Make Clerics what they SHOULD be... [Archive]

View Full Version : Make Clerics what they SHOULD be...

josephis

05-22-2009, 08:00 AM

I played a cleric in eq1, raiding from classic to Gates of discord, and I loved my cleric. Why? Because I knew what i was supposed to do, and I was good at it.Now you give clerics gimped healing stances, partnered with slow casting times and weak reuse timers. I'm failing to understand the corelation here. Clerics should be the best healers period. Shamans should be the best debuffers period. Druids should be the jack of all trades. It's really not that hard to comprehend. Either give us our healing superiority, or give us dps that is on par with the other healers (besides defilers...i feel your pain.)You went away from something that was good SOE, you tried to make all healers heal equally...and it failed.This is, I am sure, a wasted attempt to try and fix a class that has been great since 1999. Please fix us, and don't leave us out to dry.Sincerely,A Templar.

SpineDoc

05-22-2009, 10:36 AM

I say get rid of cleric DPS and make us the best healers! Of course this won't work, it's just wishful thinking. But I've been a templar since Day one and I remember LU13, I remember the meaning of true "zero DPS", etc etc.In raid MT group it should be 1 cleric that is the best healer in game, 1 shaman that is the best debuffer in game. And they should rework druids so they shine in OT groups somehow.

Heinzrick

05-22-2009, 10:39 AM

<cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite><blockquote>I say get rid of cleric DPS and make us the best healers! Of course this won't work, it's just wishful thinking. But I've been a templar since Day one and I remember LU13, I remember the meaning of true "zero DPS", etc etc.In raid MT group it should be 1 cleric that is the best healer in game, 1 shaman that is the best debuffer in game. And they should rework druids so they shine in OT groups somehow.</blockquote>I couldnt' agree more, it would bring in the EQ1 quality that we've lost or never had.Like usual ppl will split on this but that's why we have forums and opinions =)

EQPrime

05-22-2009, 02:50 PM

<cite>josephis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I played a cleric in eq1, raiding from classic to Gates of discord, and I loved my cleric. Why? Because I knew what i was supposed to do, and I was good at it.Now you give clerics gimped healing stances, partnered with slow casting times and weak reuse timers. I'm failing to understand the corelation here. Clerics should be the best healers period. Shamans should be the best debuffers period. Druids should be the jack of all trades. It's really not that hard to comprehend. Either give us our healing superiority, or give us dps that is on par with the other healers (besides defilers...i feel your pain.) You went away from something that was good SOE, you tried to make all healers heal equally...and it failed.This is, I am sure, a wasted attempt to try and fix a class that has been great since 1999. Please fix us, and don't leave us out to dry.Sincerely,A Templar.</blockquote>Templars have a gimped healing stance; inquisitors have a good healing stance. Templars certainly could use some improvement there but since you keep referring to clerics instead of templars you're only half correct.Cleric casting timers aren't bad with points in the int line. Templar reuse timers could be better but they're not terrible. For fights where sanctuary comes in handy you can make sure you always have a ritual or jcap before casting it to keep the reuse low. Inquisitor reuse timers are really nice due to their healing stance and mythical.Templars are solid healers with the best hp and tank buffs in game. Shamen will regularly show more healing on the heal parse due to the way the game mechanics work but I think most players would agree that templars are among the best at keeping a tank alive. Inquisitors don't have as many tools as templars do but they do a decent job and a good one with decent gear could probably solo heal any instance in the game.When it comes to DPS, templars can keep up with most of the other healers out there. We can't compete with a DPS-specced fury with the right gear, but I'm usually not too far below our mystics when I'm not healing too much. I'm almost always above inquisitors, wardens, and defilers when I'm dpsing. I don't think you can argue that our DPS isn't on par with the other healers (aside from the fury).As a templar I don't think we have a whole lot to complain about. We need a small boost to our healing stance and we will also need to see how much we are affected by the upcoming proc nerf. Other than that I really don't see much to worry about.This isn't EQ1. People who yearn for things to be the same as they were in EQ1 can always go back to EQ1.

josephis

05-22-2009, 03:38 PM

I agree as well.. I would be completely willing to sacrifce what dps we have for more intense healing power. I understand this is EQ2, and not EQ1, but templars should still have the cleric mindset where we are the best healers in game.

