Mistweaver Monk Feedback

Battle for Azeroth Items and Classes
Prev 1 7 8 9 19 Next
I should add that in terms of time actually available to cast Vivify, under the non-TFT-RM casting pattern, we actually have a lot more time with 2 RMs active than with 3. Out of every 4-second interval with 3 RMs active, the first approximately 1.2-1.5 seconds is consumed by the GCD for the RM we just cast, leaving only 2.5-2.8 seconds free to cast Vivify on 3 RMs before one drops off.

In practice, that means that out of every 8 seconds, we only actually have about a 1-1.5-second interval where we can start a Vivify cast and have it land while there are 3 RMs up. We can technically get 2 off in a single 8-second period if we have a little haste, but only if we spam them one after another right after we cast RM. (And no, Soothing Mist doesn't change the calculation.)

In contrast, we have a solid 4 seconds where we can start casting Vivify and have it land with 2 RMs up without delaying our next RM cast.

So while we technically can have 3 RMs up half the time, I'd expect a MW who isn't using TFT for RM to end up casting around twice as many 2-RM Vivifies as 3-RM Vivifies.
05/09/2018 10:01 PMPosted by Zephyrs
If you use TFT on RM as often as possible, you have 1 from 0-8, 2 from 8-16, 3 from 16-24, 4 from 24-28, 3 from 28-30, but you still drop to 2 active RMs from second 30-32, and that repeats at 62-64 etc. I admit 2 seconds out of every 32 is pretty trivial, but it's not 'never', and getting that result does require us to either take FT or only use TFT for RM.


One of those moments when you realize you shouldn't read raw data while tired, literally right in front of me in my notes but didn't notice it.
On that point, a change to the 24 seconds from our artifact would do a world of good to keep the ReM count steady.
05/10/2018 12:05 AMPosted by Ninh
On that point, a change to the 24 seconds from our artifact would do a world of good to keep the ReM count steady.

It really would.

Another option would be for RM's cooldown to be reduced by haste. At 20% haste, an 8-second cooldown would be reduced to 6.67 seconds, so we could keep 3 RMs up with the current 20-second duration. That approach would have the added advantage of helping MW value haste more in raids.
05/09/2018 10:03 PMPosted by Ryfe
The TFT-ReM change makes me weary of MW viability in M+ when group wide healing is needed though. Having Vivify be hard capped at 3 ReM's is going to be sketchy if BfA has similar healing patterns in M+ to Legion.
Yeah, perhaps TFT'd Essence Font could give X second buff that allows Vivify to also heal players with EF's HoT?
05/10/2018 12:28 AMPosted by Zephyrs
05/10/2018 12:05 AMPosted by Ninh
On that point, a change to the 24 seconds from our artifact would do a world of good to keep the ReM count steady.

It really would.

Another option would be for RM's cooldown to be reduced by haste. At 20% haste, an 8-second cooldown would be reduced to 6.67 seconds, so we could keep 3 RMs up with the current 20-second duration. That approach would have the added advantage of helping MW value haste more in raids.


Huge +1 to this.
05/09/2018 08:58 PMPosted by Zephyrs

Am I missing something? The only change I see is the increase from 45% to 60% on secondary targets. That's on the order of a 10-15% overall buff at best, and I'm not sure it's a buff at all if you were habitually using FT TFT with RM. If it wasn't a good spell in the last build, I'm pretty sure it's not a good spell in this build either.


well it's pretty simple, the cleave got a straight buff, and in 5 mans you will now have for pretty much 100% of the time 3 renewing mists out with this TFT change.

TFT-ReM went from a reactive tool to a proactive one in 5 mans, if you can't utilize it well it will be entirely on you.

also seeing the discussion around helping rem spreading/lasting more, i don't think you guys realize that as long as EF exists, vivify being your main source of aoe healing through more rem is just not gonna be a thing

05/09/2018 10:03 PMPosted by Ryfe

The TFT-ReM change makes me weary of MW viability in M+ when group wide healing is needed though. Having Vivify be hard capped at 3 ReM's is going to be sketchy if BfA has similar healing patterns in M+ to Legion.


well that's one more target than legion mw, or much more healing on the main target if he has rem, so ???

now with the daily feedback: pls nerf ut and buff viv again ty
What if TFT ReM applied 2 ReM's at 10 second duration each?

It would help with ReM blanketing for Vivifies in the short term but would come with the cost of less ReM coverage later. It would keep TFT-ReM strong but also come with enough of a cost to let the other TFT options be viable and optimal for other damage patterns.

As it stands with the latest change; using TFT-ReM doesn't increase ReM coverage until 20 seconds after you've used it at which point the 10 second extra duration ReM is still around with the ~3 from normal ReM on CD usage. Having the consequences of a choice come 20-30 seconds after making that choice isn't particularly appealing currently, especially for a spell with a 30 second CD.
05/10/2018 10:38 AMPosted by Ryfe
Having the consequences of a choice come 20-30 seconds after making that choice isn't particularly appealing currently, especially for a spell with a 30 second CD.


