Whats the Difference between Fury and Warden?

[Rahz]

I was going to play a fury, but was wondering what is so different between them and wardens.  I thought that the Warden was the Sterio type druid, and I was thinking that the fury would be more along the lines of a Woodland wizard.  But, does that mean the fury looses heals and buffs? 

[UmbralVoyag]

The Fury's focus is on increasing a party's DPS through buffs and damage shields, whereas the Warden's buffs are more defensive in nature. Both get a variety of DD spells.

[Rahz]

But what about the heals?  DO Furys get as many heals and are they as strong?

[kcirrot]

---

Rahzek wrote:

But what about the heals?  DO Furys get as many heals and are they as strong?

---

ALL healer subclasses get heals.  Furies get the same major heals as Wardens.

[Rahz]

ah, thank you

[orchidslyr]

See this informative post for more information onf Fury vs Warden.

 

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=15&message.id=426

[phishin33]

From what I've seen Fury's will probably end up being the least wanted for their healing abilities.  We get the major ones, but lack in support heals.  If anything we will be sought after for back up.

 

This is fine with me, healing is boring.

 

They are going to want us probably more so to fill a DD role in a round'a'bout way.  Meaning we will increase the damage output/accuracy of the whole party which will probably equal about the same as another DD toon in the party.

 

To be honest the Warden looks like a wanna-be cleric that can turn into a wolf.  He won't be able to buff or heal as well as a cleric, kinda of the jack-of-all-trades of the healers.  They have nothing to offer a group that another class can't offer better.

 

This is my opinion, and there is still a long ways to go before anyone hits end game...which will be when everything starts to fall together.  I could be completely wrong, but after doing alot of research, I feel Fury's will eventually be sought out more than a Warden just because of the damage output we will be bringing to the table, where the warden's have some nice regens....and uh....yea...

[Kit_Oturea]

It seems from those I have talked to, there are times when furies are worse healers, but at other levels, as good.  The issue with fury is the longer time before getting new heals.  So if you at a level right before a new upgrade, your less a healer than at the next level.

[Fael]

What about the Warden Evac and short distance port+snare? Honestly this sounds cool to me. Shadowstep away, nuke, shadowstep, nuke. Mal

[kcirrot]

---

phishin3321 wrote:

From what I've seen Fury's will probably end up being the least wanted for their healing abilities.  We get the major ones, but lack in support heals.  If anything we will be sought after for back up.

 

This is fine with me, healing is boring.

 

They are going to want us probably more so to fill a DD role in a round'a'bout way.  Meaning we will increase the damage output/accuracy of the whole party which will probably equal about the same as another DD toon in the party.

 

To be honest the Warden looks like a wanna-be cleric that can turn into a wolf.  He won't be able to buff or heal as well as a cleric, kinda of the jack-of-all-trades of the healers.  They have nothing to offer a group that another class can't offer better.

 

This is my opinion, and there is still a long ways to go before anyone hits end game...which will be when everything starts to fall together.  I could be completely wrong, but after doing alot of research, I feel Fury's will eventually be sought out more than a Warden just because of the damage output we will be bringing to the table, where the warden's have some nice regens....and uh....yea...

---

Absolutely wrong.  What gives you this idea.  Templars and Inquisitors aren't any better healers than Wardens or Furies.  All those spells that have heals as a secondary effect are very minor.

The only heals you'll need are:

Class based target heal, Target instant heal, Target high power instant heal, group instant heal, group class heal, emergency class heal.  Since all priests get all six of these heals, they will all heal equally.  These are the only heals you will use for primary healing.

There are other weird spells like the spell that procs a regen when an opponent dies.  However, that's not for primary healing and I think everyone gets something like it anyway.   Please get out of the EQ I mindset.  There is no "best" healer.  A fury or defiler could be the main healer on a raid.  Upgrading your spells is probably the most important criteria to whether you will be a decent healer.

[Zofo0]

Exactly right, good post kcirrot. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told how good a healer I have made in group. I hope that when this game matures people will lose the EQ1 mindset about the healers. Don't get me a wrong a cleric is a great addition to any group, but to say they can outheal any other healing class is absurd especially with the regen and direct heals we get. I have been in many a group where the cleric has been left with minimal power after encounters where as when I take over I am left with 1/2 to 3/4 of my power due to regen. But again I don't mean to bash the cleric line just trying to get the point across that the days of CLERICS owning the healing department are over.

