Healing Stance Comparisons

[EQAditu]

<p>I might as well start by saying that this post is indeed influenced by my perception of my own class' healing stance.  Despite my better judgment I long ago read what looked to be a whine post in Templars about our healing stance being worse than all the others.  So I looked and the healing stance icon of the Defiler in my group and was somewhat dismayed at my own.  The good news is that fate has a sense of irony as I was looking at the worst and best examples of healing stances.  The bad news was that I indeed had the worst.  Of course the post didn't actually make any direct comparisons so I felt myself left in the dark as to the real differences.</p><p><img src="http://advancedcombattracker.com/personal/Priest-Healing-Stance-A.png" width="518" height="405" /></p><p>A lot of different effects and numbers... so I tried to simplify the table.</p><p><img src="http://advancedcombattracker.com/personal/Priest-Healing-Stance-B.png" width="519" height="307" /></p><p>I removed effects that were identical to all classes and changed stats to relative stats compared to the lowest value of each category.  For instance everyone gets 5% critical healing bonus, so it does not appear.  Also Mystics have the lowest reduction in hostile spell damage, so they're marked as non-existent and all others are reduced by that amount.  The reason ward base/critical is listed is because only shaman get this on their stance.  It's debatable, but I don't see why only primary warders can have ward modifiers when all but two classes have wards.Feel free to use this as an informational post up until this point.Now for my own opinion.  It should be obvious that Templars have the worst beneficial effects as they have nothing that no one else has(all blank entries).  As I said earlier, I thought Defilers had the best beneficial effects.  If I were required to list them in order from best to worst, I'd pick: Defiler, Fury, Inquisitor, Mystic, Warden and Templar.  Keep in mind that is for beneficial effects only.Hostile detriments are somewhat harder to judge when you're trying to heal anyways.  Hostile power usage should be negligible to most; unless you have one good nuke and mostly bad others, or your debuffs don't last 3-4x longer than the recast, hostile reuse speed should be negligible.  Negative nuke damage is common to everyone and a detriment if you're trying to nuke, but why should you nuke in healing stance?  Hostile haste is a bad thing to have if you're trying to debuff and get back to healing.  Forgetting that Templars have the highest nuke reduction, we have the highest value in what I thought was the worst detriment.Back to the less opinionated stuff.Why are the different healing stances so different in power from one end to the other?  The TSO trees in many places tried to be 1:1 mappings of each other for some reason.  You cannot say that the healing stances should not be similar to each other.  I'm not saying diversity is bad, but a poor attempt at balance is perhaps worse.</p>

[RogueSpideyChick]

<p>the fury one is actually horrid. it cuts 2 secs off the duration of our hots, but does nothing to our recast to compensate for this. we have to make up for the longer recast in gear, which isnt always the best thing to pick gear for when there's so many other effects that r so much better for us.  it cuts down the cast time...when we have the fastest lightning cast heals in the first place, so it's null. if it had some reuse on it, it would definitely be worth having, but since it doesnt, i dont even have it speced. i tried it for a week, hated it & dumped it.</p>

[EQAditu]

<p>If you say so, when so-called rating the Fury stance, I didn't really take into account the faster ticking regens but the 15% base heal mod instead of the 10% that most get.  If you say faster ticking regens are bad, then whatever, I'm not a Fury.</p>

[RogueSpideyChick]

<p>it's not the faster ticking that's bad necessarily. as a druid, we keep our regens up the entire time (during fights that would warrant a healing stance), it's the extra downtime added to our hots with nothing ticking. the massive amount of dmg dealt by mobs this expansion, definitely calls for our hots to be ticking nonstop so that we can be ready for big directs & cures to help bring them back up to full. that extra time added on without anything ticking & waiting for it to be back up, is the problem. dets tick so fast that u want a heal already going so u have time to cure the entire group (especially if it's single targets down the line). if they even added a small bit of reuse to compensate, it would be more worth getting, until then, no.</p>

[Oakum]

<p>Beneficial recovery for wardens. Hmm, lets take a look at that. So we can recast our spells quicker. Nice on the surface.</p><p>Oh, wait, all 5 of our heals have a regen portion. That means we get to overwrite the last tick of the last time we cast that heal. Hmm, how good is that. Its very situational. We can also chain cast heals easier with it. Its so much fun to spam heals when they are not needed lol.</p><p>Next thing. Why were wardens dps decreased more then a shamans? Wardens are druids like fury's are, a class that traded leather for dps. Shaman did not trade the worst armor for dps. When a druid is not healing, all they have is dps spells/ca's to cast. While shaman have a bunch of debuffs and some dps spells to cast.</p><p>Now maybe they based the lackluster templer stance on the fact that the are pretty much mandatory for any MT group unless its doing content so below the raid force that the normal healing and buffs that are pretty much mandatory for a tank to survive do not matter.  I really am not sure why it is that way but thats about the only thing I can guess.</p>

[flowercivicsi]

<p>You can just remove the ward stuff from there because it's all in one shamans stances.  Just like your criticals affect your reactives, Repents ward/heal amount as well your standard healing abilities.</p><hr /><p>Defiler: In heal stance loses damage spells casting haste 15%, 30% power cost increase, and a 15% damage reduction on spells.  (missing one for us)</p><p>Mystic: In heal stance loses 20% reuse of damage spells, 20% increase on power of damage spells, and a 13.5 damage reduction.</p><hr /><p>In comparison on shamans...</p><p>Mystics lose 5% to base healing, but gain an additional 15% casting haste.  A good trade off actually, and this is why their healing stance actually nets them a better return when needing to heal all out. </p><p>Defilers could care less about the 15% to debuffs.  We can get 50% from curseweaving in the EoF defiler tree so when we saw this added to our stance the vast majority of the community was very dissapointed.  Honestly we would have been happier with some reuse or even a little cast speed since the debuff thing was rather meh...</p><p>The straight debuffs from our class are okay, but are not all that great to write home about.  Abasement/Bane of Warding are the only two worth anything aside from the shared Umbral Trap debuff that both defilers and mystics share.</p><hr /><p>I think the reason Templars got the short end in TSO was due to some of the awesome things you got in previous expansions.  I think this was SoE's attempt (though a bad one) to try to balance it a bit.  Granted you need one more topping added to your stance there, but what topping are you wanting to add? </p><p>Honestly with your debuffs... I think the 15% debuff haste would have been more beneficial for a cleric or a mystic moreso than the defiler.  In that respect I agree with you.</p><hr /><p>The hottest heal stance of 2009 would have to be nominated to inquisitors or mystics in my opinion. </p>

[CuCullain]

<p>Next to the sacrafice complaints, the stance complaint is the most voiced in regards to Templars. It has been reported and detailed, though not nearly as much as it is here, in the Templar forums for 6+ months.</p><p>I won't sit here and say all the other classes stances don't have issues, but in regards to the Templar stance, this is not a matter of something we have not working well.. this is a matter of a clear and unmistakable short coming in 1 healing clases stance vs all the others.</p><p>What is even more perplexing is that the Templar stance DID include a third benefit in TSO beta.. yet it was removed with no reason given near commercial release time....</p><p><cite>Alaocia@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think the reason Templars got the short end in TSO was due to some of the awesome things you got in previous expansions.  I think this was SoE's attempt (though a bad one) to try to balance it a bit.  Granted you need one more topping added to your stance there, but what topping are you wanting to add? </p><p>Honestly with your debuffs... I think the 15% debuff haste would have been more beneficial for a cleric or a mystic moreso than the defiler.  In that respect I agree with you.</p></blockquote><p>Can you clarfiy for me what you consider to be so good that Templars have gotten at any point since KoS was released? Maybe I am forgetting something, but I honestly can not think of anything, especially not anything that would necessitate a developer nerf of the class.</p>

[EQAditu]

<p><cite>Alaocia@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You can just remove the ward stuff from there because it's all in one shamans stances.  Just like your criticals affect your reactives, Repents ward/heal amount as well your standard healing abilities.</p></blockquote><p>I don't see the reasoning to remove the row.  A shaman can have critical chance, critical bonus and base mod affect their wards.  The others do not get critical bonus... so that's why it's an entry.  I also don't want to go through the hassle of remaking the images.  *shrug*  But on some other reading, it's possible that the other stances give that benefit but do not list it.</p><blockquote><p>Defiler: In heal stance <span style="color: #ff0000;">loses damage spells casting haste 15%</span>, 30% power cost increase, and a 15% damage reduction on spells.  (missing one for us)</p></blockquote><p>My screenshot from TestCopy doesn't mention this specifically in the effects list, but does in the flavor text(no % listed).  I didn't read the flavor text of any of the buffs to be honest.</p><blockquote><p>I think the reason Templars got the short end in TSO was due to some of the awesome things you got in previous expansions.  I think this was SoE's attempt (though a bad one) to try to balance it a bit.  Granted you need one more topping added to your stance there, but what topping are you wanting to add? </p></blockquote><p>And that's what people say every time any Templar complains about anything.  Not that they realize that half the stuff Templars got last expansion was nerfed either several times or several ways indirectly.  I would critisize you for bringing up such logic except I expected nothing less to occur eventually so I just have to accept it and wait for the next person to do it as well.  (Just look in the Templar forum for more examples)</p><p>EDIT, maybe I'm too trusting of the examine windows.  *shrug*</p>

[flowercivicsi]

<p>In EoF - Blessings, in RoK you were provided Repent, one of the best (if not the best) healing end ability for level 80.  The mythical provided to you gave you a wonderful ability to open up your single target buff into a group buff.  (not that I don't love being able to take advantage of it)  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /> </p><p>Wardens and Defilers felt shafted with our RoK abilities.  Inquisitors have a nice one... when it works, and if it lands.  Furys is purely damage based, and mystics have a good one, but still falls short of repent.  <em>(I can't explain the overall frusteration to waste the time to cast Inquisition and it not land... grrr) <span style="font-size: xx-small;">BTW,</span> <span style="font-size: xx-small;">I have an inquisi too that I enjoy playing outside of raiding, and used to be my main shortly before the release of RoK</span></em></p><p>I don't think I was disagreeing with you about your stance, and I hope that it did not sounds that way.  Just trying to think of what the reasoning could be behind the last moment change.  Actually I know your debuffs as a templar help you heal better, thus my statement about the 15% to debuffs being more beneficial to your class or even an inquisitor than a defiler. </p><p>I wish they would give you guys the 15% to debuffs so you can get those beneficial debuffs in, and defilers to get a 10% reuse...</p><p>Honestly it just seemed that more stuff was in our stance then what's really there.  That was why I said something about that.  Here's the direct link to the live <a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Category:AAs" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #800080;">AA goodies</span></span></a> if you want to check it out.</p><p>No love for the defilers... We still luv you though! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" /> We have a number of complaints as well in regards to shadow AA's that did not seem very balanced as well, and now we have an area where we can actually discuss it together in a more collaborative fashion.  <em>(just did not mention any of that in here since we are talking heal stances)  </em></p><p>As for sacrifice, it would have been better if they would have just made soul ward mitigatable, and called it a day allowing for inquisitors, templars, and defilers to rejoice. </p>

[StaticLex]

<p>I like the first table, but the second one is just straight up media style spin to make it look like templars are getting extra hosed.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Anyway, I have yet to play a templar but it sounds to me like that have a ton of sweet tricks that they get before the heal stance.  If that is the case then you might want to consider the fact that heal stances alone aren't indicative of class balance.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" />  Oh yeah, and let me know the next time any templar with 2 brain cells to rub together gets turned down for a spot in a raid guild.</p>

[CuCullain]

<p><cite>StaticLex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I like the first table, but the second one is just straight up media style spin to make it look like templars are getting extra hosed.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Anyway, I have yet to play a templar but it sounds to me like that have a ton of sweet tricks that they get before the heal stance.  If that is the case then you might want to consider the fact that heal stances alone aren't indicative of class balance.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" />  Oh yeah, and let me know the next time any templar with 2 brain cells to rub together gets turned down for a spot in a raid guild.</p></blockquote><p>I am not sure how raid guild selection has anything to do with having a reasonable heal stance.... maybe Fury's should have a worse heal stance because they solo better?</p>

[EQAditu]

<p>I don't see how it's a deception of any sort.  I specified what I did.  Canceled out what every priest gets to simplify the table.</p><p>If you people want to do nothing but cite Templars and why they should get the weakest stance... what great things did Wardens get to deserve theirs?  What horrible things did Defilers get to have what I offhandedly thought was the best.  I don't know the TSO trees well enough to answer either question.  I have only analysed this one AA and was hoping that would be the context of this discussion.</p><p>Then again, it was my mistake to mention this thread in any context like this because it was obvious this would happen.</p>

[StaticLex]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>StaticLex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I like the first table, but the second one is just straight up media style spin to make it look like templars are getting extra hosed.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Anyway, I have yet to play a templar but it sounds to me like that have a ton of sweet tricks that they get before the heal stance.  If that is the case then you might want to consider the fact that heal stances alone aren't indicative of class balance.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" />  Oh yeah, and let me know the next time any templar with 2 brain cells to rub together gets turned down for a spot in a raid guild.</p></blockquote><p>I am not sure how raid guild selection has anything to do with having a reasonable heal stance....</p></blockquote><p>I am surprised that I have to explain this to you but..  Raid guilds, or at least quality ones, don't invite classes based on a single AA.  That would be asinine.  The fact that templars are as popular as they are seems to suggest that they bring plenty to the table despite having the lamest heal stance of all the healers.  Now maybe it's a coincidence.. or a conspiracy.. personally, I'm inclined to call it the b-word but we all know nobody wants to hear that sort of thing on these messageboards.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Canceled out what every priest gets to simplify the table.</em></p><p>I thought the first table was perfectly simple.  I mean it has all the info as it appears on the AAs themselves.  How can it get anymore simple than that?  Now I'm not calling your effort a malicious attempt at deception but I could easily tell that templars had the weakest stance by looking at the first table alone.  Throwing the second table out there with a buncha blank boxes is basically just piling on.</p><p><em>I have only analysed this one AA and was hoping that would be the context of this discussion.</em></p><p>Well there's your problem.  I can sit and point to individual lopsided AAs and spells all day long but it's not going to tell anyone anything of significance.  The classes are supposed to be balanced on the whole, not according to any one AA or spell.</p>

[Calain80]

I also like the 1st but not the 2nd table. the 2nd one just looks to much "constructed" to me. And I also support, that Templar have the worst healing stance. But on the other side I support, that Templar are the most powerful healer in EQ2. With and without the stance! So while I don't make any assumptions about the non Cleric stances, maybe the Inquisitor stance is nice, 'cause their heal power was the lowesst and the Templar stance is bad, cause they did not need an additional boost. So if you look at the bigger picture I don't think that the Tenplars have any reason to complain, that they don't have enough healpower.

[Zapo]

<p>@OP: Very good post and I like both tables.</p><p>The issue I as a Templar have with our healing stance is not so much that it offers the least benefits from all healing stances but that it also <strong>decreases our healing abilities</strong> which we have with our healing debuffs (mark of divinity, involuntary gift) by increasing their cast time significantly. No heal stance of any other class does that.</p><p>So even for those fights where healing has the highest priority (all other fights the heal stance isn't really the best choice for any class anyway) the healing stance in many cases is not a good choice for the Templar.</p><p>My proposal to SOE is: Please remove the increased casting time from those healing debuffs on our heal stance.</p>

[Magpie1]

<p>Actually, I think Table 2 sums it up nicely. Every other healing class has a benefit that differs from another healing class except Templars. Or to put it more simply, if healing ability was measured in comparisson to other classes, Templars would be better off if the healing stances did not exist.</p>

[mafoe]

<p>First, let me laugh out loud at the people "not liking" the 2nd table. Oh hey, it's just another presentation of the data, but you don't like it, hu? How amazing. Facts are so ugly when presented with an eye for the significant part of it.</p><p><cite>Aricajade@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>the fury one is actually horrid. it cuts 2 secs off the duration of our hots, but does nothing to our recast to compensate for this. we have to make up for the longer recast in gear, which isnt always the best thing to pick gear for when there's so many other effects that r so much better for us.  it cuts down the cast time...when we have the fastest lightning cast heals in the first place, so it's null. if it had some reuse on it, it would definitely be worth having, but since it doesnt, i dont even have it speced. i tried it for a week, hated it & dumped it.</p></blockquote><p>Ok, you pass on 20% heal bonus because your easy mode way to heal doesn't work as well in your heal stance. Gotcha.</p><p><cite>Aricajade@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>it's not the faster ticking that's bad necessarily. as a druid, we keep our regens up the entire time (during fights that would warrant a healing stance), it's the extra downtime added to our hots with nothing ticking. the massive amount of dmg dealt by mobs this expansion, definitely calls for our hots to be ticking nonstop so that we can be ready for big directs & cures to help bring them back up to full. that extra time added on without anything ticking & waiting for it to be back up, is the problem. dets tick so fast that u want a heal already going so u have time to cure the entire group (especially if it's single targets down the line). if they even added a small bit of reuse to compensate, it would be more worth getting, until then, no.</p></blockquote><p>Have you heard of tools such as ACT? A big part of being a good healer is knowing and anticipating when damage will be incoming. How about doing that instead of letting your HOTs do the thinking for you?</p><p><cite>Oakum wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Beneficial recovery for wardens. Hmm, lets take a look at that. So we can recast our spells quicker. Nice on the surface.</p><p>Oh, wait, all 5 of our heals have a regen portion. That means we get to overwrite the last tick of the last time we cast that heal. Hmm, how good is that. Its very situational. We can also chain cast heals easier with it. Its so much fun to spam heals when they are not needed lol.</p></blockquote><p>+heal mod only works on the first tick of your HOTs, so saying it's a waste to overwrite the last tick of your HOT with a new, much higher (initial) tick when the group needs it... sounds awful. What a waste indeed.</p><p><cite>StaticLex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I like the first table, but the second one is just straight up media style spin to make it look like templars are getting extra hosed.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Sorry for opening your eyes!</p><p><cite>StaticLex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Throwing the second table out there with a buncha blank boxes is basically just piling on.</p></blockquote><p>Because it becomes less true that way. Obviously!</p><p><cite>StaticLex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Well there's your problem.  I can sit and point to individual lopsided AAs and spells all day long but it's not going to tell anyone anything of significance.  The classes are supposed to be balanced on the whole, not according to any one AA or spell.</p></blockquote><p>And that's where you're wrong. If all healers get a similar spell (heal stance), it better be [Removed for Content] well balanced. Fixing class balancing issues over AAs or gear or encounter design is plain wrong. But that's what SOE has been doing. And it stinks.</p><p>And here is an announcement to the class balance fetishists: Templars are supposed to heal more, and better, than inquisitors or furies.That's why EQ2 has defensive and offensive healers.</p><p>Back to topic: at least fix the casting speed malus on the templar healing debuffs. It's ridiculous that debuffs that don't even damage or debilitate the mob have to suffer from our "healing stance".</p>

[Barx]

<p>Wardens have it just as bad as Templars on that chart. Our only entry on teh second ("uniqueness") table is 50% recovery.</p><p>Oh boy. Hallelujah for that 0.17s reduction of recovery time.</p><p>Oh wait, that's right. Spell lag is far more than that so we'll never notice it. Now I remember why our heal stance only makes a marginal (if any) difference on most all fights. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p>

[RogueSpideyChick]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite><a href="mailto:Aricajade@Befallen">Aricajade@Befallen</a> wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>the fury one is actually horrid. it cuts 2 secs off the duration of our hots, but does nothing to our recast to compensate for this. we have to make up for the longer recast in gear, which isnt always the best thing to pick gear for when there's so many other effects that r so much better for us.  it cuts down the cast time...when we have the fastest lightning cast heals in the first place, so it's null. if it had some reuse on it, it would definitely be worth having, but since it doesnt, i dont even have it speced. i tried it for a week, hated it & dumped it.</p></blockquote><p>Ok, you pass on 20% heal bonus because your easy mode way to heal doesn't work as well in your heal stance. Gotcha.</p><p>Have you heard of tools such as ACT? A big part of being a good healer is knowing and anticipating when damage will be incoming. How about doing that instead of letting your HOTs do the thinking for you</p></blockquote><p>it's not "easy mode" & when there's 3 ae's on a lot of the mobs that hit very hard & back to back, that's less time while theyre hitting with ur hots ticking so that u can do quick spot heals/cures. play a druid & ull see it's a lot harder for us to deal with the 10k+ ae's that hit back to back to back.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Anthur@Venekor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The issue I as a Templar have with our healing stance is not so much that it offers the least benefits from all healing stances but that it also <strong>decreases our healing abilities</strong> which we have with our healing debuffs (mark of divinity, involuntary gift) by increasing their cast time significantly. No heal stance of any other class does that.</p><p>So even for those fights where healing has the highest priority (all other fights the heal stance isn't really the best choice for any class anyway) the healing stance in many cases is not a good choice for the Templar.</p><p>My proposal to SOE is: Please remove the increased casting time from those healing debuffs on our heal stance.</p></blockquote><p>QFT!</p><p>I find it completely insane that my HEALING DEBUFFS are included in the spells that have increased cast time in healing stance! Mark of Nobility and Involuntary Cure should not be affected when in healing stance. This just doesn't make sense to me.</p><p>If that was the ONLY part of templar healing stance SOE fixed, I would be elated!</p>

[mafoe]

<p><cite>Aricajade@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>it's not "easy mode" & when there's 3 ae's on a lot of the mobs that hit very hard & back to back, that's less time while theyre hitting with ur hots ticking so that u can do quick spot heals/cures. play a druid & ull see it's a lot harder for us to deal with the 10k+ ae's that hit back to back to back.</p></blockquote><p>Please name those "a lot of the mobs". I can only think of Tythus and Tyrannus. Oh, and 3 AOEs hitting back to back for 10k+ is a wipe. Bit of an exaggeration there.</p><p>I would gladly lose the ability to maintain my group reactives by 2s or whatever in exchange for the recovery speed bonus f.e. Curing people with TC (also reduces recovery speed) and without TC is a huge difference.</p>

[RogueSpideyChick]

<p>tythus, tyrannus, avatars, umzok, gozak, munzok & if u have tc as a healer, then there's dps in ur group that r losing out. & there r mobs with 3 big hitting ae's, that's what wards r for. im assuming u dont have xp with those though if u dont realize theyre out there...</p>

[StaticLex]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote> And that's where you're wrong. If all healers get a similar spell (heal stance), it better be [Removed for Content] well balanced.</blockquote><p>lol  Not hardly.  In the history of both EQs (until I quit EQ1 anyway) there has never been a single spell or ability that has been intended to single-handedly balance a class.  The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll see why the people at soe look like a buncha monkeys humpin' a football when it comes to sorting out all the spells and AAs across 24 classes.</p><p>I'm inclined to agree with the templar debuff thing though, assuming those debuffs are meant to enhance the templars ability to heal rather than boost the DPS of the group.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>StaticLex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm inclined to agree with the templar debuff thing though, assuming those debuffs are meant to enhance the templars ability to heal rather than boost the DPS of the group.</p></blockquote><p>Yes, Static, those 2 specific debuffs have no damage associated with them at all. Mark of Nobility places a debuff on the mob that will give a chance to lotto heal anyone that hits that mob. Involuntary Cure gives a chance to lotto heal the entire group whenever the mob hits someone. They are healing debuffs meant to enhance the healing and not to boost the DPS of the group.</p>

[CuCullain]

<p>Here is a simple question for you Furys.. when you picked Fury as a class did you do it so you could be the best healer? OR did you pick it so you could DPS and still heal too?</p><p>Here is a second question for everyone; If ALL healing classes could heal equally with the same level of effort, would you pick the healing class that could also DPS easily or the one that can DPS with a lot of effort and in turn also reducing healing ability?</p><p>Each group of classes has a "best at primary role" version, the other versions are supposed to get other benefits to offset not being the "best" at the primary class role. Warriors should tank best, Mages should magic DPS best, Predators should weapon DPS best, and Clerics Should heal best. If you chose the hybrid class or the buff class or whatever non traditional class you get other benefits. If you wanted to be the "best" traditional class in your group you should have thought harder before clicking the button.</p><p>If SoE's intent is to make us all equal now, after the fact, then they also need to make us all DPS as well and buff as well as all the other classes too.</p>

[RogueSpideyChick]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here is a simple question for you Furys.. when you picked Fury as a class did you do it so you could be the best healer? OR did you pick it so you could DPS and still heal too?</p></blockquote><p>i picked the class because of the hybrid aspect of the class, being able to heal & deal reasonable dmg.</p>

[Cythera]

<p><em>EQAditu wrote: " If you say faster ticking regens are bad"</em></p><p>No, not bad in theory. It's just with the heal stance the group HOT expires at 6 seconds with a 10-12ish second recast. This leaves an awful long time for the group to not have a heal running. This can be about 9 seconds, with the 6 sec recast and 3ish second cast time.</p><p><em>Mafoe wrote: "Have you heard of tools such as ACT? A big part of being a good healer is knowing and anticipating when damage will be incoming. How about doing that instead of letting your HOTs do the thinking for you?"</em></p><p>Using ACT and precasting things like Hibernate then the group HOT uses precious seconds of the HOT. If the Fury has to single heal a detriment off the whole group, having the group HOT last more than 6 seconds is better for the group and allows us adequate time to cure all group members before the expiration of the HOT. Shortening the duration of our group HOT does not benefit the group in any way when trying to get a full group of arcanes or traumas cured individually. Or the second elemental in the case of Mynzak. Sorry, but people screw up using pot cures all the time and they have long recasts to boot. So, no, I do not want to forgo the longer duration of my group HOT and lose heal coverage while curing my group by using the heal stance.</p><p>The way I see it: at least wards and reactive can potentially remain on your group for 30 seconds. Our big power cost group heal remains on the group for 1/3 that time and shortening it even more leaves the group unprotected by heals for an even greater time until we can recast it. Not a good situation, especially with high damage dealing dots sitting on the group . With that longer duration, you are more likely to have a heal in place, giving you adequate time to cure the detriments off your group.</p><p>It has absolutely nothing to do with "letting our HOTs do the thinking for us". Considering Furies only have 2 HOTs, not including the emergencies that are on a ridiculously long recast time, this is an inappropriate thing to say IMO.</p><p><em>Mafoe wrote: "+heal mod only works on the first initial tick of your HOTs, so saying it's a waste to overwrite the last tick of your HOTs with a new, much higher (initial) tick when the group needs it...sounds awful. What a waste."</em></p><p>Actually, yes, it is a waste. Of a whole lot of power.</p><p>Fine for a Warden (maybe), but terrible for a Fury. 400ish power every six seconds puts a Fury out of power in short order, even with items like the belt from Zarrakon, other Manawelll type items, and with having a Troub/Illy in group (sorry, no uber avatar power proc charms for this Fury). Losing crits off these types of procs hurt quite a bit when trying to keep that group HOT running on a continuous basis. Even more so with mobs that power drain you every time you cast something. We have a very large single group heal that uses less power and casts twice as fast for those in between times extra healing is needed.</p><p>Most Furies are power conscious. Spam casting the group HOT is very inefficient for our class if we don't have all the uber power regen gear. Equipping the older ROK manawell items is also a detriment with the later TSO mobs as we lose a ton of hp and resists that put us at further risk to the AEs. Especially with not having group hp buffs to offset the loss with using the lower gear.</p><p><em>Mafoe wrote: "You pass on 20% heal bonus because your easy mode way to heal doesn't work as well in your heal stance..."</em></p><p>Actually it's only 15% bonus. But darn right.</p><p>We get plenty of bonus through gear and AAs to more than make up for not using the heal stance. Wild Regeneration in the AGI line - 24% greater heal to initial tick of group and single HOT with ticks occurring at 1.5 seconds instead of 2. Our TSO T4 raid 2 set bonus gives us 30% greater healing to our group heal. +10 base heal on shoulders and +2 base heal on the boots. We can spend up to 10 points in the TSO AAs to increase the heal amount and bonus amount of both our HOTs. We can also individually spend up to 5 points to beef up whatever other heals via the TSO AAs.</p><p>We have absolutely no problem with just using those right there to top up our groups after AE's if the group manages to survive them. The extra 15% from the heal stance is marginal at best. Losing heal coverage with adding to the time when we can recast our group HOT is more of a detriment to the group than being able to have that 0.5 seconds taken off the ticks. Really, what difference does the 0.5 seconds faster occuring tick make when you now have an extra 3-5 seconds before you can recast the HOT??? Only thing we really lose out on is the crit bonus by not using the heal stance. Even without that bonus, we still have no problem topping up our groups provided they actually survive the AE hit.</p><p>Let's not forget that by reducing our damage by 15% using the heal stance and the 10% reduction of the heal stance cancelling out Casting Expertise also lowers the bonus that we give to another healer via our mythical clicky pretty much makes our healing stance less than stellar in my eyes.</p><p>While some of you may think that the Fury heal stance looks pretty good, most Furies do not. <strong>If it would shorten the cast/reuse times of my cures while I had it running, I would probably deal with the penalties</strong>. But it does not. It causes more problems than it is worth to use, with far less overall benefit to our class and the group we are tasked to heal.</p><p>Bold part is what I would like to get out of the Fury heal stance to comply with the topic of this thread...</p>

[Cythera]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here is a simple question for you Furys.. when you picked Fury as a class did you do it so you could be the best healer? OR did you pick it so you could DPS and still heal too?</p><p>Here is a second question for everyone; If ALL healing classes could heal equally with the same level of effort, would you pick the healing class that could also DPS easily or the one that can DPS with a lot of effort and in turn also reducing healing ability?</p><p>Each group of classes has a "best at primary role" version, the other versions are supposed to get other benefits to offset not being the "best" at the primary class role. Warriors should tank best, Mages should magic DPS best, Predators should weapon DPS best, and Clerics Should heal best. If you chose the hybrid class or the buff class or whatever non traditional class you get other benefits. If you wanted to be the "best" traditional class in your group you should have thought harder before clicking the button.</p><p>If SoE's intent is to make us all equal now, after the fact, then they also need to make us all DPS as well and buff as well as all the other classes too.</p></blockquote><p>I switched from a Ranger to a Fury so that I could heal my BF's Guardian and still be able to do damage while we were leveling up. It had nothing to do with being "the best healer". I prefer how my Fury heals and plays. I do have a Defiler and Templar alt. I prefer the Fury.</p><p>I do not think that we should all heal the same. I have no problem with the ward>reactive>hot mechanic at all. It is what is supposed to set us apart as healer classes. Along with other tools that come with the class archetypes.</p><p>All this complaining about making healers too similar in the healing department now. Where we these complaints when they evened the playing field for the dps department?</p><p>You all fought for and received better dps capabilities. You also got to keep your super dooper abilities to go along with your new dps, you didn't give anything up except storage space in your bags. Hybrids have had to do that all along. Why shouldn't we now try to obtain better healing and buffing abilities? Would you classes that are enjoying your newfound dps abilities be willing to give that up to remain at the top of the healing chain? So what that you have to switch out gear or run to an AA mirror to be able to do that dps. You still have those mighty defensive capabilities at your disposal when needed.</p><p>Now that clerics and shamans can switch out gear and AAs for more dps we are ALL hybrids. You just bring more buffs and better healing abilities now to go along with your newfound hybrid status. I can't be the "best traditional class in my group" now that all healers are hybrids. But now any healer is nipping at our heels as far as dps goes, so why shouldn't we be asking to be able to cure and buff as well as those classes?</p>

[CuCullain]

<p>A fury going for DPS will still easily out parse a templar going for DPS. In addition that fury can still heal near full effectiveness, but the templar is so handi-caped they can no longer. So yes Templars can get to a point of being able to DPS ok, but they certainly can not do so and still heal well.</p><p>I doubt however you will find Templar's complaining much about that, they are not playing a Templar to DPS. Now if you want to loose a large amount of your ability to DPS as a Fury to be able to heal arround 75% as well as a templar, I am fine with that.</p>

[CuCullain]

<p><cite>Aricajade@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here is a simple question for you Furys.. when you picked Fury as a class did you do it so you could be the best healer? OR did you pick it so you could DPS and still heal too?</p></blockquote><p>i picked the class because of the hybrid aspect of the class, being able to heal & deal reasonable dmg.</p></blockquote><p>In the majority of cases I think you will find the other people chose it for similar reasons. Last time I checked I still knew of Fury's DPSing 9-10k and of others that could solo heal most of the current xpacs group instances that other healign classes could solo. I admit that it is more challening to heal well as a Fury, but it is certainly attainable.</p><p>So my follow up questions are these; If you are able to indeed DPS and heal reasonably well.. why do people think Fury's need to heal better? Are they not getting what was advertised already? If you don't think so, why is the solution to bring down another class and not just fix the "broken" class? Or better yet.. why are the better healign classes beign punished because SoE designed the content to require them?</p>

[RogueSpideyChick]

<p>we never said we needed to heal better. we heal just fine. we need the buffs to make the job that others can in raid situations to make us viable in a raid. other healers have those buffs. we have even said that we dont care if our dps is brought down if they give us buffs to make us viable in a raid. heal stance is meant as a tool to make healing hard encounters easier & more efficient. it's actually easier to heal WITHOUT heal stance as a fury because of the detriments that it adds. temps have been way op in buffs & specials for several xp's now. there is not a single raid guild that doesnt want or have at least 2 templars because of their buffs & specials, but there r several that dont have, want, or even regularly put a fury or warden into a raid because they do not bring anything to it.</p><p>i enjoy playing the class because of what the class does, it's just extremely sad what has become of it because all other healers have advanced with changing game mechanics & we have not.  even what's supposed to be an uber tool to help us out in encounters that we would possibly have issues on...does not.</p>

[mafoe]

<p><cite>Aricajade@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>tythus, tyrannus, avatars, umzok, gozak, munzok & if u have tc as a healer, then there's dps in ur group that r losing out. & there r mobs with 3 big hitting ae's, that's what wards r for. im assuming u dont have xp with those though if u dont realize theyre out there...</p></blockquote><p>Other way around, I was assuming you didn't, but youre right, I didnt pull all the mobs you listed, but I did pull some avatars. /shrug And it's by far not the majority of avatars which have 3 big hitting aoes back to back.. unless all those I didnt pull have them. So that's 5 + some avatars. That's not a lot. Those are the ones that matter, tho.</p><p>And if I have TC on Anashti, I free up more dps by having TC and curing people faster than having TC on a mage. Because then I am obviously not only faster, but can sqeeze in more cures between the healing.</p><p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Actually, yes, it is a waste. Of a whole lot of power.</p></blockquote><p>I was about to answer that power shouldn't be an issue, but I will have to believe you if you say a fury cannot rely on power procs etc since I never raided with one.</p><p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Actually it's only 15% bonus. But darn right.</p></blockquote><p>15% base heal + 5% crit bonus, which is +20% since you should be at 100% heal crit.</p><p>Anyway, the concept how losing a bit of "heal coverage", as you put it, for healing up somebody in red or yellow health in less time (and thus preparing him faster for the next dmg/aoe) is bad eludes me. But then again, you're the fury.</p>

[CuCullain]

<p><cite>Aricajade@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>temps have been way op in buffs & specials for several xp's now. there is not a single raid guild that doesnt want or have at least 2 templars because of their buffs & specials, but there r several that dont have, want, or even regularly put a fury or warden into a raid because they do not bring anything to it.</p></blockquote><p>See you have to go back to caling Templars over powered again..</p><p>The Templar has a single purpose as a class and that is group survivabilty. We have crappy DPS spells, crappy mob debuffs, and mostly only bring defensive bonuses to our group.</p><p>Fury's have really good DPS, decent healing, travel spells, movement speed spells, group AoE blockers, a buff that adds their nuke to another healers healing, and that is just what I know from playing with one, I am sure they have other things too.</p><p>Templars are hardly overpowered, they simply are the single most heal foscused healing class. Take away our healing/defensive abilities and what else can we do? Do the same thing to a Fury and what do they have left? A LOT more.</p><p>You have a legit complaint about raid usefulness of your class, stick with how to fix that and stop the Templar overpowered junk.</p>

[RogueSpideyChick]

<p>that's ALL u need is all ur defensive buffs. who cares about ur dps? travel & movement speed buffs as a fury? if ur using those as a defense for why furies r op in ur eyes...then ur completely lost of any hope of seeing how retardly op ur own class is. not a SINGLE raid guild has less then 1 templar (usually has 2) because of their defensive buffs for tanks. every healer in game (except templars) says that templars r AMAZINGLY op, while those same healers, also say that druids r incredibly useless...so try again...</p>

[Tehom]

<p>I do think they gave templars a weaker healing stance solely because of the perception of templars being overpowered. I believe that was a mistake; templars have an exceptionally strong mythical, but short-changing all templars because a subset of their players have an item is poor balancing. The TSO set for inquisitors and the increased importance of their mythical clicky has completely erased any balance problems between templars and inquisitors at the top end, in my opinion.</p><p>But I also disagree with some of the analysis of other stances; for example, I think mystics have a better healing stance than defilers because I would rate the casting haste as more valuable than base healing as players approach/reach base healing caps. Some modifiers will be a bit subjective based on the gear and buffs available to you, most likely.</p><p>On a practical level, I think trying to get templars' healing stance fixed while druids are effectively broken in endgame encounters is more or less a lost cause. I think templars deserve to have it boosted a bit, but if they can ignore the utter inability of druids to keep groups alive because of them offering a few less thousand hp than other healers, they're probably not going to toss a few modifiers onto your stance.</p>

[CuCullain]

<p><cite>Aricajade@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>that's ALL u need is all ur defensive buffs. who cares about ur dps? travel & movement speed buffs as a fury? if ur using those as a defense for why furies r op in ur eyes...then ur completely lost of any hope of seeing how retardly op ur own class is. not a SINGLE raid guild has less then 1 templar (usually has 2) because of their defensive buffs for tanks. every healer in game (except templars) says that templars r AMAZINGLY op, while those same healers, also say that druids r incredibly useless...so try again...</p></blockquote><p>I never said furies where overpowered, nor do I think they are. In fact I stated that you had a legit complaint about your classes raid usefulness. Yes the Templar skill set makes them more ideal for the current raid content, that does not mean they are overpowered though. As to the other things your class CAN do that a Templar can not; yes most of them have limited raid use, but last I checked class feature sets where not supposed to be only judged on raid factors.</p><p>I'm sorry you reached the end game and are now unhappy with how your class is working and the attention it gets from raid guilds. Perhaps you should have went with a different class? Maybe you where having so much fun breezing through the content before the end game you didn't realize the implications of choosing a hybrid class?</p><p>One last note; you might want to complain also about Shamans, especially Mystics. They often double a Templar's raw heal parse and they have better utility than Templars. Also, as I know this seems to be THE most important thing to you, they are in pretty much every raid guild, sometimes 2-3 of them.</p>

[Cythera]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I was about to answer that power shouldn't be an issue, but I will have to believe you if you say a fury cannot rely on power procs etc since I never raided with one.</p></blockquote><p>If you don't have all the top end power proc items, yes, power consumption is an issue for a Fury. I had no power problems with my Zarrakon belt, Kultak neck, and the occasional use of a manastone or other power clicky before the proc nerf. Now I am back to being very power conscious.</p><p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>15% base heal + 5% crit bonus, which is +20% since you should be at 100% heal crit.</p> <p>Anyway, the concept how losing a bit of "heal coverage", as you put it, for healing up somebody in red or yellow health in less time (and thus preparing him faster for the next dmg/aoe) is bad eludes me. But then again, you're the fury.</p></blockquote><p>There is a big difference in the size and amount of heals I needed to cast to get a group that has anywhere from 10-15K hp and what I would require if a group was in the 18-24k+ range.</p><p>In a mage group at the lower end of the HP spectrum, I did not need my heal stance for that extra 20% to heals to top them up before the next AE. With AA points in the right heals in the TSO tree, my gear heal bonuses, and the Hibernation early trigger proc, the heal stance is overkill in a low HP group.</p><p>A well timed group HOT, my single group heal and then the Hibernation proc were more than enough to get a group to green following an AE. Shaving a few tenths of a second due to the miniscule difference in the bigger heal and barely noticable faster cast with the heal stance is negligible in that situation. It was far more beneficial to have my group HOT ticking for the extra seconds without my heal stance on to get them through the single curing situations that I didn't have a group cure to cover since they didn't have the extra HP to absorb a detrimental tick and/or a follow up AE.</p>

[Cythera]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm sorry you reached the end game and are now unhappy with how your class is working and the attention it gets from raid guilds. Perhaps you should have went with a different class? Maybe you where having so much fun breezing through the content before the end game you didn't realize the implications of choosing a hybrid class?</p></blockquote><p>Except for maybe Defilers, most healers are able to gear/spec in a hybrid manner nowadays and put out an amazing amount of dps when they want to, so I'm not seeing the point of that comment.</p>

[Calain80]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>First, let me laugh out loud at the people "not liking" the 2nd table. Oh hey, it's just another presentation of the data, but you don't like it, hu? How amazing. Facts are so ugly when presented with an eye for the significant part of it.</p></blockquote><p>It has to do with a German saying:"Don't trust any statistics that you did not forge yourself."</p><p>While the 1st table includes the absolute numbers and shows the actual status the 2nd is build to highlight a problem you think is there. It is not only a simplification it is a try to manipulate others. And that is why I think, it should not be used.</p><p>Also are you sure, that the heal stance does not work with wards? Then I would bug it, cause wards are heals, or why do all these items that increase one single heal also increase wards? If all heal stances affect wards there would also be two lines less that help to let your heal stance look so bad.</p><p>I would not mind, if they would add debuff haste to your heal stance, but any additional direct heal bonus would only put the most powerful healer over the top.</p>

[RogueSpideyChick]

<p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm sorry you reached the end game and are now unhappy with how your class is working and the attention it gets from raid guilds. Perhaps you should have went with a different class? Maybe you where having so much fun breezing through the content before the end game you didn't realize the implications of choosing a hybrid class?</p></blockquote><p>Except for maybe Defilers, most healers are able to gear/spec in a hybrid manner nowadays and put out an amazing amount of dps when they want to, so I'm not seeing the point of that comment.</p></blockquote><p>neither am i, when it's the class that ive played pretty much since launch & was deemed extremely useful in raids until the last yr.</p>

[Kendayar]

<p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>Kultak neck</strong></p></blockquote><p>Lost that bid to a warden last week because it was the healer with the most dkp in the raid at the time. I cried myself to sleep that night. Well, I didn't cry myself to sleep, but still <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Barx]

<p><cite>Vanand@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>Kultak neck</strong></p></blockquote><p>Lost that bid to a warden last week because it was the healer with the most dkp in the raid at the time. I cried myself to sleep that night. Well, I didn't cry myself to sleep, but still <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" />. That's kind of silly. My main is a warden and I pass on that item each time. We don't need power proc gear at the expense of healers that need it more, and the other stats on that item are easily replicated elsewhere. Yes the gear might be useful some fights with drains (because it procs on who you heal) but in general that item still makes more sense in the hands of healers that have the most power issues.</p>

[CuCullain]

<p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm sorry you reached the end game and are now unhappy with how your class is working and the attention it gets from raid guilds. Perhaps you should have went with a different class? Maybe you where having so much fun breezing through the content before the end game you didn't realize the implications of choosing a hybrid class?</p></blockquote><p>Except for maybe Defilers, most healers are able to gear/spec in a hybrid manner nowadays and put out an amazing amount of dps when they want to, so I'm not seeing the point of that comment.</p></blockquote><p>I'll answer your question by quoting somethign I already said in this thread</p><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A fury going for DPS will still easily out parse a templar going for DPS. In addition that fury can still heal near full effectiveness, but the templar is so handi-caped they can no longer. So yes Templars can get to a point of being able to DPS ok, but they certainly can not do so and still heal well.</p></blockquote><p> Hybrid: anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds</p><p>Damage is heterogeneous to healing</p><p>A Templar who can DPS ok at the expense of his ability to heal is not a hybrid</p><p>A Fury who can DPS and still heal the same IS a Hybrid.</p>

[StaticLex]

<p><cite>Vanand@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>Kultak neck</strong></p></blockquote><p>Lost that bid to a warden last week because it was the healer with the most dkp in the raid at the time. I cried myself to sleep that night. Well, I didn't cry myself to sleep, but still <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>I can't stand raiding with nubs like that, I would have called them out if I were you.</p>

[patrck17]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm sorry you reached the end game and are now unhappy with how your class is working and the attention it gets from raid guilds. Perhaps you should have went with a different class? Maybe you where having so much fun breezing through the content before the end game you didn't realize the implications of choosing a hybrid class?</p></blockquote><p>Except for maybe Defilers, most healers are able to gear/spec in a hybrid manner nowadays and put out an amazing amount of dps when they want to, so I'm not seeing the point of that comment.</p></blockquote><p>I'll answer your question by quoting somethign I already said in this thread</p><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A fury going for DPS will still easily out parse a templar going for DPS. In addition that fury can still heal near full effectiveness, but the templar is so handi-caped they can no longer. So yes Templars can get to a point of being able to DPS ok, but they certainly can not do so and still heal well.</p></blockquote><p> Hybrid: anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds</p><p>Damage is heterogeneous to healing</p><p>A Templar who can DPS ok at the expense of his ability to heal is not a hybrid</p><p>A Fury who can DPS and still heal the same IS a Hybrid.</p></blockquote><p>I don't think I can agree entirely with this thought process.  You have said in this thread that you have seen fury's do 9k-10k damage and know of some that can solo heal most/any of this expansions heroic content, which is true, many can do that.  I think you are making the mistake of expecting that a fury is capable of doing both at the same time or in the same spec/stance/equipment.  This is not the case.  Fury dps is not too different than any other healer dps, we have to wear the right gear, spec the right spec, use the right stance.  After doing all those things right we are able to do a little bit more dps than the other healer classes, but that doesn't mean that we don't give up the ability to heal to do it.  A fury parsing that 9-10k would have to change their gear/stance to be able to heal well enough to keep a group alive through an ecounter like Varsoon.  To say the fury can still heal at near full effectiveness is just incorrect. </p><p>Take the case of the templar though.  In the right gear/spec/stance they can push out 7k-8k dps?  I've seen templars do 8k-9k, but I imagine this isn't terribly common so lets say 7-8k.  So by comparison they are able to do what 2k less damage?  You are trying to say that they give up heals to do it so thats the difference, but there is no difference, fury's have to give heals to dps too.  Templars have the ability to do both, just like a fury.</p><p>It makes a lot of sense why its pretty universally agreed by players, raid leaders, developers, and guild rosters that druids are the least capable healers.  We started off as hybrids of both dps/heals, not awsome at either but it was okay nobody else could do both at all.  Since then some persistant feedback from non druid healers have awarded them hybrid like dps, without the loss of any of their utility or heal capacity.  Druids however were not compensated for the boost of their peers.  So basicly everybody is a hybrid now, just druids are the least useful of them. </p>

[Tehom]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> Hybrid: anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds</p><p>Damage is heterogeneous to healing</p><p>A Templar who can DPS ok at the expense of his ability to heal is not a hybrid</p><p>A Fury who can DPS and still heal the same IS a Hybrid.</p></blockquote><p>This isn't a good argument to make, since no healer can do significant dps while contributing healing anymore - any difficult fight (harder avatars, gozak, etc) doesn't have healers dpsing while healing. They could before the reactive nerf (via bane warding, mutagenic, infusion, etc, etc, etc), now they can't. The lone exception to that is actually bane warding in the main tank group, but even that isn't all that great, usually only like 1-2k dps at most. I think druids -should- be able to contribute damage while healing due to their utter lack of utility, not as a tradeoff for a complete inability to prevent their groups from being one-shotted.</p><p>Thinking that anyone should have realized that druids would become obsolete because of the massive increase in the strength of hp buffs and wards is fooling themselves too - it was the impact of specific gear (let's make hp buffs raidwide and much, much bigger!) and AA and content design, and it's something everyone is still coming to grips with.</p><p>One thing people tend to forget is that druids actually have the weakest utility by far. You compare sanctuary or ancestry or self-cures or debuffs to what they get, and it's pretty glaring. Templars even get better debuffs than druids, which is just sad.</p><p>I'm not saying templars are overpowered, though, because objectively speaking I think shamans are even stronger right now. I think shamans are much more capable of solo-healing a group on harder mobs like Gozak, Flame, Ykesha, etc. Solo-healing Gozak is still pretty difficult for me, but I'd think a templar would have a much tougher time of it.</p>

[CuCullain]

<p><cite>patrck17 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm sorry you reached the end game and are now unhappy with how your class is working and the attention it gets from raid guilds. Perhaps you should have went with a different class? Maybe you where having so much fun breezing through the content before the end game you didn't realize the implications of choosing a hybrid class?</p></blockquote><p>Except for maybe Defilers, most healers are able to gear/spec in a hybrid manner nowadays and put out an amazing amount of dps when they want to, so I'm not seeing the point of that comment.</p></blockquote><p>I'll answer your question by quoting somethign I already said in this thread</p><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A fury going for DPS will still easily out parse a templar going for DPS. In addition that fury can still heal near full effectiveness, but the templar is so handi-caped they can no longer. So yes Templars can get to a point of being able to DPS ok, but they certainly can not do so and still heal well.</p></blockquote><p> Hybrid: anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds</p><p>Damage is heterogeneous to healing</p><p>A Templar who can DPS ok at the expense of his ability to heal is not a hybrid</p><p>A Fury who can DPS and still heal the same IS a Hybrid.</p></blockquote><p>I don't think I can agree entirely with this thought process.  You have said in this thread that you have seen fury's do 9k-10k damage and know of some that can solo heal most/any of this expansions heroic content, which is true, many can do that.  I think you are making the mistake of expecting that a fury is capable of doing both at the same time or in the same spec/stance/equipment.  This is not the case.  Fury dps is not too different than any other healer dps, we have to wear the right gear, spec the right spec, use the right stance.  After doing all those things right we are able to do a little bit more dps than the other healer classes, but that doesn't mean that we don't give up the ability to heal to do it.  A fury parsing that 9-10k would have to change their gear/stance to be able to heal well enough to keep a group alive through an ecounter like Varsoon.  To say the fury can still heal at near full effectiveness is just incorrect. </p><p>Take the case of the templar though.  In the right gear/spec/stance they can push out 7k-8k dps?  I've seen templars do 8k-9k, but I imagine this isn't terribly common so lets say 7-8k.  So by comparison they are able to do what 2k less damage?  You are trying to say that they give up heals to do it so thats the difference, but there is no difference, fury's have to give heals to dps too.  Templars have the ability to do both, just like a fury.</p><p>It makes a lot of sense why its pretty universally agreed by players, raid leaders, developers, and guild rosters that druids are the least capable healers.  We started off as hybrids of both dps/heals, not awsome at either but it was okay nobody else could do both at all.  Since then some persistant feedback from non druid healers have awarded them hybrid like dps, without the loss of any of their utility or heal capacity.  Druids however were not compensated for the boost of their peers.  So basicly everybody is a hybrid now, just druids are the least useful of them. </p></blockquote><p>Ok let me try to clarify what I am saying.</p><p>A fury who is spec'd and geared to do max DPS doesn't have to give up any base level healing power. They can still cast all their normal healing spells with normal effectiveness. Yes they certainly won't have ideal healing AAs and gear to make their healing better than base, but they can fire off heals on the fly to help out if needed and their heals will work at the base level. Now I will assume, as I have not looked, that for the most DPS a Fury has some healing penalties with their DPS stance, but even w/o using that stance a Fury can get pretty solid DPS.</p><p>A Templar who is spec'd for DPS and geared for DPS is not in the same boat. To achieve max DPS we must utilize multiple AAs that degrade our ability to heal on a base level. A typicaly spec'd DPS Templar could try to switch to heals on the fly like a fury can, but they will cast with reduced effectiveness heals and a much slower casting speed and also reduce their DPS output as a penalty for doing so. Let me list for you the full time penalties a Templar must have to do the DPS you listed.</p><ul><li>Casting any beneficial spell removes +25% spell damage for next 7 seconds</li><li>-36 Ministration and Focus</li><li>-10% heal amount</li><li>-30% beneficial casting speed</li></ul><p>Now I am not saying that a Templar should be able to heal well and DPS well at the same time, hence why we are not a hybrid class.</p><p>Again I say this looking at the game as a whole, obviously neither of the classes will be doing much DPS of any kind in a typical raid encounter, but this game is not just raid encounters.</p>

[patrck17]

<p><cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This isn't a good argument to make, since no healer can do significant dps while contributing healing anymore - any difficult fight (harder avatars, gozak, etc) doesn't have healers dpsing while healing. They could before the reactive nerf (via bane warding, mutagenic, infusion, etc, etc, etc), now they can't. The lone exception to that is actually bane warding in the main tank group, but even that isn't all that great, usually only like 1-2k dps at most. I think druids -should- be able to contribute damage while healing due to their utter lack of utility, not as a tradeoff for a complete inability to prevent their groups from being one-shotted.</p></blockquote><p>This is well said.</p>

[CuCullain]

<p><cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> Hybrid: anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds</p><p>Damage is heterogeneous to healing</p><p>A Templar who can DPS ok at the expense of his ability to heal is not a hybrid</p><p>A Fury who can DPS and still heal the same IS a Hybrid.</p></blockquote><p>This isn't a good argument to make, since no healer can do significant dps while contributing healing anymore - any difficult fight (harder avatars, gozak, etc) doesn't have healers dpsing while healing. They could before the reactive nerf (via bane warding, mutagenic, infusion, etc, etc, etc), now they can't. The lone exception to that is actually bane warding in the main tank group, but even that isn't all that great, usually only like 1-2k dps at most. I think druids -should- be able to contribute damage while healing due to their utter lack of utility, not as a tradeoff for a complete inability to prevent their groups from being one-shotted.</p><p>Thinking that anyone should have realized that druids would become obsolete because of the massive increase in the strength of hp buffs and wards is fooling themselves too - it was the impact of specific gear (let's make hp buffs raidwide and much, much bigger!) and AA and content design, and it's something everyone is still coming to grips with.</p><p>One thing people tend to forget is that druids actually have the weakest utility by far. You compare sanctuary or ancestry or self-cures or debuffs to what they get, and it's pretty glaring. Templars even get better debuffs than druids, which is just sad.</p><p>I'm not saying templars are overpowered, though, because objectively speaking I think shamans are even stronger right now. I think shamans are much more capable of solo-healing a group on harder mobs like Gozak, Flame, Ykesha, etc. Solo-healing Gozak is still pretty difficult for me, but I'd think a templar would have a much tougher time of it.</p></blockquote><p>I agree with you about the situation for Furys, I just don't think the right solution is to increase their healing to the same level of a Shaman or Cleric.</p><p>As far as the obsolete thing. I simply meant that a person who picked the hybrid should not have expected to be on the same healing level in the game. They certainly should not have expected to be raid worthless though, I agree with you on that.</p><p>As far as debuffs go, Templars don't do much. At master level we can reduce a mobs physical mit by about 1800, divine by 1200, and their wisdom by 90. Non of those make or break any content that I am aware off. If you want to argue our two lotto spells are debuffs too, that is fine. Neither of them do much to debuff the mobs, it is simply just a mechanic to increase healing.</p>

