Druid Vs. Cleric

[Ab]

I thought one of my first posts would be a question about these two classes. I used to play a chanter on E'ci in EQL ,no I was not Briandaj, and I decided to go the path of Main Healer. My question to this forum is who is a better MH, druid or cleric? In EQL druids were a more solo class and were outclassed in heals by clerics, but had more variety in buffs and DS. Since kiting is no longer possible, is it wrong to assume that SOE is trying to make druids into a good grouping class? Or maybe they are trying to make them bad, I don't know. I want to be evil, and I have compared the spell lists for both Wardens and Inquisitors. Wardens seem to keep up with heals per level basis with the Inquisitor. However, Inquisitors get some interesting debuffs, and of course they can wear plate armor. Wolf form seems to yield ac, but there is no way it could give enough to replace the ac probided by plate armor. And considering the only slower in the game also provides wards, damage shields seem somewhat useless. Wardens also provide nice overall buffs while it appears that Inquisitors focus mainly on hp and "offensive and defensive" buffs. This is in no way meant to bash the Warden class or Inquisitor class. Since no one is high level there just isn't enough information to help me make my decision. I am a little sceptical about Wardens being able to keep up with clerics on heals, but according to these forums they have. Please don't flame me, I am only here to learn.Thanks,

[ep]

I'd say if you are looking to go pure healer, cleric is for you. If you want to get in there and fight some too, go druid.

[neble]

---

Abyn wrote:
I thought one of my first posts would be a question about these two classes. I used to play a chanter on E'ci in EQL ,no I was not Briandaj, and I decided to go the path of Main Healer.

Not to repeat what you've already heard, but EQ2 is NOTHING like EQ1 aside from a few common names shared among locations, spells, and the game itself.

My question to this forum is who is a better MH, druid or cleric? In EQL druids were a more solo class and were outclassed in heals by clerics, but had more variety in buffs and DS. Since kiting is no longer possible, is it wrong to assume that SOE is trying to make druids into a good grouping class? Or maybe they are trying to make them bad, I don't know.

Neither is better, they heal equally as welll using 2 totally different styles of healing.  Since you've looked at the spell list, you can see the differences in healing styles (Regenerative vs Reactive healing).  I can't speak for Clerics, but Druid/Wardens are very much capable of solo killing solo content.  We are equally as capable of acting as the sole healer in a full group hunting group content.

I want to be evil, and I have compared the spell lists for both Wardens and Inquisitors. Wardens seem to keep up with heals per level basis with the Inquisitor. However, Inquisitors get some interesting debuffs, and of course they can wear plate armor. Wolf form seems to yield ac, but there is no way it could give enough to replace the ac probided by plate armor. And considering the only slower in the game also provides wards, damage shields seem somewhat useless. Wardens also provide nice overall buffs while it appears that Inquisitors focus mainly on hp and "offensive and defensive" buffs.

As you pointed out here, 2 different styles of healers even in the types of buffs.  I haven't actually examined the list of spells for an inquisistor, but on the AC thing the balance is we get more hit points/level than Clerics do.  Shamans kind of sit on middle ground with medium armor (I think) and in the middle hp gain/level between our 2 classes I believe.

This is in no way meant to bash the Warden class or Inquisitor class. Since no one is high level there just isn't enough information to help me make my decision. I am a little sceptical about Wardens being able to keep up with clerics on heals, but according to these forums they have. Please don't flame me, I am only here to learn.

I've said this a few times myself now.  As a level 26 Warden I have no problem playing the role of sole healer in a well balanced group... and that's against mobs hitting for 400+ damage a swing.

Thanks,

Welcome! :smileyvery-happy:

---

[neble]

---

epoh wrote:
I'd say if you are looking to go pure healer, cleric is for you. If you want to get in there and fight some too, go druid.

---

EQ 1 thinking.  Group with me for a night in Goliaths and you will think differently of Druids as pure healers.  :smileywink:

[ep]

---

neblehK wrote:

---

epoh wrote:
I'd say if you are looking to go pure healer, cleric is for you. If you want to get in there and fight some too, go druid.

---

EQ 1 thinking. Group with me for a night in Goliaths and you will think differently of Druids as pure healers. :smileywink:

---

Oh, I didn't mean Druids aren't good healers. I am a druid, and I dang sure hold my own when keeping a group alive. (Even with some [Removed for Content] tanks.) I just think that druids are much better fighters than clerics, which is why I chose the way I did. Some people, though, aren't as interested in fighting, and I think they would probably enjoy being a cleric more. JMHO.

[panlasinbane]

well, i cant disagree more. Clerics can melee just as good as druids if not better. Why couldent they? We wear full plate and can use basicly the same weapons. If anything non plate wearing healers are worse for hand to hand.

[Ballyh]

I played a cleric in EQ1.  I decided to go with Druid in EQ2 because I figured regens would be better than reactives for healing.  I think they would be, if they scaled up as you level.  However currently they don't (see Caerwyn's thread).  So I think clerics will be better if things stay as they are currently, because they can cast Bestowal of Vitae as much as needed for good efficiency, while Druids can only use Regrowth, our most efficient spell, once every 18 seconds.

[Kyralis]

Actually, the only healers who are really in great shape are shaman. The nature of their ward is that it heals as fast as necessary.Clerics have reactives- it heals a set amount per hit. That's great if the amount the mob does per hit is near the amount healed per hit, but if it's greatly less you're waiting healing, and if it's greatly more the reactive just isn't doing the job.The nice thing about the druid is that we're a very constant amount of healing dps, and we do that very efficiently. We don't deal with spikes nearly as well as shaman do, or clerics if it's of the lots of mobs variety (clerics don't deal with big-damage-hit spikes any better than we do.

[Di0Xi]

As a defiler, I'd just like to stay I'd rather co-heal with a druid than a cleric anyday.As a lone healer Cleric is probably better though, but for co-healing I think druid/shaman is the best combo.

[MRidcully]

Well, as an Inquisitor, I'd take a Druid over a Shaman any given day, because Druids ease up the mob DPS while Shamans neglect it for only so long.Other than that, BoV is pretty useless when the mob isn't hitting the tank at all. So my main job is to debuff and to make sure the tank stays alive after the ward's depleted. But couple BoV with Regrowth and debuffs from Hades himself... Well, there's another story.Overall, I sometimes wish I would have gone Warden for the cool shapeshifting feature and the neat HoT's which will work in perfect harmony with *any* healer type as well as solo healing (got my Druid only to 18 in the beta, so I can't speak specifically for the Warden class)...The point where an Inquisitor excels are the debuffs. You can basically reduce white ^^ mobs to almost harmless little grannies. Normally, once debuffs stick and BoV is on the MT, I seldomly have to heal excess damage on white ^^ mobs. But these are not the Inquisitor boards, so forgive me for digressing Anyway, my point is that Druids make formidable co-healers to any given Priest class (except other Druids I guess), while Shamans and Clerics seem to be very limited in their co-healing capabilities. I'd rate the Druid as the most versatile healer type around, and love grouping with them. I might as well start a new Priest and head for Druid. The spell revamp during beta did a great job in really diversifying the different healer types.It's just that EQ1 thinking gets me into groups more often as an Inquisitor

[Di0Xi]

Well I'm coming to think that maybe shaman and cleric pairings aren't that bad. I grouped with an inquisitor today and the thing was.. we had excellent ability to withstand bursts of heavy damage, the combination of wards (absorbing till expiring) and reactives (healing up a bit when the ward fails) meant we could really withstand a hell of a lot.However you need to be fighting really hard hitting mobs for it to be that worthwhile, and also it doesn't help much that I have to use a level 12 ward (only app3 too) at my current level (24 defiler). Perhaps when I get my next ward (26 I think) it will be a lot easier and the reactives less needed.but I agree druids do work well with both healers.

Message Edited by Di0XiDe on 12-04-2004 07:44 PM

[WAM]

It amazes me how often I run into Clerics who think they are the l33t healer in the group and do not think the Warden is worth much. There was one guy a week or two ago who was complaing that the Warden in the group needed to stop throwing heals over his as he was the main healer and the Warden should be doing something else. I was in a group a few days ago where the Templar in the group had to leave and apologized for messing up the group as they'd have to find a new healer (he was not kidding). How you get to level 20+ in this game and have so little clue is beyond me. As it happened he was a L-22 Templar and I was a L-24 Warden and as such I was throwing better heals overall than he was anyway...yet he totally missed this. I had a L-21 Templar tell me (L-25 Warden this time) to take care of the generic group heals as he would be the MT main healer. At a loss of what to say the MT chimed in shortly afterwards that his entire focus (Intervenes and whatever else they can do) would be soley reserved for the Warden (me) and told the rest of the group to likewise see to it that the Warden was primary to keep alive and the Templar was essentially secondary. In this case I was simply better by virtue of higher level but it was nice to see just the same. These are just three stories...I have seen this attitude much more though.Any group that has a bit of a clue is very happy to have a Warden along. While what a Warden can pull off is different than what a Templar will do on balance they are equals. Generally a group will take a Templar or Warden on a first come basis but I have yet to see a group pass up a Warden to wait for a Templar (unless they already had a Warden in the group...two of the same type of any healer is not so good).I think Wardens make the best choice when bringing two healers into a group. One Warden and a Celric or Shaman is a potent combo (BoV + BoG is quite handy). Cleric + Shaman is good as well...just not as good as a Warden and one of the other two IMHO.While the Wolf form does not give the Warden as much AC boost as a Templar in plate armor the Wolf Form does also add HP as well as a Power buff to the Warden. While not uber it is not inconsiderable either and well worth doing. Frankly I find Clerics/Templars who wade into battle to smack things annoying. Unless the encounter is a simple one the main healers need to stay back and focus on keeping everyone else alive. I find the Clerics/Templars who go mano-y-mano to be not so hot on the healing as their attention can be a bit divided and more importantly by smacking the mopbs they are only adding to their hate levels and increasing the chance of drawing aggro on themsleves. Many is the time I find myself healing the other healer (and yes...healers heal me too as we all manage to draw aggro and need that but I find I need to do it to melee Templars more often than they have to do it back to me).None of this is to say Cleric/Shaman classes are by any means bad or that Druid types are "better". This is all to say they each have their ups and downs and in balance I consider them equals in the role of healer for their groups. I just wish some Cleric types would understand that.

[TROri]

Templar here (27) to say I love working WITH druids or shaman.While I seldom find a mob (including red ++) that I can't keep my tank up and happy doing it solo, I love having someone that I can compliment well. The problem is that groups say "who is the MAIN healer" which is a ridiculous question. It's like asking "who is the MAIN damage dealer, the mage or the scout?"With a druid in the group I can rely on the fact that I never have to throw instant heals in when the mob is hitting for 250+ damage. I know the druids heals will bring the tank to full while my reactives will counter the next set of hits so the druid doesn't have to worry.With a shaman in the group I can safely de-buff the opponent without worrying about the tank going down if my reactive wears off and know that that big hit that kills the shamans ward is going to be repaired by my reactive.Anyone that says "druid/shaman" or "shaman/cleric" or "cleric/druid" is not a good combo is a fool who can't speak to their co-worker so everyone is aware of what heals are doing.Incidentally, I fight against 33rd/34th level group++ mobs with a pre-30 tank. I struggle when I'm alone and the shaman struggles when she's alone but with the two of us we never fall below 3/4 power. Same with a druid and myself. I imagine it's the same with a shaman and druid. I also imagine that it's the same for any individual healer struggling with power when solo.

[Kyralis]

I still maintain that the priest archetype is the best balanced of the four archetypes, and also the one most fundamentally dependent on player skill to shine- though mages seem similar on the skill requirement, and this is not meant as disparagement of the difficulty or skill of any other class.I solo heal, as a warden, in a group all the time. The job is... trivial. Nature's Caress, Chloroplast, a couple more NCs if necessary, and we run around pulling multiple encounters simply because we get bored if we don't. I have no problems keeping up. The only time I ever have issues is with the occasionaly groupx2 encounter, fighting it with a single group... and frankly, I don't really see that as a big problem, since it is marked as groupx2- especially when I can take some groupx2's handily as sole healer.Similarly, observing other healing classes, I've noticed that a lot of others can do basically the same thing. We seem a bit more efficient about it, as long as we're not being pushed to the absolute limit (which kills our efficiency as HoT components of instants get overwritten), but the others do the job too.At the same time I've noticed a lot of spectacularly bad healers out there. The ones who can take the druid class and make it seem as if we run out of power every fight. The ones who play clerics and can't keep up against group encounters. The shaman who can't keep a higher level tank healed against lower level content. The bad ones are out there, and people's opinions of the classes seems to be colored highly by encounters with these players. It's unfortunate, but nonetheless true.As a result, playing a healer is really a question of the style of healing you want to pick. They all do the job, and in the right hands they all do the job beautifully.

[Sebastien]

My opinion is that Caerwyn's last post basically hit the nail on the head.I just started rolling a cleric, and he is only in his low teens. But my warden got to 25. Everything I have seen so far in the game tells me that all the healing subclasses have comparable abilities, in the hands of a savvy player. Any of them can solo heal.However, they have very different styles. Coming from Regrowth and moving to Bestowal of Vitae.. well, its a very different animal. But I will learn to use it correctly. I think that there are a lot of REALLY bad healers out there. Maybe nice folks, but they just haven't figured out how to use their toon. Healers in EQ2 are, imo, much richers than in most mmorpg's. It's not a simple matter of hitting the heal button when you need to. We each have a different mix of ingredients that must be blended harmoniously for the group to run smooth and without casualty or downtime.What I like about the Inquisitor is that it combines solid healing and debuffs with a new twist: crowd control. They can stun, root, stifle (no spells or combat arts for j00) and pratically mez too (its a fear followed by root followed by detaunt, all-in-one.. like I said basically a mez for all intents and purposes). This combination of crowd control and healing is pretty exciting for me to try.I am also pretty impressed by the raw power of Bestowal of Vitae, when applied correctly. It can practically bring someone back from the dead, all while giving agro to them, not me. Not too shabby!But I would never claim it to be better than my Warden. When I first started playing, word on the streets was that Wardens were second-rate healers. NOT TRUE. We absolutely kick butt. No class is as mana efficient, imo.So, really, I think your decision comes down to style. What style of play will appeal to you most?For example, an Inquisitor might stun or stifle a mob, to reduce its damage output. A defiler will slow it down directly, with some of the nastiest debuffs in the game. And a Warden will throw down a suppressive fire of HoT's. Note that this has the same effect, in the end, as slowing the mob directly. Either one is a reduction in the mob's dps. It steadies the pace of battle.An Inquisitor might boost your attack speed, to make the fight go faster. A Defiler could do the same by weakening the subject, and plastering him with DoT's. A Warden will take a more direct approach, throwing down a devestating combinations of DoT's and Nukes. The Warden is no mage, but his nukes are not toys either. They can lay out some serious damage, mana permitting.All are capable healers, using direct heals. A Defiler will boost your effective hitpoints through buffs and wards, which absorb incoming damage. An Inquisitor will boost your effective hitpoints through reactive heals, and again through some of the best HP buffs in game. A Warden will boost your effective hitpoints through that constant supply of HoT ticks.You see, they all accomplish the same tasks. They make you stronger, weaken your opponent, slow his pace, quicken yours, and keep you alive. They just go about it in different ways. So pick the style that appeals to you, and give it a try. You can get a character into the 15-20 range pretty fast, and by then you will know whether you are going to like it or not.

[Unmask]

I really don't know enough about the spells cast by shaman or especially cleric (still don't really understand how vitae works) but as a Warden I'm fine as the main healer.  But what I will say is that as a Warden in a group with another class healer I prefer the secondary role since my experience is that our main line of spells (regens) work better when cast after a ward or reactive.  The shaman and cleric essentially stop the tank from taking damage and then our more efficient regen spells (opinion) will bring the tank to full.  Rinse and repeat.

 

At 101/tick (maxed regrowth at adept 1 with higher lvl HoTs broken), our regens are not sufficient to keep the tank alive so without a shaman or cleric, Nature's Caress, Effloresence, etc., need to be used more heavily but they don't seem as efficient.

[Kyralis]

A high-level Nature's Caress is *ridiculously* efficient, actually, and will blow Regrowth out of the water. You have to upgrade it, though. The other lines, sadly, don't share this.

[Arielle Nightshade]

I concur with what everyone's said here.  I don't usually group with pickup groups...but when I used to, I'd steer really clear of the "oh cool, we have you, now we'll wait for a real healer (cleric) too".  (Those were usually the ones where the non MT would attack before the MT could pull all the aggro, it'd break, beat the hell out of the healer - and then say it was the healer's fault for not keeping everyone alive.)( But I digress).

 

I often group with a Templar, and we work well together - but as a L27 warden, I just hum with a Shammy about the same level.   If the group thinks the cleric is 'the real healer' then..I'd rather not be with that group.  If they recognize the diversity of the two..then that's a good group.

 

 

[VandurLast]

Someone sais earlier that its ridiculous to say which is the Main Healer, just as it would be to say who is the Main DPS and i couldnt agree more.

 

As an Inquisitor i find that when duo-healing with a Warden/Fury neither of us is really being Main Healer, rather we are both combining our efficient class specific heals (HoT and reactives) to become one really powerful, effective and mana efficient healer. Usually neither of us has to lay down any of those lousy direct heals which makes everything run much more smoothly.

 

 

In the same way i suppose it could be argued that since both of us are only half a healer we are free to dedicate the other half of our time/power to each being half a DPS or buff/debuffer.

 

 

[caroneb]

Hearing things like this make me really have that I'll be a high level Warden someday

[Kharzho]

From the perspective of a 29 templar:

 

I personally love to hunt with wardens as their spells stack *wonderfully* with mine. Just stack regens on reactives and let the yummy xp come rolling in. However, I often find my role as the "main healer" and the warden as the "back-up healer" for the reason that I think wardens have more to offer groups with the excess mana that both of us usually have due to having 2 healers. So the warden tosses in a regen, I toss in 1 (or 2) reactive heals. I then debuff and he nukes away. Seems to work wonderfully.

 

I am jellous because I view wardens as stacking better with shamans than templars, so I view your class as stacking better with both other healing classes than I do. Your regen does wonders while the ward is up, whereas my reactives are useless when stacked with a mystics ward spells.

 

/shrug

 

I just wish there were more wardens that I could hunt with, because they are an amazing partner for my templar.

 

-Kharz

[MaskedFr]

I selected Warden for a couple of reasons.  First I like druids.  Second, I did not want to turn into a lion because I like wolves better.  When I started out I did not know how effective the character would be, but as I have played him to level 20 I absolutely love the character.  Druids/Wardens are amazingly effective due to their HoT.  I have been in many groups where the HoT is our only saving grace ticking away while other spells are recharging.  Because of the HoT we do stack well with Reactive Heals or Wards. 

 

Warden can certainly be the main healer but if there are two healers it is sometimes better to be the secondary healer and be able to contribute a small amount to the DPS.

 

In the end I think all of the healer classes are good.  It is just a matter of how you enjoy playing the game.

[Thibor24]

I have a lv 26 warden and am quite happy solo or duo healing.

 

I do find that when duo healing i seem to have a lot better power efficiency than the other healer but that may just be because they are dropping instant heals when there really is no need.

 

Druids are quite comfortable to keep their tank in the yellow range of health as they know that their HoT's will be more efficiently used and they can still drop an instant heal if necessary.

 

I notice that other healer types tend to like keeping tanks at full health and use their reactives and wards. However if the tank doesnt take damage during this time their heals wear off and the power is wasted. A druid usually only heals when damage has already been done so can use their power more efficiently.

 

The ideal battles are ones where you can just drop your main HoT on the tank and keep renewing it without using many instants.

 

Wardens and Furies do draw more agro with their heals than the other classes especially when fighting group mobs. Hopefully this will be addressed oneday.

 

[Malaki]

Both do the same job but in a different manner.

 

IMO Druids are the better healer, i use to play a templar and unless the tank is taking regular damage i found my self redundant in the group but my druid could start throwing some DD and DoT's at the mob.

