+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Doesnt Lifegiving viel deserve its own seperate spec? chloro 1.3

  1. #1
    Telaran
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    99

    Default Doesnt Lifegiving viel deserve its own seperate spec? chloro 1.3

    Like the title says, FOR PVE,

    doesnt the very nature of the chloromancer post 1.3 suggest that 2 different specs should be used? one for tank healing and lifebound veil, and a seperate spec for lifegiving?

    in order to answer this question, the first thing we have to ask is, what do you lose by going under 51 pts into chloro.

    at 51 you recieve void life and the single target heal.

    now, void life triggers heals on your synthesis target, and natural healing, though arguably useful in some fights you aoe heal on, does not particularly synergize with lifegiving veil and its intended purpose. in order to make full use of a lifegiving veil chloro, their should be considerable raid damage throughout a fight. instances are hylas, greenscale, half of warmaster fight, so on and so forth.

    so the two 51 point abilities may not be completely necessary to raid heal as a chloro. so lets go down to 44.

    If we did go down to 44 and stop at natural splendor, we would take 7 points our of chloro.

    "livining infusion" reduces the damage converted into healing by lifegiving veil by .5% per point above 31. so in this case going down to 44 removes 7 points, or 3.5% healing conversion from damage.

    if the supposition is correct that the 51 pt abilities are uncessary for a raid healing chloro, the question has to be, can we gain a greater benifit than 3.5% healing conversion by spending these 7 points elsewhere?

    one typical build gives 10 points into warlock, and 5 into elementalist, this for the purpose of 5% crit, 10% chance to insta cast, and 25% more charge created, highly useful for abilities such as entropic veil. also goodies such as life tap are included.


    if we were, for example, to simply put the 7 points into warlock, we might chose to gain 10% more health (bigger essence surges, survivability) and 2% crit. at this point, we could also move 3 pts from ele to warlock, maintaing 3 crit, but gaining sac life damage, moratility, and an aoe raid buff. at this point in time we are looking at 2/44/20

    comparitively to the 51 chloro, we are losing natural healing, a crappy void life spell, 3.5% conversion,

    and gaining 2% crit, 10% health, and some toolbox semi usefull spells (endo, sac life: dmg),
    alternatively, we could take the 2% out of ele and put it into warlock for 4% spell damage. this would probably be an overall dmg increase, especially considering certain factors such as diminished returns on crit in raid situations if you have stack a large amount of crit.

    by removing the 2 from ele, we could take 0 pt archon, and get the intellegence/wis buff from pillaging stone, as well as yet ANOTHER endurance increase from the archon dot... we are starting to stack alot of health, lol!

    at this point i think its fair to say 44/22 is a superior spec.

    http://rift.zam.com/en/stc.html?t=1z...uqA0zRR.xx0V0V

    as you can see, the points taken out of chloro are inconsequental tree branch abilities. natural fusiona and sympathetic bond are useless, remember, we are talking lifegiving here.

    and the 3 pts in wild abandon is loller skates unless your pvping i guess. but this is a pve thread.

    if you are willing to toss out natural splendor, there might be some points you can move from chloro over to warlock to get more spell damage, ( the next 8 points in lock give 16% damage, thats almost like having an entropic veil up all the time), but i havent had time to consider if losing natural spelndor and even more conversion from living infusion is worth going deeper in lock. hopefully someone else can evaluate that.

    if you did, you might be able to sac abilities such as "natures swiftness" in the chloro tree to get warlock points, but im not sure where else you start taking points out. perhaps the brez, since honestly how often do you need it on cooldown?


    anyways in conclusion, taking 7 pts out of chloro for a deeper warlock tree seems like a must for chloro LIFEGIVING ONLY healing. possibly going even deeper into lock and shallower into chloro could be worth it.

  2. #2
    Soulwalker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Yes, thats right. If u take care about the grp-heal in raid situations u should go 36/30 chlor/warlock for more dps and I guess more hps.

    Missing 7,5% healeffi from the passive talent but you get 5% crit and 20% more dmg -> more heal

    If u are heal on MT maybe 51 chloro is good choice but I dont know how much goes lost in overheal

  3. #3
    Telaran Zarokima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodeo99 View Post
    If u are heal on MT maybe 51 chloro is good choice but I dont know how much goes lost in overheal
    There's no maybe about it, you have to be 51 Chloro if you want to main heal. And while a Chloro/Lock hybrid is a bit better for aoe healing, if you suddenly have to switch to main heals (because the MH went down for whatever reason, and there's no battle rez up) then you're SOL. 51 Chloro still does respectable aoe healing anyway, so you can save the plat for the extra role slot and use the same spec for both without any worries.

  4. #4
    Plane Touched cagey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    209

    Default

    I would argue that you can cut it down even further. Something barebones like this.

    You have two "I lagged and stood in the fire." moves. And plenty of healing output. The rest of the Chloromancer tree doesn't mesh with aoe healing with the exception of Living Infusion. You have 5 stacks of Pillaging Stone and even more health for Essence Surge.

    I'll let the others do the math on the difference in the two specs.

  5. #5
    Plane Touched cagey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarokima View Post
    There's no maybe about it, you have to be 51 Chloro if you want to main heal. And while a Chloro/Lock hybrid is a bit better for aoe healing, if you suddenly have to switch to main heals (because the MH went down for whatever reason, and there's no battle rez up) then you're SOL. 51 Chloro still does respectable aoe healing anyway, so you can save the plat for the extra role slot and use the same spec for both without any worries.
    This very well might be true.