[RogueSpideyChick]

<p>it's NOT the HEALS we r complaining about...it's our UTTER LACK OF USEFUL BUFFS. we can heal just fine. it's BUFFS that we need.</p>

[Tehom]

<p>Yeah, it's hp buffs where druids really are sucking right now. I just think it's such an overwhelming issue that smaller but legitimate balance concerns (curing, utility abilities) sort of fall through the cracks, and the weaknesses of druids in those areas are the best argument for getting better dps-buffing (whether via curing detrimentals that inhibit dps, directly buffing dps, doing dps directly while healing yourself, or all of the above) rather than as a tradeoff for their groups dying, particularly when all the buffs druids used to offer dps have become obsolete due to caps.</p>

[StaticLex]

<p><cite>Aricajade@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>it's NOT the HEALS we r complaining about...it's our UTTER LACK OF USEFUL BUFFS. we can heal just fine. it's BUFFS that we need.</p></blockquote><p>/sigh  I guess I can hurl some fuel on the fire in this thread as well.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />  I think the people in your group/raid need a better AA spec and adorns.  I heal TSO content just fine in either the MT group, OT group OR my own solo healed group.  People occasionally get 1 shotted in my groups as well but it's always, and I mean ALWAYS the people with the worst crit mit gear followed by lack of proper AAs/adorns.</p>

[RogueSpideyChick]

<p><cite>StaticLex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aricajade@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>it's NOT the HEALS we r complaining about...it's our UTTER LACK OF USEFUL BUFFS. we can heal just fine. it's BUFFS that we need.</p></blockquote><p>/sigh  I guess I can hurl some fuel on the fire in this thread as well.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />  I think the people in your group/raid need a better AA spec and adorns.  I heal TSO content just fine in either the MT group, OT group OR my own solo healed group.  People occasionally get 1 shotted in my group when solo healing as well but it's always, and I mean ALWAYS the people with the worst crit mit gear followed by lack of AAs/adorns.</p></blockquote><p>theyre geared. 4 piece minimum tso set (apps) to avatar gear, all fully adorned...so try again...it's the encounters themselves that r causing the issues because of our lack of hp buffs when ae's hit for 10k+...</p>

[patrck17]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok let me try to clarify what I am saying.</p><p>A fury who is spec'd and geared to do max DPS doesn't have to give up any base level healing power. They can still cast all their normal healing spells with normal effectiveness. Yes they certainly won't have ideal healing AAs and gear to make their healing better than base, but they can fire off heals on the fly to help out if needed and their heals will work at the base level. Now I will assume, as I have not looked, that for the most DPS a Fury has some healing penalties with their DPS stance, but even w/o using that stance a Fury can get pretty solid DPS.</p><p>A Templar who is spec'd for DPS and geared for DPS is not in the same boat. To achieve max DPS we must utilize multiple AAs that degrade our ability to heal on a base level. A typicaly spec'd DPS Templar could try to switch to heals on the fly like a fury can, but they will cast with reduced effectiveness heals and a much slower casting speed and also reduce their DPS output as a penalty for doing so. Let me list for you the full time penalties a Templar must have to do the DPS you listed.</p><ul><li>Casting any beneficial spell removes +25% spell damage for next 7 seconds</li><li>-36 Ministration and Focus</li><li>-10% heal amount</li><li>-30% beneficial casting speed</li></ul><p>Now I am not saying that a Templar should be able to heal well and DPS well at the same time, hence why we are not a hybrid class.</p></blockquote><p>Well I see the point you make about this.  Though similar limitations do exist when fury uses certain temp buffs, such as energy vortex which doubles power use and halves healing effectiveness.  Though the difference in a fury dps in this expansion with and without EV isn't huge anymore (the loss of this really making a huge difference in dps is a bummer, though most furys are far more concerned with the issue of buffs and damage reduction than dps atm). </p><p>The point made by other posters in this thread about how dps was added to the other healers really can't be ignored here as it was the one thing that set druids apart.  Druids players (when they pick the class) choose to sacrificed heals and to get the DPS.  Obviously if you want to get lots of dps or utility you shouldn't  be able to heal as great as the healers who weren't getting any dps.  Though they changed that and now you guys can do lots of dps (I know with restrictions, but still if you want to you can do it).  You are actually given the option to choose to go dps or heals, the same option given to druids, except you got to keep all your bad [Removed for Content]utility and heal capacity (on call when you need it).</p><p>I agree that it is kind of lame to try to implement class balance into a single aa line.  It is a bad time in the game I think to try to compare templar to druids though, as druids really don't even come close.  I think the one thing druids do better is actually dps, which is only useful on trash, being called trash should indicate about how important it is to raiding.  And wardens have it especially bad as they don't dps nearlly as well as furies.   </p>

[Barx]

<p><cite>patrck17 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok let me try to clarify what I am saying.</p><p>A fury who is spec'd and geared to do max DPS doesn't have to give up any base level healing power. They can still cast all their normal healing spells with normal effectiveness. Yes they certainly won't have ideal healing AAs and gear to make their healing better than base, but they can fire off heals on the fly to help out if needed and their heals will work at the base level. Now I will assume, as I have not looked, that for the most DPS a Fury has some healing penalties with their DPS stance, but even w/o using that stance a Fury can get pretty solid DPS.</p><p>A Templar who is spec'd for DPS and geared for DPS is not in the same boat. To achieve max DPS we must utilize multiple AAs that degrade our ability to heal on a base level. A typicaly spec'd DPS Templar could try to switch to heals on the fly like a fury can, but they will cast with reduced effectiveness heals and a much slower casting speed and also reduce their DPS output as a penalty for doing so. Let me list for you the full time penalties a Templar must have to do the DPS you listed.</p><ul><li>Casting any beneficial spell removes +25% spell damage for next 7 seconds</li><li>-36 Ministration and Focus</li><li>-10% heal amount</li><li>-30% beneficial casting speed</li></ul><p>Now I am not saying that a Templar should be able to heal well and DPS well at the same time, hence why we are not a hybrid class.</p></blockquote><p>Well I see the point you make about this.  Though similar limitations do exist when fury uses certain temp buffs, such as energy vortex which doubles power use and halves healing effectiveness.  Though the difference in a fury dps in this expansion with and without EV isn't huge anymore (the loss of this really making a huge difference in dps is a bummer, though most furys are far more concerned with the issue of buffs and damage reduction than dps atm). </p><p>The point made by other posters in this thread about how dps was added to the other healers really can't be ignored here as it was the one thing that set druids apart.  Druids players (when they pick the class) choose to sacrificed heals and to get the DPS.  Obviously if you want to get lots of dps or utility you shouldn't  be able to heal as great as the healers who weren't getting any dps.  Though they changed that and now you guys can do lots of dps (I know with restrictions, but still if you want to you can do it).  You are actually given the option to choose to go dps or heals, the same option given to druids, except you got to keep all your bad [Removed for Content]utility and heal capacity (on call when you need it).</p><p>I agree that it is kind of lame to try to implement class balance into a single aa line.  It is a bad time in the game I think to try to compare templar to druids though, as druids really don't even come close.  I think the one thing druids do better is actually dps, which is only useful on trash, being called trash should indicate about how important it is to raiding.  And wardens have it especially bad as they don't dps nearlly as well as furies.   </p></blockquote><p>Careful with generalizing there. I picked Warden back when the game came out and we were in no way a hybrid or really dps. Only with AAs did wardens (and most other priest classes) get more DPS. So saying that dps sets druids apart is bull, especially when other non-druid healers can melee for just as much as, if not more than, a warden. You just see more druids meleeing and furies nuking because on trash druid heals aren't really needed in great quantity.</p>

[StaticLex]

<p>I really hate the DPS arguement.  If I wanted to DPS I'd make a class that is actually intended to blow up the parse.  All healers should have the ability to kill solo trash I guess, but that's where it should stop imo.</p>

[CuCullain]

<p><cite>patrck17 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok let me try to clarify what I am saying.</p><p>A fury who is spec'd and geared to do max DPS doesn't have to give up any base level healing power. They can still cast all their normal healing spells with normal effectiveness. Yes they certainly won't have ideal healing AAs and gear to make their healing better than base, but they can fire off heals on the fly to help out if needed and their heals will work at the base level. Now I will assume, as I have not looked, that for the most DPS a Fury has some healing penalties with their DPS stance, but even w/o using that stance a Fury can get pretty solid DPS.</p><p>A Templar who is spec'd for DPS and geared for DPS is not in the same boat. To achieve max DPS we must utilize multiple AAs that degrade our ability to heal on a base level. A typicaly spec'd DPS Templar could try to switch to heals on the fly like a fury can, but they will cast with reduced effectiveness heals and a much slower casting speed and also reduce their DPS output as a penalty for doing so. Let me list for you the full time penalties a Templar must have to do the DPS you listed.</p><ul><li>Casting any beneficial spell removes +25% spell damage for next 7 seconds</li><li>-36 Ministration and Focus</li><li>-10% heal amount</li><li>-30% beneficial casting speed</li></ul><p>Now I am not saying that a Templar should be able to heal well and DPS well at the same time, hence why we are not a hybrid class.</p></blockquote><p>Well I see the point you make about this.  Though similar limitations do exist when fury uses certain temp buffs, such as energy vortex which doubles power use and halves healing effectiveness.  Though the difference in a fury dps in this expansion with and without EV isn't huge anymore (the loss of this really making a huge difference in dps is a bummer, though most furys are far more concerned with the issue of buffs and damage reduction than dps atm). </p><p>The point made by other posters in this thread about how dps was added to the other healers really can't be ignored here as it was the one thing that set druids apart.  Druids players (when they pick the class) choose to sacrificed heals and to get the DPS.  Obviously if you want to get lots of dps or utility you shouldn't  be able to heal as great as the healers who weren't getting any dps.  Though they changed that and now you guys can do lots of dps (I know with restrictions, but still if you want to you can do it).  You are actually given the option to choose to go dps or heals, the same option given to druids, except you got to keep all your bad [Removed for Content]utility and heal capacity (on call when you need it).</p><p>I agree that it is kind of lame to try to implement class balance into a single aa line.  It is a bad time in the game I think to try to compare templar to druids though, as druids really don't even come close.  I think the one thing druids do better is actually dps, which is only useful on trash, being called trash should indicate about how important it is to raiding.  And wardens have it especially bad as they don't dps nearlly as well as furies.   </p></blockquote><p>Once SoE pushes through it's crit changes you will likely see the gap between Fury's and other healers increase as far as DPS is concerned. Though the AAs where certainly put in to give other healign classes a DPS option (with whatever penalties where included), I don't think any of the developers expected all the classes to increase as much as they did.</p><hr /><p>As far as HP buffs go, you guys really think your groups will stop dying to the previously mentioned triple AoE mobs simply by giving you equal health buffs to a Templar? FYI that would be a little less than 3k HPs with maximized AAs and masters.</p>

[Tehom]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><hr /><p>As far as HP buffs go, you guys really think your groups will stop dying to the previously mentioned triple AoE mobs simply by giving you equal health buffs to a Templar? FYI that would be a little less than 3k HPs with maximized AAs and masters.</p></blockquote><p>Actually, yeah. It's a pretty enormous swing percentage-wise of the health of casters. You see casters go from like 9-10k to 16k based on their group assignments, and if they're one-shotted it's usually from dying in the 12-14k range. Having scouts over 20k and most tanks in the mid-high 20s is pretty nice too, though. I run coagulate also for protection against one-shots, so that's another 1.2k that some people may or may not have too, anyway.</p>

[StaticLex]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As far as HP buffs go, you guys really think your groups will stop dying to the previously mentioned triple AoE mobs simply by giving you equal health buffs to a Templar?</p></blockquote><p>I highly doubt it.</p>

[Generic123]

<p><cite>Lord_Ebon wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Careful with generalizing there. I picked Warden back when the game came out and we were in no way a hybrid or really dps. Only with AAs did wardens (and most other priest classes) get more DPS. So saying that dps sets druids apart is bull, especially when other non-druid healers can melee for just as much as, if not more than, a warden. You just see more druids meleeing and furies nuking because on trash druid heals aren't really needed in great quantity.</p></blockquote><p>Druids chose to sacrifice the more desirable heal types like Wards/Reactives in exchange for doing a little more damage in the times when HoT does nothing at all because wards/reactives act first.</p><p>As things stand now, however, Warden's arguably have the third lowest DPS of any priest class, have heals that often can't even land because Wards/Reactive take precedence and have minimal buffs/debuffs. I fact most Warden DPS comes from their autoattack, to do this they need to spend over 20 AA points to get 75% melee crit. Not only can Templars get 100% melee crit they get it in the very same AA line they get heal crit.</p>

[Oakum]

