Which is?
Illithid Necromancer Savant Temporum
Illithid Necromancer Nexus Pandemonium
just dont name it Stytnlye or Vorqwuith 
really...Take one magic vuln ogre, three bashing zombies, throw in acid blast and a little ghouls touch...of course this all on top of the chance to get slept, a necromancer should never have to much trouble with 90% of the ogre warriors they run into. Even the warmaster ones. Especially the Ogres.
Look ogres are not overpowered. Just ask Corinkorth what happens when you make one TINY mistake. Just one.
Ogres are far from overpowered. They are very powerful, to be sure, but a decked bmage/cleric is just as nasty.
arrrrgh the point is not if they are overpowered or not against other class/race combos, but whether they are stronger than other races for the classes they can be!
Nobody is saying that ogre combos are overpowered...or invincible. The point is that an ogre ranger tribunal tends to be stronger than a werebeast one (even though we have examples of both--nobody is saying that other races CAN'T be strong--)
Ogres are the prime choice for ranger because of their ability to soak up the damage and because ranger is a class that can pk through attrition. Ogre warriors are picked more often because of the massive hp and healing rate. Plus they hit pretty hard if you know how to dress one right. The current players of ogre warriors are pretty experienced in equipment knowledge, so getting saves and ac protections is not hard.
arrrrgh the point is not if they are overpowered or not against other class/race combos, but whether they are stronger than other races for the classes they can be!
Nobody is saying that ogre combos are overpowered...or invincible. The point is that an ogre ranger tribunal tends to be stronger than a werebeast one (even though we have examples of both--nobody is saying that other races CAN'T be strong--)
Lol thats exactly what I said?
"I have an Ogre slaying knife that gets plus 5 againsts Ogres"
"Yes, but you arnt actually there."
probably screwed up the number, but hopefully you all know what I speak of.
"I wanna cast magic missile."
"At what?"
"The darkness."
I agree with Celerity. The mental vuln of giants make them just as weak to dispel magic, which could lead to serious problems...especially if you're a fire giant against an invoker.
The size, strength, and hp disadvantages with the high dex warriors are pretty lame too. Lower number of weapons to choose from, having to actually hold two-handed weapons in two hands, much lower damage output...say what you will about the number of attacks. I've personally an ogre put out the same number of attacks as a halfling. Because of the low damage of the high dex/low strength races, attrition battles against shamans are difficult. I'd say impossible against a really smart one (then again, I'm not really smart).
I've never played a ranger, so I won't speak on them. And, as for zerks...I really think they're an underpowered class, even with the new changes. But what do I know?
Anyway, I agree with Celerity as far as ogre warriors, but I'm open to ideas. If someone can come up with concrete, specific reasons any race makes a better warrior than an ogre, I'd like to hear them. I think on melee v. melee, Ogres are topnotch. I might give a little when it comes to ogre v. mage/communer, but not a whole hell of a lot.
I actually kinda think this is a cool idea, I'm too lazy to read the filler in between too.
Slith's make better warriors then ogres, and that is the bottom line, do not argue because you will be wrong.
What do you mean by mage killer? Necros? Bmgs? Invokers? Against those, I really wouldn't want to play a zerk at all, with necros and bmgs having high physical damage (which minos don't resist) and the mino losing their charge against an invoker (attrition (or necros/ninja) is really the only way to beat a good invoker anyhow--even super damage output ogre ranger nexus or fire warrior nexus can't dish out enough in straight combat--at least in my experience)
for mage killers, zerks do really poorly against mages
I'm not sure why you want the mino (axe prof bonus? I'll take str, bloodhaze, and all weapon bonus of ogre)..charge or 50% more hp?
A whip lore warrior...I really don't know if the dex bonus to the lore really makes up for all the disadvantages of high dex races (ogres being the highest dex giant of course)
Ranger...what do you mean about changing styles? Can you give some examples?
Sorry to seem so questioning and you know I respect yoooouuu...I just feel strongly about this issue!
Mino zerks (esp anger) do wonderful against pure mages with their better lagging (through prot shield even) repeatable charge. The fact that it is repeatable and lags allows a quick mino an almost definite victory if the opponent makes a single mistake or is too slow.
As for whip lore warrior, I say a higher dex may be a better choice because of the offensive bonuses of their dexterity and the fact that they will be relying more on dodge/riposte (which I believe are much more dex-based than other defenses). I also said I havent tested this, so I may be off on the style.
With rangers- race changes playstyle. Ogre rangers can be bruisers and much more brute force oriented. Higher int/wis races can use more spells combined with different ranger lores. Those arrows are very nifty and I really don't think anyone has truly taken advantage of all they can offer yet. I'm no ranger expert, so I can't speak on all the different tactics and styles, but rangers are a class that allows for wonderful diversity and I'm sad that there seems to have emerged a "strongest" ranger in the mind of the playerbase. They are much like clerics in that your race helps determine your style with the class.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that zerks on the whole are great mage killers, it's melees that they have a harder time with in my experience.
Mino zerks (esp anger) do wonderful against pure mages with their better lagging (through prot shield even) repeatable charge. The fact that it is repeatable and lags allows a quick mino an almost definite victory if the opponent makes a single mistake or is too slow.
Alright, to get that charge you'll need to be using an axe. Do you reallllly want to use an axe (much less dual wielding them) against a decent bmg or necro?
Against invokers, there is NO way you'll get close to lagging them enough (esp. mana charging), even considering they don't bother to cast firestorm to negate that strategy completely.
In all these cases, it is the zerk who more easily dies to a mistake, not the mage. ESPECIALLY against the autoraging invoker damage spells and necros. Even thunderclap and mirror image ruin the charge strategy.
As for whip lore warrior, I say a higher dex may be a better choice because of the offensive bonuses of their dexterity and the fact that they will be relying more on dodge/riposte (which I believe are much more dex-based than other defenses). I also said I havent tested this, so I may be off on the style.
So I have to ask, does high dex equal more offense than two-handed, high str, and weapon dam bonus? I think no. The dex advantage comes through the lore, which is more questionable (can't even talk about it here). As for defense, that is refering for fighting melee defense (you said dodge/riposte). Are you saying that high dex races are better than ogres for fighting heavy melee combos? Basically, you have less offense, less defense, and less attrition ability in exchange for a status perk (magic res for instance).
(as for zerks, they are the same. Less offense and less defense than a warrior, with status perks thrown in (might stop casting or drop some spells). I think they a horrible class to play in general...they have too many bane classes very few (if any?) target classes)
With rangers- race changes playstyle. Ogre rangers can be bruisers and much more brute force oriented. Higher int/wis races can use more spells combined with different ranger lores.
All rangers can use the lores equally well..you don't get an int/wis bonus for that. Mana isn't typically an issue IN COMBAT for any ranger, so that benefit is almost nil. Ogres can take advantage of arrows just as well an elf (which I also addressed in an earlier idea). The only serious benefit comes through spamming control weather, which again, is not terribly important. Mana isn't even an issue for stone rangers in my own experience.
(as for zerks' date=' they are the same. [b']Less offense and less defense than a warrior, with status perks thrown in (might stop casting or drop some spells). I think they a horrible class to play in general...they have too many bane classes very few (if any?) target classes)
I like Zerks, but I really do agree with the statements in bold. And the fact that for a class that promotes boosted offensive power as a trade for a lack of defense, warriors can still easily match that with fourth attack and riposte, without the lack of defense.
I don't think they're underpowered, per sé. Just that some classes can really give you a hard time.
Dey
We're getting into a melee vs. C/C debate again, and I'm firmly on the side that melees get the short end of that stick. I was arguing advantages to different races in those specific class situations. The jury is out on the high dex thing, but I'm saying the whip wielding dex race will be more defensive (not stronger) than the whip wielding ogre. I agree that ogres are probably a stronger bet than other races in alot of situations, but I by no means think that they are THE way to go with a melee race. It's too much about playstyle.