Now that the clerics heal has changed to a 7500heal I have noticed they still get at times 15000 heal. Why don't we get an amazing heal if we trained in aa's? Casting time is the same. Don't know if this was already addressed and I thought this was supposed to be fixed.

Its a critical heal. Happens like 7% of the time at best. Not reliable. Live with it. Some druids...

I think the issue is that druids would like to get use out of the aa points they spent for crit heals. I agree that its not much, and isn't reliable, but its better than nothing if you've spent hard earned aa points in that ability.

Only 7% of the time. Guess it wouldn't matter if they took it away from clerics then. I mean come on, if druid's can spend AAs and have them mean nothing balance would mean the same for clerics.

In other words, Spinach of Zeb your argument makes zero sense.

You can't count on it to save a life. You count on it as a mana saving tool. I know if I am in the chain or I am healing my party I can crit 1-2 in a fight and therefore somewhat plan to save mana.

No, you can't count on it. However, it's a nice bonus (which is what the AA is supposed to be) if you land one while using a heal that's capped at 2925. If it works for clerics it should work for druids and shaman heals. Or they should remove it from working on cleric heals. Simple as that. Trying to justify that it's only 7% so we shouldn't complain is a lame copout.

I sent a bug message in that it works for cleric's heal and figured it had to be a bug.

I think it may have just been something Varent over looked. Unlike cleric CH and our other heals, which are a fixed heal amount, our CH is calculated every cast. It will not always heal for 2995, so because of this the crit heal skill does not work since this heal's mechanics are different.

If they are willing to put in the time im sure they will fix it, I cant imagine it being a balance issue.

It's 10%, not 7%, at least according to the AA description. It's pretty comparable to the 10% healing penalty removal, except of course I payed 12AA for that ability and since I cast TR 95% of the time now it's pretty useless.

3 people calling for a nerf to cleric class hmmm. Why is it that clerics only get magic based DD. I want druids nerfed so they only get lightning based dd. Makes as much sense. Please quit calling for nerfs to other classes.

Nobody called for a nerf (Grolmn's post is a bit hard to understand, but all he's doing is trying to be sarcastic even though it came out a bit wrong). Is asking for AA to work so bad?

If I paid for a 10% heal increase through crit heals, I should get it.
Our 75% heal spell should be able to crit for double value healed.

Oh I have no problem with you guys asking for yours to work. I just dont like the people saying "well if ours doesnt work, make the clerics not work either". Petition to improve your class all you want. Dont petition to nerf another class. too much of that happening already.

I'm glad that you take that stance, because I agree that it's disgusting that people send /feedback to nerf a class they don't like, post all about it in their own class messageboards and encourage everyone else to do that same.

Wow Such anger when I asked what I thought was a simple question. We used to get "exceptional" heals when we cast Nature's Touch". This no longer happens with Tunare's request. Thus the reason for my queston. Thanks

we got crit heals with our non agro useless pet charm!!?
!!
!

/sarcasm on

My cleric's healing gift ability let her solo AoW. Please nerf it immediately! Make the prereqs for our other class abilities be Improved Lung Capacity instead of HG. I could live with that.

/sarcasm off


Trust me, there's nothing my cleric would like more than to get her HG point refunded and not have it be a prereq to a bunch of other cleric abilities. For a cleric, HG is pretty pointless. Critting a complete heal is just stupid. For the other priests, I could see it might be valuable, but clerics tend to have and use "right-sized" heals for all occassions, usually. Although, I confess in PoP the new faster heal is getting more use.

I think I would like to see a bit higher chance than 7%.... not something outrageous or ungodly, buyt maybe more like 10% max cap chance.....

Something that makes it a bit more worthwhile to invest the time in the AA.... after all, VI nerfed the exp.. so make the 'reward' a bit more enticing........

IMHO of course

I've heard anecdotes of Tunare's Renewal being unaffected by Balance of Zebuxoruk. I'd say this may be symptomatic of the same issue.

Healing Gift (crits on heals) is a pretty unthought out skill. What the skill should have been was a reduced mana cost on heal spells (perhaps half the mana) 7 - 10 percent of the time. This would have the same effect as nuke crits and make the aa viable.

My belief is that the spells are set up for 75% healing with a CAP healing window that does work with Healing Adept but not Healing Gift.

IMO Gift should not work on these spells.

They are very low aggro spells, that is a bonus IMO -

Both TR and KR are very nice heals.

I have yet to see an argument that counters the Low Aggro effect that we have compared to the Cleric's CH.

Right Now I am very happy with my druid.

I am thrilled that you are happy with your Druid. So am I. That said, I don't really see the relevance of your happiness, nor the fact the TR (but not KR, in most instances) are very nice heals, to the fact that people spent points on AAs that are mostly useless now. I can't understand why you would say HG should not work on these spells. What game balance reason do you have for that statement? How is making HG work on either of these spells going to materially effect game balance, either overall, or the Cleric/Druid balance. Unlike nukes, a Critical heal, especially on heals so large, are rarely going to be 100% effective. (TR is small enough that when used on a MT, it would approach 100% fairly often and maybe KR will eventually be that way as well). Even being generous, and assuming 60% utility, please explain why a 6% increase in the total healing derived from TR woud unbalance the game so as to justify your statement that you think the main Druid heal should not work with the 12 points people have spent in HG.

"I have yet to see an argument that counters the Low Aggro effect that we have compared to the Cleric's CH"

As I just stated in the other thread Sobe. The cleric CH can heal more than 2.5 times what ours can.

If one person nuked for 1000 and another for 2500 who do you think should generate the big aggro?

4680 hitpoints (not even adding in HA)

VS

7500 hitpoints (not even adding in HA)

Half of 7500 = 3750

Where does 2.5 come in, unless your thinking of TR not KR?

I still don't understand the reason for the argument.

Lets say they do change it to crit healing: so we heal for 9360?

Okay lets be blunt here since no one is being blunt:

TR Crit (w/o HA): 5850/400 mana.
KR Crit (w/o HA): 9360/600 mana

Normal Heal during battle: 3500-4500. (average ch heal in chain is 3250)

TR for the mana with HA is 200 mana less, and alteration druid can get that down even further with specialization, mana eff focus items. Add Crit heal, I would probably stay with TR over KR at the moment till Tanks start pushing over 10k.

I will ask the question and try to get a response. But my feeling is that our heals are 75% heal first and capped HA and that is how they were designed. Do I see a need for HG? Quite frankly No, your asking for a random Crit to improve your overall healing. It works with NI and the rest of the Direct healing spells with crits over 4400 hps atm.

Please press on with your arguments - though remember I am not some gimp 2 boxer that only uses his druid for powerleveling his rogue.

