PDA

View Full Version : Tank vs Battle Cleric: Discussing the Myth



Luthen
08-28-2007, 03:21 PM
I am bored at work and thought Id start an age old topic. A "Tank" built cleric vs a "Battle Cleric". Do you know the difference?

Tank: A class designed with the sole purpose of generating aggro and holding the attention of the primary target(s) with a focus on survivability and damage or skills.

Battle Cleric: A cleric who can effectively melee, and distribute DPS, and/or Crowd Control while maintaining the survival of his team.

Both of these are viable builds for a cleric. However they are not the same thing and are often lumped together in discussions. Some might say that a "Battle Cleric" is simply what a cleric is meant to be. For many in the D&D community this is true. For many who were more involved in the MMO aspect of this community a cleric was simply the guy/gal who keeps people alive with minimal to no melee skills. I propose that a Cleric is a Cleric. Their sub-class designation is more a fundimental nature of the individual player then it is a broad description of the whole class.

An overly aggressive player might lean more towards the "Tank" cleric. Focusing on their own survivability and if built well and handled by a smart player can easily be a stronger tank then a pure Paladin, Barbarian or even some Warrior builds. All this with little or no multi-classing. This kind of cleric is somewhat solitary as they don't require you to follow them since they can handle themselves first and you when they have time.

A smart tactical but still somewhat aggresive player might lean more towards a "Battle Cleric" build. This is a cleric who handles a weapon with excellent skill and can handle giving hits as well as taking them. His initial focus is on the entire groups survivability but excells when playing in a team with like minded and/or skilled players. Why? Because a "Battle Cleric" needs to rely on peoples ability to follow direction well enough to stay alive. "Move in close incomming mass heal" is a common command used while the "Battle Cleric" is in melee and sees people need some hit points.

A "Heal bot" is just that. Not a bad thing just a play style. This is a build that tends to sit back, cast CC spells, and heal the party. Nothing wrong with this style for anyone who enjoys it or is a novice at clericing.

I guess what prompted me to start this, besides boredom, is that I find to many people out there are uncomfortable with the subtle difference between a "Tank" and a "Battle Cleric". Either that or they simply are ignorant to the difference of styles (we're all ignorant of something ;) ).

Mad_Bombardier
08-28-2007, 04:42 PM
Battle Cleric: A cleric who can effectively melee, and distribute DPS, and/or Crowd Control while maintaining the survival of his team.[/I]Remove 'Battle' and substitute 'D&D'. A D&D Cleric does all of the things you've stated and is a balanced approach.

On the other hand, you can go to extremes for any of the three main functions: by being a Battle Cleric, Healer Cleric, or Caster Cleric. A Battle Cleric is something else entirely. Essentially, tanking with and using his mana pool for self-healing, self-buffing. A Healer Cleric buffs and heals to the exlusion of most everything else (and is the most useless of the three). A Caster Cleric focuses on offensive and crowd control casting using mana for buffs and heals.

Luthen
09-02-2007, 11:09 AM
Remove 'Battle' and substitute 'D&D'. A D&D Cleric does all of the things you've stated and is a balanced approach.

On the other hand, you can go to extremes for any of the three main functions: by being a Battle Cleric, Healer Cleric, or Caster Cleric. A Battle Cleric is something else entirely. Essentially, tanking with and using his mana pool for self-healing, self-buffing. A Healer Cleric buffs and heals to the exlusion of most everything else (and is the most useless of the three). A Caster Cleric focuses on offensive and crowd control casting using mana for buffs and heals.

Actually a "Battle Cleric" that only heals and buffs himself would fall under the "Tank" category.

Kalanth
09-02-2007, 11:14 AM
I agree with Mad. A properly built cleric, as it would be seen in PnP D&D, is built to effectively melee, has good AC, and can cast offensive, CC, and healing spells effectively. This can be translated to DDO, but most of the people around here believe you can only have one or the other.

PurdueDave
09-02-2007, 12:03 PM
Actually a "Battle Cleric" that only heals and buffs himself would fall under the "Tank" category.

Personally, I take "battle cleric" to mean what you call a tank as well; i.e. low wis, high strength, combat feats, manas for helping me kill stuff and not healing (except maybe for emergencies).

Semantics aside, IMO discomfort with tank clerics results from a group finally finding a cleric only to find that the cleric you found wasn't what you thought you found. Personally I don't mind but I can see where the little twinge of dissappointment comes from ("So we still need a cleric?")

I also agree that the two are frequently lumped together in discussion but that's inappropriate. I've played both and, at least to me, there's a pretty big difference between the two in how they're played.

Zenako
09-02-2007, 12:24 PM
Well I find playing a CLERIC is the most rewarding so far.

My CLERIC can fight pretty well (has a few self buff spells mem'd if needed) and loves to mix it up. Do I have the DPS rate of a fighter and all their Feats, nah, but once the mob is Paralyzed...do those matter as much anymore (or cursed).

She will also drop down some serious Destruction spells or Greater Commands if needed and keep everyone alive if possible. Multitasking to the nth degree is the fate of a rounded CLERIC.

I have been the "Tank" on some quests in some groups. I can healbot if needed (and do so on things like Raids), and CC if that is the thing to do.

In my mind the Tank is the limited one. They have one thing they do, and hopefully they do it well, but far too often, that is not enough.

I tend to run in small groups (2-3) or solo perhaps 1/2 the time, and in fuller guild groups the rest of the time. The flexibility of being a CLERIC shines in the small groups or when solo.

A Barb build for DPS should do that well, but often struggles when asked to do something outside that role. I personally find it easiest to team up with Rangers, Bards and Paladins when in small groups since by their very build nature most tend to be flexible and able to fill numerous roles as the scene changes.

Chelsa
09-02-2007, 12:40 PM
Ultimately, whatever class and build you choose to play, having the right team is required for success. It would be nice if people were allowed more flexibility to play different types of builds, but the traditional MMO player and more so the power gamers, see builds with black and white glasses. ie.. cleric=heal Fighter=dps ect..... So even if you do something different, getting a group to take advantage of it can be very difficult.

On a positive note, the devs have made it very apparent that they will change things if they feel that something is being abused and not being used as intended. So even though a build or a play style is frowned upon right now, in the future it could be the one everybody wishes to emulate. The point is, have fun and try to play with people who are willing to be creative and enjoy the diversity the game offerers.

Sojourner
09-02-2007, 05:05 PM
Was talking to my wife the other day about how people refer to the basic 3 type of cleric builds - BattleCleric, CasterCleric, NannyBot.

And, really, we decided that there should be four types. With the "BattleCleric" catagory being broken up into what we were calling "BattleClerics" and "MeleeClerics"


For us the differences was -
* Battle Clerics are built to maximize their own DPS and survivability
* Melee Clerics are generally effective party healers as well as able to melee


I would say that few of the "BattleCleric" builds are "Tanks" because they don't usually focus on drawing and holding aggro. They are more "DPS" builds rather than "Tank" builds.

Frodo_Lives
09-02-2007, 05:53 PM
A good cleric can fight, cast, and heal. A battle cleric is a cleric who acts like a fighter.

I love grouping with a good cleric. I have had far more bad experiences with battle clerics than good ones.

The feeling in game about battle clerics is rather amusing. I logged on as my cleric and a group was looking for a cleric for a PoP elite run. They sent a tell and I accepted. Immediately I noticed that there was a lot of laughing and joking and a lot of typing going on. The barbarian in the group jokingly said thank god we have a cleric cause I'm a sponge. At this point I informed them over Voice Chat that I am a battle cleric and spend my mana on myself.

You could hear the crickets for a good twenty or thirty seconds all laughing and talking stopped. I then had a good laugh and told them I was joking and man did they sound relieved.

It seems that I'm not the only one who has had overwhelmingly bad experiences playing with the majority of battle clerics.

Luthen
09-02-2007, 07:04 PM
It seems that I'm not the only one who has had overwhelmingly bad experiences playing with the majority of battle clerics.


It is unfortunate that many of the poor "Battle Clerics" are poor because they never took the time to truely learn how to cleric to begin with. Caster clerics spend time at a distance. As do heal focus clerics. Battle Clerics are in the midst of the chaos and require more skill, usually, then the other two.So having a well expierienced cleric play a Battle style is safer then having a tank build a Tank cleric any day of the week.

WilbyZ
09-03-2007, 06:44 AM
I think we all agree that there are Three things a Cleric can do. Only two of those things a Cleric can excel in at any given 'build'

That is the key :)

Sojourner
09-03-2007, 09:02 AM
I think we all agree that there are Three things a Cleric can do. Only two of those things a Cleric can excel in at any given 'build'

That is the key :)

I would say that a cleric can be very good at all three. The only time a cleric sacrifices their healing or offensive casting is when they go the "Battle-Cleric" route.


.

Grenfell
09-06-2007, 11:52 AM
I would say that a cleric can be very good at all three. The only time a cleric sacrifices their healing or offensive casting is when they go the "Battle-Cleric" route.


.

Not true. The stats and feats just don't work out where you can be good at all three.

You can be decent at all 3, but you can't be good at all 3.

/gren

Mad_Bombardier
09-06-2007, 12:11 PM
Not true. The stats and feats just don't work out where you can be good at all three.

You can be decent at all 3, but you can't be good at all 3.Agreed. I'd even go so far as to say that you can excel at 2/3. But, being more than passable at the third one is near impossible.

PurdueDave
09-06-2007, 12:29 PM
Not true. The stats and feats just don't work out where you can be good at all three.

You can be decent at all 3, but you can't be good at all 3.

/gren

True enough. Under the old "four slot" enhancement system it was far more cut and dried, though. Now the lines are a little fuzzier. A lot of gray shades in there.

I kind of missed that forced commitment of the four slot system but I'm probably in the minority. The current system, IMO, rewards generalized a bit too much more than specialized characters.

Zenako
09-06-2007, 01:12 PM
I guess it also depends on where you draw the line between "passable, good, acceptable and excel" for performing those tasks.

Is Excelling hitting the goal 95% of the time, or 85%

Is Good, 75% or 66%

Is Passable 50%...

Where you draw the line affects your characterization of how effective a cleric can be. Hitting the goal means hitting the AC of the Mob or Beating the SR or having the Mobs Fail their Saves.... for the opposed functions, while for the healing function that will depend on how "well" you need to keep everyone healed....

Grenfell
09-06-2007, 01:23 PM
I guess it also depends on where you draw the line between "passable, good, acceptable and excel" for performing those tasks.

Is Excelling hitting the goal 95% of the time, or 85%

Is Good, 75% or 66%

Is Passable 50%...

Where you draw the line affects your characterization of how effective a cleric can be. Hitting the goal means hitting the AC of the Mob or Beating the SR or having the Mobs Fail their Saves.... for the opposed functions, while for the healing function that will depend on how "well" you need to keep everyone healed....

It's probably personal to everyone, because I think people know when they're good and when they're not. Well... people whose opinions matter do anyhow.

For example, my personal standard is roughly, "Can I do this at least within the same ballpark as someone who specialized in it?" ~90% effectiveness is what I'm shooting for, in order to be considered "good".

My battleclerics fight at around 90% effectiveness (I judge, purely subjective POV) of a truly focused battlecleric with more than 1 level of Fighter, max strength, etc.

My fighting caster cleric is probably within +2 DC of a focused casting cleric; that's a 10% on a d20 (which may be a 300% improvement of course...) so I feel like I'm roughly there. At least I'm playing the same offensive casting game -- the 12 Wisdom clerics are not.

/gren

Zenako
09-06-2007, 02:20 PM
Seems to fit my criteria. Hennako has a mid 20's WIS, and Low 20ish STR and a bunch of Healing based Enhancements. She can fight/melee pretty well, carry a ton of stuff if needed (an often overlooked limitation that my 8 STR caster ran into...sigh) and even Tank all but the toughest things if needed with an AC closing in on 40. SHe can hold her own with Castings, in fact on the last Reaver Run she was on, racked up more Elementals than the Wizard did. (The bard was dropping the Discos.) Her HEAL spells with items and enhancements do over 350 points. I am consider myself good at all three portions of the equation. I am not built to EXCEL at any which would in general gimp some aspect of the character in my mind.

Mad_Bombardier
09-06-2007, 02:31 PM
Skarn is a D&D Cleric, performing "good" in all 3 categories (maybe "excel" in Healing, but no DVs so I'll humbly accept "good").

26 STR, 26 WIS. So, he can be played either way. His STR is okay, but no Martial Weapons is what really holds him back in the 'battle' area (but makes a great offtank). WIS is average at best and no SF: feats, which holds him back in the 'caster' area. Future level raises info will determine if I shift from well-rounded D&D Cleric to either 'battle' or 'caster' archetypes.

Sojourner
09-06-2007, 03:22 PM
Ok, take the this as an example:

28-point build cleric -

Melee:
* 24 STR if that Titan belt will ever drop
* +1 to-hit bonus from item
* AC 40 before any buffs are cast
* Improved Crit:Bludgeoning Feat
* Add buffs & gear as available

Offensive casting:
* 30 WIS
* +1 DC all spells from item
* Empower Spell
* 1200+ sp
* Spell Pen item
* -- is lacking a good high-end potency item.

Healing:
* Empower Healing feat
* IEH II enhancement
* Wand Mastery III
* Life Magic IV
* Prayer of Life III
* Prayer of Incredible Life II
* DV II
* Extra Turning II
* 11 DVs/Turns
* 1200+ SP
* Greater Devotion item



Which of the three areas would you say he is lacking the most?

Most "Battle Clerics" will be able to out fight him. But, he is meant to be a "melee cleric" not a "battle cleric"

A pure "offensive caster" cleric with Empower and Maximize will throw a meaner blade barrier. But, will burn a lot of their SP doing so.




.

EinarMal
09-06-2007, 03:28 PM
Ok, take the this as an example:

28-point build cleric -

Melee:
* 24 STR if that Titan belt will ever drop
* +1 to-hit bonus from item
* AC 40 before any buffs are cast
* Improved Crit:Bludgeoning Feat
* Add buffs & gear as available

Which of the three areas would you say he is lacking the most?

Most "Battle Clerics" will be able to out fight him. But, he is meant to be a "melee cleric" not a "battle cleric"

A pure "offensive caster" cleric with Empower and Maximize will throw a meaner blade barrier. But, will burn a lot of their SP doing so.

.

With 24 Str and no martial weapons (pure cleric?) I don't think you could call that "very good". I would say that would fall into the "ok" category for melee to me. To me very good is a cleric with 28+ strength, power attack, and a two hander with IC slashing (SOS preffered). That will far exceed the damage output of your build, not by a small margin.

That is fine as you say you are not a "battle cleric" but kind of illustrates Gren's point about not being "Very good" at all three.

sigtrent
09-06-2007, 03:28 PM
I'd run the scale like this...

Dominant: Others are in awe of your abbility in X area of the game

Strong: Specilized and good at what you do

Average: Kind of the standard for someone who isn't min-maxing much

Secondary: You can do something but you arn't to be relied on for it as a party role.

Pointless: While you can do something you may as well not bother with it.

NA: It's just something you can't do.

My own battle cleric would probably rate like this...
Casting: Strong
Healing: Average
Combat: Average
Support: Secondary

The thing is.. I don't really have the mana to do all of those at the same time sicne my combat prowes is somewhat dependent on my mana.

PurdueDave
09-06-2007, 03:31 PM
I'd run the scale like this...

Dominant: Others are in awe of your abbility in X area of the game

Strong: Specilized and good at what you do

Average: Kind of the standard for someone who isn't min-maxing much

Secondary: You can do something but you arn't to be relied on for it as a party role.

Pointless: While you can do something you may as well not bother with it.

NA: It's just something you can't do.

My own battle cleric would probably rate like this...
Casting: Strong
Healing: Average
Combat: Average
Support: Secondary

The thing is.. I don't really have the mana to do all of those at the same time sicne my combat prowes is somewhat dependent on my mana.

That's a pretty good way of putting it.

Blazer
09-06-2007, 04:10 PM
I'd run the scale like this...

Dominant: Others are in awe of your ability in X area of the game
Strong: Specilized and good at what you do
Average: Kind of the standard for someone who isn't min-maxing much
Secondary: You can do something but you arn't to be relied on for it as a party role.
Pointless: While you can do something you may as well not bother with it.
NA: It's just something you can't do.

I rather like this scale, too. I'd probably rate my (non-battle) cleric as follows:

Casting: Strong/Dominant
Healing: Strong
Combat: Pointless (14 STR, no combat feats)
Support: Average

So yep, I seem to fall into the "2 out of 3" category, too.

Strakeln
09-06-2007, 04:47 PM
I'll add the standard exception to this thread: the build and equipment of a character pales in terms of importance when compared to the skill of the person behind the character. So maybe your build can't be good at more than 2 out of 3 things... it doesn't mean you can't.

Sojourner
09-06-2007, 08:00 PM
With 24 Str and no martial weapons (pure cleric?) I don't think you could call that "very good". I would say that would fall into the "ok" category for melee to me. To me very good is a cleric with 28+ strength, power attack, and a two hander with IC slashing (SOS preffered). That will far exceed the damage output of your build, not by a small margin.

That is fine as you say you are not a "battle cleric" but kind of illustrates Gren's point about not being "Very good" at all three.


Hmmm, I rarely look at the Battle Cleric builds since I have little interest in them - very viable builds, just not my personal style.

It sounds like in order for a build to be a viable "battle cleric" using the standards above, it has to be done by splashing in levels of other classes. Playing with the numbers - a minimum of 2 levels of fighter would be expected.


Kind of going back to the original point of the thread somewhat -

When does a cleric tip over from being a "Good melee cleric" to a "Battle Cleric / Tank". And, even more important - at what level would you no longer consider them to truly be a "Cleric" anymore.

And, perhaps some of this is semantics and definitions. Talking just combat, I would probably rank things something like this:
* Battle Cleric - Meant to be effective as primary tank
* Very Good Melee Cleric - Cleric able to fill in as secondary tank
* Good Melee Cleric - Weak secondary tank, tertiary tank
* Poor Melee Cleric - Some dps, mostly against trash mobs
* Nannybot - Might swing a weapon when nothing better to do


Actually -
Thinking about it a bit more, I think Sigtrent's 5-point scale is on the right track, but I would probably expand it like this:
1) Dominant - With you filling this roll, the party has no need for any others assisting this roll
2) Very Good - You have no problem being the primary for the party in this roll
3) Good - You could fill in for primary in a pinch, but are better as secondary
4) Average - You can contribute, but if the party is relying on you they may be in trouble
5) Poor - Any contribution you make to this role is only a few points better than negligible
6) N/A - Completely unable to contribute to this roll


There are really only 4 main roles in an MMO:
1) Healer (Obvious)
2) DPS (Melee, Ranged, Caster, Nuker, etc)
3) CC (Traditional caster CC or Aggro Control/Tanks)
4) Support / Damage Mitigation (Buffers, Skill Classes, Stealth Classes, etc)


I would expect a typical balanced cleric to rate:
Healer - Dominant - You can run most missions without a cleric. Add one to the party, and this roll is full, with a few exceptions
DPS - Average / Good - Between melee and offensive casting, clerics can contribute noticeably to the DPS
CC - Good / Very Good - Solidly 'very good' before the Holy Smite change. Now, we can do it but a CC spec'd wiz would be better for the primary in a party
Support - Good / Very Good - We have enough buffs to get people through. But, there are other classes that can do them and more, and we have no skills.


Post is starting to wander I think... better stop now


.

Eudimio
09-06-2007, 10:50 PM
I'd run the scale like this...

Dominant: Others are in awe of your abbility in X area of the game
Strong: Specilized and good at what you do
Average: Kind of the standard for someone who isn't min-maxing much
Secondary: You can do something but you arn't to be relied on for it as a party role.
Pointless: While you can do something you may as well not bother with it.
NA: It's just something you can't do.


Okay, so I made my cleric for one reason, to support my guild during raids. And raiding is what I mostly do with him.

Here's how I rate him on sig's scale:
Casting: Average
Healing: Secondary
Combat: Average
Support: Dominant

What this means is that people will get every buff out of me that they want, but I won't babysit thier red bars. My guildies know my style and what to expect from me. My personal goal with my cleric is too end combat as quickly and efficiently as possible. I very rarely use wands or scrolls. All of my wands are cure critical ('cause I don't buy them).

On the rare occaision that i pug with my cleric, I tell them I'm a finesse battlecleric. But they soon realize that they'll get a heal when they need it. Hilariously enough, even though I play him as a D&D cleric, he would fit the role of MMO tank very well. His AC is North of 50, saves are all above 20, and his first swing is above 30 to hit. He does low steady damage in melee without taking much damage himself. When he's in a tough quest (not applicaple right now), he'll sit back and debuff/cc with a heavy repeater (and do in-combat healing). Cursespewing, destruction, and weakening/enfeebling are usually the best options.

My personal opinion is that grouping exclusively with healbot clerics makes people worse players. Those players tend to rely on a cleric to keep them alive. Even no-AC barbarians should be able to get through a combat without needing healing. There are very few quests that have near-continual combat.

Happy Hunting.

Zenako
09-07-2007, 09:30 AM
My personal opinion is that grouping exclusively with healbot clerics makes people worse players. Those players tend to rely on a cleric to keep them alive. Even no-AC barbarians should be able to get through a combat without needing healing. There are very few quests that have near-continual combat.

Happy Hunting.

Continual combat...no...UNLESS that crazy ass barbarian thinks they are the Terminator and JUST WILL NOT STOP...gotta kill, gotta kill....need more blood and fights...gotta kill...ghessh, where is Sarah Connor??. And they usually got some real nice strider boots on too....:D

Eudimio
09-07-2007, 11:03 AM
Continual combat...no...UNLESS that crazy ass barbarian thinks they are the Terminator and JUST WILL NOT STOP...gotta kill, gotta kill....need more blood and fights...gotta kill...ghessh, where is Sarah Connor??. And they usually got some real nice strider boots on too....:D

In that case, I happily send them off with their 50 remaining hitpoints. But I was talking about quests like Gianthold Tor, Madstone, and East 3.

Luthen
09-09-2007, 07:40 PM
I'd run the scale like this...

Dominant: Others are in awe of your abbility in X area of the game

Strong: Specilized and good at what you do

Average: Kind of the standard for someone who isn't min-maxing much

Secondary: You can do something but you arn't to be relied on for it as a party role.

Pointless: While you can do something you may as well not bother with it.

NA: It's just something you can't do.

My own battle cleric would probably rate like this...
Casting: Strong
Healing: Average
Combat: Average
Support: Secondary

The thing is.. I don't really have the mana to do all of those at the same time sicne my combat prowes is somewhat dependent on my mana.

This is a great characterization for the class styles. However I also think that the player, as has been mentioned, makes the build scores vary. For me, depending on what quest I am in and how it needs to be played I guess here are my scores from my own PoV:

Casting: Average
Healing: Average (Strong / Dominant if I choose not to melee)
Combat: Strong
Support: Average

Sutek
09-14-2007, 11:09 AM
In that case, I happily send them off with their 50 remaining hitpoints. But I was talking about quests like Gianthold Tor, Madstone, and East 3.

Ok, I conceed that I'm a mana sponge (WF barb duh) but when were in East Threnal 3 and I'm the ONLY tank keeping aggro off the squishies and the ONLY party member taking any damage and I havn't needed 1 heal up to this point because I've been chugging potions after the mobs are dead and I just got stunned from a rust monster and my red bar is plumiting.
SHOOT ME A FRICKIN HEAL!!!!!
Don't just stand there and wait till I hit the floor because guess what, all those mobs that were just kickin my butt are now thinking that u look mighty tastey.

Ok rant over, thanks for listening and have a nice day....

If I could remember that Cleric's name he'd be going on my "DON'T GROUP WITH THIS IDIOT AGAIN" list.

moops
09-14-2007, 02:08 PM
I think it's funny that I get called a Battle Cleric and I rarely swing a weapon. --So many people have different definitions--I get called this because of my kills I suppose, though I will always try to keep people alive while having fun, I play with some clerics who will just let you die.

And I kinda understand this attitude, maybe heal bots do make some people bad players. Sometimes when I PUG I can't believe that so many people have the inability to keep themselves alive, and don't even think about backing off or switching to a dif weapons set if they are taking heavy aggro. I'm not talking normal wear and tear, but people who constantly seem to go down in 2 or 3 hits. I'm used to running with people that don't need much healing for the most part.

Full Paladins who don't use lay on hands have got to be the most annoying. Bards who melee and take a cr@p ton of damage and don't even carry wands, a close 2nd. I went on one PUG recently where I finally decided it would just be easier, and worth the 3 mana pots if I killed everything.

Mad_Bombardier
09-14-2007, 03:46 PM
I went on one PUG recently where I finally decided it would just be easier, and worth the 3 mana pots if I killed everything.A guildie of mine coined the phrase, "Killeric" for situations like that. I've used it ever since. :D

moops
09-14-2007, 03:54 PM
A guildie of mine coined the phrase, "Killeric" for situations like that. I've used it ever since. :D

That is AWESOME!

Katrina
09-14-2007, 03:59 PM
I went on one PUG recently where I finally decided it would just be easier, and worth the 3 mana pots if I killed everything.

You do that all the time :P

killeric :P

Slayer918
09-15-2007, 04:16 PM
Ok so how much of where your character falls into the scale is dependant on player skill?

To me it seems high end healing is all about player ability... if your the type of cleric that just stands back and and heals you somewhat raise ur place here because you reduce the stress on your twitch skills (now horrible pugs not with standing some of those can be brutal...) but healing to me is all about awareness... you have to be aware of the red bars, twitch skill... this to me has 2 levels... your mobility (by far the best defense in the game) and how quickly you can hit heal buttons and select names... Mana restrictions can be fairly easily avoided w/ the amounts of plat available out there heal scrolls are easy to afford...

So is healing based on how much your heals do per hit? or is it based on your ability to keep the group alive? Which while they are related are not dependant on each other (a very alert person will be better off doing 30 point heals then someone who never pays attention doing 60 point heals) and contrary to what the popular belief is it is possible to fight AND heal

Is Combat about maximum DPS or decent dps and blocking some damage through AC? Also player skill can play a huge roll in the amount of damage you take... but less on your dps

Caster is probably the easiest to define in my opinion based on your DCs...
30ish DCs are "Dominant" (10 base +11ish wisdom +7 heightened spells +1 spell focus feat +1 spell focus items)
25-29 DCs are "Strong" (10 base +10ish wisdom +5 spell (greater command and higher level spells) and what else you got)
20-24 DCs are "Average or Secondary" (10 base +8ish wisdom +5 spell level)
Anything lower is more then likely going to be fairly unreliable...

Now what is support cleric? Is it DVs? DVs are much less valuable IMO now that sorcerors can get 1800-1900+ sp, Is it buffs? any cleric can do this? is it a mixture of melee and casting abilities? I just dont get what this is

Sojourner
09-17-2007, 07:16 AM
Now what is support cleric? Is it DVs? DVs are much less valuable IMO now that sorcerors can get 1800-1900+ sp, Is it buffs? any cleric can do this? is it a mixture of melee and casting abilities? I just dont get what this is

Clerics will never be better than 'Good' or 'Very Good' in the Support role because they don't have any useful skills for the party (other than heal, which few clerics take anyways) and they only have a small number of buffs.

llevenbaxx
09-17-2007, 10:23 AM
Ok, I conceed that I'm a mana sponge (WF barb duh) but when were in East Threnal 3 and I'm the ONLY tank keeping aggro off the squishies and the ONLY party member taking any damage and I havn't needed 1 heal up to this point because I've been chugging potions after the mobs are dead and I just got stunned from a rust monster and my red bar is plumiting.
.

No, it doesnt really sound like you are a mana sponge. You said it yourself, you carry your own pots for between battles and you didnt need a single HEAL for most of the mission. Its the characters with no form of CC, who cant take a hit, who cant drop a mob before losing half their hps. If you dont need constant healing, you arent a mana sponge by any definition ive ever heard.

I fall in the:
Casting: Strong/dominant (32 cha, focus items, sup pot VI, highten, maximize,+3 to spell penetration,1300+ sp)
Healing:Strong (use "casting" to lessen load, wand/scroll3 to offset sp needs)
Melee:Average/poor (gave that up around level 10 but originally set up to be able to fight, have para, cursing more for fun than anything)
Support:Strong (key spells only, extendable, try to accomodate special needs, all to lesson healing)Note: no longer cast resists cept in a pinch

Started DDO playing a support/CC wizard, this is basically my cleric version of that. Kinda the best defense is a good offense etc. Do hold myself accountable for all healing in battle. Do not heal mana sponges once identified:D

Zenako
09-17-2007, 11:13 AM
Ok so how much of where your character falls into the scale is dependant on player skill?

To me it seems high end healing is all about player ability... if your the type of cleric that just stands back and and heals you somewhat raise ur place here because you reduce the stress on your twitch skills (now horrible pugs not with standing some of those can be brutal...) but healing to me is all about awareness... you have to be aware of the red bars, twitch skill... this to me has 2 levels... your mobility (by far the best defense in the game) and how quickly you can hit heal buttons and select names... Mana restrictions can be fairly easily avoided w/ the amounts of plat available out there heal scrolls are easy to afford...

So is healing based on how much your heals do per hit? or is it based on your ability to keep the group alive? Which while they are related are not dependant on each other (a very alert person will be better off doing 30 point heals then someone who never pays attention doing 60 point heals) and contrary to what the popular belief is it is possible to fight AND heal

Is Combat about maximum DPS or decent dps and blocking some damage through AC? Also player skill can play a huge roll in the amount of damage you take... but less on your dps

Caster is probably the easiest to define in my opinion based on your DCs...
30ish DCs are "Dominant" (10 base +11ish wisdom +7 heightened spells +1 spell focus feat +1 spell focus items)
25-29 DCs are "Strong" (10 base +10ish wisdom +5 spell (greater command and higher level spells) and what else you got)
20-24 DCs are "Average or Secondary" (10 base +8ish wisdom +5 spell level)
Anything lower is more then likely going to be fairly unreliable...

Now what is support cleric? Is it DVs? DVs are much less valuable IMO now that sorcerors can get 1800-1900+ sp, Is it buffs? any cleric can do this? is it a mixture of melee and casting abilities? I just dont get what this is


Player skill comes in most strongly in the art of Triage. During a battle all cure spells are not equal. If you waste spell points and more importantly TIME healing someone, when it was more important to heal someone else in the party at that point in time, you might end up on the losing end of an encounter. In some battles, some characters are more vital than others to keep active. Making the right choice - Party win, make the wrong choice and PArty wipe. Who is the vital toon (other than yourself) will vary depending on the encounter and tactics being used. Sometimes it is the Tank, sometimes it is the Sorceror.

Knowing which spells to cast on which also comes into play. It does not make a lot of sense to HEAL a sorceror when a Cure Serious might pop them to full health. This is why I ask new players to my group how many HP they have. A 90 HP caster needs different things than a 350 HP Melee. Casting the right spell saves spell points for later. Once you get access to the Mass Cure Spells, those become very useful. Those cast at range, so pick out a good target and you can likely heal most of the characters in battle all at once, with ONE spell. IF the group tends to split off and fight various solo battles all over the map, point out to them that this is very inefficient and wastes time and mana. Many people in battle gain synergy when fighting as a team (Rogues, simple Flanking, special attacks, etc.)

The biggest waste of cleric spell points tend to be casting spells on the wrong targets. Figure out the immunities and remember them.

parvo
09-18-2007, 03:10 PM
The whole discusion of what is the most effective cleric gives me tired head. Fact is they can all be effective. DDOs greatest strength is character variety.