Beyond angry

[eniamn]

hey dont forget that wizard flaming sword of xulz = cleric hammer.

[Grimina]

BAH! The hammer is prettier!

[Noni DeeCups]

But if you HAVE a cleric...don't turn them away so you can wait for a druid.

The whole point is if you HAVE a druid... don't turn them away so you can wait for a cleric. Such double standards.

[Grimina]

Noni, that's where this discussion began

If there is a druid there for your group...go with it

But there's been an unfortunate trend lately of people deciding they don't WANT clerics in their groups because a druid is "close enough" I had to post the opposite for all the clerics out there getting turned down for groups because the folks would rather have a druid (YES it does happen and much more frequently than you'd expect) I personally don't care if I never get in another group again. I have my husband and I prefer to duo. But the unwashed masses spend their energy convincing clerics they can't solo and they NEED a group (I've been told that I was stupid for making a cleric if I didn't group all the time), then turn around and tell em they aren't needed in groups. Makes for disgruntled clerics.

Let me restate for those that missed the idea of my post. YES druids can pull main healer duty just fine. That does NOT make them better than clerics (some druid players are better than cleric players, and vice versa...that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the class itself). So if you HAVE a cleric standing there...take em. If you HAVE a druid standing there...take em. If you have both, well you're in heaven.

[claver]

Originally posted by Grimina
In closing: My husband has close to 6k hps. For the DRUID'S sake..I don't want one being a main healer for him in an LDoN.

That is so stereo typical it's not even funny.

Granted gear/level and AA's do make a difference but I have done LDoN adventures with just a shaman healing and no CC classes. Rogue/rogue/rogue/monk/warrior/shaman and shaman can't heal as fast as druids or clerics. Fast as in burst hp healing. They are simply more mana efficient with their Torpor line and could go on indefinately.

The reason druids and shaman were given thier % heals was so people would not have to rely on a cleric in every group. It has worked out rather well outside of those people that can't see outside of the box.

[Noni DeeCups]

Clerics are more efficient healers, no one has ever questioned that however, not all are better players is the point that people were trying to make.

This thread is not about cleric bashing. It is about people who can't see past "Cleric or nothing or we will all die!" It was started by a druid trying to get something going yet other peoples ignorance was getting in the way.

On a side note: I have never, ever seen anyone say no to a cleric because they would rather have a druid or shaman as main healer. Ever. Over 4 years of playing. Never happen. Btw, I have a Druid, a Cleric and a Monk. I have seen people make excuses to clerics because they were well... not a very skilled player - not because they were a cleric. I can think of a few clerics that I might lie to to keep from hurting their feelings. That goes for any class however this thread is about people insisting on having "cleric" rather then a "competent healer".

Karana's Renwal = Increase Hitpoints by 4680 (75% max) so a 6k tank would be no problem at all and that doesn't even take into account the fact that a lot of druids have alteration specialization and have invested in healing AA's. Granted, I am not an average middle of the road equiped player however I rarely ever have to sit and med. Not on raids, groups or soloing - unless I die

[Nhin Impious]

On a side note: I have never, ever seen anyone say no to a cleric because they would rather have a druid or shaman as main healer. Ever. Over 4 years of playing. Never happen.

If I logged chat, I would be able to show you several sets of proof right now.

I'm honest about my character's specialization (Evocation), mana pool (about the size of a Geo's gas tank) and AC (somewhere between wet tissue paper and wizard in lingerie).

There are groups where I'm not sufficient as a main healer; I do much, much better as a backup healer, just managing the CH's and letting someone else take care of the small heals.

So no, it doesn't make me mad when people would rather have a druid or shaman than me, but I have heard it before.

Nhinx "LOM doesn't mean Let's Overpull Mobs" Aphsion

[Grimina]

I can only talk about the level of folks I and my husband group with. We don't group with 65 druids, we're with 60 and under (we're level 61 and very VERY casual players) So they don't have that big heal...they're stuck with the 2900 (I believe it's 2900) so they'd have to hit him at above 50% in order to fill him up. Would YOU want to keep having to begin a cheal at 60% or higher in a group? I know *I* sure wouldn't. It's not stereotypical, it's mathematical. It's just not mana efficient for them so they are stuck healing twice as often as a cleric (or a 65 druid)and then sitting on their butts for the rest of the time instead of nuking/dotting/whatever else they can be doing. Of course they CAN do it..but you can be ****ed sure they would rather not be doing it.

I HAVE been turned down for groups that wanted a druid instead. I have friends that have been turned down for groups that wanted a druid instead. Someone in this thread said they would rather have a druid.

I try to go out of my way to get a druid for my LDoN groups

I don't imagine it happens with shaman, folks seem to actually realize that shaman have other things they should be spending their mana on...but they fail to recall that druids have other things in their spell books besides heals and sow.

My 2nd and onward responses were NOT to the original poster, I replied in agreement with the original poster in my first response saying that my druid friends are main healers at times and since they don't pester me for rezzes they must be doing great. My responses after that were to the people in this thread (and fueled by the other threads on 3 other boards that I saw in the last 2 days) that set off discussing why clerics were bad, instead of why druids are good. A druid being a good healer doesn't HAVE to be because a cleric is bad. They are good in their own right. You see? I'm simply saying (yet again) take what you have in front of you.

[kittycatscratch]

I normally just read but I had to respond to this one. I love having a Druid in group, Both on my cleric (61) and my Rogue (59). And yes they make good healers and fun to duo with on my rogue. But that all depends on the calibur of player you are dealing with, how well they know their spells, and their abilities. They are great damage dealers, and when the tank pulls 7 they are there to help root, and heal me when I get heal agro from not letting the bad tank die. Heh bad tanks.. there's another topic

[Inyidd]

Originally posted by Nhin Impious
(somewhere between wet tissue paper and wizard in lingerie).

I don't care which you wear, as long as you heal me! (Though I'm partial to the tissue paper.)

[Tinile]

I can only talk about the level of folks I and my husband group with. We don't group with 65 druids, we're with 60 and under (we're level 61 and very VERY casual players) So they don't have that big heal...they're stuck with the 2900 (I believe it's 2900) so they'd have to hit him at above 50% in order to fill him up. Would YOU want to keep having to begin a cheal at 60% or higher in a group? I know *I* sure wouldn't. It's not stereotypical, it's mathematical. It's just not mana efficient for them so they are stuck healing twice as often as a cleric (or a 65 druid)and then sitting on their butts for the rest of the time instead of nuking/dotting/whatever else they can be doing. Of course they CAN do it..but you can be ****ed sure they would rather not be doing it.

Please don't assume how druids keep their group alive, if you don't know. We do not heal twice as much as clerics. It's very rare I mem my 64 CH in an exp group. I use fast heals, like clerics do, with an occasional 58 CH. Tanks in exp groups do not have 8k hp. They do not need the 5k+ heal, it's a waste of mana. When I am in an exp group I rarely "sit on my butt". I dot/nuke/debuff and heal on occasion. That is when I am the *main* healer. I frequently group without clerics. Unless we have a really bad pull, no one in my group dies. EVER. And usually my group survives the train with CC or evac.

And please don't say it's because I'm 65 with AAs that I can do this. Any druid over 58 can do it well, if they can play the class properly.

[Grimina]

As I said, I can (and have) only speak of groups that I am in and druids under 60. And if I am in them...my husband is in them. He DOES have 6k hitpoints and so a 58-60 druid is going to have to be spending more mana/time on healing him than they would like in LDoN. And as my post said, a 58-60 druid is spending twice as much as a 65 druid would as well. You know at 64 you don't have to begin a cheal at 60%; you have higher healing spells that allow you to get by with fast heals. You (and any other 63+ druid) could easily handle a 6k+ tank without extended med breaks Your fast heal is 1750...a level 60 druid only has ~1000...a 58 only has 600.

It isn't because they are a druid, it is because of the spells they have available at that level and the amount of hitpoints of the tanks at that level (as you and a 58 will quite often be grouping with the same level of tank). I wouldn't want a level 57 cleric in charge of healing a 6k tank either, only difference is the 57 cleric has the bigger cheal so they could manage without using their fast heal (which is also ~1k) but it would still require more mana.

But all of that is beside the point, I said I wouldn't want a druid healing my husband in LDoN for their own sake because after letting a druid take over heals (as I was OOM after buffing) she complained that my husband had just too many hps for her to keep up with that AND crowd control. When I took over healing again and she went back to nuking/dotting/CC we both had enough mana and all was well again.

I want to rephrase my earlier sentiments once again (as I notice folks are still reacting as if I were bashing druids) I KNOW druids can make good main healers, I have friends on multiple servers that do it, and do it well. I just don't have a single friend that LIKES to do it. They do what has to be done to keep the group going and they complain later about how they had to be main healer because there was no cleric/the cleric went LD/the cleric sucked. I don't care WHO is in my groups (if/when I actually group) as long as I like the people. It could be 5 monks and me, it could be 3 wizards, a monk, and me. So don't convince yourselves that I'm someone who can't see out of the box just because I'm a cleric. I personally can't see IN the box which is why I refuse to believe that a group has to have only ONE healer, or that a person must believe clerics are rotten players in order to accept a druid as a healer.

[Myrron]

Two part post:

First, the moderator in me speaking: the conversation has been pretty good so far, so please do not let this thread dissolve into a cleric vs. druid argument. Those can get heated quick especially when people are attached to their characters. Please don't start bashing any class, be it cleric/druid or any others that may get discussed.