And if the argument is because Clerics have it for there CH.. well the Low Aggro effect of the Druid CH is HUGE and nuking for 1000 damage is MORE aggro then our heal. From what I can understand, the aggro off our CH is more like Buff Aggro and thats about it.

"TR for the mana with HA is 200 mana less, and alteration druid can get that down even further with specialization, <strong>mana eff focus items</strong>"

That is not right. Spec and SCM are the only thing that reduce the mana cost of TR. MP focus items have no effect on TR (and I assume KR as well, but I have no MP4 item).

Your comment about TR over KR is certainly right. Frankly, I am not sure why HG changes the equasion that much though. KR is rarely useful in terms of efficiency. It has such a tiny window (about the last 300 HPs of its cap) where it becomes more efficient than TR, below that and TR is better. The benefit of KR is HP/sec., but that benefit is hard to actualize on a 10 second heal anyway. That, however, is simply a reason why KR is a stupid spell, as I argued repeatedly during the pre-PoP release (or more acurately, it is a stupid spell until tanks have considerably more HP than they do now, so that you could reasonably rely on always being in that last 300HP of the cap). It is not a good reason to make HG not work with TR, just so the poorly designed KR becomes useful sooner. Make HG work with TR and KR and then either accept the limited use of KR or make it 500 mana so that it is immediately useful.

Edit: BTW, the agro thing is nice and all, but be honest about its necessity. With mobs being immune to root and witht eh Druid class having no DA/concussion/jolt equivilent, making these large heals low agro is a necessity to making them useful.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Please press on with your arguments - though remember I am not some gimp 2 boxer that only uses his druid for powerleveling his rogue.[/quote]

No, you are not. That is my biggest concern. I love reading your posts in the same way that I love reading Lotusfly's, but she is the last person I would want representing druid needs to SoE ever since she voice her "druid healing is capped" statement (for those that do not remeber, that was when NT WITH the 10% penalty was our big heal). She later retracted the statement, claiming that 6 months of development had changed the environment, but her statement about druid healing being as good as it should be with NT as our top heal was absurd when she wrote it.

That is the sort of thing I don't want to see from people who are supposedly representing Druids to SOE. We can leave that sort of garbage arguement to the Clerics.

Now, at the same time, those talking to SOE need to have game balance always in mind. Having people argue that we need something like manaburn or that druids need a Res, etc. are not the sorts of things that will be listened to. SO I am not saying I need to see from our representative to SOE, that Druids must always be gettig better in all ways, but if you are going to come out and say "Druids should not have X" at least have a legitimate game balance reason for stating it.

In this case, nothing like that exists. Being blunt would be admitting that HG working on these spells is mostly a non-issue. Whether it works with them or not matters very little to the overall balance of these spells. What it does do, however, is effect how people feel about things.

HG works for CH but not for TR and KR and druids feel once again they are being singled out, much in the way that stupid 10% penalty made us feel the whole time. It also makes Druids who spent 12 points back in the day with HG was a huge deal since NT was our big heal pissed off that those points no longer do anything since they do not work on our most used heal. In the end, there are no good reasons for it not to work and there are good reasons for it to work and none of those reasons effect game balance. So we should not have our representative out there stumping for HG not working our our main heals.

Very nice post Aaeamdar and I agree.

Marrvell
62 Druid

EDIT-forgot to sign it ><

mana eff focus items

Yes your right - I tried Mask of Judgement and Legs of Judgement on both TR and KR and they do not effect it, not sure why the legs do not effect the spell since it works like Healing Adept and it should, tho VI has chosen to exempt my legs (spell detail below). Spell Haste was a gimmie on those also.

Touch of Judgement

Slot Description
1: Increase Healing by 23%
2: Limit: Max Level(65)
3: Limit: Effect(Hitpoints allowed)
4: Limit: Instant spells only
5: Limit: Spell Type(Beneficial only)
6: Limit: Spell(Complete Healing excluded) ****
7: Limit: Spell(Complete Heal excluded) ****
8: Limit: Effect(Percentage Heal excluded) ****



/bad sobe - seen effects so many times I ignore them now.

I do understand what your saying but I still stand behind it. I did do a letter though requesting a possible answer to this question, if it gets change to meet the needs of the entire druid class then that is fine, I myself capped off HA and AHA.

Unsure if it will be answered but I have made the effort.

All I care about is that Healing Adept DOES work with it.
With TR, and HA2, I max heal for 3071.
Why I was in a Sewers group last night in CT, I dont know.
However, I was the cleric for the group, and with a 5300hp warrior, even a normal 2900hp heal suffices.
I have HG1, and it currently crits Chloroblast, however, its very rare, and not worth investing more.
HA is a better ability, and much more effective.
HA3 (including AdvHA3) with TR/KR/NI is MUCH better than what HG3(AdvHG3) could ever do for us.....
just my opinion.

ARCHTYPES


Name: Healing Gift
Level Requirement: 55
Ability Type: Passive
Max Training: 3 Levels
Point Cost: Level 1: 2 points
Level 2: 4 points
Level 3: 6 points
Description: This ability gives the healer a chance to critical heal. A critical heal gives twice as many hitpoints as its base.
The first point gives a 3% chance, the second a 6% chance, and the third a 10% chance.

This means that a person with 3 skill points has a 10% chance that a 438 hitpoint remedy spell will heal 876 hitpoints.


If this doesn't work on all heals then what's the point? Clerics get exceptional heals with a 10sec recast time which is the same recast time as Druids recast on TR. I sure hope VI answers this.

Yes it works with Chloro and NT but there is nothing that says it should not work with the higher healing spells. If it is not supposed to, please point this out and I can maybe live with it, but have not seen where it was posted that is was not supposed to work with TR.

Maybe they should make it work due to the restrictions its given? Its supposed to be for a certian amount of hp or 75%. But say if you are healing a 8k hp tank at 1k hp, would take him/her to 5.6k hp. So maybe they should code it in so if a druid crits it should crit for 1.5x or up to 90% health? Just trying to offer a suggestion.

/em ducks

"HA3 (including AdvHA3) with TR/KR/NI is MUCH better than what HG3(AdvHG3) could ever do for us.....
just my opinion."

You say this as if it must be the case that only one AA can work. I don't understand why you have that perspective.

HA works on every instant heal spell in the game, irrespective of class.

HG works on every instant heal spell in the game EXCEPT TR/KR (and the shammy equivilents). Why?

There are no good game balance reasons for it, it just does not work. You don't need to turn off HA to make HG work.

Been thinking about why we don't crit with TR. I think we may actualy be, but what is happening is this.

