Why are Priests considered a 'hybrid' class?

#0 - Jan. 25, 2009, 8:27 p.m.

Are we seriously considered a hybrid class because we have the ability to do damage? That's pretty funny because I can't think of another class that has two healing trees.

If we are really a hybrid class then I believe its time to start addressing our versatility because it's really inadequate in comparison to the other hybrids. For starters it seems to me that the majority of other hybrids have 3 trees for assuming a completely different role, be it tanking, healing, or melee/ranged dps. Lets compare the abilities of the supposed Hybrids:

DRUID: HEALING TANKING MELEE DPS RANGED DPS
PALADIN: HEALING TANKING MELEE DPS
SHAMAN: HEALING MELEE DPS RANGED DPS
PRIEST: HEALING RANGED DPS
WARRIOR: TANKING MELEE DPS

Druids have 3 trees for assuming FOUR roles, they are obviously the most versatile and effective Hybrid because that is what is intended.

Paladins and Shamans have 3 trees for assuming THREE roles, although it could be argued that the difference between Enhancement (melee) and Elemental (ranged) dps isn't really that different of a role. (which would mean that a Druid only has 3 real roles)

Warriors have 3 trees for assuming TWO roles. They have a tree for tanking, a tree for melee dps, and another tree for melee dps.

Priests have 3 trees for assuming TWO roles. We have one tree for ranged DPS. We have one tree for Healing. We also have another tree for Healing.

So ultimately, from a hybrid point of view, we are the least versatile class along with Warriors. Our DPS is kept below 'pure' DPS classes because it has been argued time and time again that the role of a pure DPS class is severely diminished if they don't perform better than hybrids. It has also been argued though that the abilities of the hybrids must remain balanced or a class bias will form. From Blizzards point of view there are no pure tanking or healing classes. (even though a Death Knight can theoretically tank with all 3 trees)

Heres my point: if Warriors and Priests are considered hybrids then they are automatically the weakest hybrid classes of all. Their performance is expected to fall in line or below the other classes for the two roles they can fulfill. One role (DPS) is automatically going to be worse than a 'pure' DPS class. This hybrid philosophy also guarantees the other role (tanking or healing) the class is capable of is on par with the other classes which can do the same thing.

So what we have are two classes that are only supposed perform at their best in one role but are not supposed to perform BETTER than others who can do the same thing.

If we are considered a hybrid then we are the worst hybrid simply because we are the least versatile. We are penalized for BOTH of our roles because of this hybrid designation and we simply are not capable of doing anything else.

tl;dr: why are we the worst hybrid class.

Ghostcrawler

#86 - Jan. 26, 2009, 5:44 p.m.

I wouldn't obsess too much about the difference between hybrids and pures, or classes with two healing trees versus classes with one. We want all of the classes to be as different as they can be.

Players tend to focus a lot more on labels and roles than the developers actually do.

Ghostcrawler

#132 - Jan. 27, 2009, 5:59 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Conclusion: healing priests would have better talents if one healing tree was removed, and we only had two talent trees : Healing and Shadow. This way we would become real hybrids, without that double healing tree tax, and with the hybrid overbudget tree benefit (so we start seeing posts asking Disc to become Wand Spec tree, with 51 talents to improve wanding and visual effects, and have all healing go in Holy).

There is no double healing tree tax. All healers are hybrids so their dps and healing are balanced similarly. Priests have 2 healing trees like shamans have 2 dps trees and DKs have 3 tanking trees.

Q u o t e:
Question: will 3.1 break with that two healing trees spread and no hybrid overbudget trees concept ? If Disc and Holy are supposed to be distinct, will this priest tax disappear ? (it's been only 2 Blizzcon that Devs communicate about having to rework Disc and Holy as they are "bloathed with inefficient and overpriced talents", and I fully understand that you can't make good and shiny trees if your budget is pale in comparison)

I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically. We are very critical of our own designs, so we think we can always make improvement to the talent trees. When I say that a tree might be a little bloated, you should not interpret that as “your spec is totally broken” or “no other spec has any bloat in it.”

Q u o t e:
- niche spells have the best efficiency, by a large margin (like 25%, so... compared to the 80%)

I’m not sure what this means. If you are referring to mana, there are efficient spells and inefficient spells, though most have trended towards the former over time. If any single spell blew all the others out of the water, then we would nerf it or buff the others. We think CoH, WG and glyphyed HL were in that category. I’m not sure there are any at the moment but we’ll keep an eye on it.

Q u o t e:
Question #2: while not losing their niche, and gaining average efficient heals in other healing types, the "original hybrids" (so Shaman, Paladin and Druid) kept their raid utility and buffs. Is there anything planned for healing priests to be brought on par with other healers on that subject ? (and should not Fort [or a 80% version] be given to another class, like Tankadins, to spread this buff ? Should ImpDS not be better than a base raidwide totem... and 1/3rd of a talented totem ?... list is quite long on this subject, and many ideas exist... I'd like for example to be able to channel my oo5 mana regen to someone else, even if I don't regenerate my mana meanwhile, or give rage/energy/runic... that's a new type of healing and raid management, with short term buffs/debuffs)

All 3 priests can use Fort, so we think there is a pretty good chance you will have the buff, especially in a 25-player raid. And even if you don’t have it, you’ll probably be okay. ImpDS is not cutting it, as I have acknowledged in other threads recently.

Q u o t e:
About Mana Regen History:
- to prevent priests to spam heals all instance long, the 5SR rule was introduced in Vanilla-Beta
- with BC, the pace of Raid Fights increased greatly, pushing healers to cast constantly, and preventing to stay oo5 as much as in Vanilla
- so all healers got new mana tools or changes in talents to maintain a certain mana efficiency
- to limit that SPriest stacking, Replenishment was created and became Raid Wide (for 10 persons), then got a stackability option for 2 Replenishment (to prevent SPriests to be replaced by Ret Pallies, as they provide a blessing and higher DPS)

[Edited for space]

We think mana regen is too trivial at the moment in PvE and just right or too difficult in PvP (depending on the class). Now part of that is because the content is easy. Part of it is because we’ve given players a lot of reasons to avoid having to worry about the FSR. Part of it is just generous talents (like Illumination). Part of it was the change to let Int scale regen to some degree. The whole package is something we’re looking at. Mana regen is supposed to be part of the game – you aren’t supposed to graduate out of it with enough gear.

Ghostcrawler

#133 - Jan. 27, 2009, 5:59 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Question: would not it be simpler for Devs, Class Designers and Boss Designers not to have to deal with the FSR, and rework the mana regen system and simplify it between healing classes ? (I've never heard about a DPS class running oom anymore, as they did in Vanilla) Eventually change talents and values around it, and rework Spirit too to make it a more valuable stat for all classes ? (why would warriors not put some Spirit to really boost their health regen ?)

I think you can make a good argument that the pendulum has swung back towards Spirit and away from mp5. I think long term the whole system is in need of an update or re-design, but this is not a 3.1 level task.

________________________________________

Q u o t e:
Q u o t e:

Players tend to focus a lot more on labels and roles than the developers actually do.
________________________________________

Doesn't that mean the developers are out of touch with their own game?

My point was that we don’t design that way. Those roles are meant to be descriptive not restrictive. I get the impression sometimes that there are shamans out there who refuse to use Riptide because “shamans are AE healers, not hot healers.” My advice is to focus on your abilities and talents, not your roles. Class and race are actual mechanics enforced by the game. Roles are nebulous.