Heal speced archmage compared to a runepriest?

[shadow9d9]

Both classes appeal to me. I want to be a healer/support class. Would a healing speced archmage be weaker or stronger in healing compared to a compareable runepriest?

What are your thoughts about the differences between the 2?

Archmage seems to be similar to a Fury in EQ2 in that it can do dps as well as heal...

With archmage, I just worry that if I want to sit back and purely heal, I will be limited because I won't be doing damage to get the bonuses for heals. Do I have reason to be concerned?

Thanks!

[Fontaine]

If you are going to sit back and heal, an Archmage is definitely not for you. You need those damaging spells in order to create High Magic, to reduce the cast times on your healing spells.

The Archmage is the best single target healer in the game, while a Rune Priest is a flex healer, being superb at whatever tree they spec into.

A Rune Priest does not rely on doing damage like the other two healing careers, so you could sit in the back and heal, without being penalized like you would be if you were the other healing careers.

[Sepulcher]

Rune priest is the better pure healer as stated above. Archmage is still a great class, but you will not be as effective as a runepriest when it comes to healing.

Just remember don't get mad that the class is not exactly how you want it to be. It is designed a certain way. If you want to be the awesome healer play the runepriest. If you like the look of the archmade more, then play the archmage. Do not fall into the mindset that many people have and believe that a class has to play the way you want. An archmage isn't as good as the runepriest at healing for the same reason a witch hunter isn't as good as healing. The class was designed to be a certain way.

I personally choose playstyle over looks. I am not vain enough to gimp myself just to look cool.

[shadow9d9]

Aye, I will be in the open beta, so I will try both.. just trying to get a feel for them here too. Does one have more support spells than the other? Is the archmage's damage much greater than the runepriest?

[Vaizard]

Rune priest is the better pure healer as stated above. Archmage is still a great class, but you will not be as effective as a runepriest when it comes to healing.

Just remember don't get mad that the class is not exactly how you want it to be. It is designed a certain way. If you want to be the awesome healer play the runepriest. If you like the look of the archmade more, then play the archmage. Do not fall into the mindset that many people have and believe that a class has to play the way you want. An archmage isn't as good as the runepriest at healing for the same reason a witch hunter isn't as good as healing. The class was designed to be a certain way.

I personally choose playstyle over looks. I am not vain enough to gimp myself just to look cool.

I disagree with this completely. Unfortunately, the NDA prevents me from discussing why I disagree.

[AxeMaverick]

Bringing over a post from the Zealot vs Shaman thread because they are the destro mirrors.

"I don't know about "Proper Healing" but the main mechanic of the class (archmage) is that Damage increases healing power and healing increases damage power. From what has been allowed, origins and such, it seems the Archmage will have large cast times, the cast time is lessened if you have the correct power.

The specs are Healing Damage and Other. Don't exactly know on the third one, but the other two specs are pretty straight forward. When you spec healing you are making your healing better. You still cast damage to get healing power, to make cast times lower. As far as I know, the big heals will be 3 second casts, and to be honest, that's pretty long. That's mostly why you use damage and healing, that and Instant Casts get more powerful.

The Runepriest, however, doesn't use that mechanic. So your healing is going to be the same whither or not you use damage in between. Their differance is that their three specs are AoE, Direct, and DoT / HoT. When you spec you are improving both damage and healing for that type of spell. This leads to more effective debuffs and such.

Another GREAT part about both, Healing over Time to be specific, is that there are reports that the HoT can Crit. Meaning instead of direct healing having a crit chance, you have every small heal of the HoT has a crit chance. Which is pretty awesome if it's true.

Overall, it will depend on how they play out during PW and OB. No one outside of CB can really know, and no one inside of CB can really say. Test them out when you get a chance, you won't really miss much since chars are wiped before launch anyway."

[Kaeldor]

Rune priest is the better pure healer as stated above. Archmage is still a great class, but you will not be as effective as a runepriest when it comes to healing.

Just remember don't get mad that the class is not exactly how you want it to be. It is designed a certain way. If you want to be the awesome healer play the runepriest. If you like the look of the archmade more, then play the archmage. Do not fall into the mindset that many people have and believe that a class has to play the way you want. An archmage isn't as good as the runepriest at healing for the same reason a witch hunter isn't as good as healing. The class was designed to be a certain way.

I personally choose playstyle over looks. I am not vain enough to gimp myself just to look cool.

From what we know the RP has to decide if they want to specialize in single target healing, group healing etc. So they won't be overall better in all kinds of healing than an AM. Also, because of the mechanic a AM will be albe to to churn out some heals at a fast casting time, or really big heals, so I'm not sure if you really can say one of both is the better healer. It probalby will depend on the situation.

[shadow9d9]

I will of course try them in beta, but I don't see any benefits for the archmage over the runepriest/zealot... You are forced to do both damage and healing with archmage where you get both with no restrictions with the zealots... what am I missing?

[GoodIdea]

I read a post from a dev and he said that you will be the best at healing when you are only healing. Will you be the most effective at battle though? Probably not. Because with a little less healing you could be doing a lot more DPS.

No one here has played an Archmage at level 40. Until you cap AM out, you don't really know. There are some game breaking tactics at level 39, so the jury is still out.

Also, if you just use common sense, every spell has a 1.5-2 second global cooldown (not sure what current global CD is). If you cast 5 damage spells it will take 7.5-10 seconds to get a free 3 second cast heal. You spend 10 seconds to save 3 seconds. I believe the guy healing for the full 10 seconds would get 10 seconds of healing done while you just got 3 seconds. The same mechanic works for HOTs and instant, but they cannot be reduced in casting time so they are buffed in healing power. Bottom line is you'll still be doing less healing if you are doing DPS 5 spells out of every 6.

Imo, if you did only damage you might do 1000 damage. If you do only healing you might heal for 1000. If you do both you might heal for 800 and damage for 500, which would be clearly better than doing just one or the other. But like I said, until we cap at level 40, no one can really say except for the devs, who said they want to encourage the AM to be diverse, they didn't say they wanted the AM to be a marginal healer.

[McLoven]

RP has stronger heals but less DPS.

Archmage has weaker heals but pack more of a punch.

All the information I have read basically states this.

Also the RP has better armor over the cloth of the mage.

[Celestian]

I will of course try them in beta, but I don't see any benefits for the archmage over the runepriest/zealot... You are forced to do both damage and healing with archmage where you get both with no restrictions with the zealots... what am I missing?

As a archmage you don't HAVE to nuke to heal. It just makes them cast faster or if instacast, little bit more effective.

It's just nice once you build up 5 high magic while on a healing spurt you can drop a insta-cast dot on someone and do some extra damage.

[Lust]

As a archmage you don't HAVE to nuke to heal. It just makes them cast faster or if instacast, little bit more effective.

It's just nice once you build up 5 high magic while on a healing spurt you can drop a insta-cast dot on someone and do some extra damage.
You need to dps to heal atleast effectively archmage heals arent as effective as RP in terms of Heals/AP as well as bit squisher however with 5 Force the Boon is instant cast so it helps a great a deal.

You typically need to atleast maintain 1 to 2 damage per heal ratio to use tranq/force effectively.

[Celestian]

You need to dps to heal atleast effectively archmage heals arent as effective as RP in terms of Heals/AP as well as bit squisher however with 5 Force the Boon is instant cast so it helps a great a deal.

You typically need to atleast maintain 1 to 2 damage per heal ratio to use tranq/force effectively.

You don't "need" to dps as I said. It helps boost dps/hps but if you're party needs healing you dpsing to get a little better AP ratio on your heals isn't going to really matter if they die. It makes the class more interesting to play certainly. I love it as it gives me another thing to do instead of just healing or nuking. Balancing your dps with healing is great fun.

This just my experience of only level 16/rr13. So perhaps it changes drastically at upper levels but right now I can completely ignore high magic and do fine healing when I have to.

[Dastion]

You need to dps to heal atleast effectively archmage heals arent as effective as RP in terms of Heals/AP as well as bit squisher however with 5 Force the Boon is instant cast so it helps a great a deal.

You typically need to atleast maintain 1 to 2 damage per heal ratio to use tranq/force effectively.

This is not true at all.

Most of the Archmage heals are direct copies of Runepriest heals. Archmages receive only the "base" heals that every career gets (Heal + HoT, HoT, Big Heal, Group Heal). Meanwhile, the Runepriest gets all of these and a bouncing HoT, an instant cast small heal, a shield that can be cast on anyone and heals when it fades(AM version is group only and no heal), and a long CD "emergency" spell that greatly increases the target's HP for a period.

It's not so much "better" what the AM has he uses just as well as the RP (except the shield). The values are identical for the "core heals" across the two careers. Besides the base abilities available, there is another key difference. One mastery line increases all of the AM's heals (which are really all you need), while the RP pays for his flexibility by having to choose the "type" of heals and damage spells he increases. His Big Heal, Group Heal, and Heal + HoT are all in seperate mastery paths. Of course, as yet another counter, he gains increased damaging abilities no matter what path he specs as well. Which, actually, allows to RP to better "mix it up" than the AM, sadly.

As for how damage values compare, go ahead and look:

Radiant Lance (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9237) versus Rune of Striking (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1586) (RP Level 32 Value: 246)
Law of Conductivity (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9239) versus Rune of Immolation (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1589) (RP Level 32 Value: 402)
Balance Essence (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9257) versus Rune of Fortune (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1611) (RP Level 32 Value: 246)
Transfer Force (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9241) versus Rune of Fate (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1616) (RP Level 32 Value: 770)
Fury of Asuryan (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9267) versus Rune of Fire (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1594) (RP Level 32 Value: 185)
Law of Gold (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9253) versus Spellbinding Rune (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1607) (RP Level 32 Value: 324)
Storm of Cronos (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9269) versus Rune of Cleaving (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1597) (RP Level 32 Value: 280)
Searing Touch (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9250) versus Rune of Burning (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1614) (RP Level 32 Value: 984)*
*To clarify, Searing Touch hits 4x for 204 per, while Rune of Burning hits 7x for a total of 984. So, more damage, and more interrupts.

The only place the AM has a clear advantage is with the Insta DDs, Fury of Asuryan doing nearly 100 more than Rune of Fire. Of course, Fury of Asuryan has a 30 sec CD, while RoFire has a 5 second CD :p


There are other comparisons, and other abilities that one career gets that the other does not get a similar version of. But, as you can see. Currently, the AM comes up quite short. (No that's not a dwarf pun). Pretty much, if the RP wants to..he can choose to outdamage you in whatever way he wants and be boosting his healing too. It's currently quite a major issue with the career.

Edit: Added in the lvl 32 values for the Runepriest abilities since WarDB isn't yet normalized on levels.

[Arklinear]

This is not true at all.

Most of the Archmage heals are direct copies of Runepriest heals. Archmages receive only the "base" heals that every career gets (Heal + HoT, HoT, Big Heal, Group Heal). Meanwhile, the Runepriest gets all of these and a bouncing HoT, an instant cast small heal, a shield that can be cast on anyone and heals when it fades(AM version is group only and no heal), and a long CD "emergency" spell that greatly increases the target's HP for a period.

It's not so much "better" what the AM has he uses just as well as the RP (except the shield). The values are identical for the "core heals" across the two careers. Besides the base abilities available, there is another key difference. One mastery line increases all of the AM's heals (which are really all you need), while the RP pays for his flexibility by having to choose the "type" of heals and damage spells he increases. His Big Heal, Group Heal, and Heal + HoT are all in seperate mastery paths. Of course, as yet another counter, he gains increased damaging abilities no matter what path he specs as well. Which, actually, allows to RP to better "mix it up" than the AM, sadly.

As for how damage values compare, go ahead and look:

Radiant Lance (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9237) versus Rune of Striking (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1586)
Law of Conductivity (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9239) versus Rune of Immolation (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1589)
Balance Essence (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9257) versus Rune of Fortune (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1611)
Transfer Force (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9241) versus Rune of Fate (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1616)
Fury of Asuryan (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9267) versus Rune of Fire (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1594)
Law of Gold (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9253) versus Spellbinding Rune (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1607)
Storm of Cronos (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9269) versus Rune of Cleaving (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1597)
Searing Touch (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9250) versus Rune of Burning (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=1614)


There are other comparisons, and other abilities that one career gets that the other does not get a similar version of. But, as you can see. Currently, the AM comes up quite short. (No that's not a dwarf pun). Pretty much, if the RP wants to..he can choose to outdamage you in whatever way he wants and be boosting his healing too. It's currently quite a major issue with the career.

Err, that is pretty messed up. I assumed this class was meant to be more of a nuker then the Rune Priest, guess I was wrong :P.

[Dastion]

I just noticed that that is slightly biased since they, apparently, didn't normalize the specializations or levels when they added those to the database.

But, the level difference is at most 1 or 2 levels, which doesn't account for much difference, it just makes it look *slightly* worse than it actually is. 1-2 levels sure doesn't account for some of his spells doing 100-200 more damage.

I'll go ahead and edit in the lvl 32 values for the Runepriest abilities.

[krayola]

Dastion:

How does Funnel Essence fit into your analysis? From what I can tell, it's the Archmage's uber skill, and the only class-specific ability I've found that can be used to counter focus fire for the healer careers. Honestly, all the healers seem to be well equipped to handle evenly distributed pressure damage with all their DOT heals, but focus fire is gonna be how people get killed when you're playing against coordinated teams, and the career that handles it best will inevitably become the definitive healer in organized play. Right now, the fact that the Runepriest and Zealot lack an equivalent ability is preventing me from even considering them as a career.

[Dastion]

Dastion:

How does Funnel Essence fit into your analysis? From what I can tell, it's the Archmage's uber skill, and the only class-specific ability I've found that can be used to counter focus fire for the healer careers. Honestly, all the healers seem to be well equipped to handle evenly distributed pressure damage with all their DOT heals, but focus fire is gonna be how people get killed when you're playing against coordinated teams, and the career that handles it best will inevitably become the definitive healer in organized play. Right now, the fact that the Runepriest and Zealot lack an equivalent ability is preventing me from even considering them as a career.

Focus fire, also called "Spike Damage". Is supposedly the Archmage and Shaman's 'speciality', that and sustained heals. Though, the flex healers are supposed to be able to do as they choose.

Archmages have arguably the best spell when it comes to this simply because it's channeled (immediate effect) and heals more than a big heal does in the same amount of damage without having to wait until the end of the 3 seconds for the effect. Shamans also have a similarly good spell for someone getting focus fired, though with a delayed effect that spreads out over all allies for a quite considerable amount (stacks up to 2,500 AoE heal at 40 I believe).

The flex healers still do quite well against focus fire, as well as can be expected really. There is a thin threshhold of things that Funnel Essence will save someone from that a quick shield + spam healing wouldn't. I personally tend to prefer to pick up Cleansing Flare so that I can break up the focus firing squad rather than try to heal through it.

[Roland of Gilead]

so the archmage is an ok healer and good at dealing damage with magic and weapons, and the runepriest is more of a pure healer? if so, then im gonna be an archmage cuz i want a character that has spells for damage as well as heal, and the ability to use some sort of weapon... plz help if you have any info.

[Kaeldor]

so the archmage is an ok healer and good at dealing damage with magic and weapons, and the runepriest is more of a pure healer? if so, then im gonna be an archmage cuz i want a character that has spells for damage as well as heal, and the ability to use some sort of weapon... plz help if you have any info.

You don't use your weapon at all. Also an Archmage does not do more damage than a RP. They are about even, atm many people say the AM has less. But both are no damage wonders anyway. You can lay both a straight healer (AM throwing a few dots around when there is time).

[Erethond]

As far as I've understood things, both archmage and rune priests get the ability to damage and heal well enough. The main difference between the two is the way their mastery lines work.

The archmage specs either for healing, damage or debuffs. They also get the High Magic mechanic to improve the mixing of heals and damage. However, the fact that their spec is only for damage OR healing means that they won't be optimized in both.

The Rune Priest specs for the kind of spells he choses to use. That means you can spec for AoE, Direct Casts and DoTs/HoTs. In the kind of spells you spec for, a Rune Priest will outdo the archmage on at least one aspect (heal or damage).

A Dot/Hot Rune Priest might HoT as well as an heal specced Archmage and DoT as well as a damage specced Archmage. However, he should be worst at direct damage and AoEs than a damage specced Archmage and worst at group heals and direct heal than and heal specced Archmage.

Same goes with the other types of spells.

An Archmage masters a type of effect (heal, damage, debuff) while the Rune Priest masters a type of spell (Over Time, Area/Group, Single Target). For areas in which neither(or both) are specced, they should be equal.

To summarize, considering the heal and damage spec of the Archmage (Vaul spec is not really fitting in the comparison) and the 3 masteries of the Rune Priest, we would get 6 categories:

Direct Damage, Damage AoE, DoT
Direct Heal, AoE Heal, HoT

The RP masters a column, the AM masters a line.

(That's assuming things are balanced as they should, for now, there seems to be issues with the archmage damage)

[Dastion]

Edit: Last poster summarized what I just wrote here so I'm removing this to not be redundant. Changing my post to address a diff question.

so the archmage is an ok healer and good at dealing damage with magic and weapons, and the runepriest is more of a pure healer? if so, then im gonna be an archmage cuz i want a character that has spells for damage as well as heal, and the ability to use some sort of weapon... plz help if you have any info.

Sounds like what you want is a Warrior Priest or Disciple of Khaine. In the past, I've suggested that staves and such be given some sort of innate effect that enhances the spells they cast, so that the DPS of a weapon actually *means* something to casters rather than just the stats.

What I'd love to see is caster weapons becoming labeled as a "focus", meaning that those weapons contribute part of their DPS to the effectiveness of spells cast.

[Karandor]

An isha specced AM is the best order healer period. Runepriest can be better at 1 facet of healing but overall the isha AM is just too good. With proper tactics you have almost limitless AP and you can throw instant DoTs to get fast big heals. It is absolutely awesome how good an Isha AM is.

Vaul is more fun though =P.

Nothing comes close to how you can keep people alive.

[Vyker]

While the RP's spells may do as much or a little more damage, they get no ability to reduce cast time like the AM. With the correct lvl of high magic, your silence can be instant cast and your already powerful instant dd get 25% more damage. Those two seem to get the most impressive benefit, but the runepriest abilities listed are the best they get. Remeber, a spell going from 2s cast time to 1s cast time effectively doubles your dps for that spell.

[Dastion]

While the RP's spells may do as much or a little more damage, they get no ability to reduce cast time like the AM. With the correct lvl of high magic, your silence can be instant cast and your already powerful instant dd get 25% more damage. Those two seem to get the most impressive benefit, but the runepriest abilities listed are the best they get. Remeber, a spell going from 2s cast time to 1s cast time effectively doubles your dps for that spell.

Im certain you've said that last bit before, and I've corrected you. There is a 1.5 second GCD. So, if you cannot possibly cast faster than that. yes, it does "double" the DPS..for about half a second. For that brief period the DPS is doubled. Then,a fter that, the DPS is only 25% increased. why? Because you cannot keep casting it. until 1.5 seconds is up, no matter if the spell is 1 sec cast or instant cast. If you consider the DPS the second the spell goes off and don't consider the time thereafter, then what is the DPS of an instant spell that does 200 damage? Well, 200dmg at ~0.1s cast time (the minimum I'd assume for the fastest spammer) = 2,000DPS. Of course, this is not the case. The GCD prevents casting for 1.5 seconds, so the DPS would be 200/1.5 = 133.33DPS...much more reasonable :) So, if you use High Magic on a 2 sec spell to make it faster than 1.5 seconds then it becomes 25% more effective. This is the key flaw with the mechanic, in that some spells aren't worth using with High Magic because the Swiftness is percentage based rather than a set casting time removal.

Silence only takes 1 sec to cast, it's not usually worth wasting High Magic on as it's really fast already.

Finally, I wouldn't call a Runepriest's unspecced DD damage being nearly as much as your fully specced DD damage a "little" difference. :)

An isha specced AM is the best order healer period. Runepriest can be better at 1 facet of healing but overall the isha AM is just too good. With proper tactics you have almost limitless AP and you can throw instant DoTs to get fast big heals. It is absolutely awesome how good an Isha AM is.

Vaul is more fun though =P.

Nothing comes close to how you can keep people alive.

Archmages are indeed excellent healers. That is one thing I dont think I've ever complained about. You have all the basic tools you need, the stuff Runepriests get is just a nice little bonus. Of course, most of your awesomeness comes from two specific skills. Wild Healing and Funnel Essence. The Runepriest has better base options. I was actually quite shocked that the RP has no direct healing type options in his Mastery Trees. The abilities he gets are things I'd think they'd give to the AM..instead it's the other way around. I mean, they give him an excellent Life Tap, and a LToT..both versions much better than the AM/Shaman versions (despite those spells being the only unique type of healing these careers get baseline). Mythic left the AM/Shaman versions so weak that it boggles my mind. I mean, those spells are the perfect synergy for a healing focused AM, use your life transfers to build Force (and heal allies a bit), then use the Force on heals and back and forth. Switching in your more potent damaging abilities where needed.

While I enjoy healing on my AM, and we are damn good at it, I do feel like we should have options that show more emphasis on "mixing it up". That is really my biggest gripe, that we focus in one aspect and Hm does little to enhance the portion we do not focus in.

[Karandor]

It is not just wild healing and funnel essence (though yes, they rock) it is that in 1 specline ALL your heals get better, not just a portion. A runpriest focuses on 1 type of healing and damage. An AM gets all his heals increased with isha. The difference is quite huge at later levels between specced and un-specced heals. Un-specced heals are still good but specced ones heal for 30-50% more.

Also funnel essence is amazing. You can switch targets in the middle of it even and it is not easily interrupted. Buffed up with force it heals for HUGE amounts.

A runpriest gets better tools for his 1 type of mastery. His other types of healing suffer. AMs get to be good at all types of healing.

EDIT: as an aside, if you want to mix it up play vaul. It is the path where you really use everything equally. I love vaul and the huge AE debuffs can really swing a battle in an organised group. -100 toughness, stenght, intelligence and -5% damage and critical adds up. With talents the debuffs have the largest AE in the game. Also the 20ft AE DoT is pretty nasty. Thing is Vaul sucks in PUGs as rarely can you debuff and then have people focus or time a charge with it.

[Eloora]

Can an experienced beta tester go into more detail about the damage potential of the AM vs. the RP, all things equal? I've been in beta for a while now but only recently tried to really decide what class to chose at release. I have been enjoying AM the last few days, but I was under the impression that, even if a tad underpowered in damage, the AM was able to outperform the more healing focused RP in DPS. Is RP currently the better of the two in DPS potential?

[Dastion]

Can an experienced beta tester go into more detail about the damage potential of the AM vs. the RP, all things equal? I've been in beta for a while now but only recently tried to really decide what class to chose at release. I have been enjoying AM the last few days, but I was under the impression that, even if a tad underpowered in damage, the AM was able to outperform the more healing focused RP in DPS. Is RP currently the better of the two in DPS potential?

My testing showed that if an Archmage goes all out and uses Tranquility often, he can, just barely, out DPS a Runepriest. While the Archmage has an advantage in that he gets more spells enhanced by his damage line, the Runepriest's options, though fewer, are usually considerably more potent.

A runepriest can spec into his DD/Immediate line and his DDs and Instant nukes will deal more damage than an AM's do, he even gets a Life Transfer Spell that does considerably more damage than even the AM's Radiant Lance, and easily double that of the AM's Balance Essence (his own Life Transfer mastery ability). He can spec into his overtime line and get a channeled DD that does as much as the AM's does with 5 Tranquility, and a Life Transfer DoT that is leaps and bounds better than the AMs.