1) Game determines what 75% hp is.
2) Game checks for crit.
3) Game applies max hp limit and rounds the heal down. Since not higher than max, no message about crit.

Maby that's not what is happening, but I wouldn't be supprised if it was the problem.

nice thought...but then where's the message?

Racmoor

brum15: please... stop talking, I'm too tired to explain myself, just... stop. maybe I'll post about it later. I guess so I don't seem like a complete @#%$ hole, I'll give you the gist: druids are meant to be capable at many things, hence our diver heals and NUKAGE, while clerics are meant to heal, hence their extremely diverce HEALAGE and magic based DDs. and no one cried nerf, they said: either fix druids, or nerf clerics; don't give class AAs if they'll be specialized for one class.

Hmm, perhaps crit heal messages are only printed if (new total) > (original number)?, though I can think of absolutely no reason that would ever be done. Seems like more work for no purpose.

Daddum

You are the one who apparently does not get it. I will support you 100% in any quest to get your heal fixed. But there should never have been any mention of nerfing another class. nerfing another class should never be brought up as a fix action to your class. IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU??

"Quote"

Always love the cleric/druid bashing threads

I actually play both but druid is my main, cleric is 58. SoWood is a nice druid ability, have heard reports that this can screw with DB..due to the hp regen of the barrier.

Lol I blow my own 58 cleric away...the comment about a 64 druid healing as good as a 54 cleric...you cant be serious, that 54's mana pool/regen cant even come close to a 64, even if it is a druid.

Regeneration of HP's over time has always been a strength of the druid class

I can hold my own quite nicely in exp situations in zones such as HoH, which I guess could be considered a tier 3 zone, as long as there is a slower, seeing as those mobs hit as hard as Kunark/Tov dragons. Tactics with me as sole healer is really pushing it..as it would for a sole cleric who had no backup/patcher, the aggro is brutal and deadly to priests.
Biggest tank I play with has close to 9k hps buffed, I do just fine as long as I have KEI lol.

Druids largest scalable at 64 is Karana's Renewal, If I continue the path I have started at full PoP AA this will heal 5569 with no crit capability. It is nothing compared to the fine variety of heals and AA healing ability clerics recieve, but it'll do in a pinch.

I chuckle to myself over the cleric that scratches the wee wolf behind the ears at his small heal, you have obviously not worked closely with a group of high end raiding druids, in zones like VT, and higher tier PoP enounters. Our job is to support the premiere healers
Our deftness at CH patching keep not only MTs, St's and tertiary melee alive...but the clerics as well :P


__________________
www.magelo.com/eq_view_pr...num=206956 (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=206956)

Gandarae Blackwing
64 Hierophant
Reconstructed E'ci
www.reconstructed.nu/ (http://www.reconstructed.nu/)

"end quote"

Clerics and druids now work very well together, as they should.

Actually Druids do get a nice heal for nearly 5k....perhaps higher with aa. ALthough I wish it didnt cost as much mana it is 600mana to cast for karanas Renewal as opposed to 350 for Tunares Renewal but is still a nice spell to have in emergency situations I believe it is still 10 seconds also!!

I would much rather have the low aggro that is associated with TR then to have it crit. The low aggro lets me act as a main healer while criting is only eye candy and too unpredictable.

As I've said before, healing crits should have been a halving of the mana cost of the cast. Unpredictable heals are in general unreliable and therefore useless heals. Halving the mana cost on a crit would be universally beneficial and more comprable to the benefit of crits on damage spells.

Think I disagree with that Role. While it is jsut as likely to crit when it doesn't matter, those times that the extra healing in the crit matters make a huge difference to me.

A 10% chance of half mana cost would not even be noticed by me. It would make the skill much more interesting to clerics of course, since it would automatically stretch their ability in a CH rot.

I am intrigued by the possiblity of such an AA, but I would not replace HG for it.

HG is worth it in my opinion for NI (which I don't have yet it is true). Our new patch heal. Having that every once in a while happen to be a CH level heal can make a huge difference on the right fight.

I don't know that SoE would add another mana savings AA over and above SCM. If they did, I would say go with an all caster AA, put it in the class level, and give say a 3% or 5% chance of a spell having zero mana cost. Make it a Class (or planar even) extension on SCM. Low enough chance that it will not unbalance the game, but it would be worth getting (since it really is a direct mana savings of 3% or 5% over time).

On critting and % heals, I have to say this is one of those "doesn't really matter" issues. It would be gratifying to have the ocassional crit on those spells, but it is unlikely to matter when I do since I will time my TR/KR casts so that they heal who I am healing to full without a crit.

I suspect Verant's logic was that while CH can crit, at this stage that crit is empty healing. A heal that actually heals more than 7500 hp is so far beyond rare it is almost not worth mentioning...not a lot of Warriors out there with more than 7500 hp to begin with, and no one is going to intentionally run their CH rot so that the MA is getting below 1000hp on an 8500hp tank if they can avoid it.

The guilds that have 8500 hp tanks are also swimming in clerics, and have no need to stretch their CH rots that much. They will (or should) opt for the margin of safety and have the CH's land for around 3k to 4k.

By the same token, no druid will rely on a crit and so change when they heal (not if they are sane). So if our ICH were to crit it is unlikely to have much ofa real world effect.


Any healer that is looking at HG is realy hoping to make their little heals matter. And while a cleric above wished they could refund the points, there I disagree. With clerics having so much more variety of healing spells, HG is far better for them than any other priest class - it is more likely that they will be casting a spell that will be affected by HG than anyone else will. Further, a lot of the time if a cleric is casting somethign other than CH it means that there is a desperate need to land a heal to buy time for CH. Having a crit in those circumstances is a huge deal.

I dont want anything to be changed with TR. I like it the way it is right now. Fact is it SHOULD get more aggro than it does. So I dont want the developers going back to make changes so some people can get their crits (which I still believe is eye candy, nothing more), and have them decide that oh well the aggro that is generated is disproportionate with the aggro generated by the cleric's CH. I have seen mobs chew clerics to bits after they cast their CH, that wouldnt even lift a eyebrow at me and my CH.

Is it just my imagination or does Divina seem to be trying to draw attention to a perceived lack of aggro from TR? Sorry if that isn't the case, but my troll sense is tingling. :P

~Firemynd

Say what you will about me, I really dont care. Fact is I dont want them to make adjustments to the spell because it is nice the way it is.

All these people who are wanting it to crit and wanting the coding to be changed, I think, need to re-evaluate the spell. It is nice the way it is no need for change.

She has no vested interest Fire, trust me on that ; ).

Back to the topic.

