Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Clerics or druids which is the better healerFollow

#27 Mar 14 2004 at 1:06 AM Rating: Decent


Edited, Sun Mar 14 01:06:03 2004 by Alexen
#28 Mar 14 2004 at 3:08 AM Rating: Decent
to answere this question, just look at the spell list.

druids heals are mediocour(sp?) at best even once they get their vs of CH.

clerics = best healers in game. hands down.

shame = best backup healer as long as they are not having to deal with their #1 skill or buff/debuff/slower as they have the #1 mana regen in the game.

the spell list backs that up, end of discussion on facts.

oppinions to follow i am sure, but that is what they are and we all know what oppinions are ...
#29 Mar 14 2004 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
**
564 posts
From Cobra101's post:

"I know clerics I wouldn't trust to heal a 10k tank fighting orc pawns"

If a 10k HP tank fighting orc pawns needs a healer, I'd say there's something wrong with the tankSmiley: wink

I'll take your word for it about my paladin gaining 500HP in 5 levels. That seems like a lot of HP though in a short period of time.

Edited, Sun Mar 14 09:41:30 2004 by danreynolds
#30 Mar 14 2004 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
**
531 posts
Mellas,

Yes, we read the first post, but you CAN'T go just by the healing spells if you TRUELY want to decide who the best is. If you want to FIX it so you won your arguement before you started you say that. If you REALLY want the facts though you MUST include the other spells the classes get or you aren't being fair to the other classes.

Without other spells, JUST going by heals, the cleric wins, hands down. Sometimes it's not by a lot, but they still win. WITH the other spells, Cleric is still up there, but Well played Druids and Shaman can take the place of a Cleric. There are certain places where you just MUST have a Cleric though.
#31 Mar 14 2004 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
From my experience, Clerics are significantly better healers than Druids, but, I'd rather rely on a good Druid than a crap Cleric. Smiley: cool

If it were purely based on class/race, we'd not need the argument. The fact that it's humans that play the toons. . .

Jacques Villeneuve in a Ford Escort Vs my mum in a Ferrari. My money's on Jacques Smiley: wink
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#32 Mar 14 2004 at 10:39 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
3,166 posts
Quote:
If a 10k HP tank fighting orc pawns needs a healer, I'd say there's something wrong with the tank



It was hyperbole.

Sometimes one resorts to talking hyperbollux to emphasise the point.
Smiley: smile

____________________________
Wherever I go - there I am.
#33 Mar 14 2004 at 11:09 AM Rating: Decent
as tarv stated we are looking for simple pros and cons of the classes healing, clerics get heals earlier on, they get better heals, quicker heals, bigger heals, celestial heals, complete heals, i dont see that there is any grounds for an argument here, clerics are better healers, we can talk about the people who play clerics, the mind set that a cleric player is in, but this is not answering the original question.
Clerics-1
Druids/Shammys-0
If anyone finds something i have overlooked i would like to know where i have gone wrong, im confused at how there can be a huge argument following a starting post such as this
#34 Mar 14 2004 at 12:00 PM Rating: Decent
**
500 posts
I would agree that clerics are better pure healers than druids or shammys in my experience (have a 45 clc and havent played druid or shammy past low levels), though as cleric I always liked having one or the other in group to back up heal and for their other spells. The complete heal at 39 makes a drastic change upwards in healing ability (full heal up to 7500 hp) for only 400 mana compared to Superior heal (little over 600 as I recall at that level) for 250 mana. With regard to efficiency, most tanks with temp want full heal at 30% or so, I prefer casting as soon as they hit 40% since it takes a long time to cast and if they have multiple mobs on them it is scary for the clc to watch the cast bar creeping along when the MT's health bar is dropping as fast.

With regard to the back up choice, I played my chanter last nite in a LDON where we ended up going with a 50 shmy as our healer since there were no clcs available (group was 46 to 51).
We ended up doing fine, but I had to pacify and slow since shmy was only healing and we need necro's help with twitch and back up healing from ranger as shmy was low mana (along with me) throughout. The shmy took a break for dinner and the rest of us sat around for 45 minutes trying to get a healer (clc, shmy, or druid) before giving up. There were 3 other mid to high 40s group looking for healers at the same time - 1 druid logged on and had his pick LOL. I would submit that lately clcs are easily the highest demanded class for LDON groups - can remember a bard sending a tell last week saying that he would only join our group if we had a clc as healer.

Having said that, I think that the druid and shmys add more to the group overall than just healing and I would sure want them along in any group I played whether I am clc, chanter, or my other main, pally.

PS To forestall someone asking, I didnt log off the chanter to get the clc as she is only 6 clicks away from 50 after first LDON and SO WANTED TO HIT THAT.
#35 Mar 14 2004 at 12:25 PM Rating: Default
Sir KerikDaven wrote:
Mellas,

Yes, we read the first post, but you CAN'T go just by the healing spells if you TRUELY want to decide who the best is. If you want to FIX it so you won your arguement before you started you say that. If you REALLY want the facts though you MUST include the other spells the classes get or you aren't being fair to the other classes.

Without other spells, JUST going by heals, the cleric wins, hands down. Sometimes it's not by a lot, but they still win. WITH the other spells, Cleric is still up there, but Well played Druids and Shaman can take the place of a Cleric. There are certain places where you just MUST have a Cleric though.


to answere your questions and comments here is why the spell list is hands down the answere:

tarv wrote:
Since certain people have a great deal of difficulty staying on the topic and instead of offering good advice on topic want to start a class ***** session. So here is a thread for them to play with.

I want Reasons why and i don't want any 'well druids can SoW' or 'But Shammy haste makes the mob drop faster' stuff i want pure healing ability and i want someone to prove that Druids and / or Shaman are better healers than clerics and visa versa.

Please continue.


he is asking not about the class and what they bring to a group, but about its pure healing power. end of discussion. thus to andwere the question this thread is about. clerics win hands down on pure healing power.

Edited, Sun Mar 14 12:24:52 2004 by Singdall
#36 Mar 14 2004 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
Ok this is going as expected with good posts made by most of the People as expected due the quality of knowlage to be found here.

Now if no-one Objects i am going to move the Goalposts. Mainly because my original question did not leave a level playing field <Deliberately by the way> as i didn't allow other Abilities such as haste into the arguement.

Now given that a shammy has slow, haste and de-buffs and a druid has DS and DoT's / Nukes to allow increased DPS and Mitagtion, I challange that it is STILL best to chose a Cleric in a healing role and bring the Druid/Shammy along for other reasons.

I am less convinced of this and would be swayed by good arguements, please please please don't bring the 'good druid is better than a bad cleric thing up again it's a Non-agruement since it is impossible without proir knowlage to know if the person you are inviting to be you healer is good or bad.

I have just one objection to make to previous posts:

TunareDefender wrote:
From 1-40 Cleric's and Druid's are about equal, they both get their spells at simaler levels, and can heal equally.


I do not believe this is the case, for half the levels 14-34 they have similar spells but the Pulse healing makes clerics better even then and it is from 34 that Druids and shammies are ecipsed untill 58 as Healers. I have played both a cleric and druid into thier 30's pretty much always in groups and i found druids much less able than the cleric.

That should make for a more fine line discussion but please do not make it into a cleric or druid bashing exercise. It's supposed to be an examination of how to make a weaker healing class be effective in that role and how to get the best out of the best healing class.

#37 Mar 14 2004 at 2:19 PM Rating: Decent
I'm a 64 cleric, getting close to 65 =)

I wanted to say at low-levels i don't think it really matters who your healers are, both heal enough to deal with the damage a mob puts out. Clerics are still better because they wouldn't have to heal as often because their heals are better at that level.

At higher levels clerics get certain spells to help control damage from mobs. Like guard of vei, which is a 10% melee absorber for 1600hp. That's nice and allows me to start my cheal later so its more effective. We also get mark of kings, i think its broke or something but its suppose to be a healing shield healing for 6hp per strike depending on the delay of the weapon, and only cost 75 mana, so its sorta a nice spell, mainly i use it to cancel out the mobs ds because it can do that too.

I am a lil jealous that druids seem to get better patch heals in higher levels(or it might be shammies, or both). But i can live with that, we all want the tank to live so if it looks bad use it i don't mind.

Cleric aa's can definently save a group, such as divine aura, divine arbitration, and that one that puts up a healing ward, all nice and controls the damage output of mobs which is important at high levels.
#38 Mar 14 2004 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I have *no* problem with being the backup healer. I prefer grouping with clerics, in fact. Being the main healer is boring to me, otherwise I'd be playing my cleric full time.

Besides, clerics have better tools for the job, obviously. I have other tools for other jobs. It's all good.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#39 Mar 14 2004 at 3:53 PM Rating: Decent
tecnically the cleric is the best healer in the game, if you want to get groups as the healer be a cleric, most people dont get a druid as a healer unless there are no clercis or shammies in the group as healer.

druids are more of a group or solo class and the heals are for ... well the druid isnt a tank so i guess its heals are for grouping ;)

the cleric isnt a tank either but thats ok clercisn suck at solo ;) ... so cleric if u want to heal and group druid if you want to solo at the end and group before it



i confused myself a bit .. cool
#40 Mar 14 2004 at 4:00 PM Rating: Decent
**
531 posts
Singdall

If you want to quote me, I'll quote me too.

Quote:
Without other spells, JUST going by heals, the cleric wins, hands down. Sometimes it's not by a lot, but they still win.


I said right in that post that as the question was asked, Clerics were the only answer.

The problem is the question wasn't fair to begin with. BECAUSE of what the other classes bring to the group it makes them VERY effective at the roll of healer to the point of being comparable to the Cleric's ability.

The added DPS(between Nukes, Damage shields and DoT's) of the Druid and Shaman means the critters die faster. Creature that die faster deal less damage so less damage must be healed! Debuffed and Slowed mobs deal both LESS damage per hit and Hit less often which also means less damage must be healed. HASTED melee fighters kill creatures faster also which once again means the deal less damage so less needs to be healed!

FINALLY, ENCHANTERS can take the place of healers too! lol. In Dreadlands our group lost their cleric and no other healers of any kind were around. Fortunately we had a Ranger(though any snarer will do). The Ranger snared the mobs and I feared them. We fought this way for about an hour before we finally got a healer. The exp was faster when we got a healer, but we did just fine without for a while. Any Snare/Fear classes could have done the same but the group was amazed at how well we did without a healer. Yes, I know that their are very few places you can get away with that tactic, but fortunately we were in one of those places.

Ideally you have a Cleric, but too many people don't realize the abilities of the Druid and Shaman as healers also. It's also good to have a Cleric WITH those classes to better take advantage of the damage they can do and other abilities they have.
#41 Mar 14 2004 at 4:15 PM Rating: Decent
what all you people arent getting is the main question that was asked "Clerics or druids which is the better healer".he didnt ask which is the better healer if the druid uses dot's and damage sheild etc... he asked which is the better healer, clerics or druids, not clerics druid shamans and enchanters..even though enchanters cant even heal!!!! barely. hands down no dots no nothing, just heals if you read the thread right not dot's and heals... just heals... a cleric can heal more than a druid BAM cleric wins
#42 Mar 14 2004 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
what all you people arent getting is the main question that was asked "Clerics or druids which is the better healer".he didnt ask which is the better healer if the druid uses dot's and damage sheild etc... he asked which is the better healer, clerics or druids, not clerics druid shamans and enchanters


1. I agree Shamans should have been on the list and i said so since they are a healing class

I wrote:
Note to Devilwind i agree shammies should be included but i forgot to add it to the title my bad


2. In my last post i threw open the flood gates for inclusion of other abilities to supliment basic healing to round out the discussion, i left them out to start with because the cloud the basic issue and i wanted to move on to them at a later point having established the Basic healing argument.

3. I am difinately with you on the Chanter issue though. This is about healer classes not Mitagtion reduction <Shammies aside>



Edited, Sun Mar 14 17:13:15 2004 by tarv
#43 Mar 14 2004 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
What's up Tarv? You bored or sumfin?

I'm surprised by the number of people trying to post "serious" answers.

As soon as a Cleric gets past 19 they have a superiority in healing that cannot be surpassed at any level.

The very essence of the Cleric class is healing with a myriad of nuances.

I played a Druid to 61 as a primary healer and before playing a cleric would have argued that they are very effective healers, in particulay since the addition of Healing Waters to the game.

Now having played a Cleric to 52 and already gathering up the 53 and 54 spells in anticipation, I can say that there is little comparison.

When pushed into being main healer as a Druid I now feel distinctly handicapped and highly stressed knowing what the shortfalls are liekly to be under "x" or "y" situation.

If you want to be analytical about it, it boils down to two key aspects to the task of healing, mana efficiency and time.

A Druid can compensate for the lack of refinement in most situations by simply having a vast supply of mana. But there are some situations where time is even more important than the mana regen/useage equation.

When you get the situation where you have multiple people dying with adds in camp, believe me it is a Cleric you want, not a Druid or Shaman.

A competent Cleric with his/her combination of fast heals, heals over time, group heals, death recovery and reverse damage shields can get enough healing flowing to his/her group to keep them alive in situations where a Druid or Shaman would have simply been forced to watch people drop all around them.

Yes Druids/Shaman I know and love Chloroblast, but when the chips are really down it just can't cut it by itself.

But that is only half the story.

And yes it is with great humility that I acknowlege Leiany, Cobra, Cortte and others with regard to the DB tactics I'm about to mention Smiley: grin

If the superior mana eficiency and time management capability of the Cleric was not enough, the point that tips the scale on its head is that a Cleric can manage all of this with a fraction of the aggro risk.

All healers know that if there are loose adds in camp pretty much any sort of heal will bring them on to you.

The Cleric's range of stuns, root, Atone and yes Divine Aura/Barrier etc give them the tools to manage this in a way that the poor old Druid can only dream of.

For most of my time as a Cleric healer I have relied on stuns and root, with occasional use of Atone to keep the unruly adds in check until assistance arives. The basic issue being to keep interupt free so that heals can be cast on those in need. However after reading the posts about DA in Leiany's recent thread I decided to spend some time working with it this weekend. I reluctantly (at first) gave up the nuke slot and memmed Divine Barrier.

I was grouped with some pretty good people for most of the weekend, but eventually the situation arose where I would have struggled through with stunning and roots while taking something of a beating, and I got the chance to use it.

We had a Necro doing CC and caught a stray wanderer just after the puller had pulled a few (I think we had all got a bit casual as things had been going so easily). So I had the cleric's typical nightmare. MA and second MA both tanking, the Necro taking bad hits while trying to mez and the Wizzy being beat on at the same time, as soon as I cast the first HoT I could see a couple coming for me, I stunned, backed away dropped a couple of fast heals where they were needed and then hit DB and sat down to med. By this time the Necro had had enough time to get his mezz's landed the HoT had kept him alive, the one stray left had gone back to one of the tanks and joined the melee. I have to say that watching the mobs leave me and wander off to join the melee was a joyful experience. So after playing with this a couple of times I happily admit to being a convert to the DB tactic.

Any hoo, the point to all of this is that if your question was in fact serious Tarv, the Poor old Druid and Shaman are not even in the same paddock as the Cleric when it comes to the range of healing tactics they have available. A well versed cleric will alow a group to push further and take on far greater risk than a Druid or Shaman could ever dream of.



