Inquisitor vs Templar (pvp)

[RumpleMan5000]

<div></div>Hello all,I'm pretty new to EQII and I'm thinking of rolling a cleric on a PvP server. I've been studying the respective class spells, and I have one main question/concern:I'm noticing that Templars get a Smite line that does damage and pacifies. And Inquisitors get an Invocation line that does damage and stifles. Now when I look these spells up, it seems the duration of the pacify is longer then the stifle. In PvP (or PvE), this is a nice advantage.Also regarding the immuity issue - doesn't it make more sense to cast a pacify instead of a stifle as less classes have pacify. And therefore they won't have had a pacify cast on them prior? Is this assumption even correct?<div></div>Any info would be greatly appreciated, even from the non-pvp crowd. And feel free to tell me I'm way off base, if thats the case <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />ThanksR

[Antryg Mistrose]

<div></div>I don't play on a PvP server, but in general Inquisitors can do more damage (but still not a lot) e.g. Templars do not get a damage shield at any level, so are more of a sitting duck soloing at a guess.   The pacify is effectively a mezz, and against mobs is very useful at the start of fights, for getting all your debuffs on.  I presume the same would apply to other players.  Being mezzlike, but with no mezz animation it is likely if you are grouped, that someone else will break it.  A stifle to my knowledge cannot be broken by someone in your group - only by your opponent curing, which is probably why the durations are shorter.On edit - just noticed you are referring to the smite line, not the sign line - given it's one of only 2 direct single target damage spells a templar has (light strike is the other), you will cast it a lot, so immunity will be a problem, even autoattack breaks it, and the duration is not enough for it to be a very noticable effect even soloing.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Antryg Mistrose on <span class=date_text>04-20-2006</span> <span class=time_text>06:49 AM</span>

[Splintered]

I had a fight today against a lvl 30 templar in complete feysteel. I myself was a 29. If two other dps hadn't joined in, I think I would had won, but it would had been close. When it comes to healer vs healer battles, all about power pull and regen. As far as who is better suited for pvp, well, I most certainly would say inquisitor since they have more dps, but the templar has more things to keep him/her alive, which can also be very good (espicially later on when a healer really has to worry about survival) <div></div>

[Israphil]

Inquisitors should own a templar hands down in pvp. Our root/stifle/fear abilities make us a much more versatile combatant, thus giving us the edge in pvp.<div></div>

[Daena]

I second the posts above^^ We def have more PvP utility, and the power pool/regen note was right as well.  Against a healer, if you can out-regen them, you win. -Daenath X'Deus 70 Teir'Dal Inquisitor, Nektulos 38 Teir'Dal Inquisitor, Nagafen <div></div>

[MokiCh]

The Cruel Invocation line is as pathetic a stifle as you can get. The stifle lasts for all of three seconds and breaks the instant the target receives damage, so usually it gets broken half a second after you cast it, especially if you're grouped with AE or DOT classes like warlocks or necromancers. At best it could be used to interrupt the casting of a spell or combat art, but 90% of the time it's unlikely your target will even notice it was there. The only decent stifle we get is the Imprison line, which both roots and stifles. It still has a chance to break upon receiving damage, but it's not guaranteed so the Imprison spell will usually last much longer. Also if you use it in conjunction with the Fearful Conversion line you have some effective (but ghetto) crowd control. <div></div>