I don't understand some people's rationale; people keep making statements that equate to: "HA is a better ability so as long as that works it's okay that HG doesn't work."

Why wouldn't you want both abilities to work as intended? If a Priest Archetype ability (in this case HG) benefits the CH spell line of one priest class, isn't it logical to expect that it should benefit the CH spell lines of the other two priest classes?

Have we been beaten down by Verant so often that whenever we approach them with an issue, we hand them what we think will be the least painful whip?

When deciding which abilities to spend our earned AA points on, we should be able to reasonably rely upon the in-game descriptions given without parsing spelldat files and reading spoiler sites. Healing Gift's in-game description makes NO reference to exclusions of any kind.

So in my opinion we should assume that HG *should* work with all heal spells indescriminately, and we should be treating this issue as a known bug until the developers officially state that they didn't want HG to benefit certain types of heals or heals from certain classes. And if they do state such, they should make sure the in-game description is clear about the ability's exclusions.

Furthermore, AA points should be refunded to those affected so they can reevaluate whether that ability is worth spending points on.

~Firemynd

No the fact is simple. I knew when I posted this that it was "against the flow" of current thought atm. And anyone who posts against the current thought is automacticly labled "TROLL", and the the mob attacks begin. I have seen a number of times where members, who have been posting regularly, have been subject to this. I remember a thread with Tuved posting an idea that was not concurrent with the flow, and how he was label as a troll and his ideas passed off.

So instead of passing off what I say as trolling, why not discuss the issue?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>So instead of passing off what I say as trolling, why not discuss the issue? [/quote]

Discussing the issue is exactly what I'm doing, if you bothered to read my next post.

You have basically asserted that because aggro is less for our CH, and it deserves to be excluded from an AA ability which many people spent points to acquire under the misguided assumption that we would be able to land 'crit heals' with our CH just like clerics do with theirs.

I question such logic and will say that you are only making an ASSUMPTION that our CH is given a reduced amount of aggro as a trade-off or compensation for the spell not being enhanced by the same priest AA which enhances a cleric's CH.

Since Verant hasn't stated one way or another, you have no basis for such an assumption, other than what boils down to a hunch. You're attempting to rationlize a design flaw.

If any type of heal is to be excluded from being enhanced by an AA ability, that exclusion should be made clear; *especially* considering the fact that the same priest AA ability DOES enhance the *same* type of heal spell for clerics.

It may be true that a chance-based crit heal on TR/KR would yield an increased amount of aggro; but my point is that everyone who spends AA points on Healing Gift should either see the same sort of benefit, or at least be made aware of any imposed class-based difference.

~Firemynd

I understand that TR runs like a heal over time so that keeps it low aggro but then can't have a crit

Would rather keep low aggro since armor and DA are missing from druids

Sonari

FYI when I started typing my message you had not posted. That is why it is "Re: /wave Divvy", not "RE: Druid CH vs new Cleric CH." So my post was not directed at your lastest post.

Fact is I like the heal just the way it is right now. Criticals are NOTHING more than eye candy- to say "wow look at that". Even if it did critical, I would not rely my job of healing on criticals because frankly it is too random.

Would it be nice to have critical? Yeah. But there are alot more issues I would rather see VI address then the fact of TR/KR not criting.

Fact is our ch's aggro is not inline with our other heals. Why is it I would rather cast TR over NI? Because NI has ALOT more aggro associated with it.

But does criting cause the aggro from NI to be any more? Well I have not noticed a real difference.

Well, you are right if TR is tagged like a HoT then that would explain the reason that it would be low aggro and the reason it can't crit.

But everything I see from the spell, and from what I read the heal is an instant, not a HoT.

According to Lucy:
Spell: Tunare's Renewal
Description: Increase Hitpoints by 2925 (75% max)
Duration: Instant

But who knows, you may be right.

TR will be the most used spell now imho and KR right behind it although not as mana efficient as TR neither work with HG so if you are going to train healing HA may be the way to go....at least until they allow to HG to work with TR and KR but I doubt that will happen....crit will work with infusion....but TR is my bread and butter atm......good luck in the land of Norrath however....and be proud of your class...I know I am =)

I am not necessarily asserting a personal opinion for/against TR crits. I am saying that our AA abilities should be made to work *properly* -- to enhance all the things they were designed to enhance. Because Healing Gift AA does work with cleric CH-type spells, one could logically derive that HG should work for other priest class CH-type spells.

Any amount of aggro generated, whether by the spell itself or a crit, is a separate issue altogether, and should not be a factor in deciding whether or not to 'fix' something that is found to be broken.

Let's look at a different AA ability for a moment. SCF (Spell Casting Fury) gives us a chance to land critical damage with our nukes. If SCF didn't work with our biggest nuke, most people would logically consider it a flaw, a glitch, a bug; and they would rightfully want to see that fixed. What would you tell someone who said they did not want it fixed because they prefer not having to worry about any extra aggro which might be generated by a crit with that nuke?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Fact is I like the heal just the way it is right now. Criticals are NOTHING more than eye candy- to say "wow look at that". Even if it did critical, I would not rely my job of healing on criticals because frankly it is too random.[/quote]

Critical nukes could also be viewed as eye candy. We absolutely do not rely upon them to do our job of dealing damage, but those 'random' crits contribute in the long run. If nothing else, an occasional mob is killed more quickly, hence your group spends less mana on that mob (and less mana healing the damage that mob would have done if it had lived longer). On rarer occasions, a crit nuke can save the day by putting a mob in 'flee' mode or by killing it more quickly when there are uncontrolled adds.

Crit heals offer similar 'random' benefit, but in our case they are absolutely more than eye candy because our big heals have a relatively low cap which prevents them from healing many tanks to full. As the average high-level tank's hit points increase, TR will fall further and further short of restoring them to full health.

Filling in for a cleric on CH rotation is an example of when those crits can make a difference. With one crit during rotation, other healers will spend less mana supplementing your part of the rotation with spam heals to make sure the next CHer has enough time to land their heal.

Even during non-raid hunting, you gauge how much benefit will be gained for a particular tank through Regen (buffs and other) in between fights. Of course you never need to heal them to full at the end of a fight, but you'll know how much health they typically need to have before the next fight starts. When TR cannot heal them to full, you may need to cast another heal before that fight is over. Having a chance for 'random' crit heals would mean TR will occasionally restore them to 100%, allowing regen to handle the remainder of damage they take before the fight is over (and before the next one begins).

You are correct in saying we can't/shouldn't rely on crit heals to do our basic job as healer, but it is a fact that over time, all those 'random' crits can add to your overall healing efficiency.

Again, if the developers intended for Healing Gift not to work with TR, I can live with that. But if such is the case, at the very least, they have a responsibility to make sure the description given for Healing Gift is clear about exclusions, especially considering the fact that this directly affects 2/3rds of the game's priest classes.

~Firemynd

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Any amount of aggro generated, whether by the spell itself or a crit, is a separate issue altogether, and should not be a factor in deciding whether or not to 'fix' something that is found to be broken. [/quote]

IF Sonari2 is right and TR/KR is tagged like a HoT. THEN YOU CANNOT SEPERATE THE TWO. Both would be depended on that fact that the heal is tagged like a HoT.

This is the feeling that I had about the aggro. He just seemed to make the point clear.

P.S.- Yes, I veiw critical nukes/hits/heals as pure eye candy. Its something to stand back and say "wow look at that."

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>P.S.- Yes, I veiw critical nukes/hits/heals as pure eye candy. Its something to stand back and say "wow look at that." [/quote]

If given the choice between using a nuke that does 1,000 damage, and a nuke that does 900 damage -- assuming they both have the same casting time, same refresh time, same chance of resist, same mana cost, etc. -- you'd logically choose the 1,000 damage spell because while 100 dmg may not be a huge difference with one cast, it most definitely adds up over numerous casts.

Now, let's say both of us are using the same nuke for 1,000; on average, I crit for double every 10th cast. If we both nuke twice per mob, after we've killed fifty mobs (100 nukes each) here's how much damage we did:

You: 100,000
Me : 110,000

Sure, crits are a "wow" thing... but to imply they're insignificant or inconsequential is as illogical as willingly choosing to use a 900 damage spell over a 1,000 damage spell. The same logic applies to crit heals ... to say it's OK that Healing Gift doesn't work even if it's intended to, is like willingly sacrificing some efficiency over time.

~Firemynd

I stand behind my oppinion that crits are eye candy. Plain and simple.

What you are calling for is for VI to go back and rework this spell (and probably alot more if this is the fact that this is tagged like a HoT is true).

I.E. - Right now there is no focus items for HoT spells but there is focus items for DoT spells. And the fact that DoT spells stack but HoT spells do not.

Now if we assume that TP/KR is tagged like a HoT spell.

I.E. - Being tagged like a HoT = Low aggro + No crits

And we are therefore allowing HoT spells to do critical heals. Which will mean that there will need to be critical DoT (which I think would be cool, but at what cost?)

I remember someone pointing thread on the cleric board where they where calling for the aggro for on CH to be brought to being equivalent to TR's aggro. I dont want to call for a nerf so I will leave the cleric's CH crits alone. Would you be okay with the aggro on CH being lowered? Or the aggro on TR being raised? ... in order to gain the ability to crit?

*I know Im prob going to get roasted for this*
I dont know if I want the aggro on cleric's CH to be that of ours. I think there needs to be some reason to choose a druid to heal over a cleric.

If you are main healing you are going to tailor your heal to the situation not the other way around because the situations are so dang uncooperative. Critting on heals is largely pointless, you are healing someone to full with your heal or are intending to almost every time. It would take some serious parsing to put this into a percentage but Im firmly convinced there is no way its going to be 10 percent. At best 6 percent and under.


Belkram Marrwolf

Where did people get the idea that KR/TR are tagged as HoT spells?

I don't know where they got the idea that TR/KR were tagged as HoTs. More than likely, one person happened to compare the aggro of TR/KR with the aggro generated from HoT spells, and someone else misinterpreted the comparison as actual spell data.

What I would like to see is an official answer from VI about whether or not the Healing Gift AA ability was intended to work with druid and shaman CH-type spells. If so, I'd hope they would fix it already! If not, at least fix the in-game description so it states that druid/shaman CH-type spells are excluded. Perhaps even refund AA points to druids and shaman who were allowed to spend those points under the misguided assumption that it would work with ALL heals, as the description has continued to imply long after TR came into the game.

Simply put, I would like for our spells and AA to work as intended, and if that means increasing aggro for Druid TR/KR, so be it; if it means decreasing aggro from Cleric CH, so be it.

Perhaps some (like Divina) don't mind the thought of exploiting what could very well be an unintended benifit, but I do mind. Hey, if it's not a bug, GREAT, we can continue enjoying a lower aggro from TR! But by the same token, I don't want to be penalized unfairly due to a bug either. If TR/KR are supposed to be eligible for HG crits, let's get the issue addressed.

~Firemynd

Preferred method would be to make your AAs work and leave your aggro alone, while scaling down the cleric aggro to be proportionate to the hps healed instead of using the possible hps healed as they currently do with CH. Clerics are already gunshy about casting heals due to the huge aggro. I am finding a constant celestial healing or rememdy to be my best friend and neither are super mana efficient like CH.

Making my groups druids into squishy paste by raising their aggro is not the answer. Now if the healing crit goes off, you may draw aggro just due to the total number of hps healed but so be it. But breaking you does not fix me. Druid aggro I believe is fine where it is right now. Lower cleric aggro (or put them on same damage mitigation chart as other plate classes) and make healing AAs work with druids.

For any other clerics reading this, you need to realize that the endgame is about teamwork. We are not competing against the druids. They are probably the one who will be healing you and getting your spot heals in raids. Heck maybe even assisting you in the CH rotation. I like them healing better. It has definitly helped my guild. And that my brethern is the bottom line. Think about it. There are six of you in a group. Dont you want the druid/shaman to be a decent healer? Guess who he/she is going to be healing? YOU

If more people were thinking along the lines of teamwork and recognizing that positive changes to one class helps us all, we would have less contention between priest classes. Unfortunately I've seen jealousy and class envy rear its ugly head even between clerics/druids in the same guild (fortunately not very much in my current guild). Usually it has started with druids complaining that they needed better heals to perform the 'backup healer' role expected, and clerics felt threatened by the very thought that druids would ever be able to fill ANY healing role as well as clerics.

The most typical 'anti-druid' clerics are those who spent the majority of their leveling time in pick-up groups. They wished to be able to walk into a zone and get invited to group before they even had time to type LFG. Who can blame them? All of us would like that wouldn't we? The difference is, for clerics, that was their reality for a very long time. Whenever a cleric saw a druid playing main healer for a group, they saw it as another class taking the cleric's rightful spot.

This was Verant's fault. They originally created three priest classes so groups would have more access to healers, but continually tuned far too many encounters - even in basic dungeon camps - to absolutely require a cleric. Apparently, many clerics came to think of themselves as the class with exclusive rights to be main healer for groups.

VI has admitted the error, and has taken some steps to improve that situation. It's sad that they waited so long, because a lot of those old perceptions, biases, and prejudices are still held by many people and those perpetuate rivalry.

