State of DoV Raiding Templar

[Darkc]

<p>I'm am posting here in hopes that some rebalancing occurs between Templars and Inquisitors.  As of right now, there is little benefit in including a Templar over an Inquisitor in any aspect of the game, be it raiding or grouping.  Inquisitors out DPS Templars, match our healing ability, grossly out cure Templars, and provide much greater benefits to the groups via their buffs. Templars sit in MT groups mainly out of tradition more than actual necessity.  High end raiding guilds are actually starting to replace Templars even in their MT groups and running 3 or 4 inquisitors.</p><p>The main reason for this is Inquisitors unmatched curing ability with their Mythical spell... fast cast time, long range, and uninterruptable.  Several raid encounters involve knock backs or the group being tossed up in the air rending healers helpless to cure groups until they land. Inquistors are the only class with the ability cure on the fly with a short refresh.  This ability paired with their normal group cure ensures that they are adequate to single heal most raid encounters and cover all cures. </p><p>With current gear granting generous amounts of potency and crit bonus, Inquisitor reactives / heals / special abilities are more than adequate to keep a tank or group up.  The flip side of this is, that is also has strengthen Shamans (and tanks) to the point that they need less "support" to keep a tank up, so the plate healer contribution to a tank group heal wise is less and a plate healer that can add to DPS and provide fast curing is more desireable than the Damage mitigation that is the Templar's strength.</p><p>Inquisitors also possess potent group DPS abilities (which usually end up near the top of parses) such as Chilling Invigoration, Fanatical Devotion, and 10% passive reuse... not to mention the ability to DPS effectively while healing / curing, and usually topping parses among healers. </p><p>This thread isn't about how great Inquisitors have it or to get them nerfed in any way... this thread is about the state of the game and the Templar class.  In order for Templars to compete for raid slots (and instance group spots), Templars need a little love in the curing, group utility, and DPS departments.</p><p>While I have been a raiding Templar for several years, I am not going to pretend to know every healer class inside and out... so don't be too harsh if certain ideas seem to step on "other toes" as it were. </p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Curing</strong></span></p><p>The biggest gripe I have with curing is that right now Inquisitors have a monopoly on curing uninterrupted... this is huge considering all the running around involved on many raid encounters.  Only Furies with their long recast raid cure and Enhance:Sacrifice AA that allows us to single cure someone up to 50m away every 4 min (yay?) if you invest 10AA in it, allow any sort of uninterruptable curing . I know there's some AA lines from utility classes that allow uninterrupted movement, but with superior DPS alternatives that will leave such choices unused.</p><p>Some suggestions (not saying I'd like all implemented, just examples that would even the playing field)...</p><p>Mana Cure - Revamp the spell so that when ever the target cast spells there is a chance the Templar will receive an item that allows the Templar to group cure 30m range, uninterruptable... (like the Vig x2 item with a similar proc)</p><p>Enhance: Sacrifice under "Heroic" Achievements - Final rank instead of single curing make it a group cure, and please lower the base reuse.  10 AA for a 4 min ability to cure one person is a bit weak.</p><p>Enhance: Cure II under "Templar" Achievements - change this into an uninterruptable single cure and each rank increases its range by 5m</p><p>Divine Arbitration - 7min 30 sec ability WITH AA that is barely used... perhaps change it to something more useful like a Temp ability for the group to cast uninterrupted for 15 sec with a 3 min base reuse... or a Group HoT / Cure that can be casted on other groups with AA ... anything but its current ability.  Right now its main use is to heal someone across the zone that gets aggro running to your group.</p><p>Reverence - This spell stopped being useful a long time ago as well and could be turned into something better... singe target stoneskin?  Power drain ward?  Next cureable Detrimental that hits is cured automatically? Amplifies Hate Gain or MA, Spell DA, etc for a short duration at increased spell cost?  Anything's better than its current ability.</p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Group Utility</strong></span></p><p>Templars buff hp, group avoid status effects, mitigate some AoE damage (7.5% with AA)... lets not forget increase haste by 26... While we are the defensive plate priest, its like saying Inq shouldn't buff hp, phy mit, etc cause they are the offensive plate priest.  Templars need something to sort of make Tank (or DPS) classes want them in a group.  Some ideas...</p><p>Virtue - add 15% Hate gain, 10% Strikethrough, 10% Accuracy</p><p>Glory (50m) - add 5% Flurry, 20 MA, proc group heals and single cures the person with the buff (sometimes your melee is out of cure range on adds)</p><p>Mana Cure - Add 8% Spell DA</p><p>or</p><p>Symbol of Marzin - add group 5% Spell DA / Extend Ticks by 1 / increase spell and heal range by 3 m</p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Templar DPS</strong></span></p><p>No I don't want to top parses... but most Templars do not even attempt to DPS because its pointless with their current abilities.  Templars should at least be able to contribute some to burn fights or when using Solo / DPS specs... I think this would be possible with a few slight changes.</p><p>Templar Achievements: Smite Wrath - please please please remove the "disable Smite Wrath" 7 sec buff.  If you cure?  It gets removed... summon your hammer?  removed... need to heal for any reason AS A HEALER.  Its not like our spells are super powered with that buff up. My hammer proc'ing Peace of Mind / VC / PotM is my top parser on raids, even if I'm careful to have Smith Wrath up as much at possible. We only have a handful of nukes.</p><p>Unswerving Hammer - Permanent pet and make its AA increase its health and Mitigation.</p><p>All Templar nukes - decrease base cast time to that of "Wrath".  Right now I can't fit in 2 of the slower nukes w/o delaying an auto attack.  This is with capped cast speed.  If the base cast at 100% was the same was Wrath, it'd be perfect.</p>

[Flamewi]

<p>Dear SOE -- Ignore the OP please. Templars are fine. Do NOT f**k with them please please.</p><p>Templars are fast as heck on heals and cures and rock the heal parse out if properly played. Messing with them would be pointless imo.</p>

[Arabani]

<p>Same, dear SOE pls do not listen OP. Templars are great. Inq is just lesser shadow of a templar. Smaller reacitves, no repent, no magic ward, no mark or involuntry cure, no stoneskin,no heals on cure, no glory(even if it's not realy good  now). No sanctuary, no stun immune. Divine arbitration is a good spell. And templars always outdpsed equal geared inq on a single mob, and they even better now with 19.5 SDA and no single piece of cleric loot that increase mele output.</p><p>Templar and inq have different role and background. We are protectors,healers, they are support. Even if i agree we don't buff anything exept hp and blessing, and it's better to have inq in non tank group, i DON'T WANT more offensive buffs. I want more protection. Pls give us tower shield and more deffensive buffs<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I want fear and charm immune, some aditional armor buff etc.</p><p>I'm actualy agree with only that reverence need to be changed...somehow(idea of this ability was great and it's rocked during dof and kos, but now incoming damage is too high while reverence heal is too small). Make it permanent buff, like Divine armor and adjust effect slightly or change it to damage reduction, or make it single target hot.</p>

[Helmarf]

<p>I realy like your post and i cant more then agree to 100%.</p><p>Ive been a raiding templar for many years and nothing have realy changed for us over these years, we dont heal,cure,dps or buff more or less but what have happend is that all other healer classes have been boosted in one way or another to be more able to their job right.</p><p>As far in DoV exp atleast for em version it dosent take any special healer setup to take them down. But i most that a skilled templar is probably the only one that can turn something bad to good <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p><p>But yes many of our spells and abillitys needs to be looked in to.</p><p>A lower recast timer on groupcure would be awsome.</p><p>Do something about the hammer. Pets should have the same stats as the caster in DoV but the hammer dont.</p><p>Make Glory a group wide buff and add something dpsy to it. The heal proc is way to small to make any big difference anyway.</p><p> Mana cure should cure everything nox arc elemental including the person manacure is on. A spell da on it was a great idea.</p>

[Dillin]

<p>I have to agree, Templars need a little tweeking.  SOE did Templars a great injustice when Shield of Faith doesn't ward against power drains anymore. </p><p>A change I would like to see is make Glory a group power proc instead of a heal and increase the proc rate to a 2. </p><p>I can understand why SOE made the change so Shielding Faith doesn't completely block power drains but making it so it does nothing against a power drain was a bit extreme.  How about a 20% reduction to power drains?</p><p>IMO, Manacure isn't a reliable cure.  For the HEALER classes that only have 1 group cure, the reuse timers need to be significantly lowered.</p>

[Dillin]

<p>Oh yeah, and for the hammer pet, give it a AOE avoid.  Long reuse timer+squishiness+almost every mob has some kind of AOE= hammer pet does almost nothing for our DPS.</p>

[Darkc]

<p>I have to agree on shield of faith... last expansion it was one of our best abilities.  This expansion there  is one encounter I can think of that even uses up some of its ward.  Right now I just use it to proc abilities since it is a group spell. </p><p>The hammer is pretty beast if you have a Brawler in your group for max melee damage, group / raid temps are going, and you holy shield it... it is pretty disheartening when you throw up your temps (Divine Guidance, Benefaction, etc.) so you can DPS and between your crushing and spells you do like 20k dps on a 2.5 million raid burn, but Divine Light, your procs, and pets procs did like 50k combined for you. (this is in Off Stance, with my Offensive AA spec with Flurry, max auto attack mod, Smite Wrath up most of the fight etc, HM 2h'er, 180 pot / cb, 1 min ish burn)</p>

[PROZAK]

<p>I've been playing the templar in raids since hitting 50 many years ago and have to agree with Darc regarding (at minimum) the cures.  The fact that high level raiding guilds are bemoaning their templar and wishing for well-played inquizies says it all.  Also agree that Glory is useless and needs some work.</p>

[XXNIGHTANGELXX]

<p>Wards in general used to prevent power drains , when they removed that element our shield of faith lost it too. As for your hammer not doing DPS that's very untrue. Timed right with VC and other buffs the hammer is leet ..If your having problems keeping your hammer up when the AoE cycles are due to hit , it's pretty simple thinking , just use your Holy Shield on the hammer and block the inc aoe , or ask a friendly swashy , or warden not sure how your run your MT group to AoE block the next set , theres many ways of doing good dps as a templar ...i can pull 60k dps on some ez mode names ..in heal spec and gear. Come GU60 and the bump to casting expertise i should hit 80k .. Templar for life!<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></p>

[XXNIGHTANGELXX]

<p>There is just one thing that bothers me.The spell Resurrect. It's a great rez i just have one problem with it, its range. SoE gives up 1 meter to play with on our only good rez spell , beside our new endline Immaculate if you take it. What would the hurt be in inceasing that to maybe 10 meters , with the way AoE's are hitting in raids ,and positioning such a importance, i'd just like to see increased range on the spell. It's ok for healers to actually rez ( i know i know , dirges are supposed to rez) if you're fast and it doesnt take from your prep before the next AoE cycle it's a must especially if your dirges are slow! To help with the second group cure SoE could just removed the matching aspect on hostile spell with manacure. That would give any hostile spell a chance , thus you would always have a great manacure target for whatever AoE damage is to come. Templar for life!   (Sphere ToD)</p>

[Rick777]

<p>Heal perspective I think the only thing Temps needs is another group cure.  I also agree with the shield of faith issue, I've been avidly parsing it and it almost never goes off, I've taken my 5 points out of it and use it just for a group proc.  In SF it was so insanely useful it was usually a very large part of my parse, but for it to go down to the lowest spell on my parse, if it even shows up, is just a bit too much.</p><p>As for DPS my vote would be to cast aside the melee stuff, seems like the inq are heavily favored in this fashion, and just let us concentrate on having casting DPS.  Don't get me wrong, I heavily invested in my melee DPS since back in TSO and in SF I could easily outparse bards/chanters in my DPS spec.  But the writings on the wall in DOV from the lack of melee priest itemization to the auto attack changes.  Autoattack used to parse 40-50% of my damage, now I'm lucky if it parses 15% of my damage, lets just get rid of it already and transfer that DPS back into our DD spells.  It's not that we should do less DPS than an inquisitor, it's that we shouldn't be able to DPS buff our group as much as an inq does.</p><p>Otherwise I've been pretty happy overall with my Templar.  One can only be grateful that we didn't get any real nerfs.</p>

[Dekedar]

<p>Tonight I was surprised to see a druid in my group had 3 group cures, he could basically group cure everything in every encounter we ran into. For one fight he got moved and I was trying to solo heal a fight. Solo cure, I should say, since the fight required minimal group healing. The aoe's would go out before my group cure could be recast and there wasn't enough time to single cure 6x. Another group cure would be nice, I'm not aware of another healer that only has 1 group cure.</p><p>A DPS increase, in any form, would be much appreciated. In identical gear our guild's inq can double my dps.... double.</p><p>Templars are great healers, but sometimes the amount of healing requried is less than our potential. So if you only have to heal at 80% of your capability what are you doing with the other 20%? More dps would be nice.</p>

[drakkenshie]

<p><cite>Gunthore@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Tonight I was surprised to see a druid in my group had 3 group cures, he could basically group cure everything in every encounter we ran into. For one fight he got moved and I was trying to solo heal a fight. Solo cure, I should say, since the fight required minimal group healing. The aoe's would go out before my group cure could be recast and there wasn't enough time to single cure 6x. Another group cure would be nice, I'm not aware of another healer that only has 1 group cure.</p><p>A DPS increase, in any form, would be much appreciated. In identical gear our guild's inq can double my dps.... double.</p><p>Templars are great healers, but sometimes the amount of healing requried is less than our potential. So if you only have to heal at 80% of your capability what are you doing with the other 20%? More dps would be nice.</p></blockquote><p>This.</p><p>When not all-out healing and handling emergencies, my templar can find himself idle.</p><p>There are several things which need fixing.</p><p>Number one: decide if we are melee or caster DPS. Our AA tree is full of melee improvements, but all our abilities are casting that do poor damage and very little melee attacks.</p><p>Either give us a melee tree like mystics and wardens and inquisitors have, or give us better spell attacks and make our AA tree support casting, not melee.</p><p>As it is, the templar abilties and AA tree are way out of sync with.</p><p>Please stop punishing us for healing. Every time we heal or cast any beneficial spell, our damage drops like a rock. Why? Its not like we are DPS monsters so why are we nerfed when we heal? That's just stupid. No other way to put it.</p><p>Give us better group cures, otherwise I like what we can do with cures. Also make manacure a little more useful for the amount of AA it takes to get it.</p><p>Give us some AE mob reactives. Either let AA change the spells to AE, or give us a prequel spell to fire that turns the next ST mob reactive into an AE one. That would be nice without being overpowering.</p><p>Make Mark of Divinity do a bit more. It's barely worth casting at present. Fixes to our DPS AA and abilities would make it better.</p><p>I like my templar but do find it frustrating at times. I don't want huge changes, but certainly its annoying to be outhealed by a warden who is also doing 20K DPS.</p>

[Grifion]

<p>Perhaps replace Mana cure with a reactive group cure. Not to seem overpowered how about this. </p><p>Pain's remedyTarget      Group(AE)Radius      30.0 metersCasting    2.0 secondsRecast     30 secondsDuration  5.0 seconds</p><p>-When target recieves damage greater then 10% of max health this spell will cast Divine Gift on group members(AE)<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Dispels 124 levels of any hostile effects on group members(AE)</p><p>The duration chosen is sensitive. If it's over 8 seconds it could be possible to cure 2 aoes so you'd have to keep it short. And of course, the numbers presented here are default, unmodified numbers.</p>

[Dekedar]

<p>From fan faire mechanics panel:</p><p>Q: Raid forces are dropping Templars in favor of Inquisitors because of the DPS they offer. Templars don’t get to raise the tank’s health much anymore. Inquisitors have better cures on the run. A: The funny thing about templars, they’re defensive healers. At the beginning of an expansion, Templars are relevant because they have blessings, stoneskins. Then as your tank gets geared, they become less important. We keep adding more difficult content so that does help keep Templars relevant. We could look into some solutions.</p><p>The funny thing about templars is they are irrevelant now. There is no reason to pick a templar over an inquisitor in any situation.</p>

[Elskidor]

<p>If there is any classes that needs merging it's the healers. Create a dps spec for each that will lower their ability to heal as good, and a full scale heal spec. As it stands now the best healers in the game are slowly being replaced by what should be the back-up weaker healers. Not to knock on a friend, but my Templar has nearly 100aa more than his Inquisitor and his Inquisitor can almost handle some of crud my Templar takes on, and produce DPS. NO, I don't want Templar's to have more DPS. Infact I don't care if my Templar does a single bit of damge in a group/raid, but I sure as hell want the buffs and heals and cures to far far FAR surpass any given healer that can DPS. Current setup is totally screwed, and if it can't be balanced then merge them.</p>

[Hennyo]

While I no longer play a templar, I used to back in KoS and EoF, and I currently play a defiler in a MT group. Right now my guild has not even one templar on the rooster because frankly they are never worth it over an Inq in any circumstance. Personally the only things I can see a templar has over an Inq is the stone skin buff, the proc chance increase buff, and divine arbitration for it being an emergency spell you can use near instantly with a very long range and no direct target. All of those things, frankly are not that important and can't hold a candle to what an Inq brings. Also playing a defiler, I am starting to feel quite a bit like a templar in that, I see myself losing my relevance over a mystic for there better group buffs and dps because the need for the full power of defiler wards over a mystics is also vanishing. If they want to balance healers at all, at the very least, they need to give all healers two group cures, because until they do, healers without them will ALWAYS be healer number 2 in a raid group.

[Larcain]

<p>It's kind of too bad really. We are NOT underpowered, the problem is: most raids don't need what we have. Yeah, when the mt shaman goes down, I can easily keep the group standing, but since that doesn't happen often, I don't have much to do other than my HUGE templar dps (yes yes yes, I know, we CAN do some fair dps, its just not exactly our strength) and playing wack-a-mole on cures. Making raids HARDER just for a class to "feel relevant" is sort of ridiculous. How 'bout just some slight changes to the class rather than simply adding damage to a mob. Lol, I'm fairly certain the cloth wearers will love aoes hitting harder for my ego's sake.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>A skilled templar brings a lot to the table, and can still be very desirable on raids. Druids, especially wardens, need the tweaking for general raid usefulness, not Templars.Templars need to deal with actually having to compete for a raid spot, for the first time in EQ2 history. Get used to it.</p>

[Latpow]

<p>A skilled player brings a lot to the table no matter what class they choose to play... it doesn't change the fact that there is an inbalance right now between "offensive" and "defensive" priest archtypes.  The offensive archtypes (Inq, Mystic, Fury) brings impressive DPS buffs and utility to the group, while maintaining more than adequate healing abililty.  Defensive archtypes (Templar, Defiler, Warden) bring some impressive situational tools that, while nice at times, are not essential to beating raid encounters... worded differently, a raid of only Inq, Shaman, and Fury healers will be not be any noticeably less durable than a raid of Templars, Defilers, Wardens.  Given the superior Inq cure, such a raid would actually be worse off on many encounters.  Tell me where the balance is in that? </p>

[drakkenshie]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A skilled templar brings a lot to the table, and can still be very desirable on raids. Druids, especially wardens, need the tweaking for general raid usefulness, not Templars.Templars need to deal with actually having to compete for a raid spot, for the first time in EQ2 history. Get used to it.</p></blockquote><p>No, they need to be fixed, period.</p><p>No amount of skill can change the fact that they have boosted mystics and wardens to near easy-mode healing over a templar.</p><p>Templar wasn't easy before, I still had to work for my spot... but now it is often simply impossible, and that's wrong.</p><p>Its totally borked the game design and balance.</p><p>Its also a fact of game design, and not skill at all, that the templar AA tree does not match his abilities. The AA tree should either boost spell abilities, or we shoudl have a melee line like mystics.</p><p>As it currently stands templar is obviously a heavy fighter base type but we can't make use of that.</p>

[Elskidor]

<p><cite>drakkenshield wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A skilled templar brings a lot to the table, and can still be very desirable on raids. Druids, especially wardens, need the tweaking for general raid usefulness, not Templars.Templars need to deal with actually having to compete for a raid spot, for the first time in EQ2 history. Get used to it.</p></blockquote><p>No, they need to be fixed, period.</p><p>No amount of skill can change the fact that they have boosted mystics and wardens to near easy-mode healing over a templar.</p><p>Templar wasn't easy before, I still had to work for my spot... but now it is often simply impossible, and that's wrong.</p><p>Its totally borked the game design and balance.</p><p>Its also a fact of game design, and not skill at all, that the templar AA tree does not match his abilities. The AA tree should either boost spell abilities, or we shoudl have a melee line like mystics.</p><p>As it currently stands templar is obviously a heavy fighter base type but we can't make use of that.</p></blockquote><p>Avirodar is a troll..don't feed him.</p><p>YES! While working up that AA revamp, take a good look at the Templar and take reading on this thread powers to be. </p>

[Avirodar]

<p>Defilers and Templars are still the go-to healers for tanks in challenging situations, they have the tools and designs to ... heal! It seems the templars in this thread fail to realise, while they lack some offensive buff utility, they have a deep pool of defensive utilities and options at their disposal. Reactive heal boost, repent, stoneskin buff, sanctuary, maintainable stun immunity, magic ward, and the proc boost buff still adds up (just not as OP as before). There is a laundry list of things templars get, that Inqs do not, and they all count. Templars are far from the poor, deprived healer some of you try to make out. Templars are still great, especially in more challenging situations.Claims that templars have been "left behind" is rather weak. Inqs and Templars both got the same Heroic AA tree. The "Shadows" tree for Inqs and Templars is largely the same, with rather minor differences. Comparing the Inq AA tree to the Templar AA tree (from years ago), it was not a problem then, and it is not now. Templars have no legitimate claim to a second group cure. There is a reason Inqs+Wardens+Furies were given a second group cure, and Defilers+Mystics+Templars were not.There is no problem with Templars, just some people playing them are upset that their raid spot is not set in stone anymore, especially for trivial EM content. If anything, that should indicate to the Devs, they have managed to improve class balance between clerics. The response from the Dev about Templars at the FanFaire Q&A panel indicates they may feel the same way I do. Get used to it.</p>

[Latpow]

<p>As with any new expansion, the new added abilities and / or game mechanics throws a few classes out of balance and in need of a little tweaking... The added cb / pot to items made Inq and Mystic procs super powerful (usually among the top on DPS parses) and made sure they have more than adequate healing power to single heal groups and keep tanks up.  In most HM fights in which no strong Magic AoEs are involved my heal parse is no higher than in the last expansion, due to the strength of Shaman wards.  So the role of a Plate priest in groups is not high HPS, but curing and utility... which Inq has over Templars in leaps and bounds. This is the reason  Templars need a little tweaking, they need something to compete on a curing and utility level.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As with any new expansion, the new added abilities and / or game mechanics throws a few classes out of balance and in need of a little tweaking... The added cb / pot to items made Inq and Mystic procs super powerful (usually among the top on DPS parses) and made sure they have more than adequate healing power to single heal groups and keep tanks up.  In most HM fights in which no strong Magic AoEs are involved my heal parse is no higher than in the last expansion, due to the strength of Shaman wards.  So the role of a Plate priest in groups is not high HPS, but curing and utility... which Inq has over Templars in leaps and bounds. This is the reason  Templars need a little tweaking, they need something to compete on a curing and utility level.</p></blockquote><p>The added CB/Potency increases all DPS output, so the effectiveness of the procs you speak of have gone up proportionately. Therefore, it is just as balanced now, as it was last expansion. Nice try, but no dice. Shamans have been carving up the heal parses for years now, it is no new phenomenon with DoV. Clerics get the scraps shamans leave behind, and druids get the scraps left behind by shamans/clerics. Nothing new here, it is a balance issues between the 3 healing styles, and gives no aid to Templars crying poor. Good try though.You say Inqs have utility in leaps and bounds over Templars? Are you playing EverQuest2, or something else? Templars get a ton of utility. The difference is, Inq utility is largely designed around adding DPS to a group. Templar utility is largely designed around keeping the tank alive. On a raid level, templars are designed to be paired with another healer in a tank orientated group. The classes are doing what they are made to do.If Templars out there are going all emo, because they can not add as much to a groups DPS as an Inq then, I have one word to say to you all : Betray.But look at things for what they are. Sure, while an Inq may help add some more DPS to easymode content that is on farm status, what about the mobs your guild is yet to kill? What will help you get though and kill them easier? The defiler+templar combo, or the Inq+Mystic combo? And yes, that is a rhetorical question. There may be an encounter or two where there is an exception, but the Templar+Defiler combo has been the top of EQ2 for how many years now?You should all betray. You know you want to.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As with any new expansion, the new added abilities and / or game mechanics throws a few classes out of balance and in need of a little tweaking... The added cb / pot to items made Inq and Mystic procs super powerful (usually among the top on DPS parses) and made sure they have more than adequate healing power to single heal groups and keep tanks up.  In most HM fights in which no strong Magic AoEs are involved my heal parse is no higher than in the last expansion, due to the strength of Shaman wards.  So the role of a Plate priest in groups is not high HPS, but curing and utility... which Inq has over Templars in leaps and bounds. This is the reason  Templars need a little tweaking, they need something to compete on a curing and utility level.</p></blockquote><p>That's what I'm finding also, that my inq has been a better choice for raiding than my templar, it's kinda nice to have both to compare.  My templars strong single target stuff has not really been needed so the raid force begins to wonder why would they waste the spot to someone who wouldn't even fill the utility spot with a single group cure.  Inq get most of the oh crap spells anyhow, divine guidance, chilling invig, death save, sacrifice, etc., enough for them to stay out of trouble. It's not like either has a lot of death saves, 100% stoneskins, or direct target aoe avoids like some of the other healers do anyhow, if spike damage overwhelms our heals/buffs there is really not much we can do.</p><p>The other troubling thing is DPS, I still don't understand why when I cast a heal spell I have to lose 25% of my spell damage (smite wraths), this just seems antiquated from the times when templar truly did stand for heal over dps and inq was more dps over heal.  Hand in hand with this they also need to really specify the templar as a spell damage dealer and get rid of the melee stuff.  In SF my melee was a nice chunk of my damage, close to 40%, but in DOV I'm lucky if it parses 10-15% of my damage, even in dps spec.  Let us have the distinction from inq to be spell damage dealers and gear our AA's towards this purpose.</p><p>But honestly I would sit still and accept the lack of love Templars got this xpac if we got another group cure.  It's just a sign of the changing dynamics of the encounters.  Make it an AA heavy choice so we have to decide for a group cure or something else important, that's ok I like choices, but at least give us the choice to spec it.</p>

[Possessive]

<p>I totally agree with the OP on this one.  I talked to the developer in charge of class balance at Fan Faire and got the same answer that the guy at the mechanics panel did...........the Templar is designed to be defensive, which will be needed on progression mobs and during the first part of an expansion.  Unfortunately, with the changes to the Defiler, the defensive skills of a Templar are not needed, as the Inquisitor can pick up any heals the Defiler doesn't, which aren't that many, even on progression kills.  And the mythical cure is the deciding factor, especially on names such as the first mob in Foundation of Stone HM, where the kickup prevents any other healer from catching the detrimentals that don't get AoE blocked.</p><p>I understand that the Templar and Inquisitor were designed to be defensive and offensive healers, respectively, but intention and practice are completely different in this case.  Two of the top 4 raiding guilds on our server aren't running a templar at all at the moment.  Others are running Templars that have been rostered for a long time.  One long time Templar (very good) betrayed to an Inquisitor, because of how useful they are in comparison for DOV raids.</p>

[Latpow]

<p><quote> But look at things for what they are. Sure, while an Inq may help add some more DPS to easymode content that is on farm status, what about the mobs your guild is yet to kill? What will help you get though and kill them easier? The defiler+templar combo, or the Inq+Mystic combo? And yes, that is a rhetorical question. </quote></p><p>Unfortunately, for many progression fights I am taken out of the MT group... HM Tormax?  Taken out cause of the Knockback... HM Valdemar?  Taken out because the non healers are far away burning adds and Inq Myth has the range to cure them.  Before the nerf, I was taken out of Eirreen the broken as well due to the KB. </p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Possessive@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I totally agree with the OP on this one.  I talked to the developer in charge of class balance at Fan Faire and got the same answer that the guy at the mechanics panel did...........the Templar is designed to be defensive, which will be needed on progression mobs and during the first part of an expansion.  Unfortunately, with the changes to the Defiler, the defensive skills of a Templar are not needed, as the Inquisitor can pick up any heals the Defiler doesn't, which aren't that many, even on progression kills.  And the mythical cure is the deciding factor, especially on names such as the first mob in Foundation of Stone HM, where the kickup prevents any other healer from catching the detrimentals that don't get AoE blocked.</p><p>I understand that the Templar and Inquisitor were designed to be defensive and offensive healers, respectively, but intention and practice are completely different in this case.  Two of the top 4 raiding guilds on our server aren't running a templar at all at the moment.  Others are running Templars that have been rostered for a long time.  One long time Templar (very good) betrayed to an Inquisitor, because of how useful they are in comparison for DOV raids.</p></blockquote><p>Possessive, I too talked to that same dev. I was probably standing right next to you at Fan Faire at that discussion.</p><p>Your statement above is spot on. Templars are viewed by the devs as more defensive and thus more useful during the first part of an expansion, when mobs are hitting the hardest. However, even progression fights are not requiring optimal defensive buffs but rather other factors such as curing that you mentioned. I suspect Inqs (and druids) were given the 2 group cures so they could play a role in raid as a solo group healer, and now that has made Inq more valuable in the MT position because of the emphasis on cures in raids. Top raid guilds on our server (Crushbone) are eliminating templars now as well. I am pretty sure Strike now runs with zero in their raids, even for progression mobs.</p><p>The problem is not that templars need to heal better. It is that raids with a good shaman in the MT group don't need healers that can heal better.</p>

[LardLord]

<p><cite>Lonnlarcen@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's kind of too bad really. We are NOT underpowered, the problem is: most raids don't need what we have. Yeah, when the mt shaman goes down, I can easily keep the group standing, but since that doesn't happen often, I don't have much to do other than my HUGE templar dps (yes yes yes, I know, we CAN do some fair dps, its just not exactly our strength) and playing wack-a-mole on cures.</p></blockquote><p>This is exactly right.  The dev answer at the mechanics panel was a bit off, since the offense from Inquisitors was more important than the defense from Templars in the first three zones this expansion (at least for the vast majority of the mobs), even for your first kills.  All our Templars betrayed to Inquisitor for that reason.  We didn't need Templars - we just wanted more DPS.</p><p>Drunder looks to be killing tanks much more easily, though (based on an hour or two of pulls on the first HM mob), and one or two of our Inquisitors are already thinking about betraying back to Templar.  The Templar/Inquisitor balance is really all about the content. If the content is focused on DPS, then Inquisitors rule.  If the content is good at killing tanks, then you want a Templar for each tank.   </p>

[thegriss]

<p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lonnlarcen@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's kind of too bad really. We are NOT underpowered, the problem is: most raids don't need what we have. Yeah, when the mt shaman goes down, I can easily keep the group standing, but since that doesn't happen often, I don't have much to do other than my HUGE templar dps (yes yes yes, I know, we CAN do some fair dps, its just not exactly our strength) and playing wack-a-mole on cures.</p></blockquote><p>This is exactly right.  The dev answer at the mechanics panel was a bit off, since the offense from Inquisitors was more important than the defense from Templars in the first three zones this expansion (at least for the vast majority of the mobs), even for your first kills.  All our Templars betrayed to Inquisitor for that reason.  We didn't need Templars - we just wanted more DPS.</p><p>Drunder looks to be killing tanks much more easily, though (based on an hour or two of pulls on the first HM mob), and one or two of our Inquisitors are already thinking about betraying back to Templar.  The Templar/Inquisitor balance is really all about the content. If the content is focused on DPS, then Inquisitors rule.  If the content is good at killing tanks, then you want a Templar for each tank.   </p></blockquote><p>This.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Sorvex@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lonnlarcen@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's kind of too bad really. We are NOT underpowered, the problem is: most raids don't need what we have. Yeah, when the mt shaman goes down, I can easily keep the group standing, but since that doesn't happen often, I don't have much to do other than my HUGE templar dps (yes yes yes, I know, we CAN do some fair dps, its just not exactly our strength) and playing wack-a-mole on cures.</p></blockquote><p>This is exactly right.  The dev answer at the mechanics panel was a bit off, since the offense from Inquisitors was more important than the defense from Templars in the first three zones this expansion (at least for the vast majority of the mobs), even for your first kills.  All our Templars betrayed to Inquisitor for that reason.  We didn't need Templars - we just wanted more DPS.</p><p>Drunder looks to be killing tanks much more easily, though (based on an hour or two of pulls on the first HM mob), and one or two of our Inquisitors are already thinking about betraying back to Templar.  The Templar/Inquisitor balance is really all about the content. If the content is focused on DPS, then Inquisitors rule.  If the content is good at killing tanks, then you want a Templar for each tank.   </p></blockquote><p>This.</p></blockquote><p>That.Kudos to SOE, the balance between clerics is closer now, than it has been since EQ2 went live. Whether intentional or accidental on the part of SOE, it is good to see that the grip templars held on the throat of tank groups since 2004, has slipped.I would like to offer my condolences to the people playing Templars, who are not accustomed to being sat from a raid. But if SOE does their job right, you will all find that your spot in a raid is no longer set in stone, because you clicked "Templar" during character creation.If Templars truly are being rendered obsolete by the power of a well geared, well played defiler, the answer is not to buff Templars. It is to examine what Defilers are doing that goes beyond the scope of what they should do, and bring it back into line. Otherwise, Inquisitors are just as deserving of any boosts that Templars get to feel useful in a group with a defiler. So if you are all pushing SOE to boost both cleric types (Inq+Templar), go nuts. But Templars on their own right, do not deserve any special attention that is not also granted to Inqs.With <3</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Sorvex@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lonnlarcen@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's kind of too bad really. We are NOT underpowered, the problem is: most raids don't need what we have. Yeah, when the mt shaman goes down, I can easily keep the group standing, but since that doesn't happen often, I don't have much to do other than my HUGE templar dps (yes yes yes, I know, we CAN do some fair dps, its just not exactly our strength) and playing wack-a-mole on cures.</p></blockquote><p>This is exactly right.  The dev answer at the mechanics panel was a bit off, since the offense from Inquisitors was more important than the defense from Templars in the first three zones this expansion (at least for the vast majority of the mobs), even for your first kills.  All our Templars betrayed to Inquisitor for that reason.  We didn't need Templars - we just wanted more DPS.</p><p>Drunder looks to be killing tanks much more easily, though (based on an hour or two of pulls on the first HM mob), and one or two of our Inquisitors are already thinking about betraying back to Templar.  The Templar/Inquisitor balance is really all about the content. If the content is focused on DPS, then Inquisitors rule.  If the content is good at killing tanks, then you want a Templar for each tank.   </p></blockquote><p>This.</p></blockquote><p>That.Kudos to SOE, the balance between clerics is closer now, than it has been since EQ2 went live. Whether intentional or accidental on the part of SOE, it is good to see that the grip templars held on the throat of tank groups since 2004, has slipped.I would like to offer my condolences to the people playing Templars, who are not accustomed to being sat from a raid. But if SOE does their job right, you will all find that your spot in a raid is no longer set in stone, because you clicked "Templar" during character creation.If Templars truly are being rendered obsolete by the power of a well geared, well played defiler, the answer is not to buff Templars. It is to examine what Defilers are doing that goes beyond the scope of what they should do, and bring it back into line. Otherwise, Inquisitors are just as deserving of any boosts that Templars get to feel useful in a group with a defiler. So if you are all pushing SOE to boost both cleric types (Inq+Templar), go nuts. But Templars on their own right, do not deserve any special attention that is not also granted to Inqs.With <3</p></blockquote><p>The problem with that is that inquisitors have always been wanted for offensive non-MT groups, but who wants a Templar for an offensive group in terms of min/max?  On the other end of the spectrum what does the Templar bring to a non MT group?  I understand what you are saying, but the nice thing about raiding was the strategy involved in placing the specific right class in the specific right group.  If any healer can do any job it gets kinda boring IMO, but I do understand your equal opportunities argument, I just would miss the strategy of setting up groups.  Healers are becoming homogenized to the point where they are becoming very boring.</p><p>I personally don't want any buffs for my Templar other than either an additional group cure, or a reduced timer on my group cure.  I think if you read thru and gauge the opinions no one is really asking for very much, certainly not a huge boost to your healing potential as we are very very strong healers.  I usually either am a MT Templar, or lately I am a solo healer in one of the non MT groups.  It's a nightmare to try and keep a group cured with a single long timer group cure, half the time I will have to single cure every single group member, that just doesn't make sense from a fun point of view at all.  I've said it before make a 2nd group cure a deep choice in the AA's so we have to make a choice between that and something else important, I have no issue and am not asking for anything free, but at least give us the option.</p><p>The other thing that really needs to be addressed, which has less to do with raiding, is Templar dps and dps potential for the group.  If inquisitors have been brought up in defensive and healing to the point where they are taking over the MT spot, then it makes sense for Templars to be given some offensive capabilities so they would be wanted in the non MT offensive groups.  You can't have it both ways, you can't make the inquisitor a better healer but ignore the dps capability of the Templar, it's just not fair.  Yes it's homogenizing the clerics, but that seems to be what you are looking for.</p><p>For the record I'm an advocate of keeping the inquisitor a weaker healer, but more geared to generate their own dps as well as the groups dps, and keep the templar a stronger healer with very weak dps potential.  This isn't the way the devs are going though.  I have BOTH inquisitor and templar and in normal every day group content there is no reason at all to bring my templar over my inquisitor, and as mentioned before most of the EM raid stuff there is no reason either.  It's not a question of inquisitors being equal to templar in content and creating competition, it's a question of the inquisitor being made stronger in more aspects that raids are choosing them simply based on their abilities for both MT group and the non MT offensive groups.  This is a case of raids choosing 4 inquisitors and no templars and that doesn't sound balanced to me, even though before this it was 1 templar and 3 inquisitors, still not balanced but I'm more than willing to accept it.  Templars aren't asking for much in all honestly, just a little bit to balance what the inquisitors have received.</p>

