PDA

View Full Version : Best Healer Class: Which works better as an all around healer?


Vy
02-16-2007, 09:00 PM
<p><span style="color: #ffcc00"><b>Possible Healer Comparison Guide (eventually): </b></span></p><hr /><p>With the next update bringing a nerf to my Mystic's SOW, I have decided to feel out for some other options.</p><p>I currently 2-box a Monk/Mystic combo, with my Mystic being level 52 atm. I also have a level 30 Fury, and level 20 Templar.</p><p>I would really and truly like to figure out which class is a better overall fit for me. The healer in question would be duoing with either a Monk or Swashie all the time.</p><p>I have been taking into consideration the following: <b>ARMOR</b> -   Priests class    = Plate (higher mitigation, but lower avoidance?)   Shaman class = Chain   Druid class      = Leather (lower mitigation, but higher avoidance?) <b> BUFFS</b> -   (which ones are best for a scout or fighter combo?) Mystic - HP and Power buffed very high (with AA to make even better) Mystic - very nice damage per hit mititgation buffer. <b>MISC</b> Druids get portal spells! Warden gets a good SOW (or is it good?) Mystics had a great SOW, but soon to be gimped SOW. (50% dropped to 40% via AA) <b> DPS</b> - Shaman - Low Priest - Low (Inquisitor High?)(Templar none) Druid - High?</p><p><b>HEALS</b> -  What class is good at what types of heals? Templar - Slowest heals, Largest overall heals + Reactive (heal per hit) Inquisitior Fury - Fastest Heals!  good spike damage healing??, Best group healer? +HOT (heals over time){lower agro} Warden Mystic - slow heals?? + Ward (absorb damage) Defiler</p><p><b>AA Points</b> (only the really good stuff) (these are from the new class specific trees) Mystic - SOW up to 50% (for the moment); Boost HP Power and STR (even higher); Increases a buff to include all 5 stats... Fury - (will add in after I pull up Fury tree)  Warden - (will add in after I look at guildie's info) Templar - (will add in after I pul up Templar tree)</p><p>Essentially I may eventually have 3 or 4 lvl 50 healers, but I would really love to get as much feedback from other healers about what they like best about thier class, and what they feel is not so good. I will add to this as I can think of (or get) more info...</p>

Grimlux
02-16-2007, 09:19 PM
<p>Best all around healer is gonna be a Druid.(Either druid endgame will be just as efficient) They can also portal and wear leather armor. </p><p>Next I would say Templar. Templars have the biggest overall heals, slow as molasses cast times. No DPS. Wears plate. Some good mellee options AA's. The inquisitor counterpart is just as good as healing, w/out some of the tank buffs. Inquisitors are a great healer to up your DPS in group.</p><p>Mystics, good at stopping burst damage. Good debuffs. I hear people complain its a pretty boring class though. (Heresay) Defilers I hear are a bit more fun. Both wear Chain. </p><p>Druids are gonna be your best bet if your looking for a well rounded dps vs. healing class. Templars/Inq are gonna be your best bet if your really wanting to play a serious healing role. Shaman's if your all about debuffing. Shaman's I dont have much knowledge about. </p>

Grimlux
02-16-2007, 09:25 PM
<p>Best all around healer is gonna be a Druid.(Either druid endgame will be just as efficient) They can also portal and wear leather armor. </p><p>Next I would say Templar. Templars have the biggest overall heals, slow as molasses cast times. No DPS. Wears plate. Some good mellee options AA's. The inquisitor counterpart is just as good as healing, w/out some of the tank buffs. Inquisitors are a great healer to up your DPS in group.</p><p>Mystics, good at stopping burst damage. Good debuffs. I hear people complain its a pretty boring class though. (Heresay) Defilers I hear are a bit more fun. Both wear Chain. </p><p>Druids are gonna be your best bet if your looking for a well rounded dps vs. healing class. Templars/Inq are gonna be your best bet if your really wanting to play a serious healing role. Shaman's if your all about debuffing. Shaman's I dont have much knowledge about. </p>

Vy
02-16-2007, 10:10 PM
<cite>Grimlux wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Best all around healer is gonna be a Druid.(Either druid endgame will be just as efficient) They can also portal and wear leather armor. </p><p>Next I would say Templar. Templars have the biggest overall heals, slow as molasses cast times. No DPS. Wears plate. Some good mellee options AA's. The inquisitor counterpart is just as good as healing, w/out some of the tank buffs. Inquisitors are a great healer to up your DPS in group.</p><p>Mystics, good at stopping burst damage. Good debuffs. I hear people complain its a pretty boring class though. (Heresay) Defilers I hear are a bit more fun. Both wear Chain. </p><p>Druids are gonna be your best bet if your looking for a well rounded dps vs. healing class. Templars/Inq are gonna be your best bet if your really wanting to play a serious healing role. Shaman's if your all about debuffing. Shaman's I dont have much knowledge about. </p></blockquote><p>Thanks for the info, so far I rarely debuff with my mystic (which probably defeats the point). Since I 2-box my Mystic never solos, I would say I cure more than anything (I have a macro I puch that casts the 2 best DOT's), and then the ward (which is quite good) and the heals are next.  I have fould my pet to be next to useless and the debuffs are no fun since I have so many other things to do with my main...</p><p>What kind of buffs do Inquisitors get?  You mentioned they boost up DPS really well? Come to think of it, what are the best buffs each class gets.</p><p>Also anyone really know what the difference is between a Fury and Warden? </p>

khufure
02-16-2007, 10:30 PM
End game there are 1000 druids and less of the other types, especially shamans.  If you want to raid you are almost assured of being valuable with a shaman. Best group healer is a fury.  They buff dps of everything and can dps quite well themselves, too.

Vy
02-16-2007, 11:24 PM
<cite>khufure wrote:</cite><blockquote>End game there are 1000 druids and less of the other types, especially shamans.  If you want to raid you are almost assured of being valuable with a shaman. Best group healer is a fury.  They buff dps of everything and can dps quite well themselves, too. </blockquote> How many different damage spells (single target)  then enc/AoE  do Fury's get? When 2-boxing auto-attack is usually out of the question, so the DPS of a Fury would need to come from 2 or 4 or 6 spells I can que via 1,2, or 3 macros on my hotbar. (I do not click spells, everything is via hotbars.

