Why a Moonkin over a mage ?Follow

Hi all :)
Having played melee always I wanted to create something new.
Looking at the talent trees of moonkin it seems like alot of fun.
But when it comes to dps, why choose a moonkin over a mage ? is it as simple as they can heal and have better armor ? Or is it the fact you can respecc if needed ?
Please enlighten me :)

Improved scorch 10% crit is the main thing a mage offers to a raid everything else is basically moot.

As a boomkin you will pretty much have a guaranteed raid spot as they are a rare breed.

Druids are a lot harder to kill. That's one reason why I made one.

[Edit]
This is also the reason why I would pick a warlock over a mage, too.

Edited, Jan 30th 2009 10:14pm by sederix

I beg to differ on the whole best caster dps in game. I consistently out dps our mages who are in 4 piece 25 man t7 and I just recently got my first piece of 25 man t7. In fact on just Patchwerk myself and the other boomkin I raid with were 4k and about 4.5k dps while the next closest mage was around 3.8k dps.

Also, moonkins offer 13% more damage on all caster spells with Earth and Moon.

Mages are a dime a dozen, boomkins are much harder to find. A consistent 5% crit vs something that needs to be applied. Much like feral's LotP vs Warriors 5% crit, I can't remember the name of the skill but I would much rather take a buff that is always up rather than something that is based off a chance.

Mage > Boomkin in pvp.

If you can get a healer in bgs you can do quite a bit of damage. I usually can get in the top 3 for the bg if I can get a friend to come heal. Otherwise it's a lot harder to pvp as boomkin than mage.

you raid with bad mages


I'd like to see one recent WWS report where you out dps'd a 4pc t7 mage on any fight. Since you do it all the time this should not be a problem I'm sure.




Edited, Feb 2nd 2009 2:20am by lysrgk

Not trying to come off as an ***, but perhaps you're not a good boomkin.

In what way do you mean? If you're talking about burst damage, then probably, but that's not saying much since PVP is more than that-- one would do better to just say they are better at PVE.
According to the developers, "PVP is too bursty", and they will be making some adjustments. Do you think a mage or a druid will suffer more at this end?
Mages and priests typically die first, and die the fastest. This is pretty much the golden rule, where I play. I have no reason to believe that a mage can outlive a melee attack better than a druid, and I have no reason to believe a mage has the ability to escape multiple situations. I'm very hard to catch, and equally hard to kill at PVP because I have many tricks that mages lack.

Edited, Jan 31st 2009 10:22pm by sederix

"Uhh" do we both play druids?
Frost Nova does nothing, since druid spells are ranged, not to mention druids cant be kept in place due to power-shifting. Being frozen is about as effective as Polymorph. It sucks when my treants get froze, but guess what: that's time they spent dealing with treants and not me casting Starfire or Wrath.
Blink is cute. So is rooting them after they blink. You do know we can catch up them quickly, right?
Ice Block. This is just an extra 20 seconds for the mage to think about how they are going to die. It's also a good time for me to heal and be ready with my treants.
Silence is only effective if you dont know how to stun, or just get out of the way while it lasts.

We have a solution for all those things. If you think a mage is tough because of those, then you have not been a druid long enough.
The only reason mages are a challenge to me, when I play a druid, is their burst damage. And, the trick to that is not to be in a rush to kill them.


Edited, Feb 1st 2009 2:30am by sederix

i was mostly refering to where you said mages not being able to out live melee attackers. which besides some mut/prep rogues a mage should never lose to any melee. as a boomkin I'll never lose to a warrior or ret, but DK's are still iffy and forget about rogues. I can handle my own against frost or fire mages, but if a boomkin wins 1v1 against an arc mage its ONLY because that mage is an idiot.

You obviously don't understand Improved Scorch. With the glyph 2 casts of Scorch will give you the full 5 stacks of the debuff yielding 10% to all offensive spells on the boss. If your mage allows this to wear off at any time during the encounter except times you're not attacking the boss (add phase or something to that effect) he's a bad mage. So no, it's not based on chance. Oh, and the best thing? You can have both.

It is not our fault that half the sage's and guru's on these boards don't always give accurate or good information. So it is only right when you see people misguiding others that you state facts and not just I did this or I did that so it is right or wrong.

The topic of this was "why moonkin over a mage"

I stated all my facts clearly and then get told I am a bad boomkin? this only reinforces my opening sentence of this post. Also notice that "arex" who called me this gets a "good" rating on a post that is irrelevant to the topic yet others who post factual evidence regarding the topic get default and decent.

Hey look if the sage'/guru want to auto rate up all other sage/guru posts feel free I don't care cause I know what I am talking about. However it is also fair to the community of people who read these topics for help that you supply them with good accurate information which is not happening in this case.

Look the skinny on this whole thing is this, If u raid you worry about DPS. You can not compare your DPS against the guy next to you of the same class you need to compare your self to what the best players do.

3.8k mages are bad mages

5k+ dps mages are good mages

6k+ mages are pros.

I am still waiting for anyone to post 1 recent WWS report showing me a boomkin out dps'n a 4pc t7 mage on patchwerk or any non movement fight for that matter.

Edited, Feb 2nd 2009 1:43am by lysrgk