  6. #6
    Champion of Telara
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,263

    Default

    I am going to try a 38Lock/28Chloro build for group heals. It will allow me to group heal when needed, but dps when healing is not needed.
    I am a lawyer in real life, but I try to roleplay an honorable character ;)

  7. #7
    Champion
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    584

    Default

    Tank healing (with flexible AoE healing): http://rift.zam.com/en/stc.html?t=0z...IuqAIkRR.McV.V

    Strictly AoE healing (does about 10% more HPS and 20% more DPS): http://rift.zam.com/en/stc.html?t=0z...A0zok.xx0V0VVx

  8. #8
    Telaran Zarokima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Update on that 51 Chloro comment: My guild did our first run of RoS last night with me as the AoE Chloro. I'm running this build and I had the highest hps by a pretty good margin, often breaking 1k hps.

  9. #9
    Rift Master sculti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    652

    Default

    something like this
    http://rift.zam.com/en/stc.html?t=0z...o.xx0V0VVx.McV
    should be best raidheal actually

    passive int scales pretty well with chloro
    you lose natural splendor compared to 51 chloro, which is pretty amazing but has a huge cd
    you lose 2,5% heal conversion compared to 36/30

    since you cant tankheal with this specc anyways theres no need to go further into chloro + you gain pretty nice dominator utility spells (memory wipe/reflective command)

  10. #10
    Plane Touched bluetick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Veev View Post
    Tank healing (with flexible AoE healing): http://rift.zam.com/en/stc.html?t=0z...IuqAIkRR.McV.V

    Strictly AoE healing (does about 10% more HPS and 20% more DPS): http://rift.zam.com/en/stc.html?t=0z...A0zok.xx0V0VVx
    tank healing -- youre much better off taking 10 in lock for opportunity, when it procs the chance to cast NH on the tank or party member is just too much to pass up.
    Dear Players,
    We really don't have a Vision for the Mage Class. We are just winging it based on conversations around the water cooler. Occasionally we hire a Shaman to come read squirrel entrails. He says he can predict the future and it makes a tasty sandwich when he is done, so who are we to argue. Please continue to insert your $15 per month and have a nice day.

  11. #11
    Plane Touched
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarokima View Post
    ...And while a Chloro/Lock hybrid is a bit better for aoe healing...
    Having run both quite a bit, I'd go as far as to say "substantially better" -- you lose the ability to tank heal as effectively since you need to be 51 into chloro to fully benefit from LBV, but it's hard to compete with a blatant 20% increase to your damage, which are in turn converted straight to heals at a 112.5% rate.

  12. #12
    Telaran Sephora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Definitely better aoe healing, been running it since 1.3 came out and popped my hps from 1900 to 2600 on the same fight and in the same gear.
    If you ran warlock/chloro pre 1.3 you wont have a problem adjusting to this spec since it's so similiar. I pretty much just replaced Nature's Touch with Nature's Fury and pop Wild growth more since it's a 1 min cd now instead of a 2 min cd.

    Since this is a purely aoe healing spec I wouldn't bother specing into synthesis and nature's touch. While using LGV NT puts out so much less healing then it used to, does less then ruin and vs. I just use Nature's Fury instead of NT, shorter cast time too!

    A bare bones aoe healing spec wouldn't be as beneficial because of Living Fusion (pts spent above 31 increases LGV & LBV) In a 51 pt build you get 120% to LGV, in the 36 pt chloro you only get 112% but you get +20% damage increase from warlock as well as +5% crit, the other bonuses I didn't list cuz you can still get those with being 51 pt chloro and specing into warlock as your other option.

    Heres the Spec I run, similiar to the other posted ones but without points in NT and SYnth and more into bumping up the healing output from more useful abilities.
    http://rift.zam.com/en/stc.html?t=0z...VVx.gdIhVA00Ro

  13. #13
    Plane Touched
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sephora View Post
    Definitely better aoe healing, been running it since 1.3 came out and popped my hps from 1900 to 2600 on the same fight and in the same gear.
    If you ran warlock/chloro pre 1.3 you wont have a problem adjusting to this spec since it's so similiar. I pretty much just replaced Nature's Touch with Nature's Fury and pop Wild growth more since it's a 1 min cd now instead of a 2 min cd.

    Since this is a purely aoe healing spec I wouldn't bother specing into synthesis and nature's touch. While using LGV NT puts out so much less healing then it used to, does less then ruin and vs. I just use Nature's Fury instead of NT, shorter cast time too!

    A bare bones aoe healing spec wouldn't be as beneficial because of Living Fusion (pts spent above 31 increases LGV & LBV) In a 51 pt build you get 120% to LGV, in the 36 pt chloro you only get 112% but you get +20% damage increase from warlock as well as +5% crit, the other bonuses I didn't list cuz you can still get those with being 51 pt chloro and specing into warlock as your other option.

    Heres the Spec I run, similiar to the other posted ones but without points in NT and SYnth and more into bumping up the healing output from more useful abilities.
    http://rift.zam.com/en/stc.html?t=0z...VVx.gdIhVA00Ro
    Interesting, I noticed my HPS and DPS both went up while including NT in my spec, since it hits so much harder than VS (not counting the VS DoT tick), I may have to re-test if you're somehow at 2600 HPS just spamming VS/Ruin -- how much T3 gear is this with? Assuming this is with raid buffs, archon/bard, etc... what's your Int/SP/Crit? On what fight was this?

  14. #14
    Rift Master sculti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    652

    Default

    shouldnt nature's fury heal less cause its considered an ae-spell?

  15. #15
    Plane Touched
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sculti View Post
    shouldnt nature's fury heal less cause its considered an ae-spell?
    It does, it is reduced by 80%, but it hits up to 4 enemies for quite a lot of damage. It's viable to use if there's a lot of mobs to AoE down, and you're just raid healing. Corrosion also ticks so rapidly that the nonstop stream of heals from that are also really useful, especially since it's passive, and you can continue to cast other spells while using it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts