Talk:Priest abilities

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi all, I'd just like to point out that patch 1.10 has made some MAJOR revamps in the Priest class. We should update it sometime.

anyone knows how +healing affects the different spells?

I wanna know what the whole priest dying turning into a spirit healer is, and what good it does Lim3Lit1 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the 21 pt. Holy talent, [Spirit of Redemption], read about it there...good? It can save a group from wiping...but it's only really useful if you have another rezzer in the group to rez the priest. --Acecow 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Something about the intro to this article ("Priest spells are mana-based. They focus on healing and protection, buffing and debuffing, and direct damage and DOT.") bothers me... what other kind of spells are there? Heals, damage, DOT, buffs, debuffs... Not sure how to reword it or I'd do it myself. Bobson 12:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ehh...debuffing and DoTting really only come from the Shadow tree...and even then its only one of each type.Acecow 13:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose the following intro

As Priests are mana based spell-casters, their abilities vary greatly. This is dependent on choices of specialization and tree selection. For instance healers focus more on healing, protection, buffing and debuffing, wheres Shadow Priests are experts in direct and damage over time.

--The Luminary (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's nice but Healers don't really focus on debuffing, unless you mean the removal of them, in which case it should be cleared a bit more :) --SummonerMarc (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Racial Spells

I propose removing the large table outlining each of the racial spells since they are essentially no longer in the game at all. Instead I suggest keeping the section of racial spells, moving it further down the article (perhaps as a subsection) and linking out to the previous racial spells rather than having all that information tabled, which is now irrelevant. Comments? SummonerMarc (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved the table to the bottom of the page. I'll edit the table the next days.--Iggey (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fact check?

I glanced at the abilities list briefly and it seems to be correct for the most part, maybe except for the XYZ values (which in my opinion, on this table should be left as XYZ variables). I play a priest as my main. There may be some missing spells. Can someone clarify what needs to be fact checked? Miryuki (talk) 01:07, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

The tag was added on Oct 20 2008, on this page and the corresponding pages for each class, so presumably refers to wotlk changes. paulbrock (talk) 03:49, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

4.0.1 & Cataclysm

With 4.0.1 here and Cata not far off, it's likely time to do some cleanup and updating. Beyond updating the tables for the detail changes to current spells and getting the new spells in, I wonder if it might be worth looking at an what isn't needed anymore or what isn't serving a purpose anymore. I might suggest that the Codex section get removed (or shifted to the bottom and marked as depreciated) and the Racial Abilities section be removed (or marked different to show that it is fully depreciated). There's also a ton of overlap between the Trainable/Talent abilities list and the List of Abilities by Type section. Do those need to be separated or could they be better combined to make the page more concise? --BeliaAD (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • You know, I was thinking the exact same thing earlier when I was updating a table. I 100% agree with this, especially for the Codex table. I don't know if REMOVING them completely would be best, but definitely marking them (or perhaps a new page?) seems appropriate --Typhoneus (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the Codex section down to the bottom of the page and noted that that system was completely depreciated as of 4.0.1. I went ahead and rephrased the section before the racials table and made sure that there was a link to the current overview page on racials.
I really don't know what to do with the Abilities by Type section. Maybe consolidate it down into lists instead of tables? I don't really think that we need to list the descriptions for all those abilities again. I'm not even certain that I agree with all of the categories that are there anyway (VT being a debuff but not a DoT?) --BeliaAD (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think that whole section is by and large completely unnecessary. I'd go for removing the whole thing but I think maybe shortening it to a list would be good. Certainly don't need all the descriptions again in a table. -- Typhoneus Talk Contribs 01:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh! Oh! We can just add another column to the abilities table (the first one) stating what "role" the spell is, know what I mean? :D -- Typhoneus Talk Contribs 02:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a much better idea than how it stands now! Now to decide what to use as the "roles". Maybe Healing, Damage, Buff, CC, Utility? --BeliaAD (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed it and deleted the section (entirely, being bold!) Let me know what you think. I added in one or two more "roles", like AoE Heals etc. -- Typhoneus Talk Contribs 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say pulling that section entirely was the way to go, especially with adding the Function category to the table. That section was way more confusing than useful. It looks good now to me.
  • Would it be worth adding a blurb about the mastery/passive ability for each tree here our would that be better suited for the Priest Talents page? --BeliaAD (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • How's that? I dunno if this is the most suitable place for it but the table can always be moved to talent page :) -- Typhoneus Talk Contribs 03:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)