What is the Warden's equivalent of the Fury's...

[MaldekTM]

<DIV> <DIV>Fury's </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT size=5>Back Into The Fray</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV>Replenishes target ally's health.  If target ally is under 50% health, the amount replenished is doubled.  This spell cannot be cast on the Fury.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Adept III</DIV> <DIV>Target: Friend</DIV> <DIV>Power: 148</DIV> <DIV>Casting Time: 1.5 Seconds</DIV> <DIV>Recovery Time: 0.5 Seconds</DIV> <DIV>Recast Time: 6.0 Seconds</DIV> <DIV>Class: Fury (52)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Effects:</DIV> <DIV>Heals target for 625-764</DIV> <DIV>*If between 50% and 100% health</DIV> <DIV>Heals target for 1250-1528</DIV> <DIV>*If not between 50% and 100%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=6>WHAT IS THE</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=6>WARDEN'S EQUIVALENT ???????????????????</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=6></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=6>??????</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=6>??????</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=6>??????</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV></DIV>

[Arielle Nightshade]

<DIV>Hm.  Tunare's Watch?  (LOL)</DIV>

[Naithik]

or maybe HG? :smileyvery-happy:

[Spag]

Its Tunare's Watch, though not much of an equivilent.

[mr23sgte]

/Whine?

[Spag]

/Troll? <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Just started posting I see... How much did you pay for your account?</DIV></DIV><p>Message Edited by Spagma on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:06 PM</span>

[mr23sgte]

<P>**REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE POST**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:33 AM</span>

[Yirabeth]

welcome to the board, welcome to ignore <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> /ignore mr23sgte ~Yira <div></div>

[Saben01]

<div></div>nevermind .. what's the point anymore? <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div><p>Message Edited by Saben01 on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:56 PM</span>

[MaldekTM]

<P><FONT size=4>AN ANSWER FROM TEST SERVER :</FONT></P> <P><IMG src="http://www.[Removed for Content].com/krs105/spells.JPG"></P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Read the spell description of Tranquilizing Spores... That's our Back into the Fray.  A proc-based heal-over-time. </P> <P> </P> <P>One word: </P> <P> </P> <P><FONT size=5>PATHETIC</FONT></P>

[Raman]

They need to make the proc % chance increase with skill level in addtion to the amount cured - or even in place of it.  8% is nothing.  Honestly, how can we ever count on it when we need it?

[Feltrak]

<DIV>Yeah, That spell needs to be a 20% chance, and that would make up for our now lowered regens on burst heals. Also, if it healed a MUCH GREATER amount when below 50% health I could see it being compared to back into the fray. However, 8% chance with those healing amounts is much better than the 2% it used to be <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A new long recast heal may be appropriate too. The biggest thing I don't like about back into the fray is that it's on a completely separate timer. So furies have their regen, 2 direct heals, and back into the fray. Wardens have regen and 2 direct heals. Yes our cast times are a tad faster, but who cares about cast time when the MT's HP is below 50% and you just burned both DH's and regen. Wardens have to just stand there and hope someone else heals, where as a fury says "Perfect opportunity for me to cast back into the fray!!!"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Furies could argue, but wardens have two divine intervention spells on different timers! Woop deee doooo! Let's make Tunare's watch good and upon death have it be a complete heal. Then we could compare it to back into the fray.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, Furies should lose group regen altogether, because Hibernation is HUGE for raids. I put my fury in the group that has the smallest resist vs. whatever the ae is, he casts hibernation and they all get healed to full. IMO this is nearly equivelant to group complete heal in eq1, something that wardens dont have, although our group heals are pretty good.</DIV>

[pedigr]

Wow, A lvl 50+ Warden on test, I never wouldve thought it. <div></div>

[Tild]

Sorry to say, but we got shafted on the lvl 52 Ancient spell pure and simple.  There is no equivalent to BITF, its a massively imballencing 3rd DH that doesn't share a timer, and it heals for 3x instantly what Sylvan Streams and Verdant Rapture heal for.  Verdant Bliss will probably close the 3x gap a bit, but im not 60 yet (50% to go) so I can't comment on that.  Basically, either BITF needs to go (don't do this one SOE, I don't actually want it to go, no reason to nerf them) or we need to get something equivalent at 52.  Not asking for a 3rd DH, heaven knows the entire Fury community will be up in arms if that were to happen, but we need something we will actually use at 52.

[quetzaqotl]

<DIV>The fury community isnt that agressive and you should ve known that by now when have any furies called for a warden nerf? ever?</DIV> <DIV>So dont talk down on furies like we would go mental on you guys as we wouldnt for [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]'s sake you really should give furies more credit than that.</DIV> <DIV>Other than that yeah they should make tunares watch more useful I agree but I dont like the way some approach this, could be me (after reading the templar boards for too long I was there a few mins and that was enough for me again lol) but I dont like the negativity towards furies yes I can agree we have a better ancient spell at 52 and soe needs to change that spell for you guys and fix some broken spells like HG sandstorm and your tree.</DIV> <DIV>But please try and look for a fix of some kind instead of all agreeing on: [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] furies got something over us [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] (and in huge text)!!?? </DIV> <DIV>posted this on the fury boards making tunares watch sorta like a groupreactive in a way so that it can fire off on a single target 6 times (of course with a longer duration) or 1 per person that would make it a cool spell imo <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> , ah well..</DIV> <DIV>Thnx </DIV><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:57 AM</span>

[mr23sgte]

<DIV>I'm glad to see you are getting fixed, maybe you will stop swinging the nerf bat now ................. and I registered on 11/9 of LAST YEAR - give me a break on your [expletive haxx0red by Raijinne] E-bay remark. I have many players on Unrest that can vouch for me, so please feel free to send me a tell.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by mr23sgte on <SPAN class=date_text>11-07-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:26 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by mr23sgte on <span class=date_text>11-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:27 AM</span>

[Somniloquy]

<P>I just dont see where SoE are coming from on the Warden class at all.  We have to whinge and fight for every bit of equality with the other healers.  Its always been the same.  I just do not understand why it is so necessary to give wardens spells that they hardly ever use when they give the other healers, well, B-I-G heals instead.</P> <P>I must say, though that at present, up until level 50 the Warden is as good as any other healer since the compression and balancing of the whole range of spells and the fact that all 5 lines will stack plus spores when it works gives us a great deal of flexibility that the other healers dont get and this, IMHO totally compensates for the "lack" of DH.  Oh well we can argue about that forever I guess.</P> <P>BITF is a good example of how Wardens get a raw deal because Fury is a Druid sub.  Everyone who took Druid early on did it because that flavour of healer appealed to them.  For a long time, the so-called offensive option was out healing the defensive option for some reason although we finally have a balance between the two.  But past level 50 it all goes horribly wrong.  Yet again I find myself shelving my Warden and going off playing alts until its made worth playing again because at present it is gimped in the endgame and not much fun. Shame my main alt is an SK cos thats another controversial class for many reasons but at least I can just go and solo stuff on that toon.  Theres always tradeskilling, my ward is a woodworker and can quietly amass a fortune while in semi retirement.</P>

[Arielle Nightshade]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Somniloquy wrote:<BR> <P>  But past level 50 it all goes horribly wrong.  Yet again I find myself shelving my Warden and going off playing alts until its made worth playing again because at present it is gimped in the endgame and not much fun. Shame my main alt is an SK cos thats another controversial class for many reasons but at least I can just go and solo stuff on that toon.  Theres always tradeskilling, my ward is a woodworker and can quietly amass a fortune while in semi retirement.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The whole game goes 'horribly wrong' past level 50..IMO.   <BR>

[SaeriBr]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Arielle Nightshade wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Somniloquy wrote:<BR> <P>  But past level 50 it all goes horribly wrong.  Yet again I find myself shelving my Warden and going off playing alts until its made worth playing again because at present it is gimped in the endgame and not much fun. Shame my main alt is an SK cos thats another controversial class for many reasons but at least I can just go and solo stuff on that toon.  Theres always tradeskilling, my ward is a woodworker and can quietly amass a fortune while in semi retirement.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The whole game goes 'horribly wrong' past level 50..IMO.   <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, you have to remember, 50+ is a new area, its bound to be messed up....fixed, it will be...hmmm.<BR>

[LordOlr]

well so it takes them an expension to fix the old world (just as a reminder other healers were crap b4 the revamp)... basicly that means that the current issues will be fixed with the next expension... or am i too optimistic here? <div></div>

[SaeriBr]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LordOlrik wrote:<BR>well so it takes them an expension to fix the old world (just as a reminder other healers were crap b4 the revamp)... basicly that means that the current issues will be fixed with the next expension... or am i too optimistic here?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Thats what I'm saying.</DIV>

[LordOlr]

well at least we got an eta on things then <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[TimidMou]

<DIV>I don't want to go into "I Told You So's" but well...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>During beta testing for LU13 a number of people read up on the warden changes and were very negative about it. However a couple of very outspoken wardens loved the changes. Devs are human beings too, when someone tells them they did a wonderful, perfect job and someone else tells them the did a horrible job get a clue, who do you think they would prefer to listen to?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And of course, the main argument was, sure things are not balanced now during beta, that's what beta is for... give them time and they will fix everything before release.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What we really need IMO are some high level, articulate wardens, who really know what they are doing and know, not just all about wardens, but about the other priests classes too, to do a thorough and complete job of testing out the balance issues and bringing them to the devs attention on our behalf, in the testing phase. If I thought I was up to the task I'd do it but sadly I am not the right person for the job (I only play my warden as one of many alts).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The reason we have to fight for every little change now is because the changes went live, and its always harder to get things changed after the update because it causes a lot of work to the devs to make these adjustments.</DIV>