But, while the RP only gets a few options per line, the AM will have several. Allowing him to stack more DoTs and such and end up coming out slightly ahead. Not near enough in my opinion. I dislike having to cast extra spells to make up for it, as that takes valuable time I dont always have.

[ticho123]

Is this correct then?

Runepriest:
Doesn't get any healing bonuses from damage and reverse.
Has more heals compared to the archmage.
Stronger offensive spells compared to the archmage.
More armor compared to the archmage.

Archmage:
Gets healing bonuses from damage and reverse.
Less heals compared to the runepriest.
Weaker offensive spells compared to the runepriest.
Less armor compared to the runepriest.

Game over for the archmage?
No but seriosly, that's just wrong : /

[Dastion]

Is this correct then?

Runepriest:
Doesn't get any healing bonuses from damage and reverse.
Has more heals compared to the archmage.
Stronger offensive spells compared to the archmage.
More armor compared to the archmage.

Archmage:
Gets healing bonuses from damage and reverse.
Less heals compared to the runepriest.
Weaker offensive spells compared to the runepriest.
Less armor compared to the runepriest.

Game over for the archmage?
No but seriosly, that's just wrong : /

More like

Runepriest
Each Mastery Line Improves a few Healing and Damaging Spells, providing a ~40% enhancement. This allows them to specialize in the aspect of healing they choose and also gain relatively high damage values for some of their spells.

vs.

Archmage
Each Mastery Line Improves several; Healing, Damage, OR Utility abilities by ~40%. While they don't have as many baseline healing options as a Runepriest, speccing in their healing line makes them an excellent overall healer since it effects all spells, rather than a few. But, speccing into their damage line, AND using their special mechanic, they still have comparable DPS to a Runepriest who's lines only enhance a few Dmg abilities in addition to enhancing some heals.

Honestly, to me it works a bit backwards right now. What it amounts to is that the AM needs lines that synergize better. He needs a Life Transfer spell that is decent, he needs spells in Asuryan that, say, heals an enemy and hurts nearby enemies or vice versa. Vaul needs to have spells that drain away an enemy's potential and grant it to allies, it also needs more spells that work with the mechanic.

[Falesh]

Damage, OR Utility

I disagree with this. Vaul gives damage and utility, especially if you go for the Golden Aura (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9292) tactic. Dissipating Energies (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9271) combined with Radiant Gaze (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9264) + Golden Aura (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9292) kicks out a fair bit of damage when the enemy is concentrated, for instance when they are assaulting the lord of a keep.

[bifodus]

I think they're both effective damage dealers and their damage is rarely something that should be ignored. For example, Rune Priests will never do a lot of DPS simply due to cooldowns and lack of abilities, but take a look at what these abilities do and it'll become difficult to justify not using them. They do very good damage per AP, and have very short cast times. Rune of Immolation does comparable damage per AP to a Bright Wizard's Detonate, but the former doesn't have a cooldown!

On the other hand, Archmages probably do better healing and better damage than a Rune Priest if their Force/Tranquility are maximized for the spells they cast. I think that ultimately Rune Priests and Archmages are quite similar in effectiveness, but Archmages have the additional High Magic mechanic, which is both a good thing and a bad thing. Furthermore, as others have mentioned, their specializations are much different and I believe it also strengthens the idea that Archmages are perhaps more min/max, and Rune Priests are more versatile. If you want to be the ultimate healer in terms of raw numbers, I believe an Archmage specialized in healing might be the way to go.

I for one will probably focus on a Rune Priest specialized almost purely Valaya (the DoT/HoT spec). There's an excellent synergy there, and I can just imagine the incredibly massive damage and healing I provide from tossing HoTs and DoTs on everything. This of course is just a matter of taste.

[Vyker]

Dastion, I find your posts very interesting because they seem to be of the opposite opinion of the RP boards. Please try not to be so confrontational, I am extremely interested in your opposite point of view from the information I am getting from over there.

First of all, as for your "correction" of me, I said it again because I don't buy your correction whole-heartedly. First off, I agree that with a 1.5 sec cast time makes reducing a 2s spell to a 1s spell not doubling your dps per se. The spell's dps has in fact doubled, but other limitations make it so you can't spam it, global cd. This does not mean the spell's dps has not be doubled, only that you can't spam it under this circumstance which is irrelevant because the second cast won't be 1s. The damage does arrive twice as fast, but you can only move after that, not begin casting immediately which, I admit, is not ideal for maximizing dps. At the best case, however, you do get a 40% dps increase at 2 high magic (1.6s cast) which will let you cast again immediately thereafter.

As for the silence, all healers get a silence and they are all 1s cast. For those of us who can't reduce the cast time, you could indeed have a serious advantage. If we both see each other at the same time and immediately cast our silence, if you have any high magic at all you should be able to silence us before we can return the favor. This seems to me to be a potent advantage at least over zealots who actually can tactic for an aoe silence!

I am intensely interested in the RP's dd/hd spell that you claim does alot more damage than radiant lance. How much damage are you seeing it do? I can't get a RP in beta to spec into grugni to tell me lol.

Finally, I would like to point out that even though you mention that a RP must spec into dd or dot, they do more dps in one of those masteries than an AM does speccing into his damage tree which increases all of his damage spells. You were very unclear there and implying alot without actually stating this is the case. Is this what your tests actually show? Does an RP speccing into either Valaya or Grugni do more damage than an AM specced in his damage mastery?

Edit: I forgot to add, adding a point in the mastery increases the base skills by 4% per point for a total of 60%, not 40% at least according to the numbers I have seen from a test on the RP boards.

[Dastion]

First of all, as for your "correction" of me, I said it again because I don't buy your correction whole-heartedly. First off, I agree that with a 1.5 sec cast time makes reducing a 2s spell to a 1s spell not doubling your dps per se. The spell's dps has in fact doubled, but other limitations make it so you can't spam it, global cd. This does not mean the spell's dps has not be doubled, only that you can't spam it under this circumstance which is irrelevant because the second cast won't be 1s. The damage does arrive twice as fast, but you can only move after that, not begin casting immediately which, I admit, is not ideal for maximizing dps. At the best case, however, you do get a 40% dps increase at 2 high magic (1.6s cast) which will let you cast again immediately thereafter.


Casting a spell 40% faster is not a 40% "Dps" increase. It just doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. Just test what you just said. To keep it simple(I'm not being degrading when I say that, just making it easy to follow as this stuff does get confusing), lets say the spell does 100dmg, 2 sec cast. That's 50DPS. With two points of High Magic, your logic says it will be doing 70DPS (50 * 1.4). 100/1.6 = 62.5DPS which translates to a ~25% DPS increase. Which why I stated before that it's best to just use High Magic on a DoT if you have full High Magic. You still have to stop to cast Radiant Lance (being instant doesn't let you cast it while moving), and unless you need that quick burst *now* and it's going to make a difference (in my last post I mentioned how the burst damage of a spell differs from the actual DPS), i.e. kill someone whereas a DoT might give time for a heal to land. You're better off casting Radiant Gaze or, if you feel like standing still, Searing Touch. DPS is not something you relate to a single spell. It total damage taken over a span of, at least, a few seconds and averages over a single second. It is not damage taken in less than a second and attributed to a full second. Which is why, in a previous post, I made the point that, if that was so, instant nukes would be the "highest DPS". You are referring to burst damage, which is quite different.


As for the silence, all healers get a silence and they are all 1s cast. For those of us who can't reduce the cast time, you could indeed have a serious advantage. If we both see each other at the same time and immediately cast our silence, if you have any high magic at all you should be able to silence us before we can return the favor. This seems to me to be a potent advantage at least over zealots who actually can tactic for an aoe silence!