[AestusCampitor]

Thanks all for the info - I think I can put to rest my concerns about my Fury not being able to keep up on heals or as MH as he goes up in level

 

Now if everyone could just realize that the Lion Illusion is a MOUNTAIN Lion, and could be either sex

 

Augh - 13 Kerra Druid of Permafrost

[Joos]

Not to burst anyones bubble, I play a Cleric and a Druid and so far my Cleric has more healing options than my Druid and my Cleirc is usually FM unless we get in a real nasty fight. My power bar drains slower than anyone elses in the group, that might be because of the way I play. I heal and keep the group alive and don't worry about anything else, I also pull less agro when I heal and can off tank when the situation requires it; in otherwords, I can do a group heal and get nocked around a lttle until the tank can get the agro back. I have saved many light armor DPS classes, including Druids, that pulled agro by hitting them with a big heal and then taking the agro until the tank could regain agro.

 

I am not saying one class is better than the other, just that there are things one class does better then the other and visa-versa. My Clerics DPS is limited, DPS buffs are insignificant and my defensive buffs are limited to AC and HP.

 

My Druid also out solos my Cleric.

[Kero]

When I just focus on healing, my power bar is also full, as a level 22 fury duoing with my 21 Paladin husband.  I sometimes feel guilty cause at the end of the fight he's at 40 power and i'm almost full.

 

We are all main healers, we just do it in different ways.

[Raider Hat]

Clerics are better healers than warden and far better than fury period. Though they may not be healing for more HPs than a warden, clerics reactive heals makes them the ideal class for healing tanks who are getting beat on by 2 or 3 mobs.

 

As for furies vs warden in the healing department, well,  for levels 20-30 warden get almost all the healing spells first while the furies are getting attack buffs and dots. But then again wardens also get two ice based nukes at 24 and 25 putting them almost on par with the fury dmg wise.

 

I

[Raider Hat]

Doh, double post

Message Edited by Raider Hater on 11-29-2004 10:50 PM

[jhh]

Having played both a templar and a fury into the low 20s, I will contribute my admittedly uninformed opinion to the discussion:Clerics (Templar and Inquisitor) cannot heal better than a Fury/Warden/Defiler/Mystic, and vice versa. It's all about the same in the end.What a cleric can do is heal easier - while the priest professions can't really outheal each other, reactive heals make my job a lot easier as a main healer than another non-cleric priest class in the same role. I can sit back after putting my reactive heals on the tank and debuff or use direct heals as needed. No need to spam direct heals every few seconds to keep the MT going since BoV and friends mitigate quite a bit of damage the MT takes, for a relatively low power cost.In the end, if I were the main healer at a raid, I would prefer a cleric profession. Not that they are any better at their job, but simply because it's easier on me.

[elorei]

nm, im bored with the argument.

 

believe what ya want.

Message Edited by elorei74 on 11-30-2004 04:19 AM

[Setli]

---

elorei74 wrote:

nm, im bored with the argument.

believe what ya want.

Message Edited by elorei74 on 11-30-2004 04:19 AM

---

I don't see an argument here. It appears to be a constructive debate. :smileyindifferent:

[Agreilo]

Well here's my take on it.. 

 

I played cleric in beta, and now I'm a druid prob. going fury. At least at sub-level 20 druid is just as good a healer as cleric, it depends on playstyle. The druids regens are very nice, very cheap for the amount they heal, and regen stacks with wards and reactive heals, clerics reactive dont stack well with shammy wards.

 

I'm allways main healer in the groups I'm in and I've no problems keeping a group alive, actually I like the regens better than the reactives, but if you think about it... its basicly the same.. you need so cast them at different time but the end result (if used correctly) is the same. I've never met a cleric that heals better or more efficient than me. A good healer is more depending on aggro management and how well you manage your power, than classes really (at least subclass).

 

The groups I've been in all wanted to put me on their friendlist, and that usually a good sign. Today I was only healer as level 16 druid in a level 19-21 group, it worked like a charm and I had no problems keeping everyone alive.