<p><cite>Lord_Ebon wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>patrck17 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok let me try to clarify what I am saying.</p><p>A fury who is spec'd and geared to do max DPS doesn't have to give up any base level healing power. They can still cast all their normal healing spells with normal effectiveness. Yes they certainly won't have ideal healing AAs and gear to make their healing better than base, but they can fire off heals on the fly to help out if needed and their heals will work at the base level. Now I will assume, as I have not looked, that for the most DPS a Fury has some healing penalties with their DPS stance, but even w/o using that stance a Fury can get pretty solid DPS.</p><p>A Templar who is spec'd for DPS and geared for DPS is not in the same boat. To achieve max DPS we must utilize multiple AAs that degrade our ability to heal on a base level. A typicaly spec'd DPS Templar could try to switch to heals on the fly like a fury can, but they will cast with reduced effectiveness heals and a much slower casting speed and also reduce their DPS output as a penalty for doing so. Let me list for you the full time penalties a Templar must have to do the DPS you listed.</p><ul><li>Casting any beneficial spell removes +25% spell damage for next 7 seconds</li><li>-36 Ministration and Focus</li><li>-10% heal amount</li><li>-30% beneficial casting speed</li></ul><p>Now I am not saying that a Templar should be able to heal well and DPS well at the same time, hence why we are not a hybrid class.</p></blockquote><p>Well I see the point you make about this.  Though similar limitations do exist when fury uses certain temp buffs, such as energy vortex which doubles power use and halves healing effectiveness.  Though the difference in a fury dps in this expansion with and without EV isn't huge anymore (the loss of this really making a huge difference in dps is a bummer, though most furys are far more concerned with the issue of buffs and damage reduction than dps atm). </p><p>The point made by other posters in this thread about how dps was added to the other healers really can't be ignored here as it was the one thing that set druids apart.  Druids players (when they pick the class) choose to sacrificed heals and to get the DPS.  Obviously if you want to get lots of dps or utility you shouldn't  be able to heal as great as the healers who weren't getting any dps.  Though they changed that and now you guys can do lots of dps (I know with restrictions, but still if you want to you can do it).  You are actually given the option to choose to go dps or heals, the same option given to druids, except you got to keep all your bad [Removed for Content]utility and heal capacity (on call when you need it).</p><p>I agree that it is kind of lame to try to implement class balance into a single aa line.  It is a bad time in the game I think to try to compare templar to druids though, as druids really don't even come close.  I think the one thing druids do better is actually dps, which is only useful on trash, being called trash should indicate about how important it is to raiding.  And wardens have it especially bad as they don't dps nearlly as well as furies.   </p></blockquote><p>Careful with generalizing there. I picked Warden back when the game came out and we were in no way a hybrid or really dps. Only with AAs did wardens (and most other priest classes) get more DPS. So saying that dps sets druids apart is bull, especially when other non-druid healers can melee for just as much as, if not more than, a warden. You just see more druids meleeing and furies nuking because on trash druid heals aren't really needed in great quantity.</p></blockquote><p>I picked warden too when the game first came out. I did both healing and dps. I could out heal a fury but couldnt out dps them but would come relatively close and would way out dps clerics and shaman.</p><p>With LU 13 (the only reall big "combat" revamp when the devs attemtpted to balance all classes, they  balance healing AND DPS between all priest classes (even though they screwed up wardens having any raid utility then while all other classes including fury's with their int buff which was needed by mages at the time had some decent utiltiy/group dps buffs if nothing else and a warden was the first healer sat out of a raid) it went like this.</p><p>All healers had pretty close to the same healing ability although it was done differently. There were spreadsheets made up by different players that showed it.</p><p>We wardens dps'ed just a little less then furys and healed just a little more then them and way out dpsed both cleric and shaman. Shaman had the next highest  DPS and Clerics the lowest.</p><p>Then like I said before, increases to cleric and shaman dps to allow them to solo by  base damage increases and aa's while pretty much ignoring wardens ability to do dps even with the dps aa trees which were given as a "shut up, you got something too" sort of thing has wardens down to being the second to last or even the last of any priest when trying to dps and not healing. Trying meaning specced for it.</p><p>And yes, to spec for dps purely wardens give up heal crit, serenity, the cure line aa's (even though they are pretty much worthless but they are part of a "pure" healer spec instead of the ca line.</p><p>No priest, even fury's which should be the best at dps with wardens right below them, can heal significantly for thier group and still dps.</p>

[CuCullain]

<p><cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><hr /><p>As far as HP buffs go, you guys really think your groups will stop dying to the previously mentioned triple AoE mobs simply by giving you equal health buffs to a Templar? FYI that would be a little less than 3k HPs with maximized AAs and masters.</p></blockquote><p>Actually, yeah. It's a pretty enormous swing percentage-wise of the health of casters. You see casters go from like 9-10k to 16k based on their group assignments, and if they're one-shotted it's usually from dying in the 12-14k range. Having scouts over 20k and most tanks in the mid-high 20s is pretty nice too, though. I run coagulate also for protection against one-shots, so that's another 1.2k that some people may or may not have too, anyway.</p></blockquote><p>Those HP numbers from avatar level gear? I ask because in my experience a relatively well geared raid tank seems to normally be arround 20-22k with buffs, melee DPS near 15-18k, and casters at about 10-13k. e.g. I took a quick look at your guild roster and your highest unbuffed MT type is arround 17k, are you guys getting 10k from buffs?</p>

[Tehom]

<p>Well, remember things like 500 from hp potions also (no reason for people not to use them now with most capping crit), then stuff like bolster, symbol of the faydark procs, and then add a few buffs for a 3-healer group on things like Ykesha, etc.</p><p>I was curious the other day about exactly how much hp templars do add to a group since I hadn't really added it up before, and it looked to be around 3.2k or so from eyeballing it - I think some of the wiggle room is from things like having the modifier to the hp component of your mitigation buff from the chest piece. Shamans are similar (defilers arguably even better in some ways, given the ward on our mitigation buff - doesn't help on physical AEs which tend to be the real problem, but still great), and both have a pretty enormous advantage over druids.</p><p>I guess we can argue over whether a few thousand hp are significant, but I think it is - I solo healed the caster group the other day on ykesha, and while the casters in it may not have been one-shotted every time with a druid covering em, they sure as heck would have been a -lot- more vulnerable, with absolutely no compelling reason to have such a huge tradeoff in survivability.</p>

[StaticLex]

<p>The HP buff thing really is completely backwards.  The heal class that is totally unable to stack HP on a toon should have the biggest HP buffs to work with.</p>

[snowli]

<p><cite>StaticLex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The HP buff thing really is completely backwards.  The heal class that is totally unable to stack HP on a toon should have the biggest HP buffs to work with.</p></blockquote><p>Can't agree more.</p>

[Mileras]

<p><cite>StaticLex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The HP buff thing really is completely backwards.  The heal class that is totally unable to stack HP on a toon should have the biggest HP buffs to work with.</p></blockquote><p>I've always felt that druids should've had the highest hit point buffs, followed by clerics and then shaman.  That would've fit quite well alongside the progression of wards > reactives > regens and helped the viability of each class of healer some.  It was that way in EQ1, too, though so I guess they wanted to preserve the lore or something (i.e. cleric > shaman > druid for health buffs there). </p>

[Lord Hackenslash]

<p>One thing that is ignored conveniently by many templars is the power of thier epic and int line combined for casting speed. I am not just talking about the Mythical which is available only to relatively seriour raiders but I am referring to the fabled epic which is attainable by any templar who plays in groups. The casting speed along with the accompanying immunities are truly spectacular. The mythical only serves to increase this bonus even further.</p><p>I have a Mythical Templar and a Mythical Mystic as well as an Inquisitor whom is not quite 80 yet. The templar by far has so many tools and advantages over all other healing classes that I can only place defilers anywhere near them in overall healing potential (I also raided on a defiler in t7)</p><p>The only problem I ever saw with the templar stance was the reduction to lotto heal casting. otherwise we had nothing to whine about. Having raided on 4 different healing classes I can see that not all healers are close to equal and frankly that is why my inquisitor has fallen into disuse. The templar heal stance makes our heals stronger. If it was given any more abilities it would add to class imbalance rather than fix it. If they give my templar a better heal stance great but we definately are not the red headed stepchild you make us out to be.</p>

[LardLord]

<p><cite>Melina@Splitpaw wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The only problem I ever saw with the templar stance was the reduction to lotto heal casting.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, I'd like to see them fix that along with the Fury DPS stance penalty that increases beneficial cast time (thus slowing down Infusion procs).</p><p>Instead of balancing each classes' base spells, class-specific items (set armor, epics), and AAs separately, the developers have chosen to attempt to balance healers by giving uneven benefits in those areas and then aiming to balance them all out overall.  The first way would certainly seem a lot easier to me, but with the path they've chosen you're going to end up with cases like this where certain classes are given spells/gear/AA that are glaringly weak (or, in other cases, insanely powerful).</p>

[Cythera]

