What are beastlords "best" at, what defines our cl

[Shirrkarn Ayge]

Shrug.. I was merely replying to a post that ignored a spell which gives rangers markedly better healing ability than beasts.

As Grymlok said the spell is not rare, it just requires some determination to do sewer trials until it drops.

[Grymlok]

It is available, but atm there is not a large % of Rangers who have this spell.  However with mudflation this will undoubtedly change.  The only reason I addressed this was the relative few who own this spell should not be a scale against which Rangers "Healing" ability is gauged.

For one who speaks of not over-generalizing and making assumptions, you seem to making some of your own.

/shrug  every ranger I group with has this spell.  Granted, we are working on GoD progression, so they have perhaps had more access to Rune drops.  But I view this as akin to Sha's Advantage back in the day.  It was rare as hell in the early days of PoP, but did people use this in comparisons/complaints about us?  You bet.

[Valsuvious]

wow.. many things that I would like to say but don't have the time for it now.

Would like to point out a blatant obvious error that even my own guildee mentioned before (/rude Urim).

Okay.. being a great stat buffer means what to whom?????  What added benefits am I getting from hitting any beastlord with Fero and FA.  Well, Ferocity gives you more attack and a huge amount of resists.  FA gives you attack and more stats.  Now.. let's look at stats.  Who in here needs the extra 140 to all stats that FA gives you???  I certainly know that it's wasted on me.  Now.. who in here needs the extra resists that Fero gives you?? /em raises his hand.

Let's look at mana buffs.  Who in here needs the extra mana per tick that you get from SD?? /em raises his hand.  Now, who in here needs the extra mana that you get from shaman buffs?  Wait.. shaman don't have a mana buff that they can give people.

Okay, now onto hp buffs.  Congrats on getting Focus from a shaman.  You have just gained 554 extra hps and more stat buffs that you didn't need before especially with FA on you.  Okay, take off focus and buff yourself with Kragg and SV.  Congrats, you now have a total of more hps that just focus was plus that extra 40 attack.

What about resists?  Well, Fero is giving you 65 to any resist, and you can buff yourself up to 110 dr/pr total.  

Guess the point I'm making is that the beastlord is now the best pure buffing class around (close between beastlord and chanter, but bst have more options).  You can give someone everything that a shaman can but better.  Today's game requires high attack and quick mana regen.  Fights are shorter and stat buffs have proved worthless.  If I sit unbuffed at maxed stats, it won't matter how many extra stat buffs I can stick on myself, it isn't going to help at all.  Everyone that can cast wants more mana regen (which you provide), everyone that melees want higher attack (which you provide) and above all, everyone total needs higher resists, which you provide better as well.

[TerjynPovar]

Way to seriously slant an argument.

Not everybody has max stats, and when you don't, shaman is better.

Not everybody has infinite buff slots, and when you don't, shaman is better.

Nobody willingly uses Spiritual Vigor, they only use it when they cannot get either Brell's or Tunare, depending on what type of class...and Shaman get Kragg too.

Ferocity costs way more mana, and can be kept up on less people than Ferine Avatar can.

Regen spells?  Oh wait, you didn't even bother to mention these.  Shaman is better.

Haste buffs?  Shaman blow beastlords out of the water with these...but again, you failed to mention these at all.

[Tastian]

The whole buffing example has some flaws and not the least of which is it again ignores other classes.  Add a paladin to the mix and the whole hp thing goes out the window because SV doesn't stack with BSS.  At that point it's kragg verse focus.

"Guess the point I'm making is that the beastlord is now the best pure buffing class around (close between beastlord and chanter, but bst have more options)."

I just can't agree with that.  A beastlord can haste a raid, but god dang that'd suck.  Even a shaman could atleast ToA, take the hit to haste %, and save a ton of time/mana.  Also if you are talking pure atk then a ranger buffs more than a beastlord does over a raid.  A ranger can pred/tunare everyone.  A beastlord can vigor everyone, fero ~4 max and sav ~3 max.  

Fero:

6.5 min base duration 2 min refresh

Savagery:

6.5 min base duration (at 65) 3 min refresh

Ferine avatar:

6.5 min base duration 1 min refresh

Also shaman actually get SCRM and beastlords don't currently (/pray OoW).  If you want to talk just a single group or specific circumstances then you can, but my shaman can keep FA on 11 people(I don't wanna lol, but I can shhhh).  My beastlord using 2 spell slots, and a dot for every sav can only keep fero/sav up on 7 people.  