Enoa

05-22-2009, 06:53 PM

Stop looking at heal parses they are meaningless. Think about how much damage a templar prevents with stoneskin, shield ally, and mit buffs. Templars are by far the best healers in the game for heroic content, and an essential part of a MT group for raiding. DPS is fine as it is... to reach the full potential you have to ditch alot of 'healing aa's'. With the incoming 'proc changes' I suspect the templar will be doign better on the heal parses... but heal parses dont matter.Templars are still OP as healers.

RingleToo

05-22-2009, 09:16 PM

Well, as someone with a templar that mostly solos or is in single groups and isn't in a raid guild so rarely raids with my templar, I don't think I want to see a decrease in our dps. And my templar does a pretty darn good job keeping single groups a live, so I have to think we do a pretty darn good job at healing. Which isn't to say that our healing stance couldn't use some tweaking.

Arabani

06-01-2009, 06:01 PM

Templars are simply the best priests here:p Best healers,best buffers, bust "unti cc", best protected and have great dps.I don't understand why u want more heal power, only thing i'm missing in eq templars-normal shield use, give us at least kite shields, like all d&d clerics have:pIf u lack someting- it's gear or knowledge about class.

rollandheat

07-01-2009, 05:33 AM

Templars are not OP nor they need greater healing ability in general. Templar excels in one target healing against one mob but the do suck in healing one target agains many hard hitting mob or in healing groups. Templar need a bit o balancing but not just raw healing power. He should be able to heal group a bit more withou need of excelent gear. With legendary items I had difficult time solo healing AOE, with raid gear I dont have this problem anymore. But raid gear should not be required.

Oakum

07-01-2009, 11:47 AM

<cite>Uguv@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>josephis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I</blockquote>Templars have a gimped healing stance; inquisitors have a good healing stance. Templars certainly could use some improvement there but since you keep referring to clerics instead of templars you're only half correct.Cleric casting timers aren't bad with points in the int line. Templar reuse timers could be better but they're not terrible. For fights where sanctuary comes in handy you can make sure you always have a ritual or jcap before casting it to keep the reuse low. Inquisitor reuse timers are really nice due to their healing stance and mythical.Templars are solid healers with the best hp and tank buffs in game. Shamen will regularly show more healing on the heal parse due to the way the game mechanics work but I think most players would agree that templars are among the best at keeping a tank alive. Inquisitors don't have as many tools as templars do but they do a decent job and a good one with decent gear could probably solo heal any instance in the game.When it comes to DPS, templars can keep up with most of the other healers out there. We can't compete with a DPS-specced fury with the right gear, but I'm usually not too far below our mystics when I'm not healing too much. I'm almost always above inquisitors, wardens, and defilers when I'm dpsing. I don't think you can argue that our DPS isn't on par with the other healers (aside from the fury).As a templar I don't think we have a whole lot to complain about. We need a small boost to our healing stance and we will also need to see how much we are affected by the upcoming proc nerf. Other than that I really don't see much to worry about.This isn't EQ1. People who yearn for things to be the same as they were in EQ1 can always go back to EQ1.</blockquote>Seeing how druids trade heavier armor, to have higher dps then plate and chain healers, this says something about healer balance doesnt it, lol. Shaman should be able to out dps clerics and druids should out dps shaman when the healers are not healing.Healers healing equally is fine but druids should have something for the tradeoff in lighter armor just like brawlers should be able to outdps crusaders and warriors if not tanking.

Arielle Nightshade

07-03-2009, 04:30 AM

Templar needs some things tweaked, just like all healers in the game. Every class has stuff that is broken or not working as promised or as we think it ought to.The idea that clerics "should be" the best healer in the game has not been true since game launch, but that doesn't stop old EQ1 players from wanting it to be so. For 5ish years though? Pretty much it isn't going to happen would be my guess.If there was one 'best healer' why would anyone who wanted to play a healer roll anything else? So why not make this game 1 healer, 1 tank, 1 mage, 1 melee..oh wait..that's WoW.I understand your concern and desires. I'd love to be able to settle on playing a healer that was a good healer, had everything at my fingertips I wanted to do the job, and most of all was wanted for groups and end-game content, namely raids. If there was one archetype that guaranteed that completely - you bet I'd roll it and play it.But in trying to be all things to all people - SoE managed in a lot of cases to be nothing to anybody. /sigh.

GilanthasStargazer

07-17-2009, 08:29 PM

Us old EQers wish it was so, because the EQ class system worked Arielle. It's simple enough that anyone can do it, but complex enough that few people can master it.The devs made a terrible mistake splitting up class abilities amongst classes to make them all "Equal" and trying to avoid being EQ at all costs. In their attempt to get away from what everquest had already done right, they created a ton of half classes that were all "the same" or read as I read it, gimped equally. This is admited in interviews done after the launch of EQ2 and what their vision for EQ2 was and the mad scramble to fix it.EQ did have it right with healers, especially around the era of Planes of Power. Clerics were the main healer, with druid and shaman being secondaries for spot healing or backup healer with their 75% CH heal. Cleric DPS sucked but had CH buffs and hot spells, Druid DPS was pretty decent along with spot heal abilities and crowd control, and shaman debuffs were bar none and they could also heal decently.EQ2 and it's 20+ broken classes, so much loot everything had to be attuned, odd off level expansion teiring spell/skills system, ranked spells that are less powerful than master spells 14 levels ago (depending on level), etc have it wrong. This is a product of attempting to get away from EQ at all costs and explains a lot why nothing was nostalgic or familiar until EoF. The system in this game uses should be considered a failed experiment as a result of when you try to reinvent a wheel that was not broken to begin with. Many of us EQ'ers were stating that EQ2 should be scrapped completely and redone in beta. Too bad they didn't listen, the launch bombed, and as a last ditch resort did the combat revamp that turned the game forever into DPSquest.EQ2 will always be stuck DPSquest, which means billion HP mobs, and continued broken class system that will never be ballanced. The best hope is EQ3 going back to the roots that made EQ successful, but given the current state of EQlive 2009 I sincerly doubt it. EQ2 will more than likely be my last SoE game unless they 'get it'.Funny thing is you bring up WoW, and clearly Wow subs vastley outweigh EQ2 subs. More classes does not equal a better game. Personally I disliked wow immensly, but that's because it's soloquest and not orentated around group. Had it been at least somewhat group orentated, it would have been a far better game than EQ2. If Blizzard starts deving a group based MMO, you can bet I'll be watching it very closely.But as far as the post, point being is that EQ2 did not need 6 classes as priest archetype, nor did it need 2-3 classes in a group to make one complete healer that should have already been there as one class. As a templar, I always felt gimped and shortchanged, even being the 'best' healer in the game. Best should be subjective, It's not so much being the best healer, but the least sucky one out of the choices presented -- none of them 'good'.Worse is the gear and items for group healing that should not have to make up for the short sitedness of the classes and initial development. That says to me that it's a broken system that they are unwilling to fix, or unable to fix. I suspect it's a combination of both.In fact, it's part of the reason I left the game, and now intermittently play on EQ again. Or at least I will until I reach about level 70 and hit the post EQ2 launch expansions with crappy ranked spells, tons of instances, etc on the 50/51 server and promptly quit EQ again.But you're also right. Being that it's so far in launch, EQ2 will never fix it, and that is why EQ2 will never acheive the greatness expected of it after EQ. The devs should not have attempted to be Anti-EQ with this game, embraced what was done right, and done really cool dynamic world stuff. They've always had the talent especially with the lore, but they've never gone the proper direction regarding class mechanics with their MMO's. The proof of that that is current EQlive from classic EQ with EQ2 ideas bleeding over into EQlive starting in 2006.

