holy dps... is it viable?

[Yvaelle]

It depends on your definition of viable.

If viable means will you be capable of dealing damage over a period of time measured in seconds, then yes.

If viable means will you ever get in a raid guild, on a serious pvp team, or into any other situation I have a say in, then no.

As shadow, my mind flay dps alone is more than if I specced Holy and tried to holy dps (not joking).

If your interested in specs that will never work but might seem interesting because no one ever does them. I'd recommend a reflective shield spec. You cast reflective shield, go afk for 13s, recast reflective shield, tab out again, recast reflective shield, repeat, depending on how much dps your opponent has this also has the capability of outdps'ing Holy dps.

[Izenhart]

I still can't catch why SPriests here seems to be touched in their pride to even hear about an Holy DPS spec, noone is implying that the research of an Holy DPS spec is because you SPriests sucks just like your tree.

That being said, Holy DPS argument, unless provided the necessary changes, is non-existant.

[Naphomci]

The greatest tyrants in history have been proponents of conformity. What makes a great community great, is its ability to analyze all ideas and persons, no matter how unique, in an honest forum free from intellectual dishonesty. Lets try to have that community here.

The defense awaits rebuttal.

Because this is a logical/fair comparison by any measure.
Also, you seem to be confused, no one is saying "you are not allowed to smite, or holy dps, you can only do shadow dps".
The statement is "if you want to be raid viable, holy dps is not going to cut it, but for your our fun, random PuG's do whatever you want"
I also enjoy you basically calling the people you are arguing against you intellectually dishonest, and here I thought you weren't flaming.

In short, do holy DPS if you want, it is very unlikely to ever become raid/pvp viable for a number of reasons, and it is currently not a viable option.

I still can't catch why SPriests here seems to be touched in their pride to even hear about an Holy DPS spec, noone is implying that the research of an Holy DPS spec is because you SPriests sucks just like your tree.

That being said, Holy DPS argument, unless provided the necessary changes, is non-existant.

The thing I think missing from this statement is that a number of the people that agrue for holy dps are often asking for it to be as viable/useful as shadow, essentially in the long run trying to fill the same role we do, and thus depriving us of spots, and since shadow priests enjoy their spec, that would not be ideal

[[-Spiritus-]]

Because this is a logical/fair comparison by any measure.
Also, you seem to be confused, no one is saying "you are not allowed to smite, or holy dps, you can only do shadow dps".
The statement is "if you want to be raid viable, holy dps is not going to cut it, but for your our fun, random PuG's do whatever you want"
I also enjoy you basically calling the people you are arguing against you intellectually dishonest, and here I thought you weren't flaming.

In short, do holy DPS if you want, it is very unlikely to ever become raid/pvp viable for a number of reasons, and it is currently not a viable option.

I had not said anyone had been intellectually dishonest... I just asked that people not be intellectually dishonest. Please do not infer anger in my statements to bolster your argument. Its like using the race card unwarrantably... not cool.

I have consistently stated that holy dps is not currently viable, and anyone who attempts to raid as holy dps is fooling themselves.

Analogy: "If you want to be raid viable, feral dps is not going to cut it, but for your own fun, random PuG's do whatever you want."
This statement, if made in BC, would have been reasonable. Now, feral dps does cut it in a raid environment. This statement is no longer valid.
Your statement about holy dps, currently, is valid. However, there is precedent for unused talents and spells to become raid viable. Therefore, your opposition to a viable holy dps spec is purely obstructionist.

All I am saying is that the priest class has a section of spells, talents, and glyphs that are currently not raid viable(like feral dps was). I do not see how allowing it to be viable will be so horrible.


The argument that those who wish to restrict liberties, rather than expand them, being tyrannical is completely sound. It is applicable in all formats. Please refute my comments with a logical thought process not a declarative statement.

"The greatest Tyrants in history have been proponents of conformity."

Wrong: "Because this is a logical/fair comparison by any measure."