Sorry for the OT editorial but it felt somewhat appropriate to point out that a lot of hostility and frustration we see here on the boards between druids and clerics would be better directed at Verant, not each other.

~Firemynd

Fire I will agree with you that the game got tuned around the Clerical ability to heal. What you dont say in your post is that we got smoked on all other abilites due to healing, superior buffs that increased the efficiency of the healing and the Ressurection/revivisence line.

Your heals have now been upgraded. Many classes felt it was time for this to happen. Many clerics are included amongst that number.

Utility and offense upgrades for Clerics have consisted so far of 10 percent spell haste for 300 mana per target, nerfed hammers, Yaulp5 (which doesnt function properly with a horse) and an increase to the lull line of spells. NONE of these address the problems with Soloing and damage for Clerics even against the undead. Im not going to go into the many overall glaring deficiencies in Cleric offense and soloing but they are many.

Clerics see the role of a group healer as theirs because again, we have no other options that are efficiently viable. If verant would stop gimping Clerical ability to accomplish things on their own due to CH, I think most clerics would be a lot less touchy and me versus them about things.

And Firemynd I agree with you 100 percent, SOE or Verant or whoever the heck is running the show now deserves the ire of the priest classes; well maybe not Shaman but they have their own issues. Price check Torpor!!! HOW MUCH?!!?? 70k /frown

Anyways I think Druids and Clerics work TOGETHER in a group so very well that its downright crazy to be at each others throats on a daily basis. BUT I dont think that any class should approach the specialties of many other classes unchecked. That begins the ugly circle of mudflation balancing where every class wants more, more, more. I say any class, because I dont think this applies to simply Druids but to any class that wants to be balanced versus a different class every couple of days. Its a process without end if done in that manner.


Belkram Marrwolf

PS the GF plays a Druid and is up to level 54 now :)

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Your heals have now been upgraded[/quote]
I'll agree with you on the point that cleric utility spells haven't been added to the degree many clerics had hoped, but I'd have to disagree with the notion that druid heals were actually upgraded. It's as if you're asserting that druid healing was revamped across the board, and that isn't the case at all.

The only upgrade we saw prior to PoP, was Tunare's Renewal ... a decent spell, but new type for us, not really even an upgrade to anything we previously had. At the same time, clerics got three new heals -- again, prior to PoP.

I don't begrudge clerics their healing upgrades; it is their field of expertise, after all. I don't even begrudge them any added utility spells (and yes, a self-invis is long overdue).

But there were issues left unaddressed with druid heals prior to PoP, such as Nature's Touch, our 60th level heal, having no better mana efficiency than 55th level Chloroblast. And Nature's Recovery (the high-cost, single-target, short-duration regen) having such a long recast time that we'd have to reserve a spell slot for it continually just to have it available when it might be situationally beneficial to use.

I really wish Verant would take a look at some of these issues and consider them in light of how the game has evolved since the spells were first introduced, but VI seems to have taken the route of "ignore the past" except in cases where they felt nerfs were in order.

~Firemynd

"The only upgrade we saw prior to PoP, was Tunare's Renewal ... a decent spell, but new type for us, not really even an upgrade to anything we previously had."
Im sorry but this is pretty much blatantly false. Any spell that heals more efficiently is an upgrade to your ABILITY to heal. Your spell lineup has been improved because you are able to heal better. To assert otherwise is disingenuous. It heals slowly but efficiently.

"At the same time, clerics got three new heals -- again, prior to PoP."
Ok true three spells were added to to the cleric linup at level 60. Clerics neither asked for, wanted, or use heavily all three of these spells. Ethereal Elixir gets used a lot on combination with Div Arb to avoid agro but the other 2 suck after you hit 61. Supernal Remedy sends both Ethereal Light and Ethereal Remedy home packing as either too slow or too inefficient when better is available. These spells get offered at 58, 59, and 60. 2 of the three become pointless 2 or 3 levels later.

"But there were issues left unaddressed with druid heals prior to PoP, such as Nature's Touch, our 60th level heal, having no better mana efficiency than 55th level Chloroblast. And Nature's Recovery (the high-cost, single-target, short-duration regen) having such a long recast time that we'd have to reserve a spell slot for it continually just to have it available when it might be situationally beneficial to use."
Both of these spells were introduced healing lineup upgrades in the first place. Mudflation made them so situational. BUT now there is a 1750 point heal that is a direct heal at level 63 for Druids filling in the gap of NT only 3 levels after NT. There is also the 4650 heal at level 64. Yes I know spectrals are the epitome of the suck right now. And to be honest Divine Light and Remedy are the same efficiency as Chloroblast and Natures Touch. The recast time on Nature's Touch is its downside. Clerics below level 58 dont ever unload DL man, trust me, they dont.

I believe that the Druid class could make a case for having almost any spell upgraded or added to their lineup by comparing what they have in a certain area to another class. Take the Druid spell list in its entriety. Then compare spell-line by spell-line. Then judge the strength of the spells on a stand-alone basis. Then judge how the Druid spell line meshes on raids, in groups, and solo....NOTHING should make a category trivial. Then judge if upgrades OR nerfs might be needed. Every single thing in EQ is situational. You cant get a dynamic model that covers everything. Examples abound on how things can be over- and under-powered based on a single instance.



Belkram Marrwolf

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>We are aware that there is a problem with healing generating too much agro (upsetting the monsters) in Planes of Power. We are working on a fix for this problem. It should show up on the Test server fairly soon, but we probably will not have it ready for the patch tonight.
Alan [/quote]
Seems the heal agro on the spells in PoP were a mistake and TR may have been the one not buged heheh...

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Clerics neither asked for, wanted, or use heavily all three of these spells. [/quote]

LOL! Let me see if I understand you correctly. If you don't ask for a spell, the fact that you have it doesn't count! Should we assume you didn't scribe any of those new spells because you didn't really want them in the first place?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Supernal Remedy sends both Ethereal Light and Ethereal Remedy home packing as either too slow or too inefficient when better is available. [/quote]

Okay, you explained how a new/upgraded spell made previous heal spells pale in comparison. Well news flash -- that is what an upgrade is SUPPOSED to be -- not just an upgade in overall healing power, but a spell which reflects an improvement over previous similar heals.

Sure TR is an upgrade in overall healing power for druids, but it is definitely the first type of CH we've ever had. It is not an upgrade to any previous line because we never had a CH-type spell before TR.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Im sorry but this is pretty much blatantly false. Any spell that heals more efficiently is an upgrade to your ABILITY to heal. Your spell lineup has been improved because you are able to heal better. To assert otherwise is disingenuous. It heals slowly but efficiently. [/quote]

The next time you die in a group, I sincerely hope it's because a druid was casting his "most efficient" heal on you. After all, why should we bother with Nature's Touch or Chloroblast, when TR is supposed to be our new and improved heal, replacing the need for all others?

