan of SoE's crack down on unbounded heal range.  Mainly cause they epically fail at identifying what all unbounded range checked heals exist in game.  In fact, they continue to add more and more items with it, then come back to spells that are expansions old and tweak them =/</p>

[Aule]

That and raid mobs having more and more zonewide aoe's, or aoe's that might as well be since they hit targets up to 75m or 85m away.

[LowfyrWildforge]

<p>Sony didn't nerf us... you just need to understand how the spell changed with your AA.</p><p>With the AA, you now have a range for who you can target.   It still has unlimited range for the group, provided you can target a group member who is close enough.</p><p>For your own group, you just need to target yourself, it will work fine.</p><p>For other groups, you just need to think in terms of who in the same group is close to you.   So, for instance, to save someone during say, the naga fight, you target someone else in that group, and not the person who is long range.</p><p>Personally, I think what SoE needs to do is take the targeting restriction off the spell entirely, it makes it easier to use (and thus more useful).</p><p>They did not, however, nerf us templars in that regard.</p>

[Kizee]

<p><cite>LowfyrWildforge wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sony didn't nerf us... you just need to understand how the spell changed with your AA.</p><p>With the AA, you now have a range for who you can target.   It still has unlimited range for the group, provided you can target a group member who is close enough.</p><p>For your own group, you just need to target yourself, it will work fine.</p><p>For other groups, you just need to think in terms of who in the same group is close to you.   So, for instance, to save someone during say, the naga fight, you target someone else in that group, and not the person who is long range.</p><p>Personally, I think what SoE needs to do is take the targeting restriction off the spell entirely, it makes it easier to use (and thus more useful).</p><p>They did not, however, nerf us templars in that regard.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, I was thinking about that after I posted however I never remembered seeing a range in the description before.</p>

[Kendricke]

<p>In any event, I'm still thinking that the reduced recast time isn't an unreasonable request.</p>