Can Channelers soloheal well?

Rogue/Fighter/Coercer

whats T1?

Sorc/pred/summoner

Granted, most summoners are pretty awful and are T2 at best.

As you stated before... Soo ... many.... horrible.... necros... on.... FG

Keeping in mind a lot of summoner DPS comes from their AA builds, which are not available yet.

a lot of classes have a DPS boost from AAs. I pretty sure he was talking about whats going on right now. While I don't see summoners doing DPS that compares to sorc dps, apparently its not the classes fault its the users.

I mean, heal parse doesn't matter.

There will be fights that the warden is infinitely better than shamans/clerics because of tortoise shell and shatter infections.

This of course is a rare occasion, in the current balance it would be criminal to run anything other than a shaman/channeler in each tank group because a channeler is essentially a permanent 35% damage reduction to the tank if you really think about it, which is better than anything a templar/warden brings period. And shamans are still bananas.

If anything it makes clerics useless because two mage groups is the way to go honestly, and furies parse more than inquisitors and have more tools to keep a mage group alive.

I always thought that healer balance was exceptional until channelers came into play, Shamans soaked up damage and warden/templar reduced incoming damage while fury/inquis were offensive healers, it worked out great.

Once channelers get their group intercept/vector of life they honestly become one of the better healers in game, why would I put a druid in a group when I can just have a channeler give them essentially permanent damage reduction (when KoS hits with group intercept).

The only time a fury can outheal a channeler is when they get stormbringer's fury in chains of eternity in like two years and they can permanently give the group like 16% damage reduction between that, autumn's kiss DR and storming thoughts.

Now the real question is if the healing that a channeler can bring is required, there were lots of encounters when they introduced channelers that if we ran four, we could easily cheese through mobs but instead I played a fury because I could push out 2-3x more damage and keep the group alive~

As I said above, four channeler's is completely viable and one of the better healer setups for survive-ability, but the question of if the class is required is yet to be seen, I compare them to swashbucklers a lot.

Yes they reduce mobs damage (heal a lot) but is it required for the groups outside of tank groups, and even when they introduced them we cleared the entire expansion without a single one they were introduced in.

As far as channelers being nerfed kander responded to this:
"Hey brother, are there any plans to reduce the outgoing heals of channelers next expansion? The are grossly overhealing other healers at the moment."


"Yes."

Inq's are just in a bad state on TLE other than being buff bots, the difference between having one in our scout group vs not having one is ridiculous.

The class is at its peak usefulness now, once KoS hits its better to have a warden solo heal a scout group due to tortoise shell and the group death save.

Rogues should be t1.25 but poor balance choices prevent this from happening.

Rogues have always been t2 dps cuz of their utility... even though brigands got beat with the nerf bat just about every expansion before lvl 80 (remember all the QQ about amazing reflexes). Fighters bards and chanters t3, and healers bringing up the back. Of course gear, play style, and group make-up changes things up on an individual basis, and some people seem to think there are only 2 tiers of dps.

I'm not surprised if they nerf channeler, they really shouldn't even be on this server.

Umm no. Brigands were parsing extremely well for a very long time and swashbucklers were as well, they were never assassins but arealik made sure of that.

There was a time in later expansions where brigands were able to keep up with other dps classes with the double up change/blinding dust if you knew what to press.

umm no what? If your brig is keeping up with your assassin and ranger, that's user error. T1.25 isn't even a thing.

You're gonna sit here and tell me that ghaalon is a bad player(necro)? I mean we did have terrell on a brigand one of the best brigands to ever play the game but come on man.

I'm in no way saying they were more dps than t1's ever, but they were pretty close for awhile and the fact that they typically don't have to joust at all, they can get pretty close.

I mean if you gave really any class a stacked group they can top a parse, if we gave terrell a warden,mystic,dirge,coe, and a zerker yes he would beat our assassin (koldsteel!) on the parse.

You can really make a lot of classes top parses based on buffs.

Will this be the case on TLE? No.

Were they better dps wise in OG days? Yes

Should they parse the same as predators? No, then there would be no reason to bring a predator, both classes play their roles but there is no reason rogues should parse less than enchanters.

Illusionists bring more raid wide at the moment than an predators/sorcs technically because of rapidity/synergism and the large amounts of damage they do and its a large oversight.

Class balance is pretty wack at the moment, our FURY does more damage than our brigand on a lot of fights and I can see a well played fury continuing to beat brigands for a long time.

So, all that to say brigs are t2 dps? I don't get your argument or disagreement. And I have no idea who you are talking about, but like I said: "Of course gear, play style, and group make-up changes things up on an individual basis,"

When you are talking about dps, you have to make some basic assumptions. Some assumptions like you aren't going to compare a buffed class to an unbuffed class. Yea, if you buff a swash and not the assassin, the swash is going to parse better... that says nothing about the dps potential of the class.

I'm trying to say they shouldn't be t2 dps lol, i'm trying to make the point that they shouldn't be at 1k if the enchanters can break around 1400-1500 on the parse.

In a perfect world:
Sin/Wizards tops single target
Ranger/Warlock tops aoe
Swash does more in Aoe than brig, brig wins on single
Summoners are comparable to wizards

There is no way at the moment you can make a brigand top a parse, our brig gets the same group as our two predators, the Inq/Coe group and he gets the same buffs as us but the ranger takes enraging for the potency and inquest for the flurry. But those two buffs don't make up a thousand + dps on the parse.

"I'm trying to say they shouldn't be t2 dps"
Oh, I got ya. I disagree with that because rogues bring more utility than predators, in mob debuffs (and cc for non-raid content). T1 dps should be glass cannons. For example, assassin gets very little utility, and playing to full dps potential is harder because of requirements on CAs. An assassin might fail to pull off a concealement chain due to aoes and dots, while a swash just has to (mostly) stand somewhere within the rear quadrant to deliver max dps, and useful debuffs.

I don't think pure utility classes like enchanters should be in T2 dps (and def not T1 dps), but at some point around EoF they became a spammy fast casting proc class, and then coercers got dps buff in RoK or TSO. Probably because low dps utility classes are no fun to play, but you "need" 8 bards and chanters per raid.

At the end of the day everyone has their own idea on how the game should work, and it's up to the remaining skeleton of a dev team to make those choices.

At least the devs made an effort to tune raids with chans in mind, even if it took a few tries. It means the are paying attention to the server, unlike the test server Stormhold.

As for templar comments, what do you mean by debuffs/dam mitigation? Currently, I have one raid debuff and the passive group/tank buffs. The rest of the useful spells are heal reactives. My place in the raid is to supplement the shaman wards and battle rez folk.