[Dragonreal]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote: <DIV>posted this on the fury boards making tunares watch sorta like a groupreactive in a way so that it can fire off on a single target 6 times (of course with a longer duration) or 1 per person that would make it a cool spell imo <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> , ah well..</DIV> <DIV>Thnx </DIV> <P>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <SPAN class=date_text>11-07-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>08:57 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>That still won't fix the issue with watch... the problem with watch is it heals for far too little do any good; in fact, unless you have a chat tab dedicated to only heals (/raise hand), you won't even know if the spell fired or not. I tried this just last night when things were going south with our raid.. just as expected everyone died anyway and when I checked chat log, sure enough this spell fired 4 times (2 ppl in grp were dead before I cast it). The spell needs to be completely changed or its heal increased (mebbe heal a percentage of health or just like 1k hp or something?) or add the invulnerability idea I saw in another thread. But making it have the chance to fire 6 times on one person will not fix the issue.</DIV>

[Spag]

<DIV>Even if it healed as much as BitF it would still be underpowered in comparison.  BitF can be used every 8 seconds for an unbelievable efficiency compared to other direct heals, and it is less restrictive in its usage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even if TW healed for 1500, it can only be used once every what, 10 mins?  Unless they make it a 2000 pt, 30 Sec DI with a 1 min reacst, that heals entire group for say 1000 upon expiration when unused, I feel it needs to be completely replaced.</DIV>

[Dragonreal]

<P>every 5 mins actually but still.... heh</P> <P>And my post wasn't meant ot say this is how it would be made as strong as bitf.. was more just to say what it would take to make it at all useable</P>

[Spag]

I understand, was just tossing out more random ideas is all.

[Dalchar]

The funny thing about BITF is that it's almost absolutely essential part of their arsenal.  Healing as solo healer from 50-52 isn't pretty.  And honestly healing a fully fabled tank in Poet's as only priest against the named... (and for that matter against many named mobs that are over 60)  it'd be impossible without it.  I'm not sure how a warden fares in there.  Fast small heals mean little when you still have 6-7s of nothing but a regen ticking.  It'd be like a warden only getting one or two ticks of the regen on their direct heals.  We'd be in the same boat you were til you got a bump I think.  Just watching your tank go down as you healed for about 1.4k against a 2-3k hit + incoming dmg. <div></div>

[Rappy]

a crude but effective example - try your healing experiment with using BiTF every 5 minutes.. . then you know what its like to be a warden <div></div>

[Mor]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:The funny thing about BITF is that it's almost absolutely essential part of their arsenal.  Healing as solo healer from 50-52 isn't pretty.  And honestly healing a fully fabled tank in Poet's as only priest against the named... (and for that matter against many named mobs that are over 60)  it'd be impossible without it. <font color="#ff99ff">Without it, you'd be a warden <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  </font>  I'm not sure how a warden fares in there.  Fast small heals mean little when you still have 6-7s of nothing but a regen ticking.  It'd be like a warden only getting one or two ticks of the regen on their direct heals.  We'd be in the same boat you were til you got a bump I think.  Just watching your tank go down as you healed for about 1.4k against a 2-3k hit + incoming dmg. <font color="#ff99ff">Actually, I think without it, you'd be in the boat we are in right now.  Perhaps even slightly better off as you have direct heals and for all intents and purposes, we do not.  </font> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>The idea (how broken and stupid it might be) was to give furies the best (/quickest) burst healing power and wardens the most effecient heals If I wouldn't  use bitf I would drain my mana much quicker than a warden f.i.</P> <P>Mostly bitf gets used when someone suddenly gets in the orange or a caster gets aggro (and its fantastic for that, we react to burst dmg the quickest) but mostly Im using regen and my smal direct heal.</P> <P>Bitf is very useful dont get me wrong but not to its full potential at many times (btw with 50% health your target isnt in the yellow or the health bar isnt at half health 50% health is when your target gets into the orange and thats a place you rather not see your tank furies have the speciality to act quick and pull the tank out of the orange into the yellow thats our burst healing power).</P> <P>Sure wardens could have the same spell but then our heals should be more efficient, that was the idea of SOE wardens get the most efficient heals we get the quickest heals.</P> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:20 AM</span>

[Naithik]

<DIV>yeah i understand the idea, really, but dont tell me tunare's watch is efficient <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> if we could get an efficient heal on a different timer, instead of tunare's watch i'd be really happy.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>also a note on efficiency <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Being able to keep your power is a nice thing, but as long as you have enough to last for the fight, additional power is trivial. I don'T care if i can end a fight with 99% of my power, if i can't keep the tank alive <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>Yes I agree if I wouldve gotten tunares watch on my fury i wouldnt like it much either, so yes they really ought to make that spell a really usefull nice spell.</P> <P>I can and surely like the idea of the devs making us fast healers as that fits our class I think  fast and furious <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </P> <P>Yes in many fights having the best efficiency isnt that hot I agree im not running oop in normal group setups (in raids thats different of course).</P> <P>So indeed they need(ed?) to balance heal amount and efficiency, bitf is a spell that fits our heal speciality Soe just needs to come up with something original for the warden heal speciality: efficient heals maybe something like an upgraded sp heal for wardens (mana proc or so) but yeah that wouldnt fix the no real need for efficiency yeah can see that maybe a small direct heal which adds like 400-500 to mitg or something for 10 secs or so just out of the top of my head (yeah doesnt solve anything as I dont have any say in spell lines but yeah I agree tunares watch in its current form is very situational and well crap I agree I hope the devs change something about that spell or indeed let it fire off 6 times on 1 target and let it heal for like 1k instantly or something and make it last for 3 mins or so hmmm I might be jealous of that spell if they change it to that tho so scrap that idea <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> lol).</P> <P>Ah well yeah can see that tunares watch is kinda crappy, and furies and other classes(!) have other cool spells which you would rather have I havent parsed healing much so dont know how wardens heal compared to furies and if your heals are balanced against our heals(bitf included) the tank doesnt get in the orange that much in your usual groups its not like Im spamming bitf.</P> <P>But can see the probs you guys have with tunares watch dunno if asking for anothes class' heal is the solution tho dont think soe will change the core of the spell you guys got Id think thinking of a way to make tunares watch better would work better (and again the op didnt have to use huge bold text and point at furies as we have enough heat on these boards and I think not rightfully so).</P> <P>Ah k well Ive been talking too much again heh anyways,</P> <P>gl to you guys!</P><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:08 PM</span>

[Naithik]

<DIV>I don't think we are asking for another classe's spell (BITF) we are asking for something of "equal value" i know equal value has a very.... large interpretation part, but we can all agree to say we don't want tunare's watch.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Give me a 10 seconds unbreakable stun that only affects epic mobs... that would be godly <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Spag]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR> <P>Yes I agree if I wouldve gotten tunares watch on my fury i wouldnt like it much either, so yes they really ought to make that spell a really usefull nice spell.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>/cries on Quetzaqotl's shoulder</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR> <P>Ah well yeah can see that tunares watch is kinda crappy, and furies and other classes(!) have other cool spells which you would rather have I havent parsed healing much so dont know how wardens heal compared to furies and if your heals are balanced against our heals(bitf included) the tank doesnt get in the orange that much in your usual groups its not like Im spamming bitf.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>BitF is a great spell, and gratz on getting it in your class.  Are we jealous, well I can't speak for anyone else, but I sure am.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>The thing about its restrictions is that when the tank gets below 50% is exactly when this spell is needed.  If the tank is above 50%, stacking regens and single target heals is plenty, but if he is taking so much damage that he drops below 50%, hit him with BitF and he is back up again.  The restrictions on this spell are almost inconsequential, with the exception that you cannot cast it on self.  Basically if you can keep the tank above 50%, you dont really need this spell, but even then its just as good , actually better, than the other direct heals you have, all while being on a separate timer.  So yes, any class in its right mind would love to have this spell.</P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR> <P>But can see the probs you guys have with tunares watch dunno if asking for anothes class' heal is the solution tho dont think soe will change the core of the spell you guys got Id think thinking of a way to make tunares watch better would work better (and again the op didnt have to use huge bold text and point at furies as we have enough heat on these boards and I think not rightfully so).</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No you are absolutely right, we should not be asking for your spell, but we should be asking for our own, comperable spell.  There are many ways where we can have a different spell, but have it be just as good.  Hopefully they will receive some support from the community, and we come to some sort of consensus on what we need in its place. </P> <P>I realize you are taking alot of heat about BitF, like I said, everyone should want it, its great. BitF by itself has a 187 HP/s ratio, which is really good.  We are just looking to be balanced.  They could do just about anything to Tunare's watch, and it would be better.</P> <P>I am not attacking you, so please don't take it that way, and I agree that the OP is going about this wrong.</P>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>Np didnt take it as an attack at all well bitf has a bout the same efficiency as our small direct heal if above 50% so we dont get punished for using this spell when above 50% tho when you use this spell you use it when you think youll need it (and its a bit longer cast and recast than our smalldirect heal) and not having this spell up by the time you really need well sucks heh.</P> <P>But yeah its a cool spell and didnt mean this spell by "getting enough heat" we as a class get enough heat not so much now b/c of bitf but for our dps now too all healers are equal in healing why is dps different bullcrap.</P> <P>Just like that post about templars should be the only real (or pure lol) healers all others are backup and should cast sow in fights lol, and people rolling a druid/fury and saying how much easier it is to solo/xp at lvl 27 compared to a templar at lvl 53 etc. getting kinda sick of that bs.</P> <P>but thats another story.... heh well cya guys around on the boards heh :smileywink:</P> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:54 PM</span>

[Lego]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR> <P>Np didnt take it as an attack at all well bitf has a bout the same efficiency as our small direct heal if above 50% so we dont get punished for using this spell when above 50% tho when you use this spell you use it when you think youll need it (and its a bit longer cast and recast than our smalldirect heal) and not having this spell up by the time you really need well sucks heh.</P> <P>But yeah its a cool spell and didnt mean this spell by "getting enough heat" we as a class get enough heat not so much now b/c of bitf but for our dps now too all healers are equal in healing why is dps different bullcrap.</P> <P>Just like that post about templars should be the only real (or pure lol) healers all others are backup and should cast sow in fights lol, and people rolling a druid/fury and saying how much easier it is to solo/xp at lvl 27 compared to a templar at lvl 53 etc. getting kinda sick of that bs.</P> <P>but thats another story.... heh well cya guys around on the boards heh :smileywink:</P> <P>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <SPAN class=date_text>11-10-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:54 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Odd thing is that Bounty of the Virtuous actually comes out ahead in efficiency now that the heal amount was raised.  Believe mine is at 521 or something.  Couple that with the 10% return power chance and it comes out ahead of my Salve line at AD3 and is percentage points less than BiTF (save when the tank is under 50% of course) with the caveat that it heals for less max than that and the Elixer line.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Lego23 on <span class=date_text>11-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:16 PM</span>

[Tild]

<P>BITF is a very very unbalanceing spell.  It gives Furys a 3rd DH on a seperate timer then all of their other DHs.  And the fact that is possible for a Fury to solo heal in Poets Palace is unbelieveable to me.  Either BITF needs to go (and no I'm not in favor of that) or we need to get something equivalent in usefullness.  There are no other solutions.</P> <P>With BITF and Hibernation a fury has 7 healing spells.  Wardens get 6 if you count the tree, and 7 if you count our proc heal on spores, but neither of those spells are comperable to BITF as the tree is nice but on a much longer timer and can be killed by an AOE and spores is not a guaranteed heal.  A 3rd DH is just unbalanceing, and anyone who says its not is a Fury.</P>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>k how would a fury deal with burst dmg quickly without bitf pls tell me soe wanted furies to be the fastest healer dealing with dmg quick.</P> <P>How would we deal with dmg quick w/o this spell? this spell is very nice of course as it makes us the fast reacting healern as we are intended.</P> <P>This spell is nicer than tunares watch of course everyone can agree on that you guys need to get a cooler spell. <P>But Id take your tree over my hibernation spell without a doubt (when its not broken as in working heh) not to say that all ancient spells are equal no way tun watch needs some love bad.</P><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:49 AM</span>

[Dragonreal]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Tildin wrote:<BR> <P>BITF is a very very unbalanceing spell.  It gives Furys a 3rd DH on a seperate timer then all of their other DHs.  And the fact that is possible for a Fury to solo heal in Poets Palace is unbelieveable to me.  Either BITF needs to go (and no I'm not in favor of that) or we need to get something equivalent in usefullness.  There are no other solutions.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>What's so unbelievable about solo healing pp? it's not like a warden can't do that either... I've done it several times now (and it wasn't because I have super uber master heals or anything), the latest time being with only a 59 sk and a 60 conjurer in the grp. There were two deaths the whole time through because the sk just got pounded by certain mobs and the deaths weren't even on the mobs on the top floor, though those were tough fights. In fact, furies aren't healing gods.. 60 fury in my guild told me before I went in that he had issues healing a 60 pally in there ( think they were trying another trio) because he ran oom; he even said I would have it much easier than he did because I would be a lot less likely to oom than he was (yes I realize he wasn't entirely correct on that since I did have 2 deaths but the sk WAS only 59 and the general consensus was that that 1 lvl would have made the difference in those fights). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This all is not to say that tunare's watch doesn't need love; it definitely does, as does HG still, but furies are not grossly unbalanced just because they have another heal. They're just able to do the same things that we can do because of it. If anything, I would say the furies are just like we were pre-changes.. someone besides me has to remember the posts saying yay us; we're one of the few classes that's actually working and has few, if any, issues.</DIV>

[DresdenMalicaster]

Clearly, Furies are imbalanced atm.... No, I'm not going to ask for a nerf because I've been on the wrong end of that too many times (warden and a warlock in T6). However, the simple dynamics of healing are easier with 3 stacks instead of 2. This imbalance extends across each of the healing classes. Right now, its simply impossible to discern oneself as gimped based on a comparison with a Fury because atm, we really aren't playing on a level playing field. Its like trying a baseball player with a wooden bat complaining about an inability to hit like the guy with the aluminum bat. The guy with the wood bat could be just fine, but when he sees the other guy hitting home runs on every pitch, its tough not to get distressed. BiitF is simply a huge leg up that needs to be addressed to level that playing field. This can be done in a number of ways. I'd figure the least controversial would be modulation of existing "special" abilities to afford each class one extra stack. <div></div>

[Spag]

<DIV>I don't think so many people would be up in arms about BitF if it had a much longer recast.  They are simply comparing it to their lvl 52 spell, how well it works, and how often they can use it, and BitF wins out in each category.</DIV>

[Dalchar]

<P>Thing is, without that "leg up" Furies would be pretty weak in dealing with spike damage at all.  There's no regen components on their heals.  Warden heals are basically fury heals after just 1 or 2 ticks of the regen component, then would procede to completely bypass furies with the continued regen.  As is my power can disappear in no time flat from just healing, let alone trying to use group heals to keep up.  </P> <P>While I firmly believe other classes should have a spell that is as equally useful, I can firmly say that without BITF, furies would be in a world of hurt for healing anything considered difficult (like poets, or some deeper places in Silent City) at that point in the game.  We have absolutely nothing that reduces incoming damage, a named mob would soundly thrash my group I'd estimate 80% of the time.  BITF is also about the only way we keep the entire "Fastest, strongest upfront healing" that we were supposeldy promised... but proceded to give wardens equally fast heals and after 1-2 ticks match the fury heal.</P>

[MaldekTM]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <P>I can firmly say that without BITF, furies would be in a world of hurt for healing anything considered difficult<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><FONT size=4>HOW DO YOU THINK WARDENS FEEL ??????</FONT><BR></P>

[DresdenMalicaster]

I was simply stating a fact. I would easily trade every single regen other than the regrowth line for BiitF without a single hint of consideration. I will not go into a discussion of Warden healing versus Fury healing because as I said, its apples and oranges; 2 stacks versus 3 = not a level playing field. Do not read this to imply that a Warden <i>can't</i> get the job done, but rather the Furies have a much easier, more enjoyable time achieving the same goal of healing than a warden. This leaves you in the enviable position of being able to nuke, debuff, etc during the time we are spamming our 2 less potent stack heals. The same can be said of the Fury healing over most, if not all of the other healer sub-classes. As I also clearly stated, I think the solution is in modifying the existing abilities of the other classes to afford them more opportunities to not "button mash" as SOE did for Furies. Nerfing BiitF completely seems like the lazy man's out.... Knowing Development's track record regarding the easy way out, I'd be moving to DEFCON 3 if I were a Fury. <div></div>

[quetzaqotl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DresdenMalicaster wrote:<BR>I was simply stating a fact. I would easily trade every single regen other than the regrowth line for BiitF without a single hint of consideration. I will not go into a discussion of Warden healing versus Fury healing because as I said, its apples and oranges; 2 stacks versus 3 = not a level playing field. Do not read this to imply that a Warden <I>can't</I> get the job done, but rather the Furies have a much easier, more enjoyable time achieving the same goal of healing than a warden. This leaves you in the enviable position of being able to nuke, debuff, etc during the time we are spamming our 2 less potent stack heals. The same can be said of the Fury healing over most, if not all of the other healer sub-classes. As I also clearly stated, I think the solution is in modifying the existing abilities of the other classes to afford them more opportunities to not "button mash" as SOE did for Furies. Nerfing BiitF completely seems like the lazy man's out.... Knowing Development's track record regarding the easy way out, <STRONG>I'd be moving to DEFCON 3 if I were a Fury.<BR></STRONG> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>pls man could you pls cut out the bs and on debuffs what good debuffs do we have, I mean really.</P> <P>bitf is a class defining spell for furies as it enables us to deal with big dmg quick (getting the target out of the orange quick) that was to be the furies' healing niche: furies are the fastest healers dealing with spike dmg the fastest.</P> <P>Thank god I dont have to use this spell that often as my normal healing will suffice in most situations a player below  50% health is in deep orange the devs gave us the tools to react to it quick honestly I wouldnt even care if they 'd put bitf on the same timer as my smal direct heal or something its not like Im spamming my bitf, smal direct heal, big direct heal and regen in normal situations the advantage of having an extra healing spell on a diff timer is a bit exaggerated as other than sometimes in raids I usually dont have to wait that long for my heal to refresh (we have the fastest heals remember for classes with long recasts on the heals it would be more of a blessing to get another healing spell as they could cast that one while waiting on the other heals to refresh) and I dont use my bitf often(if at all) when the target is above 50%.</P> <P>Its  more the idea of other classes that one class gets one more direct heal on a diff timer, than the actual advantage this spell brings.</P><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:55 AM</span>

[DresdenMalicaster]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> DresdenMalicaster wrote:I was simply stating a fact. I would easily trade every single regen other than the regrowth line for BiitF without a single hint of consideration. I will not go into a discussion of Warden healing versus Fury healing because as I said, its apples and oranges; 2 stacks versus 3 = not a level playing field. Do not read this to imply that a Warden <i>can't</i> get the job done, but rather the Furies have a much easier, more enjoyable time achieving the same goal of healing than a warden. This leaves you in the enviable position of being able to nuke, debuff, etc during the time we are spamming our 2 less potent stack heals. The same can be said of the Fury healing over most, if not all of the other healer sub-classes. As I also clearly stated, I think the solution is in modifying the existing abilities of the other classes to afford them more opportunities to not "button mash" as SOE did for Furies. Nerfing BiitF completely seems like the lazy man's out.... Knowing Development's track record regarding the easy way out, <strong>I'd be moving to DEFCON 3 if I were a Fury.</strong> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>pls man could you pls cut out the bs and on debuffs what good debuffs do we have, I mean really.</p> <p>bitf is a class defining spell for furies as it enables us to deal with big dmg quick (getting the target out of the orange quick) that was to be the furies' healing niche: furies are the fastest healers dealing with spike dmg the fastest.</p> <p>Thank god I dont have to use this spell that often as my normal healing will suffice in most situations a player below  50% health is in deep orange the devs gave us the tools to react to it quick honestly I wouldnt even care if they 'd put bitf on the same timer as my smal direct heal or something its not like Im spamming my bitf, smal direct heal, big direct heal and regen in normal situations the advantage of having an extra healing spell on a diff timer is a bit exaggerated as other than sometimes in raids I usually dont have to wait that long for my heal to refresh (we have the fastest heals remember having big timers on heals and having an extra heal WOULD be more of a blessing)..</p> <div></div><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class="date_text">11-16-2005</span> <span class="time_text">08:51 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Haha, I think I have as about as level headed an assessment as you'll get from a Warden. If you care to peruse the other subclass boards, you will see most, if not all, have a thread or multiple threads regarding the potentcy of BitF. Pre-DoF I saw similar threads on those boards regarding Warlocks and Wardens (my classes) and in both cases, nerfs followed that attempted to level the preverbial playing field. I think thats the wrong approach by Sony, but nerfing one class is the easy way out for them and, therefore, the road most travelled. Having an extra stack is a huge advantage if you ask <i>anyone.</i> If you raid, you know that spike damage is the way of the world. AoEs hit on an intermittent timer and responding to that spike before another big blow hits is the way of the raiding world. Everyone is spamming at certain points. Also, if adds come in a group setting or the other healer is stunned (Cazel's perhaps), the ability to toss 3 stacks instead of 2 is not in any way exaggerated, particularly when the "extra" is over 1k. To deny this inherent advantage is..... well.... pretty absurd if you ask me. If you really want to be the best at dealing with a spike, the stacks should be large, cast casting, but on much longer cast times than the heals of other healers. Right now, you have the best of all worlds regarding healing. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by DresdenMalicaster on <span class=date_text>11-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:04 PM</span>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>what I was saying is that if the tanks is above 50% having an extra healing spell isnt that hot as you think below 50% of course thats when this spell shines as it was designed this way the extra<STRONG> isnt</STRONG> over 1k if the target is above 50%.</P> <P>In tough situations of course this spell is useful but your stuns are useful in those situations for instance or your tree or hg (once those get fixed)</P> <P>With a little love you guys surely will have a considerable edge over us in the heal/def dept but thats my opinion.</P> <P>we dont have the best of both worlds in the heal dept we dont have ginormous heals we have fast heals and one heal which situationally heals for quite a bit when the target is below 50% aka in the orange.</P> <P>and yes in really tough situations we furies have to spam a LOT as our heals arent that big.</P><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:17 AM</span>

[Dalchar]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MaldekTM wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <P>I can firmly say that without BITF, furies would be in a world of hurt for healing anything considered difficult<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT size=4>HOW DO YOU THINK WARDENS FEEL ??????</FONT><BR><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Please, point out where in that post I even suggested that wardens didn't need a heal of similar potency.  I'm all for all priest classes being able to solo heal 1-group encounters with relatively equal competency.  I was merely stating that without it in our line-up, difficult one group encounters wouldn't be possible (and cited examples), and also without it, we'd not fulfill the niche we're supposed to as strongest fastest upfront heals. As is, our heals are matched by warden with the fastest, with equal strength after 1 tick (I'm not sure if the first tick is instant like they used to be or after 1s), we only win out on the recast while wardens have a regen ticking every second.  The 52 heal kinda restores that niche... personally I'd almost say that if they took the entire salve line and applied it as BITF that way everyone has the 2 DH restriction that'd be rather fine.</P> <P>But again, I didn't say that something similar usefulness wasn't warrented for wardens.</P>

[quetzaqotl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MaldekTM wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <P>I can firmly say that without BITF, furies would be in a world of hurt for healing anything considered difficult<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT size=4>HOW DO YOU THINK WARDENS FEEL ??????</FONT><BR><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Please, point out where in that post I even suggested that wardens didn't need a heal of similar potency.  I'm all for all priest classes being able to solo heal 1-group encounters with relatively equal competency.  I was merely stating that without it in our line-up, difficult one group encounters wouldn't be possible (and cited examples), and also without it, we'd not fulfill the niche we're supposed to as strongest fastest upfront heals. As is, our heals are matched by warden with the fastest, with equal strength after 1 tick (I'm not sure if the first tick is instant like they used to be or after 1s), we only win out on the recast while wardens have a regen ticking every second.  The 52 heal kinda restores that niche... <STRONG><FONT color=#ff6600>personally I'd almost say that if they took the entire salve line and applied it as BITF that way everyone has the 2 DH restriction that'd be rather fine.</FONT></STRONG></P> <P>But again, I didn't say that something similar usefulness wasn't warrented for wardens.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Thats what i was saying this spell isnt used (bitf) as a small direct heal (when above 50%), this spell isnt really (like 90% of the time) used when the target is above 50% health (so saying we have another heal which unbalances everything and is best of both worlds is an exaggeration imo for the reasons i posted above).</P> <P>And yes again tunares watch REALLY needs a makeover I agree 100%</P><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:34 AM</span>

[Unmask]

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <p>what I was saying is that if the tanks is above 50% having an extra healing spell isnt that hot as you think below 50% of course thats when this spell shines as it was designed this way the extra<strong> isnt</strong> over 1k if the target is above 50%.</p> <p><font color="#ffff00">You have the heal when you need it though.  Saying the spell isn't so great when you don't need it misses the point.  If the tank never went below 50% I don't think we'd care about not having a 3rd DH.</font> </p> <p>In tough situations of course this spell is useful but your stuns are useful in those situations for instance or your tree or hg (once those get fixed) </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Stuns?  Well sandstorm can proc a stun I suppose but they don't work on epics.  The tree is just another group HoT and suffers from the same problem that both our group HoTs have when compares to group wards/reactives.  And you're very optimistic on HG getting fixed.  I don't see them making the change to HG necessary to put it on a par with porcupine.</font> </p> <p>With a little love you guys surely will have a considerable edge over us in the heal/def dept but thats my opinion.</p> <div></div> <p><font color="#ffff00">Maybe, maybe not.  But that 3rd DH is a monster no matter how much you try to downplay it. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></font> </p><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Unmask]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:<p>Thing is, without that "leg up" Furies would be pretty weak in dealing with spike damage at all.  There's no regen components on their heals.  Warden heals are basically fury heals after just 1 or 2 ticks of the regen component, then would procede to completely bypass furies with the continued regen.  As is my power can disappear in no time flat from just healing, let alone trying to use group heals to keep up.  </p> <p>While I firmly believe other classes should have a spell that is as equally useful, I can firmly say that without BITF, furies would be in a world of hurt for healing anything considered difficult (like poets, or some deeper places in Silent City) at that point in the game.  We have absolutely nothing that reduces incoming damage, a named mob would soundly thrash my group I'd estimate 80% of the time.  BITF is also about the only way we keep the entire "Fastest, strongest upfront healing" that we were supposeldy promised... but proceded to give wardens equally fast heals and after 1-2 ticks match the fury heal.</p><hr></blockquote>Leg up?  I'm not sure if that pun was intentional or not. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Anyway, without BITF, a fury's ability to deal with spike damage would be the same as ours.  You make it sound like our direct heals have bonus regen like pre-CU.  They don't.  I want a real direct heal, not 60% of a direct heal plus 40% of a HoT.</span><div></div>