If you can understand why we have different types of heal spells for different situations, you should be able to understand why we would expect a higher level spell of one line to be more efficient than previous spells of that same line. Hint: it's the reason why you probably use Supernal Remedy far more often than you use Complete Heal.

Still don't understand? Hmm... don't know how to help ya. Your envy of druids is apparently greater than your willingness to be objective.

~Firemynd

You are both looking at it from your own classes point of view. What one class sees as a major upgrade for another may be seen as trivial for the class which got it.

Take the cleric heals. To clerics who had an over abundance of healing spells already, the three new spells were not that big of deal. To druids they would have been a huge thing.

Take the new druid portals. To druids adding new portals spells is no big thing. They save you what 1 or two zones. To clerics they would be a huge thing.

Heck imagine if they added another 55% slow to the shaman class. Both of our classes would think that was huge but to shaman it would be minor. We all percieve the value of something based on what we already have.

This is going to sound real corny but think of it this way. South Africa has diamonds, titanium and gold. We envy them this wealth at the same time they envy us our water and abundant food resources. And both countries take for granted the abundancies they already have.

Verant tends to add things to a class that they already have. that class then looks at what another class gets and goes WOW they got all the cool upgrades. However the other class who already had those abilities is looking back and saying "No you got all the goodies we just got minor upgrades"

We all know that druids healing is messed up pre 58. NT and superior heal really do need to be moved down. Likewise clerics can no longer be a one trick pony. I know many druids will say "but you have buffs and rez also. Rez doesnt count any more than evac. Both are highly situational and if all goes right will never factor in. Both classes have buffs.

Clerics need more utility or damage potential and druids pre TR healing is a joke. Sony would love to keep us at each other's throats but if you honestly stood back and looked at it from an objective point of view you would see both classes have strengths and weaknesses. Time to stop blaming each other and getting in pissing contest and start asking SONY to address our problems.

I tell you what you get Natures touch changes to what Im assuming you want. Im assuming you want a DL copy in amount healed, mana cost, casting time and recast time. Hell make it level 54 while you are at it. Do you understand what you have now? You have Druids patch healing JUST as well as a Cleric of the same level. How in gods name can you call that balanced when weighing in all the other abilities that Druids enjoy?

Im sorry the versatility and variety of Druids is their strength. From 52 to 57 you are a backup healer, damage dealer (moderate), snarer, evac insurance policy, and damage shield caster. Along comes 58 and your healing takes a leap with a 3k heal for 10 seconds. You can now act as the main healer in a lot of situations. At level 60 you get Natures Touch added. Yes you must keep it loaded to use it, but no cleric in their right mind is going to keep less than three heal spells loaded. And we do not click them off to load something else. At 63 add in a 1750 point direct heal. Its fast and it spot heals in a similar way to Ethereal Remedy 3 levels later. At 64 add in the 4650 point heal.

Now I would suppose you could say that Nature's Touch needs an upgrade or moved to lower in level. I agree that moving it to 55 or 56 would help things. Im going to play Devil's advocate here though. IF you get that upgrade, how many of you will say "wow I replaced a lot of clerics who were struggling in the 50s and cant even solo worth a darn, can we help them out with some offense and utility so they can?" Im willing to bet that number will be under 5 percent. If the option that allows Clerics to solo efficiently so they have some options FIRST, I would be more than willing to support a DL-like heal in the mid 50s. Im frankly quite tired of giving ground and being told that Cleric changes are in the works and once they happen every class bitches and we dont just get nerfed we get nerfed to the point where the upgrade became pointless. A la the 10 hours of hammers and the pet nerf that went along with it. Root/nuking is again just as efficient and its less dangerous.

If you look back at the total healing picture there have been several healing upgrades to Druids. Nature's Touch and Chloroblast, the dissolution of the 10 percent healing penalty, Tunares Renewal, and Superior healing. All of these changes were done OUTSIDE of an expansion, they were specifically balance oriented. SOE "looks" at your healing every single expansion. You only need one finger to see how many times they have looked at Cleric offense and utility. Im going to let you guess which finger it is that I want to show SOE in regards to priest "balancing". Oh wait I guess they looked at that twice, once to upgrade and then a second time to nerf it to NOT being an upgrade. So, I guess Ill need both hands...


Belkram Marrwolf

I wont argue with you there Belkram about clerics needing something.

My point is that it wasnt the druid class calling for our hammer to get nerfed. Actually from what I have seen many of them would support us getting more utility or damage abilities.(Heck read fire's post--he is one)

I have heard too many of my fellow clerics complain about being a one trick pony and only having healing. I would like to see a fix to both classes. The fact that SONY doesnt fix our class after making promises to do so is not the fault of druids. That is something we need to call SONY out on.

I consider my cleric my main and I think most of the druids here know that (I have never tried to hide that). However I play both and I can tell you they both have problems.

Clerics are too reliant on groups and with groups not needing the overkill healing of clerics that is not good. POP kind of fixes this till mudflation catches up.

Druids are great at soloing yes. But this is a multiplayer game. If soloing is all you want, you may as well play baldurs gate. I approved of the increase in druids healing both as a druid and as a cleric.

We need to start placing blame where blame is due. Sony is the one hosing the clerics not the druids. I have been posting here for awhile and quite a few of the druids are probably tired of hearing me complain about the clerics condition (not being on plate mitigation and lack of invis sound familiar anyone). But you know what? The majority of them probably would be supportive of us getting upgrades. I can guarantee it would be a lot more than 5%. Right after TR was added there were a lot of words back and forth. But if you read the boards now, you would see a lot of the druids would be in our corner.

A couple quotes from fire to show he does think it through.
Hope you dont mind fire?

"Simply put, I would like for our spells and AA to work as intended, and if that means increasing aggro for Druid TR/KR, so be it; if it means decreasing aggro from Cleric CH, so be it. "

"I don't begrudge clerics their healing upgrades; it is their field of expertise, after all. I don't even begrudge them any added utility spells (and yes, a self-invis is long overdue)."

Actually Belkram you know from our own boards that a lot of clerics realized that druid healing was inadequate. What I have noticed from posting here is that the majority of the druids here realize that our utility and soloing are inadequate. They dont talk about it cause this is a druid board, but when I bring something up to point out our view and try to get them to understand what we are thinking, they are pretty receptive. Give them a chance Belkram. Especially with Fire. He has been very accepting of my view points.