This is a fantastic point. A lot can happen in that amount of time, especially in the whack-a-mole landscape that is healing.
05/09/2018 12:54 PMPosted by Tjphess
Lifecycles is good when you want to cast spells you use a lot in 5 mans, which is where you will ever use Lifecycles anyway, unless a niche raid boss fits this talent too well, anything can happen.


It's really just the mechanic that I hate, not a numbers thing.

In Legion I would never have taken it and never had to since we didn't need the mana in small scale content and we had mist wrap on the same tier.

Now that we're left with the options we have on that tier, if you're not fistweaving much, it's just a crapshoot between mana tea and lifecycles. Lifecycles is a super awkward talent that potentially encourages you to waste mana by using a buff when you don't need it. Mana tea would be fine and you could just use it in 5 mans the way a druid uses innervate, but they put it on the GCD, so that feels bad too.

If I need to pick a mana related talent for 5 mans I'd like it to be a compelling choice or interesting talent at least rather than a lame talent I never wanted from Legion and a poor-man's innervate that's now on the GCD.

Passable functioning talent row is too low of a bar.
Teachings of Monastery not resetting Rising Sun Kick is fixed in an upcoming build.
05/10/2018 10:38 AMPosted by Ryfe
What if TFT ReM applied 2 ReM's at 10 second duration each?

It would help with ReM blanketing for Vivifies in the short term but would come with the cost of less ReM coverage later. It would keep TFT-ReM strong but also come with enough of a cost to let the other TFT options be viable and optimal for other damage patterns.

As it stands with the latest change; using TFT-ReM doesn't increase ReM coverage until 20 seconds after you've used it at which point the 10 second extra duration ReM is still around with the ~3 from normal ReM on CD usage. Having the consequences of a choice come 20-30 seconds after making that choice isn't particularly appealing currently, especially for a spell with a 30 second CD.


This would be far less effective in a raid environment and would make it harder to use ReM to dump your second use of TFT when talented into Focused Thunder. Assuming you're in a dungeon and saving TFT for Enveloping Mist as a bursty single target heal, if no one else is taking enough damage to warrant a second Enveloping Mist your only worthwhile option is to throw out an extended ReM, and there's a decent chance it will be a gain at some point in its 30s duration. If it gave two half duration ReMs instead, that could actually be a net negative if there's not enough damage to warrant it and you lose them both early (and if there is enough damage, you could use a second EnvM instead).

Speaking of which, a QoL change I'd like to see is for Focused Thunder to put TFT on a 2 charge system with reduced (if not halved, which might be too strong) charge time. That would eliminate a lot of the awkwardness I just described by not forcing us to use it twice back to back, and give more flexibility in using it on a ReM prior to a big pull while still holding one charge for an emergency spot heal.
also seeing the discussion around helping rem spreading/lasting more, i don't think you guys realize that as long as EF exists, vivify being your main source of aoe healing through more rem is just not gonna be a thing

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this:

Essence. Font. Has. A. Cooldown. Now.

I'm not looking for Vivify to become my main source of AoE healing. I'm asking for changes that will help it fill more-or-less the same gap it does on live, providing substantial amounts of AoE healing in between Essence Fonts. I like being in the holy priest/shaman AoE category, with a cooldown AoE and a powerful filler AoE; I don't want to be moved into the paladin category, with one cooldown AoE and then flash heal filler that maybe does some splash healing on the tanks.

(And no, I don't want to hear about RJW. It's not a filler, it's a talent that replaces one of my favourites, and it doesn't even fill Vivify's niche. My raid has 11 people most nights and like 9 of them are hunters.)


The problem is that what you're describing is absolutely not how Vivify works on live. We are already in the holy Paladin camp; Vivify is a very bad "filler" heal and not even close to comparable with a Priest or Shaman. With the changes it will be functionally the same, with a reduced mana cost.
05/10/2018 01:36 PMPosted by Syllarra
We are already in the holy Paladin camp; Vivify is a very bad "filler" heal and not even close to comparable with a Priest or Shaman. With the changes it will be functionally the same, with a reduced mana cost.

That's not true.

CH without High Tide is 832.2% of SP (plus Mastery) on 3 targets in 2.5 seconds for 55k mana. High Tide brings it up to 1029%. (Edit: It's actually 1245% with the artifact, plus some additional crit chance.)

Live non-UT Vivify is 900% of SP (plus Mastery) on 3 targets in 1.5 seconds for 44k mana. (Edit: It's actually 1274% with the artifact and no Vivify relics). Any UT procs increase the average.