[Lego]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Unmasked wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <P>Thing is, without that "leg up" Furies would be pretty weak in dealing with spike damage at all.  There's no regen components on their heals.  Warden heals are basically fury heals after just 1 or 2 ticks of the regen component, then would procede to completely bypass furies with the continued regen.  As is my power can disappear in no time flat from just healing, let alone trying to use group heals to keep up.  </P> <P>While I firmly believe other classes should have a spell that is as equally useful, I can firmly say that without BITF, furies would be in a world of hurt for healing anything considered difficult (like poets, or some deeper places in Silent City) at that point in the game.  We have absolutely nothing that reduces incoming damage, a named mob would soundly thrash my group I'd estimate 80% of the time.  BITF is also about the only way we keep the entire "Fastest, strongest upfront healing" that we were supposeldy promised... but proceded to give wardens equally fast heals and after 1-2 ticks match the fury heal.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Leg up?  I'm not sure if that pun was intentional or not. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR>Anyway, without BITF, a fury's ability to deal with spike damage would be the same as ours.  You make it sound like our direct heals have bonus regen like pre-CU.  They don't.  I want a real direct heal, not 60% of a direct heal plus 40% of a HoT.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Thing is, it wouldn't be the same as yours.  Whether you want to discount them or not, those regens do add to your overall healing ability.  It may not all be upfront like it used to be, but it's not like a Warden can't heal the exact same things that I can.  Yes, it's done differently but xp group, raid etc we're both viable. </P> <P>Whether you think BiTF is too powerful compared to other folks ancient spells is a different point.  I agree there.  With the possible exception of Sanctuary.  With that being said however, without that spell there is no chance in hell I could heal any group. <BR></P>

[Kyralis]

<span><blockquote><hr>Lego23 wrote: <p>Whether you think BiTF is too powerful compared to other folks ancient spells is a different point.  I agree there.  With the possible exception of Sanctuary.  With that being said however, without that spell there is no chance in hell I could heal any group. </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> So, you're trying to tell me that there's no chance in hell you could heal any group pre-52? That if you mentored to 51, you suddenly would no longer be able to heal? I call BS on that one, and I know a number of furies who would be equally quick to disagree (since they seem to be quite justifiably proud of the main healer status that the revamp gave them back). BITF is a very powerful spell, but claiming that you somehow must have it to heal a group is just flat out wrong.</span><div></div>

[Unmask]

<span><blockquote><hr>Lego23 wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Unmasked wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> Dalcharis wrote: <p>Thing is, without that "leg up" Furies would be pretty weak in dealing with spike damage at all.  There's no regen components on their heals.  Warden heals are basically fury heals after just 1 or 2 ticks of the regen component, then would procede to completely bypass furies with the continued regen.  As is my power can disappear in no time flat from just healing, let alone trying to use group heals to keep up.  </p> <p>While I firmly believe other classes should have a spell that is as equally useful, I can firmly say that without BITF, furies would be in a world of hurt for healing anything considered difficult (like poets, or some deeper places in Silent City) at that point in the game.  We have absolutely nothing that reduces incoming damage, a named mob would soundly thrash my group I'd estimate 80% of the time.  BITF is also about the only way we keep the entire "Fastest, strongest upfront healing" that we were supposeldy promised... but proceded to give wardens equally fast heals and after 1-2 ticks match the fury heal.</p> <hr> </blockquote>Leg up?  I'm not sure if that pun was intentional or not. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Anyway, without BITF, a fury's ability to deal with spike damage would be the same as ours.  You make it sound like our direct heals have bonus regen like pre-CU.  They don't.  I want a real direct heal, not 60% of a direct heal plus 40% of a HoT.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Thing is, it wouldn't be the same as yours.  Whether you want to discount them or not, those regens do add to your overall healing ability.  It may not all be upfront like it used to be, but it's not like a Warden can't heal the exact same things that I can.  Yes, it's done differently but xp group, raid etc we're both viable. </p> <p>Whether you think BiTF is too powerful compared to other folks ancient spells is a different point.  I agree there.  With the possible exception of Sanctuary.  With that being said however, without that spell there is no chance in hell I could heal any group. </p><hr></blockquote>I'm not really referring to BITF here.  The original poster mistakenly thinks that the regen part of our DH sets us apart from furies when all it does is add up to your DH.  The DHs of all classes is the same except for a little bit of flavor.  Our flavor is to turn part of our DH into regen ticks which reduces our ability to heal spike damage.  I would gladly swap our minor and arch healing lines with you.  And since our HoTs are the same, I really don't see how you can say you can't heal the same as wardens pre-52 since our healing is basically the same!</span><div></div>

[Lego]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caerwyn wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lego23 wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Whether you think BiTF is too powerful compared to other folks ancient spells is a different point.  I agree there.  With the possible exception of Sanctuary.  With that being said however, without that spell there is no chance in hell I could heal any group. <BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So, you're trying to tell me that there's no chance in hell you could heal any group pre-52? That if you mentored to 51, you suddenly would no longer be able to heal?<BR><BR>I call BS on that one, and I know a number of furies who would be equally quick to disagree (since they seem to be quite justifiably proud of the main healer status that the revamp gave them back).<BR><BR>BITF is a very powerful spell, but claiming that you somehow must have it to heal a group is just flat out wrong.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>By all means show me any Fury that can solo heal a group as well pre-52 as they can post level 52 and I'll eat crow.  My point being that without that spell we are not as effective a healer as we are with it.  With the Wardens ability to stack regens that subclass of druid is a superior healer until we receive BiTF.  It's not a vast difference  but I do know, I rolled one post CU and he's level 47 now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I didn't say I couldn't mentor to 51 and heal a group.  Just as I never said I couldn't heal a group prior to the entire expansion.  It wasn't as easy for me, but it was doable.  When I was leveling I had to spam my group heals as well as my singles for those two levels, and I had more than a few tanks die because I just couldn't refresh my spells fast enough.  Of course this was prior to the regen change and the DH change for Wardens, so it's fairly hard for me to compare.  </DIV> <DIV>  </DIV>

[Lego]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN> <HR> I'm not really referring to BITF here.  The original poster mistakenly thinks that the regen part of our DH sets us apart from furies when all it does is add up to your DH.  The DHs of all classes is the same except for a little bit of flavor.  Our flavor is to turn part of our DH into regen ticks which reduces our ability to heal spike damage.  I would gladly swap our minor and arch healing lines with you.  <BR><BR>And since our HoTs are the same, I really don't see how you can say you can't heal the same as wardens pre-52 since our healing is basically the same!<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And that's fine.  What the point becomes, and thus you're saying the same thing as I am, is that with BiTF for Furies, and the regen portion of your DH, we become equal.  It does reduce your ability to deal with spike damage.  I'll agree, but, it's also part of the flavor.  Wardens may want to trade it to Furies.  And that also is fine.  But, to incorrectly state that it makes a Fury that much more powerful than a Warden is incorrect.  We deal better with spike damage, guilty as charged.  But I can't find a single Warden on my server the same level as me that can't heal the exact same encounters as I do.</P> <P>Pre 52 our HoT's are the same, but our DH's aren't.  We still have two lines, without the benefit of the regen on the back end.  It's not such a horrible disparity that you can't do the job, but to say it's equal is incorrect.  Again, it's not a vast difference, but it is there.  <BR></P>

[Unmask]

<span><blockquote><hr>Lego23 wrote: <div>By all means show me any Fury that can solo heal a group as well pre-52 as they can post level 52 and I'll eat crow.  My point being that without that spell we are not as effective a healer as we are with it.  <font color="#ffff00">Well no kidding.</font> With the Wardens ability to stack regens that subclass of druid is a superior healer until we receive BiTF.  It's not a vast difference  but I do know, I rolled one post CU and he's level 47 now. <font color="#ffff00">Stack regens?  We have the same spells.  The only difference is that our minor and arch heal lines have a HoT component </font><font color="#ffff00"><b>at the expense of having a much smaller DH component</b></font><font color="#ffff00">.</font>  I really don't know what gives you the impression that this stacking of regens makes up for having such small direct heals. </div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Lego]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Unmasked wrote:<SPAN><BR><BR><FONT color=#ffff00>Stack regens?  We have the same spells.  The only difference is that our minor and arch heal lines have a HoT component </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00><B>at the expense of having a much smaller DH component</B></FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>.</FONT>  I really don't know what gives you the impression that this stacking of regens makes up for having such small direct heals. <BR><BR> <HR> <BR></SPAN> <P>What I mean by stacked regens is having the HoT component of the DH tick at the same time as having a single target or group regen up.  If I'm mistaken in this, and I may we'll be, since I don't parse healing on my warden alt, then the difference is larger than I'm stating.</P> <P>But I'm comparing the two classes big heals in the 40's at M1.  Verdant Rapture for Warden, which iirc (and I'm not in game to check exact numbers) is 534-653 with a regen tick of 80-90?.  And Furies Ferine Elixer, which (again not in game) is for 650-825.  </P> <P><BR> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>All in all, my point being very simply, both healers are well off.  I love Wardens, I don't see the gnashing of teeth over healing from the Wardens I know.  And personally, I don't mind jumping in when people want one for one tradeoffs with furies over spell lines, because I see them as more equal than most as they are.  I'm sure those of you reading this thread will say duh, that's because you're a Fury, but it's my opinion, hopefully augmented with fact.  And you're more than welcome to disagree and show me why I'm wrong.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Lego23 on <SPAN class=date_text>11-17-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:19 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Lego23 on <span class=date_text>11-17-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:23 PM</span>

[Spag]

<P>Lego,</P> <P>   I think you are missing his point here multiple times.  Unmasked is saying that our direct heals have the same over all HP value as your direct heals, but ours do so with 40% up front, and 60% hot.  Thus a smaller portion up front.  </P> <P>for example using made up numbers</P> <P>Fury direct heal = 500   Warden direct heal + hot = 200 +50 + 50 + 50 + 50 + 50 + 50   =500</P> <P> </P> <P>You seem to be assumeing that the direct portion is the same and that the HoT added to ours puts us over the top, as in this scenario:</P> <P>Furty direct heal = 500  Warden direct heal + hot = 500 +50 +50 +50 +50 +50 +50 = 800</P> <P>This is not the case.</P> <P> </P> <P>This means that pre lvl 52 wardens and furies have the same healing abilities.  The regen on our direct heal does not give us any advantage over your direct heals, as it is simply taking us longer to catch up to healing that a fury could have already done instantly.  </P> <P>I hope that helps clear things up for you, and please excuse me Unmasked if I overstepped my bounds, or mis-stated your intent.</P>

[Unmask]

Nope that's what I meatn though sometmes I get crossed up between how much is HoT and how much is DH.  All I know is that all other priest classes seem to have a pure DH roughly twice that of mine. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I wish I had actual numbers to put the issue to rest. <div></div>

[Lego]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Spagma wrote:<BR> <P>Lego,</P> <P>   I think you are missing his point here multiple times.  Unmasked is saying that our direct heals have the same over all HP value as your direct heals, but ours do so with 40% up front, and 60% hot.  Thus a smaller portion up front.  </P> <P>for example using made up numbers</P> <P>Fury direct heal = 500   Warden direct heal + hot = 200 +50 + 50 + 50 + 50 + 50 + 50   =500</P> <P> </P> <P>You seem to be assumeing that the direct portion is the same and that the HoT added to ours puts us over the top, as in this scenario:</P> <P>Furty direct heal = 500  Warden direct heal + hot = 500 +50 +50 +50 +50 +50 +50 = 800</P> <P>This is not the case.</P> <P> </P> <P>This means that pre lvl 52 wardens and furies have the same healing abilities.  The regen on our direct heal does not give us any advantage over your direct heals, as it is simply taking us longer to catch up to healing that a fury could have already done instantly.  </P> <P>I hope that helps clear things up for you, and please excuse me Unmasked if I overstepped my bounds, or mis-stated your intent.</P> <BR> <HR> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Nah, I see the point.  I dispute the numbers, because given an actual example above it seems to indicate that your DH plus your regen component, while not delivering the load up front, does in fact heal for an overall higher amount.  Unless I'm missing something on the amount of ticks.  That's what I'm referring too.  But again, show me what I'm missing with actual examples.  Because I'm not missing the point, I'm arguing the validity.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>edit:  Spagma, I respect your opinion a lot because you tend to back up your opinions with actual examples.  If you would be so kind as to do that here.  Given you're an under level 52 healer that would probably go a long way to either completely disproving my point or shedding some light on what I'm seeing. (unless of course you aren't updating that sig <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> )</DIV> <P>Edit 2:  I'm more than willing to post my actual heal numbers with all ad1 and ad 3's for T5 heals as I still have them on a spreadsheet.  If you have comparable spell numbers I'd love to see them posted since I can't find any up to date stuff and won't be able to log on my alt for a few hours. <P>  <P>Message Edited by Lego23 on <SPAN class=date_text>11-17-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:14 PM</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN>  <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Lego23 on <span class=date_text>11-17-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:16 PM</span>

[Spag]

<DIV>I don't have any actual numbers on me, which is why I resorted to fictional numbers in my example.  Does anyone have this info that they can post so we can do a direct comparison of the direct heal totals?  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Note, I do not know for sure whether they are equal or not, though I do believe they are close.  I was simply trying to clarify the discussion, as it seemed to be going back and forth saying the same thing over and over.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(futher clarified my post)</DIV><p>Message Edited by Spagma on <span class=date_text>11-17-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:36 PM</span>

[Unmask]

I don't have the actual numbers either.  As far as I know, all DHs are supposed to be the same but each class has some flavor added for maybe 10% of the amounts.  So for example, 1 class has a 90% DH with a ward for another 10% (forget which class though). <div></div>

[Kyralis]

If we want a real comparison, let's use T5 spells (since this is what the discussion boils down to, pre-52 stuff). Please post adept 3 numbers for fury and warden heal and arch heal lines. Remember that the Warden arch heal casting cycle time is 15% longer than the fury cycle time for arch heals, and therefore the Warden heal must be at least 15% greater to sustain identical HP/sec. Also remember that the Warden heals are about 40% HoT rather than 100% up-front, and therefore a certain level of larger-total-healing is to be expected to account for this deficiency (and it is, in fact, a deficiency). The question is, how much larger are the Warden total healing values than the Fury total healing values, and how does BITF affect this discrepancy. Also, to clarify my previous objection, lego: You specifically said that there was no way you would be able to heal any group without BITF. That's what I take issue with, since for 51 levels you did exactly that. <div></div>

[Lego]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caerwyn wrote:<BR><BR>Also, to clarify my previous objection, lego: You specifically said that there was no way you would be able to heal any group without BITF. That's what I take issue with, since for 51 levels you did exactly that.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Absolutely true.  But as I was referring to content and mobs above those levels it's essentially a wash.  Perhaps it came out garbled, but my point was that without BiTF I couldn't heal the content I face now.  Not what I faced in the past, because frankly, I wasn't main healing very often back then.  I was soloing.</P> <P>Now as to the numbers, I'll post them this evening once I get home and we can compare.  Do you want cast, recast and power numbers on the adept 3's as well?<BR></P>

[Spag]

<DIV>ok so, don't tell my boss, but I connected remotely to my PC at home and logged in my Sage and checked the adept3 versions of the T5 spells.  For a base line I have tossed in the templar direct heals as well.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Templar<BR>Greater Amelioration                                             Greater Restoration<BR>heals for 529-646                                                  heals for 1002-1224</DIV> <DIV>Average = 587.5                                                    Average = 1113</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fury<BR>Feral Salve                                                            Fernie Elixir <BR>heals for  367-448                                                 heals for 668-816</DIV> <DIV>Average = 407.5                                                    Average = 742</DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV>Warden<BR>Sylvan Waters                                                      Verdant Rapture<BR>heals for 275-336                                                  heals for 467-571<BR>+46-56 every second                                           +60-73 every second</DIV> <DIV>Average = 305.5 + 51 every second (x6)             Average = 519 + 66.5 every second (x10)</DIV> <DIV>Average Total = 611.5                                          Average Total = 1184</DIV> <DIV>Note:  50% direct 50% regen                               Note:  44% direct 56% regen</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First, let me state that I am shocked at the big difference in direct heals.  I was under the impression it was maybe a 10% difference, but the direct heals show about a 33% difference from Warden and Templars.  I knew Wardens were about the same as Templars and most other classes, I did not know that Furies had such small direct heals.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, there are the numbers, Lego.  It looks to be that you do have a solid basis for your dispute.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(Adjusted spacing, and added direct/regen percentages)</DIV><p>Message Edited by Spagma on <span class=date_text>11-17-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:42 PM</span>

[Naithik]

<P>I'm surprised by those numbers spagma.</P> <P>maybe the recasts would affect HP/s? because seeing that, wardens have a clear advantage</P>

[Dalchar]

