Melee Priest Balance

[Raji]

As it stands, I believe Mystics are getting the short end of the stick. Now, not simply because I play one (I play one of each melee mystic+templar and defiler right now--so I can swing around no matter what, and the balance doesn't kill me) I believe that the balance is flawed. The Inquisitors get 32% double attack, a melee proc with interrupt, and 100% melee crits+Yaulp (bringing it up to 52%? double attack) when they wanna have it up. The Warden gets 40% double attack, 75% melee crit, and heal procs+haste based on attack used+melee procs through tiger form. The Mystic gets only 100% crit and a fairly unreliable proc for 10 seconds of 35% double attack, and admittedly a melee proc. The mystic needs to get -something- to balance this out, I believe. Maybe my eyes are clouded, heh. I dunno. Opinions?

[Giral]

take away my inquisitor dp's and my aa's that give me ways to Increase my Agro ,  and give me more ways to    heal, buff, re-active.       im a healer not tank or a scout/mage i dont need agro help or dp's thanks anyway Soe but no thanks

[TheSpin]

Giralus wrote:

take away my inquisitor dp's and my aa's that give me ways to Increase my Agro ,  and give me more ways to    heal, buff, re-active.       im a healer not tank or a scout/mage i dont need agro help or dp's thanks anyway Soe but no thanks

Inquisitor aggro generation is a buff applied to whoever is getting attacked, it could theoretically be used to help the inquisitor tank, but it's really to help the tank hold aggro once he has it (though if he loses it it works against him).  Not only that, but it really doesn't apply to the main subject of this post.

I have to say I agree with the above post pretty much....I have an inquisitor, love his dps.  I wanted to try out another melee priest and was really looking forward to playing a mystic but after looking more closely decided they were lacking a little bit overall and that the warden would be the stronger class.

[Raji]

Which is the problem. I happen to play the warden the most, anymore (since my sister plays an inquisitor--who was my first choice, but, you know--Warden is a blast too), buit I can tell you even at the low level's he is the strongest of my melee priests IMHO.

[Spider]

Giralus wrote:

take away my inquisitor dp's and my aa's that give me ways to Increase my Agro ,  and give me more ways to    heal, buff, re-active.       im a healer not tank or a scout/mage i dont need agro help or dp's thanks anyway Soe but no thanks

if you watn a pure healer roll a templar or a mystic  the inquis IS An EVIL BATTLE PRIEST class and always has been 

thankfully eof helped us enhance it more so

[Uilamin]

Spider wrote:

Giralus wrote:

take away my inquisitor dp's and my aa's that give me ways to Increase my Agro ,  and give me more ways to    heal, buff, re-active.       im a healer not tank or a scout/mage i dont need agro help or dp's thanks anyway Soe but no thanks

if you watn a pure healer roll a templar or a mystic  the inquis IS An EVIL BATTLE PRIEST class and always has been 

thankfully eof helped us enhance it more so

ummm only with eof did we become a 'battle priest' before that we were healers that buffed physical attacks, essentially a mix between a templar and a dirge. I would personally love it, from a non-pvp perspective, to loose the whole battle line and get it replaced with a healing line.  If you want to play a healer than can dps (although not great at either) play a paladin.

[Giral]

  Nah i don't wan't to play a templar thanks for the cut and paste response tho

   I'm glad you enjoy your battle priest's to each his or her own, i do find it funny tho when someone who play's an Inquistor to be a healer has to constantly get berated becuase they want to actualy be a healer and not a minor dp's class.

so could we get a list of the healer classes all set up to full dp's and get an idea of where they all stand in relation to each other dp's wise

i know the mystic in our guild can do a constant 900 to 1200 dp's in raid's in the mt group and still come in 1st or 2nd on the zonewide heal parse

also interested to know if all healer classes are going to be Dp's at just about the same range(except furies they are  in another Dp'd tier)  how original is the battlepriest concept ? all your left [Removed for Content] is the ability to run in close to mobs becuase of Plate gear, but so can templar's so meh

Inquisitor out of the healing classes already is :

not the best healer

not the best buffer

not the best debuffer

not the best dp'ser

junk utility : )

what do inquisitor's get to shine at ?  nothing thats what makes them so amazing /rofl ; )

P.s. ,How do Inquisitor's fair at healing in PVP in raid's , since you cant use a Templar and you cant CHOSE to be a templar and play with the Evil's ,  do you think that Templar's and Inquisitor's are fully equiped to heal equaly as well in a PvP environment ?  and how often does your Dp's save the day in PVP?   i dont play on pvp but just curious  : 0

[Lilj]

Raji wrote:

As it stands, I believe Mystics are getting the short end of the stick. Now, not simply because I play one (I play one of each melee mystic+templar and defiler right now--so I can swing around no matter what, and the balance doesn't kill me) I believe that the balance is flawed. The Inquisitors get 32% double attack, a melee proc with interrupt, and 100% melee crits+Yaulp (bringing it up to 52%? double attack) when they wanna have it up. The Warden gets 40% double attack, 75% melee crit, and heal procs+haste based on attack used+melee procs through tiger form. The Mystic gets only 100% crit and a fairly unreliable proc for 10 seconds of 35% double attack, and admittedly a melee proc. The mystic needs to get -something- to balance this out, I believe. Maybe my eyes are clouded, heh. I dunno. Opinions?

You can't talk balance out from just a few aspects of the classes you want to compare. You also need other aspects that has an influence on the melee aspect. Strength buffs, mitigation buffs, hp buffs, armor and weapon choices (and I'm sure there are more). I believe all melee priests could make a case of them being the one getting the short end of the stick, by focusing on the places where they get less. If you want to talk balance, please consider all aspects and not just the ones that talks in your favor.

[Orthureon]

I agree completely with Lilijna. People always have the "your grass is greener than mine" mind set. You have to look at it from all aspects.

One huge aspect being that reactives take just as long as your wards to cast and reactives are the LEAST efficient means of healing. IE you cast a reactive knowing someone is going to attack. If they are smart they will either autoattack it away, use a dot, or use their low damage attacks to get rid of all the triggers. Then you are open for the barrage.

[Spider]

Orthureon wrote:

I agree completely with Lilijna. People always have the "your grass is greener than mine" mind set. You have to look at it from all aspects.

One huge aspect being that reactives take just as long as your wards to cast and reactives are the LEAST efficient means of healing. IE you cast a reactive knowing someone is going to attack. If they are smart they will either autoattack it away, use a dot, or use their low damage attacks to get rid of all the triggers. Then you are open for the barrage.

accualy thats a horrible way to do it what u want to do is jstu stop auto attacking  and if your going to hit only hit with BIG damge  as small damage only helps with reactive heals

[Uilamin]

Spider wrote:

Orthureon wrote:

I agree completely with Lilijna. People always have the "your grass is greener than mine" mind set. You have to look at it from all aspects.

One huge aspect being that reactives take just as long as your wards to cast and reactives are the LEAST efficient means of healing. IE you cast a reactive knowing someone is going to attack. If they are smart they will either autoattack it away, use a dot, or use their low damage attacks to get rid of all the triggers. Then you are open for the barrage.

accualy thats a horrible way to do it what u want to do is jstu stop auto attacking  and if your going to hit only hit with BIG damge  as small damage only helps with reactive heals

Well that really depends, as an inquisitor fighting other clerics in pvp i usually jsut auto-attack because it does stupid amounts of damage.

[Orthureon]

Spider wrote:

Orthureon wrote:

I agree completely with Lilijna. People always have the "your grass is greener than mine" mind set. You have to look at it from all aspects.

One huge aspect being that reactives take just as long as your wards to cast and reactives are the LEAST efficient means of healing. IE you cast a reactive knowing someone is going to attack. If they are smart they will either autoattack it away, use a dot, or use their low damage attacks to get rid of all the triggers. Then you are open for the barrage.

accualy thats a horrible way to do it what u want to do is jstu stop auto attacking  and if your going to hit only hit with BIG damge  as small damage only helps with reactive heals

"IE you cast a reactive knowing someone is going to attack. If they are smart they will either autoattack it away, use a dot, or use their low damage attacks to get rid of all the triggers. Then you are open for the barrage."

 Lol no where in there did I say that was the way to get rid of wards. I was specifically referring to reactives as you can see. Wards don't have triggers.

 The whole point of that post was giving an example of how reactives may be heals, they are still the least effective.

[Spider]

Orthureon wrote:

Spider wrote:

Orthureon wrote:

I agree completely with Lilijna. People always have the "your grass is greener than mine" mind set. You have to look at it from all aspects.

One huge aspect being that reactives take just as long as your wards to cast and reactives are the LEAST efficient means of healing. IE you cast a reactive knowing someone is going to attack. If they are smart they will either autoattack it away, use a dot, or use their low damage attacks to get rid of all the triggers. Then you are open for the barrage.

accualy thats a horrible way to do it what u want to do is jstu stop auto attacking  and if your going to hit only hit with BIG damge  as small damage only helps with reactive heals

"IE you cast a reactive knowing someone is going to attack. If they are smart they will either autoattack it away, use a dot, or use their low damage attacks to get rid of all the triggers. Then you are open for the barrage."

 Lol no where in there did I say that was the way to get rid of wards. I was specifically referring to reactives as you can see. Wards don't have triggers.

