Second Healer Wanted (not needed)

[BlueQui]

First, most of us consider themselves baddarses in combat...me included. I can keep a party healed as good or better than just about anyone I've ever grouped with. So, we don't need a second healer.Let's look at a basic (and desireable) groupSlot 1) HealerSlot 2) TankSlot 3) EnchanterSlot 4) DPS (assasin, warlock, wizzy, etc...)Slot 5) I perfer another DPSSlot 6) I perfer another healer (druids perfered, their Heal over Time stack well with our Reactive Heals).I hear a lot about how we don't NEED another healer. But I WANT one. What other class is going to save the party from a bad pull, a bad add, or from doing something dumb (like pulling ^^ Red that tank "assures the group" we can handle). Only another healer can keep a party alive in these situation. Is another DPS or Tank going to do it? Nope. (maybe a chanter...but it's a waste to have 2 of these in a group).I always save power (when possible) at the end of a battle for bad adds, so I cannot use ALL of my abilities (my five debuffs, nukes, etc...) in every fight. With another healer, I get off more of my abilities.Argue amoungst yourselves

[NoEsca]

---

BlueQuick wrote:
First, most of us consider themselves baddarses in combat...me included. I can keep a party healed as good or better than just about anyone I've ever grouped with. So, we don't need a second healer.

Let's look at a basic (and desireable) group

Slot 1) Healer
Slot 2) Tank
Slot 3) Enchanter
Slot 4) DPS (assasin, warlock, wizzy, etc...)

Slot 5) I perfer another DPS
Slot 6) I perfer another healer (druids perfered, their Heal over Time stack well with our Reactive Heals).

I hear a lot about how we don't NEED another healer. But I WANT one. What other class is going to save the party from a bad pull, a bad add, or from doing something dumb (like pulling ^^ Red that tank "assures the group" we can handle).

Only another healer can keep a party alive in these situation. Is another DPS or Tank going to do it? Nope. (maybe a chanter...but it's a waste to have 2 of these in a group).

I always save power (when possible) at the end of a battle for bad adds, so I cannot use ALL of my abilities (my five debuffs, nukes, etc...) in every fight. With another healer, I get off more of my abilities.

Argue amoungst yourselves

---

I would say it really depends on where you're adventuring. If it's someplace where a bad add or overpull can be reasonably expected then yeah, a second healer as a just-in-case is nice. Again, not required, but nice. If, on the other hand, you're somewhere where you can reasonably expect not to have to worry about things going seriously south, I'd rather have that extra DPS. (On the other hand, if you're somewhere where things don't have much chance of going south, what's the fun in being there? )

[apb]

With an Enchanter, I find there's really no need for two healers.

[NoEsca]

---

apb03 wrote:
With an Enchanter, I find there's really no need for two healers.

---

I had an experience tonight that has me thinking otherwise. There was some weird bug with spawning or agro in Nektulos and I ended up getting 8 adds per pull…very ugly. I'd've been pretty happy to have a secnd healer around for that. Since I didn't have that I just moved on to the beach and later the Steppes.

[apb]

hehe probably fighting wisps no doubt. Well, under a normal situation with moderate risk 2 healers with an enchanter is completely unneccesary among competent players. I've been in a couple before and I end up looking for things to do in combat.

Message Edited by apb03 on 12-19-2004 01:57 AM

[NoEsca]

---

apb03 wrote:
hehe probably fighting wisps no doubt.

Well, under a normal situation with moderate risk 2 healers with an enchanter is completely unneccesary among competent players. I've been in a couple before and I end up looking for things to do in combat.

Message Edited by apb03 on 12-19-2004 01:57 AM

---

No, it was Kodiaks…that's why I'm convinced it was a bug. They weren't linked, and they weren't in Line of Sight—they just came tearing out of nowhere headed right for us. (And no, they weren't trained…unless of course there's a way to make yourself totally invisible to other players) But yeah, barring unforseen circumstances like that, a competent group of players shouldn't need a second healer…then again, I find it easier to locate a healer than I do a 'chanter for pick-ups, so sometimes you just have to make do with what you have. /shrug

[Sp]

what do you guys smoke ?when you fight "real" monsters then you are limited by timers. for example in varsoon our main tank was getting hit for 6xx-7xx by some named red golem (party was 28 btw), we also pulled a few groups of golems (2-4).Even with adept1-3 healing and wards, without a backup healer the tank would have dropped due to TIMERS.thats my experience. so go ahead and fight bears in Nek, youre the best

[apb]

Spug, I said that having two healers IN ADDITION to having an enchanter is not needed. Otherwise two healers is a good thing to have when deep in a difficult dungeon for sure.