SoP + SoT = 130 raw atk to anyone that wants it.  A beastlord can drop SV on anyone that wants and sustain 40 raw attack on them.  Then you need to use fero/sav on a few select targets, but it's not near the raw atk boost a ranger can grant.  The obvious differance is that adding another beastlord to the raid/whatever lets them stack more feros for more attacks where as adding more rangers doesn't.  *shrugs*

[Xarilok]

No, he was making the same point I was.  Even for all the people that don't have max stats, IoS is all they need.

For anyone within 60STA of the cap, Focus gives more pure HP, as it is 544 compared to 365.  However, for those NOT at the stat caps, getting the extra 40-80 sta that beastlords can buff adds a lot to thier HP.  A lot of bazaar'd geared peeps sit between 150 and 200 Sta, and for them, IoS, Kragg, SV, and Fero gives them much much more stats and HP than a shaman can.

If shaman really were that much superior, why are they getting new buffs with OoW?? They are getting buffs that instead of adding str, it increases base damage, instead of agil they get buffs that add avoidance, etc.  Least thats the word from few shammy buddies of mine.  Beastlords are not slated to get such buffs, which would put is squarely where we belong, second to shaman...atm we are first, as far as useful buffs goes.

As for regen...Shaman can do 40, we can do 29...not that big a difference.

[TerjynPovar]

What the heck?  You assume people are close enough to the stat cap that IoS caps them, yet far enough away that they get benefit out of the extra stamina from Ferocity?  Pure hypocrisy.

By the way, Fero + IoS is only 85 STA, whereas Talisman of the Boar is 60 alone.  That's not that big of difference.

People getting new buffs with OoW somehow proves that they suck now?  :roll:

[Tastian]

New stat buffs with OoW is a great thing and atleast 1 expansion too late imo.  Stats are capping and have been capped for awhile.  I think the change to an actual boost off the buff is great and I'm sure I'll be doing way too much parsing once OoW goes live lol.  

The whole discussion is so pigeon holed though.  I mean you don't even make mention of mana or casting time or where a class actually falls.  Also you constantly just compare a beastlord to a shaman and ignore any other classes that might be present.  Adding a rng or enc or whatever changes things.  

You simply can't keep fero on everyone.  I go out of my way to keep it on 4 people and the simple fact is you have 6 people in a group max.  Fero'n 4 people is a HUGE mana expenditure, also it requires AA/gear to make it possible, otherwise you can only fero half the group.  Where as every shaman can easily infusion/board/manical/kragg/etc  as needed.  The fact that beastlords with no one else present can potentially add more hps to someone than a shaman isn't that out of wack.  I mean clerics are the main HP buffing class in the game and a paladin can take on more hps to a group than they can if you factor in brells.  

Beastlords have some great buffs, shaman can use some tweaks, but could we please stop completely ignoring details like other classes, casting cost, refresh time, etc.  I'd love to see the look on beastlords face when a raid leader tells them "we didn't let the shaman in since you can buff better than them and add more hps!"  Clearly this will happen since beastlords are so much better, heck even if shaman are there you'll still see beastlords doing the buffing since they are better at it lol.

[Xarilok]

What the heck?  You assume people are close enough to the stat cap that IoS caps them, yet far enough away that they get benefit out of the extra stamina from Ferocity?  Pure hypocrisy.

By the way, Fero + IoS is only 85 STA, whereas Talisman of the Boar is 60 alone.  That's not that big of difference.

People getting new buffs with OoW somehow proves that they suck now?  :roll:

Beastlords don't get Boar, but we do get Stamina, which puts the difference in potential Stamina buffage at 65, not 25.

IoS+Sta+Fero=125
Boar=60
IoS+Boar=105

So, yea, even if a shaman uses IoS and Boar, beasts still maintain a 20 point lead.

I'm not saying a beast will buff a raid better, just like a shaman won't haste a raid better than a chanter.

