Healing Idea: Reactive heal procs when not hit

Hidehi · 03-08-2006, 03:04 PM

What do you guys think about this idea?

Reactive Heal procs when
- Mob hits RH'ed PC, always proc
- Mob misses RH'ed PC, at some rate like 30%, and only when RH'ed PC's health is under 75%

I often play in a party with Monk MT.As Monk/Bruiser is avoiding tank, I have hard time keeping up MT Monk healed.

RH doesn't work well with avoiding tank (not completely worthless, of course), and our insta-heal is.... not enough for spike damages like 1.5k dmg x 3-4 times in a row.I want to hear suggestions from other templars.Sorry if there's anything strange in my English...

Timaarit · 03-08-2006, 04:04 PM

Well, templars are the only class who can heal different tanks with different efficiency. We have easiest with high mitigation tanks and we do very badly with low mitigation tanks. It is just they way things are and as it is, the devs have no intention on balancing the priests. So seems like we just have to quit or live with it.The worst is that when everything is going ok with maximum of 1 or 2 adds, every other healer does the same as we do with high mitigation tanks, but fare a lot better with low mitigation tanks. Only when the group with high mitigation tank gets lots of adds do templars fare slightly better if the fight is over fast (and the fight is doable). If the fight is long, other healers will catch up and even bypass us if they survive the intial stage when hits are coming in fast. Templars are at best when fighting heroic groups, but with lengthened combat, we have no advantage, only disadvantage with avoidance tanks.

Antryg Mistrose · 03-08-2006, 06:16 PM

Druids have the same problem. The only healers that really shine with avoidance tanks are shamens (with their wards).As shamens were broken for so long, they are still in a minority, which is one of the main reasons you don't see to many avoidance tanks, actually tanking.The techniquie I use when grouped with an avoidance tank, is to keep your power efficient single target reactive up regardless to take the edge off the initail hit, and be very quick on the small direct heal, followed by the big (slower) direct heal. I tend to stay away from the group reactive, as its while I'm casting it that the tank seems to get hit, and it takes too long to cast anyway. We do have other heals apart from the big 4, and using all of them keeps you on your toes - something I really noticed when the reactive heals were broken recently. The others do work - Reverance, HealOnMobDeath, Mark, ...It is much harder work overall than for a mitigation tank, and the mobs you can solo heal for, are lower, but it is doable.

Message Edited by Antryg Mistrose on 03-08-200601:29 PM

Timaarit · 03-08-2006, 06:31 PM

No, it doesn't represent the content. But it represents basically the only situation where reactives are great. A situation where you get so many adds that reactives are down before their recast timer has run through. These fights are always long and in the end, other healers go past us with healing efficiency. In common content, we are no worse nor better than any other class when MT is mitigation tank. But with avoidance tanks we are at disadvantage. Along with DPS, that is another unbalanced thing with priests, druids and shamans are just as good with avoidance tanks as they are with mitigation tanks.

Hidehi · 03-08-2006, 06:53 PM

Timaarit wrote:But with avoidance tanks we are at disadvantage. Along with DPS, that is another unbalanced thing with priests, druids and shamans are just as good with avoidance tanks as they are with mitigation tanks.

So I hit upon idea of making RH procs sometimes when mob attacks but misses MT, not only when MT is hit.Isn't It a nice solution for some of templar's disadvantage with avoiding tanks, and not so overpowered compared with druid / shaman ?

Espyderman · 03-08-2006, 11:00 PM

Hidehisa wrote:
What do you guys think about this idea?
Reactive Heal procs when
Mob hits RH'ed PC, always proc
Mob misses RH'ed PC, at some rate like 30%, and only when RH'ed PC's health is under 75%
I often play in a party with Monk MT.As Monk/Bruiser is avoiding tank, I have hard time keeping up MT Monk healed.
RH doesn't work well with avoiding tank (not completely worthless, of course), and our insta-heal is.... not enough for spike damages like 1.5k dmg x 3-4 times in a row.I want to hear suggestions from other templars.Sorry if there's anything strange in my English...

Monks should not group with templars as solo healers, it just makes the templars job harder. Templars need tanks who can take a few hits, monks cannot take a hit most times. Monks are better paired with wardens, mystics or furies as their heals will do better on a monk then any templars heals.

Dont get me wrong, ive successfully had a monk tank and we done very well with me solo healing, however i had to heal twice as much then usual and we got some hard times alot more then a plate wearing tank, i like the way it is i wouldnt change it.

Timaarit · 03-09-2006, 01:07 AM

Hidehisa wrote:
Timaarit wrote:But with avoidance tanks we are at disadvantage. Along with DPS, that is another unbalanced thing with priests, druids and shamans are just as good with avoidance tanks as they are with mitigation tanks.
So I hit upon idea of making RH procs sometimes when mob attacks but misses MT, not only when MT is hit.Isn't It a nice solution for some of templar's disadvantage with avoiding tanks, and not so overpowered compared with druid / shaman ?

well, that would make reactives another lotto heal :smileyindifferent:

Hidehi · 03-09-2006, 08:39 AM

Timaarit wrote:well, that would make reactives another lotto heal :smileyindifferent:

A kind of lotto heal.In other words, another series of Heal over Time specialized for Tank (still no use for healer / caster who doesn't get attacked at all).

kenji · 03-09-2006, 09:35 AM

i rather they just add another heal that proc when mob miss.....just my 2cp

Timaarit · 03-09-2006, 11:53 AM

Hidehisa wrote:
Timaarit wrote:well, that would make reactives another lotto heal :smileyindifferent:
A kind of lotto heal.In other words, another series of Heal over Time specialized for Tank (still no use for healer / caster who doesn't get attacked at all).

Now the analogy here escapes me. Do you mean that HoT's have a less than 100% chance to heal per tick instead of 100%?Ot do you mean that all heals are proc heals since they require that damage is taken? In this case what are heals that have a chance to heal if someone 'wins' in your lotto?

Hidehi · 03-09-2006, 01:48 PM

Timaarit wrote:
Now the analogy here escapes me. Do you mean that HoT's have a less than 100% chance to heal per tick instead of 100%?Ot do you mean that all heals are proc heals since they require that damage is taken? In this case what are heals that have a chance to heal if someone 'wins' in your lotto?

I'm not good at English, so not sure if my explanation is enough.

Hidehisa wrote:
Reactive Heal procs when
Mob hits RH'ed PC, always proc
Mob misses RH'ed PC, at some rate like 30%, and only when RH'ed PC's health is under 75%

Naming this heal "New RH",a kind of HoT means that New RH doesn't proc every tick, but if mob keeps attacking MT, New RH will be something like HoT.New RH has nothing to do with ticks. Just like normal RHs, It checks for proc only when New RH'ed PC is being attacked.If New RH'ed PC is damaged, heal goes off for 100% .If New RH'ed PC is attacked but the attack doesn't deal damage (miss / confound), heal goes off at some rate like 25%-30%.Pro: New RH goes well with both mitigation tanks and avoiding tank.Con: New RH is useless with healer/caster who doesn't get attacked.

Timaarit · 03-09-2006, 02:38 PM

Hidehisa wrote:
Naming this heal "New RH",a kind of HoT means that New RH doesn't proc every tick, but if mob keeps attacking MT, New RH will be something like HoT.New RH has nothing to do with ticks. Just like normal RHs, It checks for proc only when New RH'ed PC is being attacked.If New RH'ed PC is damaged, heal goes off for 100% .If New RH'ed PC is attacked but the attack doesn't deal damage (miss / confound), heal goes off at some rate like 25%-30%.Pro: New RH goes well with both mitigation tanks and avoiding tank.Con: New RH is useless with healer/caster who doesn't get attacked.

HoT heals over time, it has no proc percentage, it will heal if there is something to heal. A percentage to a reactive proc means just another lotto heal.If someone really wants to balance these heals, they will give a boost for reactives to compensate the fact that reactives dont heal damage after it has been applied. There already is a bonus for HoT's and reactives that compensate the fact that wards block all incoming damage up to their capacity. So reactives need to heal more than HoT's per proc/tic to compensate. Especially our group reactive needs this boost.As for pros, the boost would make us better than druids with mitigation tanks and would also give us more healing power with avoidance tanks even though it would not get us to equal line with others. As for the con, no reactive will heal someone who is not getting attacked. So that is not a con for the new RH, it is a con for the reactives in general and it needs to be compensated by boosting reactives.Edit: as far as I am concerned, this boost could be done by reducing single target reactive to 4 procs and increasing amount healed per tick by 20% and reducing group reactive to 7 procs and raising a single proc heal by equal amount.

Message Edited by Timaarit on 03-09-200611:40 AM

Hidehi · 03-09-2006, 03:48 PM

Timaarit wrote:HoT heals over time, it has no proc percentage, it will heal if there is something to heal. A percentage to a reactive proc means just another lotto heal.

Yes, of course. y word "a kind of HoT" is not mentioning function of New RH, just a metaphor or something ... I should have said something like "HoT-like-only-when-cast-on-MT"........ bah English is difficult !!!!:smileysad:

Timaarit wrote:as far as I am concerned, this boost could be done by reducing single target reactive to 4 procs and increasing amount healed per tick by 20% and reducing group reactive to 7 procs and raising a single proc heal by equal amount.

This boost seems good yes.I first thought about lengthening duration of reactives, but when fighting with tough mobs, it will just barely be a boost.Anyway, it seems obvious that reactive heals needs to be boosted to go with avoiding tanks.I wonder wy noone else brought up this kind of discussion....edited: and kenjiso, adding another heal will be much large change, so SOE won't take the trouble to do that, I guess......

Message Edited by Hidehisa on 03-09-200607:50 PM

highlander · 03-09-2006, 10:09 PM

I like the system as is. I chose a cleric/templar because I wanted to heal a plate class tank (of which I think the plate class tank should be the best tank in the game). I disagree that priests are not balanced, I think they are. But, in terms of giving us a HoT instead of the reactives that we currently enjoy, I disagree. I think it would unbalance the game and make templars more desired than other healer classes.

In terms of healing a monk, our current arsenal of spells provide us sufficient healing ability to keep a monk alive. Place a single or single and group reactive on the monk, use lotto heals and spot heal when needed.

We might not be the most effecient at it -- in that I have to use more mana and actually pay attention to my screen to do it -- but its still fairly easy.

Xaax · 03-09-2006, 10:55 PM

highlander13 wrote:
I like the system as is. I chose a cleric/templar because I wanted to heal a plate class tank (of which I think the plate class tank should be the best tank in the game). I disagree that priests are not balanced, I think they are. But, in terms of giving us a HoT instead of the reactives that we currently enjoy, I disagree. I think it would unbalance the game and make templars more desired than other healer classes.
In terms of healing a monk, our current arsenal of spells provide us sufficient healing ability to keep a monk alive. Place a single or single and group reactive on the monk, use lotto heals and spot heal when needed.
We might not be the most effecient at it -- in that I have to use more mana and actually pay attention to my screen to do it -- but its still fairly easy.

I very much disagree, for the first time in months I group'd with a monk (67) as the MT. We went to BS, HoF and Vault. We had 2 healers, a fury and myself a ranger, a conjuror and a dirge. In BS we did fine but didnt get to to the big mob as our instance was bug and he wouldnt spawn. In The Vault and Halls of Fate the monk just got ate. With both of my reactives going and the furys regens going the monk would still get a huge spike of damage every now and then that would take him from green to red almost instantly. The thing that got me is at the end of the fight 70% of the time my group reactive was stull up and many times my single reactive was up. If they were not up it usualy was due to them wearing off the monk, not using their full ticks. I was left with tossing my direct heals and waiting for re-cast timers watching my reactives go unused.

I did get use out of my Mark and Curate but they just do not heal anywhere near enough to make a difference. It would be nice if they nix'd the debuff off of Mark and added an extra 100-150 heal a tick to it.

I did learn that If the mobs are yellow get a plate tank. I will not be grouping with a monk as MT again on hard content.

highlander · 03-10-2006, 03:09 AM

Actually, I think you summed up my point nicely. In BS your Monk MT was sufficient at doing that content. In the others (harder areas) he got ate. Then it wasn't your in ability to keep him healed (or that of the fury) but that the challange of the mobs was greater than what that paticular group could do. I like that. It meant that you (as the group) had to adjust strategy or come back with better gear or higher levels. For example, if initial damage was too great (mob started off with a HT or nuke) the conj could've sent a pet in to absorb the 1st attack. If the damage was over the course of a long encounter it meant that you as a group didn't have sufficient dps to do those mobs. In either case, it wasn't a failure of your or the fury's healing.

I don't think we should have 1 special heal or a change in our reactive to accomodate a monk as MT. If a monk really wants to be MT a shaman has always been the best choice for the monk as MT. I think SOE tried to give us 1 monk heal, Reverence. I considered that my monk heal as monks tend to power spam to increase their dps. Since the heal is triggered on how much power is consumed by the target of the spell, it would make sense that this would act like a ward for the monk. Unfort, I don't think the spell ever worked as intended and we've had to adapt our current spell set for monks that want to 'play' MT.

Since damage to a monk can be streaky (but generally catastrophic) as I mentioned in the previous post -- spot heal when needed.

Now, its not that I have anything against Monks... I have monk friends. :smileytongue: But, if its hard content, I want a plate tank -- give me a guardian any day. If its greens, blues or just an xp run, a Monk can still work.

Xaax · 03-10-2006, 04:37 AM

highlander13 wrote:
Actually, I think you summed up my point nicely. In BS your Monk MT was sufficient at doing that content. In the others (harder areas) he got ate. Then it wasn't your in ability to keep him healed (or that of the fury) but that the challange of the mobs was greater than what that paticular group could do. I like that. It meant that you (as the group) had to adjust strategy or come back with better gear or higher levels. For example, if initial damage was too great (mob started off with a HT or nuke) the conj could've sent a pet in to absorb the 1st attack. If the damage was over the course of a long encounter it meant that you as a group didn't have sufficient dps to do those mobs. In either case, it wasn't a failure of your or the fury's healing.
I don't think we should have 1 special heal or a change in our reactive to accomodate a monk as MT. If a monk really wants to be MT a shaman has always been the best choice for the monk as MT. I think SOE tried to give us 1 monk heal, Reverence. I considered that my monk heal as monks tend to power spam to increase their dps. Since the heal is triggered on how much power is consumed by the target of the spell, it would make sense that this would act like a ward for the monk. Unfort, I don't think the spell ever worked as intended and we've had to adapt our current spell set for monks that want to 'play' MT.
Since damage to a monk can be streaky (but generally catastrophic) as I mentioned in the previous post -- spot heal when needed.
Now, its not that I have anything against Monks... I have monk friends. :smileytongue: But, if its hard content, I want a plate tank -- give me a guardian any day. If its greens, blues or just an xp run, a Monk can still work.

I would agree with you if SoE didnt reinforce the idea over and over again that all, ALL healers should heal equaly and all tanks should tank equally in an xp group. Leaving all DPS/utility arguments aside. straight up healing and tanking is not equal currenty. I beleve it is not even close. There are issues that SoE needs to work out with tanking/healer combos in order to make healing even across the board

Timaarit · 03-10-2006, 01:12 PM

highlander13 wrote:
I like the system as is. I chose a cleric/templar because I wanted to heal a plate class tank (of which I think the plate class tank should be the best tank in the game). I disagree that priests are not balanced, I think they are. But, in terms of giving us a HoT instead of the reactives that we currently enjoy, I disagree. I think it would unbalance the game and make templars more desired than other healer classes.
In terms of healing a monk, our current arsenal of spells provide us sufficient healing ability to keep a monk alive. Place a single or single and group reactive on the monk, use lotto heals and spot heal when needed.
We might not be the most effecient at it -- in that I have to use more mana and actually pay attention to my screen to do it -- but its still fairly easy.

Well, shamans and druids are equally good healers for plate tanks. And since they are superior with brawlers, healers are not balanced. This simply isn't a matter of opinion since all the facts you see tell the same story, plate tanks do not care who is healing them while brawlers avoid clerics as much as possible. Same goes the other way, shamans and druids do not care who is mt while clerics do. Does that seem balanced to you?

Hidehi · 03-10-2006, 01:27 PM

Timaarit wrote:Well, shamans and druids are equally good healers for plate tanks. And since they are superior with brawlers, healers are not balanced. This simply isn't a matter of opinion since all the facts you see tell the same story, plate tanks do not care who is healing them while brawlers avoid clerics as much as possible. Same goes the other way, shamans and druids do not care who is mt while clerics do. Does that seem balanced to you?

That's what I wanted to say !!Healers seems balanced comparing just spell numerics (heal per pow, heal per sec...), but not balanced in the real world.I'm not insisting on making cleric better healer, just want to get rid of apparent weak point of cleric AS A HEALER.I play cleric to heal, I don't want DPS, I want it to be at least as good healer as druid / shaman when grouping with avoiding tanks.

Zabumt · 03-10-2006, 01:55 PM

NOTE: This is for heroic and lower encounters only!

Not saying we can heal avoidance tanks better than plate tanks. But, do you guys judiciously use your, relatively speaking, long stun often? On the more difficult encounters, I can get it off a few times in a fight. And in a group with say two templars coordinating their stun, the mob really doesn't throw out much damage. Now coordinate our nice stuns with other class's stuns. You see what I'm getting at. Basically, if a mob is kicking the hell out of a tank, find other means to mitigate the damage.

NOTE: This is for epic encounters!

Yes, our reactive and lotto healing is sub-par. We MAY parse big numbers from lottos on a raid but most of that healing is a bunch of useless mark/involuntary spam. It's not actually saving the main tank or the dps groups. Sure, every point counts, but when aes are coming in at 2k, a chance for a 40ish point regen or random 200ish point heal from a master involuntary is... well... not useful at all. As I count it, we have 7 lines of spells that are either next to useless or completely useless on raids. The upside is that in any xp group, those lines actually come into their own. See my other posts on the subject if you want slightly more detailed info.

Timaarit · 03-10-2006, 02:47 PM

Zabumtik wrote:
NOTE: This is for heroic and lower encounters only!

Not saying we can heal avoidance tanks better than plate tanks. But, do you guys judiciously use your, relatively speaking, long stun often? On the more difficult encounters, I can get it off a few times in a fight. And in a group with say two templars coordinating their stun, the mob really doesn't throw out much damage. Now coordinate our nice stuns with other class's stuns. You see what I'm getting at. Basically, if a mob is kicking the hell out of a tank, find other means to mitigate the damage.

This doesn't work with 'Correct Content for Templars' as some put it. My adept III stun rarely sticks to high yellow/low orange con mobs.Also avoidance tanks can stun mob for 8 seconds (well, high level monk can at least), during this time, HoT's will heal as well as wards if there is damage taken (wards heal for the amount left unused after they expire) but reactives will not heal. This means that shamans and druids can heal 50% more when mob is stunned than clerics will (one of the main reasons for the huge imbalance between clerics and other healers).I also noticed something last night when in SoS tanking with my lvl 62 monk, we had a templar as healer. I got procs from benediction line, but half of the time I was avoiding/preventing so many hits that it expired before I got hit again. And when I got hit, I was hit for about 1,5 to 2k. Now the templar was able to keep me alive, after all we only fought lvl 62 mobs, but it was by no means easy, I was constantly on yellow and then stuck there as I avoided more hits and the templar was spamming the direct heals. Also the reactives were ratrely consumed before expiring, after all, I got hit for a huge amount once or twice in 10 seconds when fighting single targets. Once we got a 61 paladin to join us and made him tank, he rarely was below green in health, but he also was rarely in full health.Also I think it is sad that templars have so low healing capability that we need to pacify and stun opponents in order to keep up with other healers.

highlander · 03-10-2006, 06:56 PM

Maybe Im in the minority here, but I don't think templars need anything else. I think we are sufficiently equipped to do our primary function - to heal. I knew when I chose my templar that I would be optimal at healing a plate class tank and that avoidance tanks I would not be optimal at. But, saying that we can't do the job as well as a druid or shaman scares me -- it means that you think because they can do it easier that we're not balanced. I *like* that strategies have to be adapted when the group make up is different. Do I use the same combination of spells with a plate vs. a avoidance tank? No. They require different healing techniques from a templar. Since its possible to keep a monk alive as a templar and all other classes can do it -- that's your balance issue. Some can do it easier than others? Ok, that's part of the game.

I did a nest run last night. Monk was the MT, ranger, warlock, illusionist and 2 templars for healers. We had 1 wipe that run when the group leader advised me to heal the group rather than the MT. The Monk went down faster than a.. well, a Monk. On our second attempt, I ignored the group leader and healed per normal -- ignoring the dps classes, healing the MT and debuffing like mad. While it would've been maybe optimal to have a druid to compliment us instead of a 2nd templar the encounter was still fairly easy.

Now, this may start an arguement here (I really hope it doesn't). But, I think that the worse thing about SOE using its nerf bat is not SOE but players. When players try to get complete balance to the game or when they try to slip in advantages to 1 class over another it slowly degrades the game. I think some people wrongly believe that everyone plays thier toons in 1 specific way and if SOE just did this modification or that one that life would be easier and that they'll never have any issues finding groups and that the skys will drop random fabled loot on them.... The more players complain about a balance issue the more SOE interferes with the original vision of the game and the closer we come to the ADHD generation of MMORPGs, like WoW.

My fear is that if more people complain that we need a monk heal, we'll get it. And, then they'll take away our direct heals to 'balance' us with other healers. Becareful what you ask for, since you may get it.

Ozzsm · 03-10-2006, 06:56 PM

I have found that the most efective way of healing brawlers as a tampler is not to use reactives at all. I rely on the glory, mark and involantary lines.Monks have masive weapon speed usually and if i cycle in my big direct heal and my stun I usually have no need for the reactives at all. Add our mitigation debuff into the mix and the mobs usually die faster than with a plate tank anyway. Monk tanks are usually the only time i bother to cast the fate line spells that proc a group heal when the mob dies.I usually keep the reactives up as a reflex more than a need.

Timaarit · 03-10-2006, 07:33 PM

highlander13 wrote:
Maybe Im in the minority here, but I don't think templars need anything else. I think we are sufficiently equipped to do our primary function - to heal. I knew when I chose my templar that I would be optimal at healing a plate class tank and that avoidance tanks I would not be optimal at. But, saying that we can't do the job as well as a druid or shaman scares me -- it means that you think because they can do it easier that we're not balanced.

What else does that mean exept that we are not balanced?1. druids and shamans heal avoidance tanks better than clerics2. clerics do not heal mitigation tanks better than druids or shamansIt scares me that some people call that balanced.

Timaarit · 03-10-2006, 07:36 PM

Ozzsmeg wrote:I have found that the most efective way of healing brawlers as a tampler is not to use reactives at all. I rely on the glory, mark and involantary lines.Monks have masive weapon speed usually and if i cycle in my big direct heal and my stun I usually have no need for the reactives at all. Add our mitigation debuff into the mix and the mobs usually die faster than with a plate tank anyway. Monk tanks are usually the only time i bother to cast the fate line spells that proc a group heal when the mob dies.I usually keep the reactives up as a reflex more than a need.

GoC has 5% chance to proc per 3s, not 5% per hit. It also will not proc with off hand hit anymore. So casting this to someone autoattacking with DW and lots of haste is no better than casting it on a templar with autoattack. Only difference will come from melee CA's and even that has now been equalized so that weapond and wielding method does not matter.

highlander · 03-10-2006, 09:21 PM

Timaarit wrote:

What else does that mean exept that we are not balanced?1. druids and shamans heal avoidance tanks better than clerics2. clerics do not heal mitigation tanks better than druids or shamansIt scares me that some people call that balanced.

1. Show me a druid or shaman that can take a plate class tank with 2-4 heroic adds that can heal better than a templar? When things get bad, we can slam down Focused Benefaction and the plate MT doesn't have to worry about eating a death. Give that up to get some parity on healing a monk? No way! At adept 1 FB scores 36 seconds of reactive heals for a cost of 65 mana. Its the most mana effecient heal we have and under utilized by many templars. I know I'm mana positive after using that spell with just a small amount of flowing thought.

2. I don't want to heal better than a shaman or a druid -- i also don't want to play one. I play a templar because I want to be able to heal plate class tanks with ease. I feel that this is most easily accomplished by using a templar. I don't get turned down from groups (even those with monks/bruisers) or from raids. Because, no matter how much of a lack of parity some people feel the priest classes have -- when a group needs a healer they don't care if its a cleric, shaman or druid.

If we hassle SOE about our 'lack of ability' to heal a leather class tank -- we're gonna score a nerf. I like that my heals are generally more mana efficient than other healers. I like that I can use my direct heals to either spot or spam heal a tank as needed. I like that our reactives buy us time to either debuff a mob, spot heal a dps (rangers are the debil). I *never* get complaints about adding no DPS to a group. Indirectly, I add dps to a group by having less downtime than other priests and debuffing the mitigation of the mob (thus providing the melee dps classes the ability to score more hits and at more dmg).

Class balance is an illusion. I don't care that a druid can solo better than I can. My heals are perfect. At MOST I would want an AE str or mitigation debuff -- but I can live without having it.

What Im warning about is -- becareful what we ask for as a templar community. When monks got a bump up to a viable fighter class, they got irked off that they lost some dps -- duh, fighters shouldn't HAVE a lot of dps. Asking for a monk specific heal will make us lose something we probably will not want to lose.

Thanks!

Xaax · 03-10-2006, 09:26 PM

Zabumtik wrote:
NOTE: This is for heroic and lower encounters only!

Not saying we can heal avoidance tanks better than plate tanks. But, do you guys judiciously use your, relatively speaking, long stun often? On the more difficult encounters, I can get it off a few times in a fight. And in a group with say two templars coordinating their stun, the mob really doesn't throw out much damage. Now coordinate our nice stuns with other class's stuns. You see what I'm getting at. Basically, if a mob is kicking the hell out of a tank, find other means to mitigate the damage.

I use my stuns almost every fight. Go take a monk into The Vault as a MT then go take a plate tank as MT. After the debt fest with the monk and not with the plate tank you will see what I am talking about.

This is not soo much of a Templar only issue as much as a Templar weak point added to a Monk weak point equaling alot of debt. I think SoE needs to do some work on both sides of the fense.

Hidehi · 03-10-2006, 09:43 PM

I also use my stun almost every fight, BUT...Stun also works better with mitigation tank than with avoiding tank.Say our spell stuns mob for 6.5 sec,Say mitigation tank get hit 5 times in 10sec at average, and avoiding tank get hit 2 times in 10 sec at average.6.5sec stun saves mitigation tank from 2-3hits at least constantly.6.5sec stun might save monk from 2hits, but may not save from any hits.I'm not sure numbers above are real, but I mean, stun will work for constant-heal-saver with plate tank, but stun will be just a possible-heal-saver.If our stun's casting time is very quick, it might be used as a time saver for large heal when tank got large spike of damage.....

Message Edited by Hidehisa on 03-11-200601:47 AM

Xaax · 03-10-2006, 09:50 PM

highlander13 wrote:

Class balance is an illusion. I don't care that a druid can solo better than I can. My heals are perfect. At MOST I would want an AE str or mitigation debuff -- but I can live without having it.

What Im warning about is -- becareful what we ask for as a templar community. When monks got a bump up to a viable fighter class, they got irked off that they lost some dps -- duh, fighters shouldn't HAVE a lot of dps. Asking for a monk specific heal will make us lose something we probably will not want to lose.

Thanks!

That is an intersting point of view, in some cases it is true. Then again when all healers got a sizable bump to healing to match ours what did they loose? Then again what did we gain? Hmm think that answer is nada.

I have played a Tmplar sense release, I like my Templar and dont have many issues with him. SoE had the issues with Templars when they bumped all healing classes with out thinking about balence in any other area other then healing. I didnt really care due to having a poket tank 99% of the time when I play. I almost never play with our my zerker, even when she is not around ill just 2-box her so I can harvest a bit or do quests.

I pulled my head out of the sand one day and when LFG, well I was very supprised by the reality of SoEs balence that they keep hitting us over the head with. It is a bit hard to see when mobs are die'n in less then 20 seconds but you go fight some mobs that have a ton and a half of hps and you will see it. yard trash mobs that toss 2-3k AE slashing/piercing. Mobs that debuff your tank for 1-3k mit. that you cant heal =/

Over all I will just go back to playing with my Zerker or or two boxing when she is not home. Pick up groups are just too much of a pain to deal with considering that we just can walk into a group and heal it =/

Xaax · 03-10-2006, 09:54 PM

Hidehisa wrote:
I also use my stun almost every fight, BUT...Stun also works better with mitigation tank than with avoiding tank.Say our spell stuns mob for 6.5 sec,Say mitigation tank get hit 5 times in 10sec at average, and avoiding tank get hit 2 times in 10 sec at average.6.5sec stun saves mitigation tank from 2-3hits at least constantly.6.5sec stun might save monk from 2hits, but may not save from any hits.I'm not sure numbers above are real, but I mean, stun will work for constant-heal-saver with plate tank, but stun will be just a possible-heal-saver.If our stun's casting time is very quick, it might be used as a time saver for large heal when tank got large spike of damage.....
Message Edited by Hidehisa on 03-11-200601:47 AM

Kendricke will totaly disagree with you there. On a post about healing monks he stated that stuns help so that the monk will have time to proc out lotto heals( Curate, Mark, Glory).

It does cut down on the usage of our reactives but then again we dont want to use our reactives on monks too much as they usualy get hit for more then what our two reactices heal for.

03-08-2006, 03:04 PM	#1
Hidehi Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 13	What do you guys think about this idea? Reactive Heal procs when Mob hits RH'ed PC, always proc Mob misses RH'ed PC, at some rate like 30%, and only when RH'ed PC's health is under 75% I often play in a party with Monk MT.As Monk/Bruiser is avoiding tank, I have hard time keeping up MT Monk healed. RH doesn't work well with avoiding tank (not completely worthless, of course), and our insta-heal is.... not enough for spike damages like 1.5k dmg x 3-4 times in a row.I want to hear suggestions from other templars.Sorry if there's anything strange in my English...

03-08-2006, 06:16 PM	#3
Antryg Mistrose Loremaster Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 893	Druids have the same problem. The only healers that really shine with avoidance tanks are shamens (with their wards).As shamens were broken for so long, they are still in a minority, which is one of the main reasons you don't see to many avoidance tanks, actually tanking.The techniquie I use when grouped with an avoidance tank, is to keep your power efficient single target reactive up regardless to take the edge off the initail hit, and be very quick on the small direct heal, followed by the big (slower) direct heal. I tend to stay away from the group reactive, as its while I'm casting it that the tank seems to get hit, and it takes too long to cast anyway. We do have other heals apart from the big 4, and using all of them keeps you on your toes - something I really noticed when the reactive heals were broken recently. The others do work - Reverance, HealOnMobDeath, Mark, ...It is much harder work overall than for a mitigation tank, and the mobs you can solo heal for, are lower, but it is doable. Message Edited by Antryg Mistrose on 03-08-200601:29 PM __________________ Illusionist//Paladin/Dirge/Templar Jeweler/Sage/Alchemist/Prov

03-08-2006, 11:00 PM	#6
Espyderman Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 175	Hidehisa wrote: What do you guys think about this idea? Reactive Heal procs when Mob hits RH'ed PC, always proc Mob misses RH'ed PC, at some rate like 30%, and only when RH'ed PC's health is under 75% I often play in a party with Monk MT.As Monk/Bruiser is avoiding tank, I have hard time keeping up MT Monk healed. RH doesn't work well with avoiding tank (not completely worthless, of course), and our insta-heal is.... not enough for spike damages like 1.5k dmg x 3-4 times in a row.I want to hear suggestions from other templars.Sorry if there's anything strange in my English... Monks should not group with templars as solo healers, it just makes the templars job harder. Templars need tanks who can take a few hits, monks cannot take a hit most times. Monks are better paired with wardens, mystics or furies as their heals will do better on a monk then any templars heals. Dont get me wrong, ive successfully had a monk tank and we done very well with me solo healing, however i had to heal twice as much then usual and we got some hard times alot more then a plate wearing tank, i like the way it is i wouldnt change it.

03-09-2006, 01:07 AM	#7
Timaarit Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,462	Hidehisa wrote: Timaarit wrote:But with avoidance tanks we are at disadvantage. Along with DPS, that is another unbalanced thing with priests, druids and shamans are just as good with avoidance tanks as they are with mitigation tanks. So I hit upon idea of making RH procs sometimes when mob attacks but misses MT, not only when MT is hit.Isn't It a nice solution for some of templar's disadvantage with avoiding tanks, and not so overpowered compared with druid / shaman ? well, that would make reactives another lotto heal :smileyindifferent:

03-09-2006, 11:53 AM	#10
Timaarit Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,462	Hidehisa wrote: Timaarit wrote:well, that would make reactives another lotto heal :smileyindifferent: A kind of lotto heal.In other words, another series of Heal over Time specialized for Tank (still no use for healer / caster who doesn't get attacked at all). Now the analogy here escapes me. Do you mean that HoT's have a less than 100% chance to heal per tick instead of 100%?Ot do you mean that all heals are proc heals since they require that damage is taken? In this case what are heals that have a chance to heal if someone 'wins' in your lotto?

03-08-2006, 04:04 PM	#2
Timaarit Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,462	Well, templars are the only class who can heal different tanks with different efficiency. We have easiest with high mitigation tanks and we do very badly with low mitigation tanks. It is just they way things are and as it is, the devs have no intention on balancing the priests. So seems like we just have to quit or live with it.The worst is that when everything is going ok with maximum of 1 or 2 adds, every other healer does the same as we do with high mitigation tanks, but fare a lot better with low mitigation tanks. Only when the group with high mitigation tank gets lots of adds do templars fare slightly better if the fight is over fast (and the fight is doable). If the fight is long, other healers will catch up and even bypass us if they survive the intial stage when hits are coming in fast. Templars are at best when fighting heroic groups, but with lengthened combat, we have no advantage, only disadvantage with avoidance tanks.

03-08-2006, 06:31 PM	#4
Timaarit Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,462	No, it doesn't represent the content. But it represents basically the only situation where reactives are great. A situation where you get so many adds that reactives are down before their recast timer has run through. These fights are always long and in the end, other healers go past us with healing efficiency. In common content, we are no worse nor better than any other class when MT is mitigation tank. But with avoidance tanks we are at disadvantage. Along with DPS, that is another unbalanced thing with priests, druids and shamans are just as good with avoidance tanks as they are with mitigation tanks.

03-08-2006, 06:53 PM	#5
Hidehi Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 13	Timaarit wrote:But with avoidance tanks we are at disadvantage. Along with DPS, that is another unbalanced thing with priests, druids and shamans are just as good with avoidance tanks as they are with mitigation tanks. So I hit upon idea of making RH procs sometimes when mob attacks but misses MT, not only when MT is hit.Isn't It a nice solution for some of templar's disadvantage with avoiding tanks, and not so overpowered compared with druid / shaman ?

03-09-2006, 08:39 AM	#8
Hidehi Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 13	Timaarit wrote:well, that would make reactives another lotto heal :smileyindifferent: A kind of lotto heal.In other words, another series of Heal over Time specialized for Tank (still no use for healer / caster who doesn't get attacked at all).

03-09-2006, 09:35 AM	#9
kenji Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 718	i rather they just add another heal that proc when mob miss.....just my 2cp

03-09-2006, 01:48 PM	#11
Hidehi Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 13	Timaarit wrote: Now the analogy here escapes me. Do you mean that HoT's have a less than 100% chance to heal per tick instead of 100%?Ot do you mean that all heals are proc heals since they require that damage is taken? In this case what are heals that have a chance to heal if someone 'wins' in your lotto? I'm not good at English, so not sure if my explanation is enough. Hidehisa wrote: Reactive Heal procs when Mob hits RH'ed PC, always proc Mob misses RH'ed PC, at some rate like 30%, and only when RH'ed PC's health is under 75% Naming this heal "New RH",a kind of HoT means that New RH doesn't proc every tick, but if mob keeps attacking MT, New RH will be something like HoT.New RH has nothing to do with ticks. Just like normal RHs, It checks for proc only when New RH'ed PC is being attacked.If New RH'ed PC is damaged, heal goes off for 100% .If New RH'ed PC is attacked but the attack doesn't deal damage (miss / confound), heal goes off at some rate like 25%-30%.Pro: New RH goes well with both mitigation tanks and avoiding tank.Con: New RH is useless with healer/caster who doesn't get attacked.

03-09-2006, 02:38 PM	#12
Timaarit Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,462	Hidehisa wrote: Naming this heal "New RH",a kind of HoT means that New RH doesn't proc every tick, but if mob keeps attacking MT, New RH will be something like HoT.New RH has nothing to do with ticks. Just like normal RHs, It checks for proc only when New RH'ed PC is being attacked.If New RH'ed PC is damaged, heal goes off for 100% .If New RH'ed PC is attacked but the attack doesn't deal damage (miss / confound), heal goes off at some rate like 25%-30%.Pro: New RH goes well with both mitigation tanks and avoiding tank.Con: New RH is useless with healer/caster who doesn't get attacked. HoT heals over time, it has no proc percentage, it will heal if there is something to heal. A percentage to a reactive proc means just another lotto heal.If someone really wants to balance these heals, they will give a boost for reactives to compensate the fact that reactives dont heal damage after it has been applied. There already is a bonus for HoT's and reactives that compensate the fact that wards block all incoming damage up to their capacity. So reactives need to heal more than HoT's per proc/tic to compensate. Especially our group reactive needs this boost.As for pros, the boost would make us better than druids with mitigation tanks and would also give us more healing power with avoidance tanks even though it would not get us to equal line with others. As for the con, no reactive will heal someone who is not getting attacked. So that is not a con for the new RH, it is a con for the reactives in general and it needs to be compensated by boosting reactives.Edit: as far as I am concerned, this boost could be done by reducing single target reactive to 4 procs and increasing amount healed per tick by 20% and reducing group reactive to 7 procs and raising a single proc heal by equal amount. Message Edited by Timaarit on 03-09-200611:40 AM

03-09-2006, 03:48 PM	#13
Hidehi Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 13	Timaarit wrote:HoT heals over time, it has no proc percentage, it will heal if there is something to heal. A percentage to a reactive proc means just another lotto heal. Yes, of course. y word "a kind of HoT" is not mentioning function of New RH, just a metaphor or something ... I should have said something like "HoT-like-only-when-cast-on-MT"........ bah English is difficult !!!!:smileysad: Timaarit wrote:as far as I am concerned, this boost could be done by reducing single target reactive to 4 procs and increasing amount healed per tick by 20% and reducing group reactive to 7 procs and raising a single proc heal by equal amount. This boost seems good yes.I first thought about lengthening duration of reactives, but when fighting with tough mobs, it will just barely be a boost.Anyway, it seems obvious that reactive heals needs to be boosted to go with avoiding tanks.I wonder wy noone else brought up this kind of discussion....edited: and kenjiso, adding another heal will be much large change, so SOE won't take the trouble to do that, I guess...... Message Edited by Hidehisa on 03-09-200607:50 PM

03-09-2006, 10:09 PM	#14
highlander Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 34	I like the system as is. I chose a cleric/templar because I wanted to heal a plate class tank (of which I think the plate class tank should be the best tank in the game). I disagree that priests are not balanced, I think they are. But, in terms of giving us a HoT instead of the reactives that we currently enjoy, I disagree. I think it would unbalance the game and make templars more desired than other healer classes. In terms of healing a monk, our current arsenal of spells provide us sufficient healing ability to keep a monk alive. Place a single or single and group reactive on the monk, use lotto heals and spot heal when needed. We might not be the most effecient at it -- in that I have to use more mana and actually pay attention to my screen to do it -- but its still fairly easy.

03-09-2006, 10:55 PM	#15
Xaax Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 123	highlander13 wrote: I like the system as is. I chose a cleric/templar because I wanted to heal a plate class tank (of which I think the plate class tank should be the best tank in the game). I disagree that priests are not balanced, I think they are. But, in terms of giving us a HoT instead of the reactives that we currently enjoy, I disagree. I think it would unbalance the game and make templars more desired than other healer classes. In terms of healing a monk, our current arsenal of spells provide us sufficient healing ability to keep a monk alive. Place a single or single and group reactive on the monk, use lotto heals and spot heal when needed. We might not be the most effecient at it -- in that I have to use more mana and actually pay attention to my screen to do it -- but its still fairly easy. I very much disagree, for the first time in months I group'd with a monk (67) as the MT. We went to BS, HoF and Vault. We had 2 healers, a fury and myself a ranger, a conjuror and a dirge. In BS we did fine but didnt get to to the big mob as our instance was bug and he wouldnt spawn. In The Vault and Halls of Fate the monk just got ate. With both of my reactives going and the furys regens going the monk would still get a huge spike of damage every now and then that would take him from green to red almost instantly. The thing that got me is at the end of the fight 70% of the time my group reactive was stull up and many times my single reactive was up. If they were not up it usualy was due to them wearing off the monk, not using their full ticks. I was left with tossing my direct heals and waiting for re-cast timers watching my reactives go unused. I did get use out of my Mark and Curate but they just do not heal anywhere near enough to make a difference. It would be nice if they nix'd the debuff off of Mark and added an extra 100-150 heal a tick to it. I did learn that If the mobs are yellow get a plate tank. I will not be grouping with a monk as MT again on hard content.

03-10-2006, 03:09 AM	#16
highlander Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 34	Actually, I think you summed up my point nicely. In BS your Monk MT was sufficient at doing that content. In the others (harder areas) he got ate. Then it wasn't your in ability to keep him healed (or that of the fury) but that the challange of the mobs was greater than what that paticular group could do. I like that. It meant that you (as the group) had to adjust strategy or come back with better gear or higher levels. For example, if initial damage was too great (mob started off with a HT or nuke) the conj could've sent a pet in to absorb the 1st attack. If the damage was over the course of a long encounter it meant that you as a group didn't have sufficient dps to do those mobs. In either case, it wasn't a failure of your or the fury's healing. I don't think we should have 1 special heal or a change in our reactive to accomodate a monk as MT. If a monk really wants to be MT a shaman has always been the best choice for the monk as MT. I think SOE tried to give us 1 monk heal, Reverence. I considered that my monk heal as monks tend to power spam to increase their dps. Since the heal is triggered on how much power is consumed by the target of the spell, it would make sense that this would act like a ward for the monk. Unfort, I don't think the spell ever worked as intended and we've had to adapt our current spell set for monks that want to 'play' MT. Since damage to a monk can be streaky (but generally catastrophic) as I mentioned in the previous post -- spot heal when needed. Now, its not that I have anything against Monks... I have monk friends. :smileytongue: But, if its hard content, I want a plate tank -- give me a guardian any day. If its greens, blues or just an xp run, a Monk can still work.

03-10-2006, 04:37 AM	#17
Xaax Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 123	highlander13 wrote: Actually, I think you summed up my point nicely. In BS your Monk MT was sufficient at doing that content. In the others (harder areas) he got ate. Then it wasn't your in ability to keep him healed (or that of the fury) but that the challange of the mobs was greater than what that paticular group could do. I like that. It meant that you (as the group) had to adjust strategy or come back with better gear or higher levels. For example, if initial damage was too great (mob started off with a HT or nuke) the conj could've sent a pet in to absorb the 1st attack. If the damage was over the course of a long encounter it meant that you as a group didn't have sufficient dps to do those mobs. In either case, it wasn't a failure of your or the fury's healing. I don't think we should have 1 special heal or a change in our reactive to accomodate a monk as MT. If a monk really wants to be MT a shaman has always been the best choice for the monk as MT. I think SOE tried to give us 1 monk heal, Reverence. I considered that my monk heal as monks tend to power spam to increase their dps. Since the heal is triggered on how much power is consumed by the target of the spell, it would make sense that this would act like a ward for the monk. Unfort, I don't think the spell ever worked as intended and we've had to adapt our current spell set for monks that want to 'play' MT. Since damage to a monk can be streaky (but generally catastrophic) as I mentioned in the previous post -- spot heal when needed. Now, its not that I have anything against Monks... I have monk friends. :smileytongue: But, if its hard content, I want a plate tank -- give me a guardian any day. If its greens, blues or just an xp run, a Monk can still work. I would agree with you if SoE didnt reinforce the idea over and over again that all, ALL healers should heal equaly and all tanks should tank equally in an xp group. Leaving all DPS/utility arguments aside. straight up healing and tanking is not equal currenty. I beleve it is not even close. There are issues that SoE needs to work out with tanking/healer combos in order to make healing even across the board

03-10-2006, 01:12 PM	#18
Timaarit Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,462	highlander13 wrote: I like the system as is. I chose a cleric/templar because I wanted to heal a plate class tank (of which I think the plate class tank should be the best tank in the game). I disagree that priests are not balanced, I think they are. But, in terms of giving us a HoT instead of the reactives that we currently enjoy, I disagree. I think it would unbalance the game and make templars more desired than other healer classes. In terms of healing a monk, our current arsenal of spells provide us sufficient healing ability to keep a monk alive. Place a single or single and group reactive on the monk, use lotto heals and spot heal when needed. We might not be the most effecient at it -- in that I have to use more mana and actually pay attention to my screen to do it -- but its still fairly easy. Well, shamans and druids are equally good healers for plate tanks. And since they are superior with brawlers, healers are not balanced. This simply isn't a matter of opinion since all the facts you see tell the same story, plate tanks do not care who is healing them while brawlers avoid clerics as much as possible. Same goes the other way, shamans and druids do not care who is mt while clerics do. Does that seem balanced to you?

03-10-2006, 01:27 PM	#19
Hidehi Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 13	Timaarit wrote:Well, shamans and druids are equally good healers for plate tanks. And since they are superior with brawlers, healers are not balanced. This simply isn't a matter of opinion since all the facts you see tell the same story, plate tanks do not care who is healing them while brawlers avoid clerics as much as possible. Same goes the other way, shamans and druids do not care who is mt while clerics do. Does that seem balanced to you? That's what I wanted to say !!Healers seems balanced comparing just spell numerics (heal per pow, heal per sec...), but not balanced in the real world.I'm not insisting on making cleric better healer, just want to get rid of apparent weak point of cleric AS A HEALER.I play cleric to heal, I don't want DPS, I want it to be at least as good healer as druid / shaman when grouping with avoiding tanks.

03-10-2006, 01:55 PM	#20
Zabumt Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 489	NOTE: This is for heroic and lower encounters only! Not saying we can heal avoidance tanks better than plate tanks. But, do you guys judiciously use your, relatively speaking, long stun often? On the more difficult encounters, I can get it off a few times in a fight. And in a group with say two templars coordinating their stun, the mob really doesn't throw out much damage. Now coordinate our nice stuns with other class's stuns. You see what I'm getting at. Basically, if a mob is kicking the hell out of a tank, find other means to mitigate the damage. NOTE: This is for epic encounters! Yes, our reactive and lotto healing is sub-par. We MAY parse big numbers from lottos on a raid but most of that healing is a bunch of useless mark/involuntary spam. It's not actually saving the main tank or the dps groups. Sure, every point counts, but when aes are coming in at 2k, a chance for a 40ish point regen or random 200ish point heal from a master involuntary is... well... not useful at all. As I count it, we have 7 lines of spells that are either next to useless or completely useless on raids. The upside is that in any xp group, those lines actually come into their own. See my other posts on the subject if you want slightly more detailed info. __________________ Halthar 70 Dwarf Templar - Unrest Zabumtik 60 Gnome Wizard - Unrest

03-10-2006, 02:47 PM	#21
Timaarit Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,462	Zabumtik wrote: NOTE: This is for heroic and lower encounters only! Not saying we can heal avoidance tanks better than plate tanks. But, do you guys judiciously use your, relatively speaking, long stun often? On the more difficult encounters, I can get it off a few times in a fight. And in a group with say two templars coordinating their stun, the mob really doesn't throw out much damage. Now coordinate our nice stuns with other class's stuns. You see what I'm getting at. Basically, if a mob is kicking the hell out of a tank, find other means to mitigate the damage. This doesn't work with 'Correct Content for Templars' as some put it. My adept III stun rarely sticks to high yellow/low orange con mobs.Also avoidance tanks can stun mob for 8 seconds (well, high level monk can at least), during this time, HoT's will heal as well as wards if there is damage taken (wards heal for the amount left unused after they expire) but reactives will not heal. This means that shamans and druids can heal 50% more when mob is stunned than clerics will (one of the main reasons for the huge imbalance between clerics and other healers).I also noticed something last night when in SoS tanking with my lvl 62 monk, we had a templar as healer. I got procs from benediction line, but half of the time I was avoiding/preventing so many hits that it expired before I got hit again. And when I got hit, I was hit for about 1,5 to 2k. Now the templar was able to keep me alive, after all we only fought lvl 62 mobs, but it was by no means easy, I was constantly on yellow and then stuck there as I avoided more hits and the templar was spamming the direct heals. Also the reactives were ratrely consumed before expiring, after all, I got hit for a huge amount once or twice in 10 seconds when fighting single targets. Once we got a 61 paladin to join us and made him tank, he rarely was below green in health, but he also was rarely in full health.Also I think it is sad that templars have so low healing capability that we need to pacify and stun opponents in order to keep up with other healers.

03-10-2006, 06:56 PM	#22
highlander Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 34	Maybe Im in the minority here, but I don't think templars need anything else. I think we are sufficiently equipped to do our primary function - to heal. I knew when I chose my templar that I would be optimal at healing a plate class tank and that avoidance tanks I would not be optimal at. But, saying that we can't do the job as well as a druid or shaman scares me -- it means that you think because they can do it easier that we're not balanced. I like that strategies have to be adapted when the group make up is different. Do I use the same combination of spells with a plate vs. a avoidance tank? No. They require different healing techniques from a templar. Since its possible to keep a monk alive as a templar and all other classes can do it -- that's your balance issue. Some can do it easier than others? Ok, that's part of the game. I did a nest run last night. Monk was the MT, ranger, warlock, illusionist and 2 templars for healers. We had 1 wipe that run when the group leader advised me to heal the group rather than the MT. The Monk went down faster than a.. well, a Monk. On our second attempt, I ignored the group leader and healed per normal -- ignoring the dps classes, healing the MT and debuffing like mad. While it would've been maybe optimal to have a druid to compliment us instead of a 2nd templar the encounter was still fairly easy. Now, this may start an arguement here (I really hope it doesn't). But, I think that the worse thing about SOE using its nerf bat is not SOE but players. When players try to get complete balance to the game or when they try to slip in advantages to 1 class over another it slowly degrades the game. I think some people wrongly believe that everyone plays thier toons in 1 specific way and if SOE just did this modification or that one that life would be easier and that they'll never have any issues finding groups and that the skys will drop random fabled loot on them.... The more players complain about a balance issue the more SOE interferes with the original vision of the game and the closer we come to the ADHD generation of MMORPGs, like WoW. My fear is that if more people complain that we need a monk heal, we'll get it. And, then they'll take away our direct heals to 'balance' us with other healers. Becareful what you ask for, since you may get it.

03-10-2006, 06:56 PM	#23
Ozzsm Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12	I have found that the most efective way of healing brawlers as a tampler is not to use reactives at all. I rely on the glory, mark and involantary lines.Monks have masive weapon speed usually and if i cycle in my big direct heal and my stun I usually have no need for the reactives at all. Add our mitigation debuff into the mix and the mobs usually die faster than with a plate tank anyway. Monk tanks are usually the only time i bother to cast the fate line spells that proc a group heal when the mob dies.I usually keep the reactives up as a reflex more than a need.