[LardLord]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>1)</strong> Healers are becoming homogenized to the point where they are becoming very boring.</p><p><strong>2)</strong> If inquisitors have been brought up in defensive and healing to the point where they are taking over the MT spot, then it makes sense for Templars to be given some offensive capabilities so they would be wanted in the non MT offensive groups.  You can't have it both ways, you can't make the inquisitor a better healer but ignore the dps capability of the Templar, it's just not fair. </p><p><strong>3)</strong> I have BOTH inquisitor and templar and in normal every day group content there is no reason at all to bring my templar over my inquisitor, and as mentioned before most of the EM raid stuff there is no reason either.  It's not a question of inquisitors being equal to templar in content and creating competition, it's a question of the inquisitor being made stronger in more aspects that raids are choosing them simply based on their abilities for both MT group and the non MT offensive groups.  This is a case of raids choosing 4 inquisitors and no templars and that doesn't sound balanced to me, even though before this it was 1 templar and 3 inquisitors, still not balanced but I'm more than willing to accept it.  Templars aren't asking for much in all honestly, just a little bit to balance what the inquisitors have received.</p></blockquote><p>1) Not really.  It seems like some players <em>want </em>every class to do everything equally, but fortunately (imo), the devs have been pretty good about maintaining strengths and weaknesses for each healer (Mystics being the only possible exception, but at least they don't have a second group cure).</p><p>2) Inquisitors are no where even CLOSE to matching what Templars bring defensively.  Repent, Shield of Faith, True Faith, and Unyielding Benediction (and more!) are unmatched defensively by any Inquisitor equivalents.  There have been many times on my Inquisitor when I know there's nothing at all I can do to save my tank from the next AE or death touch, where, if I had been a Templar at the time, I could have timed Repent (or another ability) to save him. </p><p>Yes, Inquisitors get the "wild cards" of the super group cure and the extra range, but Templars get a better cure curse and Sanctuary.</p><p>3) Yes, normal "every day" content is always going to be easier with Inquisitors than Templars as long as the classes are balanced overall (unless they just make both classes the same, I guess).  "Every day" content is about DPS, and Inquisitors are supposed to be the more offensive Cleric.  I was a Templar for ~5 months in SF, primarily just to make one mob easier (XYZ in Wing 3).  That's basically life as a defensive class in an MMO.  You can't balance Templars with Inquisitors for DPS-focused content, or no one would want an Inquisitor, since Templars would still have a huge advantage when their defensive prowess is needed.  If you conclude that you should then buff Inquisitor defensive prowess to match that of Templars, then you might as well just merge the classes.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>1)</strong> Healers are becoming homogenized to the point where they are becoming very boring.</p><p><strong>2)</strong> If inquisitors have been brought up in defensive and healing to the point where they are taking over the MT spot, then it makes sense for Templars to be given some offensive capabilities so they would be wanted in the non MT offensive groups.  You can't have it both ways, you can't make the inquisitor a better healer but ignore the dps capability of the Templar, it's just not fair. </p><p><strong>3)</strong> I have BOTH inquisitor and templar and in normal every day group content there is no reason at all to bring my templar over my inquisitor, and as mentioned before most of the EM raid stuff there is no reason either.  It's not a question of inquisitors being equal to templar in content and creating competition, it's a question of the inquisitor being made stronger in more aspects that raids are choosing them simply based on their abilities for both MT group and the non MT offensive groups.  This is a case of raids choosing 4 inquisitors and no templars and that doesn't sound balanced to me, even though before this it was 1 templar and 3 inquisitors, still not balanced but I'm more than willing to accept it.  Templars aren't asking for much in all honestly, just a little bit to balance what the inquisitors have received.</p></blockquote><p>1) Not really.  It seems like some players <em>want </em>every class to do everything equally, but fortunately (imo), the devs have been pretty good about maintaining strengths and weaknesses for each healer (Mystics being the only possible exception, but at least they don't have a second group cure).</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Don't get me wrong, I'm just playing devils advocate to some players desire to homogenize the healers.  I don't want this and my point was that by making the inq a viable MT healer you've got some homogenization going on that I personally don't agree with.</span></p><p>2) Inquisitors are no where even CLOSE to matching what Templars bring defensively.  Repent, Shield of Faith, True Faith, and Unyielding Benediction (and more!) are unmatched defensively by any Inquisitor equivalents.  There have been many times on my Inquisitor when I know there's nothing at all I can do to save my tank from the next AE or death touch, where, if I had been a Templar at the time, I could have timed Repent (or another ability) to save him. </p><p>Yes, Inquisitors get the "wild cards" of the super group cure and the extra range, but Templars get a better cure curse and Sanctuary.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Yes Templars bring a lot of defensive stuff, but the fact of the matter is that inquisitors have been buffed up quite a bit defensively and they bring a lot to the table too.  They share a death prevent, divine guidance, instant group rez, they also have their own hp buffs, they get chilling invig, sacrifice, for any group or EM raid content there remains no reason to bring a Templar unless you want to get thru the content slower.  BUT if you read my posts you will see I am NOT advocating any buffs to the Templar class in terms of being defensive.  The ONLY thing I'm advocating is a 2nd group cure, there is just no comparision, I'd take the inquisitors curing prowess with their control effect breaker, their on the run super range group cure, and their 2nd group cure any day over the week over 40 second sanctuary.  Others may be, but I'm not debating templar defensive versus inquisitor defensive other than being a devils advocate.  But the curing needs to be addressed, the entire game and the gameplay has changed to favor curing over healing in many situations and Templars just were not given the tools to address this.</span></p><p>3) Yes, normal "every day" content is always going to be easier with Inquisitors than Templars as long as the classes are balanced overall (unless they just make both classes the same, I guess).  "Every day" content is about DPS, and Inquisitors are supposed to be the more offensive Cleric.  I was a Templar for ~5 months in SF, primarily just to make one mob easier (XYZ in Wing 3).  That's basically life as a defensive class in an MMO.  You can't balance Templars with Inquisitors for DPS-focused content, or no one would want an Inquisitor, since Templars would still have a huge advantage when their defensive prowess is needed.  If you conclude that you should then buff Inquisitor defensive prowess to match that of Templars, then you might as well just merge the classes.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I agree and my buff Templars offensive capabilites argument was purely playing the devils advocate.  Even though I'm not looking for it, it does make sense that if you are going to make the inquisitor more defensively like the Templar, to the point where the templar is being cast aside for raid positions, then the templar should gain some offensive capability.  If you read my point I'm not saying to make templars equal to inq offensive, I'm simply saying buff the templars offensive capability exactly as much as the inquisitors defensive capabilities have been buffed, simple.  Once again playing devils advocate as I'd be happy with ONLY a 2nd group cure and would never type a single letter of protest ever again if we just got that basic tool.</span></p></blockquote>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>1)</strong> Healers are becoming homogenized to the point where they are becoming very boring.</p><p><strong>2)</strong> If inquisitors have been brought up in defensive and healing to the point where they are taking over the MT spot, then it makes sense for Templars to be given some offensive capabilities so they would be wanted in the non MT offensive groups.  You can't have it both ways, you can't make the inquisitor a better healer but ignore the dps capability of the Templar, it's just not fair. </p><p><strong>3)</strong> I have BOTH inquisitor and templar and in normal every day group content there is no reason at all to bring my templar over my inquisitor, and as mentioned before most of the EM raid stuff there is no reason either.  It's not a question of inquisitors being equal to templar in content and creating competition, it's a question of the inquisitor being made stronger in more aspects that raids are choosing them simply based on their abilities for both MT group and the non MT offensive groups.  This is a case of raids choosing 4 inquisitors and no templars and that doesn't sound balanced to me, even though before this it was 1 templar and 3 inquisitors, still not balanced but I'm more than willing to accept it.  Templars aren't asking for much in all honestly, just a little bit to balance what the inquisitors have received.</p></blockquote><p>1) Not really.  It seems like some players <em>want </em>every class to do everything equally, but fortunately (imo), the devs have been pretty good about maintaining strengths and weaknesses for each healer (Mystics being the only possible exception, but at least they don't have a second group cure).</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Don't get me wrong, I'm just playing devils advocate to some players desire to homogenize the healers.  I don't want this and my point was that by making the inq a viable MT healer you've got some homogenization going on that I personally don't agree with.</span></p><p>2) Inquisitors are no where even CLOSE to matching what Templars bring defensively.  Repent, Shield of Faith, True Faith, and Unyielding Benediction (and more!) are unmatched defensively by any Inquisitor equivalents.  There have been many times on my Inquisitor when I know there's nothing at all I can do to save my tank from the next AE or death touch, where, if I had been a Templar at the time, I could have timed Repent (or another ability) to save him. </p><p>Yes, Inquisitors get the "wild cards" of the super group cure and the extra range, but Templars get a better cure curse and Sanctuary.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Yes Templars bring a lot of defensive stuff, but the fact of the matter is that inquisitors have been buffed up quite a bit defensively and they bring a lot to the table too.  They share a death prevent, divine guidance, instant group rez, they also have their own hp buffs, they get chilling invig, sacrifice, for any group or EM raid content there remains no reason to bring a Templar unless you want to get thru the content slower.  BUT if you read my posts you will see I am NOT advocating any buffs to the Templar class in terms of being defensive.  The ONLY thing I'm advocating is a 2nd group cure, there is just no comparision, I'd take the inquisitors curing prowess with their control effect breaker, their on the run super range group cure, and their 2nd group cure any day over the week over 40 second sanctuary.  Others may be, but I'm not debating templar defensive versus inquisitor defensive other than being a devils advocate.  But the curing needs to be addressed, the entire game and the gameplay has changed to favor curing over healing in many situations and Templars just were not given the tools to address this.</span></p><p>3) Yes, normal "every day" content is always going to be easier with Inquisitors than Templars as long as the classes are balanced overall (unless they just make both classes the same, I guess).  "Every day" content is about DPS, and Inquisitors are supposed to be the more offensive Cleric.  I was a Templar for ~5 months in SF, primarily just to make one mob easier (XYZ in Wing 3).  That's basically life as a defensive class in an MMO.  You can't balance Templars with Inquisitors for DPS-focused content, or no one would want an Inquisitor, since Templars would still have a huge advantage when their defensive prowess is needed.  If you conclude that you should then buff Inquisitor defensive prowess to match that of Templars, then you might as well just merge the classes.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I agree and my buff Templars offensive capabilites argument was purely playing the devils advocate.  Even though I'm not looking for it, it does make sense that if you are going to make the inquisitor more defensively like the Templar, to the point where the templar is being cast aside for raid positions, then the templar should gain some offensive capability.  If you read my point I'm not saying to make templars equal to inq offensive, I'm simply saying buff the templars offensive capability exactly as much as the inquisitors defensive capabilities have been buffed, simple.  Once again playing devils advocate as I'd be happy with ONLY a 2nd group cure and would never type a single letter of protest ever again if we just got that basic tool.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Clerics were given the same AAs in DoV, so neither cleric gained an advantage over the other. Templars still have the defensive and heal/reactive advantage. Inquisitors still have the offensive and curing advantage. Are you trying to make a kind of claim stating otherwise? If so, please elaborate.Sentinels Fate had a lot of cure intensive encounters. Templars only had one group cure, and still enjoyed high desirability (Most raid guilds would have 2-3 templars on the roster). There is a couple of fights in DoV with knockbacks, but a combination of good positioning, holy shield, and enchanter avoids can take due care of it. General curing is no worse in DoV than comparable mobs in SF... Even on encounters were a lot of detriments could land, like Saalax, Theerax and Yael, Templars were desirable. So I ask, what is the problem now, that did not exist back in SF?Otherwise, I will keep referring back to what I said previously. If the problem is not something Inqs were given in DoV, that Templars did not get, then Templars deserve no boost unless Inquisitors are given a comparable boost of similar effective gain.You might try to take a look at what a Templar is generally grouped with, and how current mechanics (in conjunction with what Templars are normally grouped with) impacts on the effectiveness/desirability of the Templar class. The real solution to the actual problem, may very well be adjusting something else, and not giving Templars a second group cure.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>1)</strong> Healers are becoming homogenized to the point where they are becoming very boring.</p><p><strong>2)</strong> If inquisitors have been brought up in defensive and healing to the point where they are taking over the MT spot, then it makes sense for Templars to be given some offensive capabilities so they would be wanted in the non MT offensive groups.  You can't have it both ways, you can't make the inquisitor a better healer but ignore the dps capability of the Templar, it's just not fair. </p><p><strong>3)</strong> I have BOTH inquisitor and templar and in normal every day group content there is no reason at all to bring my templar over my inquisitor, and as mentioned before most of the EM raid stuff there is no reason either.  It's not a question of inquisitors being equal to templar in content and creating competition, it's a question of the inquisitor being made stronger in more aspects that raids are choosing them simply based on their abilities for both MT group and the non MT offensive groups.  This is a case of raids choosing 4 inquisitors and no templars and that doesn't sound balanced to me, even though before this it was 1 templar and 3 inquisitors, still not balanced but I'm more than willing to accept it.  Templars aren't asking for much in all honestly, just a little bit to balance what the inquisitors have received.</p></blockquote><p>1) Not really.  It seems like some players <em>want </em>every class to do everything equally, but fortunately (imo), the devs have been pretty good about maintaining strengths and weaknesses for each healer (Mystics being the only possible exception, but at least they don't have a second group cure).</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Don't get me wrong, I'm just playing devils advocate to some players desire to homogenize the healers.  I don't want this and my point was that by making the inq a viable MT healer you've got some homogenization going on that I personally don't agree with.</span></p><p>2) Inquisitors are no where even CLOSE to matching what Templars bring defensively.  Repent, Shield of Faith, True Faith, and Unyielding Benediction (and more!) are unmatched defensively by any Inquisitor equivalents.  There have been many times on my Inquisitor when I know there's nothing at all I can do to save my tank from the next AE or death touch, where, if I had been a Templar at the time, I could have timed Repent (or another ability) to save him. </p><p>Yes, Inquisitors get the "wild cards" of the super group cure and the extra range, but Templars get a better cure curse and Sanctuary.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Yes Templars bring a lot of defensive stuff, but the fact of the matter is that inquisitors have been buffed up quite a bit defensively and they bring a lot to the table too.  They share a death prevent, divine guidance, instant group rez, they also have their own hp buffs, they get chilling invig, sacrifice, for any group or EM raid content there remains no reason to bring a Templar unless you want to get thru the content slower.  BUT if you read my posts you will see I am NOT advocating any buffs to the Templar class in terms of being defensive.  The ONLY thing I'm advocating is a 2nd group cure, there is just no comparision, I'd take the inquisitors curing prowess with their control effect breaker, their on the run super range group cure, and their 2nd group cure any day over the week over 40 second sanctuary.  Others may be, but I'm not debating templar defensive versus inquisitor defensive other than being a devils advocate.  But the curing needs to be addressed, the entire game and the gameplay has changed to favor curing over healing in many situations and Templars just were not given the tools to address this.</span></p><p>3) Yes, normal "every day" content is always going to be easier with Inquisitors than Templars as long as the classes are balanced overall (unless they just make both classes the same, I guess).  "Every day" content is about DPS, and Inquisitors are supposed to be the more offensive Cleric.  I was a Templar for ~5 months in SF, primarily just to make one mob easier (XYZ in Wing 3).  That's basically life as a defensive class in an MMO.  You can't balance Templars with Inquisitors for DPS-focused content, or no one would want an Inquisitor, since Templars would still have a huge advantage when their defensive prowess is needed.  If you conclude that you should then buff Inquisitor defensive prowess to match that of Templars, then you might as well just merge the classes.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I agree and my buff Templars offensive capabilites argument was purely playing the devils advocate.  Even though I'm not looking for it, it does make sense that if you are going to make the inquisitor more defensively like the Templar, to the point where the templar is being cast aside for raid positions, then the templar should gain some offensive capability.  If you read my point I'm not saying to make templars equal to inq offensive, I'm simply saying buff the templars offensive capability exactly as much as the inquisitors defensive capabilities have been buffed, simple.  Once again playing devils advocate as I'd be happy with ONLY a 2nd group cure and would never type a single letter of protest ever again if we just got that basic tool.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Clerics were given the same AAs in DoV, so neither cleric gained an advantage over the other. Templars still have the defensive and heal/reactive advantage. Inquisitors still have the offensive and curing advantage. Are you trying to make a kind of claim stating otherwise? If so, please elaborate.Sentinels Fate had a lot of cure intensive encounters. Templars only had one group cure, and still enjoyed high desirability (Most raid guilds would have 2-3 templars on the roster). There is a couple of fights in DoV with knockbacks, but a combination of good positioning, holy shield, and enchanter avoids can take due care of it. General curing is no worse in DoV than comparable mobs in SF... Even on encounters were a lot of detriments could land, like Saalax, Theerax and Yael, Templars were desirable. So I ask, what is the problem now, that did not exist back in SF?Otherwise, I will keep referring back to what I said previously. If the problem is not something Inqs were given in DoV, that Templars did not get, then Templars deserve no boost unless Inquisitors are given a comparable boost of similar effective gain.You might try to take a look at what a Templar is generally grouped with, and how current mechanics (in conjunction with what Templars are normally grouped with) impacts on the effectiveness/desirability of the Templar class. The real solution to the actual problem, may very well be adjusting something else, and not giving Templars a second group cure.</p></blockquote><p>It's a unique perspective when you raid with both classes as I do. Additionally seeing so many guilds drop or betray their Templars is very informative as to the state of raiding templars and I'll let that speak for itself. If a raid wants 4 inquisitors and 0 Templars, well there isn't much debate that something is wrong at that point. As for the group cure, it's just keeping up with the mechanics, if Templars had a 2nd group cure the inq would still be the best curer. Its as if when SOE merged all 4 cures into one cure, but what if they left one class with the separate 4 cures? That would just make no sense, just like leaving any class without a 2nd group cure does not make sense in light of current mechanics, and this is besides the offensive/defensive debate, its an entirely separate debate but one that still applies to the Templars raid worthiness.</p><p>Just last night I was solo healing an offensive group on a raid, I use my Templar because he is better geared. There was a TON of curing to do, it just made no sense to me single curing 6 people while waiting for my group cure to refresh, it was just a heck of a lot of not fun minutiae that is just not necessary.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Clerics were given the same AAs in DoV, so neither cleric gained an advantage over the other. Templars still have the defensive and heal/reactive advantage. Inquisitors still have the offensive and curing advantage. Are you trying to make a kind of claim stating otherwise? If so, please elaborate.Sentinels Fate had a lot of cure intensive encounters. Templars only had one group cure, and still enjoyed high desirability (Most raid guilds would have 2-3 templars on the roster). There is a couple of fights in DoV with knockbacks, but a combination of good positioning, holy shield, and enchanter avoids can take due care of it. General curing is no worse in DoV than comparable mobs in SF... Even on encounters were a lot of detriments could land, like Saalax, Theerax and Yael, Templars were desirable. So I ask, what is the problem now, that did not exist back in SF?Otherwise, I will keep referring back to what I said previously. If the problem is not something Inqs were given in DoV, that Templars did not get, then Templars deserve no boost unless Inquisitors are given a comparable boost of similar effective gain.You might try to take a look at what a Templar is generally grouped with, and how current mechanics (in conjunction with what Templars are normally grouped with) impacts on the effectiveness/desirability of the Templar class. The real solution to the actual problem, may very well be adjusting something else, and not giving Templars a second group cure.</p></blockquote><p>It's a unique perspective when you raid with both classes as I do. Additionally seeing so many guilds drop or betray their Templars is very informative as to the state of raiding templars and I'll let that speak for itself. If a raid wants 4 inquisitors and 0 Templars, well there isn't much debate that something is wrong at that point. As for the group cure, it's just keeping up with the mechanics, if Templars had a 2nd group cure the inq would still be the best curer. Its as if when SOE merged all 4 cures into one cure, but what if they left one class with the separate 4 cures? That would just make no sense, just like leaving any class without a 2nd group cure does not make sense in light of current mechanics, and this is besides the offensive/defensive debate, its an entirely separate debate but one that still applies to the Templars raid worthiness.</p><p>Just last night I was solo healing an offensive group on a raid, I use my Templar because he is better geared. There was a TON of curing to do, it just made no sense to me single curing 6 people while waiting for my group cure to refresh, it was just a heck of a lot of not fun minutiae that is just not necessary.</p></blockquote><p>You replied to my post, but did not appear to respond to my first paragraph. With such, I will assume you are in full agreement that Templars have the defensive + healing advantage, and that Inquisitors have the offensive + curing advantage. This is the way the class types are meant to be... So well done to SOE for some half decent cleric balance.With such, I once again put it right to you, if you disagree with the above statement, please elaborate as to exactly why this is so. Your statement that guilds are using Inquisitors is like saying rain is wet, after someone asked you why it is raining (a true statement, but it does not answer the question). If you can not identify the problem, you are in no position to be requesting fixes, as how can you ask for a fix if you do not know the issue?You made mention of "keeping up with mechanics", which I see as an intentionally vague, general statement that is little more than a prayer in the wind. Keeping up with what mechanics? Please explain as to exactly what mechanics Templars are not keeping up with? If you are trying to talk about cure mechanics, they are no different to what we had in Sentinel's Fate, and The Shadow Odyssey, and in both of those expansions, Templars were amazing. If the best you have is a rather weak hypothetical situation from when cures were merged years ago, your argument is rather lacking...In response to your last paragraph : Yes? And? Three healers (fury/inq/warden) in EQ2 are optimal for solo group healing/curing. Three healers (temp/defiler/mystic) in EQ2 are optimal for paired healing/curing. If you are a healer that is designed to be paired, but are given the duty of solo healing a group, have the group use cure potions. Yes, oldschool, cure potions! Otherwise, expect a greater challenge when being in such a situation. The tools are available to your raid, whether or not they are used is not an issue of balance/mechanics, it is an issue of raid level competencies.This leads me to ask some questions, directed to Rick777 :1) Do you believe Templars were weak two expansions ago, in TSO?2) Do you believe Templars were weak last expansion, in SF?3) Do you believe Templars are weak in the current expandion, DoV?If you answer yes to question #3, I would -LOVE- to hear an explanation as to exactly why? Templars were amazing in TSO and SF, that is not up for debate... So if you are saying templars are now weak, what changed? What did Inquisitors get that Templars did not? Did all other healers (Defiler+Mystic+Warden+Fury+Inq) get bunches of cool stuff in DoV, but Templars were given nothing? Were specific mechanics changed that nerfed templars, but made other healers thrive? I am hoping for anything other than vague opinion, or random hypotheticals from things that happened years ago.Looking forward to hearing back from you.</p>

[Hennyo]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Clerics were given the same AAs in DoV, so neither cleric gained an advantage over the other. Templars still have the defensive and heal/reactive advantage. Inquisitors still have the offensive and curing advantage. Are you trying to make a kind of claim stating otherwise? If so, please elaborate.Sentinels Fate had a lot of cure intensive encounters. Templars only had one group cure, and still enjoyed high desirability (Most raid guilds would have 2-3 templars on the roster). There is a couple of fights in DoV with knockbacks, but a combination of good positioning, holy shield, and enchanter avoids can take due care of it. General curing is no worse in DoV than comparable mobs in SF... Even on encounters were a lot of detriments could land, like Saalax, Theerax and Yael, Templars were desirable. So I ask, what is the problem now, that did not exist back in SF?Otherwise, I will keep referring back to what I said previously. If the problem is not something Inqs were given in DoV, that Templars did not get, then Templars deserve no boost unless Inquisitors are given a comparable boost of similar effective gain.You might try to take a look at what a Templar is generally grouped with, and how current mechanics (in conjunction with what Templars are normally grouped with) impacts on the effectiveness/desirability of the Templar class. The real solution to the actual problem, may very well be adjusting something else, and not giving Templars a second group cure.</p></blockquote><p>It's a unique perspective when you raid with both classes as I do. Additionally seeing so many guilds drop or betray their Templars is very informative as to the state of raiding templars and I'll let that speak for itself. If a raid wants 4 inquisitors and 0 Templars, well there isn't much debate that something is wrong at that point. As for the group cure, it's just keeping up with the mechanics, if Templars had a 2nd group cure the inq would still be the best curer. Its as if when SOE merged all 4 cures into one cure, but what if they left one class with the separate 4 cures? That would just make no sense, just like leaving any class without a 2nd group cure does not make sense in light of current mechanics, and this is besides the offensive/defensive debate, its an entirely separate debate but one that still applies to the Templars raid worthiness.</p><p>Just last night I was solo healing an offensive group on a raid, I use my Templar because he is better geared. There was a TON of curing to do, it just made no sense to me single curing 6 people while waiting for my group cure to refresh, it was just a heck of a lot of not fun minutiae that is just not necessary.</p></blockquote><p>You replied to my post, but did not appear to respond to my first paragraph. With such, I will assume you are in full agreement that Templars have the defensive + healing advantage, and that Inquisitors have the offensive + curing advantage. This is the way the class types are meant to be... So well done to SOE for some half decent cleric balance.With such, I once again put it right to you, if you disagree with the above statement, please elaborate as to exactly why this is so. Your statement that guilds are using Inquisitors is like saying rain is wet, after someone asked you why it is raining (a true statement, but it does not answer the question). If you can not identify the problem, you are in no position to be requesting fixes, as how can you ask for a fix if you do not know the issue?You made mention of "keeping up with mechanics", which I see as an intentionally vague, general statement that is little more than a prayer in the wind. Keeping up with what mechanics? Please explain as to exactly what mechanics Templars are not keeping up with? If you are trying to talk about cure mechanics, they are no different to what we had in Sentinel's Fate, and The Shadow Odyssey, and in both of those expansions, Templars were amazing. If the best you have is a rather weak hypothetical situation from when cures were merged years ago, your argument is rather lacking...In response to your last paragraph : Yes? And? Three healers (fury/inq/warden) in EQ2 are optimal for solo group healing/curing. Three healers (temp/defiler/mystic) in EQ2 are optimal for paired healing/curing. If you are a healer that is designed to be paired, but are given the duty of solo healing a group, have the group use cure potions. Yes, oldschool, cure potions! Otherwise, expect a greater challenge when being in such a situation. The tools are available to your raid, whether or not they are used is not an issue of balance/mechanics, it is an issue of raid level competencies.This leads me to ask some questions, directed to Rick777 :1) Do you believe Templars were weak two expansions ago, in TSO?2) Do you believe Templars were weak last expansion, in SF?3) Do you believe Templars are weak in the current expandion, DoV?If you answer yes to question #3, I would -LOVE- to hear an explanation as to exactly why? Templars were amazing in TSO and SF, that is not up for debate... So if you are saying templars are now weak, what changed? What did Inquisitors get that Templars did not? Did all other healers (Defiler+Mystic+Warden+Fury+Inq) get bunches of cool stuff in DoV, but Templars were given nothing? Were specific mechanics changed that nerfed templars, but made other healers thrive? I am hoping for anything other than vague opinion, or random hypotheticals from things that happened years ago.Looking forward to hearing back from you.</p></blockquote><p>While not the person you were replying to, I have a hard time believing you are as truly dumb as you are implying you are. If you seriously believe the curing situation is the same as it was in previous expansions, you are either lying to yourself or have never played any healer besides an Inquisitor and never paid any mind to what happened in other groups. In DoV as MT Defiler, I can tell you that there are detriments that if they tic a single time, they one shot the MT, or if even two of them stack together they one shot anyone that happens to. With knock backs that exist on some AoE detriments that will tick in the air before a non Inquisitor can even get a cure off, will flat out one shot players. Another thing is, you act like ANY of the survivability that a Templar adds healing wise matters at ALL in DoV. In this expansion the only things that matter as non shaman healer in MT group is having two group cures, AoE avoids, and offensive and defensive buffs. My guild uses a warden as a non shaman MT group healer, which honestly has even less healing ability than an Inquisitor. The reason we do this is because we don't have a skilled enough Inquisitor that plays in the guild to fill the spot. Even with this setup, MT group survivability is a very rare issue, and if you can't see that Templars have gotten the shaft this expansion due to a changed balance issues, that are by large part completely gear derived.</p><p>I will Templars are the most blatant example of the imbalance the lack of a second group cure is in DoV, and I would like to see all healers get one. I can understand why shamans may not be given one, but with non shaman healers, it seriously removes their raid desirablity.</p>

[Latpow]

<p>Avirodar is well aware of the current inbalance between Templars and Inq, he's just arguing because he hopes that any Dev that would look over this thread for feedback would be swayed by his reasoning.  I mean, if he truly felt the way that he posts here then why would he be bragging about getting Templars to betray to Inq... I mean if they truly are the awesome class they were in the previous expansions why would a "hardcore templar" want to betray?</p><p><a href="http://www.eq2flames.com/inquisitors/78854-dov-dps-parse-thread-15.html">http://www.eq2flames.com/inquisitor...-thread-15.html</a></p><p>This is why I'm no longer replying to his posts and I hope any Dev looking at this thread would not be naive enough to believe that Templars are anywhere near balanced with Inquisitors in the current state of the game.  The ability to cast while being knocked up in the air with GU61 is a step in the right direction, but we need more than "10% more proc rate on Invol Cure" and an upgraded Wis line for DPS (that we share with Inq). </p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>While not the person you were replying to, I have a hard time believing you are as truly dumb as you are implying you are. If you seriously believe the curing situation is the same as it was in previous expansions, you are either lying to yourself or have never played any healer besides an Inquisitor and never paid any mind to what happened in other groups. In DoV as MT Defiler, I can tell you that there are detriments that if they tic a single time, they one shot the MT, or if even two of them stack together they one shot anyone that happens to. With knock backs that exist on some AoE detriments that will tick in the air before a non Inquisitor can even get a cure off, will flat out one shot players. Another thing is, you act like ANY of the survivability that a Templar adds healing wise matters at ALL in DoV. In this expansion the only things that matter as non shaman healer in MT group is having two group cures, AoE avoids, and offensive and defensive buffs. My guild uses a warden as a non shaman MT group healer, which honestly has even less healing ability than an Inquisitor. The reason we do this is because we don't have a skilled enough Inquisitor that plays in the guild to fill the spot. Even with this setup, MT group survivability is a very rare issue, and if you can't see that Templars have gotten the shaft this expansion due to a changed balance issues, that are by large part completely gear derived.</p><p>I will Templars are the most blatant example of the imbalance the lack of a second group cure is in DoV, and I would like to see all healers get one. I can understand why shamans may not be given one, but with non shaman healers, it seriously removes their raid desirablity.</p></blockquote><p>Let me get this right... You are trying to say that DoV is the first expansion in EQ2's history where if you let DoTs tick, or if AEs stack, people can die?!?  LOL!  Did you just crawl out from under a rock? Or do you look back at history with a pair of rose tinted glasses? I wish I played in that fantastic EQ2 history where a DoTs or stacking AEs never killed tanks!The encounters that have knockbacks can easily be taken care of, with effective use of holy shield, enchanter avoids, and good positioning. If that is too difficult, the problem is not class balance.You can understand why shamans should not be eligible for a second group cure, but think Templars should get one? I am sorry, I laughed.If that's all Templars can present in this discussion, Templar concerns are indeed small.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Avirodar is well aware of the current inbalance between Templars and Inq, he's just arguing because he hopes that any Dev that would look over this thread for feedback would be swayed by his reasoning.  I mean, if he truly felt the way that he posts here then why would he be bragging about getting Templars to betray to Inq... I mean if they truly are the awesome class they were in the previous expansions why would a "hardcore templar" want to betray?</p><p><a href="http://www.eq2flames.com/inquisitors/78854-dov-dps-parse-thread-15.html">http://www.eq2flames.com/inquisitor...-thread-15.html</a></p><p>This is why I'm no longer replying to his posts and I hope any Dev looking at this thread would not be naive enough to believe that Templars are anywhere near balanced with Inquisitors in the current state of the game.  The ability to cast while being knocked up in the air with GU61 is a step in the right direction, but we need more than "10% more proc rate on Invol Cure" and an upgraded Wis line for DPS (that we share with Inq). </p></blockquote><p>Yes, that is clear evidence of the situation! Someone runs in to link a 1 liner from eq2flames! So if the state of class balance is based purely on me convincing someone to betray, I will go get an Inq to betray to Templar to PROVE that Inqs need to be boosted. Because that is how your logic works, right?Fail.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Clerics were given the same AAs in DoV, so neither cleric gained an advantage over the other. Templars still have the defensive and heal/reactive advantage. Inquisitors still have the offensive and curing advantage. Are you trying to make a kind of claim stating otherwise? If so, please elaborate.Sentinels Fate had a lot of cure intensive encounters. Templars only had one group cure, and still enjoyed high desirability (Most raid guilds would have 2-3 templars on the roster). There is a couple of fights in DoV with knockbacks, but a combination of good positioning, holy shield, and enchanter avoids can take due care of it. General curing is no worse in DoV than comparable mobs in SF... Even on encounters were a lot of detriments could land, like Saalax, Theerax and Yael, Templars were desirable. So I ask, what is the problem now, that did not exist back in SF?Otherwise, I will keep referring back to what I said previously. If the problem is not something Inqs were given in DoV, that Templars did not get, then Templars deserve no boost unless Inquisitors are given a comparable boost of similar effective gain.You might try to take a look at what a Templar is generally grouped with, and how current mechanics (in conjunction with what Templars are normally grouped with) impacts on the effectiveness/desirability of the Templar class. The real solution to the actual problem, may very well be adjusting something else, and not giving Templars a second group cure.</p></blockquote><p>It's a unique perspective when you raid with both classes as I do. Additionally seeing so many guilds drop or betray their Templars is very informative as to the state of raiding templars and I'll let that speak for itself. If a raid wants 4 inquisitors and 0 Templars, well there isn't much debate that something is wrong at that point. As for the group cure, it's just keeping up with the mechanics, if Templars had a 2nd group cure the inq would still be the best curer. Its as if when SOE merged all 4 cures into one cure, but what if they left one class with the separate 4 cures? That would just make no sense, just like leaving any class without a 2nd group cure does not make sense in light of current mechanics, and this is besides the offensive/defensive debate, its an entirely separate debate but one that still applies to the Templars raid worthiness.</p><p>Just last night I was solo healing an offensive group on a raid, I use my Templar because he is better geared. There was a TON of curing to do, it just made no sense to me single curing 6 people while waiting for my group cure to refresh, it was just a heck of a lot of not fun minutiae that is just not necessary.</p></blockquote><p>You replied to my post, but did not appear to respond to my first paragraph. With such, I will assume you are in full agreement that Templars have the defensive + healing advantage, and that Inquisitors have the offensive + curing advantage. This is the way the class types are meant to be... So well done to SOE for some half decent cleric balance.With such, I once again put it right to you, if you disagree with the above statement, please elaborate as to exactly why this is so. Your statement that guilds are using Inquisitors is like saying rain is wet, after someone asked you why it is raining (a true statement, but it does not answer the question). If you can not identify the problem, you are in no position to be requesting fixes, as how can you ask for a fix if you do not know the issue?You made mention of "keeping up with mechanics", which I see as an intentionally vague, general statement that is little more than a prayer in the wind. Keeping up with what mechanics? Please explain as to exactly what mechanics Templars are not keeping up with? If you are trying to talk about cure mechanics, they are no different to what we had in Sentinel's Fate, and The Shadow Odyssey, and in both of those expansions, Templars were amazing. If the best you have is a rather weak hypothetical situation from when cures were merged years ago, your argument is rather lacking...In response to your last paragraph : Yes? And? Three healers (fury/inq/warden) in EQ2 are optimal for solo group healing/curing. Three healers (temp/defiler/mystic) in EQ2 are optimal for paired healing/curing. If you are a healer that is designed to be paired, but are given the duty of solo healing a group, have the group use cure potions. Yes, oldschool, cure potions! Otherwise, expect a greater challenge when being in such a situation. The tools are available to your raid, whether or not they are used is not an issue of balance/mechanics, it is an issue of raid level competencies.This leads me to ask some questions, directed to Rick777 :1) Do you believe Templars were weak two expansions ago, in TSO?2) Do you believe Templars were weak last expansion, in SF?3) Do you believe Templars are weak in the current expandion, DoV?If you answer yes to question #3, I would -LOVE- to hear an explanation as to exactly why? Templars were amazing in TSO and SF, that is not up for debate... So if you are saying templars are now weak, what changed? What did Inquisitors get that Templars did not? Did all other healers (Defiler+Mystic+Warden+Fury+Inq) get bunches of cool stuff in DoV, but Templars were given nothing? Were specific mechanics changed that nerfed templars, but made other healers thrive? I am hoping for anything other than vague opinion, or random hypotheticals from things that happened years ago.Looking forward to hearing back from you.</p></blockquote><p>I'm not sure what you are looking for. Go talk to people on flames, on these forums, in the game. Raids are dropping Templars plain and simple. If you need specifics more than what I've provided you are free to ask those guilds or players or even read some of the threads on here as well as on flames where the hardcore of the hardcore live. I'm assuming you don't personally raid with a Templar. Yes this has been an issue since some healers got a 2nd group cure right around the same time SOE started to really emphasize throwing detriments as fail conditions much more often than a single group cure refreshed. As for your laughable suggestion of pots, you have looked at the reuse of pots haven't you, besides the inq group can have pots too. What I'm confused about is I never said templars were weak healers, I never said they were nerfed, please stop adding things I never said.</p><p>My devils advocate post was that inq have been steadily buffed to become more defensive, but Templars have gained exactly zero offensively. You do realize whenever a Templar casts any heal oe cure they get a temporary 25% penalty to their spell damage regardless of what stance they are in, this is just one example that SOE meant at one time to limit Temps to purely defensive and inq to purely offensive. Once again I don't care as I have always stated temps are strong healers. Once again I'm not arguing the defensive vs offensive debate but I will admit it's interesting to talk about.</p><p>I just am not understanding why it affects you as an inq if Templars get a 2nd group cure? Are you afraid of losing your 4 raid spots? Inq cures are still superior, you have a control effect breaker and a 2nd group cure that can be cast on the move, for certain encounters you will remain THE choice for a healer over a Templar. If that's not enough then I proposed to make the 2nd group cure an AA heavy choice. Yes I've had this complaint since at least TSO, but in light of the very large pendulum swing this xpac to utilize inq over temps in raids, and the utter lack of need for temps for group content, asking for a 2nd group cure isn't out of the ordinary. There really isn't much more to say and we can let the devs read over both our positions and decide what to do.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You replied to my post, but did not appear to respond to my first paragraph. With such, I will assume you are in full agreement that Templars have the defensive + healing advantage, and that Inquisitors have the offensive + curing advantage. This is the way the class types are meant to be... So well done to SOE for some half decent cleric balance.With such, I once again put it right to you, if you disagree with the above statement, please elaborate as to exactly why this is so. Your statement that guilds are using Inquisitors is like saying rain is wet, after someone asked you why it is raining (a true statement, but it does not answer the question). If you can not identify the problem, you are in no position to be requesting fixes, as how can you ask for a fix if you do not know the issue?You made mention of "keeping up with mechanics", which I see as an intentionally vague, general statement that is little more than a prayer in the wind. Keeping up with what mechanics? Please explain as to exactly what mechanics Templars are not keeping up with? If you are trying to talk about cure mechanics, they are no different to what we had in Sentinel's Fate, and The Shadow Odyssey, and in both of those expansions, Templars were amazing. If the best you have is a rather weak hypothetical situation from when cures were merged years ago, your argument is rather lacking...In response to your last paragraph : Yes? And? Three healers (fury/inq/warden) in EQ2 are optimal for solo group healing/curing. Three healers (temp/defiler/mystic) in EQ2 are optimal for paired healing/curing. If you are a healer that is designed to be paired, but are given the duty of solo healing a group, have the group use cure potions. Yes, oldschool, cure potions! Otherwise, expect a greater challenge when being in such a situation. The tools are available to your raid, whether or not they are used is not an issue of balance/mechanics, it is an issue of raid level competencies.This leads me to ask some questions, directed to Rick777 :<strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #00ff00;">1) Do you believe Templars were weak two expansions ago, in TSO?2) Do you believe Templars were weak last expansion, in SF?3) Do you believe Templars are weak in the current expandion, DoV?If you answer yes to question #3, I would -LOVE- to hear an explanation as to exactly why? </span></strong><span style="color: #00ff00;">Templars were amazing in TSO and SF, that is not up for debate... So if you are saying templars are now weak, what changed?</span> What did Inquisitors get that Templars did not? Did all other healers (Defiler+Mystic+Warden+Fury+Inq) get bunches of cool stuff in DoV, but Templars were given nothing? Were specific mechanics changed that nerfed templars, but made other healers thrive? I am hoping for anything other than vague opinion, or random hypotheticals from things that happened years ago.Looking forward to hearing back from you.</p></blockquote><p>I'm not sure what you are looking for. Go talk to people on flames, on these forums, in the game. Raids are dropping Templars plain and simple. If you need specifics more than what I've provided you are free to ask those guilds or players or even read some of the threads on here as well as on flames where the hardcore of the hardcore live. I'm assuming you don't personally raid with a Templar. Yes this has been an issue since some healers got a 2nd group cure right around the same time SOE started to really emphasize throwing detriments as fail conditions much more often than a single group cure refreshed. As for your laughable suggestion of pots, you have looked at the reuse of pots haven't you, besides the inq group can have pots too. What I'm confused about is I never said templars were weak healers, I never said they were nerfed, please stop adding things I never said.</p><p>My devils advocate post was that inq have been steadily buffed to become more defensive, but Templars have gained exactly zero offensively. You do realize whenever a Templar casts any heal oe cure they get a temporary 25% penalty to their spell damage regardless of what stance they are in, this is just one example that SOE meant at one time to limit Temps to purely defensive and inq to purely offensive. Once again I don't care as I have always stated temps are strong healers. Once again I'm not arguing the defensive vs offensive debate but I will admit it's interesting to talk about.</p><p>I just am not understanding why it affects you as an inq if Templars get a 2nd group cure? Are you afraid of losing your 4 raid spots? Inq cures are still superior, you have a control effect breaker and a 2nd group cure that can be cast on the move, for certain encounters you will remain THE choice for a healer over a Templar. If that's not enough then I proposed to make the 2nd group cure an AA heavy choice. Yes I've had this complaint since at least TSO, but in light of the very large pendulum swing this xpac to utilize inq over temps in raids, and the utter lack of need for temps for group content, asking for a 2nd group cure isn't out of the ordinary. There really isn't much more to say and we can let the devs read over both our positions and decide what to do.</p></blockquote><p>Not sure what I am looking for? Was the part I highlighted in green, just above, somehow confusing? Three questions, one of which requested an explanation if you answered yes. I even gave you specific direction to provide examples between point1 (SF, where templars rocked) and point2 (DoV, where you think templars suck) to explain why Templars are suffering.Your comments that Inqs have been buffed to become more defnesive is deceptive. CLERICS were given some stuff in DoV, and those benefits also go to the Templar, meaning the Inq is not catching up to a Templar defensively, just as a Templar is not catching up to an Inq offensively. Balance.Templars do not need, or deserve, a second group cure. Templars are a very powerful, effective class, that enjoy the most defensive tools and utility of the cleric class types, along with the highest capacity to heal and reduce damage of the clerics. Templars are designed to be a paired healer in a tank group on raids. Go out of that element, expect to find yourself in a situation where you need to work a little harder.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You replied to my post, but did not appear to respond to my first paragraph. With such, I will assume you are in full agreement that Templars have the defensive + healing advantage, and that Inquisitors have the offensive + curing advantage. This is the way the class types are meant to be... So well done to SOE for some half decent cleric balance.With such, I once again put it right to you, if you disagree with the above statement, please elaborate as to exactly why this is so. Your statement that guilds are using Inquisitors is like saying rain is wet, after someone asked you why it is raining (a true statement, but it does not answer the question). If you can not identify the problem, you are in no position to be requesting fixes, as how can you ask for a fix if you do not know the issue?You made mention of "keeping up with mechanics", which I see as an intentionally vague, general statement that is little more than a prayer in the wind. Keeping up with what mechanics? Please explain as to exactly what mechanics Templars are not keeping up with? If you are trying to talk about cure mechanics, they are no different to what we had in Sentinel's Fate, and The Shadow Odyssey, and in both of those expansions, Templars were amazing. If the best you have is a rather weak hypothetical situation from when cures were merged years ago, your argument is rather lacking...In response to your last paragraph : Yes? And? Three healers (fury/inq/warden) in EQ2 are optimal for solo group healing/curing. Three healers (temp/defiler/mystic) in EQ2 are optimal for paired healing/curing. If you are a healer that is designed to be paired, but are given the duty of solo healing a group, have the group use cure potions. Yes, oldschool, cure potions! Otherwise, expect a greater challenge when being in such a situation. The tools are available to your raid, whether or not they are used is not an issue of balance/mechanics, it is an issue of raid level competencies.This leads me to ask some questions, directed to Rick777 :<strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #00ff00;">1) Do you believe Templars were weak two expansions ago, in TSO?2) Do you believe Templars were weak last expansion, in SF?3) Do you believe Templars are weak in the current expandion, DoV?If you answer yes to question #3, I would -LOVE- to hear an explanation as to exactly why? </span></strong><span style="color: #00ff00;">Templars were amazing in TSO and SF, that is not up for debate... So if you are saying templars are now weak, what changed?</span> What did Inquisitors get that Templars did not? Did all other healers (Defiler+Mystic+Warden+Fury+Inq) get bunches of cool stuff in DoV, but Templars were given nothing? Were specific mechanics changed that nerfed templars, but made other healers thrive? I am hoping for anything other than vague opinion, or random hypotheticals from things that happened years ago.Looking forward to hearing back from you.</p></blockquote><p>I'm not sure what you are looking for. Go talk to people on flames, on these forums, in the game. Raids are dropping Templars plain and simple. If you need specifics more than what I've provided you are free to ask those guilds or players or even read some of the threads on here as well as on flames where the hardcore of the hardcore live. I'm assuming you don't personally raid with a Templar. Yes this has been an issue since some healers got a 2nd group cure right around the same time SOE started to really emphasize throwing detriments as fail conditions much more often than a single group cure refreshed. As for your laughable suggestion of pots, you have looked at the reuse of pots haven't you, besides the inq group can have pots too. What I'm confused about is I never said templars were weak healers, I never said they were nerfed, please stop adding things I never said.</p><p>My devils advocate post was that inq have been steadily buffed to become more defensive, but Templars have gained exactly zero offensively. You do realize whenever a Templar casts any heal oe cure they get a temporary 25% penalty to their spell damage regardless of what stance they are in, this is just one example that SOE meant at one time to limit Temps to purely defensive and inq to purely offensive. Once again I don't care as I have always stated temps are strong healers. Once again I'm not arguing the defensive vs offensive debate but I will admit it's interesting to talk about.</p><p>I just am not understanding why it affects you as an inq if Templars get a 2nd group cure? Are you afraid of losing your 4 raid spots? Inq cures are still superior, you have a control effect breaker and a 2nd group cure that can be cast on the move, for certain encounters you will remain THE choice for a healer over a Templar. If that's not enough then I proposed to make the 2nd group cure an AA heavy choice. Yes I've had this complaint since at least TSO, but in light of the very large pendulum swing this xpac to utilize inq over temps in raids, and the utter lack of need for temps for group content, asking for a 2nd group cure isn't out of the ordinary. There really isn't much more to say and we can let the devs read over both our positions and decide what to do.</p></blockquote><p>Not sure what I am looking for? Was the part I highlighted in green, just above, somehow confusing? Three questions, one of which requested an explanation if you answered yes. I even gave you specific direction to provide examples between point1 (SF, where templars rocked) and point2 (DoV, where you think templars suck) to explain why Templars are suffering.Your comments that Inqs have been buffed to become more defnesive is deceptive. CLERICS were given some stuff in DoV, and those benefits also go to the Templar, meaning the Inq is not catching up to a Templar defensively, just as a Templar is not catching up to an Inq offensively. Balance.Templars do not need, or deserve, a second group cure. Templars are a very powerful, effective class, that enjoy the most defensive tools and utility of the cleric class types, along with the highest capacity to heal and reduce damage of the clerics. Templars are designed to be a paired healer in a tank group on raids. Go out of that element, expect to find yourself in a situation where you need to work a little harder.</p></blockquote><p>OK we can get out the coloring books and the crayon, you do realize I've answered your question like 3 times, but let's go for once more.</p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #00ff00;">1) Do you believe Templars were weak two expansions ago, in TSO?2) Do you believe Templars were weak last expansion, in SF?3) Do you believe Templars are weak in the current expandion, DoV?</span></strong></p><p>1) No, 2) No, 3) No</p><p>With that said, again, most raid forces out there are ditching their templars, or making them betray because they are not needed anymore.  Templars ARE stronger healers than inq when it comes to a single target, but that gap has narrowed substantially.  Both classes increase group HP and there is not much of an advantage to templars hp buffs over inq.  Both classes have death saves, divine guidance, shield ally, sacrifice, etc etc.  Glory, mark, mana cure, things like these that are unique to the templar are almost useless in raids.  Involuntary gift used to be awesome in SF, in DOV it's just ok.  Our arcane ward used to be awesome in SF, in DOV it's completely useless except for a couple of HM fights, other than for the group proc.  So it all comes down essentially to 2 spells, Repent and stoneskins.  But even those 2 spells serve to make us stronger, as I said so many times templars are very strong healers, but so are inquisitors, not as strong as templars but certainly much closer.</p><p>But if it were just that I don't think raid forces would be dropping templars.  No offense meant to you, but it's clear you don't raid.  Maybe you do with an inquisitor, maybe you don't, but you certainly don't have the perspective of a Templar in a raid and what is required of them specifically, what affects them, etc.  It's clear to everyone else that there is something wrong when raid leaders are setting up raids and they exclude templars.  The crux of the problem is the inq super curing ability, and this is where I don't understand your vehemence in fighting a 2nd group cure for templars.  So I'll ask my question again that you didn't answer, what would it hurt you as an inq for templars to get a 2nd group cure?  [Removed for Content] do you care in the end, you don't play a templar?  Your raid position is secured because you bring 90% of the templar heals AND you bring a 2nd group cure that can be cast on the run or more importantly CAN BE CAST WHEN KNOCKED UP.  Give me my 2nd group cure that's just vanilla and doesn't have that power and I'll be happy and on my way, let me solo heal my groups that's all I'm asking for.</p><p>In the end, I think you are confusing some of my needs with other posters.  Yes I think they have a valid argument on the defensive vs. offensive thing, but personally I really don't care much about that, only about the 2nd group cure, and the group cure isn't so much of that subject but it's more of the changing mechanics such as things DOV brought like group detriments that kill you in one click while you are being knocked up.</p><p>Lastly: <cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote: "</cite>I convinced a hardcore templar fan to betray. I win @ EQ2."</p><p>Sorry man, but that's pretty telling right there.  You will note I've been nothing but respectful to you and your point of view, but I just felt like that quote from you was very insightful.  In the end I think it's you that hasn't put up much more than a vague argument of "templars are strong healers" where most of us who want a 2nd group cure have but up valid specific points.  You can keep arguing, and I'll tell you what you can feel free to get the last word in as your kind are excited to do, but my points (and other posters points) have been put up and hopefully some dev will stumble along this post and it will get him thinking.  I think I'll step aside from this thread as there really is not much more to say.</p>

[Latpow]

<p>With the GU61 changes, Inquisitors will get another notch to their belt due to overcapping for DPS mod.  I'd just be happy with increased range on our Single or group cure (50m please) and some sort of DPS like ability that people want... increase the values of our weapon skill buffs, add strikethrough to Virtue, etc. </p>

[Elskidor]

<p>I guess they figure with new expansion on the way, and harder content Templar will be right back to being as needed as normal.</p>

[Elskidor]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You replied to my post, but did not appear to respond to my first paragraph. With such, I will assume you are in full agreement that Templars have the defensive + healing advantage, and that Inquisitors have the offensive + curing advantage. This is the way the class types are meant to be... So well done to SOE for some half decent cleric balance.With such, I once again put it right to you, if you disagree with the above statement, please elaborate as to exactly why this is so. Your statement that guilds are using Inquisitors is like saying rain is wet, after someone asked you why it is raining (a true statement, but it does not answer the question). If you can not identify the problem, you are in no position to be requesting fixes, as how can you ask for a fix if you do not know the issue?You made mention of "keeping up with mechanics", which I see as an intentionally vague, general statement that is little more than a prayer in the wind. Keeping up with what mechanics? Please explain as to exactly what mechanics Templars are not keeping up with? If you are trying to talk about cure mechanics, they are no different to what we had in Sentinel's Fate, and The Shadow Odyssey, and in both of those expansions, Templars were amazing. If the best you have is a rather weak hypothetical situation from when cures were merged years ago, your argument is rather lacking...In response to your last paragraph : Yes? And? Three healers (fury/inq/warden) in EQ2 are optimal for solo group healing/curing. Three healers (temp/defiler/mystic) in EQ2 are optimal for paired healing/curing. If you are a healer that is designed to be paired, but are given the duty of solo healing a group, have the group use cure potions. Yes, oldschool, cure potions! Otherwise, expect a greater challenge when being in such a situation. The tools are available to your raid, whether or not they are used is not an issue of balance/mechanics, it is an issue of raid level competencies.This leads me to ask some questions, directed to Rick777 :<strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #00ff00;">1) Do you believe Templars were weak two expansions ago, in TSO?2) Do you believe Templars were weak last expansion, in SF?3) Do you believe Templars are weak in the current expandion, DoV?If you answer yes to question #3, I would -LOVE- to hear an explanation as to exactly why? </span></strong><span style="color: #00ff00;">Templars were amazing in TSO and SF, that is not up for debate... So if you are saying templars are now weak, what changed?</span> What did Inquisitors get that Templars did not? Did all other healers (Defiler+Mystic+Warden+Fury+Inq) get bunches of cool stuff in DoV, but Templars were given nothing? Were specific mechanics changed that nerfed templars, but made other healers thrive? I am hoping for anything other than vague opinion, or random hypotheticals from things that happened years ago.Looking forward to hearing back from you.</p></blockquote><p>I'm not sure what you are looking for. Go talk to people on flames, on these forums, in the game. Raids are dropping Templars plain and simple. If you need specifics more than what I've provided you are free to ask those guilds or players or even read some of the threads on here as well as on flames where the hardcore of the hardcore live. I'm assuming you don't personally raid with a Templar. Yes this has been an issue since some healers got a 2nd group cure right around the same time SOE started to really emphasize throwing detriments as fail conditions much more often than a single group cure refreshed. As for your laughable suggestion of pots, you have looked at the reuse of pots haven't you, besides the inq group can have pots too. What I'm confused about is I never said templars were weak healers, I never said they were nerfed, please stop adding things I never said.</p><p>My devils advocate post was that inq have been steadily buffed to become more defensive, but Templars have gained exactly zero offensively. You do realize whenever a Templar casts any heal oe cure they get a temporary 25% penalty to their spell damage regardless of what stance they are in, this is just one example that SOE meant at one time to limit Temps to purely defensive and inq to purely offensive. Once again I don't care as I have always stated temps are strong healers. Once again I'm not arguing the defensive vs offensive debate but I will admit it's interesting to talk about.</p><p>I just am not understanding why it affects you as an inq if Templars get a 2nd group cure? Are you afraid of losing your 4 raid spots? Inq cures are still superior, you have a control effect breaker and a 2nd group cure that can be cast on the move, for certain encounters you will remain THE choice for a healer over a Templar. If that's not enough then I proposed to make the 2nd group cure an AA heavy choice. Yes I've had this complaint since at least TSO, but in light of the very large pendulum swing this xpac to utilize inq over temps in raids, and the utter lack of need for temps for group content, asking for a 2nd group cure isn't out of the ordinary. There really isn't much more to say and we can let the devs read over both our positions and decide what to do.</p></blockquote><p>Not sure what I am looking for? Was the part I highlighted in green, just above, somehow confusing? Three questions, one of which requested an explanation if you answered yes. I even gave you specific direction to provide examples between point1 (SF, where templars rocked) and point2 (DoV, where you think templars suck) to explain why Templars are suffering.Your comments that Inqs have been buffed to become more defnesive is deceptive. CLERICS were given some stuff in DoV, and those benefits also go to the Templar, meaning the Inq is not catching up to a Templar defensively, just as a Templar is not catching up to an Inq offensively. Balance.Templars do not need, or deserve, a second group cure. Templars are a very powerful, effective class, that enjoy the most defensive tools and utility of the cleric class types, along with the highest capacity to heal and reduce damage of the clerics. Templars are designed to be a paired healer in a tank group on raids. Go out of that element, expect to find yourself in a situation where you need to work a little harder.</p></blockquote><p>Didn't I tell you to stop posting already? Go away. Shoo, [Removed for Content]. Your dribble on these forums is no longer amuses me.</p>

[Arabani]

<p>That's why i love Avi, he has knowledge and can explain well=) And he's totaly right about templars and our role in raid.</p><p>I don't want or need 2nd group cure, more offensive buffs, i don't want solo heal a raid group, i'm near useless in non tank group, but i love it.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Arabani wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>That's why i love Avi, he has knowledge and can explain well=) And he's totaly right about templars and our role in raid.</p><p>I don't want or need 2nd group cure, more offensive buffs, i don't want solo heal a raid group, i'm near useless in non tank group, but i love it.</p></blockquote><p>You hit the nail right on the head.  You are saying you can't solo heal a raid group, you are saying you are near useless in a non tank group.  Yet most of the tank group cleric healers are inquisitors these days, so where does that leave us to go by your own definition?  If you don't want a 2nd group cure, then just delete it off your hotbar.  I could never understand why people fight against a class getting something to help them, especially if it's as important as this.</p>

[Latpow]

<p>Guess "safety net" healer is good enough for some Templars... more time to skype, do your nails, watch TV, I don't know.  I'd prefer a well balanced healer, that can do the things other healers can and be wanted in groups... especially for defensive reasons compared to our "offensive" plate priest archtype.</p>

[Delimant]

<p>I feel bad for templars.  I see very few guilds running with them, especially in hard mode since everything is such a cure fest.  There are even some guilds I know that forced their Templars to switch to Inquisitors or be replaced in raids.  Seems like the balanced has been skewed quite a bit. </p><p>Yeah, they may be slightly more defensive healers, but clearly that isn't enough nowadays.  Curing is what's what in this expansion, and Inquisitors can do it way better.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Delimant@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I feel bad for templars.  I see very few guilds running with them, especially in hard mode since everything is such a cure fest.  There are even some guilds I know that forced their Templars to switch to Inquisitors or be replaced in raids.  Seems like the balanced has been skewed quite a bit. </p><p>Yeah, they may be slightly more defensive healers, but clearly that isn't enough nowadays.  Curing is what's what in this expansion, and Inquisitors can do it way better.</p></blockquote><p>You speak as if curing was not intensive in the prior 2 expansions? TSO and SF required significant volumes of curing. Templars were completely viable, and highly desirable, in both TSO and SF. The difference in healing capacity between a Templar and Inquisitor is not slight. Templars have a substancial advantage. The healing+defensive capacities of a Templar are comparable offsets to an Inquisitors curing+dps capacities. A relative state of balance exists right there.What I see in this thread, is Templars unable to identify the cause of their concern. Curing is not the problem, or Templars would have been rendered obsolete 2 expansions ago. "There is the proof, the number 1634!! The number 1634 means Templars need to be buffed!!"The line above gives as much justification to Templars being "helped", as statements that raid forces are using Inqs in MainTankGroups means Templars need help - none. 1634 is the result. Inqs being used in MTG's is the result. No templar has been able to provide an articulate description of how the problem was caused, what would solve the problem, and why it would solve the problem. As already stated, TSO and SF auto-debunks claims of curing being the problem. So Templars, what is your problem?Knockbacks? Learn to use holy shield, enchanter avoids, and zone geometry. Anything else?</p>