<p>First: I'd like to point out an error in the first chart. Inquisitors do not receive the 15% beneficial spell cast on their heal stance. It is heals only. Looks like Mystics are the only ones who got it good there.</p><p>What I liked about my Fury pre-TSO was that I could lightning cast heals or dps depending on the situation. It was easy to switch from one to the other. My abilities were well balanced between heals and dps casting. It just required quick reaction times to do both well. Ex. Dpsing on mob: Necro casts Lifeburn, I could switch to super fast cast heals and top them up, then switch back to dps mode. Not so in TSO using either the dps or heal stance. Both stances unbalance what the Fury is capable of. Using either stance, I have to sacrifice the fast casting of either dps or heals and have reduced values of either one, depending on stance.</p><p>It didn't really matter that I had less overall heals and they were slightly smaller than other archetypes. I could cast them faster and get more of them out in a shorter amount of time than a Cleric or Shaman. Using dps stance, I reduce the heal amount and increase the cast time to get them on who needs the fast healing. It also increases the cast time of cures. Best not to use dps stance on fights needing a lot of cures.</p><p>Previously, a cleric or shaman traded bigger heals overall for slower casting times on those heals. Druids had smaller heals but we were able to cast them faster and more often.</p><p>Through gear and AA's I see this swinging a different direction. A cleric or shaman still has their big heals, (along with better defensive tools, buffs, and debuffs) but they are able to cast them faster and reuse them more often. I agree that they shouldn't be using gear to try to balance out the healer classes, or the heal stances for that matter.</p><p>Using the example of the cleric Intelligence line. They are able to increase their cast speed on everything by 14.4% via 8 AA points. That closes the gap between their cast speed and a druid's. Then add in their mythical weapons. Templar: 12% chance for each beneficial spell cast to proc Impenetrable Faith which makes them immune to stuns and increases their cast speed an additional 20% for 10 seconds. Inquisitor: Increase cast/reuse speed by 15% just for equipping it.</p><p>Druids, with our smaller, faster casting heals received no similar AA boost to cast speeds. We have to rely totally on gear and others passive buffs to increase our cast speeds. Hmmm. Smaller heals, less buffs, less defensive abilities, and now we cast slower than them?</p><p>Then look at the TSO raid gear. Not jewels, just the set gear. For Benevolent Alacrity, a Templar receives: 5% from their bracers, 6% from the gloves and 3% on the pants. An Inquisitor: 2% on shoulders, 5% on bracers, 6% gloves, and 3% on pants. So cast speed for a Templar could be 27.4% before mythical proc of 20% and the group/raid buffs. An Inquisitor's cast speed: 45.4% from set gear, the Int line and their mythical. 60.4% with their heal stance and that is before group/raid buffs. Nice. Won't even mention what Divine Recovery does for them and their group's casting.</p><p>This doesn't include any passive cast speed buffs from a bard or Monk, or even an SK in the group. Or if they are lucky and get Coercive Healing or Time Compression from their friendly enchanter. We won't even discuss the smart ones that rolled an Erudite for the 5% cast speed trait...</p><p>How does a Fury stack up? Let's see. We received +9 casting ability with the gear revamp. Wow! And we are supposed to be the lightning fast casters with our smaller heals? Even with our heal stance, we don't cast our smaller heals any faster to compete with just Clerics. Sure, the heals will be 15% bigger, but they will be nowhere near the size of the Cleric's already larger heals and a Cleric can get those bigger heals out a whole lot faster. Using either dps or heal stance also negates any of that bonus we receive from our gear when the heal stance makes damage spells cast 15% longer or heals 20% longer in the dps stance. Further pointing out that the lightning switch between dps and heals that a Fury was known for pre-TSO is no longer the case unless we go stanceless.</p><p>All that cast speed puts them at an advantage curing too. Nevermind a Shaman with Herbal Expertise that is well geared and buffed. Our dps stance will slow our cure cast times, but the heal stance does nothing to improve them to keep up with other classes.</p><p>It would have been nice to see our dps or heal stances enhance our classes current abilities depending on which stance is used. NOT get these detrimental effects to either dps or beneficial abilities that come with using either stance. The dps stance could have increased dps abilities and not done anything to affect our healing/curing capabilities and vice versa. We would just become better at either dps or healing depending on the stance we choose to use.</p><p>But, because of the wording on them, certain penalties are occuring that are unnecessary. Templars are right. Their non damaging debuffs and lotto heals have no reason to take longer to cast while in heal stance. Some healers were already reluctant to cast their debuffs before the heal stance made them a chore to cast. Way to make them even less likely to want to cast them with the heal stance on.</p><p>For Furies, sure, they could have reduced our heal amounts with our dps stance, similar to the Vortex penalty, but they didn't have to make all beneficial spells take longer to cast, thereby reducing a portion of our dps while in dps stance. It defeats the purpose of the dps stance for a Fury IMO. As the heal stance doesn't increase cast speed of heals or cures to help compete, it is less appealing than the dps stance. Our heals are still smaller than the Cleric or Shaman, even with the extra 5% to heal amount than the others get due to the smaller nature of most of our heals to begin with. Shush about the 2 second faster regens. We already explained why we didn't like that little addition.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p>Nice summary, and great point you make.  Temps cannot DPS AND heal at the same time, not in any meaningful way anyway on any tough content.  I've been in groups where other healers did heal AND DPS a significant amount, no as much as they would have if they chose one of the other I'm sure, but still a significant amount to a) effectively solo heal the group, completing the primary goal of the group not dying, and b) adding a significant number to the groups DPS.</p><p>That's what is meant by a "hybrid" class, where you can do both at the same time, even if you give up a little.  For Temps we pretty much give it all up to choose one of the other.  Personally I'm VERY happy this is the case, although yes I most definitely do expect some slight increased healing and/or buffing power in exchange for this.  The ability to add DPS to a group is just as valuable (more so in this DPS crazy world that SOE pushes on us) as increased healing or buffing ability.  Increased DPS is a tangible benefit that should be taken into account in balancing the entire class.  On tough content the Templar is the same old Templar we've always been, all healing and no DPS.  I'm OK with that as that's why I originally rolled my Templar on the release date of EQ2.</p><p>Keep in mind we lost most (if not all IMO) of the utility of our emergency heal.  That also has to factor into the overall class balance.</p><p>In any event it seems this discussion degraded into a healing vs. dps discussion, where it should only be a healing vs. healing discussion.  I think we'd be happy if we just got the healing debuffs fixed to not be slowed down.  I'd be satisfied with that, as currently I either have to not use the healing stance at all, or not use my healing debuffs, and that's really not a choice we should have to make as healers.</p><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>patrck17 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm sorry you reached the end game and are now unhappy with how your class is working and the attention it gets from raid guilds. Perhaps you should have went with a different class? Maybe you where having so much fun breezing through the content before the end game you didn't realize the implications of choosing a hybrid class?</p></blockquote><p>Except for maybe Defilers, most healers are able to gear/spec in a hybrid manner nowadays and put out an amazing amount of dps when they want to, so I'm not seeing the point of that comment.</p></blockquote><p>I'll answer your question by quoting somethign I already said in this thread</p><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A fury going for DPS will still easily out parse a templar going for DPS. In addition that fury can still heal near full effectiveness, but the templar is so handi-caped they can no longer. So yes Templars can get to a point of being able to DPS ok, but they certainly can not do so and still heal well.</p></blockquote><p> Hybrid: anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds</p><p>Damage is heterogeneous to healing</p><p>A Templar who can DPS ok at the expense of his ability to heal is not a hybrid</p><p>A Fury who can DPS and still heal the same IS a Hybrid.</p></blockquote><p>I don't think I can agree entirely with this thought process.  You have said in this thread that you have seen fury's do 9k-10k damage and know of some that can solo heal most/any of this expansions heroic content, which is true, many can do that.  I think you are making the mistake of expecting that a fury is capable of doing both at the same time or in the same spec/stance/equipment.  This is not the case.  Fury dps is not too different than any other healer dps, we have to wear the right gear, spec the right spec, use the right stance.  After doing all those things right we are able to do a little bit more dps than the other healer classes, but that doesn't mean that we don't give up the ability to heal to do it.  A fury parsing that 9-10k would have to change their gear/stance to be able to heal well enough to keep a group alive through an ecounter like Varsoon.  To say the fury can still heal at near full effectiveness is just incorrect. </p><p>Take the case of the templar though.  In the right gear/spec/stance they can push out 7k-8k dps?  I've seen templars do 8k-9k, but I imagine this isn't terribly common so lets say 7-8k.  So by comparison they are able to do what 2k less damage?  You are trying to say that they give up heals to do it so thats the difference, but there is no difference, fury's have to give heals to dps too.  Templars have the ability to do both, just like a fury.</p><p>It makes a lot of sense why its pretty universally agreed by players, raid leaders, developers, and guild rosters that druids are the least capable healers.  We started off as hybrids of both dps/heals, not awsome at either but it was okay nobody else could do both at all.  Since then some persistant feedback from non druid healers have awarded them hybrid like dps, without the loss of any of their utility or heal capacity.  Druids however were not compensated for the boost of their peers.  So basicly everybody is a hybrid now, just druids are the least useful of them. </p></blockquote><p>Ok let me try to clarify what I am saying.</p><p>A fury who is spec'd and geared to do max DPS doesn't have to give up any base level healing power. They can still cast all their normal healing spells with normal effectiveness. Yes they certainly won't have ideal healing AAs and gear to make their healing better than base, but they can fire off heals on the fly to help out if needed and their heals will work at the base level. Now I will assume, as I have not looked, that for the most DPS a Fury has some healing penalties with their DPS stance, but even w/o using that stance a Fury can get pretty solid DPS.</p><p>A Templar who is spec'd for DPS and geared for DPS is not in the same boat. To achieve max DPS we must utilize multiple AAs that degrade our ability to heal on a base level. A typicaly spec'd DPS Templar could try to switch to heals on the fly like a fury can, but they will cast with reduced effectiveness heals and a much slower casting speed and also reduce their DPS output as a penalty for doing so. Let me list for you the full time penalties a Templar must have to do the DPS you listed.</p><ul><li>Casting any beneficial spell removes +25% spell damage for next 7 seconds</li><li>-36 Ministration and Focus</li><li>-10% heal amount</li><li>-30% beneficial casting speed</li></ul><p>Now I am not saying that a Templar should be able to heal well and DPS well at the same time, hence why we are not a hybrid class.</p><p>Again I say this looking at the game as a whole, obviously neither of the classes will be doing much DPS of any kind in a typical raid encounter, but this game is not just raid encounters.</p></blockquote>

[Cythera]

<p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In any event it seems this discussion degraded into a healing vs. dps discussion, where it should only be a healing vs. healing discussion.  I think we'd be happy if we just got the healing debuffs fixed to not be slowed down.  I'd be satisfied with that, as currently I either have to not use the healing stance at all, or not use my healing debuffs, and that's really not a choice we should have to make as healers.</p></blockquote><p>Debuffing is a part of a healer's job. They shouldn't be inconvenient to use just because the heal stance was activated. Lotto heals shouldn't become less viable to use either. They are part of that class's healing arsenal even if they are currently considered a hostile spell.</p><p>None of us expects to be doing any, or even a noticeable amount of dps, when there is so much healing and curing to do on certain fights. It makes no sense that it should be harder to get them on the mob due to the heal stance penalties.</p><p>The heal stance should enhance our healing duties of healing, curing and debuffing, not exclude some of these abilities because they either weren't included or are considered hostile abilities.</p><p>Please reconsider how the current heal stances render part of a healer's arsenal of abilities less viable to use.</p>

[Tehom]

<p>Yeah, I'd agree that any increase to the cast time in hostile spells is a mistake for making debuffs/lotto heals in healing stance more difficult. Reducing the damage of hostile spells is totally fine, but anything that actually becomes a tradeoff in heal capability is terrible, and shouldn't be a component of anyone's heal stances.</p>

[Generic123]

<p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>That's what is meant by a "hybrid" class, where you can do both at the same time, even if you give up a little. </p></blockquote><p>There are no hybrid priests. The only classes that come close to being hybrids are rouges and summoners and the devs recognize that even those classes need a primary role at which they are not second rate.</p><p>IOW get off this hybrid class kick, they don't exist in EQ2 and what you perceive as hybrid is simply classes that are gimped in comparison to your own.</p><p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> For Temps we pretty much give it all up to choose one of the other. </p></blockquote><p></p><p>Every class gives up DPS for max healing. Unless their healing stance sucks so bad they don't use it at all, like say the Warden heal stance. Woot 15% more healing that doesn't land on anything!</p>

[StaticLex]

<p><cite>Generic123 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Unless their healing stance sucks so bad they don't use it at all, like say the Warden heal stance. Woot 15% more healing that doesn't land on anything!</blockquote><p>That is really terrible reasoning.  Even without the heal stance there are heals that are wasted, does that mean nobody should play a warden?  The heal stance helps the class bounce back from some very hard hits on the tank so it's well worth it IMO.</p>

[G'ville]

<p>I am sorry but I don't see the problem with the druids, they heal faster than the other healers.  They may not have the buffs, but as a Inq. the group needs the extra hit points so one of my heals will actually land before hitpoints run out.</p><p>We do have reactives, but they are almost useless on monks and casters since they can't take the hits.  When all out healing at my best I parse half of what the warden heals for.</p>

[Orthureon]

<p>I am wondering why they gave the Inquisitor 15% reuse when they already have the quickest heal recast out of all healers lol. Kinda odd.</p>

[Tehom]

<p><cite>Gville wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span ><p>I am sorry but I don't see the problem with the druids, they heal faster than the other healers.  They may not have the buffs, but as a Inq. the group needs the extra hit points so one of my heals will actually land before hitpoints run out.</p><p>We do have reactives, but they are almost useless on monks and casters since they can't take the hits.  When all out healing at my best I parse half of what the warden heals for.</p></span></blockquote><p>The problem is you can't heal someone when they're dead, which is what happens with single attacks that are larger than people's hp because of a lack of hp buffs or wards. There's other problems, like being weaker at curing and being more easily disrupted by status effects and interference, and inability to contribute to a group's dps output, but that's the big one.</p><p>This is almost exclusively a problem on raids, which have greater emphasis on one-shotting players with overwhelmingly strong and frequently trauma-based AEs, or being one-shotted by harder hitting adds, but it's enough of a problem where almost any raid leader worth his salt gets incredibly nervous about letting a druid try to cover a group on any remotely difficult fight. Or even pairing a druid with another healer instead of a cleric or shaman.</p><p>Right now druids are just crippled in raids, and it's kind of sad. Wardens might have a very limited role in MT groups on maybe a handful of fights once the crit mit on avatar breastplates are nerfed (crit mit right now caps at 100 which people can hit with gear, but once people will cap at 80 or so with gear their buff becomes meaningful again), but furies don't have a raid role at all.</p>

[Cythera]

<p><cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite> </cite></p><p>The problem is you can't heal someone when they're dead, which is what happens with single attacks that are larger than people's hp because of a lack of hp buffs or wards. There's other problems, like being weaker at curing and being more easily disrupted by status effects and interference, and inability to contribute to a group's dps output, but that's the big one.</p></blockquote><p>That about sums up the biggest issues with druids. Maybe some day we'll be able to keep up with the other healer classes on some of those. Healing ability just isn't enough anymore.</p><p><span ><p><cite>Gville wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span><p>I am sorry but I don't see the problem with the druids, they heal faster than the other healers.  They may not have the buffs, but as a Inq. the group needs the extra hit points so one of my heals will actually land before hitpoints run out.</p><p>We do have reactives, but they are almost useless on monks and casters since they can't take the hits.  When all out healing at my best I parse half of what the warden heals for.</p></span></blockquote><p>I'm curious where you are at with gear and AA's then. The Inquisitors I've been raiding with were beastly on heals and cures. They didn't leave much for us druids to do if grouped with them.</p></span></p>

[Kriptini]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Those HP numbers from avatar level gear? I ask because in my experience a relatively well geared raid tank seems to normally be arround 20-22k with buffs, melee DPS near 15-18k, and casters at about 10-13k. e.g. I took a quick look at your guild roster and your highest unbuffed MT type is arround 17k, are you guys getting 10k from buffs?</p></blockquote><p>Why are you even talking? You're the one who got the bugs on our heal stance fixed in the first place... you know, the bugs that gave us +hostile or +casting speed. =|</p>

[Frametree]

<p><cite>I don't think the avatar gear nerf will make one bit of difference.  No avatar killing guild is going to need the extra crit mit we bring.  At least, I can't imagine that one would, except maybe on the most difficult encounters.  My usefulness vis-a-vis the crit mit buff seemed to evaporate around the time everybody had 3 or 4 pieces of set gear, long before full sets, and mt isn't wearing an avatar bp.  I'm not in the MT group, except rarely.  (We kill avatars when we can, i.e., when they spawn during our regular raid time, and have killed everything but Ykesha and the last 2 in Munzok's.)  I'm pretty sure that over half the time I'm in the raid I'm there just because either there's not another temp or defiler handy or because I'm being tossed a bone.  It's a pretty sad state of affairs in the endgame.</cite></p><p><cite>So while I agree that we're crippled, I don't see the incoming avatar bp nerf as giving us any hope at all.  </cite></p><p><cite>Edit:  Btw I agree with the rest. </cite></p><p><cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gville wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span><p>I am sorry but I don't see the problem with the druids, they heal faster than the other healers.  They may not have the buffs, but as a Inq. the group needs the extra hit points so one of my heals will actually land before hitpoints run out.</p><p>We do have reactives, but they are almost useless on monks and casters since they can't take the hits.  When all out healing at my best I parse half of what the warden heals for.</p></span></blockquote><p>The problem is you can't heal someone when they're dead, which is what happens with single attacks that are larger than people's hp because of a lack of hp buffs or wards. There's other problems, like being weaker at curing and being more easily disrupted by status effects and interference, and inability to contribute to a group's dps output, but that's the big one.</p><p>This is almost exclusively a problem on raids, which have greater emphasis on one-shotting players with overwhelmingly strong and frequently trauma-based AEs, or being one-shotted by harder hitting adds, but it's enough of a problem where almost any raid leader worth his salt gets incredibly nervous about letting a druid try to cover a group on any remotely difficult fight. Or even pairing a druid with another healer instead of a cleric or shaman.</p><p>Right now druids are just crippled in raids, and it's kind of sad. Wardens might have a very limited role in MT groups on maybe a handful of fights once the crit mit on avatar breastplates are nerfed (crit mit right now caps at 100 which people can hit with gear, but once people will cap at 80 or so with gear their buff becomes meaningful again), but furies don't have a raid role at all.</p></blockquote>

[Tehom]