Please correct my math if you find anything wrong. Warden heals (provided that's the correct ones... they've been altered so much: http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=10390 Fury heals can be found in here, in text form: http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=17&message.id=8878 Wild salve I suddenly didn't see at adept 3, but I'll tell you it's 525 - 642 Fury: Nature's Elixir: 932-1140 At adept 3 8.5s recast  average: 1036  cast + recast = 10s Wild Salve: 525-642 at adept 3 5s recast  average:  583.5 cast + recast = 6s Warden: Sylvan Streams: 392-482 + (66 to 8<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />*6 at adept 3 for... hmm... 392 + 66*6  to 482 + 88*6.... 788 to 1010 over the timeframe.  average: 899  Cast + recast = 6s Verdant Bliss: 653-798 + (84 to 103)*10 at adept 3 for.... 1493 to 1828 ...average: 1660.5 cast + recast = 11.5s SOOOO.... we need to estimate this over the course of hmm...let's try one minute... going to be rough with warden regens ticking... Salve 583.5 * 10 = 5835 hp in 60s Elixir = 6216 hp in 60s. Streams... 899* 10 = 8990 in 60s Bliss.... 1660.5* 5 = 8300 + 1 more cast with just one more tick on it (2.5s were left in the minute... I don't know if the first tick is immediate or waits the 1s.) so add 93.5 + 725... 8300 + 93.5 + 725 = 9118.5hp in 60s So... Grand total using just the main line direct heals at 60... Fury = 12051 hp in 1 minute Warden = 18108.5 hp in 1 minute. So... Wardens heal for approximately 33.45% more than Furies do with just those main lines, and more efficiently (as I understand). Now... BITF is tricky... as 1... it's completely a waste of power to cast if tank is over 50% health... meaning while, sure, you can cast it, it's completely stupid from a mana standpoint.  Nor can it be cast on themselves.  How can we reasonably add this into the equation as it's not something that'd be used every time it is up, even though you could.... so it's dependant on the tank, what you're fighting, and the tank's current hp... I'm not sure how to quantify it at all... plus it heals for two different amounts.  On a personal level, I'd say if I need to actually cast it... over the course of a minute I do so maybe 2-3x and whether it lands for maximum will vary (pallies have a bad habit of hitting heals as do monks at the sight of orange and do you REALLY wanna wait until your tank is red to try and achieve max healing?)... I'd personally estimate casting BITF 3-4x in the course of a minute and with it landing in the bad range once or twice... So... assuming casting 4x and twice in bad range and twice in good range average heal value... 1389x2 + 674x2  = 4126hp Would bring fury total up to 16177hp in 1 minute.... In that scenerio... Warden heals for 11% more than Fury. And for the record I'll second Lego's assertion-- healing current harder content, and depending on your tank-- yes, it's *significantly* more difficult for fury to heal a tank pre-52.. honestly, tanks very nearly died very frequently (and unfortunatley, did die more often than not)... and that's with Master 1 spells... and I knew what I was doing as I played around in the beta.  This was pre-regen upgrade however, I'm not sure how much of a difference that upgrade would make. <div></div>

[Tild]

<P>You show me yours Ill show u mine eh?  Thats fine, ok, all of these are T6 and ad3 quality, with the exception of Wild Growth at Master 2</P> <P>Wild Growth (Master II)</P> <P>Power 153</P> <P>Casting Time 2.0</P> <P>Recovery Time 0.5</P> <P>Recast Time 6.0</P> <P>Duration 10.0</P> <P>Increases health of target by 338-413 instantly and every 2 seconds</P> <P> </P> <P>Sylvan Streams (Adept III)</P> <P>Power 146</P> <P>Casting Time 1.0</P> <P>Recovery Time 0.5</P> <P>Recast Time 5.0</P> <P>Duration 6.0</P> <P>Heals Target for 394-482</P> <P>Increases Health of target by 66-80 every second</P> <P> </P> <P>Verdant Bliss (Adept III)</P> <P>Power 254</P> <P>Casting Time 1.5</P> <P>Recovery Time 0.5</P> <P>Recast Time 10.0</P> <P>Duration 10.0</P> <P>Heals Target for 653-798</P> <P>Increases Health of traget by 84-103 every second</P> <P> </P> <P>Winds of Healing (Adept III)</P> <P>Power 288</P> <P>Casting Time 1.5</P> <P>Recovery Time 0.5</P> <P>Recast Time 7.5</P> <P>Duration 6.0</P> <P>Heals group members (AE) for 458-559</P> <P>Increases health of group members (AE) by 77-94 every second</P> <P> </P> <P>Wild Chlorostorm (Adept III)</P> <P>Power 288</P> <P>Casting Time 3.0</P> <P>Recovery Time 0.5</P> <P>Recast Time 12.0</P> <P>Duration 10.0</P> <P>Increases Health of group members (AE) by 300-367 instantly and every 2 seconds</P> <P> </P> <P>Those are our healing lines.  Can't provide accurate numbers on the tree because the ingame spell description just says its a "limited pet".</P>

[Dalchar]

<span><blockquote><hr>Spagma wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div>ok so, don't tell my boss, but I connected remotely to my PC at home and logged in my Sage and checked the adept3 versions of the T5 spells.  For a base line I have tossed in the templar direct heals as well.</div> <div> </div> <div> <div>TemplarGreater Amelioration                                             Greater Restorationheals for 529-646                                                  heals for 1002-1224</div> <div>Average = 587.5                                                    Average = 1113</div></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>FuryFeral Salve                                                            Fernie Elixir heals for  367-448                                                 heals for 668-816</div> <div>Average = 407.5                                                    Average = 742</div> <div> </div> <div>WardenSylvan Waters                                                      Verdant Raptureheals for 275-336                                                  heals for 467-571+46-56 every second                                           +60-73 every second</div> <div>Average = 305.5 + 51 every second (x6)             Average = 519 + 66.5 every second (x10)</div> <div>Average Total = 611.5                                          Average Total = 1184</div> <div>Note:  50% direct 50% regen                               Note:  44% direct 56% regen</div> <div> </div> <div>First, let me state that I am shocked at the big difference in direct heals.  I was under the impression it was maybe a 10% difference, but the direct heals show about a 33% difference from Warden and Templars.  I knew Wardens were about the same as Templars and most other classes, I did not know that Furies had such small direct heals.</div> <div> </div> <div>So, there are the numbers, Lego.  It looks to be that you do have a solid basis for your dispute.</div> <div> </div> <div>(Adjusted spacing, and added direct/regen percentages)</div><p>Message Edited by Spagma on <span class="date_text">11-17-2005</span> <span class="time_text">05:42 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>HA! did it at same time with same results for both T5 and T6 <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> People never seemed to believe or acknowledge it when I said warden heals = fury heals in 1 or 2 ticks.</span><div></div>

[Dalchar]

<div></div>Ah, and for the record M2 Warden regen is variable but the average = 375.5 at M2... Fury's M2 is a constant 375.  So that's a wash in the comparison and can be omitted as it'd be a constant. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>11-17-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:55 PM</span>

[Kyralis]

Minor correction, Dalcharis: The warden cycle time for the arch heal is 11.5 seconds, not 10.5 seconds. it's not a big change, but it will affect the numbers by, oh, about 10% on the warden total healing. <div></div>

[Spag]

<P>It looks like he used a 11.5 cycle time.</P> <P>11.5 seconds x5 = 57.5</P> <P>Though the regen does not start until 1sec after the spell is cast, it still finishes before the spell can be recast.</P>

[Dalchar]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Caerwyn wrote:Minor correction, Dalcharis: The warden cycle time for the arch heal is 11.5 seconds, not 10.5 seconds. it's not a big change, but it will affect the numbers by, oh, about 10% on the warden total healing. <div></div><hr></blockquote>I used 11.5s... it's up there as cast + recast = 11.5s. 60/11.5 = 5 cast cycles (57.5s), with 2.5s left to start another cycle, thus the initial heal + just 1 tick so that there's just .5s left in the 60s... It looks right to me... maybe I'm not understanding what you mean. <span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis  wrote: Verdant Bliss: 653-798 + (84 to 103)*10 at adept 3 for.... 1493 to 1828 ...average: 1660.5 cast + recast = 11.5s<hr></blockquote></span>So... if it's indeed true that Furies are about 30-33% behind in healing, and nothing defensive to stop incoming damage, BITF isn't nearly as unbalancing as it looks on the surface?</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>11-17-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:54 PM</span>

[Kyralis]

Ah, my fault there, my eyes lied to me as I read above. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I would say that you are correct, then. I would also say that Furies have something to complain about- waiting 52 levels to get a spell that fixes your healing is a problem, IMO. <div></div>

[Dalchar]

<div></div>Now for the real question for every fury and priest in general... why on earth didn't we ever add all this up in the first place? LOL This seems like a very comparable thing to do with all the additions and math people are doing with dps, and for that matter about 10x easier. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>11-17-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:37 PM</span>

[Lego]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR> Now for the real question for every fury and priest in general...<BR><BR>why on earth didn't we ever add all this up in the first place? LOL This seems like a very comparable thing to do with all the additions and math people are doing with dps, and for that matter about 10x easier.<BR> <P>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <SPAN class=date_text>11-17-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:37 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Simply because the DPS disparity is bigger and more easily noticed.  Most of the comparisons you see aren't based on group healing, but on soloability where the druid subs have a decided advantage.  By the way, thank you both for grabbing those numbers.  I figured that was about where it stood at the moment.  </P> <P>And for the record, reading the Warden boards isn't what got me thinking about how necessary BiTF is for our healing purposes, it was my forays over to the Templar board and the absolute chaos that is there.  So I'm certainly not trying to prove a point that Furies are miles behind, we aren't.  But I also wanted to show that our ancients aren't quite as unbalancing as they look.</P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:Please correct my math if you find anything wrong. Salve 583.5 * 10 = 5835 hp in 60s Elixir = 6216 hp in 60s. Streams... 899* 10 = 8990 in 60s Bliss.... 1660.5* 5 = 8300 + 1 more cast with just one more tick on it (2.5s were left in the minute... I don't know if the first tick is immediate or waits the 1s.) so add 93.5 + 725... 8300 + 93.5 + 725 = 9118.5hp in 60s So... Grand total using just the main line direct heals at 60... Fury = 12051 hp in 1 minute Warden = 18108.5 hp in 1 minute.<hr></blockquote>Since this thread was brought to templar forums 'proof' that templars heal better than Furies, here is the deal: Greater Amelioration lvl 57, Adept III Heals for 757-926 (average 841), 2s cast, 6s recast = 6300 hitpoints per minute Greater restoration lvl 60, Adept III Heals for 1399-1709 (average 1113), 3s cast, 11,5s recast = 6400 hp per minute This equals 12700 hp per minute for templar direct heals So templar direct heals are actually equal to fury heals. Or were if there weren't any other direct heals for furies. Is this the reason you left templars out of your calculations? To keep up the image that templars are far better healers?</span><div></div>

[Lego]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR>Please correct my math if you find anything wrong.<BR>Salve 583.5 * 10 = 5835 hp in 60s<BR>Elixir = 6216 hp in 60s.<BR><BR>Streams... 899* 10 = 8990 in 60s<BR>Bliss.... 1660.5* 5 = 8300 + 1 more cast with just one more tick on it (2.5s were left in the minute... I don't know if the first tick is immediate or waits the 1s.) so add 93.5 + 725... 8300 + 93.5 + 725 = 9118.5hp in 60s<BR><BR><BR>So... Grand total using just the main line direct heals at 60...<BR><BR>Fury = 12051 hp in 1 minute<BR>Warden = 18108.5 hp in 1 minute.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Since this thread was brought to templar forums 'proof' that templars heal better than Furies, here is the deal:<BR><BR>Greater Amelioration lvl 57, Adept III<BR>Heals for 757-926 (average 841), 2s cast, 6s recast = 6300 hitpoints per minute<BR><BR>Greater restoration lvl 60, Adept III<BR>Heals for 1399-1709 (average 1113), 3s cast, 11,5s recast = 6400 hp per minute<BR><BR>This equals 12700 hp per minute for templar direct heals<BR><BR>So templar direct heals are actually equal to fury heals. Or were if there weren't any other direct heals for furies. Is this the reason you left templars out of your calculations? To keep up the image that templars are far better healers?<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>More likely that because you're a completely different subclass it would be [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] near impossible to include your reactives into this comparison.  There is a reason we have higher # of DH lines.<BR> <p>Message Edited by Lego23 on <span class=date_text>11-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:22 AM</span>

[Dalchar]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:Please correct my math if you find anything wrong. Salve 583.5 * 10 = 5835 hp in 60s Elixir = 6216 hp in 60s. Streams... 899* 10 = 8990 in 60s Bliss.... 1660.5* 5 = 8300 + 1 more cast with just one more tick on it (2.5s were left in the minute... I don't know if the first tick is immediate or waits the 1s.) so add 93.5 + 725... 8300 + 93.5 + 725 = 9118.5hp in 60s So... Grand total using just the main line direct heals at 60... Fury = 12051 hp in 1 minute Warden = 18108.5 hp in 1 minute.<hr></blockquote>Since this thread was brought to templar forums 'proof' that templars heal better than Furies, here is the deal: Greater Amelioration lvl 57, Adept III Heals for 757-926 (average 841), 2s cast, 6s recast = 6300 hitpoints per minute Greater restoration lvl 60, Adept III Heals for 1399-1709 (average 1113), 3s cast, 11,5s recast = 6400 hp per minute This equals 12700 hp per minute for templar direct heals So templar direct heals are actually equal to fury heals. Or were if there weren't any other direct heals for furies. Is this the reason you left templars out of your calculations? To keep up the image that templars are far better healers?</span><hr></blockquote></span><span>Cross posted... Sorry Tim but I later said in that thread (before your reply) to ignore the previous thread as I realized the error. I was at work and plotted this stuff into an excel spreadsheet out of sheer boredom.  Templars seem caught be this issue:  Recast time... not so much the time itself, but when things pop back up for reuse. Theoretically, if you could chaincast without regard to what's up... a T5 Templar would heal 8561 at 60s and 10261 at 61s. Theoretically, if furies could do the same, a T5 fury would heal for 8532 at 60s. Theoretically, if wardens could do the same, a T5 warden would heal for 11605 at 60s.   (and I tell you plotting out warden heals in a spreadsheet sucks). When you line everything up for the classes, so that they're not casting a heal at the same time as another heal... casting small DH and then large DH... it lines up like this: Templar: 9148 at 60s and at 61s. Fury: 8522 at 60s and 8929 at 61s Warden: 11912.5 at 60s, and 12335 at 61s. So... The original thread was partly correct--with furies in relation to warden, furies are about 33% behind warden, but are about 7% behind Templar once you start digging farther in.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<div></div><div></div><span>Well you took the limit to 60s. Make it 5 mins and you will still see the same difference. Best way to present this is actually amount healed per second, then you dont need to worry about recasts. </span><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class=date_text>11-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:56 PM</span>

[Dalchar]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div><div></div><span>Well you took the limit to 60s. Make it 5 mins and you will still see the same difference. Best way to present this is actually amount healed per second, then you dont need to worry about recasts. </span><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class="date_text">11-18-2005</span> <span class="time_text">07:56 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote> Really the recast wasn't the problem so much that I foresaw, as the cast time-- within that one minute there's about 5s that you couldn't cast the opposing heal as a templar in the even that you're casting one immediately after the other so like the 2nd or third grand restoration was blocking the cast of an amelioration, or vice versa, a few times.  For druids that's next to nothing, maybe a total of 1s, for templars, it was adding up to 1-2.5s at a time amounting to about 5s I think it was... ( don't have the excel sheet at home or excel on this computer at home to redo it).  Didn't want to do injustice to templars by assuming they could just cast one after another when they can't nearly as easily when it was lined up.</span><div></div>

[Goozman]

<P>I duno. When i use a spreadsheet and set up a simulation...</P> <P>If the class is just chain casting one spell over and over for 60 seconds * And one person is tanking, mind you</P> <P>                                        Fury                              Templar</P> <P>Minor Healing                  5251.5hp/1053pwr        5890.5hp/1190pwr</P> <P>Arch Healing                   6216hp/1216pwr           6216hp/1232pwr</P> <P>Specialty                         8613hp/918pwr             11147.5hp/1071pwr</P> <P>Group Specialty              5002.5hp/864pwr          9004.5hp/864pwr</P> <DIV>So like yeah... It's already been mentioned by Locke that the direct heals would be balanced, so comparing the 2 direct heal lines' hps between these two classes doesn't do much. However in the specialty lies a cleric's obvious superiority in healing during battle. There are not many situations where HoT's are more effective, albeit there are some such occasions, if anybody tries to contradict that then they must be riding the short bus.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What this "parse" of sorts doesn't show is that not only can reactives heal more per minute, but they can be a huge and nearly instant heal in many cases (not at all like a heal over time). Also what this obviously doesn't show is crossing timers, which do indeed hurt the Templar more than the Fury, yet not much... you end up sacrificing only 1-3 spell casts of your choice.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think this shows a cleric's edge in healing with the direct/specialties, and no, it isn't a large edge. The extra spells on top of these are what make a Templar a much better healer. The utility, as has been mentioned 500000000 times, are what put Templars ahead of others, who have other types of spells instead. I refuse to believe any Templar who discounts the usefullness of the other spells, when there are an equal number (and more, in the game) Templars doing the opposite.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Note #1: A lot of people make a fuss over Back Into the Fray; what they fail to realize is that, given the nature of the Fury, if we cast Wild Salve > Nature's Elixer... Wild Salve is about ready already... So having another direct heal doesn't increase our healing power by 50%. It does increase it, as we can use BItF when the target is orange, followed by NE for a larger boost than using WS... That's how it was intended. If all 3 of these heals healed for 2x their amounts, with 2x the recast, it would be a different  story. In that case you could say we have 3 separate direct heals, as there would be no recast timer overlapping... as it is now, BItF allows us an occasional bigger heal and about 2 bonus Wild Salves a minute. Fury healing would not suffer much if BItF shared a timer with Wild Salve. I will say tho, that a Fury could not keep up vs tougher mobs without this spell (with a Fury healing, the tank gets into the orange a lot vs higher lvl/harder stuff).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Note #2: On typical mobs in your average exp group, not a whole lot of healing is necessary; this is something I can identify the Templars having problems with; however, how is this different from before the revamp... I dunno. A Templar can often heal the group without ever casting a heal, so their utility is making their primary function unecessary. This is the area where I don't know what should be done... I guess mobs people actively hunt for exp should be harder? I wouldn't be opposed to that. They could make the better mobs with the bigger rewards (itemwise and expwise) much harder.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway, there's more I forgot to add, but I've been doing this so long I'm starting to draw blanks. I'm sure plenty will disagree with everything or tell me it's all useless (maybe it is), but w/e. Sorry for the thread hijack, Wardens <3</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edit: oh oh, and who is calling Hibernation a direct heal for Furies haha. Hibernation is not a direct heal, it's a buffless buff that heals after 10 seconds... kinda like a HoT but not as good, unless you can predict an incoming AE 10 seconds in advance; then it's probably great.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class=date_text>11-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:57 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Goozman wrote:<div> </div> <div>Edit: oh oh, and who is calling Hibernation a direct heal for Furies haha. Hibernation is not a direct heal, it's a buffless buff that heals after 10 seconds... kinda like a HoT but not as good, unless you can predict an incoming AE 10 seconds in advance; then it's probably great.</div><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class="date_text">11-18-2005</span> <span class="time_text">09:57 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Sounds just like templar Sanctuary in that perspective.</span><div></div>

[Kyralis]

Templar sanctuary is singlehandedly the most useful priest ancient spell, IMO. Hibernation is great for certain things, but sanctuary is just in a different league. <div></div>