Right: "Cited examples of great tyrants who have NOT been proponents of conformity." OR "Cited examples of why those who malign those who wish to discuss a viable holy dps build are NOT proponents of conformity."

The thing I think missing from this statement is that a number of the people that agrue for holy dps are often asking for it to be as viable/useful as shadow, essentially in the long run trying to fill the same role we do, and thus depriving us of spots, and since shadow priests enjoy their spec, that would not be ideal

This is an sound line of argument. However, I disagree.

If we are all in agreement that feral dps is good and did not interfere with the fun/raid spots of balance dps, then the argument that holy dps will take raid spots from shadow is invalid. This is what I meant by intellectual dishonesty... using an argument that is not universally true. Its not a flame, just a boundary for a proper argument.

Furthermore, I do not think proponents of holy dps want to "take raid spots" from shadow priests. I haven't heard anyone calling for a hit rating buff or replenishment for holy dps. I just think that people want a holy dps to be viable, even if it brings no useful raid buffs and does 10% less damage than a shadow priest. Any raid leader who would take even a "viable" holy dpser over a shadow priest would be folly. Also, I have never heard of anyone suggesting that holy dps should be able to heal as well as a holy healer. They should be just a viable as a healer as an ele shaman, boomkin, or spriest.

[Varithorn1]

Cool rant bro.

All I am saying is that the priest class has a section of spells, talents, and glyphs that are currently not raid viable(like feral dps was). I do not see how allowing it to be viable will be so horrible.

Holy dps isn't a spec, it's a poor hybrid between two trees. Blizzard can hardly balance the 30 talent trees that already exist, why should they redisgn two to benefit a hybrid spec? If you want holy dps viable, that's saying (example) that 35/36/0 should be viable for every class and spec combo.

[Peteritis]

Who realy cares if u could or couldnt not out dps shadow priest with holy, the thing why this never gonna happen is PVP.
Realy how do u imagine arenas where healer can heal and be competive dps @ the same fucking time ?

[[-Spiritus-]]

Cool rant bro.

Just can't resist can you? Couldn't just have typed your below comment which is very valid:

Holy dps isn't a spec, it's a poor hybrid between two trees. Blizzard can hardly balance the 30 talent trees that already exist, why should they redisgn two to benefit a hybrid spec? If you want holy dps viable, that's saying (example) that 35/36/0 should be viable for every class and spec combo.

There are many classes that have viable hybrid builds... death knights and warlocks come to mind immediately. The only things that would need to be added for a "viable" holy dps build is a 100% crit damage bonus and SoL reworked to act like LO...perhaps a hit talent if people were being generous. Thats it. 2 or 3 changes, not a rework.

Who realy cares if u could or couldnt not out dps shadow priest with holy, the thing why this never gonna happen is PVP.
Realy how do u imagine arenas where healer can heal and be competive dps @ the same fucking time ?

Holy DPS is just a viable a healer as a shadow priest, ele shaman, and boomkin. Or just as good a tank as a feral dps spec'd druid. If you think ele shaman, shadow priests, and boomkin are OP in PvP, then your argument is sound.

[Peteritis]

Balance/ele/sp all are separe tree`s , there are some talents that benefit healing , but mostly those are pure dps speces. But holy would be something like hybridhealer/dpser in 1 spec.

Warlock and Dk hybrid builds work becouse all 3 trees do damage, u want to combine 2 healing trees to make 1 dps tree, and thats kinda absurd :/

[[-Spiritus-]]

Balance/ele/sp all are separe tree`s , there are some talents that benefit healing , but mostly those are pure dps speces. But holy would be something like hybridhealer/dpser in 1 spec.

Warlock and Dk hybrid builds work becouse all 3 trees do damage, u want to combine 2 healing trees to make 1 dps tree, and thats kinda absurd :/

Yet there are DPS talents in both trees.

Why not add the 2/3 talents necessary to flesh out the spec? If there weren't dps holy spells and dps holy talents and dps holy glyphs... I would tell folks who wanted to holy dps to go take a hike. However, they do exist, and they remain unused.

[Zinge]

Yet there are DPS talents in both trees.

Why not add the 2/3 talents necessary to flesh out the spec? If there weren't dps holy spells and dps holy talents and dps holy glyphs... I would tell folks who wanted to holy dps to go take a hike. However, they do exist, and they remain unused.

Blizzard also has lock picking and shackle glyphs, it doesn't mean anything.

[[-Spiritus-]]

Blizzard also has lock picking and shackle glyphs, it doesn't mean anything.

Equating this argument to two minor glyphs is intellectually dishonest.

If you agree that its a good thing that feral dps has become viable in WoltK, then please have an open mind about holy dps.

[streaky7]

Arguing on the internet is like the special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded.

[[-Spiritus-]]

Arguing on the internet is like the special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded.

I disagree. If people are civil and think through their opinions, it cultivates better communication and critical thinking skills. It isn't necessarily about winning, but discovering truth through rhetoric.

[mutantboy]

The interesting thing about a discussion like this is to look at it with the perspective of time and change.

In the beginning of vanilla wow warriors tanked, mages, rogues and locks did the DPS, if you had a healing bar you were a healer, and huntards were taken to trank mag's enrage.

Why did that need to change? I mean it's all very well to make Druids viable - but viable 4 ways? wat wat wat? Pally tanks and DPS shaman? Hell we were horde - we don't need no stinkin pallies...

So if Blizzard had taken the perspective that many of the community take the game would never have changed and lets face it - the truely hardcore people would be the only ones left.

Nothing is sacrosanct. Anyone remember the hard line in the sand about PvE players transferring to a PvP server. No Way. Not now - not ever. Ain't gonna happen.
Oh - wait...

Preist Holy DPS - why not. And lets have Pally (un?)holy DPS while we at it (Hell we have a Melee DPS class with a Frost tree).
Holy might be a joke now. But so were ret pallies, moonkin and so many other things. I'd play one just to be different. If it was fun.

[[-Spiritus-]]

The interesting thing about a discussion like this is to look at it with the perspective of time and change.

In the beginning of vanilla wow warriors tanked, mages, rogues and locks did the DPS, if you had a healing bar you were a healer, and huntards were taken to trank mag's enrage.

Why did that need to change? I mean it's all very well to make Druids viable - but viable 4 ways? wat wat wat? Pally tanks and DPS shaman? Hell we were horde - we don't need no stinkin pallies...

So if Blizzard had taken the perspective that many of the community take the game would never have changed and lets face it - the truely hardcore people would be the only ones left.

Nothing is sacrosanct. Anyone remember the hard line in the sand about PvE players transferring to a PvP server. No Way. Not now - not ever. Ain't gonna happen.
Oh - wait...

Preist Holy DPS - why not. And lets have Pally (un?)holy DPS while we at it (Hell we have a Melee DPS class with a Frost tree).
Holy might be a joke now. But so were ret pallies, moonkin and so many other things. I'd play one just to be different. If it was fun.

This is an interesting reflection. I, too, sometimes look back on vanilla wow with nostalgia. There is something comforting to me about that time; I think statistical inflation has kinda gotten out of control. I mean, just take the jump from 60-70 and then 70-80. Non-crazy people are doing 4k dps sustained now at 80. Thats one helluva multiplier from level 60 vanilla wow.

But as you pointed out, the game would never have grown the way it had if the developers maintained its launch feel. For that I am glad.

[Xelaeno]

a week away from my computer and look what's here. juicy argument ;D

[Naphomci]

I had not said anyone had been intellectually dishonest... I just asked that people not be intellectually dishonest. Please do not infer anger in my statements to bolster your argument. Its like using the race card unwarrantably... not cool.

You are correct that you did not directly call anyone intellectually dishonest (at that point at least). However, the wording, the phrasing, and the general tone and direction of your post at that time implied that either it had happened or would happen. If you word things in a way that seems to imply anger, what do you expect me to infer? Was it your intention? Whether or not, people read things for themselves, so to tell me what I am to infer or not infer is not fair. And you what else is "... not cool"? Using rather harsh comparisons in a unrelated situation.

I have consistently stated that holy dps is not currently viable, and anyone who attempts to raid as holy dps is fooling themselves.

Analogy: "If you want to be raid viable, feral dps is not going to cut it, but for your own fun, random PuG's do whatever you want."
This statement, if made in BC, would have been reasonable. Now, feral dps does cut it in a raid environment. This statement is no longer valid.
Your statement about holy dps, currently, is valid. However, there is precedent for unused talents and spells to become raid viable. Therefore, your opposition to a viable holy dps spec is purely obstructionist.

Excuse me, when did I say that there was 0 chance of holy dps being viable? It is very unlikely, and I will go into that in a little bit.

All I am saying is that the priest class has a section of spells, talents, and glyphs that are currently not raid viable(like feral dps was). I do not see how allowing it to be viable will be so horrible.

Yet there are DPS talents in both trees.

Why not add the 2/3 talents necessary to flesh out the spec? If there weren't dps holy spells and dps holy talents and dps holy glyphs... I would tell folks who wanted to holy dps to go take a hike. However, they do exist, and they remain unused.

There is 1 holy DPS glyph.
There are 4 holy "dps" spells. (I have "dps" because penance is at the end of the disc tree, and holy nova really should only half count ((when you consider it heals as well, if it were to be a "dps" spell for a viable dps spec, the included heal would likely be OP)) )
There is 1 talent directed solely at holy dps spells.
There are 3 talents that give extra to holy dps while being aimed (at least the likely conclusion) at healing.
There is 1 talent that affects penance only.
There are 11 talents that indirectly affect holy dps (general SP increase, spell haste, more spirit, yada yada) but these in most cases (once again, the likely conclusion) are not 'aimed' at holy dps but rather healing.
To flesh out holy DPS would take a considerable amount of work (just consider the 'normal' number of talents and spells as I laid out for a viable dps spec, the numbers are considerably higher)
As well, look at your resistances sometime. You will notice there is no "holy" resistance. It simply does not exist in the game, and as far as I last knew (and I haven't looked into this in a long long while, so I'm admitting it may be wrong) bosses can't resist holy spells even partially ('miss' is not resist). That alone means adding a new type of resistance to the game and trying to balance it out and such.
So no, fleshing it out would not involve just adding 2/3 talents. The non-existant holy resistance is what has always seemed to be the big reason holy dps will not be focused on.

The argument that those who wish to restrict liberties, rather than expand them, being tyrannical is completely sound. It is applicable in all formats. Please refute my comments with a logical thought process not a declarative statement.

"The greatest Tyrants in history have been proponents of conformity."

Wrong: "Because this is a logical/fair comparison by any measure."

Right: "Cited examples of great tyrants who have NOT been proponents of conformity." OR "Cited examples of why those who malign those who wish to discuss a viable holy dps build are NOT proponents of conformity."

You seem to think I am saying what you said is wrong. I am not trying to, for that is another road for a different thread to go down. I am simply saying that placing that at the end of your statement/arguement is folly, considering the scale that is meant for, and the scale we are discussing. Not to mention, the obvious implication of placing that at the end of you post: that people arguing against holy dps are tyrants. I figure right here you should say I should not infer that, but that is exactly how it is set up to read, whether or not it was your intention, that is the obvious implication a reader would pick up.

This is an sound line of argument. However, I disagree.

If we are all in agreement that feral dps is good and did not interfere with the fun/raid spots of balance dps, then the argument that holy dps will take raid spots from shadow is invalid. This is what I meant by intellectual dishonesty... using an argument that is not universally true. Its not a flame, just a boundary for a proper argument.

Furthermore, I do not think proponents of holy dps want to "take raid spots" from shadow priests. I haven't heard anyone calling for a hit rating buff or replenishment for holy dps. I just think that people want a holy dps to be viable, even if it brings no useful raid buffs and does 10% less damage than a shadow priest. Any raid leader who would take even a "viable" holy dpser over a shadow priest would be folly. Also, I have never heard of anyone suggesting that holy dps should be able to heal as well as a holy healer. They should be just a viable as a healer as an ele shaman, boomkin, or spriest.

From what I have read from the strongest/most vocal proponents of holy dps, they want to raid as that spec, so if they are not taking shadow priests spots, it will be someones, it just happens that shadow priests share some of the buffs given, and thus would be more likely to lose the spot first. I'm also confused how it could be viable, and yet bring no buffs and do 10% less damage than a shadow priest? I would not call that raid viable. I'm not sure if you noticed either, but most raids would take a feral over balance (this is dependent, but it is often the case, and even Bliz has said Balance DPS is too low)

[Pascal]

I went disc on my 70 priest on a whim and played with it a bit in Borean Tundra. If it wasn't so barren of any kind of other dps utility (since it's a healing specc and all) it would be more viable, but it was really fun. I liked pennance'ing mobs.

I know that's not the same as what you're talking about, since most "holy dps" speccs aren't disc. :P I just wanted to agree that it's fun to dps as a non-shadow specc. I had a friend that went disc/holy with that instant Smite talent or whatever, and all that junk, at level 70. He was actually amazing at (granted it was in BGs, where everyone is terrible anyway) and could barely be hurt by anything that wasn't a warrior or rogue. He enjoyed getting high smite and holy fire crits, in contrast to shadow just having dots flow. I know it doesn't mean he was doing more damage, but it was more fun by a landslide.

[Hunterwep]

I have a Holy DPS build for when I go do Dailies or AoE grind some mobs...

Seeing smite crit 6300 is fun (Flask+Food+fate Rune of Baneful Intent)
Pulling a 7pack with Mind Sear then Holy Nova the last bits down is fun
Regaining 1375mp5 WHILE cast for 15sec after a kill with xp is fun
Having +280 spellpower for 15sec after a kill with xp is fun
Reflective shield finishing of last bits while looting is fun

This spec is not to pvp with, not to instance/raid with, its to pawn the outdoor with in an original fasion
http://talent.mmo-champion.com/?prie...6&version=9855

[[-Spiritus-]]

You are correct that you did not directly call anyone intellectually dishonest (at that point at least). However, the wording, the phrasing, and the general tone and direction of your post at that time implied that either it had happened or would happen. If you word things in a way that seems to imply anger, what do you expect me to infer? Was it your intention? Whether or not, people read things for themselves, so to tell me what I am to infer or not infer is not fair. And you what else is "... not cool"? Using rather harsh comparisons in a unrelated situation.

I do not feel the term "intellectually dishonest" is an angry term. "Don't be a fucking moron" is an angry term. It is part of my responsibility to point out discrepancy in opposing views. So, I must use some term to annotate where I feel there could be improvement in an argument.

I, again, did not tell you what to infer. I asked for you politely not to infer anger in my statements, because I truly do not have any. I guess without vocal inflection or body language it would be difficult to prove, so I ask you to take my word for it.

Excuse me, when did I say that there was 0 chance of holy dps being viable? It is very unlikely, and I will go into that in a little bit.There is 1 holy DPS glyph.
There are 4 holy "dps" spells. (I have "dps" because penance is at the end of the disc tree, and holy nova really should only half count ((when you consider it heals as well, if it were to be a "dps" spell for a viable dps spec, the included heal would likely be OP)) )
There is 1 talent directed solely at holy dps spells.
There are 3 talents that give extra to holy dps while being aimed (at least the likely conclusion) at healing.
There is 1 talent that affects penance only.
There are 11 talents that indirectly affect holy dps (general SP increase, spell haste, more spirit, yada yada) but these in most cases (once again, the likely conclusion) are not 'aimed' at holy dps but rather healing.
To flesh out holy DPS would take a considerable amount of work (just consider the 'normal' number of talents and spells as I laid out for a viable dps spec, the numbers are considerably higher)

Your right, you had never said that there was a zero chance of holy dps being viable. However, I had said that you were being an obstructionist. You may still believe something could happen while being vocal in its opposition. If you take offense to being an obstructionist when it comes to this topic, perhaps you should reconsider your position.

This is what proponents of holy dps want to make the spec "viable" in their view (1 new talent, 2 revised talents):



This, to me, does not seem to be major changes. It would, however, make holy dps competitive if the proper talents were chosen. This has already been theory crafted in previous threads.

As well, look at your resistances sometime. You will notice there is no "holy" resistance. It simply does not exist in the game, and as far as I last knew (and I haven't looked into this in a long long while, so I'm admitting it may be wrong) bosses can't resist holy spells even partially ('miss' is not resist). That alone means adding a new type of resistance to the game and trying to balance it out and such.
So no, fleshing it out would not involve just adding 2/3 talents. The non-existant holy resistance is what has always seemed to be the big reason holy dps will not be focused on.

Wowwikki: Holy resistance does not currently exist as a visible or collectible statistic in World of Warcraft. It only exists against PvE targets of a higher level.

So, yes players do not have holy resistance. However, boss mobs do. If they didn't, retribution paladins would be insane. No biggie though, this is a more uncommon fact.

You seem to think I am saying what you said is wrong. I am not trying to, for that is another road for a different thread to go down. I am simply saying that placing that at the end of your statement/arguement is folly, considering the scale that is meant for, and the scale we are discussing. Not to mention, the obvious implication of placing that at the end of you post: that people arguing against holy dps are tyrants. I figure right here you should say I should not infer that, but that is exactly how it is set up to read, whether or not it was your intention, that is the obvious implication a reader would pick up.

It is a fairly common tool in rhetoric to use an extreme example to prove a smaller point. I would hope the reader would not think opponents of holy dps were akin to famous despots because of this statement. That would be silly. I would, however, like them to think about the similarities between the two, and adjust the moral degree accordingly.

Think of it this way. I have drawn a line on the 50yardline of a football field. At one end zone are hyper-conformist tyrants and on the other are mad-max anarchists. By pointing out that holy dps dissenters are proponents of conformity to some degree, I have placed them on the same side as tyrants. It is up to the reader to use their moral judgment to adjust where that position fits on the scale. I would put it on the 49.99yardline, but on the despot side nonetheless. I myself am on the anarchists side, however, I would put myself on their 49.99yardline as well.

I am betting that readers of the argument will be more sympathetic to a more anarchical view over a tyrannical one.

From what I have read from the strongest/most vocal proponents of holy dps, they want to raid as that spec, so if they are not taking shadow priests spots, it will be someones, it just happens that shadow priests share some of the buffs given, and thus would be more likely to lose the spot first. I'm also confused how it could be viable, and yet bring no buffs and do 10% less damage than a shadow priest? I would not call that raid viable. I'm not sure if you noticed either, but most raids would take a feral over balance (this is dependent, but it is often the case, and even Bliz has said Balance DPS is too low)

Perhaps I should change my statement of "raid viable" to "competitive dps." I have not seen any supporters of holy dps call for additional utility raid buffs. This is why I do not see a shadow priest loosing their spot to a holy dps priest. Given equal gear and skill, a shadow priest would bring more to a raid than a holy dps priest ever would.

Perhaps it is different on your server, but I rarely see a dedicated feral dps druid. So, my statement was intellectually dishonest as I cannot truly attest to the entire WoW population from my observation.