<p><cite>Frametree wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>I don't think the avatar gear nerf will make one bit of difference.  No avatar killing guild is going to need the extra crit mit we bring.  At least, I can't imagine that one would, except maybe on the most difficult encounters.  My usefulness vis-a-vis the crit mit buff seemed to evaporate around the time everybody had 3 or 4 pieces of set gear, long before full sets, and mt isn't wearing an avatar bp.  I'm not in the MT group, except rarely.  (We kill avatars when we can, i.e., when they spawn during our regular raid time, and have killed everything but Ykesha and the last 2 in Munzok's.)  I'm pretty sure that over half the time I'm in the raid I'm there just because either there's not another temp or defiler handy or because I'm being tossed a bone.  It's a pretty sad state of affairs in the endgame.</cite></p><p><cite>So while I agree that we're crippled, I don't see the incoming avatar bp nerf as giving us any hope at all.  </cite></p><p><cite>Edit:  Btw I agree with the rest. </cite></p></blockquote><p>Yeah, I pretty much agree with you - it was more only in the interest of completeness that I mentioned that, since some people might feel that capping crit mit with a warden in the MT group would be useful on the two fights in the expansion where MT survivability is a real issue - Gynok (before a raid force progresses to the point where he's easy) and Ykesha. Aside from that, yeah, I don't think anyone would ever really feel a need to use a warden anywhere if they had the option - maybe on the odd avatar fight, possibly.</p>

[G'ville]

<p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><span><p>I'm curious where you are at with gear and AA's then. The Inquisitors I've been raiding with were beastly on heals and cures. They didn't leave much for us druids to do if grouped with them.</p></span></p></blockquote><p>I have Ethereal Mist Gauntlets, a couple pieces of T4 armor and other raid gear.   I am heal speced for raids with TSO endline.  Heal crit is 87% goes up a little depending on buffs.</p><p>If in the off tank group and I am all out healing (minmal buffs and offensive), I average 1/2 of the druids and 1/3 of the shamans on the healing parse.  Even with adding in Inquisition.</p><p>In our raid force we have a Fury solo healing the caster group, and still doing twice what I do on the parse when trying to DPS.</p><p>The warden I play with has no trouble healing almost anything.</p><p>If your inq. is Mythicaled they are the cure bot, 10 seconds mana free cure.</p><p>I can appreciate wanting to be more functional, but I think the game design is geared toward alot of the healers being symbiotic if not dependent on eachother in groups.  The exception being the Temps that don't seem to do anything else but heal.</p>

[Calain80]

<p>HPS parses are worth almost nothing. The important fact is, if you can keep your group alive. An Inquisitor should be able to do that in almost all circumstances. Solo. On easy content we can also compete with Furies for DPS, but we need to spec / equip for it while a Fury does not need to exchange much. But about the Templar doing nothing but heal. - What about blessings, that increase the procs of the whole group? - What about Sanctuary, which is a highly valuable CC immunity that can be used very often? - What about the melee accuracy buff on the Mythical? These are just the 1st three things that came to my mind reading your post.</p>

[Barx]

<p>Don't forget the giant steaming pile of HP that templars put on a group. Saying Templars "just heal" is forgetting about a great deal of their utility.</p>

[LardLord]

<p><cite>Calberak@Valor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>But about the Templar doing nothing but heal. - What about blessings, that increase the procs of the whole group? - What about Sanctuary, which is a highly valuable CC immunity that can be used very often? - What about the melee accuracy buff on the Mythical?</p></blockquote><p>Yup, Templars can bring quite a bit of utility that isn't limited to being "defensive."  Divine Recovery and Holy Shield both have offensive benefits, for example.  Plus, they can put out some pretty decent DPS.</p><p>EDIT: And don't forget their physical mit debuff, too.</p>

[Oakum]

<p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aricajade@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here is a simple question for you Furys.. when you picked Fury as a class did you do it so you could be the best healer? OR did you pick it so you could DPS and still heal too?</p></blockquote><p>i picked the class because of the hybrid aspect of the class, being able to heal & deal reasonable dmg.</p></blockquote><p>In the majority of cases I think you will find the other people chose it for similar reasons. Last time I checked I still knew of Fury's DPSing 9-10k and of others that could solo heal most of the current xpacs group instances that other healign classes could solo. I admit that it is more challening to heal well as a Fury, but it is certainly attainable.</p><p>So my follow up questions are these; If you are able to indeed DPS and heal reasonably well.. why do people think Fury's need to heal better? Are they not getting what was advertised already? If you don't think so, why is the solution to bring down another class and not just fix the "broken" class? Or better yet.. why are the better healign classes beign punished because SoE designed the content to require them?</p></blockquote><p>I picked to play a druid for the same reason.  I traded better armor and the last specialty heals to land to be a DPS hybrid and easily outdps clerics and shaman if not healing while then would be casting temperary buffs or debuffs instead of dpsing.</p><p>Of course in order to make clerics and shaman able to solo decently, they upped their dps and the furys to stay ahead of them. They just forgot about wardens other then the melee line which was not much of an improvement over nuking until better melee gear came out but clerics and shaman still can out dps wardens if they try.</p><p>How many players remember the major combat revamp of LU-13 when it was stated by the devs that all healers should heal relatively equally? It was put out in a way as total hps was relatively equal over a given amount of time and there was a player who put a spreadsheet together showing that hps over a certain amount of time was really close to equal for all the healing spells of the priest classes combined. </p><p>They have never stated any where that I have seen that they now want certain classes to purely heal more then any other class.</p><p>If I was a spreadsheet guru I might make up one for time/hp for all the healer classes and their normal spell and aa heals and see where the healers actually stand now out of curiosity.</p><p>The trouble though is that with massive hits/aoe's, type of heals and buffs have become more important to keeping the mt/group up then how many heals CAN be cast by a healer over a period of time. Which is a better buff to keep a tank/group alive, big HP and mit buffs by clerics and shaman along with SA, wards, and reactives or a wis or int buff by druids and regens which only heal on a "tick" every so often?</p>

[Tehom]

<p>Yeah, I think it's disingenuous to say that templars don't offer any utility to a group. At the same time, I don't really think they're outrageous about it compared to shamans - ancestry is better than blessings for sure, and wards in general are so strong to make up for any other difference in dps buffing. It's more a case of druids being completely hosed rather than templars being overpowered, in my opinion, and I think templars kind of have gotten a bad rap since inquisitors have been brought up to par with their set bonuses this expansion, and shamans have become incredibly strong with ward sizes that dwarf what we were once capable of (hi2u consistent 7k+ single wards and 11k+ group wards). I just generally feel that mystics, defilers, templars, and inquisitors are all fairly well balanced against one another at the top end - at least from the perspective of raid construction I don't really feel any particular advantage or disadvantage from most of those classes to another overall, except on individual encounters (when templar arcane ward or mystic noxious ward might be significant). Individual differences between the 4 real classes, like the weakness of templar heal stance, are all extremely minor in my opinion. The only exception I'd make to that statement is that inquisitors basically require their TSO 4-set to be comparable to the other classes; I wouldn't consider them on par without it.</p><p>So it's really just that druids were totally left in the dust and that the relatively meager utility they offered has just become weaker with various stat caps - 10% base damage on feral is okay, but it's certainly not a compelling argument for a fury in raid. Druids are just terrible as healers when compared to the other 4, and terrible at utility. It's sort of sad that when we gave a fury a breastplate off instanced anashti the other day, it wound up being a server disco after several months of farming.</p>

[Cythera]

<p><cite>Gville wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span ><p>If in the off tank group and I am all out healing (minmal buffs and offensive), I average 1/2 of the druids and 1/3 of the shamans on the healing parse.  Even with adding in Inquisition.</p><p>In our raid force we have a Fury solo healing the caster group, and still doing twice what I do on the parse when trying to DPS.</p><p>The warden I play with has no trouble healing almost anything.</p></span></blockquote><p>Oh. I guess I misunderstood where you were healing from group/solo wise from your last post. I was referring to the times when I was in a group with an Inquis because the fight required extra hp buffs or cures. They always seemed to come out faster on the heals and cures in that case due to the gear/aa's/mythical clicky.</p><p>If you are solo healing a group and parsing lower on heals than a druid while you both are dpsing, you shouldn't let it concern you overly much. As each group may take differing amounts of damage depending on number of choker users, whether they joust aoe's accurately, quality of gear, resists, damage due to slow curing, etc, there can be a big difference in the amounts healed by two different groups with two different solo healers. As long as the group stays alive, the cures are timely, and the mob dies it shouldn't really matter.</p><p>Take the numbers on the heal parse with a grain of salt. They don't show the whole picture of what healers are doing by any means at this time.</p>

[Oakum]

<p><cite>Cythera@Najena wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gville wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Take the numbers on the heal parse with a grain of salt. They don't show the whole picture of what healers are doing by any means at this time.</blockquote></blockquote><p>Very true. I have outhealed equally geared/skilled templers in the MT group before.</p><p>I did it by helping heal the dps groups that were taking a lot of damage from AoE's/adds and my quicker heals would land before the cleric and shaman heals in their group would. lol.</p>

[Hopefulne]

<p>temps still get the most worthless heal stance.</p>

[Vidar64]

<p><cite>Rickenbacker@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>temps still get the most worthless heal stance.</p></blockquote><p>I can't say for sure that templars have the most worthless heal stance, simply because I haven't really delved into the other priests heal stances when compared to their general healing style.</p><p>However, I do know that for my style of healing in the main tank group of a raid, the templar heal stance is pretty worthless.  I tried it for awhile but found the negatives outweighed the possitives.  When you get right down to it, the main job of a templar is more for defensive buffing than for healing with defilers being the primary healer of a raid force.  If it wasn't for Repent and a couple pieces of gear, my position on the heal parse would probably be lower than many of the non-MT healers.</p><p>By the way, I don't use Sacrifice either.  At least there are some decent regular AA bonuses.  Its just the end abilities that seem to be really lacking.</p>

[Sprin]

<p><cite>Vidar64 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rickenbacker@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>temps still get the most worthless heal stance.</p></blockquote><p>I can't say for sure that templars have the most worthless heal stance, simply because I haven't really delved into the other priests heal stances when compared to their general healing style.</p></blockquote><p>I dont know this, cuz I dont play the other healers, (well I have a retired 80 mystic but she hasn't budged since the near end of ROK)...</p><p>How many other healers get SLOWER cast times on some of their heals in Heal Stance?</p><p>As mentioned before 2 Templar "Debuffs" which heal the group are slowed down by the heal stance... </p><p>So not only does the Templar stance not have the 3rd really big bonus, it decreases some of the healing capabilities of the Templar... </p><p>This cant be intended and needs to be fixed.  Regardless of what you think about the Templar and their buffs and their OPness, Heal stances decreasing heals is bunk.  And regardless of if you think they need a 3rd "boost" to their healing stance... one of the detriments to "hostile spells" also decreases the effectiveness of their healing.</p><p>If NOTHING else is done to the Templar healing stance for whatever reason, these need to be fixed.</p><p>In case you don't know exactly what "debuffs" we have been talking about...</p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Mark of Divinity:</span></p><ul><li>When target is damaged with a melee weapon this spell has a 20% chance to cast Mark of Nobility on target's attacker. Lasts for 8.0 seconds. <ul><li>Heals target for <em>X</em> instantly and every 2 seconds </li></ul></li><li>Decreases Mitigation of target vs divine damage by X</li></ul><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Involuntary Gift:</span></p><li>On any successful attack this spell has a chance to cast Involuntary Cure on target of attack. This effect will trigger an average of 4.0 times per minute. <ul><li>Heals targets in Area of Effect for <em>x </em> </li><li>Dispels <em>X </em>levels of any physical hostile effects on target </li></ul></li><p>Both of which are considered Hostile Spells and their casting times are raised significantly in Heal stance.... thus taking away some of the Templars ability to heal in said "Heal" stance.  This makes no sense at all. </p><p>The only argument I could see SOE coming up with (not that they even read healer forums or care about them if they did) is that Mark of Divinity also has a Divine Mit debuff on it.....  which is hostile in nature towards the mob... Ok, fine, move that debuff onto Rebuke... so Rebuke would look like:</p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Rebuke:</span></p><ul><li>Decreases Mitigation of target vs all physical damage by X </li><li>Decreases Mitigation of target vs divine damage by X</li></ul><p>or hell, just take the divine damage debuff out of the picture, its pretty much worthless...  and then call the spells Beneficial... case closed. (on that part of their crappy stance that is <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> )</p>

[Ragnaroeker1]

<p>I think this is a very good post for all healers to understand what other classes are feeling and to help us understand each others classes. </p><p>I do want to agree that the Defiler Heal Stance, taken verbatem, is misleading.  When you factor in the fact of the balancing act with wards and plus to heals Defilers juggle depending on what buffs we get in a raid, and if we have a fury in raid and if we get their mythical buff, heal crits need to be at 100% and this causes us to forfit the faster cast, less power on cures, which we all know are MASSIVE in this expansion. This is because we have to use the agility line to get to 100% heal crits.  Granted this is less of an issue when we get our shoulders, legs, and chest pieces, or we can sacrifice the REH to use the T4 helm.  Also our Shaman Specific Tree decreases the actual benefit numbers shown on our Heal Stance substantially, making it misleading when considered on it's own attributes.</p><p>I know other classes in my guild are approaching 1000 plus to heals because their heal crits are not as vital as they are to a shaman.  However, because our wards do take the initial prevention of damage, this could be a fair balance.</p><p>From my perspective, not comparative to any other classes in any way, Defilers have been pretty much untouched for several expansions.  Not complaining because several classes have definitey gotten the shaft. I would take being consistant over getting the shaft any day.</p><p>Also, if they increased Defiler's beneficial spell cast, we would definitey be getting a huge shaft.</p>