#44 Mar 14 2004 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Hmm, I can see now that you were posing a serious question Tarv. There has been something seriously wrong with the board today, with posts not showing and geting lost etc.

Anyway as it happens in the main my post is in agreement with you.

In a typical experience grind group almost anyone can heal, druid, shaman (why people constantly harp on about "slows" I do not know), singular lack of imagination I think), pally and even necro at a pinch.

But I view exp grinding as about as "legitimate" in playing the game as soloing. Smiley: smile

To explain - the way I view the game, is that every time I log on it is with a purpose in mind. To complete a quest, go try to capture "x" piece of equipment or spell, test out some tactics in "xyz" in preparation for the previous, or to raid or do LDoN's for points.

I accumulate experience, skill ups and PP in the course of doing these things. I never just log on to "level up", if this was all there was to the game I would have quit three years ago.

Edit... Hmm, that sounds a bit priggish, not the intention. Just tossing one up there for the boys and gals to take a hit at Smiley: grin

With regard to the "changed goal posts", you still cannot make the comparison. When would you ever drop a cleric out of your group in favour of a second druid or shaman? Probably never. The druid brings great versatility with good secondary healing, the shaman brings great buffs/debuffs with good secondary healing.

But if you are heading into a situation where you needed the cleric's healing specialities, then adding extra druid utilities or a second slower/haster is still not going to cut it is it?

The druid and shaman's other skills certainly bring useful and needed benefits to a group, but they do not replace the need for healing to keep group members alive. Slowing the main mob will have little benefit when the AoE proc goes off for 400 Hp at a time. Only the Cleric can save your butt when that starts happening.

As an example, (this has happened any number od times) your group gets caught by one of the LDoN trap DoTs, (there are a couple that are truly vicious and will kill you if you are not careful), just as you are dealing witht his the puller pulls a mob that has an AoE or Enrages. (The thing about enrages in LDoN is that they are not super common at least in the 50's, so people get caught by surprise by them).

Suddenly you are trying to heal all six members of your group, several of them in a serious way. No Druid or Shaman, no matter how good a player they may be can cope with this, they just do not have the necessary tools. Even at half mana (which is typicaly when something like this will happen Smiley: smile) a cleric can use his/her group heal and fast cast little heals and HoT to keep every one alive long enough to survive the crisis.

As with all tactical debates, its not about what happens in "normal" situations, its about how you can cope with that irregular potential catastrophe.


Edited, Sun Mar 14 23:19:33 2004 by Iluien
#45 Mar 15 2004 at 9:55 AM Rating: Default
this is a stupid question - a clerics main goal in eq is healing, clerics are the undisputed kings of healing no questions asked. they have better mana/hp heals than any other class, they have a larger array of different types of heals than any other class and they have quicker heals than any other class. druids however are also very good healers and can be main healer in pretty much most situations but they dont have it as easy as clerics who can sustain heals much longer. nuff said
#46 Mar 15 2004 at 10:04 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
this is a stupid question - a clerics main goal in eq is healing


thats all that needs to be said, i dont know how people can talk about it this long, there is no disputing the facts, maybe im wrong and have overlooked something, if anyone can think of something i have missed, enlighten me please Smiley: smile
#47 Mar 15 2004 at 2:47 PM Rating: Default
I am a Druid yet I would rather be the back up healer than the main healer.
On the other hand, I would rather be on an adventure, exp group or GoD trial than sitting in PoK looking for a cleric. True, I don't have a lot of healing options
I have a 4650 10 second Cheal. (gimpy I know)
I have a 2100 3.5 second fast heal (3.2 with my SH4 focus)

I have AA on top of that with a DS mixed with really high regen.
I have clicky BP with group 25hp / tick regen.

