[gamedoctor]

Hey everyone,

after playing a cleric and BM both to level 10, I have to make a decision on which I want to play to 50. I love healing classes, and I NORMALLY prefer melee, but I really liek BM's as well. So, to help me get some perspectives, I decided I would ask SV's opinions on which is better.

Cleric -
+ I enjoy melee
+ i enjoy hybridization
+ I like the idea of being able to specialise my cleric

BM -
+New class so I get to learn new spells and such
+ I feel BMs solo a bit better then clerics
- Dont like the robes looks much

In any case, which do you guys think is the better GROUPER? (I really enjoy grouping), which is a faster killer in solo, and which would be overall better for me to play at this point? Any and all advice is appreciated.

[Gecon]

All in all, Bloodmage is more powerful. OTOH Cleric is a LOT easier to play, and operates a bit better in standard situations. Besides, Bloodmages will definitely rule when Raids are going in.

Cleric:
+ Good "easy" to play healing class, just put a HoT on.
+ Second best Warrior buffer (best is Bear Shaman).
+ Very good defense for a healer, can handle an add.
+ Depending upon Affinity, may have some other extras (War/Purity however only give better dps).
- Not very good in respect to burst healing.
- Cant buff mages much.
- Bad offense (a bit better for Death/War Affinities).

Bloodmage
+ An abundance of healing spells for different situations, including the best HoT of all healers (plus a lesser HoT which is much easier to use), a manafree instant healing ritual, etc.
+ Very complex possibilities thanks to a lot of special spells (Blood Union etc).
+ A lot of tool buff spells (symbiotes).
+ Can damage mob and heal, at the same time.
+ Very good offense (some say on high levels/40+ even more damage than Sorcerer).
+ Good general buffing for all classes.
+ Invisibility on Self, Invul for 6 secs on Self etc.
- Starts off with really bad buffing (defense oriented), before you get the nifty stuff later.
- Symbiotes require a lot of bag space.
- Bad defense, only mage class that can hardly kite, no Area damage spells.
- Very complex to play.
- Depends completely upon Mana.

[Seven_PRX]

Basicly:

BM: better healing, better mitigation (40+%) and more damage.

Cleric: probably more fun to play.

For groups a BM is certainly better if you look at the healing.

[kastickboy]

Originally Posted by Seven_PRX

Basicly:

BM: better healing, better mitigation (40+%) and more damage.

Cleric: probably more fun to play.

For groups a BM is certainly better if you look at the healing.

Having a 43 BMG and having a discussion on mitgation with a 50 BMG, my mit is at 16.6% and his at about 18.5-19%. BMG will never be at 40% mit

Having a CLR alt, i see the cleric as the easy one to play. Tanks mobs well, good damage through endurance use, and healing very effectively with alleviate. probably better than BMG in a duo/trio for single target healing effectiveness.

in a Full group BMG blows the CLR away in healing. Definitely a lot more going on with a bmg than clr. between stance dancing, use of small hot vs large hot, use of pacts, and building/using Blood Union it is a very fun class to play. I like a challenge and my BMG brings all i need to the plate. But when i want to just beat a mob in the face, i load up the CLR.

KA

[Shtychkn]

I cant say which is better, I've never played a BM....

I do know that when I was in the low 20's to early 30's I could not keep a Psi or Sorc alive long enough to tank a even con 4 dot mob alive on my Cleric. however, I trio in a group as a Psi with a Sorc and a BM and the BM can keep my Psi alive tanking a even con 4 dot mob with no problem. So that tends to lean my judgment towards them being the better healers.


However, having played a Cleric to 40, I've never had a problem keeping my group alive. Sure, I've lost a sorc or Psi to an add here or there, but keeping a group alive, even when fighting 4+ even con 4 dots has been very easy.


Over all I'd say healing in this game is a bit to easy.