 The whole point of that post was giving an example of how reactives may be heals, they are still the least effective.

wow your a bright one i was TALKING about reactives bro   and if the reactive heals for say 500 and you hit them for 1000 then there reactive was only marginaly effective  but if u only hit them with a dot that ticks for like 100 your jsut going to heal them to full rather than further reducing there health

and it all depends on who or what your fighting because if your fighting something that hits for less damage but hits a lot then reactives are by far the MOST effective form of healing however if its something that hits  for large damage but slower then wards are the best way to go

and if your fighting someone and they precast reactives then u might as well not attack and jsut cast root ,fear and debuffs etc til it fades then go in hard and fast

[Orthureon]

Ok I guess I read that wrong, it was the missed punctuation that threw me off.

But in my experience, if I am at full health and I just start a fight I precast my heal, if they just hit me with weak attacks or autoattacks to knock off all the triggers then they can just unleash hell. Because you can't heal yourself above 100%. The point to this is they will make you keep yourself busy healing and wasting mana. Who cares if your reactive which has 5 triggers keeps you completely healed, just knock off the triggers and within the 2 seconds they would need to recast being a fighter or scout they can unleash 3-4 CAs. Of course this strategy is best for when just starting the fight.

Not saying my strategy is better or worse, just saying it is another way of fighting us. Not sure why I am even giving away our weaknesses lol.

----------------------------------------------------

"wow your a bright one i was TALKING about reactives bro"

----------------------------------------------------

If it was written like this:

Actually that is a horrible way to do it. What you want to do is just stop autoattacking and only hit with attacks that do more damage than each trigger heals, as small damage only helps with reactive heals.

 I would have completely understood that lol. Even if it had grammatical errors. I suppose wording makes a big difference.

[Oakum]

Raji wrote:

As it stands, I believe Mystics are getting the short end of the stick. Now, not simply because I play one (I play one of each melee mystic+templar and defiler right now--so I can swing around no matter what, and the balance doesn't kill me) I believe that the balance is flawed. The Inquisitors get 32% double attack, a melee proc with interrupt, and 100% melee crits+Yaulp (bringing it up to 52%? double attack) when they wanna have it up. The Warden gets 40% double attack, 75% melee crit, and heal procs+haste based on attack used+melee procs through tiger form. The Mystic gets only 100% crit and a fairly unreliable proc for 10 seconds of 35% double attack, and admittedly a melee proc. The mystic needs to get -something- to balance this out, I believe. Maybe my eyes are clouded, heh. I dunno. Opinions?

While I will not say that mystics are fine, here is the problem that I have with the assumption that Inquistors, Mystic, and Wardens are supposed to melee equally.

SOE has never said they were supposed to be equal. The only thing equal between healers types is the overall healing ability.

Think of it this way. Who would you expect to be able to do more melee damage? A cleric wearing 75 pounds of armor, a shaman wearing 40 or a druid wearing 10?

Thats is one of the reasons druids are supposed to be able to do more damage then clerics and shaman since they would not tire as quickly and its the tradeoff for dying a lot quicker when getting hit in melee. Just like mages and scouts.

Now what we should be looking at is:

Is Temp and Inquis DPS roughly equal with one being more or less spell based and one being melee based?

Also the same question for Mystic DPS compared to a defiler and then Warden and Fury.

I don't know about Mystic to Defiler but I know that warden melee dps needs to be upped because a warden with 300 str from equip does a lot less damage then a fury with 300 int. The number was picked at random but any would work. Also Inquistor and defiler seem to be able to easily out dps a warden and some say that a mystic meleeing is roughly equal to a warden. All this together tells me that the Dev's need to raise wardens to where we should be.

So to the OP my question is this? Is mystic DPS equal to a defiler's? Is Shaman dps about halfway between Cleric and Druid? If the answer is yes, you are fine.  If its less then you are right to be asking for more.

The comparison with the assumption that someone in plate or chain can do more damage then someone in leather is wrong. They wil have better physical mit so someone wearing plate and chain will last longer if they are hit by a weapon then a leather wearer will. But the more agile, less weighted down person will use their weapons more agilely for longer without getting hampered as much by thier gear and not get as tired as quickly and thereby do more damage then the heavier armered types can.

[TheSpin]

Oakum wrote:

Raji wrote:

As it stands, I believe Mystics are getting the short end of the stick. Now, not simply because I play one (I play one of each melee mystic+templar and defiler right now--so I can swing around no matter what, and the balance doesn't kill me) I believe that the balance is flawed. The Inquisitors get 32% double attack, a melee proc with interrupt, and 100% melee crits+Yaulp (bringing it up to 52%? double attack) when they wanna have it up. The Warden gets 40% double attack, 75% melee crit, and heal procs+haste based on attack used+melee procs through tiger form. The Mystic gets only 100% crit and a fairly unreliable proc for 10 seconds of 35% double attack, and admittedly a melee proc. The mystic needs to get -something- to balance this out, I believe. Maybe my eyes are clouded, heh. I dunno. Opinions?

While I will not say that mystics are fine, here is the problem that I have with the assumption that Inquistors, Mystic, and Wardens are supposed to melee equally.

SOE has never said they were supposed to be equal. The only thing equal between healers types is the overall healing ability.

Think of it this way. Who would you expect to be able to do more melee damage? A cleric wearing 75 pounds of armor, a shaman wearing 40 or a druid wearing 10?

Thats is one of the reasons druids are supposed to be able to do more damage then clerics and shaman since they would not tire as quickly and its the tradeoff for dying a lot quicker when getting hit in melee. Just like mages and scouts.

Now what we should be looking at is:

Is Temp and Inquis DPS roughly equal with one being more or less spell based and one being melee based?

Also the same question for Mystic DPS compared to a defiler and then Warden and Fury.

I don't know about Mystic to Defiler but I know that warden melee dps needs to be upped because a warden with 300 str from equip does a lot less damage then a fury with 300 int. The number was picked at random but any would work. Also Inquistor and defiler seem to be able to easily out dps a warden and some say that a mystic meleeing is roughly equal to a warden. All this together tells me that the Dev's need to raise wardens to where we should be.

So to the OP my question is this? Is mystic DPS equal to a defiler's? Is Shaman dps about halfway between Cleric and Druid? If the answer is yes, you are fine.  If its less then you are right to be asking for more.

The comparison with the assumption that someone in plate or chain can do more damage then someone in leather is wrong. They wil have better physical mit so someone wearing plate and chain will last longer if they are hit by a weapon then a leather wearer will. But the more agile, less weighted down person will use their weapons more agilely for longer without getting hampered as much by thier gear and not get as tired as quickly and thereby do more damage then the heavier armered types can.

First of all I want to thank you for bringing back the mystics and wardens into this post.  If I wanted another post about inquisitors, I would go the inquisitor forum.

I have to disagree with you about the way you expect the damage output to be based on the type of armor worn.  Wardens have roots to compensate for their lighter armor, therefore that is not the primary reason to decide who should do the heaviest dps.  Not to mention wardens are the only melee priest that is considered by the general populous to be the 'better' healer than it's counterpart (furies).

I think that mystics are the ones who need some attention.  Inquisitor dps is fine (and then some).  I would guess a good dps specced/geared inquisitor could out dps any priest class in a single target encounter.

[Dallun]

TheSpin wrote:

Oakum wrote:

First of all I want to thank you for bringing back the mystics and wardens into this post.  If I wanted another post about inquisitors, I would go the inquisitor forum.

I have to disagree with you about the way you expect the damage output to be based on the type of armor worn.  Wardens have roots to compensate for their lighter armor, therefore that is not the primary reason to decide who should do the heaviest dps.  Not to mention wardens are the only melee priest that is considered by the general populous to be the 'better' healer than it's counterpart (furies).

I think that mystics are the ones who need some attention.  Inquisitor dps is fine (and then some).  I would guess a good dps specced/geared inquisitor could out dps any priest class in a single target encounter.

Please do remember that we are talking about Melee DPS here and hence why I state that Roots are a minor advantage in melee.  Please don't misunderstand that I think they are useless... well... they are in PvE unless you are casting, but while roots are very powerful in PvP the majority of the population plays PvE. Something else to consider is solo vs group.  Any class is going to have their abilities changed by a group setup and hence the person with the most raw Damage potential is going to benefit the most; as proven by Assassin's insane DPS in groups and their utter craptacular performance at soloing.  So in groups I would expect Wardens to have higher DPS numbers simply because every attack they have (melee... or casting for that matter) save one is just Damage.  A solid benchmark for this kind of thinking would be to solo the nest.  I, as a 70 warden, can get all the way tot he last named and almost beat him and while I am not EoF Fabled out, that is not a detriment as Warden EoF gear does not cater to the melee spec.  (STR 4 8 8 7 1 STA 4 4 4 Fellow guildmates who play both Mystics and Defilers can however solo the nest in its entirety.  This is because of the debuffs that they are able to produce.  As for the armor we both were wearing, theirs was better as they did have EoF gear, but it was not a massive improvement over what I had. A second quick benchmark to test things by is to find out how many guilds have what healers for the Challenge in EH. Dallun / Fione 70 Warden / 70 Illusionist Antonia Bayle

[Oakum]

TheSpin wrote:

Oakum wrote:

Raji wrote:

First of all I want to thank you for bringing back the mystics and wardens into this post.  If I wanted another post about inquisitors, I would go the inquisitor forum.

I have to disagree with you about the way you expect the damage output to be based on the type of armor worn.  Wardens have roots to compensate for their lighter armor, therefore that is not the primary reason to decide who should do the heaviest dps.  Not to mention wardens are the only melee priest that is considered by the general populous to be the 'better' healer than it's counterpart (furies).

I think that mystics are the ones who need some attention.  Inquisitor dps is fine (and then some).  I would guess a good dps specced/geared inquisitor could out dps any priest class in a single target encounter.

Okay, so rooting a mob increases druid mit while they are hitting hitting it so they can take just as many hits as a cleric or shaman, huh. Thats great, in 70 levels I never realized they did that. SOE must have left that out of the spell description. Guess they need to fix the description to say the following.

"Roots target and increases Physical Mitigation while decreasing DPS to that of player wearing full plate mail"

Hope I can remember to bug it when I start playing tonight. lol.

Yes, wardens are considered the better healer for any long fights that wards and reactives dont suck up all the damage AND burst healing is not required due to the MT taking a lot of spike damage. Fury's far outshine the wardens in that department but usually burn power faster then wardens so the warden ends up healing longer for more. There were all kinds of charts after lu-13 showing how all healer classes healed equally even with different types of heals, cast/recast timers, and different healing amounts per healing spell. It all balanced out in the end.

So here is the question. You have one of each healer type in the guild. Raid leader only wants 5 healers. Which healing class does not go?

A clerics with their reactives, hp buffs/dps buffs, pet hammer pulls? A Shaman with their wards, HP buffs, (soul ward being useless in a raid especially, lol) buffs, debuffs, and wolf pet for pet pulls and superfast cures. Guess that leaves the druids. Fury good dps buffs, burst heal specialist, can do best priest DPS when not healing whos DH's are true direct heals plus have efficient group and single target hot. THen there is us wardens who can heal more because our power last longer then other priests but dont handle burst damage well whos mt buffs can be replaced by a fury's and the MT group wont know the difference except for the other priest who will have a 100 less power from not getting the group wisdom buff. 

Pre DoF wardens could out heal fury's by a big margin and were almost as good as templers. We were nerfed with LU 13 to actually be worse then fury's for a couple of months and then they fixed us so we healed a hair better like now. That was okay because they could out dps by that same margin. Trouble is, with KoS and EoF they gradually messed up the DPS balance between druids. It was gradual and mostly unseen as it happened but at lvl 70 100 aa its way out of whack for the average warden vs the average fury.

Not that I mind the perception that wardens heal better. Its a good way to keep fresh players in the class at least until they hit 70/100 and realize that fury's heal just as good as they can, do a lot more dps, and can buff a dps group way better then a warden can. At that point hopefully they will join the fight to get us raised up where we should be and hopefully not just betray to fury.

Enough off topic though. If mystics cannot dps as good as defilers, by all means raise them. They can raise wardens to be roughly equal to fury's in the dps department too while they are at it.

[Giral]

TheSpin wrote:

Oakum wrote:

Raji wrote:

As it stands, I believe Mystics are getting the short end of the stick. Now, not simply because I play one (I play one of each melee mystic+templar and defiler right now--so I can swing around no matter what, and the balance doesn't kill me) I believe that the balance is flawed. The Inquisitors get 32% double attack, a melee proc with interrupt, and 100% melee crits+Yaulp (bringing it up to 52%? double attack) when they wanna have it up. The Warden gets 40% double attack, 75% melee crit, and heal procs+haste based on attack used+melee procs through tiger form. The Mystic gets only 100% crit and a fairly unreliable proc for 10 seconds of 35% double attack, and admittedly a melee proc. The mystic needs to get -something- to balance this out, I believe. Maybe my eyes are clouded, heh. I dunno. Opinions?

While I will not say that mystics are fine, here is the problem that I have with the assumption that Inquistors, Mystic, and Wardens are supposed to melee equally.

SOE has never said they were supposed to be equal. The only thing equal between healers types is the overall healing ability.

Think of it this way. Who would you expect to be able to do more melee damage? A cleric wearing 75 pounds of armor, a shaman wearing 40 or a druid wearing 10?

Thats is one of the reasons druids are supposed to be able to do more damage then clerics and shaman since they would not tire as quickly and its the tradeoff for dying a lot quicker when getting hit in melee. Just like mages and scouts.

Now what we should be looking at is:

Is Temp and Inquis DPS roughly equal with one being more or less spell based and one being melee based?

Also the same question for Mystic DPS compared to a defiler and then Warden and Fury.

I don't know about Mystic to Defiler but I know that warden melee dps needs to be upped because a warden with 300 str from equip does a lot less damage then a fury with 300 int. The number was picked at random but any would work. Also Inquistor and defiler seem to be able to easily out dps a warden and some say that a mystic meleeing is roughly equal to a warden. All this together tells me that the Dev's need to raise wardens to where we should be.

So to the OP my question is this? Is mystic DPS equal to a defiler's? Is Shaman dps about halfway between Cleric and Druid? If the answer is yes, you are fine.  If its less then you are right to be asking for more.

The comparison with the assumption that someone in plate or chain can do more damage then someone in leather is wrong. They wil have better physical mit so someone wearing plate and chain will last longer if they are hit by a weapon then a leather wearer will. But the more agile, less weighted down person will use their weapons more agilely for longer without getting hampered as much by thier gear and not get as tired as quickly and thereby do more damage then the heavier armered types can.

First of all I want to thank you for bringing back the mystics and wardens into this post.  If I wanted another post about inquisitors, I would go the inquisitor forum.

I have to disagree with you about the way you expect the damage output to be based on the type of armor worn.  Wardens have roots to compensate for their lighter armor, therefore that is not the primary reason to decide who should do the heaviest dps.  Not to mention wardens are the only melee priest that is considered by the general populous to be the 'better' healer than it's counterpart (furies).

I think that mystics are the ones who need some attention.  Inquisitor dps is fine (and then some).  I would guess a good dps specced/geared inquisitor could out dps any priest class in a single target encounter.

sorry did you read the OP original Post in this thread ? here let me paste it up for you  :

As it stands, I believe Mystics are getting the short end of the stick. Now, not simply because I play one (I play one of each melee mystic+templar and defiler right now--so I can swing around no matter what, and the balance doesn't kill me) I believe that the balance is flawed. The Inquisitors get 32% double attack, a melee proc with interrupt, and 100% melee crits+Yaulp (bringing it up to 52%? double attack) when they wanna have it up. The Warden gets 40% double attack, 75% melee crit, and heal procs+haste based on attack used+melee procs through tiger form. The Mystic gets only 100% crit and a fairly unreliable proc for 10 seconds of 35% double attack, and admittedly a melee proc. The mystic needs to get -something- to balance this out, I believe. Maybe my eyes are clouded, heh. I dunno. Opinions? .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .........................

I Clearly see the OP specificly put up the Inquisitor as his/her first example of a Dp's comparison, but Inquisitor's aren't suppose to respond now becuase "YOU" would rather not hear it ?  start your own thread about it then and don't include Inquisitor's as something to base the Dp's Discussion on ! kk Thanks : )

[lilmohi]

Don't forget mystics also get a wolf pet that not only adds to their dps but heals as well.  And while yes it can die, it also keeps fighting when the owner is healing, something the other melee priests can't do.

Off topic but in my limited experience the shaman classes are hands down the best priest on a raid.  From what i've seen personally despite there being almost 2x's more furies than any other priest class they are always at the bottom of the healing charts with mystics at the top, and clerics in the middle.  It's the nature of wards vs regens, a mystic casting a ward on MT is guaranteed to get the full healing from the ward, whereas most regen tics do nothing since mt is at full health.

[Dallun]

Heh, Oakum, while I see your frustration I don’t think that’s the way to win over peoples hearts. 

And lets be honest… when it comes to people getting healers for a raid be they Warden or Fury, most raids are just happy they have someone with Tortoise Shell.  With that being said, in your given situation, I actually see the Inquisitor being dropped over the warden if only because of TShell. 

Something I would like to point out though, most of the arguments concerning healers cover only 2 or 3 abilities.  If you break down all the healers spells you will find that outside of AT’s and AA’s, all 6 healers have the same basic line up.

Healers all have: 

1.      2 Direct heals 2.      1 Special heal 3.      1 Group Direct heal 4.      1 Group Special heal 5.      Group Mit + secondary Buff 6.      Group Stat Buff (2 Stats and in one case HP buff) 7.      Group Resist Buff (Two resists) 8.      Single Target Con Buff 9.      Single Target Only Non Con Buff 10.    Res 11.    Group Res 12.    In Combat Res 13.    AoE Detaunt + special 14.    Anti-death 15.    Damage 16.    Bigger Damage 17.    DoT 18.    AE Damage 19.    Group Cure 20.    (3 healers) Temp Magical Ward to damage type

The 5 remaining spells, Plus AT’s and AA’s are what make the healers different.  (5 being a general number as furies, for example, have an extra spell for their root line)

Also I would like to mention that all healers get these abilities at the same respective level.  (Meaning a Templar would get their heal, Res, Group Buff, etc. at the same time as a Defiler) This formula exists for all archetypes but it is only for the healers that it is so very obvious. But I digress. 

The point of this post is to point out that there are only about 10 spells separating the offensive and defensive abilities of Priests, be they melee or not.  So ANY change is going to be felt strongly because of that lack of diversity.  

Basically what I am getting at is that Healers are already TOO balanced and it would be nice to see shifts, as we are in the Furies case, towards individual strengths.

Dallun / Fione 70 Warden / 70 Illusionist Antonia Bayle

 Edit:  corrected formatting errors

[PaganSaint]

Dallun wrote:

Heh, Oakum, while I see your frustration I don’t think that’s the way to win over peoples hearts. 

And lets be honest… when it comes to people getting healers for a raid be they Warden or Fury, most raids are just happy they have someone with Tortoise Shell.  With that being said, in your given situation, I actually see the Inquisitor being dropped over the warden if only because of TShell. 

Something I would like to point out though, most of the arguments concerning healers cover only 2 or 3 abilities.  If you break down all the healers spells you will find that outside of AT’s and AA’s, all 6 healers have the same basic line up.

Healers all have: 

1.      2 Direct heals 2.      1 Special heal 3.      1 Group Direct heal 4.      1 Group Special heal 5.      Group Mit + secondary Buff 6.      Group Stat Buff (2 Stats and in one case HP buff) 7.      Group Resist Buff (Two resists) 8.      Single Target Con Buff 9.      Single Target Only Non Con Buff 10.    Res 11.    Group Res 12.    In Combat Res 13.    AoE Detaunt + special 14.    Anti-death 15.    Damage 16.    Bigger Damage 17.    DoT 18.    AE Damage 19.    Group Cure 20.    (3 healers) Temp Magical Ward to damage type

Thats incorrect. Inquisitor's don't have a buff for #6, do not have a #16 attack, and do not have the #20 skill/ability/buff. Clerics' resist buff provide buffs to three resistances. Inquisitor's single target non conc buff does not buff the player it is placed upon. 1/4 of that is misleading. Then we come into how some healers have much stronger heals, more heals, and faster casting and recasting of those heals. The healer with the strongest melee potential is the healer with the weakest per power point spent healing ability. Fair trade off wouldn't you think?

[Dallun]

PaganSaint wrote:

Thats incorrect. Inquisitor's don't have a buff for #6, do not have a #16 attack, and do not have the #20 skill/ability/buff. Clerics' resist buff provide buffs to three resistances. Inquisitor's single target non conc buff does not buff the player it is placed upon. 1/4 of that is misleading. Then we come into how some healers have much stronger heals, more heals, and faster casting and recasting of those heals. The healer with the strongest melee potential is the healer with the weakest per power point spent healing ability. Fair trade off wouldn't you think?

Actually... Inquisitors do have a Group Stat buff: Iniquity and its line - Group INT and STR, this is a debuff I apologise As for the damage types:  Oppression, Litany of Agony, Cruel Invocation, and Condem:  There are 4 Damage spells, One extra is a Dot and Not a DD Clerics resist does provide 3 resists, but only because those 3 resists are all "Arcane" resists My apologies, you are correct that Inquisitors do not have a non con buff.  I did miss that one. As to the heals, as was discussed previously, there have been many MANY tests, charts, etc. on how the heals are indeed balanced in previous posts. And no I would not agree with your statement because its not just about a point per point basis... its about after buffs and debuffs, the damage taken vs points healed that should be taken into account Dallun / Fione 70 Warden / 70 Illusionist Antonia Bayle  

[PaganSaint]

I play an Inquisitor. No, we don't. The Iniquity line is a debuff to strength and intelligence. The way the game has progressed Inquisitors are falling heavily into a Melee Healer Hybrid, rather than a pure healer that has self bonuses to melee combat. We are a DPS/Support class healer. I am fine with that as long as I am able to also do decent to good damage while providing the average quality debuffs we have.

[PaganSaint]

Also I can not recall seeing, but may have overlooked, the fact that to gain the 100% crit chance, the 52% double attack and the high end damage numbers listed you have to gear, assign AAs and play the class to maximize DPS rather than maximizing healing ability. To gain that 52% double attack and keep the melee crit a cleric has to: sacrifice a highish damage direct damage ability, sacrifice 20%+ of spell crit chance (a significant loss to DPS gained from the punishment reactive spells), sacrifice 14.4% spell haste, sacrifice divine recovery and use yaulp; which decreases ministration, making heals cost more power; decreases focus, making the spells, heals and clickies much, much more likely to be interrupted by anything; and then you have to factor in the persistent power drain that is inherent while using yaulp. Grass doesn't quite look as green on this side of the fence as it did, does it?

[Dallun]

PaganSaint wrote:

Also I can not recall seeing, but may have overlooked, the fact that to gain the 100% crit chance, the 52% double attack and the ridiculous damage numbers you have to gear, assign AAs and play the class to maximize DPS rather than maximizing healing ability. To gain that 52% double attack and keep the melee crit a cleric has to: sacrifice a highish damage direct damage ability, sacrifice 20%+ of spell crit chance (a significant loss to DPS gained from the punishment reactive spells), sacrifice 14.4% spell haste, sacrifice divine recovery and use yaulp; which decreases ministration, making heals cost more power; decreases focus, making the spells, heals and clickies much, much more likely to be interrupted by anything; and then you have to factor in the persistent power drain that is inherent while using yaulp. Grass doesn't quite look as green on this side of the fence as it did, does it?