SpineDoc

07-17-2009, 09:41 PM

I actually agree with you. I just don't see the need for so many healers and so many tanks. Mages and scouts I can understand, as it's much easier to spread out DPS.But what can you do? It's not going to go away it's such a basic part of the game. What bothers me is this perception I'm starting to get that people actually think Templars are OP. Templars can't be monster DPS and monster healers. I've seen other healers be able to BOTH DPS and heal on a very high level doing BOTH. I'm not saying Templars are gimped or anything, but we do have our issues. I definitely got caught in that entire DPS fever and worked for months on end to gear out and AA my Templar to get very nice DPS, then I realized it just didn't make sense and was taking the focus off of me being a healer. So I hung up that phase (except for soloing of course) and went back to what I was, a healer first and foremost. I've said it before, if I'm DPS in a group then either a) I need to go healer stance and SOLO heal, or b) I need to step aside and let a "real" DPS in that slot. Yeah I'm also one of those freaks that thinks tanks should hold aggro with hate and not dps. I'm more of a purist, tanks that don't dps, healers that don't dps, REAL internal group strategy required to beat mobs instead of DPSing everything.Which goes back to the original topic about clerics being the best healers in a perfect world. This is certainly why I created my Templar on day one of EQ2, I thought I was creating an EQ1 cleric that could never solo or do anything but heal a group, funny enough it was like that for a long time for Templars.<cite>GilanthasStargazer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Us old EQers wish it was so, because the EQ class system worked Arielle. It's simple enough that anyone can do it, but complex enough that few people can master it.The devs made a terrible mistake splitting up class abilities amongst classes to make them all "Equal" and trying to avoid being EQ at all costs. In their attempt to get away from what everquest had already done right, they created a ton of half classes that were all "the same" or read as I read it, gimped equally. This is admited in interviews done after the launch of EQ2 and what their vision for EQ2 was and the mad scramble to fix it.EQ did have it right with healers, especially around the era of Planes of Power. Clerics were the main healer, with druid and shaman being secondaries for spot healing or backup healer with their 75% CH heal. Cleric DPS sucked but had CH buffs and hot spells, Druid DPS was pretty decent along with spot heal abilities and crowd control, and shaman debuffs were bar none and they could also heal decently.EQ2 and it's 20+ broken classes, so much loot everything had to be attuned, odd off level expansion teiring spell/skills system, ranked spells that are less powerful than master spells 14 levels ago (depending on level), etc have it wrong. This is a product of attempting to get away from EQ at all costs and explains a lot why nothing was nostalgic or familiar until EoF. The system in this game uses should be considered a failed experiment as a result of when you try to reinvent a wheel that was not broken to begin with. Many of us EQ'ers were stating that EQ2 should be scrapped completely and redone in beta. Too bad they didn't listen, the launch bombed, and as a last ditch resort did the combat revamp that turned the game forever into DPSquest.EQ2 will always be stuck DPSquest, which means billion HP mobs, and continued broken class system that will never be ballanced. The best hope is EQ3 going back to the roots that made EQ successful, but given the current state of EQlive 2009 I sincerly doubt it. EQ2 will more than likely be my last SoE game unless they 'get it'.Funny thing is you bring up WoW, and clearly Wow subs vastley outweigh EQ2 subs. More classes does not equal a better game. Personally I disliked wow immensly, but that's because it's soloquest and not orentated around group. Had it been at least somewhat group orentated, it would have been a far better game than EQ2. If Blizzard starts deving a group based MMO, you can bet I'll be watching it very closely.But as far as the post, point being is that EQ2 did not need 6 classes as priest archetype, nor did it need 2-3 classes in a group to make one complete healer that should have already been there as one class. As a templar, I always felt gimped and shortchanged, even being the 'best' healer in the game. Best should be subjective, It's not so much being the best healer, but the least sucky one out of the choices presented -- none of them 'good'.Worse is the gear and items for group healing that should not have to make up for the short sitedness of the classes and initial development. That says to me that it's a broken system that they are unwilling to fix, or unable to fix. I suspect it's a combination of both.In fact, it's part of the reason I left the game, and now intermittently play on EQ again. Or at least I will until I reach about level 70 and hit the post EQ2 launch expansions with crappy ranked spells, tons of instances, etc on the 50/51 server and promptly quit EQ again.But you're also right. Being that it's so far in launch, EQ2 will never fix it, and that is why EQ2 will never acheive the greatness expected of it after EQ. The devs should not have attempted to be Anti-EQ with this game, embraced what was done right, and done really cool dynamic world stuff. They've always had the talent especially with the lore, but they've never gone the proper direction regarding class mechanics with their MMO's. The proof of that that is current EQlive from classic EQ with EQ2 ideas bleeding over into EQlive starting in 2006.</blockquote>

thefaithf

07-28-2009, 11:15 PM

I love the templar class the way it is. In EQ1, the cleric was so one dimensional. Now in EQ2, I can attack group of 68 - 75 Freeps and get a few of them before having to run (well swim away in order to use my swimming advantage) in Lavastorm.

Jexi

08-22-2009, 08:17 AM

I remember the days when I was "THE" healer as a cleric in Everquest original and a complete heal would save a life. I have maxed the AA that allows faster casting in this game and no matter what, we need druid backup to fill in when we hunt. Its embarrassing because I am just not good enough to keep them up and they claim that Templar is supposed to be best healer. Reactives are alright I guess, but they just cause aggro on me. I want to heal like I am supposed to heal. Why can't they get a complete heal like the good old days when I was staring at my spell book?

