Now, you're just exaggerating...

If you have issues with the offensive capabilities of Healing, may I recommend a change of skills?

clearly you did not read my original post very well

Clearly, you didn't read my post, either. Less "woe is me," more sparring until your brain bleeds out your ears!

I'm saying that asking for a class/tertiary combo that's virtutally immune to dying to half of Lusternia's classes 1 on 1 to also have an offense that is able to enforce a kill on someone on its own is asking too much.

I'm not asking for a perfect YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THIS KILL method. but something that actualy has like at least a reasonable chance of working. pretty much everything that's been suggested so far is like 'this will work against a noob with no reflexes and if you get really lucky and they dont hit you back and nothing goes wrong'

Join the club! For all I've invested in my character, credit-wise and code-wise, I'm defeated too often by reflexes and the RNG.

You've gotten some good advice, but there is no simple, clear-cut answer to a question like this.

The offense of most guild/tertiary combination is exactly like that, with a reasonable chance of killing someone. And for quite a few of them, fighting a healer means that that reasonable chance gets direly diminished, often to something near 0 or where you can only pull 'cheap tricks'. Aeon and hard (slit-)locks are two examples of things that are almost completely nullified by a healer. Any class based on building afflictions on the victim is left with little to do. From what I remember, deepheal cures 2000 wounds. It does take eq, but you can undo anything a knight has built over a few rounds in just a single action.

Has it never struck you that green and gedulah cost 3 power, throw off eq and cure two afflictions -randomly- while you could cure those two afflictions without any eq loss much more reliably? Granted, the first also cure regeneration afflictions instantly, but they're mostly used to get out of locks. That's just one example, and auras do their part, too.

I agree with you that healing is powerful defensively. I think it's the obvious choice for a defensive player. But even if healing cancels out many different kinds of kills. If a class does not have the potential to kill in the first place, then that means there is no point in fighting at all alone.

If you have a 30% chance of pulling off a kill normally. And you come across a healer who is able to nullify that 30%. then you end up just avoiding that person rather then fighting them.

If you have a 0% chance of pulling off a kill normally. You stay home.

So why is it that the other healing classes get the best of both worlds, a good (if not strong) method of pulling off a kill, as well as all the benefits that you listed. And yet everyone feels it's fine to leave celestine healers at 0%. I sigh at all the free-for-all games and sparring I end up never doing because I'm not confident in my ability to actually pull off a kill.

I should not have to defend my right to have a class that functions as well as everyone else. Yes I have more defensive capability then most. But I would GLADLY give some of that up for something to give me a fighting chance. (without changing SKILLS)

From your perspective, it makes sense to say that you're underpowered. Some of the rest of us would argue that you're fine and those other healers need the nerf bat applied in one or two places.

You bought your cake, and you can eat it, but you cannot have the other guys' cake, too. Insisting that you won't change your skills to become a more viable combatant is a little absurd, if it's the skills that are getting in your way.

Basically, you want your cake and you want to eat it too. If healing is made more offensive, then why isn't Astrology more defensive? Maybe some DMP? Ability to cure afflictions by the stars?

All joking aside, Healing is simply more of a defensive than an offensive skillset. You know this, you picked this. Carcer, Aurawarp, recklessness to keep them from sipping. Your bleeding strategy isn't great, but it works. Inquisition is far from undoable, I've been inquisitioned as Shaddus more times than I like to recall, by Talkan, by plenty of others.

This. Sorry Calina.

It is my belief that every class/tertiary combination should have:

a ) the potential to kill any class/tertiary combination in 1v1 combat (which also happens to co-inside with being useful in groups, if you can kill alone you can kill in groups even easier)
b ) the potential to survive every other class/tertiary combination.

If these requirements are met. then what you would have is a balanced system. The only variables that would remain would be the skill of the people controlling these characters, and the occasional lag beast.

Right away I know you're going to try and jump on me and say that it's very hard to kill a celestine healer. But I didn't say that "it has to be easy to kill every class/combination" I said it has to be POSSIBLE, from what i've gathered from the suggestions in this thread it seems that everyone is mostly at a consensus that I cannot kill anyone with a reasonable amount of skill or even just a basic set of reflexes.

