What class do you add to this group?

So my co-workers are creating some alts and here's what they have so far: Warrior, Shaman, Warlock, Rogue. Now seeing as how the primary focus of these particular characters is to play together as a group, what would you add? I'm thinking the answer is Priest, but what about a Mage? or perhaps even a Druid?

IMO, Priest, without a doubt. You want a primary healer.

Priest, heals and another rez.

Sounds like its ladies choice at that point.

I drove a friend of ours crazy recently because some other friends and I switched to the Horde side because theres just too many alliance people running around. But anyways he just sighed and shook his head and went on with his power leveling.
Well I finally convinced him to join the 3 of us and he had a devil of a time trying to decide what class to play.
(Druid, Shaman and Shaman for the curious. And he chose a warrior).

Druid or another Shaman.

Druid is the most versatile class.

Shaman are just too damn powerful to not make it a viable choice.

A full party of shaman is a force to be reckoned with much more so that any other class.

Druid can heal very very close to what a priest can output, and has some nice utility functions as well with its tank and rogue forms. A very good choice to go with.

Druid can heal very very close to what a priest can output

I don''t think that''s the case.

I dont know, Certis. I think the case can be made for druids coming close. Unless you are talking about the overall protection of their groupmates. Priests win hands down there since the shields and the enormous hp buff are things the druids try to counter with mark of the wild, but cant.

However, druids get their rejuvenation series 2 levels before priests get renew. I will also take any day the druids regrowth line over the priests fast casting half heal. Regrowth is expensive mana wise, but its just as fast casting as the quick heal but it has the second half heal included as a heal over time.

So if we are talking strictly heals and their derivitives, the druid come close in power.

All nice but later in the game when fights take longer the Priest has much more mana efficient and effective healing spells. Druids are nothing to sneeze at but if I needed a primary, it would be a Priest no question.

However, druids get their rejuvenation series 2 levels before priests get renew. I will also take any day the druids regrowth line over the priests fast casting half heal. Regrowth is expensive mana wise, but its just as fast casting as the quick heal but it has the second half heal included as a heal over time.

Heal over time becomes less useful in the higher levels when Mobs are beating your tanks around silly... they simply dont heal fast enough.

I think most people miss the point of heal over time spells. Its purpose is damage mitigation, not healing. Heal over time spells should be cast early in the fight.
At only level 28 I have a heal over time spell that heals 60 some damage every 3 seconds. I dont care how much mobs hit for. If Im being hit for 4-500 every swing, you''d better believe Id like to have an extra 12-15% damage reduction. With that in mind, nothing Ive fought comes close to 500 damage per swing. By the time I reach that point Im sure my rejuvenation will be healing 100 or more.

You guys probably already decided by now, but I threw my lot in with the priest group. Why? You have a set group with defined roles. A druid is great in that it''s flexibility can fill in any gaps within a group which tends to happen in pick-up groups.

A Warlock can crowd-control with the succubus so you guys are okay in that field I believe (ie no mage). If you''re worried about offensive spell output, a priest also fits that role nicely (though it is an ongoing battle between saving mana vs. offensive spells in groups). I honestly would switch out the warlock for a mage, but that''s because I don''t know what a warlock can/can''t do and I kinda know what a mage can do from grouping with Leaping.

As for the druid vs. priest debate... I wouldn''t know having not reached the upper end of the game. Yes, druids have a better HoT than priests. But EQ mentality in mind, I would stick with a priest for the end game. Perhaps this mentality is outdated, but I do not know that just yet having just reached the early 40s. The younger levels don''t compare... I''m sure you could get by w/ paladin healing in Deadmines (significantly smaller mana pool due to needing stat buffs in other areas, less heal utility).

The problem with a priest is at some point he will be led down the shadow path and not be as efficient as a healer.
(At least that seems to be the trend).

The problem with a priest is at some point he will be led down the shadow path and not be as efficient as a healer.
(At least that seems to be the trend).

The holy tree just does NOT provide that much of a boost to your healing skills. You are missing out on a lot if you go pure holy sub-40. There is not reason to, you are making your life hard for no reason. 5 talent points for .5 seconds off of your big heal''s cast time? What a bargin! The Holy tree is broke.