[Katr]

I enjoy having a second healer in the group regardless of what class they are.  It gives me the opportunity to make use of more of my debuffs then I could if I was the only healer.

[wayfaerer]

I prefer a group makeup of 1 tank, myself, and 4 dps.You don't need an enchanter or a second healer if your tank is strong enough.Maximum DPS = maximum XP.

[Greggor]

---

what do you guys smoke ?

when you fight "real" monsters then you are limited by timers. for example in varsoon our main tank was getting hit for 6xx-7xx by some named red golem (party was 28 btw), we also pulled a few groups of golems (2-4).

Even with adept1-3 healing and wards, without a backup healer the tank would have dropped due to TIMERS.

thats my experience. so go ahead and fight bears in Nek, youre the best

---

Wow 28 lvl u must be great

Varsoon is sooooooooooo yesterday

Message Edited by Greggor69 on 12-20-2004 11:01 AM

[NoEsca]

---

Spug wrote:
what do you guys smoke ?

when you fight "real" monsters then you are limited by timers. for example in varsoon our main tank was getting hit for 6xx-7xx by some named red golem (party was 28 btw), we also pulled a few groups of golems (2-4).

Even with adept1-3 healing and wards, without a backup healer the tank would have dropped due to TIMERS.

thats my experience. so go ahead and fight bears in Nek, youre the best

---

I'm going to try to keep this as civil as I can, but if I slip please excuse me. I can see your point about high level, hard hitting MOBs. However, I don't think it was apropriate to bash me just to reinforce a point. You're talking a full level-28 group, if I understand you right. I'm talking a duo of level-24s. There really isn't much of a comparison there. Can I duo red ^^ named MOBs? No, and I won't claim I can, nor will I lose any sleep over it.

 

Next time you try to make a point, please just make it—there's no need to try to make yourself feel better by putting me down.

 

Edit: A clarification of my original point, just so we're totally clear. Sometimes, weird stuff happens. Stuff that we don't expect, and haven't even thought to prepare for. Not because we're bad players, but because sometimes bugs creep into the game—the MOB below the floor, repops sooner than they should happen, stacked MOBs, et cetera. In these situations a second healer can keep the party alive long enough to get out of whatever scrape they're in, whereas an extra DPS or 'chanter wouldn't do much good.

Message Edited by NoEscape on 12-20-2004 08:05 AM

[Azam]

For some reason I don't think the original poster was talking about killing solo and green group mobs when he was talking about needing a second healer. Or being in wide open spaces with no chance of adds. Would there have even been a reason to post if that is what he meant? Anyway, I'm lvl 21 atm and when I my groups are going deep into FG I always want a second healer... do I have to have one? NO, but if I am the only healer it is just a matter of time before something bad will happen and the only thing that would have saved us is the extra healer.( And of course I always bring a chanter, they are essential when delving into deep dungeons) Sure the second healer isn't a requirement (unless your doing big boss mobs) but I would rather err on the side of caution and save myself that xp debt than run into a situation that leaves me thinking " If only I had invited that druid maybe.... "

[dopefi]

I think you are almost always better off with an evac class over a second healer. If you are in a competant group the rare extra add that a second healer would have saved you (IF) is taken care of by the scouts evac. You will kill stuff faster, and have the added utility spells the scout brings (smuggle, bard songs, etc), and if you are drinking anything but store bought crap, you really shouldnt have power problems.

 

Second healers are nice if something bad happens, but from a purely mathamathical powergaming standpoint, more dps + evac >>> second healer.