Millagui

08-24-2009, 04:53 PM

Umm, WoW is not a good comparison, they have 10 clases with 3 specializations each that produce more hardcore results that EQ2 AAs, a paladin depending on the talent selection could be tank, healer or dps for example. So they have 10x3, that's 30 "subclasses" to balance. They came to a point that they weren't working anymore on certain speciallizations and they admit that classes with 2 talent tree already working would not have the 3rd one "repaired" until other classes with no aceptable tree were corrected. I think many ppl played WoW at the start and think the game remains that way. I'm not a big wow fun, but class balance is a common issue for every game.I would like to add that complete heal was something EQclassic devs admitted in public as an error, something that should had never been implemented as many other mechanics. Just because it made clerics easy brainless one button push bots doesn't mean it was what future games should be looking for. I was an EQ1 cleric too, and I've been a cleric up to lvl 85 and for your information, CH mechanic is absolutely obsolete in EQlive, they now use a combination of delayed heals + hots + smaller heals, something not too far from what EQ2 is playing currently but in a more powerful way, not the gimped EQ2 healer versions.The point is that I don't understand why a mainly PVE game looks for class balance, I simply can't understand that point. I think it's somekind of "how nice it would be to... blablabla", come on!, class balance is the last thing a game like EQ2 should be aiming for! Somehow at the beggining of the MMORPG era someone stated that classes should be balance, somehow ppl accept that concept as the aim to go for, and we are stuck in a nosense tunnel looking for the wrong objective, running to a light that's imposible to reach, neither it's desired. We all know this class loop thing were the OP class of today is the underpowered of tomorrow and viceversa. If you are going to create a char, create a conjurer, they will be the OP class in one year cause they are eating the mud atm. Not every healer have to heal the same, not every T1 dps have to deal the same damage more a less, a rogue with a dagger should NEVER deal the same damage as a wizard launching 5500ºC fire bolts FFS! Splitting classes into AoE and single damage is ridiculous if the raiding content is not split as more a less 50% groups and 50% single mobs, and we know that's not gonna happen because there would be no 50% of nameds as group encounters in every expansion and GU.A game like this one, strongly PVE oriented, should NOT give all the classes the same ability with the same power just with minor mechanic tweaks. What classes should have is more a less a balanced collection of DIFFERENT utilities, most of them UNIQUE, and give them balanced USABILITY in game so everyone of them are desired.This game is not tagged as "Not related to Everquest, but the sequel at the same time!!!", no, it's "EVERQUEST 2", it's a continuation of a 10 years game. When ppl created a druid or a shaman, 90% of them expected to heal less than a cleric but have other abilities. What they found? They heal the same than a cleric and have less different utilities... Ppl who created a cleric were specting to be "the healer!", but not many other abilities, and they found themselves as a crappy healer with other "abilities" they werent asking for. Result? None of them liked what they found. Hello? Houston? Who was the gennius who took this decision? I suppose he was fired...Other point are the classes that should never had been splitted. Dirge and troubador? Bruiser and monk? etc...And finally comes the roleplaying issue. Inquisitor as an offensive cleric? offensive+cleric in everquest world both in the same phrase sounds like "peaceful war" to me in terms of gameplay. There is also the lack of a clear line that separates what a necromancer and a warlock are, some necromancer pets look like demons, a necromancer should never summon a demon, a demon is ALIVE, a necromancer is a master of DEATH. AoE rogues? [Removed for Content] is that? a small guy hiding behind a mob to suddenly... hit 6 of them with a tiny dagger for an enormous ammount of damage similar to a summoner throwing several pile of enormous rocks from 10 feet above the monster... are you kidding? how long are those rogues arms? 6 feet?I know somehow is stupid to claim for some realism in the same phrase with words like "magic", "control death" or "demons", but we all know this games carry some ammount of fantasy in a combination of different rulesets inherited from other worlds, and some ammount of realism. I'm claiming to stop looking for "how nice it would be to... blablabla" thinking, no more "wonderful ideas", we want gameplay thinking and realism thinking imo. Either you go completely fantasy, so we all drop and run to AION, or you move into some more realism, but EQ2 is somehow in the middle of nowhere.Probably it's too late, I wish you could change several classes in one big GU or expansion, unify enchanters, bards, brawlers and the 3 priest classes, that would require a really brave decision, similar to the one taken by Blizzard developers with WoW, they are revamping the 2 main continents destroyed by a cataclism, changing many talent trees completely, and many other things strongly discussed...Posible? IT IS posible, just needs some (censored)Just one final note: "This clearly brings Fernando Alonso closer to Ferrari..."

Viron_X

08-27-2009, 01:06 PM

<cite>Millagui@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know somehow is stupid to claim for some realism in the same phrase with words like "magic", "control death" or "demons", but we all know this games carry some ammount of fantasy in a combination of different rulesets inherited from other worlds, and some ammount of realism. I'm claiming to stop looking for "how nice it would be to... blablabla" thinking, no more "wonderful ideas", we want gameplay thinking and realism thinking imo. Either you go completely fantasy, so we all drop and run to AION, or you move into some more realism, but EQ2 is somehow in the middle of nowhere.</blockquote>Blame WoW and SoE's poor management. EQ2 at launch was "realistic fantasy", as can be seen in much of the art and old spell effects, but WoW was selling better and they wanted to draw in that crowd. So they messed with the original direction of the game and now we have a goofy world somewhere in the middle. Epic/Myth weapons are a great example of them trying to draw in the kiddies, so is the revamped SK.And I hate it. Some one explain to me what use a spinning hammer is??? It just looks stupid.

Sprin

08-27-2009, 07:02 PM

<cite>Viron_X wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Millagui@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know somehow is stupid to claim for some realism in the same phrase with words like "magic", "control death" or "demons", but we all know this games carry some ammount of fantasy in a combination of different rulesets inherited from other worlds, and some ammount of realism. I'm claiming to stop looking for "how nice it would be to... blablabla" thinking, no more "wonderful ideas", we want gameplay thinking and realism thinking imo. Either you go completely fantasy, so we all drop and run to AION, or you move into some more realism, but EQ2 is somehow in the middle of nowhere.</blockquote>Blame WoW and SoE's poor management. EQ2 at launch was "realistic fantasy", as can be seen in much of the art and old spell effects, but WoW was selling better and they wanted to draw in that crowd. So they messed with the original direction of the game and now we have a goofy world somewhere in the middle. Epic/Myth weapons are a great example of them trying to draw in the kiddies, so is the revamped SK.And I hate it. Some one explain to me what use a spinning hammer is??? It just looks stupid.</blockquote>Yeah, i want REAL magicians, and REAL wizzards... and lets not forget about REAL healers.... since that kind of stuff doesnt exist. This is a game, not reality...if it were realistic for the "time period" we would all just be starving and hunting for food with bows and arrows (or less)and would all be dying of some disease.... and the rest of the time we would be sitting next to the fire telling stories...People play role playing games to escape reality, not be in it.... Otherwise whas the point? spinning hammers dont exist in real life, nor do healers or wizzards or going invisible or big flying dragons... thats the point...

quietgamer

08-28-2009, 11:08 AM

I have to agree with many of the folks here. Shamans debuff, druids are great utility as they can do a lil of so much. What makes a templar unique? I don't count the hammer , thats just silly. I would rather have the hammer and it not spin personally. I played a druid in eq1 from day 1 until eq2 launched and I wanted to try to play a true healer, what I thought was the best healer in the game but I am learning its not nearly what I thought it'd be..I realize that class balancing is an ongoing process..But..Templars are supposed to be THE great healer and I feel that they don't come close to living upto expected potential so please devs work on templars! I don't want lots of dps, I just want to be a better more efficient healer. And yes this is a game..but we do Pay to play it so we should be able to make requests and have the same consideration given to templars as all the other classes. Thank you.

MoonSorceror

08-28-2009, 12:37 PM

What makes templars unique? Let's see...- Large HP Buffing Potential- Largest healing potential for tank healing- Big Defensive (and offensive) skill buffs- Stoneskin for tank- Shield Ally ie. being able to block/parry/avoid for the tank- Steadfast ie. being immune to interrupts and stiffles- Stun immunity proc on Mythic weapon - so in addition to above often unaffected by stun effects- Single target AoE immunity on fast recastI think templars are fine atm for healing potential, group desirabilty and in playerbase perception. Also it seems that healer balance is quite ok for plate and chain healers, druids (especially wardens) need a bit of desirability buffage in the raiding endgame. My templar has been able to solo heal every group zone he tried (with adequate tanks and haven't tried Guk3 & Ferzul yet) but is only moderately geared (T2 shards plus Mythical) since I don't raid with him.