 

 

Although nowadays with the uber damage that group mobs do I never mind having a second healer around, prefrably a cleric as our heals work well together.

 

My 1 gripe with clerics is why on earth do you stand some distance from the mob when you get to wear heavy armour whilst most druids i know assist the MT as well as healing th egroup?

 

[caroneb]

I 100,000% totally agree that clerics need to get their butts in gear and start helping w/ some melee at least...especially when all you have to do to target someone in danger is click on their name at the top of the screen. 

 

On another note, it's not as if you can't tell how long spell effects last anymore (i.e. wards, HoTs, etc..).  It's very easy to know if you need to cast something on the MT or on any other group member for that matter.:smileyhappy:

[YellowSpi]

I think it's more the person behind the keyboard ... not as much the class. They all can hold their own, but if you have an idiot behind the keyboard, doesn't matter what class they are.Wife Warden we do fine grouping together. I can even 2 box her with ease if she heads to be or in class. And since I'm a Zerker, I can lead a group easy and add a cleric/shaman. Having my own back on the healing if the pickup healer sucks makes me feel very comfortable.But in the end, I still think it boils down more to the person behind the keyboard then the actual toon on the screen. As long as you enjoy playing your class and are having fun, it's all good.

[Sheylara]

To Kharzhoul:

 

I wish more clerics played like you. I've grouped with many clerics and noticed that they like to throw instant heals a lot. Even if the tank is at 70% or 80% health, they throw an instant, completely neglecting the fact that I'm there with my HoTs.

 

So I stop casting HoTs until the tank is about 50%, and just concentrate on debuffs. At the end of the battle, my mana is at 95% while the cleric is at 30%.

 

Makes me look bad, like I'm not doing my job. :smileytongue:

 

But I can't say anything because I don't want to tell people how to play their class, since I don't know best, surely.

Message Edited by Sheylara on 01-24-2005 09:43 AM

[Jess]

---

Sheylara wrote:

To Kharzhoul:

 

I wish more clerics played like you. I've grouped with many clerics and noticed that they like to throw instant heals a lot. Even if the tank is at 70% or 80% health, they throw an instant, completely neglecting the fact that I'm there with my HoTs.

 

So I stop casting HoTs until the tank is about 50%, and just concentrate on debuffs. At the end of the battle, my mana is at 95% while the cleric is at 30%.

 

Makes me look bad, like I'm not doing my job. :smileytongue:

 

But I can't say anything because I don't want to tell people how to play their class, since I don't know best, surely.

Message Edited by Sheylara on 01-24-2005 09:43 AM

---

Finding a Cleric  that appresiates and understands how we heal and add to group is always a big plus.  I was in a group just yesterday and the Cleric was logging.  Someone in group suggested a defiler as the second healer.  Both our MT and Backup Tank said no, only a cleric can be Main healer. We here know that is not true.

I have grouped with Kharzhoul, we are in same guild, he, and our outher clerics in guild understand how to work with 2 healers.  I myself had to learn that also, early on I got a tell from a cleric suggesting that I ease up some, I was acting like a solo healer.  Working with my guild clerics and shaman, I think helped me be a better solo and duo healer.  The first thing I do when I join a group with another healer is send a tell to discuss how we are going to work out healing.  When I dont, I find we are duplicating efforts.

BTW, Sheylara, I will make sure i cross post this so that Kharz reads it, not sure who often he reads these threads. 

[Kharzho]

Heh - the key is to find those you like to hunt with and make sure you put them on your friends list.

 

Every character / class can hunt well here; as Jess points out, find the good ones and hunt with them a lot (or guild em). Druids are great; templars are great; and shamans are great.

 

Just have fun  =)

 

-Kharz

[Sheylara]

Thanks, Jess, for notifying Kharz.

 

Yeah, it's always nice when you manage to find people you can get along with and whose playstyle complements yours.

 

Not so easy to always group with the same folks, though, cos they're always grouped when you log in, or when they log in, YOU are already grouped, heh.

Message Edited by Sheylara on 01-24-2005 08:12 PM