The skills are not precluding it. The skill (OOC) with which they are used is precluding it.

In a perfect game, we would all be equally capable of both surviving and killing others, just in different ways. However, we've seen too much evidence refuting any notion that Basin-wide balance exists (or ever will). Envoy wars happen with regularity and the administration is not so in tune with how the game is actually played.

What you're still missing from the discussion is that you're perfectly set to kill anyone you want 1v1 or to survive/escape anyone 1v1. It just might take a little ingenuity and more time than someone with a more offensive tertiary.

Every day now, I regret giving out a free combat system...

If that's the case, then we have a very balanced system already. Celestine Healers do have the potential to kill any class/tertiary combination in 1v1 combat. Previous posts have already shown this. It may not work on more experienced fighters, but the potential is there!

My bleed/absolve tactic posted in my original post seems to work with a reasonable amount of success against anyone who has around ~4000 max mana or less. But if I want to try to use this tactic against a demigod or ascendant with 7000 mana and massive passive regeneration and when they sip mana they regain 1000+ mana. it becomes impossible.

Judging alone as a celestine healer is futile unless you're able to stick vapors on them and not have them cure it, AND hope that the vapors hides all three warning messages of judgement, AND that they don't decide to leave the room anyway or do something that would otherwise stop judgement anyway (such as monks that love to target your legs and cripple you)

And someone else has already stated in this thread that celestine damage is simply too low to hope for a damage kill, so all tactics that involve inquisition are more or less useless.

So tell me where the potential is. When I said that all classes/tertiaries should have potential to kill i meant to kill anyone that's not afk or disconnected or forgot to turn his triggers on.

Welcome to the world of top-tier 1v1 combat! Anyone who has sufficient investment and a bit of brains ought to be nearly impossible to pin down and kill 1v1. This is where group combat becomes especially important.

I mean, as a warrior with the skills I've selected, I have next to nothing for effectively pinning down a person. I can whale on them for ten minutes while they heal up as best they can, but they can pretty much just walk away and shrug at any point. My non-damage kill conditions require massive head/gut/chest trauma and a fair bit of luck, since I have to get through about five or six layers of defense and then can still miss for no reason at all. Yes, this makes me a little bitter.

Count yourself lucky that your afflictions and damage at least hit a person when you cast them.

Unless they are an acrobat

And that'd only happen if everyone had the exact same skills. Do you really want to play that game?

Just reading the posts I think you're missing the point of a Celestine healer. Listen, I'm not any sort of serious combatant but I know enough to realise that as a Nihilist Astrologist my ability to kill people isn't going to be like a tarot user. I didn't take Astrology to kill people, I took it for the nice buffs and the RP of it.

IF YOU TOOK HEALER TO KILL PEOPLE YOU TOOK THE WRONG SKILL.

Your choice then is to play a more defensive Celestine, assist in groups, and pull out kills when you do have the chance. If you want to be the Celestine slaying everyone in 1vs1 and taking out full battlefields then you took the wrong tert.

Outside of that, this is a helpful thread. People have been giving you advice on what you can do.

It seems to me that Calina only wants to moan about how little purpose Healing has for her offense. I think the name already implies its defensive nature.

You want something to help you more with offense? You're unhappy with Healing? Pick another tertiary. You are not linked to it until death do you part. Or spar until you can't take it anymore, then spar some more. Maybe you will find some neat trick.

Healing is a defensive skill yes. But there are three other guilds that are perfectly capable of mounting a good amount of offense without even using a single ability in healing. This thread is not about about how bad healing is in offense. It's about how bad CELESTINES WITHOUT TAROT OR ASTROLOGY are at offense. What if i had picked tarot but had simply not spent enough lessons in it? I should still be able to mount a passable offense with two other trans guildskills, but it's not so.

This is problably a bad example given that so many people think monks are overpowered. But monks can usualy be a threat even if they just use kata