Can I keep a Tank alive? Hell yes. but on an over pull or some GoD mobs it is only with a good group.
I can keep enchanter's charmed pet alive on trial 6 easily tho.
#48 Mar 15 2004 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
*
63 posts
Just to clear up the Shaman aspect of healing, at later levels we get left in the dust. We get a 2K approx. heal with 10 sec cast at 58 and that is it. No fast cast heals to speak of and mobs begin to mitigate slow. Normal XP grind we can probably do ok but druid is better and in my opinion Cleric is the best. I will slow and de-buff and spot heal thanks....I will not be able to keep everyone alive.

P.S. Stoicism, Torpor and Q are situational.

Seeler
#49 Mar 15 2004 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Playing a currently level 62 cleric as my main, I feel compelled to add my 2 cents to this argument. Clerics were designed to be healers. We do this very well. We also have other "utility" type spells that come in handy, like Aegolism and Virtue, sure they use up a gem, but provide very good hp/ac bonuses to everyone in the group. It is real easy to pick up these buffs in pok though. We also have spell haste.. damage mitigation, a Damage shield we place on the mob so that any target the mob hits, it takes damage, a Healing shield we place on the mob that overwrites any damage shiled the mob may have (very nice) adding in several hitpoints of "healing" to whomever hits the mob. We have the Pacify line of spells, AOE Pacify, stuns, roots, aoe damage spells. DA DB are great at dropping aggro if you pick it up with CH. We have a pet. It is almost as good as the druid pet, just does not hang around. We can summon nasty proccing hammers should we want to join the fray and melee while healing, and while we may not be able to add much dps, with the hammer, and running in with a high proc rate hammer we can do decent damage. We have access to nukes if needed, not too mana efficient but nice anyway.

But having been in many "very critical" situations with party members dropping do to multiple adds, I can tank a mob and still cast healing spells, due to a good channeling ability. wish it was as good as the ones mobs get hehehe.

In a group with good dps, and a tank with many hps, I very rarely drop below 70% mana, keeping everyone alive, and tossing in what dps I can add. Having this 70% mana pool available at most all times, allows me the flexibility to cast those 1200hp group heal over time spells that suck the mana away, but helps keep everyone alive in tight places.

Yes, a Druid or Shammy can replace a cleric quite well, when you have a good enough main tank that does very well at keeping all aggro, but you are running the risk of one bad pull and having to evac because you just can not cast fast enough to keep everyone in the party alive. I have 2 second cast times heals that can insta drop 1600 hps to the chanter so they do not die.

To address the question here though, Clerics can and do heal better than Druids or Shamans. However, if there are no Clerics avaiable, Druids or Shamans CAN FILL in just fine, you will just have to be a bit more careful to ensure good mob control, and may not be able to progress as quickly.
#50 Mar 15 2004 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
Clerics hands down. Druids can hold their own when it comes to CHing..especially if they've invested some time in archetype AAs. However, we are missing some really important pieces. Heal Over Time is the big one. Cleric Heal Over Time spells are a big piece in the ******** Druid HoT spells blow chunks.

Another gap is that druids don't get a decent small heal for the higher end until level 63. until level 63, a druid has an ******* of a 2900ish CH (10 sec cast of course), 990ish heal (5 second cast) and a 450ish heal (3 second cast). outside of complete heal, the larger heal takes too long to cast and the shorter cast time one (Chloroblast) doesnt heal for enough. At level 63 we get a 1780ish heal that takes 3.2 seconds. That STARTS to put us in line for a decent healer.

Before level 63 and after level 58 (when druids get CH), its REALLY hard for a druid to play main healer unless the MT is nicely equipped or you have some good slowers/CC. Primarily because that CH takes a long time to get off and you'll spend all your mana dropping that petty 450ish heal trying to keep the MT alive before the mob gets slowed. Especially considering mana cost for the CH and larger one cost the same.

Druids also have Spirit of the Wood AA in their ******* that can be activated with no previous requirements at level 62...but even that doesn't close the gap between cleric and druid healers.
#51 Mar 15 2004 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
**
531 posts
Actually, the TRUE point of this post is that Tarv likes putting mice in mazes and seeing which way they go. LOL
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 147 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (147)