Oy, you guys have degenerated lately. Now you're just reposting forum gripes and misinterpreting blue posts. But more on target, is it really so hard to imagine the situational uses this spell would have? Any raiding situation where a group other than your own is getting hit all at once. Say all your healers are in the group with the tree druid, and your 3 rogues are in a group with the feral druid and warrior with improved battle shout. improved healing, improved dps, and a solution to take care of those big 360 cleaves or AOE spells. A LOT of the 41 point talents are situational or only fit a particular type of play (PvP/solo, smallgroup, raid, etc). If any one was more universally applicable than others, you'd see less diversity in spec, which I don't think matches the philosophy of the game.

And please, no more posts about the looking for group tool.

Reply

So let's see:

It's instant.
It can heal up to five people.
It's RANGED, not centered on your self.
It's a reasonable mana cost.

= Useful. Possibly even NICE!

As a warrior, I'd sure like a 51pt Protection Talent this useful...

Reply

Except you don't just *happen* to your priests and dps classes in the right groups - you design your raids around them.

Combined with tree druids, this is an *awesome* thing to happen to raid healing. The single drawback with druid tree spirit adding healing to their group members is that for fights where prayer of healing is really crucial, you had to split up healers anyway. CoH can help mitigate that. Two or three trees in a group with two or three priests is an easy +200 or +300 to healing - *AND* you can really take full advantage of some of the DPS class attack buffs.

Sure it's situational - it's situational to raiding situations. But then, not every end point talent is supposed to be the answer to every person's playstyle - otherwise why bother with three trees to begin with?

Reply

So for some reason, one I really don't understand, there continue to be posts about things not working the way players want, skills not having the right effect, mobs being too glitchy or not acting the same as they did before...but what everyone seems to forget is that the 2.0.1 patch is the backbone of TBC expansion. Not everything has full functionality or even partial functionality...hell there is a boat to the Darkshore graveyard from Auberdine (Yes, I realize that the boat doesn't work because the content is not available yet, but still)! The patch was released to placate players because of the delay in the expansion. Blizzard couldn't get everything finished early enough so they gave us something to play with for another month...be happy we got anything at all - we could have gotten no patch and no release date.

Reply

You know everyone says lightwell is cool, but I've never seen it used in MC, BWL, or Naxx. I've never seen raid strategy designed around optional spells. Even for Vael, we have some priests who prayer of healing instead of holy nova.

If blizzard actually wants to design a battle aorund this spell in a dungeon, wouldn't that actually be counter to what they are trying to do in the expansion with the "not being forced to spec a certain tree" mantra?

Do they design a spell for a dungeon or s dungeon for a spell? Either way, sounds pretty dumb to me. Since the spell heals under 1000 on average (assuming good gear). You can use it as a top off spell or a sort of emergency spell. But the output is so low that it isn't very successful.

For 41 points as a priest.. the "healing class" I'd like a spell that breaks me out of the group only mass heals. You can cap it at 5 people, but make it location based, not group based.

I'm not really impressed with the holy tree's additions. All of it is in the mediocre, nothing really changed category. Now discipline is a whole other story. Reflective shield is great.

Reply

Sure there are instances where it would be useful, but is it worth speccing to? No. Meditation, Divine spirit (and imp divine spirit), and Inner Focus are much more useful than a talent that we might use a few times on a raid.

I also happen to agree with the warrior above. I play both classes in raid/instances and have rolled every other class in the game (the priest is my main although probably not for much longer). It seems that out of anyone, both priests and warriors got the biggest load of crap for raiding, which i find funny considering I thought we were the 2 most crucial classes to a raid. It's now not worth it more than ever to have a heavy prot build or a heavy holy build. Meanwhile, I can spec anyway I choose on my warlock/hunter/rogue/mage and still be able to do a massive amount of damage (our job). With warriors and priests, this is just not the case. We cannot effectively do our job without being specced correctly and the spec's we are forced to are completely worthless.

Yes, these points are argueable, but generally, that's what it boils down to. I don't hear mages QQing because they can't raid while specced a certain way. I don't hear rogues QQing because they can't raid using swords.

Reply

@1. IF you can write better then please by all means do so. I for one dont go anywhere near the Official forums beacuse i find that people are far too anal and nit picky....please dont bring that here.

As far as the Talent goes i couldnt tell ya what is better but as the Raids MT i have notices i hardly drop below 50% in most boss fights anymore and the priest say that for one the Tanks gear got a bit of a buff along with Stam. Put that with setting our groups just a bit different and we have found this to be a useful talent.

Is it the greatest in the game? no...but it has saved our butts a few times already.

Reply

*cough*healing totem*cough*

Look how long its taken blizz to fix the healing totem? there was just something about 10hp a tick that was... I dunno, retarded for a good long time (the new numbers are pretty nice).

Lets be honest though, this is a "oops the party just goofed and got hit by an AoE breath weapon" fix for priests. Now instead of losing the rogue the next time he walks into a cleave attack, you give everybody an extra 5 seconds to get themselves together. Is it situational? yes. Is is a required talent? no. Will it make you a better healer? only if you are a good player (no talent can fix a bad player).

Priests are just whining because they didn't get Natures Swiftness again.

Reply

The reason tanks are alive more isn't because of this new ability. It's because HoT's stack now. That's the hugest thing ever. This talent and all the other new holy talents basically suck. As a priest who tried them I can say that these are not worth breaking a build with meditation and inner focus. You'd be better off staying with the good old 21/30/0 build for raiding or possibly 20/31/0 if you enjoy being lol'ed at (lolwell).

The problem with priests is that they don't have a *good* hybrid build. Either Spiritual healing needs to be moved back to tier2 or divine fury and improved healing need to move to tiers 1 and 2 respectively to give us a viable hybrid build that includes good healing. In fact, the talents I mentioned plus only like 3 others are all priests really need. The other talents are just there for you to try to eke out some damage from the holy tree.

Reply

Why don't you just ask Shamans how they like Chain Heal? Seems like that would be a better comparison.

Reply

"Of course, both CoH and PoH get much more efficient if you end up hitting multiple damaged targets with them."

Which is the whole point of the talent...I'd say the ability to refresh your whole party to full health, or save them all from dying for a few more seconds, as an instant cast is a damn good talent.

Reply

It's very simple, CoH sucks! Priest talents are alright but compared to the enjoyment of playing a priest, most priest will choose to reroll.

It seems that what priest get is more spells to group heal. So that's how these group spell should be looked at. The sad thing is they still suck. why go down to 41 holy when you can get almost the same thing at 11 holy?????

Reply

@2, lay off the druid jokes huh? Sounds like somebody got outhealed by a tree :P

Reply

Give us summonable tanks!!!! XD

Reply

I think CoH has its uses. However there is a big problem. I expect blizz to put a good talent which deserves the 41 pts!! Put Coh somewhere below that point and come up with a worthy talent..

Reply

Is CoH useful? I'm not sure I'll find out. I couldn't make myself give up what felt like critical talents in the discipline tree to try it out, and the one priest in our guild that went full Holy specced to shadow only two days later.

I definitely see situational uses for it, and I'm all for more instants. I don't see getting it if it means my *healing* spec talents in discipline have to go by the wayside.

Reply

Is it just me or does CoH bear a remakable resemblance to Holy Nova.

Don't get me wrong it's an aoe heal etc. But look at it this way, for how long was holy nova the 31 point talent for holy?
Did any one use it?
What happend to it in the end?
It got majorly buffed and moved to an 11 point talent.

Hope for the future maybe?

Then again I'm not sure I want to wait for the next priest overhaul to see it happen.

Then again I don't think the devs are ever going to create a 41 point talent that's going to beat Imp DS so it doesn't matter all that much to me how cruddy the 41 point holy talent is.

Reply

Hmm, I don't plan on getting CoH personally but I am working on getting my 51 priest up to Lightwell. Nearly everyone in my raiding alliance and guild (quite rightly I'm sure) laugh at my decision, but I see multiple uses for the spell. Given time and after the TBC expansion hits, I'm sure we'll see reasons for CoH. However, it needs to distinguish itself a bit more - right now it feels like a tossup between Holy Nova (I love this spell!) and Prayer of Healing.

I am all for instant spells, though due to the nature of the new nerf to priests, instant spells don't get the full benefits of +healing gear as do longer cast spells. However, if situation warrants a quick heal spell on a group of your friends, this could just fit the bill.

Reply