Just to give you an idea of my druid play style. My druid is a grouping druid. My main priority is healing. I had greater healing as my main heal until 51. Imagine trying to be main healer in KC with a 300 pt heal. Now I have superior heal as my main heal. That bites

Reverse side is my cleric. Who has such poor soloing skills that I used to die trying to cross FM trying to get to OT. Killed by lite blue mobs.

I dont blame the other class for either of the problems. I blame SONY. We have had raids called off for lack of clerics. Of course the reason there is a lack of clerics is the boring one dimensional aspect of clerics. Sony needs to make 3 healing classes and then give clerics a bunch of other abilities which equate to druid and shaman abilities.

Guess my whole point to this whole rant is that we both need to be understanding of what the other class is going through. Neither class has it as good as the other one thinks. If we got a bunch of upgrades to help our dps and utility, I would support the younger druids effort to get better healing pre 58. Likewise if the healing for them got moved down, I have faith that the majority here would support us getting our upgrades.

Guess I just play too often with friends and guildmates and seeing them get hosed does not make me happy. I play the game to have fun and expect others do also. If someones only goal is the benefit of their own class and they dont care if their friends who play a different class has fun, that is their problem. Dont think of that druid/shaman/cleric you are fighting with as some anon person. Picture them as yoiur guildmate, friend or family member who also just wants to have fun in the game.

Sorry for the mush and length of post.

CIAO

Well,

I've played a 65 Cleric and a 65 Druid in Drunder/HoH/Sol Tower. The amount of aggro I get from using Natures Infusion is sick. It's like Insta-Death. It's particulary bad in Drunder. They will definitely have to nerf healing aggro in the near future. Sup Rem owns for high healing aggro fights. It "seems" that KR has way lower aggro than NI. They stuck the druid in the CH-rotation the other day for an Aten Blob fight. It went pretty well until I started to get LoM. 600mana vs. 400mana is huge when a mob has 3 million hp. I have to admit I get groups alot easier now that I can heal for 5k. DivArb + EE is one reason why Clerics will never be replaced by Druids.

Cheese

I do not wish to have the healing powers of a cleric. If I wanted to med and heal all day long, I would have created a cleric to play. To complain about the differences between our heals is just silly. We were not meant to be primary healers, although we have been given new spells and abilities and that allow us to be so. We're not clerics, and until recently we didn't have ANY sort of CH at all. Now we have some, and there are still druids complaining that it's not good enough? :lol:

Please, next time you log on, follow these steps:
/sit
/camp
Delete your druid.
Create a cleric. Level up to 65 and start investing in some AA's.

Then you will see the other side of things, and be thankful for what you CAN do. ;)

In an attempt to return this discussion closer to it's original idea...

IF Sony isn't going to allow our TR/KR to utilize the Healing Gift AA ability, then perhaps they should lower the AA cost for Druids and Shamans.

Simply put, by the time we start getting AA points, i.e. level 51, Druids have I believe 3 instant heal spells (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that can benefit from the 2, 4, and 6 AA points that we can spend. And that gets way more expensive if we decide to spend *another* up to 12 AA points, where again, we *still* only have THREE spells that it will affect.

And even then, quite honestly, when you make it to 65, then you will have only *one* spell which it will be effective (as it's almost always a more intelligent decision to utilize our largest heal, because it's necessary to keep the MT alive)

With TR/KR being unaffected by HG, I believe the best thing Sony could do for us would be to lower the respective Druid/Shaman AA cost, simply in the interest of balance - or - reduce the level that we can buy it to.

If the main purpose of Clerics is to be healing batteries with a purpose beyond grouping Druids as main healers, then their AAs should be a bit more efficient, but then we as Druids shouldn't have to pay the same amount of AA points that Clerics do, because our specialty isn't what theirs is.

Along the same lines, if they only gave us 1-3 DD spells that the Crit Blast AA (mind isn't working correctly atm for the real AA ability name) worked with, in relation to Wizards or Magicians, I'd call for a lesser cost or something else to counter the fact that we pay the same amount of AA ability points as the other classes do, but they get better use out of the same points spent.

I mean, come on. Is it simply because we potentially can get more AAs faster than other classes that we should pay the same amount for something that's initally less useful for us, that doesn't ever get any better?

In a warped attempt to come up with an analogy... Would you pay the same $20 for a tank of gas that a Cleric gets 100 miles, but because I'm a Druid, I only get 60 miles out of?

This also (kind of) ties in to my post about Beastlords getting Paragon which still, imo is better at a cost of 6 AA pts, available at lvl 59, than level 3 Spirit of the Wood, which Druids have to wait until lvl 65 to pull off, simply by crunching the numbers, and looking at the respective refresh timers--MGB aside, as now Beastlords have been awarded something they should have had from the beginning.

I don't feel like bringing the whole druids solo better than clerics thing into view. It, of course, may very well have something to say about this discussion.

I just don't feel that I should have to pay the same amount of AA points as another class and have it just straight out be less useful/capable. Anyone have any other examples of this happening? If so, and we come up with ways to fix it, maybe Sony will deign to give us the time of day to look at our solution and make us all a bit happier.

Tar'Kaiden of Radiant
Storm Warden of Quellious

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If so, and we come up with ways to fix it, maybe Sony will deign to give us the time of day to look at our solution and make us all a bit happier.[/quote]
Not too likely, it's working as intended as far as they are concerned...

I would have to agree that the aa's for HG should be reduced. The only time I get exceptional heals is when I use NI. Using aa's just for the purpose of NI (or Chloro if you use) seems like a waste of aa's. Now mind you I have aha2 so my exceptional heals are over 4k. I don't know if I want to spend any more aa's on HG.

Belkrim, I've played both a cleric and a druid and the fact is that there is one healing class in the game. Cleric's healing ability is not even approached by druids. Thinking otherwise is naive. I've also played a wizard and any wizard that think druids are even in the same league for damage dealing is smoking crack.

The strength of a druid is that they can support heal or help with damage. Few classes can do that. A wizard might rarely be called on to spellshield or a cleric to AE but basically both of those classes (and most others) are pretty much slotted into one role. If there isn't enough healing landing on the MT the wizard can't do dick all about it or if adds are piling up because there isn't enough damage going out, clerics probably aren't going to help a lot and get to sit there swearing. However the problem is that druids do both healing and damage too poorly compared to the other classes so having them isn't going to buy you much, so it's better to simply have 2 clerics and a wizard than 4 druids.

The domination of guild rosters by clerics is simply absurd and clearly indicates theres a problem with healing in the game. Denying it is silly.

Belkram posted that almost half a year ago.

I seriously doubt that that conversation is relevent anymore.

Yup, old thread.