As I said, 1 second cast is not much. It's faster than the GCD. The only spell you could possible interrupt with it, intentionally, would be a big heal or a group heal, and those are slow enough that 1 second is plenty. And, ideally (if mythic ever fixes it) you won't be initiating combat with a full set of High Magic to cast it instantly anyhow. Right now, the best offensive use for Silence is to wait until the healer is obviously casting each time they get enough AP, use Drain Magic as a sort of "mini Silence" then follow it up with an actual silence. Resulting in the already hurting healer to be unable to heal for a good period of time. Burning your heal right off, unless there is an assist train on them, is a waste. I won't say it's sometimes not a nice bonus. But currently 5 high magic just to get rid of 1 seconds worth of casting is pretty lame. I'm hoping they get rid of all of the percentage bonuses and just have the mechanic remove actual cast times. It should take more High Magic to make a 3 sec slow heal instant than it does to make a pitiful radiant lance instant.


I am intensely interested in the RP's dd/hd spell that you claim does alot more damage than radiant lance. How much damage are you seeing it do? I can't get a RP in beta to spec into grugni to tell me lol.

Finally, I would like to point out that even though you mention that a RP must spec into dd or dot, they do more dps in one of those masteries than an AM does speccing into his damage tree which increases all of his damage spells. You were very unclear there and implying alot without actually stating this is the case. Is this what your tests actually show? Does an RP speccing into either Valaya or Grugni do more damage than an AM specced in his damage mastery?

Edit: I forgot to add, adding a point in the mastery increases the base skills by 4% per point for a total of 60%, not 40% at least according to the numbers I have seen from a test on the RP boards.


I believe I said 40-50%, at least I know I did somewhere..possibly not in this thread. The reason I gave the range was because I wasn't using rank 40 characters for skills, therefore their spells had not reached their full potential. So the actual enhancement over the base damage was in that range. Full specialty in a line provides a 50% bonus to the effectiveness of spells. The percentage increased per point is, on average, somewhere between 3-4%..there are some levels where a spell won't even go up in value for some reason.

As for the numbers, those are easily enough to see. Someone has put together a quite accurate Mastery Tree here (http://war.mmoguildsites.com/career_planner/runepriest). It's slightly off it seems, so far most spells seem to show up as 1 less damage at max rank than they are at 40. But, using this, I'll summerize some level 40 damage, i'll list the values as unspecced/full spec

Balance Essence : 100/150 Damage and Healing
Rune of Fortune: 199/299 Damage and Healing

Transfer Force: 440/656
Rune of Fate: 630/945

Searing Touch: 664/988 (Tooltip Value is listed as per hit, it hits 4x)
Rune of Burning: 796/1195 (Total Damage is listed in tooltip, it hits 7x)

Radiant Lance: 133/199
Rune of Striking: 199/299
**These values aren't listed on the linked career builder, but I've looked at these enough to know them.

Notice the trend of our basic DDs Rune of Fortune/Striking > Radiant Lance > Balance Essence.

Yes, we get more spells enhanced by our lines, but time is valuable, especially as a healer. If given enough time to do Feel the Winds + HM Enhanced Searing Touch, stack all of your DoTs, and DPS while they go through their entire durations you can just barely out DPS a Runepriest who is only using 3 spells. Meanwhlie you're juggling ~6. I dislike the concept that in return for a line that is limited to damage, and therefore provides more options, we have to use all of those available options in order to outdo a Runepriest who specializes in a line that gives few, but more potent, damage options and healing options as well.

Edit: I noticed something else you wrote and wanted to comment on it. The mention about my opinion being the opposite of that on the RP boards. I am NOT saying that RPs have excellent DPS. Not at all. Healers, in general, have fairly lousy DPS. Which is why it bugs me so much that many of the the Archmage's damage options are quite inferior to even the Shaman and Runepriest. Even a runepriest, nuking with his highest spammable nuke (299), will probably only do ~ 350 or so damage, if that once the intelligence vs resistances vs toughness war settles the bonus damage. Even a healer has 4.5-5k or so HP. So even with a good string of crits, and high intelligence versus lower than average resistances, you'd be looking at 10+ castings to kill anyone. With that in mind, do yo usee why it rankles me that the AM has to wait 9-24seconds on dots that barely do 1/4 of an enemy's life, and his DD options in between are the weakest of any careers?

[Vyker]

... see, this is exactly why I didn't respond to the other thread. Your arguments pull whatever comparisons that are most convenient to make your point. Comparing baseline skills with mastery skills is not proving anything. Lets compare rune of sundering to cleansing flare and see how your maths stand.

Yes, a RP that specs full into grugni and spams rune of striking will out dps an Asuryan specced AM that only spams radiant lance. Good job with teh maths.

[Tathias]

Casting a spell 40% faster is not a 40% "Dps" increase. It just doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. Just test what you just said. To keep it simple(I'm not being degrading when I say that, just making it easy to follow as this stuff does get confusing), lets say the spell does 100dmg, 2 sec cast. That's 50DPS. With two points of High Magic, your logic says it will be doing 70DPS (50 * 1.4). 100/1.6 = 62.5DPS which translates to a ~25% DPS increase. Which why I stated before that it's best to just use High Magic on a DoT if you have full High Magic. You still have to stop to cast Radiant Lance (being instant doesn't let you cast it while moving), and unless you need that quick burst *now* and it's going to make a difference (in my last post I mentioned how the burst damage of a spell differs from the actual DPS), i.e. kill someone whereas a DoT might give time for a heal to land. You're better off casting Radiant Gaze or, if you feel like standing still, Searing Touch. DPS is not something you relate to a single spell. It total damage taken over a span of, at least, a few seconds and averages over a single second. It is not damage taken in less than a second and attributed to a full second. Which is why, in a previous post, I made the point that, if that was so, instant nukes would be the "highest DPS". You are referring to burst damage, which is quite different.




Okay, your math is wrong for the current game. Mark Jacobs posted on the vnboards that the GCD is 1.4 seconds, so if you're experiencing anything beyond 1.4 seconds it is a bug, which being a beta is possible. Now, since the GCD is supposed to be 1.4 seconds, that makes the 2 second cast become 1.2 seconds with 2 points of high magic built up for a 40% increase in cast time. Since it can only be at max 1.4 seconds effectively for DPS measuring purposes due to GCD, let's do the math at 1.4 seconds to cast the 100points of damage and see how much dps it does. 100/1.4=71.43 which is actually slightly more than a 40% increase in damage. Anything beyond a 2 stack of high magic would just result in high burst damage and not have any effect on overall DPS, however.

[Drem]

... see, this is exactly why I didn't respond to the other thread. Your arguments pull whatever comparisons that are most convenient to make your point. Comparing baseline skills with mastery skills is not proving anything. Lets compare rune of sundering to cleansing flare and see how your maths stand.

Yes, a RP that specs full into grugni and spams rune of striking will out dps an Asuryan specced AM that only spams radiant lance. Good job with teh maths.

I'm reading this thread, imagining a debate where instead of putting in effort for your side of the argument, you're telling Dastion what your side is and you want him to research and provide your evidence as well as his own.

[Dastion]

Okay, your math is wrong for the current game. Mark Jacobs posted on the vnboards that the GCD is 1.4 seconds, so if you're experiencing anything beyond 1.4 seconds it is a bug....

That is news to most of us as of that announcement, last I was told, the GCD was 1.5 seconds and the display error was saying 2 secs by "rounding up". It might have been tweaked, but if so we had not been told. I'd halfway consider the idea that they tweaked it to 1.4 (an odd number anyhow) in order to say it was faster than WoW's. Or, that could very likely be including what they call the "slop timer" allowing you to hit a spell just before the GCD is up and have it still go off when the GCD is up.

Also, I was not trying to skew the numbers by comparing Mastery abilities vs core abilities and such. If you go back to my last posts, the reason I used those spells and, the Runepriest specifically, was because, based on other's previous posts, I was setting out to prove that not only could the Runepriest 1) Keep up in damage. but he 2) Could get a better version of most every spell in our DPS line, and 3)The way his mastery lines work, when he specs into damage, it provides a greater passive benefit than our mechanic does.

No matter what I do someone will find a way to claim I was biased or trying to skew the test to make myself look right. Okay then, I'll do my best to make you guys look right this time. Lets take a look at the AM and Shaman. We'll take the 3 spells that greatly differ in damage (the ones I spoke of that started all this discussion) and compare them between the two careers, then we'll give the AM his "extra" spells to see how much they make up for. I mean, we're a DoT career right? We do less DD damage because we have such potent DoT potential. Lets see how much of a difference they make.
**Note, this test is similar to one I did in another thread, though the method I used for comparing the spells did not translate well into actual game terms.

Lvl 40 Shaman Spells
Brain Bursta: 299 damage - 2 sec cast - 30AP
Bunch O' Waagh: 1388 Total Damage - 6 sec Channel - 78AP
I'll Take That!: 199 Damage - 2 sec cast - 25AP
Total Damage: 1886 over 10 seconds = 188.6DPS
*Note that for this test the Shaman magically has full spec in two lines.


Lvl 40 Archmage Spells
Radiant Lance: 199 damage - 2 sec cast - 30AP
Searing Touch: 988 total dmg - 6 sec channel - 78AP
Balance Essence: 150 damage - 2 sec cast - 25AP
Total Damage: 1337 (yes, we do leet damage apparently) over 10 seconds = 133.7DPS
*Note that for this portion of the test Archmage magically has full spec in two lines.

Now, let's give the AM another magical full spec in his third line. I told you I was going to skew it his way, afterall. And lets add Radiant Gaze AND Scatter the Winds into the mix. Furthermore, lets pretend that the AM casts these spells first, so that they are ticking while he is doing all of the above, and so that they will finish within a reasonable time after the Shaman finishes casting.

Radiant Gaze: 651 over 9 secs. -Instant 1.4GCD is only limitation - 45AP
Scatter the Winds: 444 over 9 secs.- Instant, so only 1.4GCD limits - 25AP
New Total: 2432 Damage over 12.8 seconds = 190DPS

Congratulations. In this magical world where you can fully spec into 3 lines, spend 70 more AP and take 28% longer. You can, by utilizing 5 spells out DPS the Shaman who only used 3 spells by 1.4DPS. Of course, this test is not entirely realistic, as it's unlikely any career would use both the Normal DD and Lifetap (hell, they wouldn't have full spec). What is meant to do, is show that even when I grossly favor the AM, his extra "DoT" potential doesn't make up for his lack of DD potential.

Of course, I'm probably skewing this test too because I'm not properly figuring in the lesser damage the Shaman would be doing because of my debuffs, versus how much less i would be doing if he stole my intelligence, and I debuffed his, and I Drain Magic'd him, and he stole my AP. And then after 25 or so seconds he'd get his T1 morale available, wait until I was moving and cast Gork Sez Stop on me followed by silence.

[Dastion]

I'm reading this thread, imagining a debate where instead of putting in effort for your side of the argument, you're telling Dastion what your side is and you want him to research and provide your evidence as well as his own.

Heh thanks. It does getting annoying going through all the trouble. Then being told that my test that was meant to prove one thing is wrong because it doesn't properly relate to another thing. Or being told I am purposefully skewing the tests to make myself right..or, worse, I'm simply wrong because they played the AM to lvl 10 over the preview weekend and were able to beat people who had been playing the game for less than two days with ease.

I would seriously welcome someone actually proving me wrong. Tathias got me on the GCD thing, though, to be fair, I was using his 1.6 casting time value he gave. Though it's my fault for not checking it. I just saw him say 40% faster, casting .4 seconds faster and went with it. Can't believe I didn't catch it.

[Vyker]

I'm reading this thread, imagining a debate where instead of putting in effort for your side of the argument, you're telling Dastion what your side is and you want him to research and provide your evidence as well as his own.

That's cute. I like it. Only problem is I actually don't have to do anything. Dastion claimed on his own that an AM can do more damage than a RP. He just thinks its unjust that it takes more spells. Apparently he believes the AM should not only do alot more damage, but do it easily. That is not something I am willing to argue, I think the flaws in that argument are readily apparent.

"If given enough time to do Feel the Winds + HM Enhanced Searing Touch, stack all of your DoTs, and DPS while they go through their entire durations you can just barely out DPS a Runepriest who is only using 3 spells. Meanwhlie you're juggling ~6. I dislike the concept that in return for a line that is limited to damage, and therefore provides more options, we have to use all of those available options in order to outdo a Runepriest who specializes in a line that gives few, but more potent, damage options and healing options as well."

Also notice the convenient lack of detail of what spells the AM and RP are using in this example.

[Dastion]

That's cute. I like it. Only problem is I actually don't have to do anything. Dastion claimed on his own that an AM can do more damage than a RP. He just thinks its unjust that it takes more spells. Apparently he believes the AM should not only do alot more damage, but do it easily. That is not something I am willing to argue, I think the flaws in that argument are readily apparent.

"If given enough time to do Feel the Winds + HM Enhanced Searing Touch, stack all of your DoTs, and DPS while they go through their entire durations you can just barely out DPS a Runepriest who is only using 3 spells. Meanwhlie you're juggling ~6. I dislike the concept that in return for a line that is limited to damage, and therefore provides more options, we have to use all of those available options in order to outdo a Runepriest who specializes in a line that gives few, but more potent, damage options and healing options as well."

Also notice the convenient lack of detail of what spells the AM and RP are using in this example.


:roll:

The way you interpret what I said is interesting... but if you should really reconsider it. I did not say that we should have to use as many AND deal more damage. I really am not sure where you got that. I said that since we have a line that focuses purely on damage, it is unfair that even while using more spells it took time, and very favorable conditions to out damage him. When his line allowed him to do very comparable DPS with fewer spells (one of which was a 3 sec stun), and still gain boosts to his healing capabilities as well. The spells used were Rune of Binding, Rune of Striking, and I think I threw in a Rune of Immolation early on because, even unspecced, if cast early it's damage dealt in exchange for the 1.4gcd barely exceeded that of a Rune of Striking. (270 for a 1.4 sec gcd vs. 266 for 2 sec cast). I also included 315 worth of resists (24%), and added in bonus DPS the Runepriest would receive if he had prebuffed his intelligence since i was letting the AM essentially have time to build 5 Tranq, I felt one prebuff spell for the RP was sufficient while still allowing the AM an advantage.

I actually had that test all written up, but scrapped it and, have since, mentioned the findings while noting that it was flawed because I did not take into account AP costs for the spells and, therefore, whether or not the two could actually have kept up as they did. And doing it purely based on 250AP-0AP was difficult since that too would be flawed as an AM could just use his last bit of AP to toss in some DoTs and skew the numbers versus the Rp who, in that situation, was best off just casting 10 Rune of Strikings as it was the most efficient DPS. Which hardly seemed very realistic either, at which point I considered the point from if the RP had specced into Valaya for the Channeled DD, improved DoTs, ect. But I've since pretty much just came to the conclusion that it is difficult to compare the two because of their varying abilities and different sorts of mastery trees.

[Vyker]

My interpretation came directly from your wording.

"I dislike the concept that in return for a line that is limited to damage, and therefore provides more options, we have to use all of those available options in order to outdo a Runepriest who specializes in a line that gives few, but more potent, damage options and healing options as well."

Reads to me as "We do more damage, yes, but I also want it to be done with less spells.". Conversely it could be read as "We do more damage, but since we have to use more spells we should do substantially more damage".

The two conditions are "We do a little more damage" and "it takes more spells", to improve the situation for the AM you should either do more damage, or need to use less spells.

I am glad, however, that you realized that a direct comparison is really not going to work. Comparing to the shaman is feasible, still flawed but acceptably so. Basically the best way to test is to get 2 really good rank 40 players and have them go all out on healing and dps on a PQ and see who does the most contribution. Its pretty much impossible to evaluate the AM on damage alone without ignoring the high magic aspect. Throw in the different tactics and its CRAZY hard to evaluate. Really, end result is the only thing that will work.

Now, that 1.4 sec global thing is still up in the air to me. I have no idea what it really is because its a hard thing to measure. To test, use your damage spell reduced to 1.4 and your tactic that makes it so theres a chance that you don't consume the high magic and see if you can cast it twice in a row without getting an error message.

Final note, I think you work REALLY hard to understand your class to the best of your abilities and I applaud that. You take alot of the same paths and steps that I like to take, but have been dedicated to a level I would not be able to match. I am extremely interested in not only your results on the many tests you have done, but on the methods. Your guide is very helpful and insightful even if I disagree with some of your opinions. I didn't want to come off as dismissive or anything in my previous posts but I might have.

[Rhage]

I have been trying to understand this thread but I am a simple female gamer and alot of it went over my head.

I tried AM and RP in pve and in rvr. I found the AM healed much better in rvr but felt the rp did better in pve.
I enjoyed the AM more and I just don't care to have to look at a dwarf for a long period of time. My problem is that I love healing in rvr; care nothing about dps except in pve and public questing.

Bottom line... are you saying for a dedicated healer for rvr you need to roll RP? How will rp hold up in just daily questing?

Please! No stats! Just simple English explanation :p
Thank you :)

[Kaeldor]

Bottom line... are you saying for a dedicated healer for rvr you need to roll RP?

No.

You can play the AM just fine as a dedicated healer.

[Rhage]

Just found this information about RP
Most reliable healer on Order
• Does not require mechanic to heal efficiently
• Offers valuable buffs to group members
• Master of maintaining HP of group members/warband
• Capable of a self resurrecting rune at end-game.
• At higher levels able to resurrect whole groups as well as do damage while healing at the same time.

The last 2 are swaying me towards the rp now since I don't think the AM can do this.

[Falesh]

Just found this information about RP
Most reliable healer on Order
• Does not require mechanic to heal efficiently
• Offers valuable buffs to group members
• Master of maintaining HP of group members/warband
• Capable of a self resurrecting rune at end-game.
• At higher levels able to resurrect whole groups as well as do damage while healing at the same time.

The last 2 are swaying me towards the rp now since I don't think the AM can do this.
1) Neither does the AM
2) So does the AM: Prismatic Shield (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9248)
3) The AM's group healing is just fine too
4) AMs get Hurried Restoration (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9279). The self res rune is nice, but you have to cast it ever 10 mins which is a pain in the bum :p
5) AMs get a R4 moral that res the whole group

Both the AM and RP are mighty fine classes.

[Rhage]

Sigh.. now I am back to trying to decide again lol

I think in the end, having to watch a small overweight dwarf will cause me to play Elf. Call it female vanity if you wish :p But I WOULD chose the dwarf if I feel the benefits to a group are more significant than the AM so I am not totally shallow.

Solution.. I will make both.

[Zie]

The AM's standard res can be an instant cast as well...it works off of Force magic along with the AM's normal heals.

[Rhage]

I just read this .. is he a dev?
I was very surprised at this. Very harsh! All dedicated healers should know that you don't 'just' sit at the back and do nothing. I was holy priest in wow and I found it the more stressful of all the classes and I played all but warrior. It is a constant balance to keep those health bars from dropping. A good healer is necessary for a good group.
Sounds like he is telling me I need to 'go away' and not play war.

__________________
Paul Barnett- There will not be namby-pamby healer-only classes. There is no sitting at the back going, 'and I heal, and I heal, and I heal, and I heal, and I heal' - because it's boring. I'm really sorry. If you're really one of those people who just like being a medic, who like sitting at the back not doing anything. Going 'and I heal, and I heal, and I heal' -go away.

(http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1151169)

[Falesh]

I think that's a slightly ill advised quote but there is also some truth in it. I agree with you that doing nothing other then pure healing in a situation where your group is taking a lot of damage is a very skilled job. This is especially true when you add in the large variety of healing spells and related abilities, e.g. Focused Mind (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=695), available in WAR. However in most cases your efficiency increases by doing other stuff, like Law Of Gold (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9253) and Scatter The Winds (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9247), as well as healing.

[Rhage]

As a priest, when my group's health was under control then I would shoot off a few damage spells but not enough to affect my mana.. mostly just wanding.

In war rvr for 3 hrs it was pretty much all fierce fighting and it took steady back to back heals to keep group alive and I couldn't save all them even tho I tried. I used dps when questing and pq but there was not a chance of really using it much during those 3 hrs.

[Zie]

I just read this .. is he a dev?
I was very surprised at this. Very harsh! All dedicated healers should know that you don't 'just' sit at the back and do nothing. I was holy priest in wow and I found it the more stressful of all the classes and I played all but warrior. It is a constant balance to keep those health bars from dropping. A good healer is necessary for a good group.
Sounds like he is telling me I need to 'go away' and not play war.

__________________
Paul Barnett- There will not be namby-pamby healer-only classes. There is no sitting at the back going, 'and I heal, and I heal, and I heal, and I heal, and I heal' - because it's boring. I'm really sorry. If you're really one of those people who just like being a medic, who like sitting at the back not doing anything. Going 'and I heal, and I heal, and I heal' -go away.

(http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1151169)


Please keep in mind that most of the game play so far has been unorganized zergs with little to no strategy or coordination. Once guilds develop tactics, get groups defined and communicate with Vent, you will see game mechanics come into play more so than now. Things like class mechanics, debuffs, focus fire, chain res will all come into play. PvE raiding hasn't even been turned on (other than a small glimps) so that will change things as well.

What Paul is talking about I feel is spot-on. Guilds/groups that are not taking advatage of support classes (healers) other defining abilities are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Kylia]

As a priest, when my group's health was under control then I would shoot off a few damage spells but not enough to affect my mana.. mostly just wanding.

In war rvr for 3 hrs it was pretty much all fierce fighting and it took steady back to back heals to keep group alive and I couldn't save all them even tho I tried. I used dps when questing and pq but there was not a chance of really using it much during those 3 hrs.

As a dedicated healer as well (damage is for other classes :P )
I also went for a long stint with RvR with my AM, with very little healing, that said very torn between the two classes, I feel (Just my opinion) that the RP will be more versatile and have access to a few more "cool" abilities, but (and here's hoping) that the AM will be a better 'just healer'.

I did find that I would shoot off some dots including transfer force to increase my high magic but that was really the limit of the damage dealt. I feel that a good RvR force will need both AM's and RP's, IMO I would setup the RP's with group and area healing and have the AM's doing direct healing, thus having the RP's sustaining the group while your AM is counteracting focus fire's and assisting the Main Tank.

That said I've been playing HE's for 12 years tabletop, and unless AM's get broken, I'll be going an AM :)

But for you, IMO the decision should be - do I want to be a focused healer or more of a group healer, as thats where I believe the segrigation will happen in RvR.

Our guild is looking down the line of having a rp and am in each group doing exacly that.

hope this helps you decide and doesnt offer more confusion :)

[MrBoo]

As a dedicated healer as well (damage is for other classes :P )
I also went for a long stint with RvR with my AM, with very little healing, that said very torn between the two classes, I feel (Just my opinion) that the RP will be more versatile and have access to a few more "cool" abilities, but (and here's hoping) that the AM will be a better 'just healer'.

I did find that I would shoot off some dots including transfer force to increase my high magic but that was really the limit of the damage dealt. I feel that a good RvR force will need both AM's and RP's, IMO I would setup the RP's with group and area healing and have the AM's doing direct healing, thus having the RP's sustaining the group while your AM is counteracting focus fire's and assisting the Main Tank.

That said I've been playing HE's for 12 years tabletop, and unless AM's get broken, I'll be going an AM :)

But for you, IMO the decision should be - do I want to be a focused healer or more of a group healer, as thats where I believe the segrigation will happen in RvR.

Our guild is looking down the line of having a rp and am in each group doing exacly that.

hope this helps you decide and doesnt offer more confusion :)
whats a better single healer, AM or RP?

[Vyker]

That kind of question can't really be answered because its spec dependent. A RP can spec into his big heal and instant heal(or heals depending on how you define Protection of the Ancestors) OR his shield and heal + hot OR his group heal and chain hot. It stands to reason that he will excel at any of these that he picks better than the equivalent for the AM. However, an AM can spec to increase his dot/hot, shield, group heal, and big heal all in one line.

So, the only way you can really compare them is if you plan on using just one or two specific heals, and I don't know anyone who would play that way.

Additionally, you open even more healing options in the masteries themselves further muddling the issue. I am sure they will both be effective healers for aoe or single target if they spec to maximize one of those aspects.

[Doven]

Sigh.. now I am back to trying to decide again lol

I think in the end, having to watch a small overweight dwarf will cause me to play Elf. Call it female vanity if you wish :p But I WOULD chose the dwarf if I feel the benefits to a group are more significant than the AM so I am not totally shallow.

Solution.. I will make both.

Heyo..

Look, its not as difficult as your making it and it shouldn't be. First and foremost you should play a class that you "associate" your juxtaposition to. Both AM and RP are very diligent and excellent healers and IF your looking specifically for this type of roll-play then you shouldn't let the numbers daunt you.

Bottom line. And something you should consider specifically with ease of mind.

Skills, Abilities, and so forth:
RP focus is spread between three paths and does not rely on something like AM high magic to determine instant cast or % difference. In other words you can just flat cast it all making it much easier then having to DO damage to pump your high magic to DO better healing. (which is not that substantial but convenient)

AM only has to focus on ONE line of mastery (Isha) and can use core damage abilities here and there to pump the high magic (IF you wanted to but not completely necessary), one thing to keep in mind though are that casts can be a bit quicker. It also leaves you a little room for developing of the debuff line of the Vaul line.

Playability, Survivability and Utility.
RP has more survivability is easier to hide/get lost in the mix in rvr and opens up more room for view while playing on screen when chaos hits the fan. BUT much of what you do puts you into the fray unlike AM which allows for longer range especially healing. Being that you have to cross tree/line specialize (to get the better of different types of healing) you also get some decent will/int buffs as well resist buff (AM gets the resist buff as well in Vaul line) You NEED to be stout in order to get close where AM has the luxury of not.

AM is easy to spot in RvR, is obvious up close and has less survivability compared to RP BUT the majority of your healing comes from a distance and comes rather quickly, (faster cooldowns) As well your tall elf (lil smaller with female) takes up view room on screen that could cloud vision. If your planning on running a support tank or have a designated shield running with you and thats the play-style your used to, you will do extremely well. In a pinch you might survive equally with that of a RP but don't count on it.

Looks and overall appearance:

Well? I cant answer that.. I plan to play RP as my main but will have an AM as well. I HATE the look of both tbh. But then I am ok with that. An elf will show armor and staves better. :)

You cant make a mistake if you follow what you like to role-play. As you can always respect quite easily and BOTH classes can fair well in the "heal only" class category.

gl
done
d

ps.. its not shallow to want to play to your vanity. Besides you'll play better being "into" your class than feeling as if your not by running a stubby for everyone Else's benefit.. especially if that benefit is really not that much different either way.

[Rhage]

thank you.. nice explanation in terms I could easily understand :)

[Falesh]

If you are undecided on which to go for I would check how many of either class are in your guild, if you have one, then pick the least used. Both are great classes and a guild will be stronger if they have a good mix of the two.

[Marb]

at some point it has been said that there should be 2 healers in each group - most fitting example in this threat seems to be rp + am/zealot + shaman: though that depends on the group setup in general

lets say the rp is specced in single target dd, the am is specced in healing (or mix specced - remembering there are only 4 career tactic slots and there should be some nice core ones beside mastery tactics). so depending on the situation these healers might split healing duties: the rp pays attention to the focus fire target, the am is looking at the group (or vice versa if the rp is specced for grp heals/aoe dmg). they are not meant to compete as in who is top on healing meter (fun thing but doesnt matter in rvr).

and dont forget: we are still in a theorycrafting phase (even the ones from closed beta - prolly exept elder testers, who must not talk about certain stuff yet). endgame healing duties will depend on different game mechanics that come with organized groups. but since we are talking theory: Rank 40 AM, RR80 has 30 mastery points to spend. By then he will have a fixed set of tactics he want from his mastery trees, prolly leaving some abilities too. So lets say he spends 19 points in healing, still leaves 11 for damage, which should be enough to be noticable (not compareable to a dps class, but that never was the point of this class). same goes with rp - they might be great at one kind, good at the 2nd but lack a bit at 3rd - does that make them bad healers? i doubt it. it will just require you to adjust your playstyle (not adjust the class to fit your).

these are just thoughts, not facts (well there are a couple of facts, but i wont get into comparing dps in theory - dps in actual battle might vary because of debuff from other classes and group setups - ie magus resistance debuff - so a rp/zealot could do lots more dmg than a am/shaman in a scenario because of his groupmate and assisting that magus for focused fire)

also: numbers on wardb and alike are not yet all shown for rank40, they are base numbers not affected by stats or tactics. anyone who has played daoc will remember the difference between base dmg nuke and max int dmg

[Rhage]

[quote=Marb;1268760]at some point it has been said that there should be 2 healers in each group - /quote]

Oh I agree but my experience in every game I have played is that you are doing good to even find one healer. In wow I have a holy priest and I run dungeons almost back to back due to ppl begging me to heal. I havent done a quest in ages.
Was the same in other games, healers were hard to find. I noticed alot of AM's in PW so maybe war will be different in that aspect.

[Marb]

i know there are only a few healers around usually, i remember getting a /tell from a major raiding guild in daoc when my druid was 58 - had my 1st tier 1 item (shoulders) at 59 :)

in daoc it was the same, rolled a druid because i got pissed standing at the keep waiting for a healer to show up ... well i kinda fell in love with healing and am stuck with it :P

atleast now it seems WAR healers are quite popular - will start with 2 rl friends who both want to play a shaman ... they usually play dps.

[Dastion]

Originally Posted by Rhage http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/images/WHA/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1232672#post1232672)
Just found this information about RP
Most reliable healer on Order
• Does not require mechanic to heal efficiently
• Offers valuable buffs to group members
• Master of maintaining HP of group members/warband
• Capable of a self resurrecting rune at end-game.
• At higher levels able to resurrect whole groups as well as do damage while healing at the same time.

The last 2 are swaying me towards the rp now since I don't think the AM can do this.1) Neither does the AM
2) So does the AM: Prismatic Shield (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9248)
3) The AM's group healing is just fine too
4) AMs get Hurried Restoration (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9279). The self res rune is nice, but you have to cast it ever 10 mins which is a pain in the bum :p
5) AMs get a R4 moral that res the whole group

Both the AM and RP are mighty fine classes.

1.) The AM does not require his mechanic to heal effectively, in fact the way his line is built makes him a better healer than the Runepriest. His entire line focuses on spam healing, while the Runepriest's line focuses on improving some heals, and some damage. I personally think the Archmage's spell lines should be mixed up like this too, but not in the same way. Each line should provide spells for both sides of his mechanic but these abilities should be "themed" along the lines of the Path. Isha with a healing focus, yet with some Life Transfers. Asuryan with a damage focus, but perhaps a Phoenix themed HoT or heal that heals an ally and hurts nearby enemies. Vaul, something like a Tranquility spell that causes a portion of the healing an enemy receives to go to your defensive target. Right now the lines seem too cut and dry, a pure damage line attracts people who want a DPS that can heal themself, and a pure healing line contradicts ideal behind the Archmage and Shaman. I wanna see some of this creativity we're seeing in other areas applied to these careers.

2.) Oath Runes are sorta like the Runepriest's Mechanic, that and his flexibility. We have very few buffs, yet he has very few debuffs. Though I wouldn't mind seeing Prismatic Shield given a secondary effect (the Shaman's version too) so that these spells feel different.

3.) All you really miss out on on group healing is the bouncing HoT, which is unpredictable. If the Runepriest focuses on his group heals, his other heals will be weak. You don't have that problem.

4.) Hurried Restoration is awesome and near broken (as is the Shaman equivalent). Though, the self rez rune is very nice it's sorta awkward in it's implementation as it lasts an hour, yet the rez portion only lasts 10 mins (last I tried it atleast, that was awhile back).

5.) Both careers get Alter Fate, as do melee healers as well. It's an Archetype Morale and it sorta blows. How often do you really think you'll be at full morale, enough allies dead to make use of this, and not dead yourself? People tend to focus on the healers first :)