Second, the druid in me: Before the %CH, I've been passed over as main healer a lot since the early 40's. After getting level 58, there have still been times when I've been overlooked for a cleric (clerics out-nuke druids from levels 56-59), and there have been times where my 3k heal is more than enough with the right group. I had a truly fun pick-up LDoN group when I was 61, where we had a rogue, beastlord, shammy, warrior, and I think a chanter, and me. I think I cast CH only when we had 3+ adds, which was rare to none. We had a slaughter mission and killed 60 mobs in 45 minutes. I was main healer and spent far more mana nuking, DSing, debuffing/dispelling, and snaring than healing. When a group can gather together a high DPS force, I've noticed heals are more for emergencies than necessity; the mobs die too quick to really hurt. :P If it looks like trouble, succor can avoid the rez issue completely if there aren't any pallies or clerics around.

I LOVE playing main healer. I grew up with the role, from PC to HHK, and beyond. I somehow successfully played main healer in PoN and PoI back when I was 50 and 51, though I admit that was very tough. Maybe one reason I love it is because I see it as a fun challenge...if my group members die I can't rez them, making death a very unwelcome option. Thus, I do everything in my power to keep them alive and kicking (and slashing and bashing and...).

Personally, currently, I would love to have a warrior with 6k hp as my healing target. Let them drop to 50%, begin casting the complete heal, and they'll be up to around 90% and I can nuke again. Unless the group doesn't do much damage as a whole there's most likely no need for another heal until the next fight or two when they drop down to 50%-ish again. In fact, once I was with a 60 warrior, a upper-50's shaman, and a 55 bard (and me, 61 at the time) in the plane of storms and just the 4 of us were chain pulling the whole time. No med time needed. But it all goes back to how well you know your class and how good of a player you are.

I have seen people turn down clerics in favor of druids. I've seen people turn down druids waiting for clerics. I've seen very effective groups with a shaman as main healer. In-game I date a 59 cleric and sometimes we have trouble grouping together because one of us is often considered "excess." Personally even now at 63 (with successful experiences playing main healer in tier 2 zones prior to 63), I love having a cleric around. It gives me an excuse to add to DPS more, which I admit I do not do much until I get a feel for how the healing will go in a group.

Back to the point of the topic, I think a lot of times people would rather wait around to create the stereotype "perfect" group in order to "ensure" success. People envision a tank (warrior, pally, SK), a healer (cleric), a slower/haster (shaman/chanter), crowd control (enchanter), and DPS (varies due to level). People overlook very viable alternatives, and would rather wait an extra 30 minutes or more hoping the "perfect" choice comes along. Unfortunately a poorly played <any class> is never better than a well played <alternate class> in my opinion.

I'd rather get six great players of any class together and start an LDoN than wait an hour sitting around not gaining xp or having fun just hoping that perfect <insert class> shows up.

--Myrron

[Ilona]

Originally posted by Grimina
I wouldn't want a level 57 cleric in charge of healing a 6k tank either, only difference is the 57 cleric has the bigger cheal so they could manage without using their fast heal (which is also ~1k) but it would still require more mana.

My cleric is currently lvl 57 (after spending many months at 56). My bf's warrior has 6k hp with good buffs. I don't have a problem keeping him alive... in fact, usually I spend more mana on healing everyone else in the group, hehe. I also do end up using the fast heal regularly... simply because waiting for him to get down to 40-ish% for a cheal takes aaaages!

I know that my bf prefers to have me playing cleric when he plays warrior... just because he knows I can keep him alive. He wouldn't feel comfortable with a druid healing, but then... he doesn't feel that comfortable with a different cleric healing either.

I personally try to gather friends when looking for LDoN groups. I won't ever put off a group because there isn't a cleric when there is a shaman or druid. But I won't pass up on a cleric either!

The player behind the character makes a lot more difference than the class of character.

[QuteCleric]

As a cleric... in groups i sometimes don't use mana, healing is very overrated :-P In adventures, for instance, I melee and use divine arbitration and Celestial Regeneration(both AA abilities, former 3 min refresh, latter 15 min)... this can consistently heal 8k hp tanks without dropping a single ounce of mana... I know druids get SoTW not sure if they get anything like divine arb(sharing of group damage) I'd assume not.... Anyway the point is that in many groups I've been in I've just looked cute and thrown in my heal a few times... Hell sometimes the shaman heals and I pull works well

Most people I know that prefer clerics over drudis are "just in case" type players.... Sure clerics can heal more efficiently and faster but many people just like us there just in case something goes wrong... so they can get a big rez I don't mind, just wish they'd realize if everyone did their job to begin with rezzes wouldn't be needed

Qutie!