I want to point out a couple forms of bias in your argument. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be be biased when arguing a position - I just want to take the time to emphasise that this is a subjective argument, not an objective scoring. I also want to underline that this is not the substantive argument in favor of including a cleric that you deserve, but just a few quick thoughts I wanted to jot down.
structural bias - the top-line points are all about shaman benefits, not mentioning any cleric unique abilities (as compared to shamans). No mention of stun, lull, atone, DA. This is fair for a subjective argument - but not for an objective assessment.
selective bias - level ranges provided are the ones where shamans are comparatively equal on heals. Here's an alternate perspective. From 24-29 clerics will have Greater Healing(290-300) while shamans will have Healing (100hp). Up through 51 shaman is limited to Greater Healing(270hp), while from 34 on clerics have Superior Healing (565-585) - that's double the healing per cast from 34 till 52.
redundancy bias - slows are redundant, but there's an argument about why that's still a point in favor for shamans. Stuns are redundant, but the benefits of that redundancy are dismissed.
healing metric bias - mana efficiency is not the only metric. Time efficiency matters as well.
To re-iterate, everything you wrote is perfectly reasonable as a subjective argument in favor of a position. But we've had a recurring side-discussion on whether this topic is objective or subjective and I thought it was worth noting some relevant thoughts.
|