03-10-2006, 07:33 PM	#24
Timaarit Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,462	highlander13 wrote: Maybe Im in the minority here, but I don't think templars need anything else. I think we are sufficiently equipped to do our primary function - to heal. I knew when I chose my templar that I would be optimal at healing a plate class tank and that avoidance tanks I would not be optimal at. But, saying that we can't do the job as well as a druid or shaman scares me -- it means that you think because they can do it easier that we're not balanced. What else does that mean exept that we are not balanced?1. druids and shamans heal avoidance tanks better than clerics2. clerics do not heal mitigation tanks better than druids or shamansIt scares me that some people call that balanced.

03-10-2006, 07:36 PM	#25
Timaarit Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,462	Ozzsmeg wrote:I have found that the most efective way of healing brawlers as a tampler is not to use reactives at all. I rely on the glory, mark and involantary lines.Monks have masive weapon speed usually and if i cycle in my big direct heal and my stun I usually have no need for the reactives at all. Add our mitigation debuff into the mix and the mobs usually die faster than with a plate tank anyway. Monk tanks are usually the only time i bother to cast the fate line spells that proc a group heal when the mob dies.I usually keep the reactives up as a reflex more than a need. GoC has 5% chance to proc per 3s, not 5% per hit. It also will not proc with off hand hit anymore. So casting this to someone autoattacking with DW and lots of haste is no better than casting it on a templar with autoattack. Only difference will come from melee CA's and even that has now been equalized so that weapond and wielding method does not matter.

03-10-2006, 09:21 PM	#26
highlander Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 34	Timaarit wrote: What else does that mean exept that we are not balanced?1. druids and shamans heal avoidance tanks better than clerics2. clerics do not heal mitigation tanks better than druids or shamansIt scares me that some people call that balanced. 1. Show me a druid or shaman that can take a plate class tank with 2-4 heroic adds that can heal better than a templar? When things get bad, we can slam down Focused Benefaction and the plate MT doesn't have to worry about eating a death. Give that up to get some parity on healing a monk? No way! At adept 1 FB scores 36 seconds of reactive heals for a cost of 65 mana. Its the most mana effecient heal we have and under utilized by many templars. I know I'm mana positive after using that spell with just a small amount of flowing thought. 2. I don't want to heal better than a shaman or a druid -- i also don't want to play one. I play a templar because I want to be able to heal plate class tanks with ease. I feel that this is most easily accomplished by using a templar. I don't get turned down from groups (even those with monks/bruisers) or from raids. Because, no matter how much of a lack of parity some people feel the priest classes have -- when a group needs a healer they don't care if its a cleric, shaman or druid. If we hassle SOE about our 'lack of ability' to heal a leather class tank -- we're gonna score a nerf. I like that my heals are generally more mana efficient than other healers. I like that I can use my direct heals to either spot or spam heal a tank as needed. I like that our reactives buy us time to either debuff a mob, spot heal a dps (rangers are the debil). I never get complaints about adding no DPS to a group. Indirectly, I add dps to a group by having less downtime than other priests and debuffing the mitigation of the mob (thus providing the melee dps classes the ability to score more hits and at more dmg). Class balance is an illusion. I don't care that a druid can solo better than I can. My heals are perfect. At MOST I would want an AE str or mitigation debuff -- but I can live without having it. What Im warning about is -- becareful what we ask for as a templar community. When monks got a bump up to a viable fighter class, they got irked off that they lost some dps -- duh, fighters shouldn't HAVE a lot of dps. Asking for a monk specific heal will make us lose something we probably will not want to lose. Thanks!

03-10-2006, 09:26 PM	#27
Xaax Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 123	Zabumtik wrote: NOTE: This is for heroic and lower encounters only! Not saying we can heal avoidance tanks better than plate tanks. But, do you guys judiciously use your, relatively speaking, long stun often? On the more difficult encounters, I can get it off a few times in a fight. And in a group with say two templars coordinating their stun, the mob really doesn't throw out much damage. Now coordinate our nice stuns with other class's stuns. You see what I'm getting at. Basically, if a mob is kicking the hell out of a tank, find other means to mitigate the damage. I use my stuns almost every fight. Go take a monk into The Vault as a MT then go take a plate tank as MT. After the debt fest with the monk and not with the plate tank you will see what I am talking about. This is not soo much of a Templar only issue as much as a Templar weak point added to a Monk weak point equaling alot of debt. I think SoE needs to do some work on both sides of the fense.

03-10-2006, 09:43 PM	#28
Hidehi Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 13	I also use my stun almost every fight, BUT...Stun also works better with mitigation tank than with avoiding tank.Say our spell stuns mob for 6.5 sec,Say mitigation tank get hit 5 times in 10sec at average, and avoiding tank get hit 2 times in 10 sec at average.6.5sec stun saves mitigation tank from 2-3hits at least constantly.6.5sec stun might save monk from 2hits, but may not save from any hits.I'm not sure numbers above are real, but I mean, stun will work for constant-heal-saver with plate tank, but stun will be just a possible-heal-saver.If our stun's casting time is very quick, it might be used as a time saver for large heal when tank got large spike of damage..... Message Edited by Hidehisa on 03-11-200601:47 AM

03-10-2006, 09:50 PM	#29
Xaax Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 123	highlander13 wrote: Class balance is an illusion. I don't care that a druid can solo better than I can. My heals are perfect. At MOST I would want an AE str or mitigation debuff -- but I can live without having it. What Im warning about is -- becareful what we ask for as a templar community. When monks got a bump up to a viable fighter class, they got irked off that they lost some dps -- duh, fighters shouldn't HAVE a lot of dps. Asking for a monk specific heal will make us lose something we probably will not want to lose. Thanks! That is an intersting point of view, in some cases it is true. Then again when all healers got a sizable bump to healing to match ours what did they loose? Then again what did we gain? Hmm think that answer is nada. I have played a Tmplar sense release, I like my Templar and dont have many issues with him. SoE had the issues with Templars when they bumped all healing classes with out thinking about balence in any other area other then healing. I didnt really care due to having a poket tank 99% of the time when I play. I almost never play with our my zerker, even when she is not around ill just 2-box her so I can harvest a bit or do quests. I pulled my head out of the sand one day and when LFG, well I was very supprised by the reality of SoEs balence that they keep hitting us over the head with. It is a bit hard to see when mobs are die'n in less then 20 seconds but you go fight some mobs that have a ton and a half of hps and you will see it. yard trash mobs that toss 2-3k AE slashing/piercing. Mobs that debuff your tank for 1-3k mit. that you cant heal =/ Over all I will just go back to playing with my Zerker or or two boxing when she is not home. Pick up groups are just too much of a pain to deal with considering that we just can walk into a group and heal it =/

03-10-2006, 09:54 PM	#30
Xaax Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 123	Hidehisa wrote: I also use my stun almost every fight, BUT...Stun also works better with mitigation tank than with avoiding tank.Say our spell stuns mob for 6.5 sec,Say mitigation tank get hit 5 times in 10sec at average, and avoiding tank get hit 2 times in 10 sec at average.6.5sec stun saves mitigation tank from 2-3hits at least constantly.6.5sec stun might save monk from 2hits, but may not save from any hits.I'm not sure numbers above are real, but I mean, stun will work for constant-heal-saver with plate tank, but stun will be just a possible-heal-saver.If our stun's casting time is very quick, it might be used as a time saver for large heal when tank got large spike of damage..... Message Edited by Hidehisa on 03-11-200601:47 AM Kendricke will totaly disagree with you there. On a post about healing monks he stated that stuns help so that the monk will have time to proc out lotto heals( Curate, Mark, Glory). It does cut down on the usage of our reactives but then again we dont want to use our reactives on monks too much as they usualy get hit for more then what our two reactices heal for.