Help choosing class, narrowed it down to 4

[Swifthand]

<p>Greetings all!</p><p>I'm returning to the franchise that started my MMORPG Addiction. Although, I have a little problem deciding what class I really want to make my new main. Back when EQ2 went live, I played a Brigand. Right now he's level 34 but I don't really like how SOE implemented DPS classes. Anyway, I plan on playing A Sarnak because I've always wanted to play as one since the first time I saw them in LOIO back in the original EQ.</p><p>Which brings me to my topic. I'm having trouble deciding what I want to play. Since Sarnaks are evil by nature, I'm crossed between playing an Inquisitor, Defiler, Warden, or Fury..  </p><p>Here's a brief history with the types of characters I've played in recent MMO's. In EQ 1, my main was a Druid. I played shortly before Kunark went live and enjoyed my Druid until it became frustrating trying to find a group once reaching level 50, this is when I switched to a Warrior for grouping purposes but that class was just so bleh boring! Anyway, I enjoyed and loved my druid. Soloing was alot of fun and I remember many people used to rant and rave at how over powerful Druids were simply because we got root and snare to stack, Wolf form to kite, and Great DoTs, decent DD's,etc. Now in EQ2, unfortunately there are two different types of Druids. I'd like to know which one is better at soloing, produces more damage, heals better, and most importantly which is most needed for grouping and raiding? </p><p>In Vanguard I played a Shaman. This class was pretty similar to Druids in EQ1, but with more flavor. "Phoenix" Shammies in VG were basically the top healers, which I was, whereas in EQ, Druids were just a backup secondary type healer. Now, not only did Shammies recieve good healing spells, they also got a few nice Wards which pretty much made us almost unkillable. Our DD's were weak, but our DoT's were pretty good, combined with a couple half decent Melee attacks. How different are Defiler's in EQ2 compared to Shammies in Vanguard? Which class would be more beneficial, group desireble, and fun to play, Shaman or Druid? And what are the benefits of playing A Defiler over a Warden/Fury? </p><p>Last but not least, I threw in the Inquisitor because they seem very similar to what Clerics in EQ1 were, also similar to how Inquisitors in Vanguard are, except that VG's Inquisitors could actually melee pretty decent, <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I meant in terms of healing prowess. Now, I always thought of playing a Plate Wearing Cleric Class as my main, but back in EQ 1, Clerics were incredibly boring but very very needed simply because not many people played them due to how *snore snore* boring they were. I understand Cleric's playstyle has changed greatly over the years in recent MMO's with Vanguard going a D&D type of route with Clerics by making them pretty good at melee as well as good in healing, buffing, etc. The only problem I see with them right now in EQ2 is, I'm sure it will probably be more fun and exciting soloing as a Defiler, Warden, or Fury. But in groups Inquisitors may be wanted more since I'm guessing they are the best at "healing" if you don't decide to go Battle Cleric,,is this correct?</p><p>So, I'd greatly appreciate any help, suggesstions, and advice you have to give on the Pro's and Con's of these 4 classes. Your opinions and advice will help me decide which route I want to go for my Sarnak. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Thanks!</p>

[Norrsken]

you actually have the inqy figured backwards.Its, if specced for it, the most melee heavy healer in the game. And with a melee spec, they are also a pretty good solo class and do decent dps while still good healers and ok debuffers. If standing toe to toe mashing faces with a twohander is your thing, the inqy is definately more exciting than the warden and fury. the defiler soloing is about as fast and furious as watching a slug cross the road. It gets there, just takes a bit of time. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Now, with AAs, the defilers soloing has been sped up, or so Im told.

[Swifthand]

<cite>Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>you actually have the inqy figured backwards.Its, if specced for it, the most melee heavy healer in the game. And with a melee spec, they are also a pretty good solo class and do decent dps while still good healers and ok debuffers. If standing toe to toe mashing faces with a twohander is your thing, the inqy is definately more exciting than the warden and fury. the defiler soloing is about as fast and furious as watching a slug cross the road. It gets there, just takes a bit of time. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /> Now, with AAs, the defilers soloing has been sped up, or so Im told. </blockquote><p>That's kind of what I don't really want to play. I hated watching all the sparkly spell effects as a roguish Brigand. I think SOE needs to give melee classes actual "melee combat animations" and leave the sparkly spell effects to caster classes. This is one reason I'm starting a new character. It bothered me so much, It's also one reason why I quit EQ2 back in January of 2005. Giving melee characters "spell effects" while meleeing is silly and ridiculous to look at. I just couldn't stand it anymore lol.</p><p>Now, you say Defiler's are as fun as watching paint dry and grass grow? So basically their DoT's aren't anything to praise, along with their DD's and melee abilities? Are they able to Kite well? Or is that mainly restricted to Druids, Rangers, and Bards?</p>

[Swordmage]

<p>From what I have seen, kiting is not as important in EQ2 as it was in EQ. But then, I hate kiting -- I would rather watch the grass grow as my Shaman wears down the enemy than have him running around for hours.</p><p>Of all the healers, I find the druids the most fun -- good DPS, reasonable healing, lots of utility, reasonably fast battles. With AAs you can concentrate on a hold-off-and-blast or in-your-face combat style. As far as the difference between Fury and Warden, Fury used to be the higher DPS with Warden having the edge on healing; however, I haven't been following the latest.</p>

[Swifthand]

<p>After lurking around on other threads comparing a defiler vs mystic, defiler vs warden, inquisitor vs Defiler, and Fury vs Defiler, I've now narrowed my choices down to 3 with Defiler now out of the equation. Fromall the info on Defilers, they seem more proficient and powerful in groups vs soloing. While this isn't a bad thing, I;d also like to enjoy my main class and Defilers seem to be very boring and slooow to breeze by the levels compared to the other 3 on my list. I also see that most people playing Defilers absolutely love the class, but that's because most people playing Defilers all chose Druids or Inquisitor's as their first primary main. This tells me that the other 3 are more popular, enjoyable, and kickazz for soloing, and can also be very beneficial with grouping. Also, I enjoyed teleporting and SOW on my druid in EQ ^_^</p><p>Right now I have Warden in the lead, with Fury 2nd and Inquisitor 3rd. I'd love it If some players could give me benefits of these classes vs the con's.. Thank u again! Now off to finish cooking my thanksgiving dinner a day early. ^_^</p>

[Lortet]

<p>I have got all three of these</p><p>Fury - as discussed - closest to a mage type healer - nukes and heals. AA points less necessary to get the dps going (but then you will need to upgrade the damage spells)</p><p>Warden - with aa points into the melee warden path the dps gets up and going, otherwise is a slightly more focused healer and less dps than the fury. </p><p>Both druids have fast casting HoT's for heals. I find I need to cast them most fights as I do get hit quite often.</p><p>Inquis - once the aa points are in the battle cleric line, and then more in the Sta line to get the 100% crit, dps really takes off. Only have to heal in large fights or against ^^^'s.  This is good as the heals take ages to cast - although if you cast reactives before the fight this matters less. I find the inqui gets damaged far less. The inqui doesn't get nice movement buff and portals, evac, invis, but their debuffs are a feature of their combat.</p><p>I like all of them - if I had to choose it would go to the inquis. </p>

[Winter12345]

I would recommend fury, only because so far out of all the priest classes ive played, i love how they can just nuke away but also heal themselves nicely, very well in t3 imo

[Swifthand]

<cite>Lortet wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I have got all three of these</p><p>Fury - as discussed - closest to a mage type healer - nukes and heals. AA points less necessary to get the dps going (but then you will need to upgrade the damage spells)</p><p>Warden - with aa points into the melee warden path the dps gets up and going, otherwise is a slightly more focused healer and less dps than the fury. </p><p>Both druids have fast casting HoT's for heals. I find I need to cast them most fights as I do get hit quite often.</p><p>Inquis - once the aa points are in the battle cleric line, and then more in the Sta line to get the 100% crit, dps really takes off. Only have to heal in large fights or against ^^^'s.  This is good as the heals take ages to cast - although if you cast reactives before the fight this matters less. I find the inqui gets damaged far less. The inqui doesn't get nice movement buff and portals, evac, invis, but their debuffs are a feature of their combat.</p><p>I like all of them - if I had to choose it would go to the inquis. </p></blockquote><p>           </p><p>          So are you saying with your preferred playstyle, you'd rather go with Inquisitor vs Warden and Fury? Why is this? Is it because Inquisitors when specced for Battle Cleric can handle themselves in battle when meleeing, they wear plate which means you don't get beat up as much as the leather wearing druids, and they still privide adequate enough healing in groups? So basically Inquis's are more overall rounded compared to Warden's/Furies?</p><p>Now, honestly in EQ 1 the speed buff, wolform, and porting meant ALOT to me. Back then you didn't have horsies flying carpets, and Griffins like you do in EQ2. I played a Brigand until level 34 and paid a pretty penny for a 40% run speed level 30 Horse. So I don't really need their run speed, except for earlier levels, but even then it's not really a necessity.</p><p>Ok, right now it all boils down to what I think I'll enjoy most. I really don't wanna go for one class, and at level 30 get sick of it because it's not what I enjoy playing. Out of the 3 classes, Inquisitor, Warden, Druid, which are the best at soloing + ^^^ named mobs?? I hear Wardens can do it but it's slow,, are Inquis and Furies able to solo powerful nameds as well? </p><p>Also, I really do like the Idea of playing as a Plate wearing Healer, provided I can solo whenever I want, when I want. Do Inquis take the mobs down fairly quick compared to Wardens and Furies? I understand Fury's are basically the nuking Priest, Warden's are technically the better healer, and Inquisitor's are more proficient at meleeing out of the 3 being compared, but Is It possible to cast as an Inquisitor as well?</p><p>Once again thanks for the help!</p>

[Winter12345]

<cite>Swifthand wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Also, I really do like the Idea of playing as a Plate wearing Healer</p></blockquote><p>Then try inq and temp, they are both plate wearing healers and are not so bad at soloing. I use to have a 34 templar and finishing quests requiring mobs to kill etc. were really easy if you spec your guy right <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p><p>Sorry forgot to add this, yeah furies are great at taking down tough mobs, it is also fun along the way, just try an inq, temp and fury out, however also keep in mind that lvls 1-20 of just one class doesnt always show the classes' true potential, for example furies get really good at lvl 24+ and temps are really great around their 30s</p>

[Miele]

Playing a non-fury would be making yourself a disservice. Great healing, great damage (even AE damage), run speed, ports, invisibility (group one), and some of the most desired buffs (INT buffs and Agitate for melees).Try one, level to 24, get the master 2 of strike of thunder and never look back.

[Swifthand]

I want to thank all of you for your help! I've decided to go with the Fury. Although, I still may make a Inquisitor sometime down the road If I don't like my Fury, which I doubt will happen.. Thanks again everyone!

[KajedInfern]

<p>Did we cross swords (dueled twice) on the Overlords Outpost with you trying out a warden?  I was the Troll Troub.</p><p> If not then I am familiar (I believe) with your toon in your sig, from long ago.  I see we both joined these forums here on the same day.  Regardless... welcome back.</p>