Sure it is, but most of the talent trees are as far as I can tell
(Druid, Hunter and warlock are the ones I have the most experience in)

The younger levels don''t compare... I''m sure you could get by w/ paladin healing in Deadmines (significantly smaller mana pool due to needing stat buffs in other areas, less heal utility).

You can add Stockades and Gnomergan to that list, just FYI. O'' course, I''m mostly Holy specced so far, but ready to go Protection or Retribution now that I''ve got the stuff I wanted in Holy.

Edit: Actually, I find Stockades to be so easy, it should have been the ""trainer"" instance, not Deadmines, and Gnomergan, believe it or not, is easier to play heal-adin in (up to the Black Iron guys) than all of Deadmines.

"fangblackbone" wrote:

I think most people miss the point of heal over time spells. Its purpose is damage mitigation, not healing. Heal over time spells should be cast early in the fight.
At only level 28 I have a heal over time spell that heals 60 some damage every 3 seconds. I dont care how much mobs hit for. If Im being hit for 4-500 every swing, you''d better believe Id like to have an extra 12-15% damage reduction. With that in mind, nothing Ive fought comes close to 500 damage per swing. By the time I reach that point Im sure my rejuvenation will be healing 100 or more.

If your taking 2 sec''s to cast a HOT even early in an instance I''m going to boot you from my group.. at 880 Mana at level 60 for 1000 or so heal plus another 1000 over 21 seconds thats not very efficient. And if you wait late in the fight and at 30% then its even more so not efficient.

Additionally using that kind of heal early in a fight is going to lead to one dead Druid as that Druids going to pull some aggro from something.

HOT are fine in certain situations but on a mana to mana basis and given the amount of total mana I''d much rather have a Priest as my primary tank healer than a Druid.

You can get through 80-85% of the game with a Druid as your primary healer easy.. its the other 15-20% where you really want a Priest.

I''d say Druids are easily the second best healer in the game.. really Shamans and Paladins are a distant third.

Some are cutting the priests a bit short here I think. The level 28 Druid HoT is just that, level 28. The priest one comes at level 26, and is a bit worse for the obvious reason that it is obtained at an earlier level. It also is ""longer"" (over 15 seconds as opposed to 12, healing less damage per 3 second pulse).

The situation is reversed if you look at main heals. The priest main heal at level 28 heals 2.146 points of health per point of mana spent, if you use the average healing result. The level 26 Druid main heal is 2.11 health per point of mana spent. Also, the priest main heal simply heals more health (at, of course, the cost of more mana, but not more mana per health point as previously discussed).

Now having said this, I do believe that the Druid class actually does have too much healing capability. I understand the desire to not need to have particular classes in order to have an enjoyable party experience, but the Druid does appear to be too close to the priest in terms of healing abilities for at least half of the levels, with much more upside in terms of combat potential. That just my quick reaction from looking at the spell lists for both to that point, and now I''m going to have to research it further, as I find it an interesting question (I play a priest, but had never really looked at the druid spells to this point).

P.S. On looking at this further, it will be harder to compare than I thought. For example, the priest''s ability to cast a mega-buff to stamina helps prevent the need for heals in the first place (the druid buff is spread out over all abilities). Likewise, on first glance, the druid does not have anything like the priest''s ability to put a damage absorbing shield on someone (oftentimes a caster that drew aggro) to simply absorb damage in the first place (and let the caster keep casting). The priest''s DoTs look like they might be a bit better as well, at least at first glance.

5 talent points for .5 seconds off of your big heal''s cast time? What a bargin! The Holy tree is broke.

Thats actually a big deal...especially later on when even .5 seconds can make a huge difference.

Please feel free to continue the discussion... but I just wanted to thank everyone for their input. If an undead Druid was an option, I''d be more tempted but since Undead was the only Horde race I haven''t experienced yet, I created an Undead Priest last night on the Thunderlord PvP server. If you want to give the whole PvP thing a try, come on over to Thunderlord and /friend Tenderheart.

Additionally using that kind of heal early in a fight is going to lead to one dead Druid as that Druids going to pull some aggro from something.

Now I know you have more experience with the late game scenario than I do, but isn''t a good druid better equiped to handle that aggro when it comes.
At least early on it seems like its no big deal, shift into bear form and beat the crap out of it(the only downside being that somebody else has to pick up the healing, since I group with 2 shamans not a big deal).

Druids also have a root that with talents can be a reactive spell. The root is outdoor only BTW.

The priests offensive capability I feel is better than a druids. Well, thats while the druid is not shapeshifted. You wouldnt want to be shapeshifting back and forth while being the primary healer as it does cost ~200 mana to shift. The priests smite is better than the druids wrath nuke. Moonfire is a great spell but isnt as mana efficient and damaging as shadow word pain. Starfire, I feel and some may disagree with me, is useless because of enormous casting time and cool down.

GG, the HoT is instant cast. The half HoT half heal is 1.5 seconds and is mana expensive. If anyone would throw someone out of the group for being proactive and actually using the skills available to them, then I would know no shame and they are going to continually be frustrated by what they see as incompetence.

I would like to remind everyone, that I did not say the druid was better or even with the priest in healing capability. I was just pointing out that its closer than you think. Close enough in fact that I would rather have a well played druid than a mediocre priest. No matter how routine battles get in WoW there will always be a fight or part of a fight that goes awry. Routine priests that fill a fixed roll are less apt to help the group adapt.

Druids, however, are all about adaptation.

You wouldnt want to be shapeshifting back and forth while being the primary healer as it does cost ~200 mana to shift.

I agree, but I kind of see it as the groups fault for letting something stay on me long enough to have to deal with it.
(And like I mentioned, I group with 2 shamans so really we make a fluid switch)

"phragged" wrote:

Sure it is, but most of the talent trees are as far as I can tell
(Druid, Hunter and warlock are the ones I have the most experience in)

Excluding bugs, the Warlock affliction and destruction trees are both excellent. Affliction has only has one overpriced talent and 2 useless ones. Destruction''s 2 openers leave alot to be desired but after that it''s great. Demonology on the other hand is pretty broken, I''ll give you that

Demonology on the other hand is pretty broken, I''ll give you that.

Yeah thats the part I meant :).
I''m going down the affliction route myself.

I would like to remind everyone, that I did not say the druid was better or even with the priest in healing capability. I was just pointing out that its closer than you think. Close enough in fact that I would rather have a well played druid than a mediocre priest.

This has been pointed out before, but I think the biggest difference is the size of the mana pool. Priests can go all Intellect, while druids have to spread the points around a little more.

"phragged" wrote:
Demonology on the other hand is pretty broken, I''ll give you that.

Yeah thats the part I meant :).
I''m going down the affliction route myself.

I actually took demonology up to Improved Voidwalker and it was well worth it, but I''m respeccing to full affliction at 40 (first level that Dark Pack is available) and never using the void again except to solo an elite or just to sac him for shield.

sorry y''all can have your priest v. druid thread back now

Now I know you have more experience with the late game scenario than I do, but isn''t a good druid better equiped to handle that aggro when it comes.
At least early on it seems like its no big deal, shift into bear form and beat the crap out of it(the only downside being that somebody else has to pick up the healing, since I group with 2 shamans not a big deal).

not really...that Druids only going to last a few seconds longer than a priest

I agree, but I kind of see it as the groups fault for letting something stay on me long enough to have to deal with it.
(And like I mentioned, I group with 2 shamans so really we make a fluid switch)

and no...its your fault for pulling aggro to early... If your not letting your tanks pull enough hate early in the fight before you start tossing heal spells then your going to pull some mob. It takes the entire group playing well to play well.

All it usually takes in one elite mob to pound the crap out of a priest or druid... when your fighting 4 48+ level mobs at once you''ll soon see.. and wait until they are 52+ it gets worse.. or they have a stun/silence combo that stops you from not only healing yourself it stops you from healing anyone else.

It only takes a few seconds for a fight to get out of hand.. sometimes you can recover from one mistake but usually you cant

GG, the HoT is instant cast. The half HoT half heal is 1.5 seconds and is mana expensive. If anyone would throw someone out of the group for being proactive and actually using the skills available to them, then I would know no shame and they are going to continually be frustrated by what they see as incompetence.

Unless its reduced by talents it appears at 60 Regrowth is a 2 sec casts. Renew which is insta cast heals 750ish for 330ish mana over 12 secs..

largely useless fighting elites over level 52+ I mean you may throw it on a mage/warlock on occasion..but not on a tank. In just the fraction of seconds it takes for your spells to reset after casting an instant cast spell it may then be too late to hit your main tank with the big slow heal.

Druids are great healers...but in no way do they match the efficieny of a Priest past level 50.