Basic Principles for WHM - What and what not to do.

[VanilleFang]

Personally what I do in situation where 2 melees take damage is just use Regen on them. If I know they shouldn't be getting hit again anytime soon (unavoidable damage) then Regen should be good enough. I rarely find use for Cure III only because in a PUG people have a habit of not stacking much outside things like Titan and Shiva. My most used AoE spell is Medica II.

Side note: Was everyone like me? Didn't want to be the first one to post and was waiting for someone else to post first? lol Good thing I posted first then. :P

[Sebazy]

Where does that thought come from that you can only take damage while having aggro?

Because avoidable AEs tend to be infrequent enough (Or sufficiently easy to avoid) that on most pulls and bosses, regen is plenty enough to keep them going unless they are sitting there patently ignoring everything. Frankly if I'm with a pair of melee DPS that are bad enough to eat every last avoidable AE, then I suspect I'd be better of letting them die and just doing the DPS myself

[Spoekes]

This is not directly aimed at you:
*regen is enough* is a misconception.
Regen over its full duration does more than any other heal to a single target (1050 potency combined) and can be classified as MP hungry if used wrong.
I often see comments like "if the DPS just lost like 500 HP I'll toss a regen", which is terrible.

Obviously, you should be using every other healing spell more often than cure III.
My point is simply that there are other uses for cure III in almost every content you do if you look for them and didn't delete cure III from you mind because its "innefficient".

[Sebazy]

I often see comments like "if the DPS just lost like 500 HP I'll toss a regen", which is terrible.

Wait what? All this time I should have been cure IIIing them?

Seriously though, regen is perfectly fine, it's the second lowest MP cost option we have and any further damage taken in the following 20 seconds will boost it's efficiency far beyond anything else this side of an opportunistic freecure.

At the risk of getting personal, you're off your trolley mate. Every single last ability we have could be classified as inefficient if you use it wrongly. Regen used appropriately is the most efficient bread and butter spell we have.

[Ghishlain]

Regen over its full duration does more than any other heal to a single target (1050 potency combined) and can be classified as MP hungry if used wrong.
I often see comments like "if the DPS just lost like 500 HP I'll toss a regen", which is terrible.

Will just have to disagree slightly. Any being used wrongly will be classified as "MP" hungry. However; when looking at a straight Potency/MP efficiency, nothing in the WHM toolkit will best it - making Regen an incredible tool for incidental AoE damage against non-tank targets.

That being said, is it wasteful to Regen a DPS that took 500 damage? Probably - natural HP regeneration should handle that. However, if you have that "MUST HEAL!!!" OCD, Regen is the best spell to go to for those types of scenarios.

Random question of the day on the topic of natural HP regeneration - is natural HP regeneration in combat 2%/tick (the same as natural MP regeneration in combat)?

[VanilleFang]

*regen is enough* is a misconception.

Not really. In a lot of situation you don't even have to heal the DPS. But when you do it's more MP efficient to just throw out a Regen if they shouldn't be taking any more damage anytime soon. It's a misconception to think that Regen is a cure-all for DPS, but it's an incredibly useful spell and sees far more use than Cure III by most WHM from what I've seen/heard.

[Spoekes]

Will just have to disagree slightly. Any being used wrongly will be classified as "MP" hungry. However; when looking at a straight Potency/MP efficiency, nothing in the WHM toolkit will best it - making Regen an incredible tool for incidental AoE damage against non-tank targets.

That being said, is it wasteful to Regen a DPS that took 500 damage? Probably - natural HP regeneration should handle that. However, if you have that "MUST HEAL!!!" OCD, Regen is the best spell to go to for those types of scenarios.

Yeah to be honest I was tempted to write that "if used wrong" because I feel that the argument against cure III stems alot from it being used wrong. Regen is a great spell, thats for sure.

Random question of the day on the topic of natural HP regeneration - is natural HP regeneration in combat 2%/tick (the same as natural MP regeneration in combat)?

Just tested this.
On WHM with ~5800 HP I reg 58 per tick
On PLD with ~7900 HP I reg 79 per tick

Seems to be 1%/tick.

[Spoekes]

Not really. In a lot of situation you don't even have to heal the DPS. But when you do it's more MP efficient to just throw out a Regen if they shouldn't be taking any more damage anytime soon. It's a misconception to think that Regen is a cure-all for DPS, but it's an incredibly useful spell and sees far more use than Cure III by most WHM from what I've seen/heard.

We have a misunderstanding here:
On this very forum I read more than once "Regen is enough" in the case of topping people off. I should have worded it differently. What I mean is, that Regen does much more than the needed top off, hence the 500 HP example.
Obviously, you use Regen more often than Cure III, thats not the question.

Wait what? All this time I should have been cure IIIing them?

Seriously though, regen is perfectly fine, it's the second lowest MP cost option we have and any further damage taken in the following 20 seconds will boost it's efficiency far beyond anything else this side of an opportunistic freecure.

At the risk of getting personal, you're off your trolley mate. Every single last ability we have could be classified as inefficient if you use it wrongly. Regen used appropriately is the most efficient bread and butter spell we have.

It is you that is saying Cure III is "MP hungry", your basically saying its inefficient, and I'm running in circles showing you that it is saving MP and GCD against multiple Cure IIs for example, and less potential to overheal if there are only 2-3 stacked targets that need healing against medica - Yes, it's very situational
Maybe it's the fact that you can do without ever using Cure III in every situation just fine what makes this spell so undervalued.

And really lame joke to throw that comment about Regen completely out of context. GG you win.

[KisaiTenshi]

Random question of the day on the topic of natural HP regeneration - is natural HP regeneration in combat 2%/tick (the same as natural MP regeneration in combat)?

It's 1%/tick. eg 52 points on a HP pool of 5209

And Regen is worse for Enmity generation which is why you'd only want it ticking on one target. I don't play a tank so I don't know what the general opinion is other than "Inappropriate Heal bombs = bad Healer"

[VanilleFang]

snip

I'm more looking at your situation you posted earlier where a Cure III would be more MP efficient than two Cure II. In which case it would be more efficient to just use a Regen on each (especially if you can't land a Cure III on both).

Yeah, no, if they only took 500 damage I would be "eff 'em" and wait for them to take more damage. I see what you are trying to say and it makes sense, all I was pointing out is that Cure III is very, very situational mainly because of the lack of coordination in DF. I'm not saying you are wrong by any means, we just have different view points I guess? I don't know. Sorry. xD