Just sort of wanted to see what people thought of different healers and their "pureness" or their potential for being a "pure healer" class... and how they stand up vs other healers.
Some healers seem to be designed more for hybrid, some for healing, and some for ???
What would be the "purest" form of healer? and how would you spec them to be that way?
I really wouldnt mind having this thread sort of be a "Information on Healer: Go to Guide" for people looking to play a healing class and just cant figure out which one to play.... Maybe people posting how they play their healers, and how they spec their AA for each playstyle...
I know it's a cliché but it really does depend on what you consider "pure".
Most people consider the classes to be split with one subclass being more dps oriented and one being more heal oriented, or offensive and defensive.
Templar, Defiler and Warden being defensive and Inquisitor, Mystic and Fury being offensive.
In general you could call the defensive healers "purer" healers than the offensive healers as the defensive healers group buffs are survivability oriented (while offensive healers have more dps oriented buffs).
But where you go from there is tough:
Templar has a massive healing potential and is considered by many to be the most solid and reliable healer of the bunch with fantastic survivability buffs and a myriad of choices when it comes to the healing.
Defiler utilises the most efficient type of healing in game with their wards and are a rock-hard nut to crack, but they can be somewhat brittle if they do crack or are being played by people unfamiliar with the warding mentality (very different from other healers).
Warden has probably the largest healing potential and power efficiency, but is brought down somewhat by the type of heals they use as they will very often be healing nothing, they require a bit of "spin-up" time to get their hots casted and ticking but once they're all running nothing short of a nuclear blast will unseat the tank.
Sooo... it's really down to preference, many consider the Templar to be the best simply because it occupies a very comfortable middle ground between wards and HoTs.
(I know some people will be annoyed that I dismissed Inquisitors, Mystics and Furies out of hand but each of those classes simply has a lower healing potential than their "mirror", they may be better for groups or raids when that extra little bit isn't needed but that wasn't the question asked)
Thanks for the input..
As far as what i mean by "pure" healers, i mean, not spec'd for your own personal DPS, just healing capacity. Everything that you can posibly do in your AA's and gear to maximize your healing capacity.
I'm not as concerned with the utility they provide to other group members in the form of DPS improvement... I understand that each class can buff different DPS classes differently. Im trying to get peoples opinions on HP and survivability buffs that are usefull more then one classes... or other benefits that provide survivablility. Thats what i mean when i say "pure" as well. If one healer is mainly used to increase a groups DPS, and their healing capabilities suffer from it, then thats what i would like to point out in this thread. So that people who may be looking to play different classes of healers can have a place to come and compare notes as it were, on the pros and cons of different healers with respect to surviability.
So you think Mystics have a lower healing capacity then Defilers? can you explain why you think this?
I agree with you on the Druids.. as the druids either have to wait for the group to take damage to maximize their healing potential (which can be dangerous, depending on how MUCH their group is taking) otherwise, if they "pre heal" a vast majority of their heals are going to waste while everyone is in the green, before they take damage...
From what i've seen druids, especially wardens have the best sort of "uh oh, the group is going down!" kind of saving graces.. As their group heals are very powerfull if all members of the group are using it all, and they are very fast compared to Shaman or Cleric group heals / wards. Mystics (i havn't played a Defilers, so cant make any assumptions there, but i imagine they arent THAT much better if they are) are the exact opposite.
From what I have seen, Mystics seem to be one of the most powerful healer as long as ONE person has aggro and ONE person is taking damage. Their group ward, while very small compared to the potential group capacity of other classes, like the druid group heals... If it is only used by one person, turns into one of the most powerfull solo target heals there is. Once the group starts taking heavy damage that surpases the capacity of the small group ward, the 5 second base time of the group ward or the 3 second base time of the mediocre Group heal is too long for "Emergency group" situations....
How does the "Uh oh group is dying, we all need health fast" healing of the inquisy and templar compare to that of the Warden or the Mystic?
Sprinng@Nagafen wrote:
I can't speak for templars, wardens or mystics but on my inquis it really depends on what tools are up when the fit hits the shan. If I have divine recovery or my instant cast reactive up I can usually instantly put the tank in a safe enough place that I can get off my group heal and my group reactive or inquisition. As long the agro stays on the tank and the mobs aren't eating through my reactives faster than I can rotate between heals and reactives everything will turn out ok. If those tools are down and / or the mob is tossing stuns/stifles/interrupts then it's a real crap shoot. If the mob is burning the tank down and my reactives are only slowing his death than it's a race to the bottom and if anyone else pulls agro they're generally toast.
A while ago I had my inquis's aa spec in a "pure" healing setup. Basically what I did was take all of the faster/better heals, better buffs, emergency tools I could get. In practice what this resulted in was me running at about 70% of what I was capable of in most circumstance with little more than debuffs to add to the groups while their health was never in danger.
