Topic What's healing better at 85 atm?
I'm sitting on an 83 priest, 82 shaman, and 80 druid. I played the priest till 83, RAN OUT OF MANA AS SHADOW!(I'm still annoyed with that), and decided that a year and a half of swearing due to being OOM will make both my brain, AND my vocal cords hurt, so it only makes sense to start bringing one of my other healers up to 85.
Now, the all important question IS: in a co-ordinated 5man heroic(I don't care about 80-84...or nonheroic 85. I love hard dungeons, and can see myself happily spending the next year on tricky bosses), what is healing better, Druids, or shamans?
I mean...druids have replenishment
Shams get the potential for telluric currents tho(I understand that ghost wolf is probably more important than ele precision...but...ele precision makes me so happy that I have to take it)
so...I'm torn. and foolish.
TL:DR. what's the most awesome healer out of these 2 potential heals atm?
Definitely Paladins. Not too sure about Druids if you're gonna pug. Both of our direct heals are inefficient when it comes to how much they heal for compared to health pools. Rejuv costs too much mana and Regrowth is a dead spell. I'm not sure why they nerfed all the Druid HoTs if we're supposed to be raid healers/the HoT healers. The only good HoT we have right now is Lifebloom, which is put on the tank. So I guess we're "okay" tank healers now?
Edited by Punchline on 12/10/10 10:50 AM (PST)
At that point it isn't a failure for you as healer, it is a failure for the group. I wiped quite a bit on the first boss of H GB because we didn't understand the change to the fight. Once we understood it, the fight was trivial. If you explained it to them and they didn't understand or care, it is their fault you wiped.
Rather than complain about how bad healing is, why aren't people complaining about how bad the player base is?