What I am saying, is that for me (in a mix of bazaar/ornate/nurga gear) MY buffs give me BOTH more stats and HP than a shaman can, for more slots of course.  Everyone in my epic-raiding family guild gets MORE from my buffs than they do from shaman buffs.  When the day comes that I can get a full line of buffs from a shaman that are BETTER than mine, they can be the best buffers, but as it is, when a MGB goes off in PoK, I click off Focus and recast IoS and Kragg.

[Deathclaw]

i am in mainly baz gear - and i get 100 more hp with a shm around (ie sta max - and focus has more +hp), and less buff shots - and i am normaly going hmmm what can i click off for the HoT spot with shm buffs - with just 3 buffing classes in group, you got to pick what buffs you want - do i need resists, want more mana reg, have a DS, stat buffs, atk buffs, hp buffs, movement buffs etc, even soloing with self cast spells you can full up buff slots if you go the hole hog.

[Atashi]

Beastlords don't get Boar, but we do get Stamina, which puts the difference in potential Stamina buffage at 65, not 25.

IoS+Sta+Fero=125
Boar=60
IoS+Boar=105

So, yea, even if a shaman uses IoS and Boar, beasts still maintain a 20 point lead.

However Shamans can also use primal essence which adds 20 stamina which would cancel out our massive lead.

Atashi

[Tastian]

The thing is what if a MGB BSS goes off with the focus?  Or a MGB SoT?  SV simply doesn't always land, but focus can always land, people can always choose a stamina buff, etc.  Even fero can't always land.  If you want to talk about solo that changes things, but again you are ignoring mana cost and refresh time and picking a very specific situation.  A beastlord simply can't keep fero on everyone that wants it or could use it.  In a group of 6 for example your base beastlord could infusion + sta = (85 X 6) + fero (40 * 3) that's 630 stamina buffed.  A shaman simply using IoS and boar (1 less buff slot) can put 630 stamina to the group as well and for far less mana.  If two people can do the samething and one does it easier and for less than mana than one class is clearly ahead imo.  Also note that the second it becomes a raid a beastlord has no chance of touching a shaman.  Then you get into stackability which has always been a weaker point for shaman, but could easily be fixed with certain game changes.  

I guess it's just like in a lot of other threads people are picking one specific situation, in this case it seems to be totally solo well not near the sta cap and using that to make overall claims.  I can't wait for the new shaman buffs and I think they got here too late, but to claim "beast > shaman" for buffing is simply inaccurate from actual in game type of settings.  I know there are some people that will take certain buffs over others and have the buff slots to work with and EQ is vast with lots of different situations, but overall I just haven't seen bst to buff better than shm.

[Kitvear]

Well, there's been many a time that a diligent beasty can buff better then a lazy shaman.

back in my raiding days, myself and another beastlord would be tasked to put IOS & Kraggs on everyone due to the fact that the shaman was running late.  We would do that, single cast 6 groups, necro twitching, rod here rod there, but would get it done.  The shaman would finally arrive just as we started to move then we would have to wait so he could put that dang Khura's Focusing on everyone, half the melee would click it off and then yell at the beastlords to put ios and kraggs back on them.  We would ask the shaman to not cast his Khura's focusing and join us in casting ios & kraggs but that was too teduis for him to single cast those spells on 1/3 of the raid and he would always refuse.  So since he couldn't be troubled to single target buff 2 groups, me and my beastlord buddy of mine had to single target buff 3 groups each.

So yeah, at all levels Shamans can outbuff beastlords but but but some of them are just plain lazy.

[Tastian]

Hehe the actual play of the person is huge in some cases.  I know some paladins and rangers I'd rather have as healer in my group than clerics lol.  Just like I mentioned with the OT'n the like the skill of the player can make a big differance, but if you take an equally skilled/experienced player and give them the other class (me going to pally to OT or whatever) then you see how things fall.

[Valsuvious]

Actually.. the whole reason behind my arguement is proving that beastlord are better overall buffers than shaman.  This had nothing to do with any other class being present but just beastlords and shaman.

So, for all purposes the three areas of buffage that means the most right now for anyone is:  attack, mana regen, and hps (and resists I guess depending on where you are at)

Beastlords provide better buffs for all three.  And whoever was hit with fero also gets more resists than a shaman alone can give.

That is my point.

Don't get me wrong here, my shaman is my main and my beastlord is my alt, but I think that I know both classes.