Mordion89
02-17-2007, 01:37 AM
<cite>Grimlux wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Best all around healer is gonna be a Druid.(Either druid endgame will be just as efficient) They can also portal and wear leather armor. </p><p>Next I would say Templar. <b>Templars have the biggest overall heals</b>, slow as molasses cast times. No DPS. Wears plate. Some good mellee options AA's. The inquisitor counterpart is just as good as healing, w/out some of the tank buffs. Inquisitors are a great healer to up your DPS in group.</p><p>Mystics, good at stopping burst damage. Good debuffs. I hear people complain its a pretty boring class though. (Heresay) Defilers I hear are a bit more fun. Both wear Chain. </p><p>Druids are gonna be your best bet if your looking for a well rounded dps vs. healing class. Templars/Inq are gonna be your best bet if your really wanting to play a serious healing role. Shaman's if your all about debuffing. Shaman's I dont have much knowledge about. </p></blockquote><p> Actually, defiler's heal is as big as templar's heal and has same cast time, only difference is that defiler's heal costs health+power to cast.</p><p> For mobs damaging tank only(ie. 1 grp member receiving dmg only), i'd rank the healer as follows</p><p>1. Mystic </p><p>2. Defiler </p><p>3. Templar</p><p>4. Inquisitor</p><p>5. Fury</p><p>6. Warden</p><p>Reason: Due to the way wards work and debuffs, it is safe to say that shamans are better healers "if" only the tank is receiving dmg. The reason mystic is slightly better on healing tank only imo is because it has oberon/torpor/bolster/ancient balm(all single target, as oppose to defiler's spiritual circle/voice of the ancestors/maelstrom), as to why imo fury is slightly better at single target heal is because they have "back into the fray".</p><p> For mobs that ae (ie. multiple grp members receiving dmg), i'd rank the healers as follows</p><p>1. Warden</p><p>2. Fury</p><p>3. Templar</p><p>4. Inquisitor</p><p>5. Defiler</p><p>6. Mystic</p><p>Reason : As good as wards may sound, it's biggest down side is during ae situation, as wards has the lowest 'total heal potential" compare to reactives and regens, for example, 68 shaman single target ward wards for total 1788dmg, 68 cleric single target reactives average can heal for up to 481.5x5(2407.5), 68 druid's single target regen average can heal 482x6 (2892). This is clearly visible in ae situation and due to the fact the way wards and reactives work compare to regen, for example, if a 3k dmg aoe hit the group, a lvl 70shaman group ward wards around 3k dmg, which is enough to totally ward 1 target, whereas all other 5members receive 3,000dmg, a cleric reactives would have triggered across the group, healing for 500dmg each person, so everyone would get 2500dmg, but for druids' regen, it would have healed the entire group for 500x6 after 10seconds, so everyone will be at max health with just 1 group regen</p><p>But,  it is not to say that the healers at the bottoms cant do well in those situation, in the end, all that matters is the player's skill</p>

Lortet
02-17-2007, 02:57 AM
<p>Two boxing will (hopefully <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) mean you have a good understanding between your characters. The previous posters comments regarding the players skill is paramount. </p><p>The understanding other players have of the healer type assisting them is also important. I actually canned my mystic as I kept getting tanks who thought they were invincible not understanding wards - when my power ran out, the group would wipe with them squealing for heals. </p><p>On the other hand, trying to stop an over zealous shamen pre warding when you are tanking and trying to body pull can be very frsutrating - how many times do you have to tell them not to do it? (actually, not many after they wear the aggro every time, and that is a good teacher)</p><p>As to the fury vs warden comparison - in simple terms the fury has higher dps at the expense of a bit of healing power compared to the warden. I do note my fury burns power FAR faster than the warden - my warden can heal a group, add a bit of dps and end a fight with over 50% power while my fury in the same situation would be down to 20%.</p>

Looker1010
02-17-2007, 04:18 AM
Best all around healer ... Warden <img src="/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Oakleafe
02-18-2007, 09:15 AM
Druid would be best for you I'd say, but you'd have to get used to them (although you already have a Fury so you are halfway there).  The reason I say this is because you are using a monk, so with good AGI you need pre-heals less than other fighters.  The burst heals of the druids really suit the brawlers well.  The thing you'll need to watch out for with a Monk/Fury combo is the aggro a Fury can develop, as even the heals can draw aggro, and brawlers are the worst of the fighters for keeping aggro IMHO.  But, if you balance the two characters attacks well then you'll do just fine.  Fury's get 2 big nukes, 1 is single target damage and the other is focused AoE (by focused I mean just affects the grouped mobs you are engaging, there's no spill to surrounding mobs).  They also have 2 DoTs. As you dual-box (shudders) I'd suggest you shouldn't be using your healer as any groups main healer, so the good group heals of the druid will be best with you working as secondary (or lower) healer.  i.e. Your concentration should be more on your monk keeping/sharing the aggro retention, with a side-line of concentration going to your healer for group heals when needed. As Mordion said, Furys use up power quickly (the DPS costs) but some of this can be mitigated with power regen totems and potions.

Vy
02-18-2007, 12:08 PM
<cite>Oakleafe wrote:</cite><blockquote>Druid would be best for you I'd say, but you'd have to get used to them (although you already have a Fury so you are halfway there).  The reason I say this is because you are using a monk, so with good AGI you need pre-heals less than other fighters.  The burst heals of the druids really suit the brawlers well.  The thing you'll need to watch out for with a Monk/Fury combo is the aggro a Fury can develop, as even the heals can draw aggro, and brawlers are the worst of the fighters for keeping aggro IMHO.  But, if you balance the two characters attacks well then you'll do just fine.  Fury's get 2 big nukes, 1 is single target damage and the other is focused AoE (by focused I mean just affects the grouped mobs you are engaging, there's no spill to surrounding mobs).  They also have 2 DoTs. As you dual-box (shudders) I'd suggest you shouldn't be using your healer as any groups main healer, so the good group heals of the druid will be best with you working as secondary (or lower) healer.  i.e. Your concentration should be more on your monk keeping/sharing the aggro retention, with a side-line of concentration going to your healer for group heals when needed. As Mordion said, Furys use up power quickly (the DPS costs) but some of this can be mitigated with power regen totems and potions. </blockquote><p> Thank you Oakleafe, this is quite a bit of good information.  I actually do find myself barely doing anything at all with my Mystic through many battles, wishing I could key up more damage spells. As for agro control (I understand Monk's aren't great [quite a bummer]) However I do keep all 3 of my threat generating skills at Adept III, or Master.  It seems to help alot, I just need more practice cycling mobs to increase threat with each one. (Never was that good at that in past games)</p><p>And as to using my healer as a main healer, I do stray away from non-guild groups.  I solo/duo 80% of the content so far, and have found it very rewarding.  Im not into pickup groups, only guild stuff (which is small).  With no raids to have to worry about it makes life easier.  </p>

ashen1973
02-18-2007, 12:20 PM
<p>As someone who plays a tank class as my main and has little experince personally playing a healer (I do have a lvl 30ish Templar but he's my main tradeskiller and very, very rarely leaves his crafting dungeon <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) I have tanked in most situations with most healers. </p><p>With a good player behind the controls, I have to say they all are just as good as each other in group's. Some will find healing easier in a situation where others will struggle and vice-versa (i.e a cleric seems to cope better with big, spike hits and a druid better with constant smaller hits)</p><p>When it comes to high-end raiding, as posted before, there does seem to be a lot more druids about than other types (especially shamen) so, you will probably find it harder to get a raid-spot with a druid than other classes.</p>

MrWolfie
02-18-2007, 12:50 PM
<p><span style="color: #ffffff">In the beginning, the healers were not created equal. Some were the best at healing (priests), some were OK but had other "powers" which were very attractive to many prospective players (druids), and then there were the mediocre who you never saw many of (shamen).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff">And lo, the developers saw this and decided it was not good. All healers should heal equally effectively, they declared. And so they wrought changes upon the face of Norrath.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff">Now there are healers who are OK, but slow and having no DPS nor utility, their gods slapped their foreheads and with a mighty sigh, shrugged and held up their hands as if to say, "We may be gods, but they are developers and there's nothing we can do about it".</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff">There are also a few healers, rarely seen, seldom caught as they were so fleet-footed. But one day, a developer hobbled them until they dwindled and, soon, they faded from memory entirely.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff">And then there were those whose healing powers had increased mightily, and they had utility up the whazzoo. Some of their number were also blessed with DPS enow to make even content-hogging farmers stop & think twice. They proliferated, and unstoppable was their march across the known worlds of Norrath, for they were the chosen ones, especially the little ones with tiny wings.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff">So, to answer your question; "Which works better as an all around healer?" The official answer is: Any of them. And the real answer is: Fury/Warden.</span></p>

erin
02-18-2007, 01:45 PM
I 2 box, usually a tank/healer combo.  I've tried paladin/mystic, paladin/templar, zerker/fury, zerker/templar.  and some others at low levels (the ones I mentioned are all 60+).  Frankly, I just don't see the power of the mystic.  I'm probably playing them wrong or something, but I find that in a 2 box, or in a group with other 2 boxers, that the fury is a much better all around character.  More dps, very good heals, etc.  The templar is fine, as a healer, but doesn't bring a ton more to the table, as far as 2 boxing.  I'm not talking about raids by any means, that's a different story and I imagine that the criteria are very different.  For a group situation, any healer is good as long as the player behind the healer is good.  Decent gear, upgraded spells, and paying attention are way more critical than any minor differences in heal capability.  For 2 boxing, thus far I prefer the fury over all the others.  Its a preference thing though, like I said, maybe I'm just not using the mystic correctly and that's why I find them inefficient in healing.  Yes I use the wards <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Also paladin and mystic are a bad combo because they overlap too much.

thedu
02-18-2007, 03:47 PM
<a href="http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:hW9BaRKrYC0J:eqiiforums.station.son y.com/eq2/board/message%3Fboard.id%3Dspells%26message.id%3D9434+he aling+guide+site:http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...;cd=1&gl=us</a>

MaryJane666
02-18-2007, 05:06 PM
<p>As a defiler, I must add my 2c.  I notice that mystic is mentioned a lot, but defiler seems to be ignored in general so here I go.  Defilers should not be over looked.  They ward the same as mystics and have some Debuffs but they also have a few DOT spells that are very nice to have.  Plus I must point out that while we don't have as powerful heal spells as some of the other healer classes, there isn't a need to heal as much if you don't get hit as much <img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> especially if you keep your wards up.  Plus you get a pet as part of your AA line.  The pet is pretty weak hp wise and such, but that little extra damage the pet deals is nice to have.  Kinda like having another member in your party.   I don't raid much since I have a 2yr old so I can't tell you how well they work in raid situations, but they work very well in full groups.  Even if other party members are getting hit, pop off the group ward and the group heal and usually that gives the tank to grab aggro back.  </p><p>Well thats my 2cp for the subject.  I hope it helps!  Whatever you choose, make sure you enjoy the class and it works for you in a 2 box situtation.  And above all HAVE FUN playing!</p>

Kendricke
02-18-2007, 05:14 PM
<blockquote><p>Grimlux wrote: Next I would say Templar. Templars have the biggest overall heals, slow as molasses cast times. No DPS. Wears plate. Some good mellee options AA's. </p></blockquote><p>No DPS, eh?  You based that on bad personal experiences, or just common misperceptions?  If you're having issues with DPS as a Templar, let me know and I'm sure I can likely as not double or even triple your output.</p>

Oakleafe
02-18-2007, 05:39 PM
My last post here.  All healers bring something to the party.  They all have their plus points and their minuses.  If I wanted a soloing healer I would definitely have a Cleric of some sort, as the ones I've played to level 30 have been darn near invincible.  If I wanted to raid then I'd go Cleric or Shaman.  (BTW, I had a defiler a while back and was very happy with him, would recommend the class - I only deleted him due to a LU screwing with what felt good RPG-wise). But the question, as I understood it, was what would be best with a monk while duel boxing [shudders].  So I still say Fury/Warden - but lean towards the fury for the nukes. If the question had been "I am a Zerker", then I would not recommend a druid.  Druids just fit nicely with brawler classes, if you are looking to duel box (or just group). Plus points of druids is they have the ability to create portals to places with active druid rings - so hand to get around.  For a duel boxer I would think this would be handy.

Vy
02-19-2007, 09:13 PM
This has been a lot of very helpful information. I have decided to play my Fury from lvl 30 up to 50, and then re-evaluate him.  Seeing as how there is a strong amount of people that really enjoy them and recommend them.  I am hoping that the DPS is significantly higher than the Mystic in order to make up for the lack of run speed.

erin
02-19-2007, 10:42 PM
Oakleafe wrote: while duel boxing [shudders]. What's your issue with boxing exactly?  Don't like it, don't do it.  That's twice in one thread that you've poked at boxers.

DwarvesR
02-20-2007, 03:34 AM
<p>The best healer is the one that's actively engaged, using its abilities in order to assist and help the group.  Sure there are generalities as to what situations certain healers "shine" in, but overall they are all capable.</p><p>That said, my experience has been that in general the druid would be the "all around" healer.  The shamans are good at dealing with spike damage, the clerics excel at healing numerous rapid but small hits.  Druids can't prevent spike damage like a shaman, but they can heal it quick, and they can heal the damage done by the numberous rapid small hits too, though the regen takes a bit more time than the cleric's reactives healing it right as it comes in.</p><p>This isn't to say that a cleric can't deal with spike damage, or that a shaman can't deal with a lot of rapid hits, of course.</p><p>I have a 70 Inquisitor, a 65 Fury, and a 51 Defiler that I took to 39 as a mystic before betraying, so I've monkeyed around with all of them.  The style is different for each, but they can all be very active and I enjoy each of them.  Of course. . . the Inquisitor is the one I play the most. . . .  </p>

Goozman
02-20-2007, 06:40 AM
<p>No healer has "No DPS"; and Templars certainly aren't the lowest of them anymore(and not for a long time). As far as dps goes, it's more like Fury > Inquisitor > Templar/Warden > Mystic/Defiler; any of them must choose a proper aa setup to achieve decent dps.</p><p>I have played a monk alt 1-67 so far static duoing (and sometimes we group also) with my cousin's Mystic alt. We do things together, a monk simply couldn't do with a non-shaman. We never have trouble duoing blue-yellow heroic quests (including claymore and heritage). We can take on yellow heroic named thanks to debuffs and wards; and now through his aa's, he's even starting to contribute more to the dps without using much power or letting it get in the way of keeping me alive. I even tank said 67+ heroic named mobs in offensive stance thanks to the ungodly power of Mystic debuffs and wards.</p><p>Unless you plan on doing solo mobs and green heroics, druids are not a good choice for a Monk tank; someone said their method of healing fit avoidance tanking perfectly, that's completely bogus. Wards and debuffs fit Avoidance tanking perfectly, regens and small/fast heals work best for mitigation tanks who do not take big spike damage.</p><p>Note to add: Enhanced sow from a warden or mystic works incredibly well with monk's fd for some nice fd training. We can get to the bottom of sos or the top of poa in onyl a few minutes without fighting a single thing <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

DwarvesR
02-20-2007, 09:29 AM
<p>I duo'd my fury with a bruiser from 15 up to the low 50's.  We could take on yellow heroic named in that duo without a problem.  More dps helped when we could get it, but ti wasn't really necessary either.  Sure, it can be said that a shaman might be "better" in a duo with a brawler, but the fact that I could easily do it with my fury also tells me that the fury is a very capable "all around" healer.</p>

Ogrepalad
02-20-2007, 10:37 AM
<p>Do you primarily intend to duo-box? Or will you be grouping a lot, and the duo-box how you mean to level and play in a group.</p><p> The consensus I hear here is fury. However, if I am going in a dungeon, I will take a templar if I can--they can take more hits, whiich means everything when you are facing 3-5 mobs every pull and it takes precious seconds for you to grab and taunt off the mob currently beating on your healer.</p><p> BTW it seems all healers get aggro from the body pull. As a paladin, I have an instant AE stun to lay out, which, if done right, cures that problem every time--however SOE is evil and cunning and the mobs do not always run in together. The only serious problem is when a mystic pre-wards--that is a no no. (On the flip side, a pala din can pre-ward himself, and should).</p>

Sebastien
02-20-2007, 10:44 AM
<p>First, let me state my bias: I play a fury right now and love it.  In the past I had played warden and inquisitor, but this was before the major combat and class overhauls, so I'm not sure that experience is relevant.  I've had the chance to mess around with mystic *a little*.</p><p>I love all the healers in EQ2.  Playing a healer used to be one of those jobs that very few players actually enjoyed; hence in older games you were ALWAYS waiting on a healer.  In EQ2 (at least on my server), there are so many people playing healers that I've been invited to all-healer dungeon crawl groups.. we just can't find dps or even a tank sometimes.  (And yes, that group works..)  Well anyway its a testament to how solid and fun SOE made healers overall.</p><p>Here is what I don't understand..</p><p>Templar is clearly not en vogue right now.  Perhaps the dps is too low to be a viable solo'er, but I suspect that is a myth and that there are perfectly sound AA builds that let templars do respectable dps for a priest.  But really what surprises me is that Templar is typically ranked, by forum-goers, as pretty low on the healing charts.</p><p>I have to tell you that, each and every time my friends and I have grouped with a Templar, we were completely and totally blown away by what a powerful healing class they are.  I don't have anything in my arsenal that even approaches some of what Templars do.  So.. why do people on the forums think they are not great healers?  IMO they clearly are.</p>

Zagats
02-20-2007, 10:51 AM
They made 6 different healing classes for a reason - they all have a purpose.  Alot of people are getting down on wardens, but I personally like my warden.  He's a great healer - rarely does anyone in my parties die.  But yes, he does suck at DPS.  However, my main's a brigand, and I am sick of looking at parsers, so I really dont care that he doesnt do much dps as long as he keeps the peeps alive.

DevilDi
02-20-2007, 11:56 AM
<cite>erin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Frankly, I just don't see the power of the mystic.  </blockquote><p>I suppose I'm somewhat unique in that I 2boxed a Mystic to 70 with a 70 Fury.  </p><p>The Mystic requires patience.  There is a lot to do with a Mystic to make it an effective class.  Their strengths are in ward, buff and debuff.  As long as you have a class that can maintain the aggro, the wards are superior to any heals.  Once the wards are up, debuffing the mob with a nice arsenal of five spells slows the damage input even more.  Then you can apply the two DoT's and directs if the mob is still alive.  All the while, the dog is nipping away for at least some additional damage while adding whatever proc's you've decided.  This is also ontop of a healthy dose of buffs that add a few hundred hit points.  The beauty of boxing with another healer is I could cure myself or supplement the healing.  For more challenging fights, Bolster is killer.  </p><p>I am having success and fun with my now 70 Mystic in decent gear mentored to a 40's Illusionist.  Warding the Personae pet while keeping the group mezzed is challenging but fun.  I also have a zerker holding in the low 20's so I can mentor the Mystic for even more quests I skipped to recoup AA.</p>

Vy
02-22-2007, 10:53 PM
<cite>Ogrepaladin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Do you primarily intend to duo-box? Or will you be grouping a lot, and the duo-box how you mean to level and play in a group.</p><p> The consensus I hear here is fury. However, if I am going in a dungeon, I will take a templar if I can--they can take more hits, whiich means everything when you are facing 3-5 mobs every pull and it takes precious seconds for you to grab and taunt off the mob currently beating on your healer.</p><p> BTW it seems all healers get aggro from the body pull. As a paladin, I have an instant AE stun to lay out, which, if done right, cures that problem every time--however SOE is evil and cunning and the mobs do not always run in together. The only serious problem is when a mystic pre-wards--that is a no no. (On the flip side, a pala din can pre-ward himself, and should).</p></blockquote><p>So far I do only duo-box and guild groups.  When I am in group it seems I can usually almost duo the content we are doing anyway, so there is still no prob there.</p><p>I also do not like to body pull for that reason, and I hate having to taunt off a mob, however I have gotten my single mob taunt down to 4.5 second recast, and Mastered the skill, so that does help immensly.</p><p>I also most certainly agree, that a Mystic that pre-wards does not know thier class.  There may be situations where it is acceptable, but in my experience thus far, I have always seen trouble come from it. </p>

Vy
02-22-2007, 10:57 PM
<cite>DevilDice wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>erin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Frankly, I just don't see the power of the mystic.  </blockquote><p>I suppose I'm somewhat unique in that I 2boxed a Mystic to 70 with a 70 Fury.  </p><p>The Mystic requires patience.  There is a lot to do with a Mystic to make it an effective class.  Their strengths are in ward, buff and debuff.  As long as you have a class that can maintain the aggro, the wards are superior to any heals.  Once the wards are up, debuffing the mob with a nice arsenal of five spells slows the damage input even more.  Then you can apply the two DoT's and directs if the mob is still alive.  All the while, the dog is nipping away for at least some additional damage while adding whatever proc's you've decided.  This is also ontop of a healthy dose of buffs that add a few hundred hit points.  The beauty of boxing with another healer is I could cure myself or supplement the healing.  For more challenging fights, Bolster is killer.  </p><p>I am having success and fun with my now 70 Mystic in decent gear mentored to a 40's Illusionist.  Warding the Personae pet while keeping the group mezzed is challenging but fun.  I also have a zerker holding in the low 20's so I can mentor the Mystic for even more quests I skipped to recoup AA.</p></blockquote><p>I agree Devil that the ward and buffs are the best things the Mystic has. I usually throw in 2 dot's for added DPS however I am going to start trying your idea of throwing in a couble of debuffs instead.  Since I use 1 macro to do a double spell (last space on my main hotbar).</p><p>I would also say that so far 50-60% of the spells I use are actually the cure spells.  I find I dont need the heals all that often, and the extra damage can also be done without. </p>

MoonBread
08-23-2007, 03:05 PM
<p>In the beginning, the healers were not created equal. Some were the best at healing (priests), some were OK but had other "powers" which were very attractive to many prospective players (druids), and then there were the mediocre who you never saw many of (shamen).</p><p>And lo, the developers saw this and decided it was not good. All healers should heal equally effectively, they declared. And so they wrought changes upon the face of Norrath.</p><p>Now there are healers who are OK, but slow and having no DPS nor utility, their gods slapped their foreheads and with a mighty sigh, shrugged and held up their hands as if to say, "We may be gods, but they are developers and there's nothing we can do about it".</p><p>There are also a few healers, rarely seen, seldom caught as they were so fleet-footed. But one day, a developer hobbled them until they dwindled and, soon, they faded from memory entirely.</p><p>And then there were those whose healing powers had increased mightily, and they had utility up the whazzoo. Some of their number were also blessed with DPS enow to make even content-hogging farmers stop & think twice. They proliferated, and unstoppable was their march across the known worlds of Norrath, for they were the chosen ones, especially the little ones with tiny wings.</p><p>So, to answer your question; "Which works better as an all around healer?"The official answer is: Any of them.And the real answer is: Fury/Warden............................................ .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .</p><p>This guy speaks the truth.  The changes were usherd in with the first expantion that let us go over 50 ,what ever that was.  I played and still play a templer, the weakest most miserable class in the game by a godley amout back then. Now you get 10 AA points and can at lest kill a one up none heroic con in about 40 sec lol(wich is still the worst im guessing), but it WAS by far the best TANK healer  MY ONLY REWARD ( a monk is not a tank by the way). Anyways a templer would be your worst choice now or then for healing a monk. high avoidence and low AC tends to a small number of large hits.  A templer is painfuly slow and inefficent in that situation and doubley so with the single target issue. I can only through out one posible advantage.  Its 2 main reactive heals last for 30 seconds , you might find this labor saving in a 2 box situation, more fire and forget...By way i stll play my templer out of spite to the programers lol</p>

Ravaan
08-23-2007, 03:28 PM
<p>as a level 70 inquisitor i would say the best healer is .... the fury (lawl you think im going to say inquisitor?).</p><p>I think the Fury is the way healers SHOULD BE, they are a very fun class that can do great damage as well as heal very good. with my Sk and my Fiances fury, we can duo many things i would never have thought we could.</p><p>Furies are one of the most played healers though, but the only reason is because they are one of the funner (is that even a word) healers. there is a small minority of players that enjoy just buffing and healing, however most of us want to kill things. I saw a good analogy on another forum that relates to healers.  That healers are slaves to heroic knights ... patching them up as they do battle. </p><p>thats why you see many Furies and you see most inquisitors go battle cleric.</p>

Vatec
08-23-2007, 05:52 PM
<cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>as a level 70 inquisitor i would say the best healer is .... the fury (lawl you think im going to say inquisitor?).</p><p>I think the Fury is the way healers SHOULD BE, they are a very fun class that can do great damage as well as heal very good. with my Sk and my Fiances fury, we can duo many things i would never have thought we could.</p><p>Furies are one of the most played healers though, but the only reason is because they are one of the funner (is that even a word) healers. there is a small minority of players that enjoy just buffing and healing, however most of us want to kill things. I saw a good analogy on another forum that relates to healers.  That healers are slaves to heroic knights ... patching them up as they do battle. </p><p>thats why you see many Furies and you see most inquisitors go battle cleric.</p></blockquote>They're certainly the most versatile.  Portals, group invisibility, run speed, decent damage, and healing.That's why my Fury is my next project ;^)

thedu
08-23-2007, 06:06 PM
wow..necro posts

Virulence
08-23-2007, 06:39 PM
<p>I can give you my perspective in 2-boxing a mage/defiler combo. At this point in time, Im regretting not going fury.</p><p>IMO, the defiler class needs work (mystic Im not sure about). It doesnt have anything close to versatility from the EQ1 shaman and the wards are a bit too high maintenance to easily 2-box as I had expected. I tend to spam the imprecation line for extra dmg but the numbers are fairly pitiful when compared to a mage class. </p><p>The buff lines for defilers are very much ho-hum. Frankly, all the time warding, healing and debuffing would be better spent on a 2nd toon like a wizzie who simply blasts the mobs down quicker.</p><p>As a stand alone healer, Im not too impressed with the actual healing #s the defiler puts out. Which makes me wonder if they gave up straight healing for something what they really got in return. I consider the stat drain lines, which I believe they get 2-3 of, fairly [Removed for Content]. The attack speed slows are nice, but frankly less useful than they were in EQ1.</p><p>The defiler AAs choices also seem lacking in comparison to the fury. No real standout AA line IMO. And certainly nothing close to what some of the mages can do with AAs.</p>

Besual
08-24-2007, 04:10 AM
<cite>Virulence wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I can give you my perspective in 2-boxing a mage/defiler combo. At this point in time, Im regretting not going fury.</p><p>IMO, the defiler class needs work (mystic Im not sure about). It doesnt have anything close to versatility from the EQ1 shaman and the wards are a bit too high maintenance to easily 2-box as I had expected. I tend to spam the imprecation line for extra dmg but the numbers are fairly pitiful when compared to a mage class. </p><p>The buff lines for defilers are very much ho-hum. Frankly, all the time warding, healing and debuffing would be better spent on a 2nd toon like a wizzie who simply blasts the mobs down quicker.</p><p>As a stand alone healer, Im not too impressed with the actual healing #s the defiler puts out. Which makes me wonder if they gave up straight healing for something what they really got in return. I consider the stat drain lines, which I believe they get 2-3 of, fairly [Removed for Content]. The attack speed slows are nice, but frankly less useful than they were in EQ1.</p><p>The defiler AAs choices also seem lacking in comparison to the fury. No real standout AA line IMO. And certainly nothing close to what some of the mages can do with AAs.</p></blockquote>Defilers are a defensive class (turning a dire tiger into a [Removed for Content] cat). The debuffs / skills are more suited for a melee companion. And thanks to the insane power regen they can do it all day long. Of course you won't see the ranged damage numbers of a fury or a mage. This making a mage / defiler duo less efficient then a melee / defiler team.

lstead
08-24-2007, 11:01 AM
<p><i>IMO, the defiler class needs work (mystic Im not sure about). It doesnt have anything close to versatility from the EQ1 shaman and the wards are a bit too high maintenance to easily 2-box as I had expected. I tend to spam the imprecation line for extra dmg but the numbers are fairly pitiful when compared to a mage class. </i></p><p><i>The buff lines for defilers are very much ho-hum. Frankly, all the time warding, healing and debuffing would be better spent on a 2nd toon like a wizzie who simply blasts the mobs down quicker.</i></p><p><i>As a stand alone healer, Im not too impressed with the actual healing #s the defiler puts out.</i></p>Good Gods, I'd put defiler as the best healer in the game for pure healing power. You're using the wards right? They're your actual heals, not the heals, which for shaman are fairly slow to cast. And you have the debuffs, though I believe the mystic's are a bit better. (Which is sort of opposite as to how the classes are described by SOE.) And eventually the regens?In terms of overall utility, fun, and still quite able to heal well, it's the Fury. As a mystic who's fully spec'd into melee with 50 points in it, I'm able to solo about as well as a fury does out of the box. And you can't beat something like teleport.

Gutwren
08-24-2007, 11:06 AM
I farm the nest on my Fury by myself... does your melee spec do that well?Takes me an hour...Don't see any other healer class being able to do it, let alone in an hour.

azekah
08-24-2007, 11:15 AM
<p>rofl...you want change healer classes because of sow?</p><p>[Removed for Content] does that have to do with healing?</p>

lstead
08-24-2007, 11:28 AM
<cite>Gutwrench wrote:</cite><blockquote>I farm the nest on my Fury by myself... does your melee spec do that well?Takes me an hour...Don't see any other healer class being able to do it, let alone in an hour.</blockquote>Hence the "out of the box" part of that, it was meant to imply the superiority of the fury as a soloer.

Cathars
08-24-2007, 12:53 PM
More nooking furies is the last thing this game needs.

Gutwren
08-24-2007, 12:55 PM
When the nuking Fury parses right below the guilds shaman and is pulling 1k DPS, it isn't too bad~ =PFury just has to know their place.Heal first, Nuke second.

tass
08-24-2007, 02:33 PM
id say the all around healer is the warden. He gets you heals and he gets em fast. and while hes casting another heal his other heals are still pumping life. A decked out warden can take on 2 heroic grps in spaming heals and probably fill the air with green numbers lol.Though when you get to raids Id say your warders are the best, a templer would come up second but they have to know exacly what theyre doing otherwise they suck. heh trust me ive seen some bad templers.A fury does have the ability to heal just as well as a warden, though I still say the warden heals better lol, but they they have to be on the ball. A wardens job in a regular grp is to watch tv and caually hit a grp heal spell every so often lol.

Gutwren
08-25-2007, 12:29 PM
Eh, I've been in situations where I am healing two groups in a raid on my Fury... seem to do just fine.

Argul
08-25-2007, 12:32 PM
<p>That makes a lot of sense.. a fury can heal as well as a warden, but wardens heal better.</p><p> Personally furies heal just as well, if not better, if they know what they're doing.</p>

Ravaan
08-25-2007, 01:24 PM
<cite>Catharsis wrote:</cite><blockquote>More nooking furies is the last thing this game needs.</blockquote><p>last thing YOU think this game needs but a lot of people DO need or want just that. People now a days are tired of the (to quote paul barnett) namby pamby healers that sit in the back saying "and I heal, and I heal". You see the more action oriented healer trend poping up already. In WoW most of thier healers can do other things like damage or tank, in Warhammer thier healers are encouraged to do damage to improve thier healing ability. Heck in CoV thier healer is also thier primary ranged DPS class. </p><p>like i said before this is why you see so many Furies, this is why most (not to pull numbers out of my butt but i would say 90%) of inquisitors go the battle cleric line. People want to fight, people want to actively kill things .. not indirectly kill things by keeping others alive or debuffing.</p><p>now sure there is a small minority of players that do like to sit back and "support" but you shouldn't design all the classes just for them.</p><p>MMOs are changing and one of the better changes is that healers are starting to be able to fight thier own battles.</p>

Virulence
08-25-2007, 05:15 PM
<cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><i>IMO, the defiler class needs work (mystic Im not sure about). It doesnt have anything close to versatility from the EQ1 shaman and the wards are a bit too high maintenance to easily 2-box as I had expected. I tend to spam the imprecation line for extra dmg but the numbers are fairly pitiful when compared to a mage class. </i></p><p><i>The buff lines for defilers are very much ho-hum. Frankly, all the time warding, healing and debuffing would be better spent on a 2nd toon like a wizzie who simply blasts the mobs down quicker.</i></p><p><i>As a stand alone healer, Im not too impressed with the actual healing #s the defiler puts out.</i></p>Good Gods, I'd put defiler as the best healer in the game for pure healing power. You're using the wards right? They're your actual heals, not the heals, which for shaman are fairly slow to cast. And you have the debuffs, though I believe the mystic's are a bit better. (Which is sort of opposite as to how the classes are described by SOE.) And eventually the regens?In terms of overall utility, fun, and still quite able to heal well, it's the Fury. As a mystic who's fully spec'd into melee with 50 points in it, I'm able to solo about as well as a fury does out of the box. And you can't beat something like teleport.</blockquote><p>Spent 8hrs straight duo'ing with the defiler for further testing. I was being fairly sloppy with my macros and hotkeys originally, but now that Ive actually warming up to way the class plays. I think my main problem was I was trying to play the defiler like a straight up cleric, which was failing miserably. Still think the class needs a bit more DPS on the Dots/DDs tho.</p><p>Thanks for the input</p>

Vatec
08-28-2007, 01:18 AM
<cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Catharsis wrote:</cite><blockquote>More nooking furies is the last thing this game needs.</blockquote><p>last thing YOU think this game needs but a lot of people DO need or want just that. People now a days are tired of the (to quote paul barnett) namby pamby healers that sit in the back saying "and I heal, and I heal". You see the more action oriented healer trend poping up already. In WoW most of thier healers can do other things like damage or tank, in Warhammer thier healers are encouraged to do damage to improve thier healing ability. Heck in CoV thier healer is also thier primary ranged DPS class. </p><p>like i said before this is why you see so many Furies, this is why most (not to pull numbers out of my butt but i would say 90%) of inquisitors go the battle cleric line. People want to fight, people want to actively kill things .. not indirectly kill things by keeping others alive or debuffing.</p><p>now sure there is a small minority of players that do like to sit back and "support" but you shouldn't design all the classes just for them.</p><p>MMOs are changing and one of the better changes is that healers are starting to be able to fight thier own battles.</p></blockquote>Not really a new trend:  Dark Age of Campalot allowed healers to spec for DPS and many Albion Clerics did just that.  Smite Clerics were very popular because they wore the second best armor in the game (chainmail), had powerful ranged nukes, a PBAOE mezz (or was it a stun?), and could heal.  Unfortunately, due to the way specialization trees worked, going for DPS really did affect their ability to heal and Smite Clerics were often hated (however rightly or wrongly) for choosing that spec....

Fenrik
08-28-2007, 05:36 AM
<cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite> <blockquote>like i said before this is why you see so many Furies, this is why most (not to pull numbers out of my butt but i would say 90%) of inquisitors go the battle cleric line. People want to fight, people want to actively kill things .. not indirectly kill things by keeping others alive or debuffing.</blockquote>For me it's not so much about "killing" things. I like to control or influence things. In most todays MMORPGs the role of a healer typically is a very passive or reactive role and far too often not very challenging. There must be better ways to "heal" or "protect" players by just filling up lost health points.

Ravaan
08-28-2007, 06:32 PM
<cite>Fenrik wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite> <blockquote>like i said before this is why you see so many Furies, this is why most (not to pull numbers out of my butt but i would say 90%) of inquisitors go the battle cleric line. People want to fight, people want to actively kill things .. not indirectly kill things by keeping others alive or debuffing.</blockquote>For me it's not so much about "killing" things. I like to control or influence things. In most todays MMORPGs the role of a healer typically is a very passive or reactive role and far too often not very challenging. There must be better ways to "heal" or "protect" players by just filling up lost health points. </blockquote>then you are one of the minorities i talked about in the first post.

lstead
08-29-2007, 10:05 AM
<span class="postbody"><i>For me it's not so much about "killing" things. I like to control or influence things. In most todays MMORPGs the role of a healer typically is a very passive or reactive role and far too often not very challenging. There must be better ways to "heal" or "protect" players by just filling up lost health points.</i>There are other ways to mitigate damage, they just aren't healing. I'd say the best game to demonstrate this to date is COX (City of Heroes/Villains). My rad/rad defender was a marvel of debuffing. I think I dropped the damage a group was capable of by, oh god, 66%? (Provided nobody the mobs I anchored the AOEs on.) A lot of the game is based on fighting large groups of enemies, which opens up new ways to mitigate damage. A well placed AOE could drive mobs away from your party. A root could do the same. The problem is that all things need to be balanced, the game has little in the way of traditional healing and honestly, pure healing is pretty dull to do there and I do not have similar feelings about healing here. If it had similar healing power that we have here in EQ2, you wouldn't be able to have those kind of abilities because they'd make encounters trivial. If you deal with huge groups of critters like COX, you correspondingly tend to end up with weaker bosses. No approach is really better or worse. They need to balance.</span>

Mildavyn
08-29-2007, 10:19 AM
<p>Just to add my 2c, I've seen some truely amazing healing coming out of a templar, far beyond anything I've seen from any other healer. I play a defiler as my second main and I can tell you for a fact that I wouldn't have been able to keep a group up like that Templar did.</p><p>Anyone who says templars are not the kings of healing is quite obviously fooling themselves, and if your templar can't keep a monk up, get a better templar. Reactives are only a small part of the templar's healing skills.</p>

Maldrick
08-30-2007, 08:11 PM
<cite>Vatec wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Catharsis wrote:</cite><blockquote>More nooking furies is the last thing this game needs.</blockquote><p>last thing YOU think this game needs but a lot of people DO need or want just that. People now a days are tired of the (to quote paul barnett) namby pamby healers that sit in the back saying "and I heal, and I heal". You see the more action oriented healer trend poping up already. In WoW most of thier healers can do other things like damage or tank, in Warhammer thier healers are encouraged to do damage to improve thier healing ability. Heck in CoV thier healer is also thier primary ranged DPS class. </p><p>like i said before this is why you see so many Furies, this is why most (not to pull numbers out of my butt but i would say 90%) of inquisitors go the battle cleric line. People want to fight, people want to actively kill things .. not indirectly kill things by keeping others alive or debuffing.</p><p>now sure there is a small minority of players that do like to sit back and "support" but you shouldn't design all the classes just for them.</p><p>MMOs are changing and one of the better changes is that healers are starting to be able to fight thier own battles.</p></blockquote>Not really a new trend:  Dark Age of Campalot allowed healers to spec for DPS and many Albion Clerics did just that.  Smite Clerics were very popular because they wore the second best armor in the game (chainmail), had powerful ranged nukes, a PBAOE mezz (or was it a stun?), and could heal.  Unfortunately, due to the way specialization trees worked, going for DPS really did affect their ability to heal and Smite Clerics were often hated (however rightly or wrongly) for choosing that spec....</blockquote><p>The DAoC smite cleric debacle is an excellent example of why games need to tread very lightly in this area, imo.  Because speccing smite meant you could solo in pve (verses not being able to solo at all) and made you op in rvr for the reasons Vatec listed (yep it was a mezz btw) it presented clerics with a very serious quandry between going smite or speccing to do the things people generally expect clerics to be able to do (like heal).</p><p>The nerf smite ultimately took was chalked up to rvr balance, but the hatred you speak of was not just from the other realms...It was from within Albion also because it got to a point where you couldnt find a support cleric for anything but buffs.  The arguments were endless...In the end the situation got so out of hand all Mythic could do was nerf the line.  Whole thing was a mess and has had a lasting impact on the game.</p><p>For the other poster quoted, I totally disagree with the generalizations and assumptions being made.  "A small minority" who play healers want to play support roles?  Really? Did you take a poll?  Some people enjoy doing other things besides healing as priests....Others prefer being pure support.  I did not realize any studies had been done as to actual percentages.</p><p>I also disagree with your examples.  I play an Inquisitor main and I would hazard a guess that a lot more than 90% of inquisitors go Battle Cleric but it's not because we are all frothing at the mouth wanting to melee and dps.....It's because there's really no other logical way to go.  If you go look at the Inquisitor AAs there really is no "heal spec" per se....just some abilities here and there that enhance healing/casting....and they are intertwined with lines that enhance melee/dps....So that being the case, and since full battle cleric is only 21 points out of the entire spec, it's really pretty insane not to go that way because you are aren't sacrificing anything better or anything that affects your healing by going that way.  There are definately useful ways to use those 21 points besides battle cleric, but I highly doubt any of them would be even close to as useful overall as it currently stands.</p><p>Not that I'm complaining.....My Inquisitor has definately gone in directions I didn't expect when I created him, particularly in dps, and I have had a lot of fun with it.  But don't mistake that as an endorsement of SOE taking the class in these directions.  If an AA line were available that improved my healing/support even close to as much as battle improves my dps I would move those 21 points in a heartbeat.</p>

sorinev
08-30-2007, 09:13 PM
I've been back about a week after being gone for a year and a half. I've been a Fury since I first started back in December 2004. It was my first character and my main. Always has been and always will be. I love my Fury. After DoF hit and we got a much needed boost to our healing, I started seeing people jumping on the bandwagon. Now after a year and a half I see furies coming out of the woodwork and it frustrates and disappoints me. We are a dime a dozen now. I remember when you could look through post after post after post here on the forums about guild recruitment, and 90% of them wanted Fury. It was great being in demand, especially as a skilled Fury. Nowdays, I don't think it holds true anymore. For all around healer, I don't know. I do great as a Fury, but being in the good guild I was in, all of our healers could rock a group in 95% of situations because we knew our classes. At the time though, I feel our healing potential was squandered because of the lack of aoe stuff outside of raids (even in raids, you could just joust). We have 3 group heals that offer absolutely enormous healing potential. The group regen heals EACH person for what the group ward/reactive does for ONE person. The group direct heal is fine. Then there's Hibernation, which is a 2nd direct group heal and 3rd group heal overall that is great in the right situations. I hope things have changed after a year and a half because this absolutely amazing group healing potential was going to complete waste. I would cast my group heals maybe once or twice a day and that's sad because you can't beat a druid when it comes to group healing (recovery, not prevention). For duoing though, I find that I work great with brawlers. The well geared, well skilled ones can keep aggro from me no matter what happens, and I find that their avoidance is well suited to our regens. It requires you putting a lot of faith into the RNG (random number generator) of their avoidance though, because your first instinct is to heal out all the damage instead of just throwing a regen up and having faith in the avoidance. I've duoed with brawlers a LOT and I find them to be my favored partners in terms of the balance of their dps and their hit-taking. If you are two boxing, and are skilled enough at it, I'd say definitely try Fury/Brawler. But as mentioned, in a good group that is constantly pulling, I've always found that I eat through power like no tomorrow, both pre- and post-DoF. So I found it useful to have another healer in the group purely because of that, just in case.

Dendro
08-30-2007, 09:49 PM
If you're 2boxing with a monk (or other non-plate tank), the best choice is either mystic or defiler; warden/fury is ok, templar/inquisitor is not a good choice.

YummiOger
08-31-2007, 12:43 AM
This Origanal Poster was back in Febuary .. Loooooonnnggg Necro Post.... let it die lol

GorgukGrimmfist
08-31-2007, 06:01 AM
I got to say i think you are underestimating the defiler.  We are always in the MT group for raids and have good tank buffs actually.  We have a str mit buff, power/hp, and the list goes on.  With a 2 box situation it may be hard to get everything out of teh defiler that is possible because we dont just sit back and buff/heal.  A defiler can debuff mobs so much that it makes content that would haven been immpossible possible.  At 66 i can debuff str wis and agi for just under 100 i have dps debuffs in teh 30's total and a slow as well.  Add to that wards and heals, and instant power through canabalize we are very formitable.  LOL we are just misunderstood, we do not keep the tank alove through traditional means ( heal sit back heal)  we are very proactive.  Basically we ward and cripple a mob so it doesnt do the damage in the first place.  Damage not taken is better than heals IMO.

Birn
08-31-2007, 08:28 AM
Best healer class = Mystic.There - Can close the thread now <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

lstead
08-31-2007, 11:19 AM
Just IMHO as a non-smite cleric of the smite-cleric era, smite clerics were good, but they were only really amazing at one thing: destroying stealthers. And that was their undoing. They were the equivilent of a destroyer to the stealthers u-boat. Stabby McGanker attacks, 90% of cleric's health is gone--any other class is doomed but the chain saves us. Cloth wearers are probably one shotted. Instant PBAEO mez. That gives you time to self heal to full. Then stun and nuke until Mr. Invisible is dead, all the time he's just standing there looking silly. At the time stealthers were the powergamer class of choice and were Gods and felt like that was their divine right. If they got that stab off, they won 90% of fights, probably more. With smite clerics they won 0%. It drove them crazy and unleashed the full forum wrath of the win at all costs FOTM PVPers and their whining got smite nerfed into the stone age. Mythic had a cyclical way of looking at classes so once that happened, there was no hope for a reprieve until the next time clerics came to the top of the stack, which took 18-24 months. I have no idea if they ever fixed smite or not.

Weekapaug
08-31-2007, 12:22 PM
<cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just IMHO as a non-smite cleric of the smite-cleric era, smite clerics were good, but they were only really amazing at one thing: destroying stealthers. And that was their undoing. They were the equivilent of a destroyer to the stealthers u-boat. Stabby McGanker attacks, 90% of cleric's health is gone--any other class is doomed but the chain saves us. Cloth wearers are probably one shotted. Instant PBAEO mez. That gives you time to self heal to full. Then stun and nuke until Mr. Invisible is dead, all the time he's just standing there looking silly. At the time stealthers were the powergamer class of choice and were Gods and felt like that was their divine right. If they got that stab off, they won 90% of fights, probably more. With smite clerics they won 0%. It drove them crazy and unleashed the full forum wrath of the win at all costs FOTM PVPers and their whining got smite nerfed into the stone age. Mythic had a cyclical way of looking at classes so once that happened, there was no hope for a reprieve until the next time clerics came to the top of the stack, which took 18-24 months. I have no idea if they ever fixed smite or not.</blockquote><p>I did too (play a support cleric at the time) as well as an assassin.....still do sometimes <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> but has been a while.....They eventually added a whole set of visible classes to the game that pretty much eat stealthers.....Some can even buff themselves to see thru stealth at intervals.....Smite clerics just didn't fit the rock-scissors-paper balance goal they were going for and the realm was suffering without healers.....Although there are those who argue that Albion's more recent problems (at least the last time i was playing) can be traced back to the smite nerf leaving holes in the overall realm ability set.  Not sure I agree, but it does seem to carry some weight at that moment you are standing there helpless waiting to get whacked by a group of mids who's healer just landed an AOE stun/mezz or whatever on your group lol</p><p>They did eventually rebalance and ungimp smite....It's nothing like it was but is apparently viable again.</p>

lstead
08-31-2007, 12:46 PM
Gods, I'm sort of looking forward to War, but thinking about that hellacious nerf/buff cycle where if your 'fix' isn't a fix you wait a year or two for it to be fixed just makes me cringe. I remember a really hellacious overnerf here in EQ2 and there was a semi-apology and fix within a week.