[Cas]

Originally Posted by kastickboy

Having a 43 BMG and having a discussion on mitgation with a 50 BMG, my mit is at 16.6% and his at about 18.5-19%. BMG will never be at 40% mit

As I said in the other thread on the Shaman board, 18.6%(or whatever he had) is very low for a self buffed BM at 50. It's below average, without a doubt.

That said, 40% self buffed, isn't going to happen for a BM. I have seen 32 and 36% group buffed without Sanguine Focus however(which would add another 15%).

[Roamer]

Originally Posted by Gecon

Cleric:
1) Not very good in respect to burst healing.
2) Cant buff mages much.

Just have to comment on these two points:
1) Clerics are perhaps not the best at burst healing, but they're without a doubt QUITE good at it. Especially in healers stance.

2) BIG hp/ac buff, int/wis buff, con buff for even more hp/resists...what else do you want to give a caster? IMO clerics make damn good caster buffers.

To reply to the OP:
IMO its a weigh off between melee abilities (cleric) and lots of useful spells (BM). In terms of group usefulness both are very good, and for soloing I think clerics may solo a bit harder mobs, but BMs solo faster. So its really about what you prefer, meleeing or casting.

[kastickboy]

Originally Posted by Cas

As I said in the other thread on the Shaman board, 18.6%(or whatever he had) is very low for a self buffed BM at 50. It's below average, without a doubt.

That said, 40% self buffed, isn't going to happen for a BM. I have seen 32 and 36% group buffed without Sanguine Focus however(which would add another 15%).

Oh yeah im sure you could get a BM up to 40% in sanguine and with group buffs, but then again everyone else in the group is going to have the same buffs also... In terms of comparing classes, i make all my arguments in the idea that this is self buffed non-grouped. Sorry i didnt point that out...

KA

[Cas]

Originally Posted by kastickboy

Oh yeah im sure you could get a BM up to 40% in sanguine and with group buffs, but then again everyone else in the group is going to have the same buffs also... In terms of comparing classes, i make all my arguments in the idea that this is self buffed non-grouped. Sorry i didnt point that out...

KA

In groups the BM has the biggest advantage thouh. they gain all the buffs from the other healers plus their own self buffs. And the stance on top of it.

Anyway, the 36% was group buffed, but without the SF stance. The Cleric was equally well geared, if not better and had 37% iirc.

[kastickboy]

Originally Posted by Cas

In groups the BM has the biggest advantage thouh. they gain all the buffs from the other healers plus their own self buffs. And the stance on top of it.

Anyway, the 36% was group buffed, but without the SF stance. The Cleric was equally well geared, if not better and had 37% iirc.

granted we do have the option to go into our healing stance to add mit/healing effectiveness, however damage output is then reduced by 50%. so how does getting more mit/hf by reducing damage output not fair?

KA

[Drekor]

+ Very good offense (some say on high levels/40+ even more damage than Sorcerer).

Main reason for this is quickening symbiote, which can be cast on a sorc just as easily.

[Gecon]

Originally Posted by Drekor

Main reason for this is quickening symbiote, which can be cast on a sorc just as easily.

Sorry, now you lost me there. Yes you can cast buff spells on others. But there is no way a sorcerer can RELY on having a quickening symbiote cast on him, while a Bloodmage surely can rely on having the own buffs up.

[Gecon]

Originally Posted by Roamer

2) BIG hp/ac buff, int/wis buff, con buff for even more hp/resists...what else do you want to give a caster? IMO clerics make damn good caster buffers.

Errm - you are not serious, are you ? As a rule, a caster doesnt get hit - or he's dead meat. Our Int/Wis Buff is the weakest version of that buff on any class that actually gets an Int buff...

Compare that to what a Phoenix Shaman can serve you. Spell Haste and Mana Regeneration are a lot more useful and a lot more effective to your dps, and Runspeed will make your kiting better, too.

[Seven_PRX]

Then why was it 2 days ago I was grouped with a BM who had >40%mitigation?

[Cas]

Originally Posted by Seven_PRX

Then why was it 2 days ago I was grouped with a BM who had >40%mitigation?

Because they can reach those numbers easily, when using their healer stance.

[Seven_PRX]

Originally Posted by Cas

Because they can reach those numbers easily, when using their healer stance.

Yup, I know :-) But somebody was saying level 50 BMs only get like 18% mitigation :-))

[Gecon]

Originally Posted by Seven_PRX

Yup, I know :-) But somebody was saying level 50 BMs only get like 18% mitigation :-))

Which might be a much more realistic estimate than this endless 40% floating around. 40% is when they are in sanguine focus and dont deal much damage anymore (their direct heals are better then, though).

[Tashim]

Originally Posted by Gecon

Which might be a much more realistic estimate than this endless 40% floating around. 40% is when they are in sanguine focus and dont deal much damage anymore (their direct heals are better then, though).

A bloodmage relying on direct heals, will be far less effective than one that uses their entire arsenal. What people often don't realize, is that a bloodmage's dps directly affects how well they heal. At the end of beta, when bloodmage dps was dropped by 30% across the board, they were terrible healers, because their healing also got reduced.

Sanguine Focus, does improve their direct heals some, but it cuts their dps in half, which also cuts most of their effectiveness as well. That would be like having the warrior's defensive stance cut his agro-generation in half.

A bloodmage is not a very good reactive healer. Their spells are slow, but they do heal for a significant amount. Their effectiveness is dependent on their Blood Union, which takes time to build. To compensate for this, however, bloodmages have pacts. They reduce the need for reactive heals, by spreading damage out. This causes more damage overall, but that is something a bloodmage can deal with.

While the new affinities added to clerics does help their flexibility, it doesn't really add to their complexity. In my experience, a poor bloodmage will be alot more dangerous than a poor cleric, but a skillful bloodmage will likewise be alot more effective than a skillful cleric.

Overall, a cleric is easier to play with less intensity, whereas a bloodmage is alot more complicated to play but the extra effort does pay off. If you like a challenge, and work well under pressure, then I'd recommend bloodmage all the way. If you like to play more laid-back, and be useful and effective, then I'd recommend a cleric.

[kastickboy]

Originally Posted by Seven_PRX

Yup, I know :-) But somebody was saying level 50 BMs only get like 18% mitigation :-))

Self Buffed in FoG Stance with Plated Symbiote = 18%

KA

[Drekor]

Originally Posted by Seven_PRX

Yup, I know :-) But somebody was saying level 50 BMs only get like 18% mitigation :-))

BM's are not your typical healer. Dropping into heal stance and spamming traditional energy heals is a BM's last line of defense and typically means they're already ****ed, they're just trying to piss you off by making it take longer.

BM's healing prowess comes from draining the life from you into an ally. This is based off their int and SDF... that means damage. Healing stance halves damage, which makes it terrible for despoil and EV. Gelenia on the other hand boosts damage by 25% as well as builds blood union allowing you some big damage, just as good healing as well as far superior efficiency. Gelenia unlike sanguine(the healer stance) does not have any mitigation buffs in fact you lose 5% of your HP every 5 seconds using it but it is the standard stance to be in.

I'm at about 15% mitigation I believe, that's without plated because I use frenzied most of the time. This is on top of the fact my avoidance is terrible I think it's like 4% whereas my shaman has around 30% avoidance and around 10% mitigation. The overall result is my shaman takes less damage.

Sorry, now you lost me there. Yes you can cast buff spells on others. But there is no way a sorcerer can RELY on having a quickening symbiote cast on him, while a Bloodmage surely can rely on having the own buffs up.

Uh, sure it is... get a static group setup with a bloodmage. The fact you want to run completely solo or want to avoid bloodmages like the plague is stupidity, MMO's are not and likely never will be balanced for 1v1, a well buffed sorc will destroy a BM in damage. Selfbuffed on the other hand this is not so because they want to encourage you to group with others to create a solid community that relies on each other.