[apb]

I disagree. While I'm fully confident in being the only healer in almost any situation, my group would be severely lacking in utility and efficency If I am the only healer in the group.With just me there, the best I'm going to do is Forced Submission on debuffs, maybe I'll throw in an Iniquity or an Oppression but I doubt it (if we are fighting difficult things that is).A 2nd healer isn't there to heal as much as to fill in the utility role, I find that the 2nd healer doesn't heal much at all but rather focuses on the other aspects of their class usually being debuffing. Having a ward/regen on the tank in addition to my RH's for the pull are also a nice benefit. With a good set of debuffs on the mobs, the group can pull much faster with little to no downtime. I can achieve the same results with an enchanter because we are basically only worrying about singles because the rest are mezzed leaving me enough time to debuff the mobs properly. Also with mez the encounter's DPS is lowered considerably so I never have to heal very hard at all.

[BlueQui]

In my experience, 4 DPS, 1 healer, 1 tank is good and fast XP. I totally agree there. Also in my experience, 1 healer healing and debuffing, another healer healing and debuffing, plus 1 tank and 3 DPS is JUST as fast XP as the extra DPS. Debuffers are as good as DPS in my humble opinion (IMHO).Get an enchanter in there for pulling 6 ^^Orange^^ MOBs.With the extra healer, we got the heal power left over for the things I mentioned eariler; bad pulls, bad adds, and doing a "Stupid" (pulling a ^^Red^^ MOB...because we think we can handle it, or he looked at me funny).Ask anyone who's ever grouped with me. I don't do things the easy way. I bring groups too low into FG. I make sure the tank is pulling even though the party doesn't have full power. I CHARGE the Orc lines with a 20-man raid on Bloodskull Valley.And I honestly believe that if you're not dying once (or three times) every few hours, you're not playing hard enough, pushing the XP, and pull rate hard enough.So, maybe it's the style.

[Aldan]

pls get a min lvl 35 fury in your group as a secondary healer . u wont need another dps believe me.(a fury which uses his/her buffs all the time btw).

 

my favorite group is btw a tank ;1 cleric class (inqisitor better = lots of debuffs) ; me(fury)  2 assasin(could be a ranger instead of one assasin) and a wizzy

 

you will be safe and fast enough!

 

 

in this group assasins should be high enough to be able to hit the mob. thats the most important thing. well if not i can debuff mobs def . easy enough

[NoEsca]

---

BlueQuick wrote:

[snip] Also in my experience, 1 healer healing and debuffing, another healer healing and debuffing, plus 1 tank and 3 DPS is JUST as fast XP as the extra DPS. Debuffers are as good as DPS in my humble opinion (IMHO). [snip]

---

Interesting side-note on debuffing. I was recently grouped with a pair of SKs, one of whom I usually duo with. The two were comparing results from Harm Touch, and it seems that with our debuffs an Apprentice III Harm Touch outperforms an undebuffed Adept I. (That's with Apprentice III Reproach, Iniquity, and occasionally Forced Submission in place—I have yet to run any tests since upgrading to Adept I Iniquity and Forced Submission)

So yeah, debuffing is totally key, but it's important when using two healers the two be of similar ability and skill, otherwise you end up with the better one doing 99% of the work and the other being along only for those rare (or stupid) circumstances.

[Toer]

Second healer not needed... Especially when the full debuff load hits the mob. Makes me laugh when the mobs get debuffed and team starts to wonder why mob is so weak compared to its con. But when you get 3rd add yellow^ group coming to towards you and tank is out of power you will start to wish that instead of that second assassin you would have invited that druid. 2nd healer is not that bad if the play style matches. Some high level fury turns groups dps up nicely and gives those (U&"/#&Q moments a safety network. But with inquisitor don't add some shaman and hope it works. Also 2nd healer gives me more time to debuff and making the stuff die even faster.