 

I can't say for the 20+ game yet, but all I hear is clerics are better healers on ooc, but I've never seen that as a fact yet... time will tell... when I go druid or warden ill post my experiences... but sub-20 anyone preferring a specific priestclass is talking nonsense... they're all equally well at healing, you just have to play them differently... play a druid like a cleric and you'll end up being very power inefficient.

 

 

Message Edited by Agreiloth on 11-30-2004 08:13 PM

[Kero]

The thing I've noticed about regens, unlike wards and reactives, is that if you fall behind, they have a chance to get you ahead.

 

IE, if you are debuffing or get aggro, and you let a tank get a bit low, but your regen may still out-heal the mob's DPS.  Wards and reactives only let you stop losing ground, because they both act like absorbtion type heals, which rely on the tanks natural hp regen to replenish health.

 

For a main healer, gimme a regen based one over a ward or reactive any day.

[Dragonreal]

I've been reading these forums a lot and especially threads like this asking which hlr is better; one thing I've noticed is there's ALWAYS a case of someone saying "Well my is more efficient because.. " Now if I'm seeing stories like this from every hlr type, that says two things:

 

1) all hlrs heal equally when played correctly

2) the hlrs that claim to be able to heal better than a different class simply have not met someone who plays a different type to    the best of its abilities.

[Joos]

Maybe your right, EQ2 made Druids beter healers than Clerics and gave them more utility and better solo ability. Wow do I feel stupid picking a sub par class that can only heal.

 

My only real experience is keeping 6 people alive with 6 db double up arrow mobs on the MT and multiple very light armor class nukers nuking the wrong mob and pulling agro and their life bar dropping like a rock, it sounds like any priest class can handle that no problem.

 

I still like my toon and would like to congratulate all you great Druid healers for getting the added bonus of offense, healing and utility all in one class.

 

Druid is truly the king of the priest class.

Message Edited by Joosul on 11-30-2004 02:30 PM

[elorei]

---

Joosul wrote:

Maybe your right, EQ2 made Druids beter healers than Clerics and gave them more utility and better solo ability. Wow do I feel stupid picking a sub par class that can only heal.

 

My only real experience is keeping 6 people alive with 6 db double up arrow mobs on the MT and multiple very light armor class nukers nuking the wrong mob and pulling agro and their life bar dropping like a rock, it sounds like any priest class can handle that no problem.

 

I still like my toon and would like to congratulate all you great Druid healers for getting the added bonus of offense, healing and utility all in one class.

 

Druid is truly the king of the priest class.

Message Edited by Joosul on 11-30-2004 02:30 PM

---

what makes you think druids get more utility than clerics?  seriously?

 

cleric nukes hit for same as druid.  cleric buffs are insane.

[Dragonreal]

---

Joosul wrote:

Maybe your right, EQ2 made Druids beter healers than Clerics and gave them more utility and better solo ability. Wow do I feel stupid picking a sub par class that can only heal.

 

My only real experience is keeping 6 people alive with 6 db double up arrow mobs on the MT and multiple very light armor class nukers nuking the wrong mob and pulling agro and their life bar dropping like a rock, it sounds like any priest class can handle that no problem.

 

I still like my toon and would like to congratulate all you great Druid healers for getting the added bonus of offense, healing and utility all in one class.

 

Druid is truly the king of the priest class.

Message Edited by Joosul on 11-30-2004 02:30 PM

---

You need to chill out and not put words in my mouth.. I do not think drds are better than clrs; we're even, as are shamans. If you want your clr to be a better hlr than a drd or shaman has the potential to be, then go play eqoa or eq1. I don't play a clr on here because it was promised that all hlrs would be equal hlrs and when I saw HOW they were equal, I stuck with what I've always loved, being a bouncy fuzzy little ball of ditzy happiness that keeps everyone's [Removed for Content] alive **ZOMG** well (on eqoa drds actually could heal wonderfully in grp situations, but they sucked for raids when compared to clrs), and with the type of healing I know the best, tick heals.

As to your solo ability remark.. last I checked kiting doesn't exist anymore and everything I've known of drds points towards that being their best way to solo.

[Joos]

In another post a fury explained the different roles the people in their group play and they had no desire to replace the cleric because they where to busy augmenting the dps of the group, debuffing and buffing. This is the druid I want to group with, the one that is knows how to make their group better, not the one that wants to prove they are as good at healing as a cleric.

 

Maybe druids out heal clerics; though, in the groups I am in with druids there is so much more they can do to make the group more efficient. This is the problem I have with all these druids are as good of healers as clerics posts, look at your spell book and do what you do best instead of trying to duplicate the only thing another class can do.

 

I joined a group the other day where a druid was doing a good job of keeping the group alive. After I got there the pace really picked up because the druid was free to augment the group in a way they couldn't before because you only have so much power before your power bar runs down.

 

What I try and do is keep the group going strong with the least amount of down time and the maximum number of kills and those are the kind of people I want to group with, not ones that are out to prove they can replace onother class.

 

 

[elorei]

joosul, the druid can do both at once.

 

the 3 minute proc buffs and what not take almost no power to cast, and they last 3 minutes.

 

why do you think the druid can only increase the DPS of the group or heal, not increase dps AND heal?

 

i dont get it.

 

also, you stated "the only thing another class can do".  what crappy clerics are you playing with that can only heal?  they nuke as hard as a fury, they get powerful DoTs, they proc in melee, and thier buffs are insane.

Message Edited by elorei74 on 12-01-2004 07:43 AM

[Joos]

I guess that crappy cleric would be me. I don't have any DoTs, I don't proc in melee and my buffs last hours. Maybe when I level up, I am only level 17, I will get the stuff you are talking about.

 

As far as nuking goes, when my group is down in the bottom of a dungeon and we are being surprised by as many as 8 mobs at a time nuking does not seem like a prudent use of mana.

 

If I said a Druid cannot heal, I take that back because I never meant to say a Druid cannot heal. What I am trying to say is a Cleric is tha most efficient healer and a Druid makes a great secondary healer, even to the point of taking over as main healer if the Cleric goes down or runs out of power.

 

I still believe a Clerics main role is the main healer in a group and the Druid is group augmentation, debuffing, buffing and secondary healer. If you ever group with me you will find I am one of the most group friendly people you will meet and my main goal is to work as a team and maximize the kill rate and minimize the death rate in the hardest content possible.

 

I will be the first to admit that EQ2 is different than EQ1 and I really like the changes.

[elorei]

ok, yer lvl 17, i understand a lot more of yer viewpoint now.  things will change when you get past 25 or so.  at 17 a druid cant really dot or proc worth a **ZOMG**, either, and their buffs and debuffs are few and far between, too.

[Agreilo]

Joosul you are wrong stating that a cleric is the primary healer, the thing is that eq2 is designed so that any priest-subclass can be primary healer. They work a bit differently but in essense they arent that different. SOE and Moorgard have stated repeatedly that theres no such thing as a preferred primary healer in EQ2, all priest classes will work equally well.

 

This is the point I'm trying to make, don't look at any other MMO's when comparing the EQ2 classes. What essentially matters in EQ2 are Archetypes if you have one of each (4) you'll have a perfect group no matter what subclasses they are. They did this to make it easier to make good groups, and make groups less dependant on a specific class (e.g. cleric). And that has actually worked, there are so many playing priest-archetypes atm. that no group can possibly miss a healer. The problem atm. is tanks .

 

The downside is less versatility, true wardens are different from templars but not _that_ much. In essence their job is the same they keep the group alive, they use different means but if you really look at it, there isnt much difference.

 

As a cleric sub-class you'll notice when you choose your subclass (templar or inquisitor) that you'll gain similar abilites to wardens and furies. At first glance they are very different, but when you work with them you'll notice that they heal and buff and dmg about the same. Some buff offensively some buff defensively.. etc. etc. in the end no subclass should be preferred as a primary healer, even using the word "primary" for any one priest-subclass makes no sense at all.

 

Its true that to be a good druid you have to know your tools, and not play it like a cleric. But a good druid is just as good as primary healer as a good cleric.., same goes for furies and templars.

 

So please dont use the word primary healer for any priest archetype subclass, it does not make any sense in EQ2.