I am not a raid healer at all so I can't comment on that situation. I'm talking here about TSO instance runs like DF, Najenas, evernight, etc.
Den
Just sort of wanted to see what people thought of different healers and their "pureness" or their potential for being a "pure healer" class... and how they stand up vs other healers.Some healers seem to be designed more for hybrid, some for healing, and some for ???What would be the "purest" form of healer? and how would you spec them to be that way?I really wouldnt mind having this thread sort of be a "Information on Healer: Go to Guide" for people looking to play a healing class and just cant figure out which one to play.... Maybe people posting how they play their healers, and how they spec their AA for each playstyle...
Wha? A "Pure Healer" would have two spells, "Heal" and "Cure" and refuse to use weapons because that might hurt someone. Not many people would want to play one of those.
That said, I'd have to say that Defilers and Mystics are about the least pure healers out there since we specialize in damage prevention, not fixing damage. We toss out very fast cures, our wards, and our dps debufs all are about preventing the damage from hapening in the first place. I prefer to avoid situations that force me to use a heal at all.
A Warden with their Mythical. Period. Just chain cast heals and NEVER dropping below 95% power. Who cares if the HoTs tick away on a full health tank? It's all free healing and power. Over-powered mythical much? Absolutely.
Templar
Lots of heals, healing debuffs, +Hp buffs, Damage negation abilities, pretty much no utility beyond that ;p
Anyone who has played more then one type, shaman, cleric, druid, in the same situations, IE: end game raiding, End game instance... maybe solo heal experience... and how hard it was? how easy compared to the others they have personally played.
I know one thing , its very difficult to look parses where you are with another healer, especially a different type of healer, and compare the parse and say "my class is better then this class, look at my parse"
When things like reactives, wards and such will heal a tank first and if they arent good enough then the regular heals kick in and finish up the stability... so it may seem in a single group that a warden isnt as good as a templar, because the templar would be parsing higher, but the fact is that the templars reactives and wards are preventing the tanks HP from going low enough to need the druid heals usually....
Whereas if you get the same group, in the same zone with a solo healer played by the same person, you should get a far more accurate "picture" as to which one is better... of course gear would play a part.
I have a lvl 80 mystic, and am taknig up a lvl 80 cleric. (dunno which one yet, shes an inquisy now, but may change to templar later on for more of the "purist" healing class
Which sorta brings up a personal request... can anyone who has played maybe a templar end game and swapped to an inquisy, and has personal experience with both solo healing instances... maybe chime in and let me know what they think
I want to be able to focus my gear on just healing stats... IE: casting / reuse speed, Heal crit and eventally Heal Crit bonus and heal procs... DPS? meh, i can do that on my 80 coercer / swashy / bruiser / melee mystic...
I want to build the toon to be absolutely crazy healer where i can pretty much solo heal any group anywhere... But dont really know the raw healing capacity of an Inquisy vs a Templar
Let me say this in advance to be clear; Any healing class can heal well with the right amount of skill and gear.
Everything else being equal, gear, skill, situation, a Templar heals more than an Inquisitor. That being said, many Templar's recommend that you play an Inquisitor until level 80 as they are easier to level as they can DPS better.
Oh and solo healing an instance? Any healer class can if played correctly and spec'd/geared right. Probably more difficult for druids to do so, but they can.
Faush@Antonia Bayle wrote:
See now why is that? Please explain. Just trying to get peoples opinions and experiences on things.. Why do you say its harder for druids to do so? What makes it harder for them / easier for other classes? Wouldnt the TYPE of instance make a difference? IE: lots of ae damage where lots of people are taking damage vs one where 99% of the time the tank is the only one taking damage?
Druids lack HP buffs and wards (and, less importantly, debuffs). As a result, their groups are more at risk against 1-shots and spike damage, especially if they're undergeared for the content. An example of a fight a Druid would struggle to solo heal would be the boss of Guk: Outer Stronghold. The damage on that encounter has been reduced since it was released and great gear can make it easier, but the AE on that encounter used to one-shot a good portion of your group if they didn't have HP buffs and/or wards.
All healers are capable of putting out decent damage, but Defilers are probably the least capable in that department, so I guess that makes them the most "pure" healer in your opinion? Of course, a significant part of playing a Defiler is debuffing, so I'm not sure if that makes them less "pure" in your opinion or not.
The problem with a question like this is that it sort of follows a misconception, the idea that the strongest function of a healer is to repair damage. It's not. Pretty much any healer can full-heal a group within a few seconds, so saying who's the best at that isn't really a significant distinction. What is significant, however, is stopping the group from dying due to wards, debuffs, shield ally, hp buffs, or curing, and those are the areas healers diverge in. In raid content and some heroic content resistance to status effects (sanctuary, steadfast, self-cures, whatever) is very important as well.
I'd probably say wardens get the most out-and-out healing capability of any class, but they're pretty much terrible at keeping a group alive compared to a shaman or cleric - they have almost no hp buffing capability by comparison, no real anti-status effect capability, no debuffing, weak curing, and no avoidance lend. Heroic content can be easy enough where their deficiencies don't really matter, but it doesn't mean they don't have problems on anything remotely difficult.
I've almost no use for parses at all as a healer. Especially when techniques for looking good on a parse are detremental to party survivability. For example. If I just wanted to look great on a parse, all I would do is wards--now that wards parse, they didn't back in the day. I'd actually refuse to use cures and debuffs because that way my group will take more damage, so I can heal more damage, and look even better on a parse. On the other hand, I personally am very proactive on damage debuffs and cures which don't parse at all. I've yet to find a parser that will compute and assign damage that never happened due to player actions. Such as the remaining ticks left on a dot, or reduced damage due to my str and dps debuffs. If it did though, I think the parsers would give a completely different impression of what makes a good healer, but right now, I consider heal parsing totally misleading and effectively useless.
Right now, one cleric can heal a group that wipes over and over again, but have an awesome parse. But my party doesn't wipe at all, although I keep on losing a scout that can't bother to watch his aggro. But my parse looks weak. Overall, I'd much rather keep the party alive than look great on a parse. Still, I get idiots that complain that my parse is weaker than the previous healer that kept wiping the party. This was even more true back in the day when wards didn't parse at all and people thought Shaman's just stood there and looked pretty, although wards didn't work as effectively back then either.
Chath@Antonia Bayle wrote:
It really depends on the situation. I agree with your assessment for the most part. In most cases if you're bringing one healer to do a difficult zone then a cleric or shaman would have an easier time than a druid, but not all the time. If I had to pick one healer to solo heal palace I'd bring a warden because of the types of encounters in there.
By the way, wardens do get anti-status effect capabilities via AAs.
Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:
Sprinng@Nagafen wrote:See now why is that? Please explain. Just trying to get peoples opinions and experiences on things.. Why do you say its harder for druids to do so? What makes it harder for them / easier for other classes? Wouldnt the TYPE of instance make a difference? IE: lots of ae damage where lots of people are taking damage vs one where 99% of the time the tank is the only one taking damage?Druids lack HP buffs and wards (and, less importantly, debuffs). As a result, their groups are more at risk against 1-shots and spike damage, especially if they're undergeared for the content. An example of a fight a Druid would struggle to solo heal would be the boss of Guk: Outer Stronghold. The damage on that encounter has been reduced since it was released and great gear can make it easier, but the AE on that encounter used to one-shot a good portion of your group if they didn't have HP buffs and/or wards.All healers are capable of putting out decent damage, but Defilers are probably the least capable in that department, so I guess that makes them the most "pure" healer in your opinion? Of course, a significant part of playing a Defiler is debuffing, so I'm not sure if that makes them less "pure" in your opinion or not.
My definition of "pure" does not mean "only heal, nothing else" i mean, "pure" as in overall capacity as a healer to do their job. If you want a DPS, get a DPS class, if you want a spot healer, get a hybrid Fury whos gear is mostly + Crit strike based, who is there for emergencys but is mostly there to DPS (which they can do very well)..
If your job as a DPS class is to do damage and make it so you and others can do more damage to the mob, that is your "job"... pure DPS class.... Swashy, assassin, wizzy, etc.. T1 DPS toons...
Well Im simply looking for peoples advice on the T1 HPS toons (technically speaking)
If we can separate scouts and tanks and mages functions into different Tiers and different "roles"... IE: bards vs predators... bards not being "pure" DPS... why cant we get a similar list of roles for healers? They all have different roles.. some heal / cure better, and some may just provide better buffs to their group to DPS a mob but may not be the best for that solo instance to heal... Thats the kind of issues i wanted to discuss here.
As long as Debuffs and Cures arent "parseable" its hard to get an accurate account of what healers are doing besides just raw Heals per second etc numbers... so i would agree ACT is inacurate in that aspect. Which is why i want peoples opinions on things... which we seem to be getting a great response....
cures, debuffs, buffs for group that help survivabilty, heals, AA trees, etc etc...
Simply speaking, I wanted to start a nice topic that allows people who havn't played any healers, or very limited, who hae a specific frame of mind on what they want to do, to be able to get an overall base of information.
Like one would do for scouts...
IE: I want to do just massive DPS... well dont pick dirge... or.........I want to just buff my group with insane things that helps us survive and do massive DPS groupwide... well dont pick a ranger... etc etc... that sorta thing, but for healers