[Danm]

Lately, its been my experience that unless you want to be sitting on your [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] for power when fighting single ^^ mobs, you need one of the following:1) Enchanter2) A second healer3) A skilled mage base class to do power HOsThis was mid 30's fighting rats and scarecrows in Rivervale.I'm fine doing group swarm mobs though as the only healer.-Dan

[Leader_Do]

The groups I'm in generally pull very quickly, I'm all for the two healer group. I like to throw all my de-buffs on at once, this can be hard as the only healer. The timer has caused a great many close calls. Throw in adds, AoE's and the ever present "X" factor(comp crashes, lag, ext) and it has caused some hard feelings. Maybe its me, but the fingers always get pointed at the healer when a group gets wiped. For excitement (in a group that plays for fun) one healer can very exilerating to play. In a more serious group they can become quite unhappy if there is even one death. The nice thing about this game is the groups are very diverse, as to what works and what does not, I think it will still be quite some time before the "perfect" group mix is discovered. Untill then, Safe=2 healers, Exciting=1 healer. My 2c.

[Dreddnafio]

---

BlueQuick wrote:First, most of us consider themselves baddarses in combat...me included. I can keep a party healed as good or better than just about anyone I've ever grouped with. So, we don't need a second healer.Let's look at a basic (and desireable) groupSlot 1) HealerSlot 2) TankSlot 3) EnchanterSlot 4) DPS (assasin, warlock, wizzy, etc...)Slot 5) I perfer another DPSSlot 6) I perfer another healer

---

as the game trends higher i believe you'll add a warlock in your must haves in exchange for one of your dps's

[Chryo]

My usual group consists of guardian, troubador, wizard, coercer, warden and inquisitor (me), ranging from 43 to 47. Usually we healers don't break a sweat and don't know what to do with our mana. The coercer hardly ever mezes mobs that aren't ^^ anyway. We are fine without the coercer or one of the healers and don't see a difference usually. There are situations when we need both healers though: The last one was a 51^^ group x2 mob that we killed two days ago. And there is this interesting 48^^^ group x2 we found yesterday. We didn't try it yet, because yesterday and today there were only four of us and with no idea what to expect we want to have the full group for a group x2.From time to time there is a situation when both healers are running out of power, but those are few and far between. On the other hand, I can count the situations where we needed evac on one hand. Evac is a travel spell for us, not a lifesaver. That counts for something when you are fighting deep inside of dungeons and getting there is taking some time.

[Aari]

I love to have a second healer. I think im a pretty good healer and can pull out some fancy moves when needed but its nice to know that in the event of adds or a sucky pull its not a huge issue. I think that groups underestimate the power two healers can have in a group. Two Healers means less waiting in between pulls for power, bigger mobs, more XP. I dont see a problem =)

[The_W]

---

BlueQuick wrote:
First, most of us consider themselves baddarses in combat...me included. I can keep a party healed as good or better than just about anyone I've ever grouped with. So, we don't need a second healer.

Let's look at a basic (and desireable) group

Slot 1) Healer
Slot 2) Tank
Slot 3) Enchanter
Slot 4) DPS (assasin, warlock, wizzy, etc...)

Slot 5) I perfer another DPS
Slot 6) I perfer another healer (druids perfered, their Heal over Time stack well with our Reactive Heals).

---

Depends on where you're fighting.  If its a nice open area like The Commonlands, Thundering Steppes, Enchanted Lands, where a good group can avoid adds, then I would take a third DPS over the Enchanter.   And like you, I don't believe a second healer is needed, but I would prefer a Shaman.  The reason is because Ward + Reactive heal = Pure heal. 

 

I like this for my party:

 

1) Myself (Inquisitor)

2) Tank - Guardian, Shadowknight.  Class really doesn't matter a lot, some players can tank really well.

3) DPS - I love Assassins, great DPS.

4) 2nd DPS - 2 Assassins start to cancel each other's skills, so I'd rather a Warlock or Wizard here

5) 3rd DPS or Enchanter - For the 3rd DPS its nice to have a Bard or Rogue here, if the Enchanter is not needed.

6) Enchanter or 2nd Healer - If I dont get the Enchanter before, its nice to have them here, or a second healer, I prefer a Shaman for their wards.

 

[apb]

In my opinion a group with 2 healers AND an enchanter is a waste of time and will bore me to tears. All defense and no offense...sure you will never wipe but you'll spend all day killing ^^ mobs...

[Uthael]

---

apb03 wrote:
With an Enchanter, I find there's really no need for two healers.

---

Agreed, a little breeze makes a huge difference