Actually... consider that there is only one priest that can get all three Melee, Spell, and heal Crits in the same line.  That would be Wardens, but as CA's run off the same recast as spells having both is redundant.  Also, remember that clerics do get the melee crits and the healing crits in the same line.  And if a Warden does take all three they loose TShell and double attacks haste etc.  So no, the grass is not greener... just a different shade of brown. Dallun / Fione 70 Warden / 70 Illusionist Antonia Bayle

[PaganSaint]

If you want to DPS as an Inquisitor, Battle Cleric spec'd, you will need to use your punishment reactive spells. These all are spell damage, not to mention procs from gear and such used. The DPS from these are significantly reduced if you do not have spell crits. Not to mention without the spell haste it becomes harder to time spells, heals, and cures with your auto attacks, losing auto attacks which reduces the DPS. It is not a path that has no draw backs. It is a path that in my eyes was cleverly balanced by the developers for once. In so far as for druids they are in the same boat, either spec for healing or spec for DPS. Both options have bonuses for enhancing both, a feature of the way the KoS AAs are set up that I like, but you have to focus one way or another, you cannot spec optimally for both at the same time.

[TheSpin]

PaganSaint wrote:

Also I can not recall seeing, but may have overlooked, the fact that to gain the 100% crit chance, the 52% double attack and the high end damage numbers listed you have to gear, assign AAs and play the class to maximize DPS rather than maximizing healing ability. To gain that 52% double attack and keep the melee crit a cleric has to: sacrifice a highish damage direct damage ability, sacrifice 20%+ of spell crit chance (a significant loss to DPS gained from the punishment reactive spells), sacrifice 14.4% spell haste, sacrifice divine recovery and use yaulp; which decreases ministration, making heals cost more power; decreases focus, making the spells, heals and clickies much, much more likely to be interrupted by anything; and then you have to factor in the persistent power drain that is inherent while using yaulp. Grass doesn't quite look as green on this side of the fence as it did, does it?

This is not entirely true....to get the 16% (not 20%) increased chance to crit on heals, you have to take at least 4 points (50%) to melee crit, you are therefore only spending an additional 4 points to get to 100%.

Unless things have changed the punishment reactives are nearly useless on raids because if there's a ward up they will not trigger.

14.4% spell haste hardly makes you a better healer if you know are well prepared and on top of things.

Just because wardens root doesn't prevent the mob from attacking doesn't mean they should have increased dps due to their armor.  A soloing melee warden can root a mob, back off, regen health and power with little to no mana cost, then resume fighting.  It's not fast, but it's not something an Inquisitor or Mystic can do.  When it comes to grouping the faster cast times of wardens means they will have more opportunities to use their CAs.

I don't see any correlation whatsoever with the type of armor you wear being directly refleced in the amount of damage you do.  Assassins and Rangers wear chain, wizards, necros wear cloth....they are pretty close to each other on dps.  I have also heard zerkers can out dps brawlers.  It's not a good argument.

[PaganSaint]

Back to me playing an Inquisitor. 7 points into spell crit has me at 25% spell crit chance at the moment. Not the 16% you are trying to pin it at (get the posts you are talking about and quoting straight would be a good idea). Spending just four points to recieve the crit bonus either means you are stripping points to gain a Stat2 ability in another line and you are maxing out the other line you are going into completely. Unless of course you are not taking heal crits at all, which makes you an idiot of a cleric or spec'd purely for DPS which again lends credence to question of how well you are actually trying to play your class. 14.4% spell haste actually improves the ability to counter and keep alive multiple members of your group or raid through AEs and spike damage by a large and noticeable effect, for heroic content, no it doesn't really make a difference, for almost all of that content I cast maybe one of each reactive, sometimes a direct heal if someone pulls aggro. This is due to the longer cast times for the group reactive, large direct heal and the moderately fast group heal.

[TheSpin]

Ok, when I read 20% spell crit, I was assuming you meant heal spells and I apologize...that is the 16% you can get from AA that I was referring to.

Compared to the speed of druid heals, 14% casting speed still leaves you way slower than the druids, not to mention inquisitors often end up running fanaticism most the time and by the time you cancel that and cast your heal, even if you do it fast, any druid should beat you to the punch.  (I believe there is a delay in casting of about .5 seconds after canceling fanat.

You are talking about putting points into spell crit instead of melee crit, but what's the dif?  either direction doesn't make you a better healer which is what I thought you were most concerned with.  I'd rather have 87.5 chance to melee crit than 25% chance to spell crit personally, especially since there's no such thing as autoattack spell damage.

The place inquisitors lack in healing is the group heal department, but that's a whole new can of worms for another forum.

Inquisitors = best in the melee department hands down

Warden = little low melee dps but makes up for it with roots, fast heals and utility

Mystic = low melee dps, not much to make up for it (wards are great but just because they get used up before other classes heals go into effect doesn't just straight up make them the best healers, wardens are the most mana efficient of the healers I believe)