[Boethius_Permafrost]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Delimant@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><p>You speak as if curing was not intensive in the prior 2 expansions? TSO and SF required significant volumes of curing. Templars were completely viable, and highly desirable, in both TSO and SF.</p></blockquote><p>In case you were curious about what the difference is between the expansions, I can help you out.  Templars have an advantage in cure curse, but can't handle multiple back-to-back elementals.</p><p>TSO had a lot of curses, and people used potions.</p><p>SF had very few back-to-back ae's.</p><p>The current expansion is basically back-to-back elementals. </p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Enrico@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Delimant@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><p>You speak as if curing was not intensive in the prior 2 expansions? TSO and SF required significant volumes of curing. Templars were completely viable, and highly desirable, in both TSO and SF.</p></blockquote><p>In case you were curious about what the difference is between the expansions, I can help you out.  Templars have an advantage in cure curse, but can't handle multiple back-to-back elementals.</p><p>TSO had a lot of curses, and people used potions.</p><p>SF had very few back-to-back ae's.</p><p>The current expansion is basically back-to-back elementals. </p></blockquote><p>TSO was nothing short of whack-a-mole cure fest while the general AEs rained down, and SF (especially, but not limited to UD_Wing3) pumped out the detrimentals that required standard group cures in bulk. Multiple AEs that require curing is not a new phenomenon that started in DoV, it has been around for years. Mobs had AE trio's in TSO and SF. This is why I challenge what Templars use in a weak attempt to justify buffing their already powerful class.You said people used potions in TSO, and they did. But every time I have brought up potion use in SF, which should be about a 11-12s reuse on raids, people scoff at the concept, especially Templars. The tools already exist for Templars to deal with the problems they complain about. Working in tandum with the groups shaman, usage of holy shield and enchanter avoids, usage of cure potions, Templars can get the job done.If you care about NOTHING at all except group cures, it may be wise to betray to Inquisitor. Templars complaining about an Inq having better group cures, has as much credibility as a warden complaining that a fury can do more ranged spell based dps, none.</p>

[Latpow]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Enrico@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Delimant@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><p>You speak as if curing was not intensive in the prior 2 expansions? TSO and SF required significant volumes of curing. Templars were completely viable, and highly desirable, in both TSO and SF.</p></blockquote><p>In case you were curious about what the difference is between the expansions, I can help you out.  Templars have an advantage in cure curse, but can't handle multiple back-to-back elementals.</p><p>TSO had a lot of curses, and people used potions.</p><p>SF had very few back-to-back ae's.</p><p>The current expansion is basically back-to-back elementals. </p></blockquote><p>TSO was nothing short of whack-a-mole cure fest while the general AEs rained down, and SF (especially, but not limited to UD_Wing3) pumped out the detrimentals that required standard group cures in bulk. Multiple AEs that require curing is not a new phenomenon that started in DoV, it has been around for years. Mobs had AE trio's in TSO and SF. This is why I challenge what Templars use in a weak attempt to justify buffing their already powerful class.You said people used potions in TSO, and they did. But every time I have brought up potion use in SF, which should be about a 11-12s reuse on raids, people scoff at the concept, especially Templars. The tools already exist for Templars to deal with the problems they complain about. Working in tandum with the groups shaman, usage of holy shield and enchanter avoids, usage of cure potions, Templars can get the job done.If you care about NOTHING at all except group cures, it may be wise to betray to Inquisitor. Templars complaining about an Inq having better group cures, has as much credibility as a warden complaining that a fury can do more ranged spell based dps, none.</p></blockquote><p>I'm pretty sure I addressed your question in the very first post of this thread.  You might try reading it again. </p><p>In TSO and SF... when you needed more DPS in that mage group or DPS group, and it kept folding... it was usually a Templar that got put in to single heal it.  Inq NEEDED those DPS buffs, cause usually in a progression fight their weak heals would be too much on thier own so they needed to be paired with a Shaman or Druid .  A good templar could single heal groups due to their strong heals, Sancuary, Arcane Ward, etc... XYZ was a good example where a single healing Templar just owned for your mage or dps group.  So in essence, the ability to not have 2 healers made up for lack of Templar DPS buffs.  You just add another melee or mage. </p><p> Tanks also did not have the death saves and mitigation abilities they do, where they can pretty much block many life threatening AoEs... so Repent, stoneskins, etc., went a long way towards providing extra survivability to tanks.  All this, paired with the fact that heals didn't compete heal the group on every aoe hit... so once again the extra power of Templar heals meant much more survivability. Faster curse cures was already mentioned.  This was SF / TSO...</p><p>Now read my first again... all the Pot / CB on items made it so any time the tank or anyone in the group isn't green you can just complete heal them.  Tanks (especially with many guilds using Guards and Brawlers as MTs) have their own death saves, which can be timed with the new added cast bars with pin point precision... our stoneskins don't matter as much.  Lastly, most fights this expansion have reduced arcane detrimentals to just debuffs... so our arcane ward isn't a huge factor like in the other expansions, were it was our top heal parsing ability.</p><p>Now I understand Avi is just trolling, he knows this... and Arabani, well bless his or her heart, be very glad you're on very good terms with your guild leader.  This has gotten out of hand though and Templars need something (see first post again) to help us become competitive again with other healers.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>I'm pretty sure I addressed your question in the very first post of this thread.  You might try reading it again. <p>In TSO and SF... when you needed more DPS in that mage group or DPS group, and it kept folding... it was usually a Templar that got put in to single heal it.  Inq NEEDED those DPS buffs, cause usually in a progression fight their weak heals would be too much on thier own so they needed to be paired with a Shaman or Druid .  A good templar could single heal groups due to their strong heals, Sancuary, Arcane Ward, etc... XYZ was a good example where a single healing Templar just owned for your mage or dps group.  So in essence, the ability to not have 2 healers made up for lack of Templar DPS buffs.  You just add another melee or mage. </p><p> Tanks also did not have the death saves and mitigation abilities they do, where they can pretty much block many life threatening AoEs... so Repent, stoneskins, etc., went a long way towards providing extra survivability to tanks.  All this, paired with the fact that heals didn't compete heal the group on every aoe hit... so once again the extra power of Templar heals meant much more survivability. Faster curse cures was already mentioned.  This was SF / TSO...</p><p>Now read my first again... all the Pot / CB on items made it so any time the tank or anyone in the group isn't green you can just complete heal them.  Tanks (especially with many guilds using Guards and Brawlers as MTs) have their own death saves, which can be timed with the new added cast bars with pin point precision... our stoneskins don't matter as much.  Lastly, most fights this expansion have reduced arcane detrimentals to just debuffs... so our arcane ward isn't a huge factor like in the other expansions, were it was our top heal parsing ability.</p><p>Now I understand Avi is just trolling, he knows this... and Arabani, well bless his or her heart, be very glad you're on very good terms with your guild leader.  This has gotten out of hand though and Templars need something (see first post again) to help us become competitive again with other healers. </p></blockquote><p>What do you consider trolling? Me asking the questions, and making the statements, that do not suit your agenda? If I planned on trolling, I could get much more colorful than I am. I am here debating the points being made, which IMO, needs to happen based on the misinformation I have seen in this very thread. I have read the first post, and your last, and I do not agree with key elements your proposals.You miss the "good old days". The days where if there was not a Templar in the MT group, raids got called early. The days where (as you stated) if the Inq couldn't solo heal a DPS group, you had to get the big boy templar class in raid to do it. You miss the days where Templars were grossly overpowered, and want those days back. I respectfully disagree.Dealing with knockbacks/knockups has been raised several times by Templars. You claim Inqs have a monopoly on uninterrupted curing, but the reality is, it is BOTH clerics (Inq+Temp) that have the monopoly due to steadfast. I have explained how proper use of holy shield and enchanter AE avoids can allow a Templar to never get knocked back, and remain standing on their feet allowing for the heals to continue uninterrupted. Combined with effective use of zone geometry, if communicating with your enchanter to get every 2nd KB AE avoided is too much work, the problem is not game mechanics, or the Templar class.The priest group heal fully (or almost full) healing a group, is hardly a new evolution. It has been this way for the last few expacs by well geared healers. It is not the problem.Templar stoneskins on a tank add up fast, especially on the auto attacks. Trying to play down the value of the Templars stoneskin is not right, it is a great ability. Most of the death saves available to tanks, were obtained prior to DoV. The casting bar is not a DoV release either. In years gone, most of the dangerous AEs had very notable casting animation by the mob, allowing tanks/players to use pin-point saves and cures. So the reality is, nothing has changed in that regard. The cues to use saves/cures etc are now much easier to see, but the game has become less forgiving if such cues are not promptly acted upon. Much of a muchness really...What is actually hurting Templars, more than anything, is not what you think (the absence of a 2nd group cure is not it). It is how powerful the shaman in the tank group has become, and how a good shaman can making the healing capacity of a paired healer count for very little, even on progression kills. Now this is where a difference of opionion seems to kick in :If Templars get extra stuff to make them more meaningful while in a group with a shaman, I maintain that Wardens, Furies, and Inquisitors are equally deserving of buffing in an area of their choosing. This is because Templars do not deserve to gain an extra advantage over Wardens, Furies and Inqs for general gameplay, as Templars are already an incredibly robust, powerful and effective healer.</p>

[Latpow]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>I'm pretty sure I addressed your question in the very first post of this thread.  You might try reading it again. <p>In TSO and SF... when you needed more DPS in that mage group or DPS group, and it kept folding... it was usually a Templar that got put in to single heal it.  Inq NEEDED those DPS buffs, cause usually in a progression fight their weak heals would be too much on thier own so they needed to be paired with a Shaman or Druid .  A good templar could single heal groups due to their strong heals, Sancuary, Arcane Ward, etc... XYZ was a good example where a single healing Templar just owned for your mage or dps group.  So in essence, the ability to not have 2 healers made up for lack of Templar DPS buffs.  You just add another melee or mage. </p><p> Tanks also did not have the death saves and mitigation abilities they do, where they can pretty much block many life threatening AoEs... so Repent, stoneskins, etc., went a long way towards providing extra survivability to tanks.  All this, paired with the fact that heals didn't compete heal the group on every aoe hit... so once again the extra power of Templar heals meant much more survivability. Faster curse cures was already mentioned.  This was SF / TSO...</p><p>Now read my first again... all the Pot / CB on items made it so any time the tank or anyone in the group isn't green you can just complete heal them.  Tanks (especially with many guilds using Guards and Brawlers as MTs) have their own death saves, which can be timed with the new added cast bars with pin point precision... our stoneskins don't matter as much.  Lastly, most fights this expansion have reduced arcane detrimentals to just debuffs... so our arcane ward isn't a huge factor like in the other expansions, were it was our top heal parsing ability.</p><p>Now I understand Avi is just trolling, he knows this... and Arabani, well bless his or her heart, be very glad you're on very good terms with your guild leader.  This has gotten out of hand though and Templars need something (see first post again) to help us become competitive again with other healers. </p></blockquote><p>What do you consider trolling? Me asking the questions, and making the statements, that do not suit your agenda? If I planned on trolling, I could get much more colorful than I am. I am here debating the points being made, which IMO, needs to happen based on the misinformation I have seen in this very thread. I have read the first post, and your last, and I do not agree with key elements your proposals.You miss the "good old days". The days where if there was not a Templar in the MT group, raids got called early. The days where (as you stated) if the Inq couldn't solo heal a DPS group, you had to get the big boy templar class in raid to do it. You miss the days where Templars were grossly overpowered, and want those days back. I respectfully disagree.Dealing with knockbacks/knockups has been raised several times by Templars. You claim Inqs have a monopoly on uninterrupted curing, but the reality is, it is BOTH clerics (Inq+Temp) that have the monopoly due to steadfast. I have explained how proper use of holy shield and enchanter AE avoids can allow a Templar to never get knocked back, and remain standing on their feet allowing for the heals to continue uninterrupted. Combined with effective use of zone geometry, if communicating with your enchanter to get every 2nd KB AE avoided is too much work, the problem is not game mechanics, or the Templar class.The priest group heal fully (or almost full) healing a group, is hardly a new evolution. It has been this way for the last few expacs by well geared healers. It is not the problem.Templar stoneskins on a tank add up fast, especially on the auto attacks. Trying to play down the value of the Templars stoneskin is not right, it is a great ability. Most of the death saves available to tanks, were obtained prior to DoV. The casting bar is not a DoV release either. In years gone, most of the dangerous AEs had very notable casting animation by the mob, allowing tanks/players to use pin-point saves and cures. So the reality is, nothing has changed in that regard. The cues to use saves/cures etc are now much easier to see, but the game has become less forgiving if such cues are not promptly acted upon. Much of a muchness really...What is actually hurting Templars, more than anything, is not what you think (the absence of a 2nd group cure is not it). It is how powerful the shaman in the tank group has become, and how a good shaman can making the healing capacity of a paired healer count for very little, even on progression kills. Now this is where a difference of opionion seems to kick in :If Templars get extra stuff to make them more meaningful while in a group with a shaman, I maintain that Wardens, Furies, and Inquisitors are equally deserving of buffing in an area of their choosing. This is because Templars do not deserve to gain an extra advantage over Wardens, Furies and Inqs for general gameplay, as Templars are already an incredibly robust, powerful and effective healer.</p></blockquote><p>If you look at my suggestions, I have never mentioned a 2nd group cure as the only answer.  Personally, I'd rather have more range on my single or group cure so that my melee can burn on adds away from MT and not tick to death (or I can hit them with my cure reliably on a KB). </p><p>Your revelation about the strength of Shaman wards... this has already been mentioned in this thread several times.  This is why my suggestions are based on abilities that would make us more desireable outside of our pure healing strength.  Plus if we get more upgrades to our healing abilities than Wardens (another priest class that needs a unique "must have in raid" ability) are hurt because there would be no reason to 3 healer MT on tougher fights. </p><p>Other healers have gotten tweaks to be compatible with the current state of the game... Templars (and Defilers argueably, though Wards > all) have not been kept in the loop. Wardens have been kept in the loop, but still don't have much that would make a raid leader choose a Warden / Shaman combo over an Inq / Shaman combo... Our warden sits out most of the time, except for like 3 fights. </p><p>Devs just need to scrap the whole "defensive" and "offensive" healer concept and go with "Mage", "Scout","Fighter" friendly.... like Defilers / Wardens would have buffs that Fighters would want (strikethrough, MA, Accuracy, +Hate, etc.).  Inq / Mystics would have buffs scouts would want (MA, Reuse, Flurry, weapon skills, DPS procs, etc.)..  Furies / Templars would have Mage buffage (spell double, spell skills, abil mod, reuse, AoE avoids for pets).</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If you look at my suggestions, I have never mentioned a 2nd group cure as the only answer.  Personally, I'd rather have more range on my single or group cure so that my melee can burn on adds away from MT and not tick to death (or I can hit them with my cure reliably on a KB). </p><p>Your revelation about the strength of Shaman wards... this has already been mentioned in this thread several times.  This is why my suggestions are based on abilities that would make us more desireable outside of our pure healing strength.  Plus if we get more upgrades to our healing abilities then Wardens are hurt because there would be no reason to 3 healer MT on tougher fights. </p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #00ff00;"><strong>Other healers have gotten tweaks to be compatible</strong></span><span style="color: #00ff00;"><strong><span style="font-size: small;"> with the current state of the game</span></strong></span>... Templars (and Defilers argueably, though Wards > all) have not been kept in the loop. </p></blockquote><p>I am curious to hear what special tweaks Inqs have been given, since mid RoK? Fanatical Devotion is about the only addition worthy of note that is unique to Inqs... Druids recieved some tweaks, but the plight of druids, which spanned several years of devastated raid desirability, makes the current Templar situation look like a relaxing holiday in comparison.It's good that you recognise the impact of how significant wards are becoming, and how current encounters/mechanics have skilled Shamans at a point where they are rendering the healing output of other class types as trivial padding. Solving the actual problem requires more than buffing Templars, or giving Templars new tricks. Buffing Templars would only create a new problem, while the original problem continues to fester.If reactive heals were calculated before wards, Templars would not be here asking to be buffed up, Templars would "parsing" up in the stratosphere. Instead, the Defilers would be complaining about how they want extra range on their group/single cures, and better offensive utility to compete with the Mystics, etc etc. The difference is, who gets counted first. If you do not get counted first, and left insignificant scraps to heal, your capacity to heal is borderline meaningless. In some ways, as the Devs stated, it is a part of the games design that just is what it is.</p>

[Latpow]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If you look at my suggestions, I have never mentioned a 2nd group cure as the only answer.  Personally, I'd rather have more range on my single or group cure so that my melee can burn on adds away from MT and not tick to death (or I can hit them with my cure reliably on a KB). </p><p>Your revelation about the strength of Shaman wards... this has already been mentioned in this thread several times.  This is why my suggestions are based on abilities that would make us more desireable outside of our pure healing strength.  Plus if we get more upgrades to our healing abilities then Wardens are hurt because there would be no reason to 3 healer MT on tougher fights. </p><p><span style="color: #00ff00; font-size: small;"><strong>Other healers have gotten tweaks to be compatible</strong></span><span style="color: #00ff00;"><strong><span style="font-size: small;"> with the current state of the game</span></strong></span>... Templars (and Defilers argueably, though Wards > all) have not been kept in the loop. </p></blockquote><p>I am curious to hear what special tweaks Inqs have been given, since mid RoK? Fanatical Devotion is about the only addition worthy of note that is unique to Inqs... Druids recieved some tweaks, but the plight of druids, which spanned several years of devastated raid desirability, makes the current Templar situation look like a relaxing holiday in comparison.It's good that you recognise the impact of how significant wards are becoming, and how current encounters/mechanics have skilled Shamans at a point where they are rendering the healing output of other class types as trivial padding. Solving the actual problem requires more than buffing Templars, or giving Templars new tricks. Buffing Templars would only create a new problem, while the original problem continues to fester.If reactive heals were calculated before wards, Templars would not be here asking to be buffed up, Templars would "parsing" up in the stratosphere. Instead, the Defilers would be complaining about how they want extra range on their group/single cures, and better offensive utility to compete with the Mystics, etc etc. The difference is, who gets counted first. If you do not get counted first, and left insignificant scraps to heal, your capacity to heal is borderline meaningless. In some ways, as the Devs stated, it is a part of the games design that just is what it is.</p></blockquote><p>Simple answer... as CB / Pot ramps up so does DPS and DPS potential of procs.  Heals get stronger yes, but as you just stated... the greatest benefactor of this is Shamans with their huge wards.  There is no ceiling as to were DPS can ramp up to, BUT there is only so much healing needed to keep tanks and groups alive.  With the top gear of SF, I had maybe 110 ish cb / potency?  Now with current top gear I can hit 240s in both cb / potency (not to mention capped reuse, 2k+ ability mod)... does my heal parse reflect that?  Sure I "can" do 15k - 20k hps, but paired with a good shaman who's consistently hitting 8 - 12k hps... 3k - 4k is the norm on fights where the arcane ward is not a factor, most of this being Repent.  An Inq can hit that 3 - 4k mark needed to cover damage that slips through wards easily, while having 2 group cures, while having more range on heals and cures to aid members DPS'ing adds away from the MT (or getting KB'd), while providing sustantial DPS buffs (and 10% passive reuse).  There really is no argument here...</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Simple answer... as CB / Pot ramps up so does DPS and DPS potential of procs.  Heals get stronger yes, but as you just stated... the greatest benefactor of this is Shamans with their huge wards.  There is no ceiling as to were DPS can ramp up to, BUT there is only so much healing needed to keep tanks and groups alive.  With the top gear of SF, I had maybe 110 ish cb / potency?  Now with current top gear I can hit 240s in both cb / potency (not to mention capped reuse, 2k+ ability mod)... does my heal parse reflect that?  Sure I "can" do 15k - 20k hps, but paired with a good shaman who's consistently hitting 8 - 12k hps... 3k - 4k is the norm on fights where the arcane ward is not a factor, most of this being Repent.  An Inq can hit that 3 - 4k mark needed to cover damage that slips through wards easily, while having 2 group cures, while having more range on heals and cures to aid members DPS'ing adds away from the MT (or getting KB'd), while providing sustantial DPS buffs (and 10% passive reuse).  There really is no argument here...</p></blockquote><p>As CB / Pot ramps up, the DPS and DPS potential of procs goes up at a proportionate rate. So really, in terms of overall capacity, things stay the same. If anything, DPS from procs has been lowered with DoV, due to the uncapping of MultiAttack, and the nerfing of VC.  This means the DPS buffs from DPS priests, remains proportionate to what it was in prior expansions. Uncapping MA was big...Your CB and Potency has gone higher, but total HP pools have lifted as well. Group heals by well geared priests would near or full heal a group in prior expansions, so not a lot has changed. At the end of the day, Templars are one of the most robust, powerful healers in EQ2. Templars just feel left out when shamans leave them nothing worth while to heal. If reactives counted before wards, this thread would not exist. For such reasons, I stand by my comment it is not Templars that need fixing...</p>

[LardLord]

<p>The vanilla raid content was very DPS-focused, and Brawlers became insanely overpowered.  That's what changed with DoV to make Templars much less desirable.  Balance Brawlers, give us more variety in fights (Drunder seems to have done this, maybe), and then see if raids still don't find Templars desirable.  I'd bet that they will, even without any changes to the class.</p><p>Unfortunately, if they buff all the tanks up to Brawler levels, then we will have a problem, since it will be the tanks' responsibility to survive most spike damage, rendering defensive healers much less significant.</p>

[Rick777]

<p>Hopefully the devs have some wheels turning in their heads on this issue.  Most, if not all of the top guilds are ditching their templars, they want the inq cure for the MT group and the Templar cannot solo heal a non MT group.  Just as in the real world what the top guilds do is usually spot on indicative of where the trend is going, and it's not a mystery to see exactly why there are going this way.</p><p>I've seen this firsthand since I raid with a Templar AND an inquisitor (yes I love clerics).  We are just easing into HM stuff and my guild repeatedly asks me to take my inquisitor over my temp, and I can't really argue with them as it just seems so much easier to perform my healing/curing functions with my inquisitor.  Sometimes I'm in the MT group and do just fine, most times I'm asked to solo heal a dps group, there is NO way I'd ever be able to do this on my Templar.  I won't argue that my Templar is a stronger healer, but it just doesn't seem to matter in the things which are important, we both group heal the same being able to top up the group when the damage surpasses the shamans wards, we both have nice emergency spells like divine guidance, instant group rez, sacrifice, death saves, etc., we both have shield ally.  I rarely if ever feel as if my group could have survived better with my Templar, but I quite often feel that the group survived better with my inquisitor.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>It would be helpful for those of you who don't understand why templars are hurting this expansion to speak with the top end raid guilds that are making their templars betray to inquisitors.</p><p>I spoke with a defiler from a raid guild that did such a thing. This is how it was explained to me.</p><p>In previous expansions, from a healing-only perspective, the MT group often needed both a shaman and a templar to stay up. The defensive capabilities of the templar were a necessity. This is no longer the case. A shaman and an inquisitor can keep a MT up just fine. Even in difficult fights, the pure healing needed is not what makes the fights difficult.</p><p>Now throw in the need to cure back-to-back-to-back group detrimentals. The shaman/templar combination HAS to coordinate the group cures perfectly, being sure to cast the group cure only when it is his turn and not overlap with the other curer, or the MT group dies. That means 2 people have to be paying attention to cures, and either one messing up causes a wipe. The shaman has to work harder, and sometimes must cancel a group ward casting because of the need to fire off a group cure instead.</p><p>Contrast that with the shaman/inquisitor combination. One healer (the inquisitor of course) can manage all of the group cures, leaving the shaman free to concentrate on warding/healing. [If you, as a templar, want to understand how much easier healing is when you don't have to worry about the cures, get paired in your next raid with an inq or druid and tell them to handle all the cures for your group.] No need to coordinate group cures. That means no wipes because two people accidently group-cured the same determintal.</p><p>Then throw on top of that the group DPS buffs provided by the inquisitor. It becomes obvious why templars are losing their MT roles.</p>

[LardLord]

<p>The focus on cures is misplaced. I'm the raid leader of a relatively high end guild, and I betrayed back to Inquisitor for DoV after playing Templar for the last ~5 months of SF.  It's simply that the extra survivability from Templars is not needed. If you wanted high survivability and only one healer covering cures, Warden + Templar would actually be superior to Shaman + Inquisitor (yes, shaman-less MT groups are fine, believe it or not).   </p><p>If they don't make it so that defensive healers are needed again, they will have to completely rebalance healers - not just Templars.  Hopefully they realize this.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The focus on cures is misplaced. I'm the raid leader of a relatively high end guild, and I betrayed back to Inquisitor for DoV after playing Templar for the last ~5 months of SF.  <strong>It's simply that the extra survivability from Templars is not needed.</strong> If you wanted high survivability and only one healer covering cures, Warden + Templar would actually be superior to Shaman + Inquisitor (yes, shaman-less MT groups are fine, believe it or not).   </p><p>If they don't make it so that defensive healers are needed again, they will have to completely rebalance healers - not just Templars.  Hopefully they realize this.</p></blockquote><p>I took note of your server and guild, and I value your opinion on this. Seeing top raid guilds dropping templars means a lot. I was actually disappointed at Fan Faire that the developers in charge of class balance feel that the extra survivability provided by templars means that everything is fine and there is no issue. This is not bearing out in reality.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The focus on cures is misplaced. I'm the raid leader of a relatively high end guild, and I betrayed back to Inquisitor for DoV after playing Templar for the last ~5 months of SF.  It's simply that the extra survivability from Templars is not needed. If you wanted high survivability and only one healer covering cures, Warden + Templar would actually be superior to Shaman + Inquisitor (yes, shaman-less MT groups are fine, believe it or not).   </p><p>If they don't make it so that defensive healers are needed again, they will have to completely rebalance healers - not just Templars.  Hopefully they realize this.</p></blockquote><p>Thank you for your response, it's important that guys like you who have super credibility post up their thoughts.  In relation to curing though I have to disagree, it is part of the problem.  Of course you hit the nail on the head that the overall problem is that the defensive ability of the Templar is just not useful to a meaningful degree in this xpac.</p><p>But in terms of the curing the game mechanics have changed sufficiently that ALL healers need a 2nd group cure.  Traditionally Templars have been taking the MT role, but with this xpac, as has been pointed out, inquisitors have been dominating the MT role due to the decreased requirements for defensive healing, and the severely increased requirements for curing, curing extremely quickly, curing on the run, curing while being knocked up/back, etc.  Now personally I do NOT necessarily want to be in a non MT group as healing the MT group is just what I love in the game.  But if the RL decides he wants an inq in the MT group, then I may end up in a non MT group, but there I wouldn't be able to take care of that group by myself properly without a 2nd group cure, the group would become a liability to the raid.  Add a 2nd healer and that would take away utility and dps.</p><p>So we are at a weird conundrum.  The templar isn't the best MT healer anymore, this has been demonstrated by top raid leaders sitting out their templars and by the obvious logic of defensive healing in DOV.  But even with a 2nd group cure the Templar would still make a subpar cleric to lets say a DPS group, especially if he was expected to solo heal that group.  In terms of clerics the inquisitor is able to take the role of both MT healer and non MT healer in a much better capacity than the Templar.  Personally I'd be happy with just a 2nd group cure with absolutely no other changes to the Templar class, none.  I do agree that content can be balanced to be a bit harder hitting to bring the Templars strengths to light, but it should be handled on the content side and not on the character side.</p><p>I've stated it before, make the 2nd group cure an AA heavy investment, make Templars decide between this and something else, I have no issue with that, I'm not necessarily looking for something for free.  I'm ok that curing has been trivialized by inquisitors, I'm ok if their 2nd group cure has more range, is faster casting, can be cast while being knocked back/up, has faster recast, etc etc., I'm ok with all that stuff.  I just want a tool to be able to deal with current mechanics, and those mechanics are if you miss a single group cure rotation with your defiler, or if you are solo healing  group, you die, your group dies, possibly your raid wipes.  So if they did fix content to make the templar more viable raid healers templars would still be at the mercy of current raid dynamics with their single group cure.</p><p>I understand that all healers should be able to MT heal in theory, just as all fighters should be able to MT as well.  Fighters finally reached that point when brawlers were brought up to speed, but is there a tradeoff?  Can a guardian viably be dps equal to a brawler, and if he can't does he get a defensive advantage?  I won't put my answer here, but it is similar to templar versus inquisitor, and as I mentioned before this may be more of an issue with content than the class specifically.</p><p>I know the knee jerk reaction is to say well just betray your Templar.  You know what, I did better than that and leveled a separate inquisitor who is now raiding with my guild.  At the end of the day I MUCH prefer the Templar for my own personal reasons, and at the end of the day it is myself who has to have "fun" and enjoy who and what I am doing.  I do play the inquisitor more often because it helps the raids out, but it really bums me out to see my Templar collecting dust as he is by far my favorite toon.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>It is evident that some of you are stuck on the erroneous idea that only having a single group cure is the problem. The fact is, it is not, or this problem would have been an issue 2 expansions ago. Stop beating the dead horse. Any of you who think group cures have anything to do with the cause of Templar desirability waning for the first time in EQ2's 7 year history, lack the depth of understanding to identify the actual problem, and/or are entirely too cozy with the concept of expecting your class to be non-replacable on a raid, and can not fathom the fact you may now have to put in effort to keep your spot. Welcome to the situation that veteran Inqs and Druids are very well versed in.The real problem has already been explained in this thread, regardless of if you choose to ignore it, or can not understand it. It is some relief that the Devs know Templars are not a weak class, based on the response when someone complained about Templars at Fan Faire. Inq's have different strengths and weaknesses, to the strengths and weaknesses of a Templar. The Templar was NOT nerfed, and is still a powerful class. Inqs are slightly better suited for the structure of some current content, but this can very well change in a handful of months when more content arrives.</p>

[Rick777]

<p>My suggestion of a 2nd group cure is BECAUSE of the content, not because of any shortcoming with the Templar, I've made this incredibly clear over and over and over...  If content changed to make the Templar relevant again I would be happy with this, but it would be  snowballs chance in hell that content will be changed.  The detriments hit faster than in TSO/SF, they need to be cured quicker, they are applied much faster than the single group cure refreshes, and this xpac many of them are in tandem with knockbacks and knock ups.  This makes one cleric MUCH more viable in healing, whether it's healing the MT group or healing a non MT group.  Inquisitors already have the lock on healing DPS groups, they have had this for a couple of xpacs if not longer,now they have the lock on MT groups as well, so what is left for the Templar?  The templar cannot even solo heal a group, in TSO/SF it was tougher and usually very hard to solo heal a group, but in DOV raiding it's quite feasible to solo heal a group with ONE condition, you have 2 group cures.  I think there is a DEEP misconception that players are saying templars are weak or have been nerfed, I don't think anyone really said that, certainly I never said that.  I think a basic understanding of game mechanics and experience actually raiding a templar go a long way in having credibility, which is why I appreciate a well known raid leader coming in and putting in his perspective.</p><p>The issue is that I highly doubt the content will revert in any way, shape or form.  SOE has been VERY clear in its progression of how important detriments and curing are, I don't see why after years they would change direction. Even taking away the issue of defensive healing not being needed in DOV raiding we still have the issue of the Templar having no real  home in a raid.  If the content doesn't change, and it's quite doubtful that it will, what other solutions do we have?  I see a lot of talk but no real talk of solutions other than what is the most doubtful of what will happen, that is the content being changed.  The fact of the matter is that Templars are being sat out of ANY raid group and that is an issue which needs fixing, whether it's thru content or the character itself doesn't matter so much as it needs to be addressed and squabbling about which way to go about it is counter productive to the class.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Inquisitors already have the lock on healing DPS groups, they have had this for a couple of xpacs if not longer, now they have the lock on MT groups as well, so what is left for the Templar?  The templar cannot even solo heal a group, in TSO/SF it was tougher and usually very hard to solo heal a group, but in DOV raiding it's quite feasible to solo heal a group with ONE condition, you have 2 group cures.  <strong>I think there is a DEEP misconception that players are saying templars are weak or have been nerfed, I don't think anyone really said that, certainly I never said that</strong>.</p></blockquote><p>+1</p><p>I don't think the devs are going to see this problem with templars until even more raids kick out all their last remaining templar or force them to betray to keep their spots in raid.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>My suggestion of a 2nd group cure is BECAUSE of the content, not because of any shortcoming with the Templar, I've made this incredibly clear over and over and over...  If content changed to make the Templar relevant again I would be happy with this, but it would be  snowballs chance in hell that content will be changed.  The detriments hit faster than in TSO/SF, they need to be cured quicker, they are applied much faster than the single group cure refreshes, and this xpac many of them are in tandem with knockbacks and knock ups.  This makes one cleric MUCH more viable in healing, whether it's healing the MT group or healing a non MT group.  Inquisitors already have the lock on healing DPS groups, they have had this for a couple of xpacs if not longer,now they have the lock on MT groups as well, so what is left for the Templar?  The templar cannot even solo heal a group, in TSO/SF it was tougher and usually very hard to solo heal a group, but in DOV raiding it's quite feasible to solo heal a group with ONE condition, you have 2 group cures.  I think there is <span style="font-size: medium; color: #00ff00;">a DEEP misconception that players are saying templars are weak or have been nerfed, I don't think anyone really said that, certainly I never said that</span>.  I think a basic understanding of game mechanics and experience actually raiding a templar go a long way in having credibility, which is why I appreciate a well known raid leader coming in and putting in his perspective.</p><p>The issue is that I highly doubt the content will revert in any way, shape or form.  SOE has been VERY clear in its progression of how important detriments and curing are, I don't see why after years they would change direction. Even taking away the issue of defensive healing not being needed in DOV raiding we still have the issue of the Templar having no real  home in a raid.  If the content doesn't change, and it's quite doubtful that it will, what other solutions do we have?  I see a lot of talk but no real talk of solutions other than what is the most doubtful of what will happen, that is the content being changed.  The fact of the matter is that Templars are being sat out of ANY raid group and that is an issue which needs fixing, whether it's thru content or the character itself doesn't matter so much as it needs to be addressed and squabbling about which way to go about it is counter productive to the class.</p></blockquote><p>It is good to see we are in agreement that Templars are not a weak class. As I have stated already, Templars are a heal+defensive cleric, and they are powerful healers for doing what they are designed to do.If you think detriments hit "faster" in DoV than they did in TSO + SF, you're off the mark. A lot of DoV encounters provide us with consistant spacing between AEs. Did you even raid in TSO or SF? Mobs like Tythus and Tyrannus had people guzzling potions like crazy. Mynzak would combo AEs too. Anashti Sul was cures all over the place on one of the highest scales ever seen in EQ2. Can even back up to Gozak and Munzok in MMB, both could spit out batches of triple AEs. Or shall we talk about Saalax, Theerax and Yael in Underfoot Depths? Please do! Or how the 3 sages in PoRT where one or two of them had the 3 AEs... What about Arkatanthis and Waansu in Labs?  A Templar trying to solo heal these encounters during a relevant phase of progression would be a worthy challenge for members of top end guilds, let alone Templars in mid range guilds. If any of the AEs ticked, it got dangerous quick. But Templar desirability was still very high!You probably remember TSO and SF by what it was like at the end when you were farming content, and not at the start. But did your guild use a solo Templar on Yael? Theerax? Saalax? Or what about backing up further to Construct Hardmode? Hardmode Vaclaz? Did your Templars parade around proud as punch about how easy it was to be a beastly Templar and solo heal all of those? I am just curious as to how much merit your assumtions about AE damage and curing requirements are, because during all that time Templars enjoyed high desirability. If you think hard hitting content with lots of curing required did not exist before DoV, you have no idea what you are talking about.As you said, Templars are not a weak class. So, they do not need anything. The "problem" has nothing to do with Templars, neither does the fix. Any boosts given to Templars are undeserving, as it would be uneccessary boosting of an already powerful class.When it comes to healers, druids need Dev attention long before a Templar gets blinked at.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is good to see we are in agreement that Templars are not a weak class. As I have stated already, Templars are a heal+defensive cleric, and they are powerful healers for doing what they are designed to do.</p></blockquote><p>Templars are not weak healers. They <em>heal </em>just fine. They are a weak class. This expansion has no need for templars in any raid group. No matter how you look at it, you cannot dispute that templars are being left out of raids.</p><p>At least giving templars a second group cure would allow them to be kept as a possible class for the MT group when a defensive healer would help. Otherwise, raids are going for the inq with the second cure, even if it means a slight drop in the defensive ability compared to a templar.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>My suggestion of a 2nd group cure is BECAUSE of the content, not because of any shortcoming with the Templar, I've made this incredibly clear over and over and over...  If content changed to make the Templar relevant again I would be happy with this, but it would be  snowballs chance in hell that content will be changed.  The detriments hit faster than in TSO/SF, they need to be cured quicker, they are applied much faster than the single group cure refreshes, and this xpac many of them are in tandem with knockbacks and knock ups.  This makes one cleric MUCH more viable in healing, whether it's healing the MT group or healing a non MT group.  Inquisitors already have the lock on healing DPS groups, they have had this for a couple of xpacs if not longer,now they have the lock on MT groups as well, so what is left for the Templar?  The templar cannot even solo heal a group, in TSO/SF it was tougher and usually very hard to solo heal a group, but in DOV raiding it's quite feasible to solo heal a group with ONE condition, you have 2 group cures.  I think there is <span style="font-size: medium; color: #00ff00;">a DEEP misconception that players are saying templars are weak or have been nerfed, I don't think anyone really said that, certainly I never said that</span>.  I think a basic understanding of game mechanics and experience actually raiding a templar go a long way in having credibility, which is why I appreciate a well known raid leader coming in and putting in his perspective.</p><p>The issue is that I highly doubt the content will revert in any way, shape or form.  SOE has been VERY clear in its progression of how important detriments and curing are, I don't see why after years they would change direction. Even taking away the issue of defensive healing not being needed in DOV raiding we still have the issue of the Templar having no real  home in a raid.  If the content doesn't change, and it's quite doubtful that it will, what other solutions do we have?  I see a lot of talk but no real talk of solutions other than what is the most doubtful of what will happen, that is the content being changed.  The fact of the matter is that Templars are being sat out of ANY raid group and that is an issue which needs fixing, whether it's thru content or the character itself doesn't matter so much as it needs to be addressed and squabbling about which way to go about it is counter productive to the class.</p></blockquote><p>It is good to see we are in agreement that Templars are not a weak class. As I have stated already, Templars are a heal+defensive cleric, and they are powerful healers for doing what they are designed to do.If you think detriments hit "faster" in DoV than they did in TSO + SF, you're off the mark. A lot of DoV encounters provide us with consistant spacing between AEs. Did you even raid in TSO or SF? Mobs like Tythus and Tyrannus had people guzzling potions like crazy. Mynzak would combo AEs too. Anashti Sul was cures all over the place on one of the highest scales ever seen in EQ2. Can even back up to Gozak and Munzok in MMB, both could spit out batches of triple AEs. Or shall we talk about Saalax, Theerax and Yael in Underfoot Depths? Please do! Or how the 3 sages in PoRT where one or two of them had the 3 AEs... What about Arkatanthis and Waansu in Labs?  A Templar trying to solo heal these encounters during a relevant phase of progression would be a worthy challenge for members of top end guilds, let alone Templars in mid range guilds. If any of the AEs ticked, it got dangerous quick. But Templar desirability was still very high!You probably remember TSO and SF by what it was like at the end when you were farming content, and not at the start. But did your guild use a solo Templar on Yael? Theerax? Saalax? Or what about backing up further to Construct Hardmode? Hardmode Vaclaz? Did your Templars parade around proud as punch about how easy it was to be a beastly Templar and solo heal all of those? I am just curious as to how much merit your assumtions about AE damage and curing requirements are, because during all that time Templars enjoyed high desirability. If you think hard hitting content with lots of curing required did not exist before DoV, you have no idea what you are talking about.As you said, Templars are not a weak class. So, they do not need anything. The "problem" has nothing to do with Templars, neither does the fix. Any boosts given to Templars are undeserving, as it would be uneccessary boosting of an already powerful class.When it comes to healers, druids need Dev attention long before a Templar gets blinked at.</p></blockquote><p>Actually, per what I said in my post, I never solo healed a group in TSO/SF other than EM, my point was in DOV it is much easier to solo heal group, I regularly solo heal my group as an inquisitor.  I'm also glad it took us 5 pages to agree, lol.  I did raid TSO/SF and while I can't say I have specifically timed the group detriments on every single fight, I can say by personal experience that the group detriments land much faster. In any event even if they did not as you say the point still remains that the content does not need the defensive abilities of a Templar as they did in TSO/SF so RL's are preferring to take the cure equation out of the raid encounter and choosing inquisitors.  Why is this concept so difficult to understand, inquisitors trivialize the cures, I'm ok with this, but this is the fact of the matter, and if the shaman is enough to keep the group standing, and you don't need the defensive buffs/abilities of a Templar, and the inquisitor can trivialize curing for the group, it's just complete common sense for that RL to choose the inquisitor over the templar for any of the 4 raid groups.  Simple, the frequency of detriments doesn't matter even if we do disagree, it's a non issue.</p><p>There are 4 groups in a raid, and Templars are wanted in NONE of them, this is something which needs to be addressed, it's very simple.  I'm trying to come up with a viable solution on how RL's will want Templars again for ANY of those groups.  I don't really care if inquisitors become MT healers and Templars become DPS healers, just to use an extreme example, I just want to have a place in a raid again, same as every other class in this game.  I fully agree that the problem has nothing to do with templars, it's the content, but as I've stated before 1) I highly doubt the content will be changed and 2) My suggestions (do I really have to say this again?) are for the Templar to fit into the current content as SOE envisions it.  RL's will want Inquisitors if they need to solo heal a group, they will want inquisitors for DPS groups, they will want inquisitors for the MT group, I'll ask you again what's left for Templars?  I understand inquisitors had it rough for a long time, but I think overswinging the pendulum the other way is NOT the answer.  Don't forget I have both templar and inquisitor raid toons so can at least directly compare them both on specific encounters and I regularly do in my self evaluation of what will be best for my raid force.</p><p>I won't even get into the druids, but they are pretty powerful right now IMO, but you know what, I don't play a druid anymore, I had a raid warden in TSO but haven't played her since then so I won't pass any judgement on what they do and don't need, although our raid force has a warden who regularly either heals the MT with a shaman only, or solo heals a non MT group in raids, both things that my Templar is unwanted or cannot do.  Which brings me to a question, how long have you been raiding with your Templar?  You have a templar correct?  One that you raid with.  I don't mean a guildmate who relays his experiences, I don't mean you observing, I mean you specifically have a templar who has raided in SF/TSO and currently raids in DOV?  Just curious.</p><p>In any case I've put forth my beliefs and specific experience and that's all I can do.  It serves us no purpose to rehash our same arguments, they are there for the devs to peruse, or more likely ignore as is their usual behaviour in the class forums.  We will agree to disagree based on our experiences and observations.  My only point is that Templars are not being wanted for raid groups due to the mechanics and content of DOV and the situation needs to be looked at, I'd rather offer up some suggestions instead of none.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>Good to know that while templars struggle to keep raid spots and get replaced with inquisitors, we debate here whether or not templars need some kind of help...</p><p>While the inquisitors on their boards debate the difficult topics of "combat arts versus spells for DPS" or "I wish we had one more blue AoE damage spell" or "do I use 1H or 2H weapons for most DPS?"</p><p>Yes templars are fine the way they are, right?</p>

[Daalilama]

<p>First whats comical is some of the very same inquisitors chiming in here to politely argue against any sort of needed tweak to the templar class are the same ones on various other fan sites who in essence have stated that for years inquis have complained through many xpacs for problems to their class and were undesirable and in plain english stated the shoe is on the other foot now....funny but if percieved problems with the inquis class several xpacs ago were an issue to be addressed and not okay why is it okay now?</p><p>I still raid in MT group but this is out of legacy and skill but I can see the writing on the wall with the current raid content...</p><p>Shield of Faith needs a fix to be relevant otherwise it is hardly cast aside from trying to proc buffs/wards/cures/etc.</p><p>2nd group cure would be nice or drasticlly drop our reuse timer on our one group cure, possibly enhance our range</p><p>Manacure, needs addressing as its currently hit or miss</p><p>Reverance/Divine Arbitration need to be drasticlly revamped due to their complete lack of use in current content and have been useless for some time</p><p>These and other issues addressed by other templars here could really use some attention</p><p>Can a dev be bothered to respond to this thread to know if you are even aware or care about our concerns or are we spining our wheels for nothing</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>First whats comical is some of the very same inquisitors chiming in here to politely argue against any sort of needed tweak to the templar class are the same ones on various other fan sites who in essence have stated that for years inquis have complained through many xpacs for problems to their class and were undesirable and in plain english stated the shoe is on the other foot now....funny but if percieved problems with the inquis class several xpacs ago were an issue to be addressed and not okay why is it okay now?</p><p>I still raid in MT group but this is out of legacy and skill but I can see the writing on the wall with the current raid content...</p><p>Shield of Faith needs a fix to be relevant otherwise it is hardly cast aside from trying to proc buffs/wards/cures/etc.</p><p>2nd group cure would be nice or drasticlly drop our reuse timer on our one group cure, possibly enhance our range</p><p>Manacure, needs addressing as its currently hit or miss</p><p>Reverance/Divine Arbitration need to be drasticlly revamped due to their complete lack of use in current content and have been useless for some time</p><p>These and other issues addressed by other templars here could really use some attention</p><p>Can a dev be bothered to respond to this thread to know if you are even aware or care about our concerns or are we spining our wheels for nothing</p></blockquote><p>Did you actually read this thread, or chime in with a bit of a blind rant because you feel your spot on raid is no longer set in stone? Most high end Templars openly agree that the Templar class is a very powerful healer, perhaps the most robust healer (for healing HP) in EQ2. The problem Templars are experiencing regarding raid desirability, has nothing to do with being a weak class, and all to do with the content not requiring the healing prowess of a Templar when a tush-kicking shaman leaves next to nothing to heal.Do you, in any way, try to claim the following is not true:Templars are Defensive + Healing focused clerics, and can do so much better than Inqs.Inquisitors are Offensive + Curing focused clerics, and can do so much better than Templars.You can not argue the above. Each cleric excels in the area they are designed to be good at. The solution to the problem is not to give an already superpowered class (Templars) even more stuff, that would be unjustified and only cause more imbalance in the game.If SOE designs content that provides more desirability to having the healing capacity of a Templar, rather than the curing capacity of an Inquisitor for main tank groups, the "problem" as you see it will automatically fix itself. If the healing+defensive capacity of a Templar are not desirable, of course Templars will get benched.Unlike the imbalances between Templars and Inqs in years gone, this problem is a content problem, not a class balance problem. I can understand that some people will have trouble differentiating between the two, because it is an in-depth issue. I do not want to see the Inq's sister class have to experience what Inqs suffered for years. But I do not want Templars to be running around as ungodly juggernauts as they did for years.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>..</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>Lagging when posting does strange things!</p>

[SOE-MOD-02]

This post has moved: <a href="/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=499962&post_id=5624751" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=49996...post_id=5624751</a> Trolling is not permitted

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>First whats comical is some of the very same inquisitors chiming in here to politely argue against any sort of needed tweak to the templar class are the same ones on various other fan sites who in essence have stated that for years inquis have complained through many xpacs for problems to their class and were undesirable and in plain english stated the shoe is on the other foot now....funny but if percieved problems with the inquis class several xpacs ago were an issue to be addressed and not okay why is it okay now?</p><p>I still raid in MT group but this is out of legacy and skill but I can see the writing on the wall with the current raid content...</p><p>Shield of Faith needs a fix to be relevant otherwise it is hardly cast aside from trying to proc buffs/wards/cures/etc.</p><p>2nd group cure would be nice or drasticlly drop our reuse timer on our one group cure, possibly enhance our range</p><p>Manacure, needs addressing as its currently hit or miss</p><p>Reverance/Divine Arbitration need to be drasticlly revamped due to their complete lack of use in current content and have been useless for some time</p><p>These and other issues addressed by other templars here could really use some attention</p><p>Can a dev be bothered to respond to this thread to know if you are even aware or care about our concerns or are we spining our wheels for nothing</p></blockquote><p>If we look at the backwards thinking of changing the content, something that has an incredibly small chance of happening based on complete common sense and a 20/20 hindsight viewing of how SOE has evolved content in terms of curing and in terms of raid difficulty, you can clearly see that the "changing the content" argument while true is just a pipe dream and in essence a distraction from getting Templars back to raiding instead of sitting out or betraying.</p><p>Looking at your suggestions I'm definitely in agreement that these things need to be changed, but the approach will be much different than if we change the spells/effects, or if we condone the flagrant red herring of "changing content".</p><p>2nd group cure:  This is the one that gets the most attention, it's obvious that inquisitors will feel as if they will be ostracized again if Templars got a 2nd group cure.  I've already stated numerous solutions which would keep the inquisitors as a more cure friendly choice, although personally I don't know why inquisitors became the "curing cleric" especially in light of them being an offensive class and not a defensive class.  Nonetheless you can lower the resuse on the templars single group cure, you can give templars a 2nd group cure that is AA heavy so they have to sacrifice something else, the 2nd group cure can continue to be unable to be cast while the templar is moving, you can make the casting of it fairly long, all solutions which would allow a Templar a basic function such as solo healing a group or not having instant fail condition if they miss a group cure rotation.  In contrast changing the content would require massive rewriting of most encounters both group and raid zones, if they decrease the need for curing in the content this would mean they would have to rewrite the encounters to be difficult in another manner.</p><p>Shield of Faith:  There are only 1 or 2 HM encounters where this is remotely useful, otherwise the absolute only reason to cast it is for group procs.  It's amazing how this went from an extremely powerful defensive spell in SF to absolute junk in DOV.  This one however might in fact be easier to address with content, simply put in more damage that matches the SOF ward, I'd be happy with this as otherwise there is nothing wrong with the spell.</p><p>Manacure:  It's a bit too random for my taste, but I do see it proc once in a while, especially when on a fast caster like a chanter, although more likely it's on an elemental caster.  I don't think I care either way on mana cure as I cast it because it's on my hotbar, but I don't really see it being a raid breaker, certainly nowhere remotely in league with having a 2nd group cure, or my first group cure ready for recast.  Possibly make it a group proc on heal/melee/spell.</p><p>Reverence:  Useless for a hell of a long time.  Cast only for a proc, but otherwise it's just one of those spells they really need to give it something cool to do.</p><p>At the end of the day for us Templars the question is how can we be wanted in raids again?  Personally I don't see why people get in a huff if their class cannot fill every role.  Do inquisitors really really feel badly that they have not traditionally been MT healers?  Dunno, but as a Templar I've never felt bad that I wasn't chosen to be in the dps group, and again as an inquisitor I've also never felt bad about not being in the MT group.  Inquisitors are wanted for all 4 raid groups at the moment because 1) their group cures trivialize curing and 2) the content is not hard enough for there to be any need for the defensive heals of the Templar.  These are 2 FACTS and cannot be disputed, the question of course for us Templars is how can we be relevent to a raid again.  I understand the inquisitors who pop on here who haven't really raided with a Templar who don't want to see their inquisitor relegated to how they used to be, but honestly if the Templar became the MT healer of choice again that still means they are only invited to 1 out of 4 raid groups and the inquisitors would VERY likely still have a stranglehold on the other 3 out of 4 raid groups. </p><p>In any event if indeed the content changed to make healing harder and cures hit less often what would happen if due to the increased difficulty and cure lowering of the "new" proposed content RL's wanted a Templar in all 4 raid groups?  Would that be ok with you inquisitors?  It's a dog chasing its own tail and it would be amusing if it wasn't so darn sad that changing the content would in some ways just bring us full circle to when inquisitors were not as in demand.  That, of course, is ignoring both the massive undertaking changing content would be, and ignoring SOE's quite obvious direction in how they want their content tackled.</p>

[Daalilama]

<p>At this point the very least any dev could do is chime into this thread and let us know these concerns are on their radar but sadly after 6+ years on this game I highly doubt they can be bothered which means this thread in particular and this forum in general is about as helpful as a screendoor on a submarine.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>I found it amusing how some (not all, but some) Templars play down the possibility of raid content changing with future zone releases, as if it is guaranteed to not happen. Such ignorance is amusing. It was only a single expansion ago, Sentinels Fate, where Templars were a highly desirable, go-to class. Did every other healer get given ungodly uber, game changing abilities with DoV, and Templars get nerfed into oblivion? I want an answer, yes, or no? If you say yes, please give a moderately detailed explanation of why you feel this way, as I would love to attempt to understand your reasoning.The content that influences class desirability changed with a mere 2-3 raid zones. It can change again with another 2-3 raid zones. Templars who think their class needs buffing, because for the first time in EQ2 history they are not the backbone crutch of must-have healers in EQ2, are not considering the ramifications of what would happen if future content releases are more Templar friendly.Templars are a very powerful class. If Templars get any boosting, of any kind, every other healer in EQ2 deserves boosting in any field they desire. Otherwise, it would lead to unbalance, especially when content that is more Templar friendly starts appearing.</p>

[Rick777]

<p>Templars don't need buffing, they need to be desired in at least one raid group, is that really so hard to understand.  Additionally no one is arguing that the solution can come through content change, it's just that is the most far fetched way it will come.  In reality you can fix ANY classes complaints through content, but will SOE sit there and adjust content for every single class?  Possibly, but a much more streamlined solution would be for them to allow the class to function in the current content.  Yes I realize we are 2 months away from a new xpac and at this point it will be better to wait and see what they come up with and how Templars fit into the new content.  At this point we are just rehashing DOV part 1 and that's pretty much a thing of the past so it really doesn't matter other than to provide SOE a reference point where raiding Templars feel they are so they can possibly balance it in a better way next time.  I certainly hope the content changes.  The only ignorance is when people don't read carefully enough, it's a shame that its the end and not the means the vast majority of us are discussing.  Ahh ignorance is bliss for some, especially when ALL of those questions have been answered ad nauseum.  Up until this point I haven't been disrespectful, but in all honesty you don't play a raid Templar yourself so have very little basis in the entire matter.  Anyone can play Nostradamus and predict what the next xpac will bring, but I would rather come up with solutions for  THIS XPAC, or at least I did when this xpac was fresh, now meh like I said I'll withhold judgement until the next xpac comes out.  My point about the content was there there has always been a VERY VERY small chance SOE would change the content so massively while in the middle of an expac, especially when they have demonstrated this is the way they want the content to go, especially in the way they are completely inundated in fixing their failed itemization and other game breaking issues.  What they do next xpac we can all only guess, but personally I'd rather not fix issues by hoping what might come with the next xpac, waiting for what might happen the next xpac is true ignorance.</p><p>As for unbalance, this also has been discussed and shown to be another red herring.  What unbalance?  Make the Templar wanted in the MT group again, this leaves the inquisitor with a lock for 3 groups.  Even if Templars got a 2nd group cure it still would not guarantee their lock on a MT group, the name of the game is DPS and that's been true of several xpacs, this alone gives the inquisitor a huge advantage to being wanted even if we don't consider their complete trivialization of cures.  So now a RL has the decision to fit in 2 clerics, one cleric with uneeded defensive healing, a 2nd group cure, and no DPS to offer personally or to the group, or choice 2 he can put in a cleric with a 2nd group cure, sufficient healing for the content AND brings personal DPS and group DPS, this is the reason a 2nd group cure for Templars is in NO way unbalancing in the least.  Fixing the group cure issue would let the Templar have a chance at being a MT healer, certainly not a lock, it would allow them to solo heal groups.  On the other hand changing the content would endanger the inquisitors lock on all 4 groups, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot to some degree.  Come to think of it, yes please SOE make the content harder so all 4 groups require Templars, I'd relish the thought of trolling on your boards but I also raid with an inquisitor so I wouldn't like that solution either.</p><p>It will certainly be interesting to see where SOE goes with this in the next xpac.  I think what some of us wanted was the devs to respond a bit and give us their line of thinking.  As I've stated before it's too late for this xpac, but here is hoping that the devs take a peek here and see what real Templars have to say about these issues which we've ALL agreed exist in today's game.</p>

[luinnil]

<p>Templars getting a 2nd group cure is not going to do anything for their raid slot viability.</p><p>The current reason Templars are not wanted is healing is frankly not needed for the main tank anymore except in the rarest of situations.</p><p>As a MT Inquisitor recently replacing Templars and who has a standing offer to the guildleader to betray to Templar if they ever want me to (answer is 'oh god no'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, I can tell you that I don't seriously heal in the MT group in the majority of content.  The most healing I do in the game is _trash mobs_ in Drunder x4.  The rest is raising/curing and tossing out the occasional Divine Guidance / refreshing reactives. </p><p>I frequently go into DPS stance on bosses because our shaman (a Mystic) heals so much that there is absolutely nothing for me to do.  My heal parse is unchanged on these fights regardless of whether I'm in dps stance, heal stance, whatever.  And the amount healed is usually 1/2 of the Shaman's healing.  And for most of the fights our Mystic is in dps stance too!</p><p>We aren't at the absolute hardest things yet, and I think the argument about cure rotations is a little misplaced since there's often the debuff rotations for HM mobs and when the Shaman and I oops on a priest debuff this is far worse than an oops on a group cure would be.</p><p>One of two things would need to change for Templars to be viable raid healers:</p><p>1)  Wards would need to be a lot less useful on the MT.  15-20% of my healing on named fights comes from Deathless Devotion and Greater Aegis, because they'll at least get cycled in more often along with the Shaman wards.</p><p>2)  Enemies would need to start putting out a LOT more damage on the tank.  Fights like Statue of Rallos Zek used to require both of us to be in heal stance because they would actually hurt our tank because we were using a Berserker.  Now that tank is a Guardian this is no longer the case.</p><p>I honestly can't think of a good way to make Templars useful without making Inquisitors useless because there flat out is no need for defensive improvements in raids for anyone right now.  About the only suggestion that might be merited would be to improve their ability to buff magic users because you might want one for the mage group just like you want the Troub over the Dirge there.</p><p>I have to agree I really feel sorry for Druids, there's exactly one fight a Warden is needed and for nearly everything else 4 shamans / 4 inqs is the optimal choice right now.</p>

[Boethius_Permafrost]

<p><cite>luinnil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Templars getting a 2nd group cure is not going to do anything for their raid slot viability.</p><p>...</p><p>I honestly can't think of a good way to make Templars useful without making Inquisitors useless because there flat out is no need for defensive improvements in raids for anyone right now.  About the only suggestion that might be merited would be to improve their ability to buff magic users because you might want one for the mage group just like you want the Troub over the Dirge there.</p><p>I have to agree I really feel sorry for Druids, there's exactly one fight a Warden is needed and for nearly everything else 4 shamans / 4 inqs is the optimal choice right now.</p></blockquote><p>Templars getting a 2nd group cure would be more to help defensive viability, obviously.  Templars don't want to take inquisitors' dps role.  But I have to point out that you appear to have contradicted yourself.  If the incoming damage made a templar a better choice for the main tank group, then a raid would ideally have 3 inquisitors, which is a long way from "useless."  Or were you merely saying that healers are only useful for increasing raid damage, currently?</p>

[luinnil]

<p><cite>Enrico@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>luinnil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Templars getting a 2nd group cure is not going to do anything for their raid slot viability.</p><p>...</p><p>I honestly can't think of a good way to make Templars useful without making Inquisitors useless because there flat out is no need for defensive improvements in raids for anyone right now.  About the only suggestion that might be merited would be to improve their ability to buff magic users because you might want one for the mage group just like you want the Troub over the Dirge there.</p><p>I have to agree I really feel sorry for Druids, there's exactly one fight a Warden is needed and for nearly everything else 4 shamans / 4 inqs is the optimal choice right now.</p></blockquote><p>Templars getting a 2nd group cure would be more to help defensive viability, obviously.  Templars don't want to take inquisitors' dps role.  But I have to point out that you appear to have contradicted yourself.  If the incoming damage made a templar a better choice for the main tank group, then a raid would ideally have 3 inquisitors, which is a long way from "useless."  Or were you merely saying that healers are only useful for increasing raid damage, currently?</p></blockquote><p>You're misunderstanding.  I said that more incoming damage to the tank could make Templars useful again, but _as things are right now_ there's no point in even me healing the majority of the time as an Inq so 4 Inqs is a current better setup.</p><p>I honestly don't care if every healer class gets 2 group cures, it just won't solve the current problem for Templars.</p>

[Hennyo]

I am sorry to say, but anyone who thinks templars don't need buffing is quite frankly delusional. If you really think it would be possible with the current game mechanics to make a mob that a tank could live against with a templar and not an inquistor, you have no clue how this game works when it comes to the mechanical changes this game has seen with the potency and hp buffs etc. Here is what happens, at the point when there are enough incoming attacks on a brawler MT to make the stoneskin buff useful enough to warrant using a templar, that same tank will at some point in the fight up an die from bad avoidance rolls and spiking out randomly. Also, most every raid guild out there, uses a shaman in the MT group, and the inquistor group haste buff makes such a massive difference on how often the shaman dog group AE avoids, there is absolutely NOTHING PERIOD a templar has that makes up for that singular buff in terms of real damage prevention. That isn't even going into the dps buffs that the inquistor brings to a tank, that has a real genuine effect on MT aggro generation . Also for everyone saying a group cure rotation mistake isn't as big of a deal as a failure to properly rotate a X2 priest debuff, its a bunch of crap. A mistimed group cure can very often lead to a MT group wipe in a matter of a just a couple seconds, but that X2 debuff failure I have healed through plenty of times if it was a couple seconds late because a healer from another group had to grab it for whatever reason. Another issues with the lack of a second group cure, is that there are fights out there that it is simply impossible with only two group cures, sure the fight that comes to my mind is only this way because it is bugged atm, but that doesn't change the fact that it is, and has been for over a month, and who knows how long it will be until it is fixed. What you mostly see here in this thread are a bunch of people who think templars were just on easy street for the whole game up until this point, and that they feel it is their turn to be a broken class. Personally I am ashamed that people have such a hateful way of thought in the way things should be.

[luinnil]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>I am sorry to say, but anyone who thinks templars don't need buffing is quite frankly delusional. If you really think it would be possible with the current game mechanics to make a mob that a tank could live against with a templar and not an inquistor, you have no clue how this game works when it comes to the mechanical changes this game has seen with the potency and hp buffs etc. Here is what happens, at the point when there are enough incoming attacks on a brawler MT to make the stoneskin buff useful enough to warrant using a templar, that same tank will at some point in the fight up an die from bad avoidance rolls and spiking out randomly. Also, most every raid guild out there, uses a shaman in the MT group, and the inquistor group haste buff makes such a massive difference on how often the shaman dog group AE avoids, there is absolutely NOTHING PERIOD a templar has that makes up for that singular buff in terms of real damage prevention. That isn't even going into the dps buffs that the inquistor brings to a tank, that has a real genuine effect on MT aggro generation . Also for everyone saying a group cure rotation mistake isn't as big of a deal as a failure to properly rotate a X2 priest debuff, its a bunch of crap. A mistimed group cure can very often lead to a MT group wipe in a matter of a just a couple seconds, but that X2 debuff failure I have healed through plenty of times if it was a couple seconds late because a healer from another group had to grab it for whatever reason. Another issues with the lack of a second group cure, is that there are fights out there that it is simply impossible with only two group cures, sure the fight that comes to my mind is only this way because it is bugged atm, but that doesn't change the fact that it is, and has been for over a month, and who knows how long it will be until it is fixed. What you mostly see here in this thread are a bunch of people who think templars were just on easy street for the whole game up until this point, and that they feel it is their turn to be a broken class. Personally I am ashamed that people have such a hateful way of thought in the way things should be.</blockquote><p>I have yet to see a cure fail wipe the main tank group in 2 seconds.  I have seen the lack of the HM debuff kill the tank instantly.  AoE blocking isn't the problem either, that damage is pointless and is not going to really save/kill anyone in the main tank group.  I have 57,000 hp and so does the Shaman, the MT has 61,500.  I have never died to an AoE unless the HM buff is on the mob.</p><p>I've yet to see any fight that requires more than 2 group cures.  If I can't cure it's slower to try to tell the Shaman to group cure than it is to just wait for one of my two to be back up (or single cure).</p><p>I fully agree Templars are useless in raids right now but I don't think it's due to a problem with the class itself so much as the game.  Healing past the shaman is largely superfluous.  If you made the Templar into an offensive powerhouse then it's just an Inquisitor which is kind of sad :/</p><p>I want to stress I don't really have a dog in this race.  If Templars do get awesomesauced I will just betray my Inq to one.  I just don't see it happening with defensive improvements.</p>

[luinnil]

<p>Having finished up tonights raids, we managed to kill Sullon tonight and I took a look at the heal parse afterwards.</p><p>MT group isGuardianMysticInquisitor (me)AssassinCoercerDirgeFight was 9:24, healing numbers were</p><p>Shaman - 11,700 HPS (6.6 million healed)Me - 4,600 HPS  (2.6 million healed)I had both reactives up at all time, as well as Chilling whenever it came up and Divine Guidance pretty much the same way.  My DPS was all of an exciting 10,300 because both of us were in heal stance and too edgy to actually try to DPS on a new mob.</p><p>Everyone's health was at full pretty much the entire time, the tank spiked once or twice and occasionally the AEs did some damage but that too was fully healed within a second or two.  It's just pretty clear that even on a hard fight, there's little left for the second healer to do, healing-wise.  The only thing that matters is reaction-speed in a pinch when something weird happens.</p><p>I've seen what happens when you have a second healer who does nothing or doesn't know how to react, the tank certainly does go down without some support, but I really think any of the 4 other healing classes could fill the heal niche in a pinch after the shaman.</p><p>So I mean I don't know, I think it's clear Templars (and even more so Druids) need some kind of draw that makes them universally desired as opposed to very situationally desired, but I don't think more heals is going to do it and I don't think more damage is going to do it.  You'd have to have some sort of odd buffing or debuffing.</p>

[Daalilama]

<p>TBH who knows what they may fix or not fix on templars this xpac or the next, etc...most of us saw massive issues and posted her hoping maybe to get an answer regardless if its the soe standard "this issue is currently on our radar and we plan to address this with a hotfix in the future (aka 6 months later if lucky)" or the other standard, "we currently have no intention to address any of the class issues brought up".  The problem is when this thread getrs highjacked of sorts by the inquis like Avi who tbh who would prefer to derail serious discussion on a classes particular problems due in part to the idiotic belief that by addressing and perhaps fixing the issues templars have brought up here that would in turn automaticlly kick every inquis out of a raid slot which is about as fantasy land as one could get...I will say not every inquis is like Avi but he quite frankly isnt helping the issue but hinder it</p>

[Latpow]

<p>A second group cure is not the answer to Templar problems, though it would be nice to have yes.  There are ways to improve the class, even just defensively, and not step on Inq toes as far as group utility goes.  Adding target lock to Sancuary's immunities, proving a buff to in combat run speed, a buff that lets us cast on the run, RANGE to group and single cures, adding some of the ability back to soak power drains to the Arcane Ward... Stuff like this would make us viable again. </p>

[luinnil]

<p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A second group cure is not the answer to Templar problems, though it would be nice to have yes.  There are ways to improve the class, even just defensively, and not step on Inq toes as far as group utility goes.  Adding target lock to Sancuary's immunities, proving a buff to in combat run speed, a buff that lets us cast on the run, RANGE to group and single cures, adding some of the ability back to soak power drains to the Arcane Ward... Stuff like this would make us viable again. </p></blockquote><p>I don't think any of this would make our Raid Lead want a Templar, though, that's what I'm saying :/</p><p>Target lock immunity is situationally nice, in combat run speed is very situationaly nice, casting on the run can be provided by enchanters and bards and I.. don't usually remember it's there.  Range is nice but Inqs already have that so it won't make you surpass them unless they give you 10m or more of range.  Power drains are only very situationally an issue with a competent enchanter.</p><p>I mean none of this is gamebreaking or anything that you're suggesting, I just don't think it solves your fundamental problem in that there is no need for the healing or defensive nature that a Templar provides.  This expansion is largely about killing stuff quickly and not about keeping the tank up.</p><p>To clarify:  What you need is a function that is useful on 100% of fights, or there's no reason to bring you over somebody that has that function.  Giving all priests a useful raidwide buff like the fighters got might help (although as you can see that didn't make raids bring 6 fighters, but raids already do bring ~8 priests).</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A second group cure is not the answer to Templar problems, though it would be nice to have yes.  There are ways to improve the class, even just defensively, and not step on Inq toes as far as group utility goes.  Adding target lock to Sancuary's immunities, proving a buff to in combat run speed, a buff that lets us cast on the run, RANGE to group and single cures, adding some of the ability back to soak power drains to the Arcane Ward... Stuff like this would make us viable again. </p></blockquote><p>Absolutely agree that a 2nd group cure is not the answer, and for the record although I've been asking for a 2nd group cure I think I've made it clear that I believe it would just let us sneak into raids by either a) letting us solo heal groups or b) the RL not having to stress over having 2 single group cure healers.  At the end of the day a smart RL will probably STILL choose the inquisitor, but at least having the 2nd group cure will give us just a tiny bit more ammo to bargain with.  Also many of the points have been making directly address the misconception that giving Templars 2 group cures will make them unbalanced and immediately send the inquisitor to the trash bin.</p><p>There certainly are ways for SOE to address the issues, but if they completely choose to ignore our voices then I think we may be in for a rough ride this next xpac.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>I found it amusing at Fan Faire when the developer in charge of class balance told a small group he was talking to that templars were still needed for hard mode content when you are first learning the mobs and that all the top end raid guilds were still using templars. He turned to one of the RL of a top end raid guild, and asked, "Right?" and the RL laughed and said no, we use 4 inquisitors.</p><p>I really don't think the developers see templars as being not useful for raids.</p><p>As a raid leader, I know that I would never, in this expansion, bring a templar into a raid, except for the fact that I play a templar so I do <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Having said that, I used this past double XP weekend to roll an inquisitor, who is now level 90/250something with mythical and decent armor. I would never betray my templar, but it is time to start playing an inquisitor.</p>

[leiela]

<p>I totally agree, the only reason i get onto raids is because i am the RL <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>I have concidered betraying but honestly im i think it would totally break my heart my Templar was my first charecter i don't want to be an Inquis</p>

[Latpow]

<p><cite>luinnil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A second group cure is not the answer to Templar problems, though it would be nice to have yes.  There are ways to improve the class, even just defensively, and not step on Inq toes as far as group utility goes.  Adding target lock to Sancuary's immunities, proving a buff to in combat run speed, a buff that lets us cast on the run, RANGE to group and single cures, adding some of the ability back to soak power drains to the Arcane Ward... Stuff like this would make us viable again. </p></blockquote><p>I don't think any of this would make our Raid Lead want a Templar, though, that's what I'm saying :/</p><p>Target lock immunity is situationally nice, in combat run speed is very situationaly nice, casting on the run can be provided by enchanters and bards and I.. don't usually remember it's there.  Range is nice but Inqs already have that so it won't make you surpass them unless they give you 10m or more of range.  Power drains are only very situationally an issue with a competent enchanter.</p><p>I mean none of this is gamebreaking or anything that you're suggesting, I just don't think it solves your fundamental problem in that there is no need for the healing or defensive nature that a Templar provides.  This expansion is largely about killing stuff quickly and not about keeping the tank up.</p><p>To clarify:  What you need is a function that is useful on 100% of fights, or there's no reason to bring you over somebody that has that function.  Giving all priests a useful raidwide buff like the fighters got might help (although as you can see that didn't make raids bring 6 fighters, but raids already do bring ~8 priests).</p></blockquote><p>Devs have stated that "they're going to fix us with harder content"... Right now while working on HM Statue, while the whole raid is constantly on the move I have to stop to cast my group cure, only to have it hit like 3 of the 6 members of my group.  Not to mention, then my slow character has to catch up to the group while members are getting pounded by adds / dets.  For this reason I'm not even in the MT group for the fight, I get to be in the 2nd OT group (the guy that runs back and forth putting fighter debuff on the mob).  Look END GAME Content and Inq still on top. </p><p> My biggest frustration with this expansion overall has been group members being in range, since a lot of times members need to be away from the group to help burn adds.  Its been several expansions now since Myths came out and Inquistiors are still enjoying a monopoly on long range and uninterruptable curing.  Curing is a HUGE part of group stability and survivability, they are having their cake and eating it too. More and more top guilds are dropping Templars and finding their MT and OT groups more stable with Inq.  Devs need to WAKE UP!</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>TBH who knows what they may fix or not fix on templars this xpac or the next, etc...most of us saw massive issues and posted her hoping maybe to get an answer regardless if its the soe standard "this issue is currently on our radar and we plan to address this with a hotfix in the future (aka 6 months later if lucky)" or the other standard, "we currently have no intention to address any of the class issues brought up".  The problem is when this thread getrs highjacked of sorts by the inquis like Avi who tbh who would prefer to derail serious discussion on a classes particular problems due in part to the idiotic belief that by addressing and perhaps fixing the issues templars have brought up here that would in turn automaticlly kick every inquis out of a raid slot which is about as fantasy land as one could get...I will say not every inquis is like Avi but he quite frankly isnt helping the issue but hinder it</p></blockquote><p>I have noticed a lot of people slinging around commentaries about what "high end guilds" are doing, but very rarely is an actual guild name attached to the claim, just vague references which frankly, mean nothing.Here's mine.I am the guild leader of Tyranny. A guild on Oasis that is doing reasonably well in world wide progression. Soren down, and working on Sullons HM, first named down, next 2 should die very soon. The trend has already been noticed that newer content is hitting tanks harder. This trend is expected to be continued.I just recruited a Templar, anticipating the direction of the game, based on launch DoV content versus recent DoV content, is heading toward encounter design that will return notable favor to the skillset a Templar offers a main tank group. Feedback often issued by Inqs MTG healing Sullon's HM encounters is it would be easier if they were a Templar. I trust the opinion of skilled guildies more than the opinion of no-name no-guild randoms posting on the official forum Templar boards.So while people like Daalilama may want to claim my "beliefs" are idiotic, I challenge you to provide any support to thinking you hold so much as a candle to my knowledge of clerics, in EQ2.All SOE needs to do, is release some content in the future where the mobs favor the Templar skillset, and Templars will see their desirability come flying back faster than they realised it was gone. The problem is NOT the Templar class, it is the way SOE made the current batch of raid mobs, combined with how beastly Shamans have become. This is something that can change with great ease, on part of SOE.</p>

[Latpow]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>TBH who knows what they may fix or not fix on templars this xpac or the next, etc...most of us saw massive issues and posted her hoping maybe to get an answer regardless if its the soe standard "this issue is currently on our radar and we plan to address this with a hotfix in the future (aka 6 months later if lucky)" or the other standard, "we currently have no intention to address any of the class issues brought up".  The problem is when this thread getrs highjacked of sorts by the inquis like Avi who tbh who would prefer to derail serious discussion on a classes particular problems due in part to the idiotic belief that by addressing and perhaps fixing the issues templars have brought up here that would in turn automaticlly kick every inquis out of a raid slot which is about as fantasy land as one could get...I will say not every inquis is like Avi but he quite frankly isnt helping the issue but hinder it</p></blockquote><p>I have noticed a lot of people slinging around commentaries about what "high end guilds" are doing, but very rarely is an actual guild name attached to the claim, just vague references which frankly, mean nothing.Here's mine.I am the guild leader of Tyranny. A guild on Oasis that is doing reasonably well in world wide progression. Soren down, and working on Sullons HM, first named down, next 2 should die very soon. The trend has already been noticed that newer content is hitting tanks harder. This trend is expected to be continued.I just recruited a Templar, anticipating the direction of the game, based on launch DoV content versus recent DoV content, is heading toward encounter design that will return notable favor to the skillset a Templar offers a main tank group. Feedback often issued by Inqs MTG healing Sullon's HM encounters is it would be easier if they were a Templar. I trust the opinion of skilled guildies more than the opinion of no-name no-guild randoms posting on the official forum Templar boards.So while people like Daalilama may want to claim my "beliefs" are idiotic, I challenge you to provide any support to thinking you hold so much as a candle to my knowledge of clerics, in EQ2.All SOE needs to do, is release some content in the future where the mobs favor the Templar skillset, and Templars will see their desirability come flying back faster than they realised it was gone. The problem is NOT the Templar class, it is the way SOE made the current batch of raid mobs, combined with how beastly Shamans have become. This is something that can change with great ease, on part of SOE.</p></blockquote><p>Templars should be wanted and needed at all stages of progression... Easy Mode, Hard Mode, instance runs, etc.  There is no reason we should have to wait around for content to be released that caters to "our skillset".  Our skillset should include abilities that makes us a valueable asset no matter the circumstances. </p><p>As a guild leader, I just dont understand your crusade against Templars... I mean, I would never want Inq nerfed in any way. Well balanced (if not a little OP) classes like Inq, make raids go smoother.  Wouldn't it be better for overall raiding if Templars could actually contribute to raids like an Inq can?  Is that not the idea of balance. </p><p>Its not a few whiny Templars that are complaining... its pretty well known the sad state of Templars right now.  What should they do, make the rest of HM progression encounters have huge Arcane AoEs, uncurable stuns / dazes / stifles, and 1 cureable AoE every 20 seconds?  Will that fix Templars?</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>Templars should be wanted and needed at all stages of progression... Easy Mode, Hard Mode, instance runs, etc.</strong>  There is no reason we should have to wait around for content to be released that caters to "our skillset".  Our skillset should include abilities that makes us a valueable asset no matter the circumstances. </p><p>As a guild leader, I just dont understand your crusade against Templars... I mean, I would never want Inq nerfed in any way. Well balanced (if not a little OP) classes like Inq, make raids go smoother.  Wouldn't it be better for overall raiding if Templars could actually contribute to raids like an Inq can?  Is that not the idea of balance. </p><p>Its not a few whiny Templars that are complaining... its pretty well known the sad state of Templars right now.  What should they do, make the rest of HM progression encounters have huge Arcane AoEs, uncurable stuns / dazes / stifles, and 1 cureable AoE every 20 seconds?  Will that fix Templars?</p></blockquote><p>+1... Developers defend the role that templars have been relegated to by pointing to the need for a defensive healer during the hardest of the hard fights, and even then in just the one MT group only. In all other situations, templars are having to sit because they hurt the raid.</p><p>So the guild leader of Tyranny comes on there to say they have now recruited one templar recently<em> in anticipation of</em> the hardest of the hard fights that they have not tried yet? Out of curiousity, what does that bring your number of templars to? One?</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>TBH who knows what they may fix or not fix on templars this xpac or the next, etc...most of us saw massive issues and posted her hoping maybe to get an answer regardless if its the soe standard "this issue is currently on our radar and we plan to address this with a hotfix in the future (aka 6 months later if lucky)" or the other standard, "we currently have no intention to address any of the class issues brought up".  The problem is when this thread getrs highjacked of sorts by the inquis like Avi who tbh who would prefer to derail serious discussion on a classes particular problems due in part to the idiotic belief that by addressing and perhaps fixing the issues templars have brought up here that would in turn automaticlly kick every inquis out of a raid slot which is about as fantasy land as one could get...I will say not every inquis is like Avi but he quite frankly isnt helping the issue but hinder it</p></blockquote><p>I have noticed a lot of people slinging around commentaries about what "high end guilds" are doing, but very rarely is an actual guild name attached to the claim, just vague references which frankly, mean nothing.Here's mine.I am the guild leader of Tyranny. A guild on Oasis that is doing reasonably well in world wide progression. Soren down, and working on Sullons HM, first named down, next 2 should die very soon. The trend has already been noticed that newer content is hitting tanks harder. This trend is expected to be continued.I just recruited a Templar, anticipating the direction of the game, based on launch DoV content versus recent DoV content, is heading toward encounter design that will return notable favor to the skillset a Templar offers a main tank group. Feedback often issued by Inqs MTG healing Sullon's HM encounters is it would be easier if they were a Templar. I trust the opinion of skilled guildies more than the opinion of no-name no-guild randoms posting on the official forum Templar boards.So while people like Daalilama may want to claim my "beliefs" are idiotic, I challenge you to provide any support to thinking you hold so much as a candle to my knowledge of clerics, in EQ2.All SOE needs to do, is release some content in the future where the mobs favor the Templar skillset, and Templars will see their desirability come flying back faster than they realised it was gone. The problem is NOT the Templar class, it is the way SOE made the current batch of raid mobs, combined with how beastly Shamans have become. This is something that can change with great ease, on part of SOE.</p></blockquote><p>Players are commenting not only on what high end guilds are doing, but also their own guilds, whether they are "high end" or not, whether they are just starting HM content, or only have done EM content. The state of the DOV raiding templar is similar across all these lines, they are not wanted for ANY of the 4 raid groups.</p><p>You've just proven 2 things.</p><p>1) RL's don't want Templars for current DOV content, yourself as a raid leader being a perfect example of not having ANY templars in your raid force up until now.  Of course your Nostradamus powers of telling the future kicked in and you recruited a templar, guess what I'm predicting beastlords will negate the need for any other class so I'm recruiting 24 of them in anticipation of the next xpac.</p><p>2) The utter ridiculousness of the current Templar raiding situation.  What you are saying is that you don't need Templars but when you fight the ultimate hardest of HM raid fights you "might", but you don't know yet from personal experience, and on top of that you predict the future in that templars "might" be needed next xpac, of course that's not defined, will they be needed for all raids, only HM raids, only the last 3 fights in all of HM?  I applaud you for recruiting the one Templar, and of course it's your raid force to do with as you please, but don't make it like you are some sort of expert just because you recruited a templar, lol.  You want our raiding experience?  How about YOUR raiding experience as a Templar over the last several xpacs?  As a Templar I don't troll the inquisitor boards looking to nerf inquisitors, I can't stand players in this game that wish nerfs on another class, especially a class they don't play.  Part of the reason I also raid with an inquisitor is I wanted to learn both sides of the coin, and by having both toons if my inquisitor did get nerfed to fix this situation I would be VERY disappointed.</p><p>You can change ANY problem by changing the content, but how much work would it be for SOE to change the content, and more importantly do they really want to stray from the current model of more dps and more curing?  Well in that regard neither one of us know, but I'll take the 20/20 hindsight the past several xpacs have provided me to make my prediction, of course SOE can turn around and surprise me, but I highly doubt it. In my opinion, based on both the HM encounters I've healed as an inquisitor AND a templar, and the direction SOE has been going in terms of DPS and curing being more important for raid encounters, I couldn't see them completely changing direction and making these of secondary importance.  But of course this is only my opinion and I cannot predict the future.  What's funny is that if I'm wrong and SOE changes the content it may very well put inquisitors at the bottom of the barrell again, it may be that "defensive healing" is needed in all 4 raid groups and RL's would only pick Templars to come to raids.  Then we would be back to having insecure inquisitors QQing about how they are once again the fat kid that gets picked  on.</p><p>It's also interesting you say things like part of the problem is "how beastly shamans have become", are you saying Shamans need to be nerfed?  No let me guess, you will squirm out of that statement by saying content needs to be changed to makes shamans wards less useful, yeah I see SOE jumping right on that one and making content changes that have been in effect for the greater part of the entire games life.</p><p>Most of the suggestions on here are temporary suggestions that would not endanger a good inquisitors raid spot in the current mechanics, but they would simply allow Templars a more than nothing chance of getting into a raid.  As it stands TODAY and from pretty much the start of this entire xpac Templars are not being chosen for ANY raid group.  One cleric trivializes curing, TRIVIALIZES CURING just to make sure you can read that, they also happen to bring DPS to the table which has been extremely important for a long time, but even more so now with the defensive healing this xpac.</p><p>You can keep posting the SAME exact thing, you know what we get it.  You believe content changes will fix everything, great it's out there hopefully the devs will read it and make a decision, or they won't do anything.  But it's not like you are adding anything new in the least, and certainly no reasonable or constructive suggestions.</p><p>In the end if SOE changes the content without changing or adding to Templars and it solves the issue I'll be VERY happy, I really have no preference how they change it.  Much of the purpose of Templars posting on here was to get the devs to respond and give us an acknowledgement of the issues and to provide us with information on their future plans.  What's funny is that YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM, so what's the issue?  We can worry about the means to the end later on when the devs chime in if they ever do, and if they don't well it's not an issue anymore.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>I like how this character Avirodar subtley changes the wording on things like raid spots. When templars are talking about getting kicked out of raid spots left, right and center with entire raids not having a single one, yet retaining up to 4 inquisitors, we have this joker saying things like templars are no longer "guaranteed" raid spots, that templars spots are no longer "set in stone", as if there was actually a chance in hell that a templar will actually get a raid spot these days. What this joker has not one time frankly acknowledged is the indisputable WW phenomenon of templars getting dropped from raids due to lack of usefulness. All his blustering can do absolutely NOTHING to assail this unassailable fact of the game. I guess he believes all other RL's WW fail to see the awesomeness of the templar that he does, and are simply unable to see that there is absolutely nothing wrong here like he sees. No matter what this character says about "what's the difference between this expac and that expac yo?", the simple fact of the mass extermination of the templar class from the raiding scene starting with the launch of DOV should have at least provided some clue. But no, not for this guy. Nothing's wrong here, folks. Oops, except for the fact that his raid doesn't run with a templar. Oh, oh, oh, I forgot, he JUST recruited one. Like right now. LOL.....</p>

[Daalilama]

<p>Its gotten rather nasty on the eq2flames thread on this subject as well....mostly few thread derailing inquis creating drama...go figure...</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Templars should be wanted and needed at all stages of progression... Easy Mode, Hard Mode, instance runs, etc.  There is no reason we should have to wait around for content to be released that caters to "our skillset".  Our skillset should include abilities that makes us a valueable asset no matter the circumstances. </p></blockquote><p>I hope you're a long time crusader on behalf of Druid desirability in raids (especially Wardens), ever since KoS/EoF was launched. I would be impressed if you were, but I highly doubt you are, given I do not recall seeing your name in any relevant threads over the years. I have long been an advocate that furies pay the due price for the massive DPS they can do, but wardens get a bit of a tough card to play.My perspective on the Templar situation, is the bigger picture - game balance as a whole. Does a Templar deserve to gain ANY kind of boost, and a Warden (or any other healer, actually) be given nothing? Absolutely not! It would be idiotic to think Templars are a poor, deprived class that needs buffing but Wardens are fine. Wardens deserve attention from Devs years before Templars even get blinked at. The strengths of a Templar still exist, and new content can easily be designed to utilise it.The actual problem has been identified in this thread. The solution is not adding/boosting skills or abilities for the Templar class. Giving Templars any kind of boost will only serve to solve one problem, by creating another (or several others), thus being a complete waste of Dev time.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>Let me ask you this: if templars got nothing except a second cure, this would change healer balance how exactly?</p>

[Daalilama]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Templars should be wanted and needed at all stages of progression... Easy Mode, Hard Mode, instance runs, etc.  There is no reason we should have to wait around for content to be released that caters to "our skillset".  Our skillset should include abilities that makes us a valueable asset no matter the circumstances. </p></blockquote><p>I hope you're a long time crusader on behalf of Druid desirability in raids (especially Wardens), ever since KoS/EoF was launched. I would be impressed if you were, but I highly doubt you are, given I do not recall seeing your name in any relevant threads over the years. I have long been an advocate that furies pay the due price for the massive DPS they can do, but wardens get a bit of a tough card to play.My perspective on the Templar situation, is the bigger picture - game balance as a whole. Does a Templar deserve to gain ANY kind of boost, and a Warden (or any other healer, actually) be given nothing? Absolutely not! It would be idiotic to think Templars are a poor, deprived class that needs buffing but Wardens are fine. Wardens deserve attention from Devs years before Templars even get blinked at. The strengths of a Templar still exist, and new content can easily be designed to utilise it.The actual problem has been identified in this thread. The solution is not adding/boosting skills or abilities for the Templar class. Giving Templars any kind of boost will only serve to solve one problem, by creating another (or several others), thus being a complete waste of Dev time.</p></blockquote><p>Why this sudden concern for other classes of healers....I know must be trying for a Nobel prize.  In all seriousness, druids can fight their own battles over class issues and I'm sure just like templars they would like their issues and concerns addressed instead of the current silence from the devs or people coming in to derail their threads.  The only glimmer of truth in your above statement is that game balance is out of whack or more precisely class balance.    The best evidence that the devs have overlooked a great many things when designing  content is the statement from the developer at fan fair was "templars are the defensive healer and as such would be used on the harder content" yet when he asked for confirmation from one of the RL of a ww top raiding guild he replied "no we use 4 inquis"...this was something the community has know since release yet the devs seemed almost oblivious to the realities of the game and that is the actual problem.</p><p>Let me reiterate for the hundreth time that <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">NONE</span></strong> of the proposed changes brought up in this thread would in any way endanger the inquis current 4 raid slots.  It will however give a viable option for the MT group although it will be hit or miss if RL decide to bring one templar in at this stage of the game.  Your argument at this point is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors attempt at misdirection and a poor one at that. </p>

[Latpow]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Latpow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Templars should be wanted and needed at all stages of progression... Easy Mode, Hard Mode, instance runs, etc.  There is no reason we should have to wait around for content to be released that caters to "our skillset".  Our skillset should include abilities that makes us a valueable asset no matter the circumstances. </p></blockquote><p>I hope you're a long time crusader on behalf of Druid desirability in raids (especially Wardens), ever since KoS/EoF was launched. I would be impressed if you were, but I highly doubt you are, given I do not recall seeing your name in any relevant threads over the years. I have long been an advocate that furies pay the due price for the massive DPS they can do, but wardens get a bit of a tough card to play.My perspective on the Templar situation, is the bigger picture - game balance as a whole. Does a Templar deserve to gain ANY kind of boost, and a Warden (or any other healer, actually) be given nothing? Absolutely not! It would be idiotic to think Templars are a poor, deprived class that needs buffing but Wardens are fine. Wardens deserve attention from Devs years before Templars even get blinked at. The strengths of a Templar still exist, and new content can easily be designed to utilise it.The actual problem has been identified in this thread. The solution is not adding/boosting skills or abilities for the Templar class. Giving Templars any kind of boost will only serve to solve one problem, by creating another (or several others), thus being a complete waste of Dev time.</p></blockquote><p>Heh running out of material Avirodar?  Last time I checked, this is the TEMPLAR forums and I play a TEMPLAR... thus I'm going to post about TEMPLAR issues.  I'm well aware of the Warden plight (and defiler) and I have even referenced it earlier in this thread.  You want me to try to go for the simple solution of nerfing Inq?  Cause lets face it, Wardens and Templars have it bad right now cause we can't do what you guys do. Inq is the best choice to be pairing with a Shaman or solo healing.  Why don't DPS groups want Wardens?  Hey they have 2 group cures and some DPS buffs. Why are they not the top choice to solo heal melee DPS groups being the "defensive druid"?  Its causing an imbalance.  You know SoE loves to nerf... so lets stop this little game. </p><p>I find it funny you resort to calling out that "you haven't heard my name in relevant" threads... like the foolishness that goes on Eq2flames has any relevance.  I have been posting here and Eq2flames for many years, I just don't partake in the immature flaming and actually try to help people.  If you want more references here you go...</p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=415117">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=415117</a></p><p>You see many of those suggestions?  They actually went live in the SK revamp... so I know that with some well thought out ideas, things can change in this game.  Not everything will be implemented, but you throw out a bunch of ideas and hopefully some will stick.  Tell me Avirodar, other than taking over because no one else wanted to when Utopi retired (and quite a few players came to my guild)... what have you contributed?</p><p>This is a thread about ideas to help Templars be desirable to raids and groups, along with making them more fun to play.  If you have positive suggestions with your vast game knowledge, then by all means... but posting reply after reply of the same thing, when its pretty obvious to you (you are the one that makes your Templars betray, remember?) and most raid leaders with a clue that Templars are severely lacking compared to their sister class, is getting old and redundant.  Start a new thread like "Templars are ok, this is my Story" or something and get out of this one.</p>

[Latpow]

<p>Moving on to Templar improvement ideas...</p><p>With the AA restructure of GU61 it is possible to get the Overconfidence endline.  I've been trying Overconfidence out the last few raids and a few suggestions to make it more valueable as an endline:</p><p>a) Next melee attack vs a non fighter will be stoneskinned</p><p>b) Threat position down by 5</p><p>c) Increase the pure threat value to something like 5k</p><p>d) Make it have 2 charges</p><p>This way not a lot of changes will be needed coding wise to the spell and it'll be much more useful than its current incarnation.</p><p>Another pretty worthless line in the Templar tree that can be looked at is "Soul Corruption". Perhaps this can do something like add 10% damage to Smite Corruption with every rank and siphon Wisdom from the mob... or scrap it all together for a more useful ability.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>I am strongly of the opinion that we do NOT need any boosts to our defensive healing abilities.  The inquisitors that have been trolling here are right in that regard.  Not only would it make the healing differential even greater between inquisitors and templars, it is of no use in this expansion (so far).  Literally no use at all, and therefore would not address the problem of templars getting kicked out of raids left and right this expansion.  The two problems that have been continuously highlighted in this expansion as the reasons templars don't get raids are: 1) lack of two cures, 2) lack of DPS and DPS boosts to the group.</p><p>Give us two cures.  That is the simplest and least balance-disturbing fix that SOE can make.  Let me ask you this: do you think that SOE will put out raid content in the future that does not involve alot of detrimentals that hit hard, hit fast and hit frequently?  I personally do not believe so.  This has been a trend over the last two expansions that looks like it will continue in future expacs as an integral part of the raiding (and especially HM raiding) game.  We already have a semi-group cure Manacure, that while not being an actual, reliable group cure, is a spell that is designed to proc a group cure (occasionally).  Buffing it up into a full-on group cure would involve minimal code changes and more importantly, minimal to no balance changes.  What it would do, however, is remove a giant, massive impediment to being included in raids in this and likely future expacs.  Inquisitors' second (myth) cure would remain vastly superior in terms of range and casting-on-the-run.</p><p>The way it is currently, templars have to coordinate cures with the shaman.  This requires BOTH healers to be spot on and perfect every single time.  Even if you play your templar flawlessly, your shaman may screw things up for you.  The group (and the raid) wipes.  He/she has now just become responsible for YOU being less desirable in raids compared to an inquisitor.  In an expac chalk-full of dets happening all the time, this probably has been reason enough for many RL's to say: scr#w this cr%p -> inquisitor.  If this mess were completely taken out of the equation, you wil have removed one of two key barriers to templars being in raids this expansion at minimal to no cost at all to class balance.  You will not have made the templar even more of a defensive healer than it is now.  You will not have intruded into the inquisitor's domain by increasing your DPS and DPS buffs.  What you will have left is a "pure" decision by the RL to pick the plate healer most suited to the content:  can we sacrifice a little DPS to keep the tank safer?  Can we sacrifice a safer tank to burn this fight down faster?  In raids that have trouble keeping the tank alive, the templar suddenly seems like a more viable choice.  For the hard core raids, take this decision into the Drunder zones free of the need to consider whether templars can keep the MT group cured properly and let the RL decide how hard the content is and which healer is better.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>I agree that the first step towards fixing templars is giving us a second group cure.</p><p>Then it becomes a RL choice of needing more defense vs more offensive buffs in the MT group. It may not solve the issues, but at least it removes one of the big reasons templars are being excluded from raids or being forced to betray.</p>

[Daalilama]

<p>Agreed...either a second group cure or drasticlly reduce our reuse to near insta recast after that if we also get some of the suggested fixes like our near worthless arcane ward or not the ball would be in the RL hands to decide more defensive or offensive healing is needed...this reroll or betray garbage is just that</p>

[Hennyo]

I am just making another post in this thread, because I had an idea to fix the second group cure issue templars have that makes a bit of sense. Change manacure into a second group cure, but have it only be able to cure a single detriment type, based on the last ability type used by the class they cast the manacure buff on. For example if a wizard cast it on a wizard and they used an elemental ability, the cure would be an elemental group cure. Say if it was on a dirge and they used a trama based combat art, then it would be a trama cure, but if they used a noxious based debuff last, it would be a noxious cure. I think that this suggestion would make enough sense with the current AA choice, and provide enough limitations to not negate the use of the Inquisitor second group cure.

[Daalilama]

<p>Intresting proposal but however  remember that our group cure is only part of the many issues those that play this class would like addressed but unless a dev responds to tell us that they are either aware of the issues or could care less we are left to wither on the vine as it were.</p>

[Hennyo]

<p>Yes I know that, my post on another thread about having multi attack, and flurry counting as seperate hits, addresses another very large issue, that templars have with their stoneskin buff being much much less useful than it has in the past because it can only trigger on inital hit and not flurries or multi attacks.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes I know that, my post on another thread about having multi attack, and flurry counting as seperate hits, addresses another very large issue, that templars have with their stoneskin buff being much much less useful than it has in the past because it can only trigger on inital hit and not flurries or multi attacks.</p></blockquote><p>That is VERY interesting, as the people saying Templars need no help because they are such strong healers really only have 2 things they can say Templars have over inquisitors, stoneskins and repent.  Most everything else is shared between the clerics, so if stoneskins are weaker this xpac than others it is just another point the devs need to address or at least comment on.</p><p>As for the 2nd group cure, we don't want to overthink it, we simply need to have a group cure available when a 2nd detriment hits quickly after the first.  Whether it's the reuse on a single group cure, or truly a 2nd group cure doesn't matter, we just need something we can hit quickly and go back to the business of healing.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>I am just making another post in this thread, because I had an idea to fix the second group cure issue templars have that makes a bit of sense. Change manacure into a second group cure, but have it only be able to cure a single detriment type, based on the last ability type used by the class they cast the manacure buff on. For example if a wizard cast it on a wizard and they used an elemental ability, the cure would be an elemental group cure. Say if it was on a dirge and they used a trama based combat art, then it would be a trama cure, but if they used a noxious based debuff last, it would be a noxious cure. I think that this suggestion would make enough sense with the current AA choice, and provide enough limitations to not negate the use of the Inquisitor second group cure.</blockquote><p>I think this is a terrible suggestion.  If Manacure is to be upgraded, it needs to become a straight-up second cure.  Anything less would be completely unsatisfactory because it would be as unreliable as before.  You would need your target to be alive (wizard??? Pulease), as before.  You would need your target to be casting spells to proc the group cure effect, as before.  Actually your idea would make Manacure EVEN WORSE than it is now because you would now have absolutely no control over what detrimental type is being cured because it would now depend on what type of spell your target just happened to cast last.  No, no, and no.  Manacure needs to stop being a buff spell and become a full-on, no-gimmicks-involved group cure spell with similar range and recast as our current group cure.  Anything less is a total non-fix.</p><p>And I have no idea what you mean by "negating" the use of the Inquisitor second group cure.  Group cures are not the sole domain of offensive-based healers.  If anything, they should be the domain of defensive-based healers.  Templars getting a second cure wouldn't do jack squat to "negate" the inquisitor cure, but it would provide a solid reason for RL's to not totally dismiss templars from consideration for raids.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes I know that, my post on another thread about having multi attack, and flurry counting as seperate hits, addresses another very large issue, that templars have with their stoneskin buff being much much less useful than it has in the past because it can only trigger on inital hit and not flurries or multi attacks.</p></blockquote><p>That is VERY interesting, as the people saying Templars need no help because they are such strong healers really only have 2 things they can say Templars have over inquisitors, stoneskins and repent.  Most everything else is shared between the clerics, <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">so if stoneskins are weaker this xpac than others it is just another point the devs need to address or at least comment on</span>.</strong> </p></blockquote><p>This is wishful thinking IMO.  When was the last time some dev came here and spoke up?  NEVER.  I think they are hoping to make no changes at all and will try to ride out this expansion until the chorus of complaints dies out from lack of perceived usefulness.  Look what they did for wardens despite YEARS of complaining.....</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Meatwaggon wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes I know that, my post on another thread about having multi attack, and flurry counting as seperate hits, addresses another very large issue, that templars have with their stoneskin buff being much much less useful than it has in the past because it can only trigger on inital hit and not flurries or multi attacks.</p></blockquote><p>That is VERY interesting, as the people saying Templars need no help because they are such strong healers really only have 2 things they can say Templars have over inquisitors, stoneskins and repent.  Most everything else is shared between the clerics, <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">so if stoneskins are weaker this xpac than others it is just another point the devs need to address or at least comment on</span>.</strong> </p></blockquote><p>This is wishful thinking IMO.  When was the last time some dev came here and spoke up?  NEVER.  I think they are hoping to make no changes at all and will try to ride out this expansion until the chorus of complaints dies out from lack of perceived usefulness.  Look what they did for wardens despite YEARS of complaining.....</p></blockquote><p>The vast majority of my posts in this thread are pushing for the 2nd group cure.  While I believe we do need other things addressed I have always believed that if we all rallied behind the 2nd group cure then at least we would take away the most blatant reason RL's don't choose us for raid groups.  You're right, it's a long shot especially because it's  tied to MA/flurry and in that regard to avoidance tanks and that's a very sensitive subject that SOE won't touch right now.</p><p>I have also many times wondered aloud why the "offensive" cleric is the master of cures.  I'm sure it's an issue of giving inquisitors something the raid group needs in order for them to be wanted, but it still doesn't make sense from a playability point of view.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>Well, now we know why the devs are ignoring the templar issue... Dirge nerf incoming.</p><p>Since we have so many friendly inquisitors coming to the templar boards, trying to convince us that all the templars being booted from raids is nothing to worry about, maybe we should instead be whining for an inquisitor nerf instead?</p>

[Daalilama]

<p>TBH I have never been a big supporter of calling for directed nerfs of any particular class but I have been calling for class balance thats thought out and not based upon illogical design.  Just because the inquis's that have come in here to chime in that no fixes are needed for the templars based not on any facts but because they are trying to detract constructive discussion due to the fact they are for a lack of a better word afraid they may potentially lose 1 of 4 raid slots.  They are sad if nothing else.</p>

[luinnil]

<p>You know not every Inquis is saying everything is fine with Templar, I'm just saying Defensive stuff isn't going to fix you <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>I'd be more than happy with every healer having 2 group cures or even just Templars but I think you need something more than that (and I think some of it needs to be SoE designing encounters around defensive strength).</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>luinnil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You know not every Inquis is saying everything is fine with Templar, I'm just saying Defensive stuff isn't going to fix you <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></p><p>I'd be more than happy with every healer having 2 group cures or even just Templars but I think you need something more than that (and I think some of it needs to be SoE designing encounters around defensive strength).</p></blockquote><p>Definitely, I think most if not all Templars agree on this.  The only issues are 1) SOE has shown a love of detriments and lots of them, and every xpac we see more detriments, detriments which land more often, detriments which if left for a couple of ticks kill at the minimum the player but can cause aoes and such affecting the rest of the group, and detriments which land while you are being thrown up, back, etc., and 2) SOE has progressively made encounters more about straight up dps than defense. This has been happening over the last several xpacs and I just don't see SOE making a complete about face on how they structure their content.</p><p>The other part of the equation that just astounds me that inquisitors keep missing is if they do do indeed do the impossible and tune content to be much more defensive oriented then the inquisitors would be losing raid spots left and right to Templars.  While it is the true solution for Templars, I'd rather not introduce a nerf to inquisitors as 1) I play an inquisitor myself, and 2) The pendulum always comes back and SOE has a tendency to fix things in 5 or 6 pendulum swings with either side sufferering until they figure out what the players have already advised them to do.</p><p>The easiest band aid, and it's only a band aid, is the 2nd group cure.  Even with a 2nd group cure there is MUCH more reason for a RL to bring an inquisitor, but we have to start somewhere.  If SOE wants to make everything DPS oriented then they need to revisit the offensive versus defensive healer and maybe start there.  But as it stands now I CANNOT solo heal any group with my singe group cure, and it's a major pita to cure a group with another single target curer in the group.  I'm NOT looking to trivialize curing like the inquisitors have, I just want to be able to deal with the current content without a huge blatant obvious reason for RL's to sit my Templar.  It seems like there may be a lot of complicated issues with tanks as well which ties in to the defensive healing, or lack of need for it, and these things may very well be ironed out and may be exactly what we need as MT healers at least.  But for the moment, for today, let me get into a raid group.</p>

[Dekedar]

<p>I'd be happy with even just a recast reduction on our current group cure.</p>

[Daalilama]

<p>I'd be happy if a dev would take a moment to respond to this thread, dont think it will happen anytime soon but be nice</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Gunthore@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'd be happy with even just a recast reduction on our current group cure.</p></blockquote><p>That would essentially give templars 2 and a half group cures if you include Manacure, an unlikely solution IMO.</p><p><cite></cite></p><p><cite><a href="mailto<img src="></a>aalilama@Nagafen%22%3EDaalilama@Nagafen">Daalilama@Nagafen">Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'd be happy if a dev would take a moment to respond to this thread, dont think it will happen anytime soon but be nice</p></blockquote><p><cite></cite></p><p>Don't hold your breath just sayin'</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Meatwaggon wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gunthore@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'd be happy with even just a recast reduction on our current group cure.</p></blockquote><p>That would essentially give templars 2 and a half group cures if you include Manacure, an unlikely solution IMO.</p><p><cite></cite></p></blockquote><p>Oh my goodness, are you really counting the unreliable and unpredictable Manacure as a half group cure?</p><p>I just checked my cure parse from this weekend's raid... Mana Cure did 18 out of 579 cures I did. Devoted Resolve (group cure) did 334 cures. So Mana Cure counds as 1/20th of a group cure, no as 1/2 of a group cure. I suppose the numbers would look more impressive for Mana Cure if I just let the dots sit on my group for 10 seconds. Of course, then we'd all be dead.</p><p>One of the most useless abilities we have.</p>

[luinnil]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>luinnil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You know not every Inquis is saying everything is fine with Templar, I'm just saying Defensive stuff isn't going to fix you <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></p><p>I'd be more than happy with every healer having 2 group cures or even just Templars but I think you need something more than that (and I think some of it needs to be SoE designing encounters around defensive strength).</p></blockquote><p>Definitely, I think most if not all Templars agree on this.  The only issues are 1) SOE has shown a love of detriments and lots of them, and every xpac we see more detriments, detriments which land more often, detriments which if left for a couple of ticks kill at the minimum the player but can cause aoes and such affecting the rest of the group, and detriments which land while you are being thrown up, back, etc., and 2) SOE has progressively made encounters more about straight up dps than defense. This has been happening over the last several xpacs and I just don't see SOE making a complete about face on how they structure their content.</p><p>The other part of the equation that just astounds me that inquisitors keep missing is if they do do indeed do the impossible and tune content to be much more defensive oriented then the inquisitors would be losing raid spots left and right to Templars.  While it is the true solution for Templars, I'd rather not introduce a nerf to inquisitors as 1) I play an inquisitor myself, and 2) The pendulum always comes back and SOE has a tendency to fix things in 5 or 6 pendulum swings with either side sufferering until they figure out what the players have already advised them to do.</p><p>The easiest band aid, and it's only a band aid, is the 2nd group cure.  Even with a 2nd group cure there is MUCH more reason for a RL to bring an inquisitor, but we have to start somewhere.  If SOE wants to make everything DPS oriented then they need to revisit the offensive versus defensive healer and maybe start there.  But as it stands now I CANNOT solo heal any group with my singe group cure, and it's a major pita to cure a group with another single target curer in the group.  I'm NOT looking to trivialize curing like the inquisitors have, I just want to be able to deal with the current content without a huge blatant obvious reason for RL's to sit my Templar.  It seems like there may be a lot of complicated issues with tanks as well which ties in to the defensive healing, or lack of need for it, and these things may very well be ironed out and may be exactly what we need as MT healers at least.  But for the moment, for today, let me get into a raid group.</p></blockquote><p>I don't think Inqs would lose slots left and right, but I do think they could lose one or two tank slots, which is fine by me.  That's really how it should work.  My personal spot is in no danger since if they just wanted a templar for MT group I will betray and am fine with that, and our raid group isn't one of the crazy elites or anything.</p>

[Winter]

<p><span style="font-family: 'comic sans ms', sans-serif; color: #cc99ff; font-size: medium;">Templars need minor tweaks at best. What I would recommend is this:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'comic sans ms', sans-serif; color: #cc99ff; font-size: medium;">Cures:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'comic sans ms', sans-serif; color: #cc99ff; font-size: medium;">- Rework Mana Cure. Perhaps make it take on a specific aspect from a targetted class (and not just spells). Perhaps put it on a melee class for a trauma group cure. Put it on mages for an arcane or elemental. The Inquisitors would not lose the special feel of their Myth cure if Templars are forced to adjust on each encounter. Or just make it proc more often. SO many things could be done with Mana Cure - it feels pretty lackluster in current raids.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'comic sans ms', sans-serif; color: #cc99ff; font-size: medium;">- Or just reduce the timer. Make it take skill to cure what needs to be cured, make them prioritize, but don't leave us incapable of keeping up at all on cures.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'comic sans ms', sans-serif; color: #cc99ff; font-size: medium;">Spells:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'comic sans ms', sans-serif; color: #cc99ff; font-size: medium;">- Focused Intervention feels like a waste sometimes. I'd like more incentive to cast it more often. Perhaps a small ward of some sort and a number of reactive procs. It can be too easily wasted with how many hits fly out of these raid encounters.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'comic sans ms', sans-serif; color: #cc99ff; font-size: medium;">I've got some other feedback as well, but I want to sit and think on it first.</span></p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Meatwaggon wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gunthore@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'd be happy with even just a recast reduction on our current group cure.</p></blockquote><p>That would essentially give templars 2 and a half group cures if you include Manacure, an unlikely solution IMO.</p><p><cite></cite></p></blockquote><p>You cannot include manacure in any way, shape or form as a 2nd group cure.  I won't go so extreme to say manacure is useless, I do see it proc, but it is quite random and in no way can be likened to a group cure which can be timed exactly.  I'll be the first Templar to say take my manacure, I could care less about it, it's something that when it occasionally procs great, but more often than not it's use is quite limited and completely uncontrollable.  Plus don't forget manacure does nothing for trauma detriments.</p>

[Dillin]

<p>I still think my idea for a change to manacure is ideal.  Make it a buff that gives a player a group cure based on the type of damage they do.  For example:</p><p>You cast manacure of an Illy.  That Illy now has a arcane group cure (Cure type is based on their damage).  Cast manacure on a Warlock, that lock can now group cure nox.  Cast it on a wizard, that wizard can now group cure elemental.</p>

[DistressedEQOA]

<p>After reading all the sky is falling posts about how much better an Inquisitor is than templar in MT group I rolled an Inq just in case our guild decided to go down that road and this is what I learned.</p><p>1. Cures become trivial.</p><p>2. When I am on Inquisitor I do a ton more dps with ease while also greatly increasing the dps of the MT group.</p><p>3. Inquisitor is just more fun, period.</p><p>4. The most important thing I learned though was that if the MT defiler gets face planted when I'm on my templar I just laugh and keep the group up while giving them flak. If I am on my Inquisitor and the same defiler dies, all hell breaks loose quite quickly. It is not anywhere near as trivial to keep a group alive on an Inquisitor as it is templar.</p><p>Some of the high end guilds may be switching to Inquisitor over Templar and that is the perogative of those guilds. I could care less if GuildX is putting Inqs in every group on HM Kraytoc so that they can dps / buff the group / cast Equillibrium on the group and bypass the script through a pure self inflicted DPS check.</p><p>I rolled my templar back in 2005 and I knew they were a pure healer and did garbage dps, if I decide to change my mind about what kind of healer I want to play, I will reroll, not demand my class be changed. Our beloved templar class does have issues, but the comparison of Templars vs. Inquisitors doesn't matter so there really isn't any point in bringing their class into the request for fixes.</p><p>I have MT healed all DoV content up to Vaaldamir in Zek and all easy mode Drunder. Are there AE's that drastically change between what I have seen and what I haven't? Other than making curing trivial, how would getting a 2nd group cure actually make us more desirable? Is the MT defiler your guild leader and he just hates curing?</p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Templar Issues that I see with what I have been exposed to and know about our class:</span></p><p>- Manacure: If scouts have Combat Arts that can trigger twice during Time Warp, Mana Cure should be able to trigger off CA's to cure traumas. Mana Cure should trigger 100% of the time for the 1 detriment when the target casts a spell of that type.</p><p>- Reverence: Due for an upgrade. By its own description its a beast spell however with the sheer number of hitpoints people have now, it simply doesn't have the same impact it once did. I would imagine everyone who casts it does so for procs.</p><p>- Stoneskin: Needs to be able to proc on Flurry and not just the intial hit from the mob.</p><p>- Ressurect: Please increase the range.</p><p>- Divine Light: Our mythical click should at least be comparable to True Faith. Increase the damage reduction.</p>

[luinnil]

<p><cite>DistressedEQOA wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>4. The most important thing I learned though was that if the MT defiler gets face planted when I'm on my templar I just laugh and keep the group up while giving them flak. If I am on my Inquisitor and the same defiler dies, all hell breaks loose quite quickly. It is not anywhere near as trivial to keep a group alive on an Inquisitor as it is templar.</p></blockquote><p>No offense intended in the slightest, but this just means you aren't good enough (likely gearwise) as an Inquisitor yet, or your tank is sucking.  If my shaman dies I can typically just use shared cleric powers like Perserverence (or Immaculate Revival to get the Shaman up instantly), Divine Guidance, instant reactives, death save (or not even need them in the first place).  Then I can also use Inq-only stuff like Chilling Invigoration.  And that's not even including the temps our tanks will pop when they see the shaman go down.</p><p>Healing a group is almost trivial right now in the vast majority of content.  Obviously there are still a few situations where if the Shaman faceplants I might have trouble.  But as long as we aren't doing Drunder trash mobs (I still laugh that these are the highest dpsing encounters <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) I can almost always stay in DPS stance if I want and it doesn't even matter.  I'm betting I could even get away with running Exorcise but my heal spec has no room for it, alas.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>DistressedEQOA wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>- Stoneskin: Needs to be able to proc on Flurry and not just the intial hit from the mob.</p></blockquote><p>This is the only really decent suggestion IMO, stoneskin needs to proc off of flurries and multiattack, this would be a defensive change for the defensive healers making us more wanted in that main tank group.  Manacure and reverance are complete jokes and really should just be eliminated from the game.</p><p>As for your inquisitor, sounds like maybe a gear issue?  I raid with both Templar and Inquisitor, and my inquisitor can keep the group up just fine if the shaman goes down, I actually solo heal some of the non MT groups quite often.  If the shaman goes down clerics share most of the emergency spells, divine guidance, our emergency single and group reactives, either cleric can instant rez the entire group, sacrifice, etc etc plus some others that only inquisitors have like chilling inv and both clerics have a single target death save, aoe blocker, etc. Remember a large part of group healing is proccing your ward adorns, which would not be setup any differently for either cleric.  The faster casting (but lower healing) group spells an inquisitor has are actually conducive to more procs, although not to a large degree.</p><p>Really if the shaman goes down in most situations I find it easier to be on my inquisitor as without the shaman the Templar would be having a tough time single target curing that 2nd group detriment that usually lands, or if the shaman goes down right before a knockback with a detriment the inquisitor makes situations like these trivial.</p>

[DistressedEQOA]

<p><cite>luinnil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite></cite>No offense intended in the slightest, but this just means you aren't good enough (likely gearwise) as an Inquisitor yet, or your tank is sucking.  If my shaman dies I can typically just use shared cleric powers like Perserverence (or Immaculate Revival to get the Shaman up instantly), Divine Guidance, instant reactives, death save (or not even need them in the first place).  Then I can also use Inq-only stuff like Chilling Invigoration.  And that's not even including the temps our tanks will pop when they see the shaman go down.</p></blockquote><p>No offense taken. I'm not trying to imply that Inquisitors are "weak" and/or incapable healers. I have 176d played on temp compared to like 5d played on Inq so I can recognize I'm not playing the class to its fullest. When the cool Inquisitor abilities are up, absolutely no issues keeping things stable, but its when they aren't that its just easier on my templar.</p><p>Note: I received this message while trying to post:</p><p>* Your message contains the censored word: (--it means walking with a limp--). Please remove the offending word and resubmit.</p><p>Really? This site gets censored to that extreme?</p>

[luinnil]

<p><cite>DistressedEQOA wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>luinnil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite></cite>No offense intended in the slightest, but this just means you aren't good enough (likely gearwise) as an Inquisitor yet, or your tank is sucking.  If my shaman dies I can typically just use shared cleric powers like Perserverence (or Immaculate Revival to get the Shaman up instantly), Divine Guidance, instant reactives, death save (or not even need them in the first place).  Then I can also use Inq-only stuff like Chilling Invigoration.  And that's not even including the temps our tanks will pop when they see the shaman go down.</p></blockquote><p>No offense taken. I'm not trying to imply that Inquisitors are "weak" and/or incapable healers. I have 176d played on temp compared to like 5d played on Inq so I can recognize I'm not playing the class to its fullest. When the cool Inquisitor abilities are up, absolutely no issues keeping things stable, but its when they aren't that its just easier on my templar.</p><p>Note: I received this message while trying to post:</p><p>* Your message contains the censored word: (--it means walking with a limp--). Please remove the offending word and resubmit.</p><p>Really? This site gets censored to that extreme?</p></blockquote><p>I have trouble with the censor every time (usually for the opposite of blow).</p><p>I'd agree that if you use DiG and Chilling every time (and Perserverance if you happen to have that instead of Immaculate) they're up you're going to be in trouble if the Shaman suddenly goes down and you're on a remotely tough encounter, which is why I tend to save these for actual emergencies if a fight is on the edge.  Templars have some more generic powerhouse healing that's always up but I find the shared stuff can carry an Inq through 95% of the time.  Another trick both clerics can do in a pinch is holy shield themselves and use Sacrifice on the tank (because no way am I putting 10 AAs in improve Sacrifice as an Inq, and I would have to assume there's better things you could do as a Templar too, but as a tank healer you're already most of the way to Holy Shield)</p><p>I find that Cleric healing is really more about pushing the right button _at the right time_ than about trying to put out the big heal parse numbers.  Obviously I haven't tried Templar seriously of late but I think a good Inq at the very least is somebody who intuitively knows when they need to save and when they need to push the not always up stuff.  This is why Templars need something to do that isn't bigger heal numbers.  I don't think they should copy Inqs but raising their damage potential and some sort of interesting buff that's more a mix of survivability/dps wouldn't hurt.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">PeterJohn wrote:</span></cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"></span></p><p style="background: #f3f5ff;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: blue; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-highlight: blue;">Oh my goodness, are you really counting the unreliable and unpredictable Manacure as a half group cure?</span></p><p style="background: #f3f5ff;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: blue; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-highlight: blue;">I just checked my cure parse from this weekend's raid... Mana Cure did 18 out of 579 cures I did. Devoted Resolve (group cure) did 334 cures. So Mana Cure counds as 1/20th of a group cure, no as 1/2 of a group cure. I suppose the numbers would look more impressive for Mana Cure if I just let the dots sit on my group for 10 seconds. Of course, then we'd all be dead.</span></p><p style="background: #f3f5ff;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: blue; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-highlight: blue;">One of the most useless abilities we have.</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1;"></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Ah, good point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>I can't remember the last time I checked the cure rate from Manacure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Agree with Manacure being (almost) useless, which is why a good way to upgrade this ability is to turn it into a non-buff second group cure rather than reducing the recast on our current group cure or creating an entirely new group cure spell.</span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></p><p><cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Winter wrote:</span></cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"></span></p><p style="background: #f3f5ff;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: blue; font-size: 10pt; mso-highlight: blue;">-<span style="color: white; mso-themecolor: background1;"> Rework Mana Cure. Perhaps make it take on a specific aspect from a targetted class (and not just spells). Perhaps put it on a melee class for a trauma group cure. Put it on mages for an arcane or elemental. The Inquisitors would not lose the special feel of their Myth cure if Templars are forced to adjust on each encounter. Or just make it proc more often. SO many things could be done with Mana Cure - it feels pretty lackluster in current raids.</span></span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1;"></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Re: Manacure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>In any other iteration other than a comple reworking into a straight up second cure, it will be UNRELIABLE.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>If it is at all unreliable after an upgrade, it is still a fail spell because failure to cure more often than not means the group (and raid) wipes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>There cannot be a target for it to be cast on because that target may die.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>There cannot be a proc effect because the proc may not occur.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>I'd be okay if Manacure were still a buff spell, but were a self-targeted spell only that allows me to cast a second group cure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span><img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">And what "special feel" are you talking about?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>The fact that the inquisitor cure can be used at extreme range and while flying in the air or on the run isn't special enough already?</span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></p><p><cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Aeonn@The Bazaar wrote:</span></cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"></span></p><p style="background: #f3f5ff;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: blue; font-size: 10pt; mso-highlight: blue;">I still think my idea for a change to manacure is ideal.  Make it a buff that gives a player a group cure <span style="color: white; mso-themecolor: background1;">based on the type of damage they do.  For example:</span></span></p><p style="background: #f3f5ff;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: blue; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-highlight: blue;">You cast manacure of an Illy.  That Illy now has a arcane group cure (Cure type is based on their damage).  Cast manacure on a Warlock, that lock can now group cure nox.  Cast it on a wizard, that wizard can now group cure elemental.</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1;"></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">No.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>This idea is still terribad because you have now just given responsibility to cure to a DPS class who isn't used to curing, will almost certainly have absolutely no desire to cure, and whose DPS will suffer significantly from having to cure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Especially for classes with long cast times like wizards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>You have also done nothing to improve on the fact that your version of Manacure can still only cure one detriment type at a time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>You have also done nothing to improve on the fact that your target has to be alive for a second cure to be possible.</span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></p><p><cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">DistressedEQOA wrote:</span></cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"></span></p><p style="background: #f3f5ff;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: black; font-size: 10pt; mso-highlight: black;">I </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: blue; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-highlight: blue;">rolled my templar back in 2005 and I knew they were a pure healer and did garbage dps, if I decide to change my mind about what kind of healer I want to play, I will reroll, not demand my class be changed. Our beloved templar class does have issues, but the comparison of Templars vs. Inquisitors doesn't matter so there really isn't any point in bringing their class into the request for fixes.</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">You may personally change your mind about what type of healer you want to play, but this has absolutely no bearing on the imbalance of templar vs inquisitor due the nature of the current expansion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>And just because you may want to reroll doesn't mean anybody else does or should.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>If something is broken, fixing it rather than buying something new is always an option.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p><p><cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">DistressedEQOA wrote:</span></cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"></span></p><p style="background: #f3f5ff;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: black; font-size: 10pt; mso-highlight: black;">I </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: blue; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-highlight: blue;">have MT healed all DoV content up to Vaaldamir in Zek and all easy mode Drunder. Are there AE's that drastically change between what I have seen and what I haven't? Other than making curing trivial, how would getting a 2nd group cure actually make us more desirable? Is the MT defiler your guild leader and he just hates curing?</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">The point is exactly to make curing as "trivial" as it is for inquisitors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Templars are unwanted this expansion because they can't cure as well as inquisitors and because they don't bring enough DPS to the group.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Templars are unneeded this expansion because inquisitors can heal the current content just fine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Giving templars another cure gets rid of a major hurdle that is preventing templars from being selected for raids.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Your personal experience is a sample size of 1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>The WW phenomenon of templars being kicked from raids is a sample size of dozens, if not hundreds. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The mentally deficient inquisitor accusation that all these templars must somehow svck is a rationally vacuous claim.</span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></p><p><cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">DistressedEQOA wrote:</span></cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"></span></p><p style="background: #f3f5ff;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: black; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-highlight: black;">- </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: blue; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-highlight: blue;">Manacure: If scouts have Combat Arts that can trigger twice during Time Warp, Mana Cure should be able to trigger off CA's to cure traumas. Mana Cure should trigger 100% of the time for the 1 detriment when the target casts a spell of that type.</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1;"></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Even this change is not as good as having a second cure because it will not cure any type of detrimental.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>It also, again, requires two people to be alive to cure your group: yourself and the target of your Manacure.</span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></p><p><cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">DistressedEQOA wrote:</span></cite><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"></span></p><p style="background: #f3f5ff;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; background: blue; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-highlight: blue;">- Stoneskin: Needs to be able to proc on Flurry and not just the intial hit from the mob.</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: white; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: background1;"></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">This is an excellent idea and would give raids that don't use brawlers more of an incentive to pick templars over inquisitors in the MT group.</span><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>

[Rick777]

<p>You guys are creative with your ideas to revamp mana cure and all, but IMO it's just a huge waste of time.  It's simple, we need the ability to cure all the group detriments that land on the group and that ability has to be directly under our control.  We don't need some special variety of mana cure, we don't need to be wimpy in our requests because we are afraid we are going to anger the inquisitors.  As a Templar I'm already used to running back to range of the group and casting my group cure hoping it's not too late, pressing my space bar to land faster then casting my group cure hoping it's not too late, etc., even with a 2nd group cure or a reduced timer inquisitors would still have a MUCH more powerful group cure with huge range, ability to be cast while running or being knocked back/up, etc.</p><p>I won't take some goofy version of mana cure, I don't want to rely on chance or procs, I don't want to rely on the wizard who is most probably dead, or died and lost the buff, to cure group elemental.  There are usually 2-3 types of detriments and if I only cast it on one archetype that does nothing for the other 1-2 detriments that land on the group.  Don't let yourselves get sidetracked with trying to sugar coat a 2nd group cure, it is what it is and we need to push for it. </p><p>As I've stated before, a 2nd group cure will not do much to make RL's bring a templar over an inquisitor.  I'm just asking for templars to be brought up to the baseline of the game and gettng a 2nd cure will not even address the defensive imbalance between the clerics, getting a 2nd group cure is just something basic that the content in general dictates.  It's like way back when we had 4 cure spells, one for each type of detriment, if only a couple of priests got the 4 cure spells rolled into one, but templars still had the 4 separate cure spells it wouldn't have made sense because the content dictated that priests just have one cure spell.  We are in a similar situation, having one group cure is just archaic and there is no good reason to punish some priests with this, it doesn't make encounters more meaningful in any way, it's just a straight out proxy nerf.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>Interesting idea about stoneskins that someone posted above.</p><p>I know procs can't proc a proc, and multiattack/flurries are both considered procs. I think that is why MA/flurries don't get stoneskined now? But if our stoneskin was changed such that on a successful stoneskin, it prevents a multiattack or flurry from occuring on that hit, the stoneskin would effectively be preventing these multiattack/flurries. Or change the stoneskin to place a damage immunity on the target for 0.5 seconds, which also effectively negates the followup MA/flurries on that target. Or just allow each individual MA/flurry to still be allowed a stoneskin proc check.</p><p>This would allow encounters to be me made harder hitting on the main tanks by having higher MA/flurry rates, which then the defensive skills of the templar could be made more needed. At least in the MT group.</p>

[luinnil]

<p>Just turn Manacure into a group cure similar to the Druid or Inq specialty cures and call it a day if you want a second group cure <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Given its position in the AA tree it should probably be less potent (the 20 point per abilities aren't supposed to be as good as the final endline) but I don't think any Inquis ought to be traumatized if Templars got a second group cure capable of healing 100ish levels of detriment and maybe also returns power back to anyone it cures something from if you want to keep the 'manacure' theme.</p>

[Latpow]

<p><cite>luinnil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Just turn Manacure into a group cure similar to the Druid or Inq specialty cures and call it a day if you want a second group cure <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />  Given its position in the AA tree it should probably be less potent (the 20 point per abilities aren't supposed to be as good as the final endline) but I don't think any Inquis ought to be traumatized if Templars got a second group cure capable of healing 100ish levels of detriment and maybe also returns power back to anyone it cures something from if you want to keep the 'manacure' theme.</p></blockquote><p>A group cure that returns power back to those cured... I really like that idea.  Make it like 35m range and I'd be all for it!  In my opinion, if they...</p><p>a) changed Mana Cure to a group cure that restores power based on dets cured</p><p>b) removed 7 sec Smite Wrath Debuff OR turned it into some beast temp buff (100% DA, max auto attacks, 25% spell potency... for 30 sec, 4min base reuse!)</p><p>c) brought down the base cast times of all nukes to match "Wrath"</p><p>d) Made hammer a permanent pet and its AA line grant health / mit / AoE Avoid</p><p>e) Last rank of Holy Shield line add AoE immunity to caster and pet (Inq can benefit too I'm not greedy!)</p><p>f) Added an extra trigger to Overconfidence and stoneskin or just scrapped it for like a self run speed + cast while running buff</p><p>g) Added an effect to Shield of Faith that lets it regen its ward with health and power</p><p>if stuff like this happened.... Templars would be much more fun to play and pro without doing the same things Inq do.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>ManaCure is garbage. If you can't control when it cures, it is unreliable and thus useless. Just give us a second cure.</p><p>I don't care to totally revamp the templar class into a DPS machine. Leave the Smith Wrath Debuff. Leave the reuse timers on our nukes the way they are. Leave my pet temporary. I don't want to become an inquisitor or a DPS class. Just give raid leaders a reason to see templars as possibly useful for at least one raid slot.</p>

[DistressedEQOA]

<p>Since this is a wish list afterall, can I get a group Repent that isn't shared between the group members? Thanks in advance.</p>

[Latpow]

<p><cite>DistressedEQOA wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Since this is a wish list afterall, can I get a group Repent that isn't shared between the group members? Thanks in advance.</p></blockquote><p>I'd take that group wide repent and raise you a Death Prevent with a 5 sec duration... not just a one hit wonder</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>Latpow, I see your guild listed... Do you raid as a templar main in your guild? If not, does your guild use any templars as part of the main raid force? Just curious about another top end guild and whether they use templars...</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>I believe he's MT templar for one of the few HM raid guilds that still use templars.  Gratz on HM AA btw.....</p>

[Latpow]

<p>Yes I do play MT Templar in NPU and have MT healed every killable raid encounter in this expansion so far with the exception of Eireen the Broken (play my SK as 4th tank)... with the exception of HM Statue and HM Spider (I'm sure he can if given the opportunity), our defensive spec'd Inq has also MT healed every killable raid encounter.</p>

[Hennyo]

Having watched what the devs have changed in the past, I am under a strong belief no matter how much templars want a straight up second group cure, it isn't going to happen. Now that is not to say it shouldn't but just that all things considered, the odds of it are really super low. What does have a chance of actually happening is manacure being changed into something unique specialty cure. Now having listened and thought about the different problems various people had with my earlier idea, other than it just isn't a direct second group cure, I have some new ideas. Make manacure a buff you put on someone. When they use mana it puts a buff in the Templar maintained window, that matches the effect of that ability. Then have a separate skill that casts the cure for manaure, but instead of it being a direct group cure, it puts a reactive single use cure on the group matching the type of maintained buff that the Templar had. That is my idea for the basics of how it could work, and still provide something that was not a straight up group cure, but in the hands of a skilled player, the ability would prove more useful in most circumstances than a straight up group cure. As far as the finer details go, have casting the manacure buff as a free action, no casting time, recovery or reuse to worry about. Make the cure reuse 20 seconds at 0 percent reuse like a standard cure. Make the reactive last standard reactive time, if it is less than that the ability would be more annoying than unique and useful. Don't allow the ability to directly stack with itself on the same cure type, but allow it to stack as long as the cure reactive type isn't the same, otherwise over write the previous reactive. I know this all sounds overly complicated, but I believe that in real use, an ability like this would be much more natural than it sounds here. Also the reason I mentioned putting stuff in the maintained window is to have something like this work smoothly, being able to use a UI mod like dragonwulf spell timers, would make seeing what type of cure you had available to cast or reactive cure you had up, easy to see and manage.

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Make manacure a buff you put on someone. When they use mana it puts a buff in the Templar maintained window, that matches the effect of that ability. Then have a separate skill that casts the cure for manaure, but instead of it being a direct group cure, it puts a reactive single use cure on the group matching the type of maintained buff that the Templar had. That is my idea for the basics of how it could work, and still provide something that was not a straight up group cure, but in the hands of a skilled player, the ability would prove more useful in most circumstances than a straight up group cure. As far as the finer details go, have casting the manacure buff as a free action, no casting time, recovery or reuse to worry about. Make the cure reuse 20 seconds at 0 percent reuse like a standard cure. Make the reactive last standard reactive time, if it is less than that the ability would be more annoying than unique and useful. Don't allow the ability to directly stack with itself on the same cure type, but allow it to stack as long as the cure reactive type isn't the same, otherwise over write the previous reactive. </blockquote><p>No.  Just no.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Also the reason I mentioned putting stuff in the maintained window is to have something like this work smoothly, being able to use a UI mod like dragonwulf spell timers, would make seeing what type of cure you had available to cast or reactive cure you had up, easy to see and manage. </blockquote><p>I don't use any UI's at all on my group bar, I find it MUCH easier to spot heal and cure by having a 1x6 hotbar with my small heal under each group member with a macro, and another 1x6 hotbar with single target cures.  Maybe it's my old eyes, but I like that I can resize the hotbar icons and stretch/pad them any way I want instead of having to squint my eyes to see the incredibly tiny quick cures of some UI's then having to aim my cursor there just takes way too long, especially if I have the cursor software enlarged it's really slow.  I'd rather not have ANYTHING that required a mod.  I've gotten very very good at single target curing because if the RL wants my templar to not MT heal a group because of how crucial cures are I often find myself solo healing a group and have adjusted to having the 2nd group cure, it stinks but I've adjusted.</p><p>As for mana cure, please stop it, it freakin stinks and there is really nothing SOE can do to it that would make it better short of making it a defacto 2nd group cure.  I think the chance of all priests getting a 2nd group cure is actually very good, but maybe not until next xpac.  It's just a required skill based on the content, just like when they consolidated all the cure types into one cure.</p>

[bigmamma]

<p>What I'd like to know, not knowing details about other priest classes, is what is the recast times on other healers group cures unbuffed and ungeared, no reuse gear etc etc...</p><p>Templars' are 20 sec recast, I think Inquisitors' groupCure is the same where as their myth-cure is only like 13sec recast right ??</p><p>Wardens and Furies both have 2 group cures each as well, do they have 20 sec recast on all of them ??</p><p>I think Mystics and Defilers both have shorter reuse then Templars..</p><p>When cures seems to be the big topic here, it seems that shamans not only are "stronger" healers, but Templars are the weakest cure-class of them all.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote> Make manacure a buff you put on someone. When they use mana it puts a buff in the Templar maintained window, that matches the effect of that ability. Then have a separate skill that casts the cure for manaure, but instead of it being a direct group cure, it puts a reactive single use cure on the group matching the type of maintained buff that the Templar had. That is my idea for the basics of how it could work, and still provide something that was not a straight up group cure, but in the hands of a skilled player, the ability would prove more useful in most circumstances than a straight up group cure. </blockquote><p>Wow, this is a really bad idea.</p><p>Stop trying to change manacure into anything other than a straight up second group cure.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>As the new Drunder Hardmode content unfolds, it is clear that SOE is not relying on Detrimental AE curefests as the sole mechanic to provide difficulty. Mobs are hitting hard, AE's are hitting hard, but the AE's are not hitting at the same rate overall. This works very well for the abilities a Templar has to offer.The concerns of some Templars in that SOE will not adjust "future" content is null and void. SOE is already doing it.Templars do not need anything. They do not need a second group cure. They do not need more utility. Templars are an incredibly powerful healer, and the most recent batch of raid content is well suited to a Templars skillset.The way the newer content is unfolding, everything I have said is shaping up to be right on the money.</p>

[Aislia]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As the new Drunder Hardmode content unfolds, it is clear that SOE is not relying on Detrimental AE curefests as the sole mechanic to provide difficulty. Mobs are hitting hard, AE's are hitting hard, but the AE's are not hitting at the same rate overall. This works very well for the abilities a Templar has to offer.The concerns of some Templars in that SOE will not adjust "future" content is null and void. SOE is already doing it.Templars do not need anything. They do not need a second group cure. They do not need more utility. Templars are an incredibly powerful healer, and the most recent batch of raid content is well suited to a Templars skillset.The way the newer content is unfolding, everything I have said is shaping up to be right on the money.</p></blockquote><p>Here is a perfect example of failure to understand.  Templars should not have to wait for hardmode content to be introduced in order to be useful.  Some templars who raid may never see hardmode content.  This is complete fail on the devs part.  Cherry picking the modes a Templar can show their "strength" isn't good when other healing classes are strong in every mode.  There is no justifiable reason why Templars cannot be, or show their strengths, in ALL modes of raid/instance content.</p>

[Boethius_Permafrost]

<p>I'd have to second that.  Most players of any class will never kill a challenge raid encounter.  They can get into and succeed at harder instances and easier raids with reasonable individual effort, but any healer with one cure will be significantly disadvantaged.  That makes it harder for them to reach this uber endgame where all the sudden everything isn't based on a rapid succession of ae detrimentals.</p><p>Even easy drunder has moved away from the two-successive-ae-cures-on-every-single-encounter model.  But that doesn't change the fact that a large portion of the content is designed that way.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Aislia wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As the new Drunder Hardmode content unfolds, it is clear that SOE is not relying on Detrimental AE curefests as the sole mechanic to provide difficulty. Mobs are hitting hard, AE's are hitting hard, but the AE's are not hitting at the same rate overall. This works very well for the abilities a Templar has to offer.The concerns of some Templars in that SOE will not adjust "future" content is null and void. SOE is already doing it.Templars do not need anything. They do not need a second group cure. They do not need more utility. Templars are an incredibly powerful healer, and the most recent batch of raid content is well suited to a Templars skillset.The way the newer content is unfolding, everything I have said is shaping up to be right on the money.</p></blockquote><p>Here is a perfect example of failure to understand.  Templars should not have to wait for hardmode content to be introduced in order to be useful.  Some templars who raid may never see hardmode content.  This is complete fail on the devs part.  Cherry picking the modes a Templar can show their "strength" isn't good when other healing classes are strong in every mode.  There is no justifiable reason why Templars cannot be, or show their strengths, in ALL modes of raid/instance content.</p></blockquote><p>It's ok, at this time he hasn't been able to prove a single point he's made.  His inquisitor raid spot is safe for now, but if his wish comes true where content changes his inquisitor raid spot will seriously be in danger, talk about shooting your own foot.  I'm tempted to stop completely pwning his arguments in the hope that SOE does take his advice and he loses his raid spot.  By the way inquisitors ARE healing current hard mode drunder content, so that still leaves a group leader the choice of having either cleric heal their group, with one still trivializing curing whether it's a single detriment or if they pile on detriments AND adds DPS, or choose the cleric who is still overhealing the encounter, offering no DPS, and is screwed when a double detriment does land.  I'm actually arguing in favor of Templar AND inquisitor as I play both and would hate to see either of them proxy nerfed as you wish inquisitors nerfed.  It's hilarious that you'd rather see inquisitors lose their raid spots to defensive content than see templars get a MEASLY 2nd group cure.  Part of the issue is defining offensive and defensive classes in the framework of DPS DPS DPS which are what raid encounters respond most to, this dichotomy just isn't working anymore in the current framework.</p><p>But hey if I had only a Templar to worry about I'd be loving your posts as it would mean that with the new defensive content tailored for a defensive healer only I'll be enjoying the 4 Templar raid spots that will soon open up for us.  I suppose next xpac I'll be shelfing my inquisitor, it won't break my heart as my first love has always been my Templar but I will feel bad for you, maybe you will betray to Templar though.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Aislia wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As the new Drunder Hardmode content unfolds, it is clear that SOE is not relying on Detrimental AE curefests as the sole mechanic to provide difficulty. Mobs are hitting hard, AE's are hitting hard, but the AE's are not hitting at the same rate overall. This works very well for the abilities a Templar has to offer.The concerns of some Templars in that SOE will not adjust "future" content is null and void. SOE is already doing it.Templars do not need anything. They do not need a second group cure. They do not need more utility. Templars are an incredibly powerful healer, and the most recent batch of raid content is well suited to a Templars skillset.The way the newer content is unfolding, everything I have said is shaping up to be right on the money.</p></blockquote><p>Here is a perfect example of failure to understand.  Templars should not have to wait for hardmode content to be introduced in order to be useful.  Some templars who raid may never see hardmode content.  This is complete fail on the devs part.  Cherry picking the modes a Templar can show their "strength" isn't good when other healing classes are strong in every mode.  There is no justifiable reason why Templars cannot be, or show their strengths, in ALL modes of raid/instance content.</p></blockquote><p>Why not? This has been deemed acceptable for wardens, for several expansions now. What makes you think Templars deserve any special treatment? The Devs have even stated it to be a design plan, that Templars should be more desirable for breaking in new content, but fade in desirability as content is cleared.Templars were grossly overpowered from launch in 2004, up to and including the entirety of the Sentinels Fate expansion. Templar desirability temporarily faltered in DoV due to content design, which SOE has already shown they are steering away from. This means the content development has been adjusted to suit the intended role.And you are trying to say I do not understand? Comical.Keep thinking that we will be stuck in the launch content of DoV forever, and nothing will ever change. It already has.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's ok, at this time he hasn't been able to prove a single point he's made.  His inquisitor raid spot is safe for now, but if his wish comes true where content changes his inquisitor raid spot will seriously be in danger, talk about shooting your own foot.  I'm tempted to stop completely pwning his arguments in the hope that SOE does take his advice and he loses his raid spot.  By the way inquisitors ARE healing current hard mode drunder content, so that still leaves a group leader the choice of having either cleric heal their group, with one still trivializing curing whether it's a single detriment or if they pile on detriments AND adds DPS, or choose the cleric who is still overhealing the encounter, offering no DPS, and is screwed when a double detriment does land.  I'm actually arguing in favor of Templar AND inquisitor as I play both and would hate to see either of them proxy nerfed as you wish inquisitors nerfed.  It's hilarious that you'd rather see inquisitors lose their raid spots to defensive content than see templars get a MEASLY 2nd group cure.  Part of the issue is defining offensive and defensive classes in the framework of DPS DPS DPS which are what raid encounters respond most to, this dichotomy just isn't working anymore in the current framework.</p><p>But hey if I had only a Templar to worry about I'd be loving your posts as it would mean that with the new defensive content tailored for a defensive healer only I'll be enjoying the 4 Templar raid spots that will soon open up for us.  I suppose next xpac I'll be shelfing my inquisitor, it won't break my heart as my first love has always been my Templar but I will feel bad for you, maybe you will betray to Templar though.</p></blockquote><p>You want someone in a guild killing HM Drunder content, to "prove" current HM Drunder raid encounter mechanics to someone who has probably not even pulled the first mob in Sullons HM yet? Go find out for yourself.You make it very clear that Templar is your "first love", and that you will stop at nothing to try pushing for changes to ensure your "first love" is the glimmering bastion of almighty glory that no raid leader could never dream of sitting. Templars need to realise, the world has not ended, they do not need to /wrists or cancel subs. Despite Templars deserving no special treatment compared to other classes in EQ2, SOE is already releasing content to suit the Templar skill set.I know the facts do not bode well for Templars trying to get their class buffed even further, and my presence in this thread would be a sore point to such players. But yes, I agree with you in full, I hope the Devs take note of what I say.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's ok, at this time he hasn't been able to prove a single point he's made.  His inquisitor raid spot is safe for now, but if his wish comes true where content changes his inquisitor raid spot will seriously be in danger, talk about shooting your own foot.  I'm tempted to stop completely pwning his arguments in the hope that SOE does take his advice and he loses his raid spot.  By the way inquisitors ARE healing current hard mode drunder content, so that still leaves a group leader the choice of having either cleric heal their group, with one still trivializing curing whether it's a single detriment or if they pile on detriments AND adds DPS, or choose the cleric who is still overhealing the encounter, offering no DPS, and is screwed when a double detriment does land.  I'm actually arguing in favor of Templar AND inquisitor as I play both and would hate to see either of them proxy nerfed as you wish inquisitors nerfed.  It's hilarious that you'd rather see inquisitors lose their raid spots to defensive content than see templars get a MEASLY 2nd group cure.  Part of the issue is defining offensive and defensive classes in the framework of DPS DPS DPS which are what raid encounters respond most to, this dichotomy just isn't working anymore in the current framework.</p><p>But hey if I had only a Templar to worry about I'd be loving your posts as it would mean that with the new defensive content tailored for a defensive healer only I'll be enjoying the 4 Templar raid spots that will soon open up for us.  I suppose next xpac I'll be shelfing my inquisitor, it won't break my heart as my first love has always been my Templar but I will feel bad for you, maybe you will betray to Templar though.</p></blockquote><p>You want someone in a guild killing HM Drunder content, to "prove" current HM Drunder raid encounter mechanics to someone who has probably not even pulled the first mob in Sullons HM yet? Go find out for yourself.You make it very clear that Templar is your "first love", and that you will stop at nothing to try pushing for changes to ensure your "first love" is the glimmering bastion of almighty glory that no raid leader could never dream of sitting. Templars need to realise, the world has not ended, they do not need to /wrists or cancel subs. Despite Templars deserving no special treatment compared to other classes in EQ2, SOE is already releasing content to suit the Templar skill set.I know the facts do not bode well for Templars trying to get their class buffed even further, and my presence in this thread would be a sore point to such players. But yes, I agree with you in full, I hope the Devs take note of what I say.</p></blockquote><p>Meh, you still have not proven anything at all.  Templars are not wanted for raids, not for any of the 4 groups, inquisitors are wanted for all 4 groups.  Inquisitors TRIVIALIZE group curing, inquisitors have almost all the healing/protective power of a Templar save for stoneskins (which only proc on the first hit of a flurry/MA), and Repent, and inquisitors bring a decent amount of personal dps and a lot of group dps potential.  You can drivel on about your "glimmering bastion" theory, but the truth of the matter is that it's quite obvious that the opposite is true this xpac, and just because Templars were overpowered in the past (who cares) doesn't mean it makes it right to overpower inquisitors this xpac.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's ok, at this time he hasn't been able to prove a single point he's made.  His inquisitor raid spot is safe for now, but if his wish comes true where content changes his inquisitor raid spot will seriously be in danger, talk about shooting your own foot.  I'm tempted to stop completely pwning his arguments in the hope that SOE does take his advice and he loses his raid spot.  By the way inquisitors ARE healing current hard mode drunder content, so that still leaves a group leader the choice of having either cleric heal their group, with one still trivializing curing whether it's a single detriment or if they pile on detriments AND adds DPS, or choose the cleric who is still overhealing the encounter, offering no DPS, and is screwed when a double detriment does land.  I'm actually arguing in favor of Templar AND inquisitor as I play both and would hate to see either of them proxy nerfed as you wish inquisitors nerfed.  It's hilarious that you'd rather see inquisitors lose their raid spots to defensive content than see templars get a MEASLY 2nd group cure.  Part of the issue is defining offensive and defensive classes in the framework of DPS DPS DPS which are what raid encounters respond most to, this dichotomy just isn't working anymore in the current framework.</p><p>But hey if I had only a Templar to worry about I'd be loving your posts as it would mean that with the new defensive content tailored for a defensive healer only I'll be enjoying the 4 Templar raid spots that will soon open up for us.  I suppose next xpac I'll be shelfing my inquisitor, it won't break my heart as my first love has always been my Templar but I will feel bad for you, maybe you will betray to Templar though.</p></blockquote><p>You want someone in a guild killing HM Drunder content, to "prove" current HM Drunder raid encounter mechanics to someone who has probably not even pulled the first mob in Sullons HM yet? Go find out for yourself.You make it very clear that Templar is your "first love", and that you will stop at nothing to try pushing for changes to ensure your "first love" is the glimmering bastion of almighty glory that no raid leader could never dream of sitting. Templars need to realise, the world has not ended, they do not need to /wrists or cancel subs. Despite Templars deserving no special treatment compared to other classes in EQ2, SOE is already releasing content to suit the Templar skill set.I know the facts do not bode well for Templars trying to get their class buffed even further, and my presence in this thread would be a sore point to such players. But yes, I agree with you in full, I hope the Devs take note of what I say.</p></blockquote><p>Meh, you still have not proven anything at all.  Templars are not wanted for raids, not for any of the 4 groups, inquisitors are wanted for all 4 groups.  Inquisitors TRIVIALIZE group curing, inquisitors have almost all the healing/protective power of a Templar save for stoneskins (which only proc on the first hit of a flurry/MA), and Repent, and inquisitors bring a decent amount of personal dps and a lot of group dps potential.  You can drivel on about your "glimmering bastion" theory, but the truth of the matter is that it's quite obvious that the opposite is true this xpac, and just because Templars were overpowered in the past (who cares) doesn't mean it makes it right to overpower inquisitors this xpac.</p></blockquote><p>You keep calling for proof. Do you really think that was wise?The most recent content released by SOE, is Drunder. In Sullons HM raid encounters:1st mob : Ragebourne Gregor Haldane, has 2 AEs that need to be cured.2nd mob : Hragdold the Frenzied, 1 AE that changes name based on encounter variables.3rd mob : Mrogr Bloodtaint, 2 AEs to be cured. A great fight for a fast "cure curse"!4th mob : Aaranae Acrimae, 1 AE to be cured...The change in encounter design is very clear, and evident. It is no "accident". You continue to make it blaringly obvious that your heart is set on getting a 2nd group cure, and are so blinded by the selfish crusade, you refuse to accept the facts. SOE has -already- changed their raid encounter design, it is no longer AE frequency+volume intensive in the Drunder content killed thus far. Threads like this, probably make SOE Devs tear their hair out wondering why Templars are still QQing, when content that favors the Templar skillset is already in the game, and is at the current pinnacle of raid progression.Additionally, if that "list" is all you believe a Templar brings to the table, for the purpose of healing+defence over an Inquisitor, I have three words that sums things up : Learn your class.Templars are desirable for Drunder raid content, but guilds that have been running Inqs since DoV launch are hardly going to drop well geared, experienced Inqs in a heartbeat, to put in some scrub half-geared Templar. As time goes on, and more guilds work their way through the Drunder HM raid content, Templars will be called upon for their defensive+healing prowess.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's ok, at this time he hasn't been able to prove a single point he's made.  His inquisitor raid spot is safe for now, but if his wish comes true where content changes his inquisitor raid spot will seriously be in danger, talk about shooting your own foot.  I'm tempted to stop completely pwning his arguments in the hope that SOE does take his advice and he loses his raid spot.  By the way inquisitors ARE healing current hard mode drunder content, so that still leaves a group leader the choice of having either cleric heal their group, with one still trivializing curing whether it's a single detriment or if they pile on detriments AND adds DPS, or choose the cleric who is still overhealing the encounter, offering no DPS, and is screwed when a double detriment does land.  I'm actually arguing in favor of Templar AND inquisitor as I play both and would hate to see either of them proxy nerfed as you wish inquisitors nerfed.  It's hilarious that you'd rather see inquisitors lose their raid spots to defensive content than see templars get a MEASLY 2nd group cure.  Part of the issue is defining offensive and defensive classes in the framework of DPS DPS DPS which are what raid encounters respond most to, this dichotomy just isn't working anymore in the current framework.</p><p>But hey if I had only a Templar to worry about I'd be loving your posts as it would mean that with the new defensive content tailored for a defensive healer only I'll be enjoying the 4 Templar raid spots that will soon open up for us.  I suppose next xpac I'll be shelfing my inquisitor, it won't break my heart as my first love has always been my Templar but I will feel bad for you, maybe you will betray to Templar though.</p></blockquote><p>You want someone in a guild killing HM Drunder content, to "prove" current HM Drunder raid encounter mechanics to someone who has probably not even pulled the first mob in Sullons HM yet? Go find out for yourself.You make it very clear that Templar is your "first love", and that you will stop at nothing to try pushing for changes to ensure your "first love" is the glimmering bastion of almighty glory that no raid leader could never dream of sitting. Templars need to realise, the world has not ended, they do not need to /wrists or cancel subs. Despite Templars deserving no special treatment compared to other classes in EQ2, SOE is already releasing content to suit the Templar skill set.I know the facts do not bode well for Templars trying to get their class buffed even further, and my presence in this thread would be a sore point to such players. But yes, I agree with you in full, I hope the Devs take note of what I say.</p></blockquote><p>Meh, you still have not proven anything at all.  Templars are not wanted for raids, not for any of the 4 groups, inquisitors are wanted for all 4 groups.  Inquisitors TRIVIALIZE group curing, inquisitors have almost all the healing/protective power of a Templar save for stoneskins (which only proc on the first hit of a flurry/MA), and Repent, and inquisitors bring a decent amount of personal dps and a lot of group dps potential.  You can drivel on about your "glimmering bastion" theory, but the truth of the matter is that it's quite obvious that the opposite is true this xpac, and just because Templars were overpowered in the past (who cares) doesn't mean it makes it right to overpower inquisitors this xpac.</p></blockquote><p>You keep calling for proof. Do you really think that was wise?The most recent content released by SOE, is Drunder. In Sullons HM raid encounters:1st mob : Ragebourne Gregor Haldane, has 2 AEs that need to be cured.2nd mob : Hragdold the Frenzied, 1 AE that changes name based on encounter variables.3rd mob : Mrogr Bloodtaint, 2 AEs to be cured. A great fight for a fast "cure curse"!4th mob : Aaranae Acrimae, 1 AE to be cured...The change in encounter design is very clear, and evident. It is no "accident". You continue to make it blaringly obvious that your heart is set on getting a 2nd group cure, and are so blinded by the selfish crusade, you refuse to accept the facts. SOE has -already- changed their raid encounter design, it is no longer AE frequency+volume intensive in the Drunder content killed thus far. Threads like this, probably make SOE Devs tear their hair out wondering why Templars are still QQing, when content that favors the Templar skillset is already in the game, and is at the current pinnacle of raid progression.Additionally, if that "list" is all you believe a Templar brings to the table, for the purpose of healing+defence over an Inquisitor, I have three words that sums things up : Learn your class.Templars are desirable for Drunder raid content, but guilds that have been running Inqs since DoV launch are hardly going to drop well geared, experienced Inqs in a heartbeat, to put in some scrub half-geared Templar. As time goes on, and more guilds work their way through the Drunder HM raid content, Templars will be called upon for their defensive+healing prowess.</p></blockquote><p>Meh, you are still saying the entire game should revolve around the last couple of encounters of HM raiding.  I don't need proof, I heal those encounters as well and I've tried some of them with both my templar and inquisitor.  Those encounters can be healed by a good inquisitor, which is why you completely missed the point.  But even if Templars were the ONLY cleric that could heal those couple of bosses it still blatantly ignores the rest of the raids in the entire game, point pwned yet again, come again soon.  If either cleric can handle the content then it comes down to curing (there are still knockbacks and such with the very fights you mention) and DPS.  I'll tell you what, if as an inquisitor you can't heal those zones maybe you should "learn your class" as you say.  The only thing you can attempt to dispute is what SOE will do in the future, and the forum thanks you for your Nostradamus abilities to foretell the future, but other than that all you are doing is guessing based on hopefulness that inquisitors will remain overpowering to the next xpac, once again you haven't said anything of substance.  I'd rather talk about the present, raiding today, raids that most raiding players are actually involved in.  Next xpac I'll be ecstatic if they make it defensive oriented, if they lower the cure requirements, if they make it less about piling on indiscriminate DPS and more about defensive coordination and reaction.  But unfortunately this does nothing for Templars today.</p><p>But you know what, it's the same old dull tired speech you keep giving.  Why don't you give it again, there's an empty space right below my post.  Let's hear it once more, we never get tired of pwning it right back at you.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>The problem is not that templars need to be buffed. The problem is that inquisitors are overpowered. The 2 group cures they have do not fit with the offensive advantage that inquisitors are supposed to have over the more defensive templar class.</p><p>If you take away the inquistor 2 group cures, you could leave furies and wardens with 2 group cures, and this would give a reason for raid leaders who want to trivialize group cures take a druid for a raid position or two.</p><p>Inquisitors will resist this change because they know having 2 group cures and most of the defensive skills of a templar makes them overpowered for much of the raid content. <strong>Being overpowered is why many raid forces are running with 4 inquisitors</strong>, and this is leaving other healers out of raid content. Any time you have a raid that wants 4 of one class, you have to realize that class is overpowered.</p><p>I would suggest having the inquisitor mythical just change the one group cure they have into the longer range, cast on the fly group cure, not give them an entire second group cure.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The problem is not that templars need to be buffed. The problem is that inquisitors are overpowered. The 2 group cures they have do not fit with the offensive advantage that inquisitors are supposed to have over the more defensive templar class.</p><p>If you take away the inquistor 2 group cures, you could leave furies and wardens with 2 group cures, and this would give a reason for raid leaders who want to trivialize group cures take a druid for a raid position or two.</p><p>Inquisitors will resist this change because they know having 2 group cures and most of the defensive skills of a templar makes them overpowered for much of the raid content. <strong>Being overpowered is why many raid forces are running with 4 inquisitors</strong>, and this is leaving other healers out of raid content. Any time you have a raid that wants 4 of one class, you have to realize that class is overpowered.</p><p>I would suggest having the inquisitor mythical just change the one group cure they have into the longer range, cast on the fly group cure, not give them an entire second group cure.</p></blockquote><p>Well it's amusing that some have focused on my call for a 2nd group cure and ignored all my other suggestions.  The root of the problem is that the defensive powers of a Templar are not needed for the VAST majority of raiding content, and the last couple of HM encounters it's questionable if the defensive powers are needed and even if they are it's 1) a new development and 2) not indicative of the VAST majority of the raiding community.  A 2nd group cure for us is simply to balance us out with the TRIVIALIZATION that inquisitors have.  Some may even say inane things like not having 2 group detriments in a row is SOE's way to fix the situation, but quite obviously and comically this doesn't take into account the knockbacks, knockups, etc.  A 2nd group cure does not fix the defensive issue either, there was a time when Defensive or Offensive meant something, but the continued merging of the classes and the continued accelerated trend towards DPS being the single most important factor in a raid encounter really put this out of whack.</p><p>The content may very well change this xpac, it may very well revert back to the time when defensive healing was king and inquisitors had difficulty getting raid groups.  This I do NOT wish either as I'd hate to see them go back to where they used to be, but you can never say what SOE has planned.</p><p>But either way the fact of the matter is as you have stated, raids strive to run with 4 inquisitors and 0 templars, this is clearly an imbalance for all healers, not only templars.  We are posting our feedback for devs to read over and I suppose they are the ones who make the last decision what to do and how to do it.  I understand it's not an easy solution, giving templars a 2nd group cure does not really fix the problem, it's almost a separate issue to deal with the general direction of the content based on past xpacs and content similar to when they consolidated the 4 cures into one.  The difficulty with the real issue is if the pendulum swings around the other way and inquisitors end up becoming ostracized again, that's not a good solution.</p>

[Evilnikki]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aislia wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As the new Drunder Hardmode content unfolds, it is clear that SOE is not relying on Detrimental AE curefests as the sole mechanic to provide difficulty. Mobs are hitting hard, AE's are hitting hard, but the AE's are not hitting at the same rate overall. This works very well for the abilities a Templar has to offer.The concerns of some Templars in that SOE will not adjust "future" content is null and void. SOE is already doing it.Templars do not need anything. They do not need a second group cure. They do not need more utility. Templars are an incredibly powerful healer, and the most recent batch of raid content is well suited to a Templars skillset.The way the newer content is unfolding, everything I have said is shaping up to be right on the money.</p></blockquote><p>Here is a perfect example of failure to understand.  Templars should not have to wait for hardmode content to be introduced in order to be useful.  Some templars who raid may never see hardmode content.  This is complete fail on the devs part.  Cherry picking the modes a Templar can show their "strength" isn't good when other healing classes are strong in every mode.  There is no justifiable reason why Templars cannot be, or show their strengths, in ALL modes of raid/instance content.</p></blockquote><p>Why not? This has been deemed acceptable for wardens, for several expansions now. What makes you think Templars deserve any special treatment? The Devs have even stated it to be a design plan, that Templars should be more desirable for breaking in new content, but fade in desirability as content is cleared.Templars were grossly overpowered from launch in 2004, up to and including the entirety of the Sentinels Fate expansion. Templar desirability temporarily faltered in DoV due to content design, which SOE has already shown they are steering away from. This means the content development has been adjusted to suit the intended role.And you are trying to say I do not understand? Comical.Keep thinking that we will be stuck in the launch content of DoV forever, and nothing will ever change. It already has.</p></blockquote><p>You say this is "acceptable for wardens"? If this is the case why is recruiting wardens so difficult to date? Why have MOST wardens either betrayed, rerolled, or quit the game? Why have wardens complained constantly for some offensive utility for years now? Why is it then when wardens ARE recruited they are told they are only needed in one or 2 encounters? How is ANY of the aforementioned "acceptable"? Templars are now feeling what wardens have felt for years now and I'm sorry but its is NOT acceptable.</p><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The problem is not that templars need to be buffed. The problem is that inquisitors are overpowered. The 2 group cures they have do not fit with the offensive advantage that inquisitors are supposed to have over the more defensive templar class.</p><p>If you take away the inquistor 2 group cures, you could leave furies and wardens with 2 group cures, and this would give a reason for raid leaders who want to trivialize group cures take a druid for a raid position or two.</p><p>Inquisitors will resist this change because they know having 2 group cures and most of the defensive skills of a templar makes them overpowered for much of the raid content. <strong>Being overpowered is why many raid forces are running with 4 inquisitors</strong>, and this is leaving other healers out of raid content. Any time you have a raid that wants 4 of one class, you have to realize that class is overpowered.</p><p>I would suggest having the inquisitor mythical just change the one group cure they have into the longer range, cast on the fly group cure, not give them an entire second group cure.</p></blockquote><p>Well it's amusing that some have focused on my call for a 2nd group cure and ignored all my other suggestions.  The root of the problem is that the defensive powers of a Templar are not needed for the VAST majority of raiding content, and the last couple of HM encounters it's questionable if the defensive powers are needed and even if they are it's 1) a new development and 2) not indicative of the VAST majority of the raiding community.  A 2nd group cure for us is simply to balance us out with the TRIVIALIZATION that inquisitors have.  Some may even say inane things like not having 2 group detriments in a row is SOE's way to fix the situation, but quite obviously and comically this doesn't take into account the knockbacks, knockups, etc.  A 2nd group cure does not fix the defensive issue either, there was a time when Defensive or Offensive meant something, but the continued merging of the classes and the continued accelerated trend towards DPS being the single most important factor in a raid encounter really put this out of whack.</p><p>The content may very well change this xpac, it may very well revert back to the time when defensive healing was king and inquisitors had difficulty getting raid groups.  This I do NOT wish either as I'd hate to see them go back to where they used to be, but you can never say what SOE has planned.</p><p>But either way the fact of the matter is as you have stated, raids strive to run with 4 inquisitors and 0 templars, this is clearly an imbalance for all healers, not only templars.  We are posting our feedback for devs to read over and I suppose they are the ones who make the last decision what to do and how to do it.  I understand it's not an easy solution, giving templars a 2nd group cure does not really fix the problem, it's almost a separate issue to deal with the general direction of the content based on past xpacs and content similar to when they consolidated the 4 cures into one.  The difficulty with the real issue is if the pendulum swings around the other way and inquisitors end up becoming ostracized again, that's not a good solution.</p></blockquote><p>I agree here. When alot of top end raid guilds are running 4 of a certain class and other classes are being sat or not recruited, or whatever, something is wrong. That one class is overpowered. The problem in my honest opinion with inq's atm is they have all the best offensive utility and have enough defensive abilities to replace temps.</p><p>The game is shifting away from needing defensive healers period, and this is alienated those classes. Wardens have felt this pinch for years, and now temps and defilers are starting to feel it as well. These classes need some offensive utility to make them worth playing and/or inviting to raids.</p><p>Is it right? No.</p><p>Is it fair? No.</p><p>Is it the way it is? Yes.</p><p>Every healer should be viable in all content, not just the hardest content.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Meh, you are still saying<span style="color: #00ff00;"> the entire game should revolve around the last couple of encounters of HM raiding</span>.  I don't need proof, I heal those encounters as well and I've tried some of them with both my templar and inquisitor.  Those encounters can be healed by a good inquisitor, which is why you completely missed the point.  But even if Templars were the ONLY cleric that could heal those couple of bosses it still blatantly ignores the <span style="color: #ff9900;">rest of the raids in the entire game</span>, point pwned yet again, come again soon.  If either cleric can handle the content then it comes down to curing (there are still knockbacks and such with the very fights you mention) and DPS.  I'll tell you what, if as an inquisitor you can't heal those zones maybe you should "learn your class" as you say.  The only thing you can attempt to dispute is what SOE will do in the future, and the forum thanks you for your Nostradamus abilities to foretell the future, but other than that all you are doing is guessing based on hopefulness that inquisitors will remain overpowering to the next xpac, once again you haven't said anything of substance.  I'd rather talk about the present, raiding today, raids that most raiding players are actually involved in.  Next xpac I'll be ecstatic if they make it defensive oriented, if they lower the cure requirements, if they make it less about piling on indiscriminate DPS and more about defensive coordination and reaction.  But unfortunately this does nothing for Templars today.</p><p>But you know what, it's the same old dull tired speech you keep giving.  Why don't you give it again, there's an empty space right below my post.  Let's hear it once more, we never get tired of pwning it right back at you.</p></blockquote><p>That post illustrates your bias attitude.The first 4 mobs in Sullons are not the last couple of mobs in HM raiding, it is simply where guilds are up to in progression right now. There are plenty of mobs after them. As per the standard SOE has already set, they will share the general tendancies of reduced detriment AE rates compared to launch DoV zones. The fact you called the first 4 mobs in Sullons the last couple of mobs in HM raiding, proves you have no idea what you are talking about.I also got a kick out of the way you talked about the <span style="color: #ff9900;">"rest of the raids in the entire game".</span> Are you trying to say Templars were useless in TSO and SF? Are you really so foolish enough to claim that? You said rest of the entire game, that counts for all content up to and including SF. SOE released a single batch of content (DoV launch) where the skillset of Templars was not a gods-end gift to raid forces. SOE has already responded to concerns, clearly evident by the content design consistant across Drunder, which is much more feasible for the single-cure healers (such as Templars) to hold worth. As time goes on, DoV launch content will fade into oblivion, it is just a matter of time until DoV launch content means as much as SF raid content means today (outside of plat farming).I am still amused by how several Templars come here, acting as if mobs having multiple AEs, and AE stacking, did not happen until DoV. Talk about short memories. It was happening in TSO and SF, and Templars manned up. Nothing new to see here. There was a slight elevation in the rate AEs can come in on DoV launch encounters, but it priests, especially mid-tier guild priests, now have easy access to large amounts of reuse speed. So unless such complaintants are trying to claim Templars have never been desirable in EQ2 raiding, they do not have a leg to stand on.While I am almost flattered that you compared me to Nostradamus, that guy was wrong a lot more than I will ever be.I hope you're the last person SOE Devs ever take advice from. You habitually demonstrate a lack of understanding on this topic.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Meh, you are still saying<span style="color: #00ff00;"> the entire game should revolve around the last couple of encounters of HM raiding</span>.  I don't need proof, I heal those encounters as well and I've tried some of them with both my templar and inquisitor.  Those encounters can be healed by a good inquisitor, which is why you completely missed the point.  But even if Templars were the ONLY cleric that could heal those couple of bosses it still blatantly ignores the <span style="color: #ff9900;">rest of the raids in the entire game</span>, point pwned yet again, come again soon.  If either cleric can handle the content then it comes down to curing (there are still knockbacks and such with the very fights you mention) and DPS.  I'll tell you what, if as an inquisitor you can't heal those zones maybe you should "learn your class" as you say.  The only thing you can attempt to dispute is what SOE will do in the future, and the forum thanks you for your Nostradamus abilities to foretell the future, but other than that all you are doing is guessing based on hopefulness that inquisitors will remain overpowering to the next xpac, once again you haven't said anything of substance.  I'd rather talk about the present, raiding today, raids that most raiding players are actually involved in.  Next xpac I'll be ecstatic if they make it defensive oriented, if they lower the cure requirements, if they make it less about piling on indiscriminate DPS and more about defensive coordination and reaction.  But unfortunately this does nothing for Templars today.</p><p>But you know what, it's the same old dull tired speech you keep giving.  Why don't you give it again, there's an empty space right below my post.  Let's hear it once more, we never get tired of pwning it right back at you.</p></blockquote><p>That post demonstrates your bias attitude.The first 4 mobs in Sullons are not the last couple of mobs in HM raiding, it is simply where guilds are up to in progression right now. There are plenty of mobs after them. As per the standard SOE has already set, they will share the general tendancies of reduced detriment AE rates compared to launch DoV zones. The fact you called the first 4 mobs in Sullons the last couple of mobs in HM raiding, proves you have no idea what you are talking about.I also got a kick out of the way you talked about the <span style="color: #ff9900;">"rest of the raids in the entire game".</span> Are you trying to say Templars were useless in TSO and SF? Are you really so foolish enough to claim that? You said rest of the entire game, that counts for all content up to and including SF. SOE released a single batch of content (DoV launch) where the skillset of Templars was not ideal. SOE has already responded to concerns, clearly evident by the content design consistant across Drunder, which is much more feasible for the single-cure healers. As time goes on, DoV launch content will fade into oblivion. It is just a matter of time until it means as much as SF raid content means today (outside of plat farming).I am still amused by how several Templars come here, acting as if mobs having multiple AEs, and AE stacking, did not happen until DoV. Talk about short memories. It was happening in TSO and SF. Nothing new to see here. There was a slight elevation in the rate AEs can come in, but it priests, especially mid-tier guild priests, now have easy access to large amounts of reuse speed. Unless they are trying to claim Templars have never been desirable in EQ2 raiding, they do not have a leg to stand on.While I am almost flattered that you compared me to Nostradamus, that guy was wrong a lot more than I will ever be.I hope you're the last person SOE Devs ever take advice from. You habitually demonstrate a lack of understanding.</p></blockquote><p>Why does this guy keep posting in here?  He has no valid points and no one is taking him seriously.  No one has disputed the basic stuff like detriments in past expansions, Templars defensive strength, etc etc, yet he still keeps arguing against no one about them.  It sounds like he doesn't know how to play his class so he has to go on our forums and tell us how to play our class when it's evident he's never played a templar and isn't very good at an inquisitor.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Why does this guy keep posting in here?  He has no valid points and no one is taking him seriously.  No one has disputed the basic stuff like detriments in past expansions, Templars defensive strength, etc etc, yet he still keeps arguing against no one about them.  It sounds like he doesn't know how to play his class so he has to go on our forums and tell us how to play our class when it's evident he's never played a templar and isn't very good at an inquisitor.</p></blockquote><p>Someone needs a tissue.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Why does this guy keep posting in here?  He has no valid points and no one is taking him seriously.  No one has disputed the basic stuff like detriments in past expansions, Templars defensive strength, etc etc, yet he still keeps arguing against no one about them.  It sounds like he doesn't know how to play his class so he has to go on our forums and tell us how to play our class when it's evident he's never played a templar and isn't very good at an inquisitor.</p></blockquote><p>Someone needs a tissue.</p></blockquote><p>Lol, surely it's you that needs the tissue.  You are QQing on here endlessly about a video game, and the funny part is you are not even successfully QQing.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>The reason Avirodar keeps posting here is to distract from the real problem. He wants everyone to think the argument is whether or not templars need buffing... That is not the real problem. If people identified the real problem, he feels that his class will no longer be what it is now: <em>overpowered</em>. And who doesn't like to play an overpowered class?</p><p>The real problem is that most raid forces want 4 inquisitors because they are overpowered for all current content.</p><p>I will say it again. When raid leaders want <strong>4 of any class</strong> in a raid for all content, not just one or two individual fights, it is because that class is overpowered.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Meh, you are still saying<span style="color: #00ff00;"> the entire game should revolve around the last couple of encounters of HM raiding</span>.  I don't need proof, I heal those encounters as well and I've tried some of them with both my templar and inquisitor.  Those encounters can be healed by a good inquisitor, which is why you completely missed the point.  But even if Templars were the ONLY cleric that could heal those couple of bosses it still blatantly ignores the <span style="color: #ff9900;">rest of the raids in the entire game</span>, point pwned yet again, come again soon.  If either cleric can handle the content then it comes down to curing (there are still knockbacks and such with the very fights you mention) and DPS.  I'll tell you what, if as an inquisitor you can't heal those zones maybe you should "learn your class" as you say.  The only thing you can attempt to dispute is what SOE will do in the future, and the forum thanks you for your Nostradamus abilities to foretell the future, but other than that all you are doing is guessing based on hopefulness that inquisitors will remain overpowering to the next xpac, once again you haven't said anything of substance.  I'd rather talk about the present, raiding today, raids that most raiding players are actually involved in.  Next xpac I'll be ecstatic if they make it defensive oriented, if they lower the cure requirements, if they make it less about piling on indiscriminate DPS and more about defensive coordination and reaction.  But unfortunately this does nothing for Templars today.</p><p>But you know what, it's the same old dull tired speech you keep giving.  Why don't you give it again, there's an empty space right below my post.  Let's hear it once more, we never get tired of pwning it right back at you.</p></blockquote><p>That post illustrates your bias attitude.The first 4 mobs in Sullons are not the last couple of mobs in HM raiding, it is simply where guilds are up to in progression right now. There are plenty of mobs after them. As per the standard SOE has already set, they will share the general tendancies of reduced detriment AE rates compared to launch DoV zones. The fact you called the first 4 mobs in Sullons the last couple of mobs in HM raiding, proves you have no idea what you are talking about.I also got a kick out of the way you talked about the <span style="color: #ff9900;">"rest of the raids in the entire game".</span> Are you trying to say Templars were useless in TSO and SF? Are you really so foolish enough to claim that? You said rest of the entire game, that counts for all content up to and including SF. SOE released a single batch of content (DoV launch) where the skillset of Templars was not a gods-end gift to raid forces. SOE has already responded to concerns, clearly evident by the content design consistant across Drunder, which is much more feasible for the single-cure healers (such as Templars) to hold worth. As time goes on, DoV launch content will fade into oblivion, it is just a matter of time until DoV launch content means as much as SF raid content means today (outside of plat farming).I am still amused by how several Templars come here, acting as if mobs having multiple AEs, and AE stacking, did not happen until DoV. Talk about short memories. It was happening in TSO and SF, and Templars manned up. Nothing new to see here. There was a slight elevation in the rate AEs can come in on DoV launch encounters, but it priests, especially mid-tier guild priests, now have easy access to large amounts of reuse speed. So unless such complaintants are trying to claim Templars have never been desirable in EQ2 raiding, they do not have a leg to stand on.While I am almost flattered that you compared me to Nostradamus, that guy was wrong a lot more than I will ever be.I hope you're the last person SOE Devs ever take advice from. You habitually demonstrate a lack of understanding on this topic.</p></blockquote><p>Lol, yet another post where you FAIL to refute any of the points from the Templar's on this board, and interject these weird arguments you have with yourself on the defensive power of a templar and how many cures were required in SF/TSO which do nothing but demonstrate, once again, a complete fundamental failure to understand what Templars are complaining about.  Even if you did understand the current problems you have offered no solution other than to predict the future, this thread has been around since DOV launch and these are the points Templars have been arguing since then.  Heck, I can solve ANY problem by predicting the content will change around it, I solved all the games problems at DOV launch by predicting the content would change in a year, but that still didn't do anything for the year I had to play in DOV. </p><p>Content can go either way, just last night in Foundations we were finding that since GU61 some bosses are double and triple casting aoe detriments, it was touch and go with the shaman and templar sharing group cures meaning one of them was down at any given time and then getting a double detriment at the same time we had to joust with only one group cure available.  If this is not a bug (which it very well could be) then SOE increased the cure requirements for these bosses.  My inquisitor would have completely TRIVIALIZED this encounter (as they trivialize other encounters like Eireen for example, a perfect example of where an inq would still be chosen over a temp with a 2nd group cure), he would have had enough defensive healing to get the job done, he would have cured every single detriment while moving/being knocked back/jousting, and he would have brought DPS to the raid, my Templar only fulfilled one of those requirements, and not to a greater degree that an inquisitor could have.  Guess which of my toons will most likely be healing the MT group next week?</p><p>It's funny that you call me out as being biased, but I raid with both Templar and Inquisitor.  I have them both geared up and I play whichever one benefits the raid more.  It's VERY obvious you are the biased one to an extreme degree, it's not even thinly veiled, it's just straight out in your face obvious.  As for your arguments, I think you are confusing yourself, like a dog chasing its own tail, arguing points no one is even arguing.  Please post again, I need my morning entertainment.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Lol, yet another post where you FAIL to refute any of the points from the Templar's on this board, and interject these weird arguments you have with yourself on the defensive power of a templar and how many cures were required in SF/TSO which do nothing but demonstrate, once again, a complete fundamental failure to understand what Templars are complaining about.  Even if you did understand the current problems you have offered no solution other than to predict the future, this thread has been around since DOV launch and these are the points Templars have been arguing since then.  Heck, I can solve ANY problem by predicting the content will change around it, I solved all the games problems at DOV launch by predicting the content would change in a year, but that still didn't do anything for the year I had to play in DOV. </p><p>Content can go either way, just last night in Foundations we were finding that since GU61 some bosses are double and triple casting aoe detriments, it was touch and go with the shaman and templar sharing group cures meaning one of them was down at any given time and then getting a double detriment at the same time we had to joust with only one group cure available.  If this is not a bug (which it very well could be) then SOE increased the cure requirements for these bosses.  My inquisitor would have completely TRIVIALIZED this encounter (as he trivializes other encounters like Eireen for example), he would have had enough defensive healing to get the job done, he would have cured every single detriment while moving/being knocked back/jousting, and he would have brought DPS to the raid, my Templar only fulfilled one of those requirements, and not to a greater degree that an inquisitor could have.  Guess which of my toons will most likely be healing the MT group next week?</p><p>It's funny that you call me out as being biased, but I raid with both Templar and Inquisitor.  I have them both geared up and I play whichever one benefits the raid more.  It's VERY obvious you are the biased one to an extreme degree, it's not even thinly veiled, it's just straight out in your face obvious.  As for your arguments, I think you are confusing yourself, like a dog chasing its own tail, arguing points no one is even arguing.  Please post again, I need my morning entertainment.</p></blockquote><p>Yes, whine-fests from Templars have existed since not long after DoV launched.When Templars complained that AE's come too fast in DoV, I pointed out numerous TSO and ROK encounters with similar AE rates. Templars rocked in TSO and ROK. Reuse is more readily available in DoV.When Templars claimed Inqs got buffed defensively, so Templars should get buffed offensively, I called them out, asked them to justify their claims (they couldnt), and proven their logic severely flawed.Most Templars have no idea why their class "fell off the high horse", and they can no longer turn up to a raid, flash their Templar badge, and get an auto-invite. Most Templars can not accept, or refuse to accept, the idea they may have to actually work with another healer, or have people use cure potions (like in ROK+TSO+SF). This is clearly a case of class envy, and laziness, not a case of actual imbalance.You say I offer no solution? SOE has already provided the solution. It is the Drunder raid content. If you're a noob who will never, ever go beyond easymode launch DoV content, I offer my condolences. Any Templar worth their salt, can easily solo heal a non tank group on EM Eireen, or duo-heal a tank on EM Eireen. And I can tell you're talking about EasyMode Eireen, because HardMode Eireen does not knockback, meaning it is very easy for a Templar to deal with the AEs.You despise the fact that Drunder content is a brutal blow to your vain attempts to buff your "first love" class. The new Drunder zones prove Templars wrong in their assumptions that all content will remain chain curefests. SOE clearly has responded to the concerns of AE detriments being too intensive, and adjusted newer raid content to restore viability to single-cure healers.Did you really try to use a bug since GU61, being mobs rarely/randomly duplicating AEs, as if it provides legitimate justification to buffing Templars? That has to be one of the most pathetic arguments on behalf of Templars to date. A defiler can solo heal all EM launch content since GU61. If you can not, I can assure you the problem is not the Templar class.I have faith that the EQ2 Dev responsible for class balance, can see the misguided logic presented by some Templars in this thread. Probably why there has been no response from a Dev comforting Templars.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Lol, yet another post where you FAIL to refute any of the points from the Templar's on this board, and interject these weird arguments you have with yourself on the defensive power of a templar and how many cures were required in SF/TSO which do nothing but demonstrate, once again, a complete fundamental failure to understand what Templars are complaining about.  Even if you did understand the current problems you have offered no solution other than to predict the future, this thread has been around since DOV launch and these are the points Templars have been arguing since then.  Heck, I can solve ANY problem by predicting the content will change around it, I solved all the games problems at DOV launch by predicting the content would change in a year, but that still didn't do anything for the year I had to play in DOV. </p><p>Content can go either way, just last night in Foundations we were finding that since GU61 some bosses are double and triple casting aoe detriments, it was touch and go with the shaman and templar sharing group cures meaning one of them was down at any given time and then getting a double detriment at the same time we had to joust with only one group cure available.  If this is not a bug (which it very well could be) then SOE increased the cure requirements for these bosses.  My inquisitor would have completely TRIVIALIZED this encounter (as he trivializes other encounters like Eireen for example), he would have had enough defensive healing to get the job done, he would have cured every single detriment while moving/being knocked back/jousting, and he would have brought DPS to the raid, my Templar only fulfilled one of those requirements, and not to a greater degree that an inquisitor could have.  Guess which of my toons will most likely be healing the MT group next week?</p><p>It's funny that you call me out as being biased, but I raid with both Templar and Inquisitor.  I have them both geared up and I play whichever one benefits the raid more.  It's VERY obvious you are the biased one to an extreme degree, it's not even thinly veiled, it's just straight out in your face obvious.  As for your arguments, I think you are confusing yourself, like a dog chasing its own tail, arguing points no one is even arguing.  Please post again, I need my morning entertainment.</p></blockquote><p>Yes, whine-fests from Templars have existed since not long after DoV launched.When Templars complained that AE's come too fast in DoV, I pointed out numerous TSO and ROK encounters with similar AE rates. Templars rocked in TSO and ROK. Reuse is more readily available in DoV.When Templars claimed Inqs got buffed defensively, so Templars should get buffed offensively, I called them out, asked them to justify their claims (they couldnt), and proven their logic severely flawed.Most Templars have no idea why their class "fell off the high horse", and they can no longer turn up to a raid, flash their Templar badge, and get an auto-invite. Most Templars can not accept, or refuse to accept, the idea they may have to actually work with another healer, or have people use cure potions (like in ROK+TSO+SF). This is clearly a case of class envy, and laziness, not a case of actual imbalance.You say I offer no solution? SOE has already provided the solution. It is the Drunder raid content. If you're a noob who will never, ever go beyond easymode launch DoV content, I offer my condolences. Any Templar worth their salt, can easily solo heal a non tank group on EM Eireen, or duo-heal a tank on EM Eireen. And I can tell you're talking about EasyMode Eireen, because HardMode Eireen does not knockback, meaning it is very easy for a Templar to deal with the AEs.You despise the fact that Drunder content is a brutal blow to your vain attempts to buff your "first love" class. The new Drunder zones prove Templars wrong in their assumptions that all content will remain chain curefests. SOE clearly has responded to the concerns of AE detriments being too intensive, and adjusted newer raid content to restore viability to single-cure healers.Did you really try to use a bug since GU61, being mobs rarely/randomly duplicating AEs, as if it provides legitimate justification to buffing Templars? That has to be one of the most pathetic arguments on behalf of Templars to date. A defiler can solo heal all EM launch content since GU61. If you can not, I can assure you the problem is not the Templar class.I have faith that the EQ2 Dev responsible for class balance, can see the misguided logic presented by some Templars in this thread. Probably why there has been no response from a Dev comforting Templars.</p></blockquote><p>Wow, you really have a vendetta against Templars.  Yeah Templars are being sat from raids because they are lazy.  It's clear you have some built up anger from past xpacs being an inquisitor and now it comes out as telling us we are "lazy and envious", ahh the truth comes out in all its ugliness, YES TEMPLARS IN DOV ARE LAZY AND ENVIOUS.  Templars are whiners, we don't deserve to have our issues looked at, heck we don't even have any issues, they are just made up in our attempt to regain our "glory" of past xpacs and shove the inquisitors under our heel, this is how ridiculous you sound, seriously.  Even YOU have stated you have no templars in your raids, but you just recently recruited one not for today but in anticipation of where the content may be in the future.  You still continue to prove NONE of your points for this current xpac for the majority of raiders and Templars, the issues remain the SAME today for raiders and Templars and you haven't offered a single solution for today.  If you can't heal the drunder zones as an inquisitor then I really don't have much advice for you other than put that new templar recruit to good use.</p><p>The insults are great (you can really smell desperation when insults are needed) and the continued harping of points that are not part of this issue are pretty nifty as well, but it's not really making a difference on the real issues that have been pointed out ad nauseaum, so much that I won't waste forum space putting them out there again.  Feel free to read through them again for a glimmering of understanding, but let me guess you will post again about Templars whining and how this is a secret Illuminati plan to take over the healing spots, and how a couple of zones foretell the future, but once again you will completely miss the point and Templars will CONTINUE to be sat for any raid group while inquisitors will be wanted for all 4 raid groups.  4:0 hardly balanced.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>Well for one, I notice that Avirodar has not addressed the real issue that inquisitors are overpowered. I wonder why he is not touching that one?</p><p>Templars did not suddenly start sucking. Raids want 4 inquisitors because they are overpowered for all current content. All healer classes are suffering because of it, not just templars.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes, whine-fests from Templars have existed since not long after DoV launched.When Templars complained that AE's come too fast in DoV, I pointed out numerous TSO and ROK encounters with similar AE rates. Templars rocked in TSO and ROK. Reuse is more readily available in DoV.When Templars claimed Inqs got buffed defensively, so Templars should get buffed offensively, I called them out, asked them to justify their claims (they couldnt), and proven their logic severely flawed.Most Templars have no idea why their class "fell off the high horse", and they can no longer turn up to a raid, flash their Templar badge, and get an auto-invite. Most Templars can not accept, or refuse to accept, the idea they may have to actually work with another healer, or have people use cure potions (like in ROK+TSO+SF). This is clearly a case of class envy, and laziness, not a case of actual imbalance.You say I offer no solution? SOE has already provided the solution. It is the Drunder raid content. If you're a noob who will never, ever go beyond easymode launch DoV content, I offer my condolences. Any Templar worth their salt, can easily solo heal a non tank group on EM Eireen, or duo-heal a tank on EM Eireen. And I can tell you're talking about EasyMode Eireen, because HardMode Eireen does not knockback, meaning it is very easy for a Templar to deal with the AEs.You despise the fact that Drunder content is a brutal blow to your vain attempts to buff your "first love" class. The new Drunder zones prove Templars wrong in their assumptions that all content will remain chain curefests. SOE clearly has responded to the concerns of AE detriments being too intensive, and adjusted newer raid content to restore viability to single-cure healers.Did you really try to use a bug since GU61, being mobs rarely/randomly duplicating AEs, as if it provides legitimate justification to buffing Templars? That has to be one of the most pathetic arguments on behalf of Templars to date. A defiler can solo heal all EM launch content since GU61. If you can not, I can assure you the problem is not the Templar class.I have faith that the EQ2 Dev responsible for class balance, can see the misguided logic presented by some Templars in this thread. Probably why there has been no response from a Dev comforting Templars.</p></blockquote><p>Jeez, just more QQing about how Templars used to be the top healer and now they are whiners because raids don't want them.  I'm also failing to see what difference the calibre of raid or encounter makes, there are a heck of a lot more EM raiders than HM raiders.  I've only raided EM so can't comment on HM personally, but the only valid point you've made is that defensive healing is not needed anymore, but that one was quite obvious as it was made months ago and nothing you actually figured out.  I don't know if a 2nd group cure is the solution, but if SOE shifts around content they are going to screw something up, maybe it will put inquisitors back to the stone age, maybe it won't, but you can bet that SOE will not get it balanced right and we can add the 9 months of Templars suffering being sat out in DOV with another year as they "balance" whatever they introduced, although changing content can be a solution clearly it should be the last option, especially with so many decent solutions floating around.</p><p>I've seen that bug in foundations as well, I'll assume its a bug or lag.  Had it with Finndrag, trying to joust out around the corner and had 2-3 detriments land at the same time, and that's one you have to cure quickly.  It was just luck of the draw to beat that encounter the way it's been.</p><p>I think you had some valid points, although no solutions that I can see, but you really shot yourself in the foot telling Templars there problems are made up because of their envy and laziness, I'm sorry but I work my butt off in raids and don't much appreciate being called lazy.</p>

[luinnil]

<p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Well for one, I notice that Avirodar has not addressed the real issue that inquisitors are overpowered. I wonder why he is not touching that one?</p><p>Templars did not suddenly start sucking. Raids want 4 inquisitors because they are overpowered for all current content. All healer classes are suffering because of it, not just templars.</p></blockquote><p>I'll address it then:</p><p>Inquisitors are no more 'overpowered' than Mystics are 'overpowered' or Furies are 'overpowered'.  They are simply offensively oriented with enough healing capabilities, _especially_ with itemization being how it is so that we all have 200%+ CB and Potency (I'm sure high high end people are even more absurd).  I have no job healing even harder (have not gotten to the HM drunder yet) encounters as long as I know where spikes are likely to be because an excellent MT Mystic can quadruple my healing while only losing out on DPS by a little bit.  If I go into heal stance and spam heals my heal parse might improve by 5% over mostly DPS and tossing basic reactives.  On easy mode raids in the original 3 zones I can literally say 'I'm just going to cure and dps with Exorcise up' and this works fine even in the main tank group up till the last two in Temple.</p><p>The unmyth cure is very nice, one of the better things out there, but Curing has always been the Inquisitor niche and I think it's just sour grapes to want to take that away instead of find a proper niche for Templar.</p><p>Defensive healing is underpowered and probably always will be because it's silly to have a class only be useful on one or two encounters or the raid encounters most people will never get to.  Sorry, but 'Hard Mode Drunder is useful for a Templar!' is a terrible argument, and I'm an Inquisitor prime.  I'm willing to bet that if we get there, I will be able to heal it as an Inquisitor better than 95% of Templars because I work at what I need to do very very hard.  All the classes ought to be desirable for 90%+ of the content, and the uber guilds can still min/max tweak to their hearts content because most everyone really doesn't care what they do.</p><p>They should get rid of the idea of 'defensive' and 'offensive' versions of the classes beyond a small variance, otherwise viability will just always swing by content direction and 'defense' will naturally lose out as gear improves because there's no point to defense beyond what you need to survive whereas more offense will always be better.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>luinnil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'll address it then:</p><p><strong>Inquisitors are no more 'overpowered' than Mystics are 'overpowered' or Furies are 'overpowered'.</strong> They are simply offensively oriented with enough healing capabilities, _especially_ with itemization being how it is so that we all have 200%+ CB and Potency (I'm sure high high end people are even more absurd).  I have no job healing even harder (have not gotten to the HM drunder yet) encounters as long as I know where spikes are likely to be because an excellent MT Mystic can quadruple my healing while only losing out on DPS by a little bit.  If I go into heal stance and spam heals my heal parse might improve by 5% over mostly DPS and tossing basic reactives.  On easy mode raids in the original 3 zones I can literally say 'I'm just going to cure and dps with Exorcise up' and this works fine even in the main tank group up till the last two in Temple.</p><p>The unmyth cure is very nice, one of the better things out there, but Curing has always been the Inquisitor niche and I think it's just sour grapes to want to take that away instead of find a proper niche for Templar.</p><p>Defensive healing is underpowered and probably always will be because it's silly to have a class only be useful on one or two encounters or the raid encounters most people will never get to.  Sorry, but 'Hard Mode Drunder is useful for a Templar!' is a terrible argument, and I'm an Inquisitor prime.  I'm willing to bet that if we get there, I will be able to heal it as an Inquisitor better than 95% of Templars because I work at what I need to do very very hard.  All the classes ought to be desirable for 90%+ of the content, and the uber guilds can still min/max tweak to their hearts content because most everyone really doesn't care what they do.</p><p>They should get rid of the idea of 'defensive' and 'offensive' versions of the classes beyond a small variance, otherwise viability will just always swing by content direction and 'defense' will naturally lose out as gear improves because there's no point to defense beyond what you need to survive whereas more offense will always be better.</p></blockquote><p>Luinnil, are you suggesting mystics and furies are overpowered? I do not see raid forces demanding to run with 4 mystics or 4 furies in their raids. Again, anytime raids start favoring the presence of <strong>4 of any single class</strong> as part of the raid build, for almost all encounters, it is because that class is overpowered.</p><p>Other than inquisitors, I am not aware of high end raid guilds running with 4 of any other single class.</p><p>Everything you state in your post is just an explanation of why inquisitors are superior healers, able to solo heal groups, and desired in every group in a raid. I assume you are saying I was right that inquisitors are overpowered?</p>

[luinnil]

<p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>luinnil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'll address it then:</p><p><strong>Inquisitors are no more 'overpowered' than Mystics are 'overpowered' or Furies are 'overpowered'.</strong> They are simply offensively oriented with enough healing capabilities, _especially_ with itemization being how it is so that we all have 200%+ CB and Potency (I'm sure high high end people are even more absurd).  I have no job healing even harder (have not gotten to the HM drunder yet) encounters as long as I know where spikes are likely to be because an excellent MT Mystic can quadruple my healing while only losing out on DPS by a little bit.  If I go into heal stance and spam heals my heal parse might improve by 5% over mostly DPS and tossing basic reactives.  On easy mode raids in the original 3 zones I can literally say 'I'm just going to cure and dps with Exorcise up' and this works fine even in the main tank group up till the last two in Temple.</p><p>The unmyth cure is very nice, one of the better things out there, but Curing has always been the Inquisitor niche and I think it's just sour grapes to want to take that away instead of find a proper niche for Templar.</p><p>Defensive healing is underpowered and probably always will be because it's silly to have a class only be useful on one or two encounters or the raid encounters most people will never get to.  Sorry, but 'Hard Mode Drunder is useful for a Templar!' is a terrible argument, and I'm an Inquisitor prime.  I'm willing to bet that if we get there, I will be able to heal it as an Inquisitor better than 95% of Templars because I work at what I need to do very very hard.  All the classes ought to be desirable for 90%+ of the content, and the uber guilds can still min/max tweak to their hearts content because most everyone really doesn't care what they do.</p><p>They should get rid of the idea of 'defensive' and 'offensive' versions of the classes beyond a small variance, otherwise viability will just always swing by content direction and 'defense' will naturally lose out as gear improves because there's no point to defense beyond what you need to survive whereas more offense will always be better.</p></blockquote><p>Luinnil, are you suggesting mystics and furies are overpowered? I do not see raid forces demanding to run with 4 mystics or 4 furies in their raids. Again, anytime raids start favoring the presence of <strong>4 of any single class</strong> as part of the raid build, for almost all encounters, it is because that class is overpowered.</p><p>Other than inquisitors, I am not aware of high end raid guilds running with 4 of any other single class.</p><p>Everything you state in your post is just an explanation of why inquisitors are superior healers, able to solo heal groups, and desired in every group in a raid. I assume you are saying I was right that inquisitors are overpowered?</p></blockquote><p>Yes.  Well maybe not furies except compared to wardens, but our guild would happily run 4 inqs, 4 mystics.</p><p>And I'm going to state this again, clearly, like I've done repeatedly in this thread:  Inquisitors are not overpowered, Templars are underpowered.</p><p>I just asked my raid leader to be sure I'm not talking out of nowhere about taking 4 mystics if we could get them and his response was: "[censored] yes we would."</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>Saying you "would" run with 4 mystics is a moot point. You don't run with 4 mystics. I am not aware of any top end raid guilds that "do" run with 4 mystics. So I disagree with you there.</p><p>I do know of top end raid guilds that "do" run with 4 inquisitors. This is because they can solo heal and solo cure, which allows for an additional DPS in their group, and with the inqy buffs, they explode the DPS for their group.</p><p>So I still say inquisitors are overpowered. Any argument againt that assertion will need to take into account how a single class can reliably take up 4 raid slots on almost all of the current raid content and this not be a sign of an overpowered class.</p>

[Dahmer]

<p>So~ i have been avoiding posting in this thread for a good bit now, but i figure it may be time to put in my two cents.</p><p>1st thing i want to address~ I have been raiding on my Templar since the xpac dropped. We have killed HM Eireen pre-nerf, HM Tormax...etc~ I have never been sat over an Inquiz, and the only fights we use a 3rd healer for is HM Mikill (for root immune) and HM Finrdag ( Which we don't even use the 3rd healer for anymore)</p><p>The biggest complaint i've really been reading here is the second cure, and and all honestly~ If you can communicate well with your shammy~ get yourself a baubble cure to hit up extra ae's if needed, ae immune yourself/and toggle to cure those knockbacks~ you really shouldn't run into many issues at all.</p><p>IMO what are we are seeing here with the state of the templar is the trickle down effect from the increased OP brawler surviablity that is rendering templars useless. and to be complelty honest~ The only reason i am probley still in MT is because we are old school and still use a Guardian.</p><p>That being the case~ here are my opinons to bring back the *need* for a templar raids :</p><p>1: Nerf Brawlers.</p><p>2: Shield Ally~ Make this ability templar only. As Avirodar has stated in his previous post, Templars are the defensive healer~ SO why should Inquizs be able to give tanks the ability to avoid attacks? I have yet to meet an inquiz who effectivly utilizes this buff anyhow to the full extent, so i doubt many of them would miss it. Plus if number 1. on my list dosen't happen i think this would be the best option to keep a Templar or two in raids.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Dahmer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So~ i have been avoiding posting in this thread for a good bit now, but i figure it may be time to put in my two cents.</p><p>1st thing i want to address~ I have been raiding on my Templar since the xpac dropped. We have killed HM Eireen pre-nerf, HM Tormax...etc~ I have never been sat over an Inquiz, and the only fights we use a 3rd healer for is HM Mikill (for root immune) and HM Finrdag ( Which we don't even use the 3rd healer for anymore)</p><p>The biggest complaint i've really been reading here is the second cure, and and all honestly~ If you can communicate well with your shammy~ get yourself a baubble cure to hit up extra ae's if needed, ae immune yourself/and toggle to cure those knockbacks~ you really shouldn't run into many issues at all.</p><p>IMO what are we are seeing here with the state of the templar is the trickle down effect from the increased OP brawler surviablity that is rendering templars useless. and to be complelty honest~ The only reason i am probley still in MT is because we are old school and still use a Guardian.</p><p>That being the case~ here are my opinons to bring back the *need* for a templar raids :</p><p>1: Nerf Brawlers.</p><p>2: Shield Ally~ Make this ability templar only. As Avirodar has stated in his previous post, Templars are the defensive healer~ SO why should Inquizs be able to give tanks the ability to avoid attacks? I have yet to meet an inquiz who effectivly utilizes this buff anyhow to the full extent, so i doubt many of them would miss it. Plus if number 1. on my list dosen't happen i think this would be the best option to keep a Templar or two in raids.</p></blockquote><p>My hat goes off to you. You clearly have a better understanding of EQ2 than most of the Templars who post in this thread. A templar who knows how to use their holy shield to avoid those -devastating- knockbacks, uses a range of abilities at their disposal, and can communicate with other players during raid. Amazing!You also have a pretty good understanding of where the problem stems from. But while Brawlers are rather powerful this expac, the finger can not be pointed exclusively at them. There is a little bit more to it, that would make perfect sense when you see the angle. Send me a tell some time and I will explain it to you.Shield Ally is a Cleric AA. If they moved it to become Templar only, that would simply mean Inqs get something else to replace it? Not much would be solved there, tbh. But if SOE wanted to give me a new toy in exchange for shield ally, i'd be down for that!Good luck, to you and your guild. Hope you're enjoying the Drunder content.</p>

[Gennifer]

<p>No one wants my templar anymore. There was a time when a templar was "needed". Now, everyone wants to do instances with only one healer and I get answers like "templars aren't good group healers and we only want one healer" so I get passed up all the time when trying to pug. Lower our recast time on our group heal, lower our recast time on our group cure. Make our block buffs important to tanks again. Give us some dps, too. Thanks.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Dahmer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>2: Shield Ally~ Make this ability templar only. As Avirodar has stated in his previous post, Templars are the defensive healer~ SO why should Inquizs be able to give tanks the ability to avoid attacks? I have yet to meet an inquiz who effectivly utilizes this buff anyhow to the full extent, so i doubt many of them would miss it. Plus if number 1. on my list dosen't happen i think this would be the best option to keep a Templar or two in raids.</p></blockquote><p>Certainly you can say that for a lot of stuff in the cleric debate.  Why does the "offensive" healer get to be a master of curing to the point where they completely trivialize curing?  I'm not debating whether the trivialization of curing by one healer only is a good or bad thing, I'm simply wondering why that wouldn't be a defensive skill.  I also agree with you on shield ally.</p><p>Part of the issue is that classes are being merged and everyone wants their class to be able to do everything.  If an inquisitor cannot heal a MT group I don't see why that's such a big deal, but in today's eq2 all healers want to be able to do all things.  It's just a personal preference, but I've always like things compartmentalized, inquisitor heals the melee dps group, templar heals the MT group, the the other 2 raid groups are toss ups depending on their make up.</p><p>The tough part is that while classes are being merged and the lines blurred this really only went one way with the clerics.  Inquisitors have a ton of defensive tools at their disposal, more defensive tools than templars in some areas.  But templars over the years have gained zero, zilch in terms of dps, and that's not good because the game has skewed towards dps being more and more important with each xpac.  Templars are so antiquated in terms of dps that they still have disable smite wrath, which takes away 25% spell damage for 8 seconds EVERY time you cast a heal or cure.  There is just something not adding up here.  A 2nd group cure is certainly not the answer, not even close to the answer, but the solution is not in content either otherwise we would have achieved the nirvana where both clerics had equal viability in a raid.  SOE really really needs to take a look at what defensive versus offensive really means, and understand that the point in the game where this really meant something has long passed us by.</p>

[Arabani]

<p><cite>Gennifer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>No one wants my templar anymore. There was a time when a templar was "needed". Now, everyone wants to do instances with only one healer and I get answers like "templars aren't good group healers and we only want one healer" so I get passed up all the time when trying to pug. Lower our recast time on our group heal, lower our recast time on our group cure. Make our block buffs important to tanks again. Give us some dps, too. Thanks.</p></blockquote><p>I solohealed all heroic content, never had a problem getting a spot in pug. I have 4.5 sec recast on group heal and 11.4 on group cure, it's more then enough for any heroics. Just get more gear imo and practice a bit. Templars still the best healers.</p><p>I can't agree more with Avi and Dahmer-learn to play you class, work together with shaman and nerf brawlers!<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Actually, remove them from game pls;p</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p>Certainly Templars deserve a look at.  There defensive power is not being used, they have very little personal dps or dps to offer the group/raid, and their group cures cannot keep up with the detriments.  Inquisitors on the other hand have enough defensive abilities to heal any group, raid, MT group, etc for virtually all the games encounters, they bring personal dps, they buff the group to do more dps, and there curing abilities are almost like cheating as in they don't need a 2nd healer to cure, they can cure on the run, with a huge range, etc etc., that's just almost too much of an advantage and because of their defensive skills, heals, dps and curing raids are choosing to run with 4 inquisitors and no templars.</p><p>Whether the solution is another group cure, content changes, brawler nerfs, I cannot say.  But to stick your head in the sand and say there is NO problem is insane.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Certainly Templars deserve a look at.  There defensive power is not being used, they have very little personal dps or dps to offer the group/raid, and their group cures cannot keep up with the detriments.  Inquisitors on the other hand have enough defensive abilities to heal any group, raid, MT group, etc for virtually all the games encounters, they bring personal dps, they buff the group to do more dps, and there curing abilities are almost like cheating as in they don't need a 2nd healer to cure, they can cure on the run, with a huge range, etc etc., that's just almost too much of an advantage and because of their defensive skills, heals, dps and curing raids are choosing to run with 4 inquisitors and no templars.</p></blockquote><p>Sounds like the classic definition of an overpowered class to me. The only way to "fix" templars would be to make them overpowered too. But I agree with what the inquisitors are saying on the templar boards: templars don't need to be fixed. Instead, what needs to be looked at is why inquisitors have become so overpowered.</p>

[SOE-MOD-02]

This post has moved: <a href="/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=499962&post_id=5637213" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=49996...post_id=5637213</a> Namecalling/insults are not permitted.

[Larcain]

<p>The amusement park game is called "wack-a-mole" and I survive in raiding by playing it. <shrug> I don't mind working for a living.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Larc@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't mind working for a living.</p></blockquote><p>As opposed to?</p>

[Larcain]

<p>No slight is intended. We have the tools we have. If it means I have to click like crazy to keep dets from killing my group, well that's what I'll do.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>That's pretty much what any templar/shaman combo has to do.  Wack-a-mole nonstop sounds about right.  This is what the inquisitors would prefer to keep happening, because if we got a second cure we would instantly become overpowered to the extent that they would somehow lose all four of their raid spots.  This is the humorously paranoid delusion that some of these inquisitors live under.  Never mind that a second cure is not an offensive capability but rather a defensive one.  This also seems to have been lost (or conveniently ignored) on the minds of inquisitors hellbent on keeping their advantage for as long as possible and spamming the templar forum with white noise in the hope that legitimate concerns can be drowned out by a trainwreck of useless verbiage.  Maybe inquisitors should even have their regular group cure nerfed by doubling its recast rate so they can only double cure every other set of detrimentals, let them learn how painfully tedious it is for once.  Since they seem to be of the opinion that the new content won't be as det-heavy, this should be no problem, right?</p>

[LardLord]

<p>Man, if you hate your Templar that much, seriously just betray and see what you think of Inquisitor.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Man, if you hate your Templar that much, seriously just betray and see what you think of Inquisitor.</p></blockquote><p>These types of responses are not helpful. Please troll elsewhere.</p><p>Just because a class is broken, or is being overshadowed by an overpowered mirror class, does not mean the people playing said class hate playing the class.</p><p>We just want things fixed. To be honest, nerfing the overpowered inquisitor is probably the best way to go.</p>

[LardLord]

<p>The class is practically obsolete, but it's still fun in raids, in my opinion.  If you aren't enjoying it, then find something better to do with your time, but don't advocate making other classes less fun.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The class is practically obsolete, but it's still fun in raids, in my opinion.  If you aren't enjoying it, then find something better to do with your time, but don't advocate making other classes less fun.</p></blockquote><p>Do you suggest advocating for inquisitors to be made "not overpowered" or do you suggest making templars "just as overpowered" so they have a chance at a raid spot?</p><p>Right now, inquisitors are clearly overpowered. Why else are raids using 4 inquisitors? The inquisitors posting here are saying there is nothing wrong with templars the way they are, which leaves only the conclusion: templars are fine but inquisitors are overpowered.</p><p>Raids are changing or have changed to 4 inquisitors and zero templars. I have not seen a single inquisitor try to explain this other than trying to suggest that all players who play templars suddenly don't know how to play their class.</p><p>Any inquisitor want to try to explain how raids using 4 inquisitors is not a sign of inquisitors being an overpowered class?</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The class is practically obsolete, but it's still fun in raids, in my opinion.  If you aren't enjoying it, then find something better to do with your time, but don't advocate making other classes less fun.</p></blockquote><p>Do you suggest advocating for inquisitors to be made "not overpowered" or do you suggest making templars "just as overpowered" so they have a chance at a raid spot?</p><p>Right now, inquisitors are clearly overpowered. Why else are raids using 4 inquisitors? The inquisitors posting here are saying there is nothing wrong with templars the way they are, which leaves only the conclusion: templars are fine but inquisitors are overpowered.</p><p>Raids are changing or have changed to 4 inquisitors and zero templars. I have not seen a single inquisitor try to explain this other than trying to suggest that all players who play templars suddenly don't know how to play their class.</p><p>Any inquisitor want to try to explain how raids using 4 inquisitors is not a sign of inquisitors being an overpowered class?</p></blockquote><p>It has already been explained. Some people just chose to ignore it.</p>

[Larcain]

<p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The class is practically obsolete, but it's still fun in raids, in my opinion.  If you aren't enjoying it, then find something better to do with your time, but don't advocate making other classes less fun.</p></blockquote><p>Any inquisitor want to try to explain how raids using 4 inquisitors is not a sign of inquisitors being an overpowered class?</p></blockquote><p>Well, I'm not an inquisitor, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night. I'd say its the hat. Face it..our hat is pretty hideous.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The class is practically obsolete, but it's still fun in raids, in my opinion.  If you aren't enjoying it, then find something better to do with your time, but don't advocate making other classes less fun.</p></blockquote><p>Do you suggest advocating for inquisitors to be made "not overpowered" or do you suggest making templars "just as overpowered" so they have a chance at a raid spot?</p><p>Right now, inquisitors are clearly overpowered. Why else are raids using 4 inquisitors? The inquisitors posting here are saying there is nothing wrong with templars the way they are, which leaves only the conclusion: templars are fine but inquisitors are overpowered.</p><p>Raids are changing or have changed to 4 inquisitors and zero templars. I have not seen a single inquisitor try to explain this other than trying to suggest that all players who play templars suddenly don't know how to play their class.</p><p>Any inquisitor want to try to explain how raids using 4 inquisitors is not a sign of inquisitors being an overpowered class?</p></blockquote><p>It has already been explained. Some people just chose to ignore it.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah it has, and you're one of those people.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The class is practically obsolete, but it's still fun in raids, in my opinion.  If you aren't enjoying it, then find something better to do with your time, but don't advocate making other classes less fun.</p></blockquote><p>Do you suggest advocating for inquisitors to be made "not overpowered" or do you suggest making templars "just as overpowered" so they have a chance at a raid spot?</p><p>Right now, inquisitors are clearly overpowered. Why else are raids using 4 inquisitors? The inquisitors posting here are saying there is nothing wrong with templars the way they are, which leaves only the conclusion: templars are fine but inquisitors are overpowered.</p><p>Raids are changing or have changed to 4 inquisitors and zero templars. I have not seen a single inquisitor try to explain this other than trying to suggest that all players who play templars suddenly don't know how to play their class.</p><p>Any inquisitor want to try to explain how raids using 4 inquisitors is not a sign of inquisitors being an overpowered class?</p></blockquote><p>It has already been explained. Some people just chose to ignore it.</p></blockquote><p>You are right Avirodar. But I think the main reason that the devs chose to ignore the fact that inqjuisitors are overpowered is because they know that to correct the problem, they probably just need to change to Inquisitor mythical to not give a second group cure.</p><p>We know how badly people take to having their mythical weapoon altered. Look at the poor dirges. Lots of anger there.</p><p>Perhaps they should have the mythical group cure and the "normal" group cure share the same reuse timer. That way, inquisitors still have an advantage in having the cure that has longer range, can be cast on the run or during a knockback, etc.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>Then you will go cry a river about the wardens cures.Then you will go cry a river about the fury cures.All of which have nothing to do with the actual problem, and the actual solution required (which SOE has already implemented in drunder EM + HM raid content). A pity some people are not smart enough to realise.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Then you will go cry a river about the wardens cures.Then you will go cry a river about the fury cures.All of which have nothing to do with the actual problem, and the actual solution required (which SOE has already implemented in drunder EM + HM raid content). A pity some people are not smart enough to realise.</p></blockquote><p>I don't see raids taking 4 wardens or 4 furies. No one is claiming they are overpowered except you.</p><p>But you are right, warden and fury cures have nothing to do with Inquisitors being overpowered. But you go too far if you call the devs "not smart enough"... I think they just don't know how to fix Inquisitors without making people angry.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Perhaps they should have the mythical group cure and the "normal" group cure share the same reuse timer. That way, inquisitors still have an advantage in having the cure that has longer range, can be cast on the run or during a knockback, etc.</p></blockquote><p>What's funny is that if we did go this route and nerf inquisitors to only have one group cure, but that group cure would still be overpowered due to its range and ability, if content indeed was changing to have less detriments it wouldn't fix anything IMO.</p><p>The guys who are mistakenly putting the blame on content don't fully understand the big picture.  It's not just about detriments, it's about the defensive nature of the templar not being put to use, and you're not going to solve that just by taking away brawlers strikethrough immunity.  The 3rd piece of the puzzle is the incredible importance of dps on raiding, once again something that the templar is totally lacking, lacking so bad that they actually have negative dps potential with things like disable smite wrath and they bring no dps to the group.</p><p>What has ended up happening is that the inquisitor is the "dream" cleric, possessing every single attribute necessary to heal any raid group and contribute to the things which are important.  They may change content to have less back to back detriments, although I really doubt it.  They may change content to require more defensive healing, this I think is very possible.  They may change content to require less of an emphasis on dps, this one I say fat chance, it will never happen.  So really changing content to make templars needed is kind of a juggling act.  Make the content too defensive and inquisitors go back to where they used to be, unwanted.  It seems to be a lot easier to just give templars some dps, a lower group cure recast, and have done with it.  This would take away the monumental task of changing content to fix a single healer class and have the chance to imbalance all the other classes.</p><p>I won't argue about changing content to solve the problem, it is possible, but it just seems like such an incredibly heavy handed approach to fix a single class and possibly ruin other classes.  You don't see SOE changing content to fix other classes very often.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>Raid the Drunder zones. You know, all the new stuff.Some Templars in this thread admit the real "issue" was not relating to group cures, but a mere few Templars are completely stuck on group cures, and can not get over it. The division among Templars makes it very clear, some Templars have no clue what is going on, let alone acknowledge the fact SOE has already released an entire batch (multiple heroics, 3*EM raids, 3*HM raids and more to come) of content, which covers concerns about group cure situations.Templars do what they are designed to do, and they do fantastic at it. Templars have bigger reactives, bigger direct heals, offer better defensive buffs, repent, damage reduction, self stun and stifle immunity, and much, much more. And Templars are great for Drunder content. You know, all the new stuff! The HPS output capacity of a Templar dwarfs the HPS output capacity of an Inq. The single target survivability options afforded to a Templar, is much greater than what an Inq has.DPS has always been of importance, from the original tier of the game (T5) and onward. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is deluded. Every expansion people harp on about how "DPS is so much more important, zomg!!" as if it actually is, when it is just history repeating itself, again, and again, and again.Inq's actually offer a group less DPS contribution now, than in prior expansions. This is due to the introduction of diminishing returns, and much greater (or outright added) stat contributions by enchanters, bards, raidwide fighter buffs, and stats obtainable via adornments and innate gear stats. The current benefits for being overcap on haste and DPS mod, are laughable. Given DPS has always been important, and Inqs primary buffing stats now contribute less, the end result is the gap being closed between Templars and Inqs on the DPS when compared to prior expansions. Does this mean Inqs should be calling for buffs?To the Templars who are toughed out DoV launch, I feel for you, but enjoy the spoils/functionality of the current release (Drunder) and beyond.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Perhaps they should have the mythical group cure and the "normal" group cure share the same reuse timer. That way, inquisitors still have an advantage in having the cure that has longer range, can be cast on the run or during a knockback, etc.</p></blockquote><p>What's funny is that if we did go this route and nerf inquisitors to only have one group cure, but that group cure would still be overpowered due to its range and ability, if content indeed was changing to have less detriments it wouldn't fix anything IMO.</p><p>The guys who are mistakenly putting the blame on content don't fully understand the big picture.  It's not just about detriments, it's about the defensive nature of the templar not being put to use, and you're not going to solve that just by taking away brawlers strikethrough immunity.  The 3rd piece of the puzzle is the incredible importance of dps on raiding, once again something that the templar is totally lacking, lacking so bad that they actually have negative dps potential with things like disable smite wrath and they bring no dps to the group.</p><p>What has ended up happening is that the inquisitor is the "dream" cleric, possessing every single attribute necessary to heal any raid group and contribute to the things which are important.  They may change content to have less back to back detriments, although I really doubt it.  They may change content to require more defensive healing, this I think is very possible.  They may change content to require less of an emphasis on dps, this one I say fat chance, it will never happen.  So really changing content to make templars needed is kind of a juggling act.  Make the content too defensive and inquisitors go back to where they used to be, unwanted.  It seems to be a lot easier to just give templars some dps, a lower group cure recast, and have done with it.  This would take away the monumental task of changing content to fix a single healer class and have the chance to imbalance all the other classes.</p><p>I won't argue about changing content to solve the problem, it is possible, but it just seems like such an incredibly heavy handed approach to fix a single class and possibly ruin other classes.  You don't see SOE changing content to fix other classes very often.</p></blockquote><p>Raid the Drunder zones, then talk.</p></blockquote><p>We've done every EM raid and have EM raids on farm now, we are in the process of gearing up our raid force and alternates fully before we move on to HM raiding.  We've done all the EM drunder content, but have not done any of the HM content.  I started out playing my Templar in these zones, but about halfway through I was asked to sit my Templar for the inquisitor in our MT group and I've been playing my enchanter since then.  We had 2 Templars in SF including myself who regularly were in the MT and OT group, in DOV we have exactly zero Templars, there is just no need for them.  I'm sorry I haven't gotten to HM raids yet, but there are a heck of a lot of players who are on EM stuff and it's a shame that so many of those raids have dismissed their Templars.</p><p>I do agree that a large part of the problem for me in raiding DOV was that I was completely unneeded.  The shaman in the group just overshadowed me to such a large extent.  In SF with the same shaman I would be very close to their HPS and at times surpass it depending on the fight ie: arcane aoes and such.  In DOV with the same shaman my HPS is much much lower than them, I'm actually HPS one of the lowest of the entire raid.  I consider myself an excellent Templar with 10 years experience, although I really only started raiding in EOF.  In addition to that there are certain fights where having to coordinate with the shaman gets very stressful and if one of us misses our cure it could mean a raid wipe.  Don't get me wrong I accept this and I can overcome it, but it just seems there is a huge gap in living with coordinating with the shaman versus an inquisitor who has such powerful cures that the raid doesn't worry about curing in the least, their cures just take away any and all risk from detriments and that seems like too much.  The last part of why I didn't feel useful is, of course, dps.  Can anyone really justify things like disable smite wrath?  Templars just bring absolutely nothing to the single most important game mechanic of this entire game, DPS.</p><p>I understand you will dismiss my suggestions and knowledge because I've only done EM content, and they are only that, suggestions for the devs to take into account when they do what they do to balance the game.  There are plenty of inquisitors on my server who I've known to heal the HM drunder zones, so it becomes cleric versus cleric at that point and you begin to see where a group would prefer one cleric over another by such a large degree.</p><p>As I've stated before I don't disagree that changing the content has the possibility, however remote, of fixing the issue without creating new imbalances.  But I will still post my experiences and suggestions for whoever wants to read them, or not.  It seems that in their endeavor to help brawlers out by changing content SOE managed to break Templars, this hardly gives me any confidence in them adjusting content to fix it again.  I'd rather not log in after November and see broken brawlers and broken inquisitor threads all over the place.  All of the suggestions put forth by other knowledgeable Templars have been simple ones which would in no way endanger the inquisitors viability.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Raid the Drunder zones. You know, all the new stuff.Some Templars in this thread admit the real "issue" was not relating to group cures, but a mere few Templars are completely stuck on group cures, and can not get over it. The division among Templars makes it very clear, some Templars have no clue what is going on, let alone acknowledge the fact SOE has already released an entire batch (multiple heroics, 3*EM raids, 3*HM raids and more to come) of content, which covers concerns about group cure situations.</p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">I know you aren't talking about me as I've been VERY vocal in saying that a 2nd group cure wasn't even close to being a full solution.  The drunder raids can be healed by an inquisitor so we go right back to the same points as before.</span>Templars do what they are designed to do, and they do fantastic at it. Templars have bigger reactives, bigger direct heals, offer better defensive buffs, repent, damage reduction, self stun and stifle immunity, and much, much more. And Templars are great for Drunder content. You know, all the new stuff! The HPS output capacity of a Templar dwarfs the HPS output capacity of an Inq. The single target survivability options afforded to a Templar, is much greater than what an Inq has.</p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">Everything on that list is not needed in the vast majority if DOV raiding.  Inquisitors share the stifle immunity, and Sanctuary doesn't work half the time on control effects, heck I'd MUCH rather have Fervent Faith which can at least be timed versus Sanc which has a long recast.  You are completely correct in what you state, but they are still moot points as both clerics can heal the drunder zones EM and HM so it still comes down to a choice of clerics, and ALL other things being unequal you know who the raid will choose.</span></p><p>DPS has always been of importance, from the original tier of the game (T5) and onward. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is deluded. Every expansion people harp on about how "DPS is so much more important, zomg!!" as if it actually is, when it is just history repeating itself, again, and again, and again.</p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">Of course, it's easy to be obvious congrats.  DPS is just another factor that inquisitors have HEAVILY in their favor when raid decides to choose one cleric or the other.  It's to be taken in combination with all the other considerations.</span></p><p>Inq's actually offer a group less DPS contribution now, than in prior expansions. This is due to the introduction of diminishing returns, and much greater (or outright added) stat contributions by enchanters, bards, raidwide fighter buffs, and stats obtainable via adornments and innate gear stats. The current benefits for being overcap on haste and DPS mod, are laughable. Given DPS has always been important, and Inqs primary buffing stats now contribute less, the end result is the gap being closed between Templars and Inqs on the DPS when compared to prior expansions. Does this mean Inqs should be calling for buffs?</p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">"the gap closed between Templars and Inqs on the DPS"  lol, this is the most laughable statement I've ever heard.  I won't even bother addressing it because it's so laughable and self explanatory.</span></p><p>To the Templars who are toughed out DoV launch, I feel for you, but enjoy the spoils/functionality of the current release (Drunder) and beyond.</p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">I appreciate that, and I will be hopeful for November to see what happens.  The only thing I've ever wanted was to play my temp. </span></p></blockquote>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Raid the Drunder zones, then talk.</p></blockquote><p>We've done every EM raid and have EM raids on farm now, we are in the process of gearing up our raid force and alternates fully before we move on to HM raiding.  We've done all the EM drunder content, but have not done any of the HM content.  I started out playing my Templar in these zones, but about halfway through I was asked to sit my Templar for the inquisitor in our MT group and I've been playing my enchanter since then.  We had 2 Templars in SF including myself who regularly were in the MT and OT group, in DOV we have exactly zero Templars, there is just no need for them.  I'm sorry I haven't gotten to HM raids yet, but there are a heck of a lot of players who are on EM stuff and it's a shame that so many of those raids have dismissed their Templars.</p><p>I do agree that a large part of the problem for me in raiding DOV was that I was completely unneeded.  The shaman in the group just overshadowed me to such a large extent.  In SF with the same shaman I would be very close to their HPS and at times surpass it depending on the fight ie: arcane aoes and such.  In DOV with the same shaman my HPS is much much lower than them, I'm actually HPS one of the lowest of the entire raid.  I consider myself an excellent Templar with 10 years experience, although I really only started raiding in EOF.  In addition to that there are certain fights where having to coordinate with the shaman gets very stressful and if one of us misses our cure it could mean a raid wipe.  Don't get me wrong I accept this and I can overcome it, but it just seems there is a huge gap in living with coordinating with the shaman versus an inquisitor who has such powerful cures that the raid doesn't worry about curing in the least, their cures just take away any and all risk from detriments and that seems like too much.  The last part of why I didn't feel useful is, of course, dps.  Can anyone really justify things like disable smite wrath?  Templars just bring absolutely nothing to the single most important game mechanic of this entire game, DPS.</p><p>I understand you will dismiss my suggestions and knowledge because I've only done EM content, and they are only that, suggestions for the devs to take into account when they do what they do to balance the game.  There are plenty of inquisitors on my server who I've known to heal the HM drunder zones, so it becomes cleric versus cleric at that point and you begin to see where a group would prefer one cleric over another by such a large degree.</p><p>As I've stated before I don't disagree that changing the content has the possibility, however remote, of fixing the issue without creating new imbalances.  But I will still post my experiences and suggestions for whoever wants to read them, or not.  It seems that in their endeavor to help brawlers out by changing content SOE managed to break Templars, this hardly gives me any confidence in them adjusting content to fix it again.  I'd rather not log in after November and see broken brawlers and broken inquisitor threads all over the place.  All of the suggestions put forth by other knowledgeable Templars have been simple ones which would in no way endanger the inquisitors viability.</p></blockquote><p>A couple of things stand out, that even yourself conceeded. While I am not dismissing your comments, I am adding some perspective to it.EasyMode content is just that. The easy version. Is it actually a suprise that on EasyMode content, the shaman leaves the other healer in group with very little to heal? Even more so if a Brawler is the Main Tank? I am sure you already know where this is heading. If you're doing easymode content, should the premium HPS healers be required?The answer is : No.There was some cause for concern about hardmode content healing, a few months ago. But then Drunder came out. The current content that matters, is just as Templar friendly, as any content was from previous expansions.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">"the gap closed between Templars and Inqs on the DPS"  lol, this is the most laughable statement I've ever heard.  I won't even bother addressing it because it's so laughable and self explanatory.</span></p></blockquote><p>That, or you're afraid you will have no answers for the evidence I can provide.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">"the gap closed between Templars and Inqs on the DPS"  lol, this is the most laughable statement I've ever heard.  I won't even bother addressing it because it's so laughable and self explanatory.</span></p></blockquote><p>That, or you're afraid you will have no answers for the evidence I can provide.</p></blockquote><p>You are saying that the personal and group dps a Templar brings is close to the personal and group dps an Inquisitor brings.  I haven't geared my Templar up for DPS since TSO, it was fun to do back then when Templar had 1/3 to 1/2 of their dps come from melee, but that's not true anymore.  I haven't geared my Templar up for DPS in a long time, but I still try to put in my fair share when we are raiding.  If I'm not healing, curing, debuffing, helping other raid groups, etc., I'll gladly attempt some spell damage dps, but it's pitiful next to what my inquisitor can do.  My inquisitor actually has some healing benefit when dpsing so I'm more encouraged to do that.  Let's not forget about disable smite wrath for the Templar, this disables 25% of my spell dps EVERY time I cast a cure/heal, now come on you cannot disagree that this is seriously antiquated.</p><p>As for group DPS the Templar still brings virtually nothing except for possibly Aegolism.  If you think this is remotely close I'll gladly swap you out my Templars group dps potential with the inquisitors group potential.</p><p>Once again it's a combination of issues, with content just being one of them, but certainly a valid issue as I've stated MANY times.  I've just seen the defensive lines blurred big time between the clerics, yet they have stayed exactly the same in terms of offense.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There was some cause for concern about hardmode content healing, a few months ago. But then Drunder came out. The current content that matters, is just as Templar friendly, as any content was from previous expansions.</p></blockquote><p>So are we seeing all the guilds that went to 4 inquisitors change back to having 1 templar in raids now? No.</p><p>This means that Drunder content did not fix the problem of inquisitors being overpowered. <strong>I agree with Avirodar that the problem is not that templars need to be fixed.</strong> I agree with him that Inquisitors are just overpowered.</p><p>As Avirodar has pointed out, buffing templars and making them overpowered too is not going to help. It will just make the other healers (especially furies and wardens) even more relatively weak for the content. Inquisitors have to be looked at instead.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>EasyMode content is just that. The easy version. Is it actually a suprise that on EasyMode content, the shaman leaves the other healer in group with very little to heal? Even more so if a Brawler is the Main Tank? I am sure you already know where this is heading. If you're doing easymode content, should the premium HPS healers be required?The answer is : No.There was some cause for concern about hardmode content healing, a few months ago. But then Drunder came out. The current content that matters, is just as Templar friendly, as any content was from previous expansions.</p></blockquote><p>What you are saying is that Templars should only be required in HM content, I'm sorry but that's just not right.  If my Templar never raids HM content and is unwanted for EM content where is the logic in that?  I pay my sub every month, I should at least have a chance at experiencing the content with my class of choice.  I'm trying to find value in what you are saying, but with all due respect you keep saying that only HM matters to anyone and if you are doing EM as a Templar who cares what your opinion and game experience is.  I'm just having a hard time understanding the rationale that I should only roll a Templar if I am going to do HM drunder zones, which an inquisitor can heal anyway.</p>

[Hennyo]

<p>I wouldn't exactly say it is that templars need buffing, as much as it is they need fixing, which in turn I guess would be a "buff'" over effectively what they have now. First, make all defensive procs, from stone skins, to reactives proc on all hits, not just the first one in a string. Second, give templars a limited second group cure, even shaman have this. It really doesn't need to be a full out second group cure, tho I know many templars would want that. But having two group cures in group, with two limited group cures would make curing much much more manageable. The arcane temporary group ward, should most likely be changed into a ward that only prevents power drain. It would breath a use back into that ability that had always been there in the past. Last but not least, smite wrath should just be changed to never disable, the templars total dps contribution is too low to ever be considered out of line, or overpowered even if it never went off ever. All this would do is bring a small amount of extra dps, and a little self gratification for doing dps with the class when you have an opportunity to. It isn't so much that these changes would be huge buffs for templars, as more restoring previous ability templars used to have, that has been slowly removed through various mechanic changes in the game over a period of time. It should also go without saying, templars are not the only healer class that could use a couple adjustments. In fact, almost every healer could use a number of AA changes to make them currently relevant with the way gear currently is. For example, my healer sits at 94 percent ability reuse completely solo, this breaks all sorts of stuff.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I wouldn't exactly say it is that templars need buffing, as much as it is they need fixing, which in turn I guess would be a "buff'" over effectively what they have now. First, make all defensive procs, from stone skins, to reactives proc on all hits, not just the first one in a string. Second, give templars a limited second group cure, even shaman have this. It really doesn't need to be a full out second group cure, tho I know many templars would want that. But having two group cures in group, with two limited group cures would make curing much much more manageable. The arcane temporary group ward, should most likely be changed into a ward that only prevents power drain. It would breath a use back into that ability that had always been there in the past. Last but not least, smite wrath should just be changed to never disable, the templars total dps contribution is too low to ever be considered out of line, or overpowered even if it never went off ever. All this would do is bring a small amount of extra dps, and a little self gratification for doing dps with the class when you have an opportunity to. It isn't so much that these changes would be huge buffs for templars, as more restoring previous ability templars used to have, that has been slowly removed through various mechanic changes in the game over a period of time. It should also go without saying, templars are not the only healer class that could use a couple adjustments. In fact, almost every healer could use a number of AA changes to make them currently relevant with the way gear currently is. For example, my healer sits at 94 percent ability reuse completely solo, this breaks all sorts of stuff.</p></blockquote><p>I agree with Avirodar that all these changes really aren't needed if you just fix the real broken class. Templars are not broken. They are fine the way they are. None of these "fixes" for templars would be needed if Inquisitors weren't overpowered.</p><p>Buffing templars will only serve to make them overpowered too. The answer instead is to look at why Inquisitors are overpowered and "fix" that. SOE has created a healer class that is so overpowered that raids want 4 of them. All healers, not just templars, are suffering from this.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">"the gap closed between Templars and Inqs on the DPS"  lol, this is the most laughable statement I've ever heard.  I won't even bother addressing it because it's so laughable and self explanatory.</span></p></blockquote><p>That, or you're afraid you will have no answers for the evidence I can provide.</p></blockquote><p>This is the most laughable comment from you yet.  What evidence pray tell?  You said that BOTH EM AND HM Drunder provide Templar friendly content, but now you are weaseling your words to claim that only HM Drunder is Templar-friendly.  Shall I quote you?  You have squat for evidence.  If you do, please go ahead and tell me which raids have started swapping templars back in for inquisitors in the MT group, or any group, because of Drunder.  What a joke.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>EasyMode content is just that. The easy version. Is it actually a suprise that on EasyMode content, the shaman leaves the other healer in group with very little to heal? Even more so if a Brawler is the Main Tank? I am sure you already know where this is heading. If you're doing easymode content, should the premium HPS healers be required?The answer is : No.There was some cause for concern about hardmode content healing, a few months ago. But then Drunder came out. The current content that matters, is just as Templar friendly, as any content was from previous expansions.</p></blockquote><p>What you are saying is that Templars should only be required in HM content, I'm sorry but that's just not right.  If my Templar never raids HM content and is unwanted for EM content where is the logic in that?  I pay my sub every month, I should at least have a chance at experiencing the content with my class of choice.  I'm trying to find value in what you are saying, but with all due respect you keep saying that only HM matters to anyone and if you are doing EM as a Templar who cares what your opinion and game experience is.  I'm just having a hard time understanding the rationale that I should only roll a Templar if I am going to do HM drunder zones, which an inquisitor can heal anyway.</p></blockquote><p>I am saying that no specific healer class should be -required- for EasyMode content. The whole point of EM content is to be more "casual friendly" and not require cherry picked min/max raid forces. And before people start jumping up and down, a few weeks ago I was speaking with a defiler in an EM guild (zero HM raid progression), and they were telling me how they often solo heal for their raid force, and have solo healed for all launch DoV EM content, Tormax included. So, no healer is -required- for EM content.No suprise at all.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Meatwaggon wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This is the most laughable comment from you yet.  What evidence pray tell?  You said that BOTH EM AND HM Drunder provide Templar friendly content, but now you are weaseling your words to claim that only HM Drunder is Templar-friendly.  Shall I quote you?  You have squat for evidence.  If you do, please go ahead and tell me which raids have started swapping templars back in for inquisitors in the MT group, or any group, because of Drunder.  What a joke.</p></blockquote><p>You're stomping the foot because EasyMode raids do not REQUIRE the almighty presence of a Templar? Talk about fail logic. Does someone need to spell out what easymode means, to you? And then explain why a defensive focused, heal focused class may not be an essential requirement on an easymode raid?</p><p>Regardless, Drunder content is Templar friendly. All the crying that some Templars made about group cures in launch DoV, is obsolete in Drunder. Mobs hit harder, AE less. Problem? That's right, you have nothing. Just because raids are not screaming out for the almighty Templar to save them from endlessly wiping, and benching other healers in bulk to bring in a team of Templars, does not mean Templars are not capable and viable. Templars are perfectly viable, especially in all of the new content.If you do not like having bigger reactives, repent, bigger heals, damage reductions, sanctuary, and a host of other defensive skills and abilities, you're not playing the correct class.Reality does not suit the agenda of Templars in this thread, who aspire to Templars being restored to the complete OP state the class enjoyed for several years. Welcome to the present.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">@Avirodar</span></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">"To the Templars who are toughed out DoV launch, I feel for you, but enjoy the spoils/functionality of the current release (Drunder) and beyond."</span></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">What a joke.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>In your twisting and turning to try and front that there is somehow alot of content relevant to templars, you spindoctor "Drunder".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>An "entire batch" even.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>" multiple heroics, 3*EM raids, 3*HM raids and more to come".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>LOL what a fail joke of a statement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Heroics?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Who cares?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Who has been talking about heroics in this thread?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>What a fail attempt at padding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>3 EM raids?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>LOL ooops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>I guess not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>From your own mouth it doesn't take a templar to heal those zones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>So why the hell did you even mention it???<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>3 HM raids?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>"Templars are great for Drunder content" even.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Really?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Okay, the question was then asked of you, which raid guild in all of eq2 has started replacing inquisitors with templars because of HM Drunder, in even just the MT group?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Your answer is, bla bla bla irrelevant bla bla bla..... nobody.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>NOBODY that you can point to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Nobody is replacing templars for inquisitors because of Drunder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>It's STILL easier to cure Drunder as an inquisitor, it's STILL better to have more DPS in the MT group than more survivability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Nothing has changed with Drunder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>In all your useless parsing you have admitted essentially as much.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Saying Drunder is "Templar friendly" is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>With all the nerfs in this game to the difficulty of mobs it has become even less needed for templars to be in the raid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Contrary to your fallacious claims, the devs have not made anything in terms of content changes that makes ANY raid say "hey let's get EVEN JUST A SINGLE TEMPLAR back in the raid force."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>And I like your usual hyperbole: " because raids are not screaming out for the almighty Templar to save them from endlessly wiping, and benching other healers in bulk to bring in a team of Templars, does not mean Templars are not capable and viable."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Not benching other healers "in bulk"???<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>How about benching a single other healer for a templar?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Just one?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>This is about as laughable as when you stated that templars were no longer "guaranteed" a raid spot in this expansion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Not guaranteed?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>How about kicked out en masse?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Or what was it that you said?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>"Benched in bulk"?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">   </span>Pfffffft</span></p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Meatwaggon wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This is the most laughable comment from you yet.  What evidence pray tell?  You said that BOTH EM AND HM Drunder provide Templar friendly content, but now you are weaseling your words to claim that only HM Drunder is Templar-friendly.  Shall I quote you?  You have squat for evidence.  If you do, please go ahead and tell me which raids have started swapping templars back in for inquisitors in the MT group, or any group, because of Drunder.  What a joke.</p></blockquote><p>You're stomping the foot because EasyMode raids do not REQUIRE the almighty presence of a Templar? Talk about fail logic. Does someone need to spell out what easymode means, to you? And then explain why a defensive focused, heal focused class may not be an essential requirement on an easymode raid?</p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">No class is necessarily required for EM, and no one is saying a single class should be required.  But EVERY class should have a place in EM content.  Raids are opting to go with 4 inquisitors for all the reasons we have stated MANY times, in EM and HM content.  The drunder content you keep talking about CAN BE HEALED BY AN INQUISITOR, maybe not your inquisitor, but a well geared well played inquisitor would have no issues.  </span></p><p>Regardless, Drunder content is Templar friendly. All the crying that some Templars made about group cures in launch DoV, is obsolete in Drunder. Mobs hit harder, AE less. Problem? That's right, you have nothing. Just because raids are not screaming out for the almighty Templar to save them from endlessly wiping, and benching other healers in bulk to bring in a team of Templars, does not mean Templars are not capable and viable. Templars are perfectly viable, especially in all of the new content.</p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">Once again you go on your tirade about Templars losing their god status, wait let me catch my breath as I laugh uncontrollably.  Are you really that scarred and envious from past xpacs?  It's you that have nothing, or at least what you have is an inquisitor that cannot heal the drunder zones.  Defense + Heals + trivialize cures + DPS = raid leader will pick me, simple.</span>If you do not like having bigger reactives, repent, bigger heals, damage reductions, sanctuary, and a host of other defensive skills and abilities, you're not playing the correct class.</p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">That's the entire point, these things are wasted as they have become less important in the game.  These are the exact reasons why I rolled and play a Templar, but the inquisitor can fill ALL of those slots adequately, at least a well played inquisitor can.</span></p><p>Reality does not suit the agenda of Templars in this thread, who aspire to Templars being restored to the complete OP state the class enjoyed for several years. Welcome to the present.</p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">Oohh guess what, another adolescent tirade against how the mighty Templar has fallen, WOW again?  Templars were not overpowered, no more than the shaman who dominates heals or the inquisitor that completely trivializes one of the largest game mechanics, curing.   What's even funnier is that NONE of the suggestions put forth would overpower a Templar in the least, name a single one that would overpower a Templar, go ahead I'm waiting, can't find one?</span></p></blockquote><p>In the end we have a fact currently in the game, a fact that you have NOT addressed and it's getting hilarious every time you get shot down, like fish in a barrel.</p><p>FACT: Inquisitors are being chosen for raids, to the point where you will have 4 inquisitors in a raid and NO templars, EM, HM, drunder because a) they bring sufficient defensive power and heals to the group to get the job done, b) they TRIVIALIZE curing (this is one you haven't addressed, how can a single class be allowed to completely bypass such an important mechanic?), and c) they bring a significant amount of DPS.  The templar a) has more defense and heals but they are not needed in any of these zones, EM, HM, drunder, etc., b) Templars don't trivialize curing, in fact they cannot even solo heal many group because they only have a single group cure, and c) they bring virtually no dps to themselves or the group.</p><p>Anything else you bring to the discussion is useless, Templars OP in the past?  Useless.  Inquisitors underpowered in the past?  Useless.  Drunder zones less AE?  Useless.  Templars much more defensive and healing oriented cleric?  Useless.  What's important is the main argument that Templars initially started with this post right after DOV launched and that remains the same today.  You keep coming back though and telling Templars they are "lazy and envious" and how happy you are that templars are not regaining their OP crown back because it's quite apparent that is your main goal and not balance.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Meatwaggon wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This is the most laughable comment from you yet.  What evidence pray tell?  You said that BOTH EM AND HM Drunder provide Templar friendly content, but now you are weaseling your words to claim that only HM Drunder is Templar-friendly.  Shall I quote you?  You have squat for evidence.  If you do, please go ahead and tell me which raids have started swapping templars back in for inquisitors in the MT group, or any group, because of Drunder.  What a joke.</p></blockquote><p>You're stomping the foot because EasyMode raids do not REQUIRE the almighty presence of a Templar? Talk about fail logic. Does someone need to spell out what easymode means, to you? And then explain why a defensive focused, heal focused class may not be an essential requirement on an easymode raid?</p><p>Regardless, Drunder content is Templar friendly. All the crying that some Templars made about group cures in launch DoV, is obsolete in Drunder. Mobs hit harder, AE less. Problem? That's right, you have nothing. Just because raids are not screaming out for the almighty Templar to save them from endlessly wiping, and benching other healers in bulk to bring in a team of Templars, does not mean Templars are not capable and viable. Templars are perfectly viable, especially in all of the new content.If you do not like having bigger reactives, repent, bigger heals, damage reductions, sanctuary, and a host of other defensive skills and abilities, you're not playing the correct class.Reality does not suit the agenda of Templars in this thread, who aspire to Templars being restored to the complete OP state the class enjoyed for several years. Welcome to the present.</p></blockquote><p>Even though Drunder content is Templar friendly, <strong>Avirodar is still absolutely correct</strong>. Raids are still not calling out for templars. In fact, they STILL use Inquisitors.</p><p>This shows that even if you try to change the content to help out Templars, that is not going to be sufficient. Raids are still going to choose the overpowered Inquisitor over a Templar or a Druid.</p><p>I am pretty impressed that you have the Inquisitor from one of the better raid guilds in the game admitting that Inquisitors are overpowered and need to be fixed.</p>

[Soul_Dreamer]

<p>The base recast of the group cure is 20 seconds. </p><p>Rather than giving all healers 2 cures, wouldn't it make more sense to just lower this base recast down to say 12 seconds. Most AOE's are 8-10 seconds apart, with recast taken into account this should be more than enough for any healer to solo cure a group. It also leaves the Inq myth alone so they have the advantage of cure on move and those other healers with 2 group cures can pick more effects off more often. Alot of mobs have 3 AOE's or other effects, it's only usually 2 of them that need the very fast cures.</p><p>Just my 2CP, I really think though that Templars will get their spot again, almost all fights we've done it's been about the cures, not many at all about keeping the tank alive. When this changes, Templars will shine again.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>EasyMode content is just that. The easy version. Is it actually a suprise that on EasyMode content, the shaman leaves the other healer in group with very little to heal? Even more so if a Brawler is the Main Tank? I am sure you already know where this is heading. If you're doing easymode content, should the premium HPS healers be required?The answer is : No.There was some cause for concern about hardmode content healing, a few months ago. But then Drunder came out. The current content that matters, is just as Templar friendly, as any content was from previous expansions.</p></blockquote><p>What you are saying is that Templars should only be required in HM content, I'm sorry but that's just not right.  If my Templar never raids HM content and is unwanted for EM content where is the logic in that?  I pay my sub every month, I should at least have a chance at experiencing the content with my class of choice.  I'm trying to find value in what you are saying, but with all due respect you keep saying that only HM matters to anyone and if you are doing EM as a Templar who cares what your opinion and game experience is.  I'm just having a hard time understanding the rationale that I should only roll a Templar if I am going to do HM drunder zones, which an inquisitor can heal anyway.</p></blockquote><p>I am saying that no specific healer class should be -required- for EasyMode content. The whole point of EM content is to be more "casual friendly" and not require cherry picked min/max raid forces. And before people start jumping up and down, a few weeks ago I was speaking with a defiler in an EM guild (zero HM raid progression), and they were telling me how they often solo heal for their raid force, and have solo healed for all launch DoV EM content, Tormax included. So, no healer is -required- for EM content.No suprise at all.</p></blockquote><p>No specific class should be -required- for ANY content.  But I think maybe you are a bit jaded since you are doing the HM stuff.  My guild, for example, wants to get through the encounters as quickly as they can since we are in the farming stage, this is the reason they don't want a Templar in the raid.  So the issue, for me, is that I have no reason to play my main character, if anything it's even more relevent to EM content.</p><p>As for solo healing, that is also a part of the problem.  I'd gladly play my Templar and solo heal a non tank group but I cannot on a ton of fights because I don't have enough group cures, this is truly a function where an inquisitor is indeed "-required-" in something you say shouldn't be required, especially for farming.  For main tank group I think you are a bit jaded, my guild is mostly in EM gear and some x2 gear, we are working our way up (we've killed all EM stuff but the last bosses are still semi difficult) but there is NO way any healer in our gear could solo heal the MT against some of the last fights in the x4 progression, I'm sure if we were geared in HM gear it's a possibility, but as we are there are too many times when something goes wrong and the 2 healers allow us to recover, it's also a ton easier having the inquisitor as the 2nd healer as they can handle every single cure and let the shaman do his job instead of having the stress of having to alternate group cures and never miss a single rotation or the raid wipes.  I know most of the points of views are from HM equipped people, but that doesn't mean people currently doing EM and working towards HM shouldn't have a say, I still pay my sub every month same as you do.</p><p>At least in EM content I can relay my experiences of my Templar being unwanted in the raid.  Sure they will bring me if I really made a point of it, but only because I'm a long time raid member.  I'd rather do what's best for the raid and I understand that sitting my Templar is best for the raid because he is truly unneeded and just dead weight.  That's the only point I'd like to make, raids have changed in that my main character has no place in them anymore.  I have considered betraying, but that's kind of a crappy solution as well, why shouldn't I be able to play the particular character I want to play?</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>SpineDoc, do what I did... Don't betray your templar, just power level an Inquisitor and bring him to raids. It is quite fun to play an overpowered class, and it will help your raid out quite a bit.</p><p>If you were the MT healer on your templar, you will probably remain the MT healer on your inquisitor. I found it easier to just go directly into the MT group, since solo healing a group with an inquisitor is a little tough when your gear is really really bad and you are still learning the class. The MT shaman loved that I did that, because now he doesn't have to worry about cures anymore.</p><p>Healing on an inquisitor is very similar in style to that of a templar. You will learn the class very quickly. The only difference is that when you are in a fight where your healing is not really being strained, you get to cast your damage spells and CAs instead.</p><p>The other advantage to doing this (rather than playing a nonhealer class in your raids instead) is that if templars are ever needed again, you still have all the experience as the MT healer and won't have to relearn all the fights.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>It is becoming more evident, odds are that any of the Templars still complaining in this thread, are not in a guild capable of killing the first mob in the first HardMode Drunder raid zone. The limited perspective is glaringly obvious. Also worth note, is how few of the Templars still complaining, have a character name + guild name associated with their posts.Having a Templar in the raid for some of our first kills in the HM Drunder zone, was very helpful. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a Templar doing what it is designed to do. I understand there is painful reality for those who are in sub-par guilds to accept, being that if they do easy raids, there are no set requirements to ensure all 6 healers must attend, or the raid will result in a bloody massacre and abyssmal failure.I understand some Templars try to downplay the changes in Drunder, because it did not instantly result in every guild world wide trying to recruit 3 templars. But guess what, it does not change the fact that the content is perfectly viable for content. The premise that Drunder is not relevant because an Inq can still heal it, even though the cure requirements have been significantly reduced and the damage increased, shows how petty and needy Templars have become.To Templars who think only Inqs trivialize cures.. You clearly have no idea what a druid can do. But it is no suprise the intelligence of the EasyMode Templars complaining about Inqs, is sorely lacking.I am confident the Devs are ignoring most of you, because you have no clue.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is becoming more evident, odds are that any of the Templars still complaining in this thread, are not in a guild capable of killing the first mob in the first HardMode Drunder raid zone. The limited perspective is glaringly obvious. Also worth note, is how few of the Templars still complaining, have a character name + guild name associated with their posts.Having a Templar in the raid for some of our first kills in the HM Drunder zone, was very helpful. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a Templar doing what it is designed to do. I understand there is painful reality for those who are in sub-par guilds to accept, being that if they do easy raids, there are no set requirements to ensure all 6 healers must attend, or the raid will result in a bloody massacre and abyssmal failure.I understand some Templars try to downplay the changes in Drunder, because it did not instantly result in every guild world wide trying to recruit 3 templars. But guess what, it does not change the fact that the content is perfectly viable for content. The premise that Drunder is not relevant because an Inq can still heal it, even though the cure requirements have been significantly reduced and the damage increased, shows how petty and needy Templars have become.To Templars who think only Inqs trivialize cures.. You clearly have no idea what a druid can do. But it is no suprise the intelligence of the EasyMode Templars complaining about Inqs, is sorely lacking.I am confident the Devs are ignoring most of you, because you have no clue.</p></blockquote><p>Stop tooting your own horn dude, your inquisitor can't even heal the drunder zones.  You keep ostracizing the other 99% of players who are doing raid zones other than HM drunder, you have already clearly stated your jealousy and hatred, quite literally, of Templars and their "god" mode and lets not forget you stated Templars are "lazy and envious".  No one cares that you had to recruit a Templar because your inquisitor couldn't handle HM drunder, seriously why keep bringing it up like its relevant at all?  The reason every guild did not instantly switch over for a couple of zones is because they don't need to, why lose trivialization of cures, dps and adequate defense/healing?  The premise that inquisitors can heal Drunder just fine is COMPLETELY relevant and is in fact the crux of the discussion, it still begs the same question of when this post was started months ago, specifically why bother having a Templar in the raid group when an inquisitor can do the same job AND add dps and trivialize cures.  My god, how many times do you have to get pwned?</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is becoming more evident, odds are that any of the Templars still complaining in this thread, are not in a guild capable of killing the first mob in the first HardMode Drunder raid zone. The limited perspective is glaringly obvious. Also worth note, is how few of the Templars still complaining, have a character name + guild name associated with their posts.Having a Templar in the raid for some of our first kills in the HM Drunder zone, was very helpful. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a Templar doing what it is designed to do. I understand there is painful reality for those who are in sub-par guilds to accept, being that if they do easy raids, there are no set requirements to ensure all 6 healers must attend, or the raid will result in a bloody massacre and abyssmal failure.I understand some Templars try to downplay the changes in Drunder, because it did not instantly result in every guild world wide trying to recruit 3 templars. But guess what, it does not change the fact that the content is perfectly viable for content. The premise that Drunder is not relevant because an Inq can still heal it, even though the cure requirements have been significantly reduced and the damage increased, shows how petty and needy Templars have become.To Templars who think only Inqs trivialize cures.. You clearly have no idea what a druid can do. But it is no suprise the intelligence of the EasyMode Templars complaining about Inqs, is sorely lacking.I am confident the Devs are ignoring most of you, because you have no clue.</p></blockquote><p>Thank you for pointing out that Inquisitors are overpowered not just because they trivialize cures. I agree that the reason they are overpowered goes way beyond that.</p><p>Raids using 4 Inquisitors to heal through even HM Drunder just shows this to be true, even though the cure requirements have been significantly reduced and the damage increased. Changing the content did not take away the Inquisitor's position of being overpowered and keeping other healer classes out of raids.</p><p>I think you have done a great job pointing out, yet again, that it is not the Templars that are broken.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>...shows how petty and needy Templars have become.</p></blockquote><p>Great, we can add this to your lexicon.  Here's some more goodies on how you feel towards Templars.</p><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Just because raids are not screaming out for the almighty Templar</p><p><span >If you're doing easymode content, should the premium HPS healers be required?</span></p><p><span >Yes, whine-fests from Templars have existed since not long after DoV launched.</span></p><p><span >Most Templars have no idea why their class "fell off the high horse", and they can no longer turn up to a raid, flash their Templar badge, and get an auto-invite.</span></p><p><span > This is clearly a case of class envy, and laziness</span></p><p><span >Templars were grossly overpowered from launch in 2004</span></p><p><span > the skillset of Templars was not a gods-end gift to raid forces</span></p><p>...shows how petty and needy Templars have become.</p></blockquote>

[PeterJohn]

<p>Be careful, Rick, you are making Avirodar look bad. You know he is just going to say his quotes were taken out of context and that he likes being pwned.</p><p>He is, after all, trying to help out the templars who clearly do not need any fixing. He is the only inquisitor that I know of who admits to inquisitors being overpowered and suggests that the Devs look into why this is the case.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is becoming more evident, odds are that any of the Templars still complaining in this thread, are not in a guild capable of killing the first mob in the first HardMode Drunder raid zone. The limited perspective is glaringly obvious. Also worth note, is how few of the Templars still complaining, have a character name + guild name associated with their posts.Having a Templar in the raid for some of our first kills in the HM Drunder zone, was very helpful. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a Templar doing what it is designed to do. I understand there is painful reality for those who are in sub-par guilds to accept, being that if they do easy raids, there are no set requirements to ensure all 6 healers must attend, or the raid will result in a bloody massacre and abyssmal failure.I understand some Templars try to downplay the changes in Drunder, because it did not instantly result in every guild world wide trying to recruit 3 templars. But guess what, it does not change the fact that the content is perfectly viable for content. The premise that Drunder is not relevant because an Inq can still heal it, even though the cure requirements have been significantly reduced and the damage increased, shows how petty and needy Templars have become.</p></blockquote><p>I just love how Avirodurp is getting pwned by multiple people and he still has the gall to come post the same defeated drivel here again and again.  And again.  Listen, sport.  According to what I can see from Guildprogress, there are a total of TWELVE guilds out of 200+ raiding guilds that have even stepped foot in HM Drunder.  You want to legitimize an entire expansion's worth of content that is shut out to templars because, and this is according to you only, HM Drunder, the 3 hardest raid zones in the game that most raiders will NEVER see, is somehow templar friendly, and that therefore everything is all right and good with the world.  And your pathetically fail defense tactic in response to that is, well the rest of you guys are scrub so it's your fault you're not in those zones.  And I like how you dishonestly hyperbolize your fail statements yet again like "I understand some Templars try to downplay the changes in Drunder, because it did not instantly result in every guild world wide trying to recruit 3 templars."  How many guilds have recruited even one?  Oh yours has?  So he gets to sub in for a few fights and then gets benched for everything else.  How nice.  All templars worldwide should now feel a sigh of relief.  How utterly ludicrous.  And maybe you have been spacing out the last few months, but the devs have been progressively nerfing these zones ever since the expansion came out and I have no doubt this trend will continue.  Anything that makes content easier is yet another reason templars will be less desirable.  Just because your raid's MT inquisitor (you?) is unable to heal HM Drunder doesn't mean the MT inquisitors of the other guilds in there can't either.  Looks to me like they're doing just fine.  Like I said, Drunder hasn't changed a single thing for templars, no matter how much spindoctoring you do.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>As time goes on, it makes more and more sense. EasyMode Templars are claiming Templars have no use and viability, but by their own admission, the lie is revealed.The Templars still complaining, come from guilds that have made no progress in HM Drunder. If they even zoned into HM Sullons, and if they even manage to make it to the first named in the zone, the mobs beat their tanks face in, despite the absence of AE detriment spam. But these same Templars turn around and QQ that healing capacity is not needed.... How amusing. I hope the Devs see how foolish you Templars are.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As time goes on, it makes more and more sense. EasyMode Templars are claiming Templars have no use and viability, but by their own admission, the lie is revealed.The Templars still complaining, come from guilds that have made no progress in HM Drunder. If they even zoned into HM Sullons, and if they even manage to make it to the first named in the zone, the mobs beat their tanks face in, despite the absence of AE detriment spam. But these same Templars turn around and QQ that healing capacity is not needed.... How amusing. I hope the Devs see how foolish you Templars are.</p></blockquote><p>Meh not worth it to pwn you again, I edited my nasty post.  You've refuted nothing, proven nothing, but it's still not worth my continued effort.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Meh not worth it to pwn you again, I edited my nasty post.  You've refuted nothing, proven nothing, but it's still not worth my continued effort.</p></blockquote><p>You continue believe you are "winning" when the reality is far from it. The absence of a red name speaks volumes.I love it how the Drunder zones take the wind out of the sails of those who claim healing prowess is not desirable.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Meh not worth it to pwn you again, I edited my nasty post.  You've refuted nothing, proven nothing, but it's still not worth my continued effort.</p></blockquote><p>You continue believe you are "winning" when the reality is far from it. The absence of a red name speaks volumes.I love it how the Drunder zones take the wind out of the sails of those who claim healing prowess is not desirable.</p></blockquote><p>I love it how deluded people can still be.  I'm still wondering why I haven't heard of any other raids that have subbed in a templar because of HM Drunder.  I'm still wondering how someone can be deluded enough to think that a set of zones that only a few guilds can raid is somehow enough to make up for an entire expansion that templars aren't wanted for.  And I'm still wondering how deluded people can be to think that the successful killing of a mob by a raid depends only on the healers in the MT group.  What a ludicrous joke.  So you think that if a raid gets r*ped going into a new tough zone it's because there isn't a templar in the group?  LOL how many more ways can you get pwned?  Seriously?</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rick777 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Meh not worth it to pwn you again, I edited my nasty post.  You've refuted nothing, proven nothing, but it's still not worth my continued effort.</p></blockquote><p>You continue believe you are "winning" when the reality is far from it. The absence of a red name speaks volumes.I love it how the Drunder zones take the wind out of the sails of those who claim healing prowess is not desirable.</p></blockquote><p>Lol, you see the difference is that I am not trying to "win" or "lose", I'm just relaying my experiences and feedback for the devs to consider.  The devs are the ones who will put together your and my experiences and feedback and make a decision.  The devs are the ones who decided that all raid content including drunder HM is healable by an inquisitor (I'm assuming not yours though), so in that sense yes they've spoken loud and clear for today.</p><p>Tommorrow is a different day and they may decide to change things, but so far it's still the same.  I've never said that some issues couldn't be solved through content, I was merely offering my own suggestions for the devs to decide if they are right or wrong.  Seriously dude, it's a video game.</p>

[Daalilama]

<p>Is Avir still trying to derail the thread with nonsense? I mean geez he must be really concerned that if any of these underpowered suggestions come to fruition he will be requested to /reroll or betray ohh the lulz.</p>

[Laenai]

<p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And before people start jumping up and down, a few weeks ago I was speaking with a defiler in an EM guild (zero HM raid progression), and they were telling me how they often solo heal for their raid force, and have solo healed for all launch DoV EM content, Tormax included. So, no healer is -required- for EM content.</p></blockquote><p>As for solo healing, that is also a part of the problem.  I'd gladly play my Templar and solo heal a non tank group but I cannot on a ton of fights because I don't have enough group cures, this is truly a function where an inquisitor is indeed "-required-" in something you say shouldn't be required, especially for farming. </p></blockquote><p>Hi <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I am that defiler. And I only have one group cure. Not only can I solo heal a scout group, but I can solo heal an OT group. I probably could solo heal an MT group through just about all original EM content with the exception of statue. And I still only have one group cure. And I'm still wearing plenty of PQ and T2 SF pieces.</p><p>What I believe a lot of folks, and templars included, are fussing about a second group cure is....its easier. Yup. Its easy sauce with 2 group cures. Solo healing a group with these kinds of AEs and only one group cure? You have to be smarter. You have to have some skill with your class. You have to learn your mobs. You have to know what you can heal through and what absolutely without question needs to be cured. That's how I do it on statue, honestly. Trauma can be healed through on the statue- albeit I really have to put my big girl panties on and be smart about how I do it- and when the nox hits and both trauma and nox are active, I cure it all with my one group cure. /shrug Easy sauce. I'm not even specced for fast ST cures on the WIS line for shamans because its crap. However, I've taken the time to learn the mobs and to figure out the best way to work my one cure around them.</p><p>So, in my opinion, you can show how easy it is or you can show how skilled you are. I prefer the latter, to be honest.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Karimonster wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And before people start jumping up and down, a few weeks ago I was speaking with a defiler in an EM guild (zero HM raid progression), and they were telling me how they often solo heal for their raid force, and have solo healed for all launch DoV EM content, Tormax included. So, no healer is -required- for EM content.</p></blockquote><p>As for solo healing, that is also a part of the problem.  I'd gladly play my Templar and solo heal a non tank group but I cannot on a ton of fights because I don't have enough group cures, this is truly a function where an inquisitor is indeed "-required-" in something you say shouldn't be required, especially for farming. </p></blockquote><p>Hi <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> I am that defiler. And I only have one group cure. Not only can I solo heal a scout group, but I can solo heal an OT group. I probably could solo heal an MT group through just about all original EM content with the exception of statue. And I still only have one group cure. And I'm still wearing plenty of PQ and T2 SF pieces.</p><p>What I believe a lot of folks, and templars included, are fussing about a second group cure is....its easier. Yup. Its easy sauce with 2 group cures. Solo healing a group with these kinds of AEs and only one group cure? You have to be smarter. You have to have some skill with your class. You have to learn your mobs. You have to know what you can heal through and what absolutely without question needs to be cured. That's how I do it on statue, honestly. Trauma can be healed through on the statue- albeit I really have to put my big girl panties on and be smart about how I do it- and when the nox hits and both trauma and nox are active, I cure it all with my one group cure. /shrug Easy sauce. I'm not even specced for fast ST cures on the WIS line for shamans because its crap. However, I've taken the time to learn the mobs and to figure out the best way to work my one cure around them.</p><p>So, in my opinion, you can show how easy it is or you can show how skilled you are. I prefer the latter, to be honest.</p></blockquote><p>Thanks for coming here and displaying your plummage for us to admire how skilled you are.  Unfortunately for you, you have missed the point entirely.  It's not just that it's "easier".  For sure it is easier for the templar.  The problem is that <strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">RL's</span></em></strong> prefer it for being easier, and for giving the MT group the extra cushion of a third cure if needed, and for the inquisitor's mythical long range casting-on-the-move cure, and for freeing the shaman up to concentrate more on healing.  And that's only half the problem.  Let's not forget the DPS and DPS buffs.  If one of these two obstacles were removed, there would be more reason to have a templar in the raid, or rather less reason to not have a templar in the raid.  And it would only be in the MT group, so the other THREE inquisitor spots in the raid are safe (and have always been).  This is what the inquisitors are so afraid of.  It was unknown to me before now, but many of them apparently have had such large complexes over the years for not being MT healer that they are now insanely and desperately trying to protect all 4 of their raid spots for fear of being 'relegated' to being non-MT group healers again, a spot (or 3) which they have actually monopolized over templars essentially since launch.</p>

[Hennyo]

<p><cite>Karimonster wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And before people start jumping up and down, a few weeks ago I was speaking with a defiler in an EM guild (zero HM raid progression), and they were telling me how they often solo heal for their raid force, and have solo healed for all launch DoV EM content, Tormax included. So, no healer is -required- for EM content.</p></blockquote><p>As for solo healing, that is also a part of the problem.  I'd gladly play my Templar and solo heal a non tank group but I cannot on a ton of fights because I don't have enough group cures, this is truly a function where an inquisitor is indeed "-required-" in something you say shouldn't be required, especially for farming. </p></blockquote><p>Hi <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> I am that defiler. And I only have one group cure. Not only can I solo heal a scout group, but I can solo heal an OT group. I probably could solo heal an MT group through just about all original EM content with the exception of statue. And I still only have one group cure. And I'm still wearing plenty of PQ and T2 SF pieces.</p><p>What I believe a lot of folks, and templars included, are fussing about a second group cure is....its easier. Yup. Its easy sauce with 2 group cures. Solo healing a group with these kinds of AEs and only one group cure? You have to be smarter. You have to have some skill with your class. You have to learn your mobs. You have to know what you can heal through and what absolutely without question needs to be cured. That's how I do it on statue, honestly. Trauma can be healed through on the statue- albeit I really have to put my big girl panties on and be smart about how I do it- and when the nox hits and both trauma and nox are active, I cure it all with my one group cure. /shrug Easy sauce. I'm not even specced for fast ST cures on the WIS line for shamans because its crap. However, I've taken the time to learn the mobs and to figure out the best way to work my one cure around them.</p><p>So, in my opinion, you can show how easy it is or you can show how skilled you are. I prefer the latter, to be honest.</p></blockquote><p>Ok, I wasn't planing on replying to this thread anymore, but this post is something I feel I am going to have to put in proper perspective. To start off with, I myself currently also play a defiler, and have played a templar in the past in raids. In DoV I have solo healed every original EM raid except statue on my defiler as well in the MT group. To compare templar curing ability to defiler curing ability is a bit of a slap in the face to templars. First off, defilers get two additional tools to help with cures that templars don't. Defilers gets voice of the ancestors, and shaman dog aoe avoid. Voice of the ancestors, is a limited second group cure on a longer than normal cool down, but it can be cast under control effects, and also in the air. The shaman dog aoe avoid can be used to avoid about 1 out of 3 aoes or even more if your lucky, if you are skilled at controlling it. Shaman's also get the dog cure AA, which is about as useful as manacure that templars get, which basically isn't at all useful.</p><p>While I will say it is possible to get stuff done with a limited number of cures, it makes just about everything significantly, and I do mean significantly harder than it is when you have plenty to go around. Now while many templars think the only solution to the situation is to just straight up give them a second cure, or cut their main cure timer in half or something, I think simply giving templars a useable limited second group cure, like voice of the ancestors is for defilers, would go a very long way on helping the class be more reasonable to play.</p>

[Laenai]

<p><cite></cite></p><p>The point is: Every healer class has tools to deal with whatever situation. If you can't figure out the ones on your class, maybe you should consider playing something else instead of coveting what another class does or calling for them to be nerfed.</p><p>People only want to take one templar? Hello! I play a defiler! How many guilds are running around with 2-3 of those instead of 1 defiler and 2-3 mystics? I keep my spot as a second defiler in the raid because I'm good at what I do. When has a raid EVER made running around with more than one defiler important? Never!</p>

[Daalilama]

<p><cite>Karimonster wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite></cite></p><p>The point is: Every healer class has tools to deal with whatever situation. If you can't figure out the ones on your class, maybe you should consider playing something else instead of coveting what another class does or calling for them to be nerfed.</p><p>People only want to take one templar? Hello! I play a defiler! How many guilds are running around with 2-3 of those instead of 1 defiler and 2-3 mystics? I keep my spot as a second defiler in the raid because I'm good at what I do. When has a raid EVER made running around with more than one defiler important? Never!</p></blockquote><p>I believe the point in question is the fact that overall gamewide since release RL's have (with some rare exceptions) Templars were benched or forced to reroll or betray so that their raid force can consist of Inquisitors (which bring dps and clicky cure).  As to shamans some guilds will only bring one defiler and 2-3 mystics others will bring 2 defilers and maybe 2 mystics which means your class is not gamewide being force to sit on the bench or told to reroll or betray to have a raid slot not sure how much clearer you need it laid out.</p>

[Arabani]

<p>You can arguing and becoming angry as much as you can, but inq can't keep MT alive on hard mobs or it's very hard for him. Templar is extremly powerfull when learning content. It always making me smile, when ppl trying to copy top guilds. You don't have their dps,skills,gear, teamwork. And even they starting to use templars in drunder. You making you decission on tier one raids, easiest raids in curent content. Most of you never pulled hm drunder mobs. Templars as class are fine(but i would like to see more defensive stuff ofc<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />), and i don't see a problem if you need only one templar in raid, you also don't need more then one fury or defiler.  Just play toon you like and be happy. Skilled templar is always needed.  Actualy i like that templar becoming a rare class-less noobs, more general good impression about us<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Karimonster wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite></cite></p><p>The point is: Every healer class has tools to deal with whatever situation. If you can't figure out the ones on your class, maybe you should consider playing something else instead of coveting what another class does or calling for them to be nerfed.</p><p>People only want to take one templar? Hello! I play a defiler! How many guilds are running around with 2-3 of those instead of 1 defiler and 2-3 mystics? I keep my spot as a second defiler in the raid because I'm good at what I do. When has a raid EVER made running around with more than one defiler important? Never!</p></blockquote><p>No Kari, you AGAIN miss the point.</p><p>It is not that people only want to take one templar. It is that they want to take ZERO templars.</p><p>Welcome to the thread. Feel free to read the first 15 pages of replies.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Arabani wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You can arguing and becoming angry as much as you can, but inq can't keep MT alive on hard mobs or it's very hard for him. Templar is extremly powerfull when learning content. It always making me smile, when ppl trying to copy top guilds. You don't have their dps,skills,gear, teamwork. And even they starting to use templars in drunder. You making you decission on tier one raids, easiest raids in curent content. Most of you never pulled hm drunder mobs. Templars as class are fine(but i would like to see more defensive stuff ofc<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />), and i don't see a problem if you need only one templar in raid, you also don't need more then one fury or defiler.  Just play toon you like and be happy. Skilled templar is always needed.  Actualy i like that templar becoming a rare class-less noobs, more general good impression about us<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Q.F.E.A lot of very valid points in a compact post.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I believe the point in question is the fact that overall gamewide since release RL's have (with some rare exceptions) Templars were benched or forced to reroll or betray so that their raid force can consist of Inquisitors (which bring dps and clicky cure).  As to shamans some guilds will only bring one defiler and 2-3 mystics others will bring 2 defilers and maybe 2 mystics which means your class is not gamewide being force to sit on the bench or told to reroll or betray to have a raid slot not sure how much clearer you need it laid out.</p></blockquote><p><span >Q.F.E.A lot of very valid points in a compact post.</span></p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I believe the point in question is the fact that overall gamewide since release RL's have (with some rare exceptions) Templars were benched or forced to reroll or betray so that their raid force can consist of Inquisitors (which bring dps and clicky cure).  As to shamans some guilds will only bring one defiler and 2-3 mystics others will bring 2 defilers and maybe 2 mystics which means your class is not gamewide being force to sit on the bench or told to reroll or betray to have a raid slot not sure how much clearer you need it laid out.</p></blockquote><p><span>Q.F.E.A lot of very valid points in a compact post.</span></p></blockquote><p>Great points indeed. It is true that Templars experienced a wane in desirability, in what is now old content. It is true that a significant factor of the desirability drop related to encounter design being very cure intensive. We are so fortunate that SOE has since released new content, Drunder. In these zones, there has been encounter design changes, which have resolved Templar concerns.Templars are great for Drunder zones, because AE's hit less often, mobs hit harder, and the healing/defensive capacity of a Templar has experienced a boost in desirability. SOE has answered the concerns of Templars. Kudos to SOE! I am pleased to see Templars are thanking SOE, for steering away from AE detrimental intensive encounter designs in Drunder. Who would have EVER imagined that SOE would do such?!?!While it seems that 'some' Templars will keep complaining, unless Templars are made so powerful that no guild in the world would DARE attempt the almighty (old) Kraytoc's EasyMode without a Templar to save the day (lol...), the points made that SOE has resolved Templar concerns, is touching.But, if talking about what happened in old content is relevant, I could talk about what SOE done to Inqs back in RoK!</p>

[Dahmer]

<p>In terms of a shammy solo healing VS. a Templar~ It really is apple to oranges, and i say this mostly because:</p><p>Reactives don't trigger on DOT ticks.</p><p>That  being the case~ If your a templar solo healing a grp~ Doing ez mod, with people in Rygor armor, you *might* be able to get 3 or 4 cures of before the rest of the grp dies. It's just the mechanics of our class.</p><p>So you really, really can't compare the two.</p><p>Edit~</p><p>To say that each class has abilities to compensate for that lack of cures is off~ now again i'm not saying giving us an additional grp cure would bring templars their desirablity back on on raids, but what i am saying is that our class really does need to be updated and fixed..ie Manacure.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I believe the point in question is the fact that overall gamewide since release RL's have (with some rare exceptions) Templars were benched or forced to reroll or betray so that their raid force can consist of Inquisitors (which bring dps and clicky cure).  As to shamans some guilds will only bring one defiler and 2-3 mystics others will bring 2 defilers and maybe 2 mystics which means your class is not gamewide being force to sit on the bench or told to reroll or betray to have a raid slot not sure how much clearer you need it laid out.</p></blockquote><p><span>Q.F.E.A lot of very valid points in a compact post.</span></p></blockquote><p>Great points indeed. It is true that Templars experienced a wane in desirability, in what is now old content. It is true that a significant factor of the desirability drop related to encounter design being very cure intensive. We are so fortunate that SOE has since released new content, Drunder. In these zones, there has been encounter design changes, which have resolved Templar concerns.Templars are great for Drunder zones, because AE's hit less often, mobs hit harder, and the healing/defensive capacity of a Templar has experienced a boost in desirability. SOE has answered the concerns of Templars. Kudos to SOE! I am pleased to see Templars are thanking SOE, for steering away from AE detrimental intensive encounter designs in Drunder. Who would have EVER imagined that SOE would do such?!?!While it seems that 'some' Templars will keep complaining, unless Templars are made so powerful that no guild in the world would DARE attempt the almighty (old) Kraytoc's EasyMode without a Templar to save the day (lol...), the points made that SOE has resolved Templar concerns, is touching.But, if talking about what happened in old content is relevant, I could talk about what SOE done to Inqs back in RoK!</p></blockquote><p>That's not what I'm hearing from Templars.  Inquisitors can heal Drunder, so there goes that argument.  Plus you are forgetting the rest of the game besides those few zones which most of us will probably never get there.  I don't think any of the suggestions would even come close to making a templar overpowered. It sure isn't helping any zones I'm doing, specifically in terms that no one wants my Templar for any raids, I just slow the raid down.  If anything the issue that's starting to emerge from these debates are that the offensive versus defensive natures is what's causing some of the issues, possibly add this to the defensive and the cure debates.  I'm overqualified to heal the zones my guild is doing, and I don't bring anything to the group.  I'm just relaying my experiences, not everyones, but I'd love to have a purpose when we raid without feeling like a leech, or worse getting sat out the entire xpac which is what happened to me.  I hear what you are saying, but if they take defensive healing to the point where only a templar can do it then won't that mean inquisitors won't be wanted anymore?  And if they don't take it to that level and inquisitors can heal those zones just fine then won't what's currently happening continue with raids choosing to add dps and cures to their group instead of dead weight.  Once again I'm just relaying my experiences, I'm interested in your point of view and would like to see content fix the issues, but from a personal point of view, regardless of what was done, it hasn't helped me so far.</p><p>As for inquisitors in ROK shouldn't they have just followed this advice?  Thankfully not a single inquisitor ever complained or suggested fixes in those times.</p><p><cite>Karimonster wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite></cite></p><p>The point is: Every healer class has tools to deal with whatever situation. If you can't figure out the ones on your class, maybe you should consider playing something else instead of coveting what another class does or calling for them to be nerfed.</p></blockquote>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>That's not what I'm hearing from Templars.  Inquisitors can heal Drunder, so there goes that argument.  Plus you are forgetting the rest of the game besides those few zones which most of us will probably never get there.  I don't think any of the suggestions would even come close to making a templar overpowered. It sure isn't helping any zones I'm doing, specifically in terms that no one wants my Templar for any raids, I just slow the raid down.  If anything the issue that's starting to emerge from these debates are that the offensive versus defensive natures is what's causing some of the issues, possibly add this to the defensive and the cure debates.  I'm overqualified to heal the zones my guild is doing, and I don't bring anything to the group.  I'm just relaying my experiences, not everyones, but I'd love to have a purpose when we raid without feeling like a leech, or worse getting sat out the entire xpac which is what happened to me.  I hear what you are saying, but if they take defensive healing to the point where only a templar can do it then won't that mean inquisitors won't be wanted anymore?  And if they don't take it to that level and inquisitors can heal those zones just fine then won't what's currently happening continue with raids choosing to add dps and cures to their group instead of dead weight.  Once again I'm just relaying my experiences, I'm interested in your point of view and would like to see content fix the issues, but from a personal point of view, regardless of what was done, it hasn't helped me so far.<p>As for inquisitors in ROK shouldn't they have just followed this advice?  Thankfully not a single inquisitor ever complained or suggested fixes in those times.</p></blockquote><p>There goes that argument? Your post displays the flawed logic in how some think that EQ2 should revolve around easymode raiding Templars, who only want to do old content. And because you are "hearing" about Inqs being able to heal in Drunder, you think Templars are in dire need of buffing? Wrong. Templar is a choice. You all made it, knowing the pro's and con's. If you choose to play a healing class (Templar) that specialises in HPS, when you also choose to play in a guild that only goes after EasyMode content, guess what... You're going to be as useful as a guardian that goes full-defensive (gear+adorns+AA_spec), and zones into Kraytoc's EasyMode with a skilled and well geared Defiler+Warden+Templar combo to "keep them alive".If you want to talk about "the rest of the game", include SF. It is a current level expansion in which Templars are fantastic. Also include all the prior expansions, as it is a part of the game.Challenge yourself. Challenge your guild. Go after some content that actually poses a threat, then come back here and try to tell me how undesirable the healing of a Templar is.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>That's not what I'm hearing from Templars.  Inquisitors can heal Drunder, so there goes that argument.  Plus you are forgetting the rest of the game besides those few zones which most of us will probably never get there.  I don't think any of the suggestions would even come close to making a templar overpowered. It sure isn't helping any zones I'm doing, specifically in terms that no one wants my Templar for any raids, I just slow the raid down.  If anything the issue that's starting to emerge from these debates are that the offensive versus defensive natures is what's causing some of the issues, possibly add this to the defensive and the cure debates.  I'm overqualified to heal the zones my guild is doing, and I don't bring anything to the group.  I'm just relaying my experiences, not everyones, but I'd love to have a purpose when we raid without feeling like a leech, or worse getting sat out the entire xpac which is what happened to me.  I hear what you are saying, but if they take defensive healing to the point where only a templar can do it then won't that mean inquisitors won't be wanted anymore?  And if they don't take it to that level and inquisitors can heal those zones just fine then won't what's currently happening continue with raids choosing to add dps and cures to their group instead of dead weight.  Once again I'm just relaying my experiences, I'm interested in your point of view and would like to see content fix the issues, but from a personal point of view, regardless of what was done, it hasn't helped me so far.<p>As for inquisitors in ROK shouldn't they have just followed this advice?  Thankfully not a single inquisitor ever complained or suggested fixes in those times.</p></blockquote><p>There goes that argument? Your post displays the flawed logic in how some think that EQ2 should revolve around easymode raiding Templars, who only want to do old content. And because you are "hearing" about Inqs being able to heal in Drunder, you think Templars are in dire need of buffing? Wrong. Templar is a choice. You all made it, knowing the pro's and con's. If you choose to play a healing class (Templar) that specialises in HPS, when you also choose to play in a guild that only goes after EasyMode content, guess what... You're going to be as useful as a guardian that goes full-defensive (gear+adorns+AA_spec), and zones into Kraytoc's EasyMode with a skilled and well geared Defiler+Warden+Templar combo to "keep them alive".If you want to talk about "the rest of the game", include SF. It is a current level expansion in which Templars are fantastic. Also include all the prior expansions, as it is a part of the game.Challenge yourself. Challenge your guild. Go after some content that actually poses a threat, then come back here and try to tell me how undesirable the healing of a Templar is.</p></blockquote><p>I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so sensitive.  My guild is getting ready to do HM, we've already the first 2 or 3 names in all the HM zones but haven't progressed past this.   Please don't let this discussion degrade into you insulting me or my guild, I'd appreciate a healthy adult discussion.  Yes I chose my Templar a very long time ago, the game has changed a ton since then, we've gone through several xpacs, I'd ask if your inquisitor was so bad in ROK and before why didn't you follow your own advice and just play the inquisitor without complaining? </p><p>I am challenging myself, although it's pretty hard to do when I cannot play my Templar.  My guild is challenging itself, we are slowly continuing to farm EM and slowly breaking into HM.  Guess what, the same argument still stands, my Templar is a dead weight and serves no use at all in the EM and beginning HM stuff we are doing.  Look I understand your argument, and since I haven't done the 3 drunder zones I will have to accept what you are saying as the truth (although if inquisitors can heal Drunder zones just fine then it goes full circle as to why would a raid want a Templar), but the fact is that Templars are not needed for the majority of the raid content and that's what I would like to see adjusted. </p><p>If I did think that the game should revolve around EM raids (which I clearly don't and have stated why) then by the same token you thinking the game should revolve around 3 raid zones is also clearly flawed by the same exact argument.  I just want to play my Templar, nothing else, same as inquisitors wanted to do when they had issues.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If I did think that the game should revolve around EM raids (which I clearly don't and have stated why) then by the same token <span style="color: #ff6600;">you thinking the game should revolve around 3 raid zones is also clearly flawed by the same exact argument</span>.  I just want to play my Templar, nothing else, same as inquisitors wanted to do when they had issues.</p></blockquote><p>We are presently in the level 90 tier. X4 Raid zones designed for level 90's include...Perah'Celsis' Abominable LaboratoryPalace of Roehn TheerUnderfoot DepthsKraytoc's EM + HMToS-HoL EM + HMToRZ-FoS EM + HMSullon's EM + HMTallon's EM + HMVallon's EM + HMIf you want to discuss numbers, Templars are a great class for 6 of the 9 zones.Complaints that Templars are "dead weight" in 3 of the 9 zones listed (launch DoV), is ambiguous at best, and the only real information that has come of such complaints, is the detailing of a problem which has absolutely nothing to do with clerics. The way shaman wards and tank avoidance can leave little need for other healers to heal (druids included), especially on easier content, can make life difficult for a Templar wanting to feel needed. Giving Templars a second group cure will not solve it. It is like putting a dirty band-aid on your arm because you grazed your leg.Fortunately for Templars, the way SOE has designed the Drunder raid content, goes a long way to resolving the Templar concerns.To support my stance on this matter : Templars were fine on encounters like Arkatanthis, Waansu, 3 sages, Vaaclaz, Construct, XYZ, Mosaasus, Saalax, Theerax, Yael, and many more, where detrimental AEs would fire off just as much as what we see in launch DoV encounters. Launch DoV proven to be more of the same, when it comes to the group curing department, so what changed? We know what changed, and it's not clerics. So what needs to be "fixed"? Not clerics.Templars are a very powerful class, they always have been, and still are.</p>

[SpineDoc]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If I did think that the game should revolve around EM raids (which I clearly don't and have stated why) then by the same token <span style="color: #ff6600;">you thinking the game should revolve around 3 raid zones is also clearly flawed by the same exact argument</span>.  I just want to play my Templar, nothing else, same as inquisitors wanted to do when they had issues.</p></blockquote><p>We are presently in the level 90 tier. X4 Raid zones designed for level 90's include...Perah'Celsis' Abominable LaboratoryPalace of Roehn TheerUnderfoot DepthsKraytoc's EM + HMToS-HoL EM + HMToRZ-FoS EM + HMSullon's EM + HMTallon's EM + HMVallon's EM + HMIf you want to discuss numbers, Templars are a great class for 6 of the 9 zones.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">They are dead weight, based on my personal experience this xpac, in 9 of the zones you mention there, I've also seen no need whatsoever for a Templar for the first 2 or 3 bosses in 3 HM zones that you mention and from all indications I've had there will not be a need for one for those zones, so that's a total of 12 zones where a raid leader would be crazy to choose a Templar over an Inquisitor.</span></p><p>Complaints that Templars are "dead weight" in 3 of the 9 zones listed (launch DoV), is ambiguous at best, and the only real information that has come of such complaints, is the detailing of a problem which has absolutely nothing to do with clerics. The way shaman wards and tank avoidance can leave little need for other healers to heal (druids included), especially on easier content, can make life difficult for a Templar wanting to feel needed. Giving Templars a second group cure will not solve it. It is like putting a dirty band-aid on your arm because you grazed your leg.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">It's not ambiguous to state a Templar is dead weight in 12 of the 15 zones you mention, with the last 3 zones being in question, what's ambiguous are those last 3 zones which can be healed by inquisitors.  I'm also not arguing with what you think is the cause of the issue, SOE can weaken shaman wards and take away strikethrough immunity for all I care, I just personally don't like to call for nerfs for other classes.</span></p><p>Fortunately for Templars, the way SOE has designed the Drunder raid content, goes a long way to resolving the Templar concerns.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Maybe, maybe not for the reasons stated above.  I'll withhold judgement for the zones until I heal them myself, but you are still basing your argument on 3 of 15 raid zones. </span></p><p>To support my stance on this matter : Templars were fine on encounters like Arkatanthis, Waansu, 3 sages, Vaaclaz, Construct, XYZ, Mosaasus, Saalax, Theerax, Yael, and many more, where detrimental AEs would fire off just as much as what we see in launch DoV encounters. Launch DoV proven to be more of the same, when it comes to the group curing department, so what changed? We know what changed, and it's not clerics. So what needs to be "fixed"? Not clerics.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Maybe, but I'm not arguing for a 2nd group cure, I don't care how SOE fixes it I'd just like to be needed in some capacity on raids and currently I'm not.  Changing content is quite fine with me, I just haven't seen it yet in the 12 or 15 raid zones that I frequent.</span></p><p>Templars are a very powerful class, they always have been, and still are.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Absolutely, but as you've stated the content doesn't match that.</span></p></blockquote>

[Rick777]

<p>To answer your question there are no HM encounters which require a Templar, including Drunder.  The solution is complicated because if you make healing too defensive oriented you may make inquisitors weak again.  Nerfing shamans and brawlers is interesting.  If there was more spillover damage with weaker shaman wards this might jeopardize a druids raid spot as they don't have any ability to soak up damage, only heal it after it's gone, if the damage required the templars tools then I'd bet the damage would be enough where druids wouldn't be able to keep a group from being 2 shotted, I'm only speculating though.  The strike through immunity is interesting as well, stoneskins and Repent would be great for strike throughs.  I'd be afraid if they took away strike through immunity they would turn their eye towards Guardians stoneskins.  This is the problem with addressing it through content, there are so many ways SOE can screw it up and with their recent track record I'd assume for the worst.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>I find the previous two responses (and many prior to it) in this thread to be very interesting.<strong><span style="font-size: medium; color: #ff6600;">Need / Required</span></strong> "Need" is a word Templars have been bringing up a lot in this entire thread. Templars want to be "needed" or "required". This mentality has a significant flaw. For a class to be needed, it means they are neccessary, it means that an encounter/zone would impossible without the said class.   -- Otherwise, the class is not actually needed.The closest SOE has ever come to making any class in EQ2 "needed", is the select few encounters where multiple <strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #ff0000;">Tank</span></strong> types are required, not just numbers, but a mixture of classes, to follow the encounter as designed/scripted. Unlike the very few examples where a class is needed, no healer is <strong><span style="color: #ff6600;">needed</span></strong> in EQ2.Inquisitors are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Inquisitors.Wardens are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Wardens.Furies are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Furies.Templars are not needed. Raids csn still succeed with no Templars.Mystics are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Mystics.Defilers are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Defilers.As already stated <em>(and agreed upon by Templars)</em>, Templars are a powerful healing class, that is very effective at doing what they are made to do. I know some Templars will struggle to accept these facts, or completely ignore them, but the reality is : Templars are fine as they are. It is already proven that Templars are great for SF raid zones. Templars are great in all modes of drunder raid zones. Templars can pair-heal a tank group on all launch DoV raid instances, including hard modes.The truth will set you free.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I find the previous two responses (and many prior to it) in this thread to be very interesting.<strong><span style="color: #ff6600; font-size: medium;">Need / Required</span></strong> "Need" is a word Templars have been bringing up a lot in this entire thread. Templars want to be "needed" or "required". This mentality has a significant flaw. For a class to be needed, it means they are neccessary, it means that an encounter/zone would impossible without the said class.   -- Otherwise, the class is not actually needed.The closest SOE has ever come to making any class in EQ2 "needed", is the select few encounters where multiple <strong><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: small;">Tank</span></strong> types are required, not just numbers, but a mixture of classes, to follow the encounter as designed/scripted. Unlike the very few examples where a class is needed, no healer is <strong><span style="color: #ff6600;">needed</span></strong> in EQ2.Inquisitors are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Inquisitors.Wardens are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Wardens.Furies are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Furies.Templars are not needed. Raids csn still succeed with no Templars.Mystics are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Mystics.Defilers are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Defilers.As already stated <em>(and agreed upon by Templars)</em>, Templars are a powerful healing class, that is very effective at doing what they are made to do. I know some Templars will struggle to accept these facts, or completely ignore them, but the reality is : Templars are fine as they are. It is already proven that Templars are great for SF raid zones. Templars are great in all modes of drunder raid zones. Templars can pair-heal a tank group on all launch DoV raid instances, including hard modes.The truth will set you free.</p></blockquote><p>Your argument is THAT sad where you have to include SF content that nobody in their right mind actually RAIDS anymore in order to pad your weak claims?  DOV is what we're talking about.  You can run off and go raid Perah again if you want.  Nobody cares.</p><p>Of the 12 raid zones, you're ludicrously referring to only 3 (and currently actually only 2) that according to you is more suited for templars than inquisitors.  I've been through every fight in EM Drunder.  Dets, if they are happening any less often, aren't noticeably so.  A templar still could not efficiently solo-cure any of these zones.  Hard Mode Drunder must somehow actually be <em>easier</em>.  Yeah.</p><p>Out of 200+ raiding guilds, just over a dozen have even been able to step foot into HM Drunder.  Most of the rest of these guilds will never see HM Drunder.  The overwhelming vast majority of guilds in this game are still progressing through EM content.  Your post displays the flawed logic in how some think that EQ2 should revolve around zones the overwhelming majority of guilds will never raid.  As for your silly example of a fully-defensive guardian going defensive being healed by a Defiler, Warden, and Templar, understand that all guilds in this game are at different gear and skill levels.  Some may actually need a heavily defensive setup to win.  Some less so.  The problem is that for most of the guilds in various stages of progression, they will pick an inquisitor over a templar no matter where they are in progression.  You make nonsensical statements like EM content can be solo-healed and is irrelevant.  You seem to be unable to realize that you are looking back after months of progressing through EM content and gearing up with HM such that EM now seems trivial.  Back in February EVERY guild found EM content to in fact be HARD.  How many of these said at that time, "wait, a templar is better for sure!  What were we thinking asking them to sit for an inquisitor?"  As far as DOV is concerned, whether a zone is at the frontier of a guild's abilities or on farm status, inquisitor is the plate healer of choice.  That's reality staring at you in the face.</p><p>Another sign of utter weakness is resorting to straw man attacks and dishonest hyperbole.  Templars aren't talking about being "required" in the same sense that certain fights "require" 3 tanks.  No healer in this game is absolutely required, not even inquisitors.  The question has always been which healer is the <strong>most suited</strong> to the current DOV content.  The answer is inquisitor.  You seem to miss this point again and again.  But countless RL's in this game haven't missed it, and now templars are a rare sight in any raid.  You've never directly manned up to this fact even a single time.  Your typical response to this mass extermination of templars is to make surreally delusory statements like "well templars are no longer 'guaranteed' spots in a raid".  No longer guaranteed?  Are you kidding me???  Can you really be that detached from the reality of the situation???  Which templar here is looking for a 'guarantee' at this point?</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I find the previous two responses (and many prior to it) in this thread to be very interesting.<strong><span style="color: #ff6600; font-size: medium;">Need / Required</span></strong> "Need" is a word Templars have been bringing up a lot in this entire thread. Templars want to be "needed" or "required". This mentality has a significant flaw. For a class to be needed, it means they are neccessary, it means that an encounter/zone would impossible without the said class.   -- Otherwise, the class is not actually needed.The closest SOE has ever come to making any class in EQ2 "needed", is the select few encounters where multiple <strong><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: small;">Tank</span></strong> types are required, not just numbers, but a mixture of classes, to follow the encounter as designed/scripted. Unlike the very few examples where a class is needed, no healer is <strong><span style="color: #ff6600;">needed</span></strong> in EQ2.Inquisitors are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Inquisitors.Wardens are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Wardens.Furies are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Furies.Templars are not needed. Raids csn still succeed with no Templars.Mystics are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Mystics.Defilers are not needed. Raids can still succeed with no Defilers.As already stated <em>(and agreed upon by Templars)</em>, Templars are a powerful healing class, that is very effective at doing what they are made to do. I know some Templars will struggle to accept these facts, or completely ignore them, but the reality is : Templars are fine as they are. It is already proven that Templars are great for SF raid zones. Templars are great in all modes of drunder raid zones. Templars can pair-heal a tank group on all launch DoV raid instances, including hard modes.The truth will set you free.</p></blockquote><p>Your argument is THAT sad where you have to include SF content that nobody in their right mind actually RAIDS anymore in order to pad your weak claims?  DOV is what we're talking about.  You can run off and go raid Perah again if you want.  Nobody cares.</p><p>Of the 12 raid zones, you're ludicrously referring to only 3 (and currently actually only 2) that according to you is more suited for templars than inquisitors.  I've been through every fight in EM Drunder.  Dets, if they are happening any less often, aren't noticeably so.  A templar still could not efficiently solo-cure any of these zones.  Hard Mode Drunder must somehow actually be <em>easier</em>.  Yeah.</p><p>Out of 200+ raiding guilds, just over a dozen have even been able to step foot into HM Drunder.  Most of the rest of these guilds will never see HM Drunder.  The overwhelming vast majority of guilds in this game are still progressing through EM content.  Your post displays the flawed logic in how some think that EQ2 should revolve around zones the overwhelming majority of guilds will never raid.  As for your silly example of a fully-defensive guardian going defensive being healed by a Defiler, Warden, and Templar, understand that all guilds in this game are at different gear and skill levels.  Some may actually need a heavily defensive setup to win.  Some less so.  The problem is that for most of the guilds in various stages of progression, they will pick an inquisitor over a templar no matter where they are in progression.  You make nonsensical statements like EM content can be solo-healed and is irrelevant.  You seem to be unable to realize that you are looking back after months of progressing through EM content and gearing up with HM such that EM now seems trivial.  Back in February EVERY guild found EM content to in fact be HARD.  How many of these said at that time, "wait, a templar is better for sure!  What were we thinking asking them to sit for an inquisitor?"  As far as DOV is concerned, whether a zone is at the frontier of a guild's abilities or on farm status, inquisitor is the plate healer of choice.  That's reality staring at you in the face.</p><p>Another sign of utter weakness is resorting to straw man attacks and dishonest hyperbole.  Templars aren't talking about being "required" in the same sense that certain fights "require" 3 tanks.  No healer in this game is absolutely required, not even inquisitors.  The question has always been which healer is the <strong>most suited</strong> to the current DOV content.  The answer is inquisitor.  You seem to miss this point again and again.  But countless RL's in this game haven't missed it, and now templars are a rare sight in any raid.  You've never directly manned up to this fact even a single time.  Your typical response to this mass extermination of templars is to make surreally delusory statements like "well templars are no longer 'guaranteed' spots in a raid".  No longer guaranteed?  Are you kidding me???  Can you really be that detached from the reality of the situation???  Which templar here is looking for a 'guarantee' at this point?</p>