In practice, it's hard to do a proper comparison, because shaman Mastery is included in their CH numbers and its value varies by fight and difficulty. But if I add my Mastery into my Vivify numbers, my average Vivify cast is usually more than our equally-geared shaman's average CH cast. And it's 40% faster and 20% cheaper. And I think it has a longer 'jump' distance, too.

I will grant that PoH is probably stronger than both spells, mostly because I don't have an equally-geared priest cohealer to compare with. But live Vivify is comparable to CH.

And with the changes it will not be functionally the same; it will be functionally 40% weaker on each secondary target, with fewer UT procs making it weaker overall, compensated only by sometimes having a third secondary target. (We can essentially always have a third secondary target, but that requires us to use a charge of TFT on RM every 32 seconds. Which is actually what I pretty much always do on live, but on the beta it now feels mandatory (to make Vivify not suck) while also somehow being less desirable (because the TFT RM effect is less powerful and I'm curious to try one of the new talents on that row instead of being stuck with FT).
i do feel the vivify change doesnt go far enough. it's in a state where they want to bring back the uplift mechanic but seems scared to go all the way.
It feels like the legion version but more tedious for similar gains.
Either give us something, talented/baseline/cooldown, to have lots of ReM out at a given time or just get back to the legion version. I mean its cool to have set up mechanism if its rewarding, not really it your doing worse or same as a guy just clicking one ability.

I'd like to see a talent choice for our statue too (+ make it baseline?) something that would complement the "RSK healing build".
05/10/2018 03:37 PMPosted by Zephyrs


In practice, it's hard to do a proper comparison, because shaman Mastery is included in their CH numbers and its value varies by fight and difficulty. But if I add my Mastery into my Vivify numbers, my average Vivify cast is usually more than our equally-geared shaman's average CH cast. And it's 40% faster and 20% cheaper. And I think it has a longer 'jump' distance, too.


While "not even close to comparable" was probably unfair on my part (I was thinking strictly without UT since you're describing it as a "filler" spell which rules out waiting for a proc,but you're including it, which is fine), you also need to factor in that Chain Heal refunds mana on each crit, generates a charge of Tidal Waves, and feeds into Cloudburst Totem (25% with 50% uptime).

And with the changes it will not be functionally the same; it will be functionally 40% weaker on each secondary target, with fewer UT procs making it weaker overall, compensated only by sometimes having a third secondary target. (We can essentially always have a third secondary target, but that requires us to use a charge of TFT on RM every 32 seconds. Which is actually what I pretty much always do on live, but on the beta it now feels mandatory (to make Vivify not suck) while also somehow being less desirable (because the TFT RM effect is less powerful and I'm curious to try one of the new talents on that row instead of being stuck with FT).


Functionally the same. There's no point in stressing about the spell's relative power when every healer is in such a state of flux due to the stat squish and removal of artifact traits (Shamans are in a pretty bad state right now). As long as you are maintaining ReM, which is something we already do in live, it will still be hitting at least 3 targets just like it does now. If you think too much power is consolidated in EF and not enough in Vivify, that's valid feedback, but that's exactly in line with live, not a dramatic change in Vivify's standing.
The lvl 100 row is feeling a bit awkward for dungeons as of this last build.

RM is just not suited for this content, which is fine tbh, if you talent UW it's basically only for the EF hot extension, meaning you benefit from only half the talent, and that leaves FT.

While the new TFT-ReM is great to constantly keep 3 rems going, there are those odd situations where you just don't do anything with the second charge, mainly due to no healing required, so the only option remaining is waiting 8s to throw out a second extended ReM, therefore delaying your next TFT use by quite a lot. If you want to go all out on doing damage during that time, you can't since RSK will just eat the second charge.

Maybe try changing FT to give TFT 2 charges reloading more often, instead of empowering the next 2 spells? or anything to make this situation less awkward tbh.
Anyone tested if the new iteration of Renewing Mist this build will proc mastery on initial target or the other target where it's jumping right away (if it was already on target) ?
What are the dev's intention with the current iteration of MW? How many ReM's are they expecting us to be able to put out, in order to combo with Vivify?
05/11/2018 02:21 PMPosted by Karuzo
Anyone tested if the new iteration of Renewing Mist this build will proc mastery on initial target or the other target where it's jumping right away (if it was already on target) ?


it doesnt

05/11/2018 03:07 PMPosted by Klystronn
What are the dev's intention with the current iteration of MW? How many ReM's are they expecting us to be able to put out, in order to combo with Vivify?


in 5 mans you can have 3 rems out constantly, in raids more like 2-3 since you won't tft-rem nearly as much.

after this raid testing i gotta say, tft-rsk feels damn good with RM. wondering what they will do with the totm tuning, if it involves building up to eventually have a guaranteed reset that'd be nuts and cool at the same time lol

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum