give warrior skillset doublesheath, AND raise fire/stone/storm dex by +1

Could always have a universal ability or something, maybe trade off your 103%'s for a lore that works with all weapons.

That would really make a warrior less unique.

No sick ogre wars you say? Wasn't it L-A that played the fem ogre war back in the day and crushed everyone?

It wasn't me - but there have been many strong ogre warriors over time:

Ghrishnak was 1.0 ogre warrior and could give you a 1000hp a round bad day (I never faced personally).

Cabdren was another 1.0 ogre warrior and all people ever seem to say about him is 'He came out of no where and killed me!! I never even saw him coming.'

Argon (sp) played by a very skilled player killed Lunicant and Azagotath (sp) who were two of the five prime NEXUS killers of early 2.0. Got a lot of other people as well.

L-A

Grishnak (warmaster leader) and Cabdren (conclave) both had abilities that no longer exist and eq that gave much higher hit/dam/saves than it does now, L-A, and you bloody well know that. =P

That being said, I don't disagree at all with you. I think ogres are fine as they are.

Grishnak (warmaster leader) and Cabdren (conclave) both had abilities that no longer exist and eq that gave much higher hit/dam/saves than it does now, L-A, and you bloody well know that. =P

That being said, I don't disagree at all with you. I think ogres are fine as they are.

Maybe they did and maybe they didn't.

The question wasn't about how (and I think you'll find those two owned more through player skill than eq, not like almost all the ogres I see these days) they were so good but the fact that there have been strong ogre warriors :-)

L-A

Oh, I agree that those two examples were far more about player skill than eq, else neither of them would have risen so far.

Quick reminder - Cabrden went on killing sprees even after conclave had disbanded.

But, 1.0 and 3.0 vary a lot in terms of equipment, skills, and strategies.

But L-A, Pali and M what are your guys thoughts on seeing warriors lose the over 100% in favor for a few skills that can be used with thier chosen weapon masteries?

But L-A' date=' Pali and M what are your guys thoughts on seeing warriors lose the over 100% in favor for a few skills that can be used with thier chosen weapon masteries?[/quote']

Disagree. You shouldn't get ceratin racial benefit and get to chop and change what you want. Either give them more selections on the expert or masteries or not. Not trading 100% skills for things.

I'm unsure about warriors in general - mostly because I simply can't get the hang of them. This is very probably my inability to have 4 - 8 hours a day to hunt down the eq I need. I actually KNOW the eq I want, getting it is another matter...

Nothing is going to be able to make warriior 'easy plays' at lvl 50 vs the c/c, mages and hybirds. They are almost invincible (and I'm sure I know how to make them this way) when eq'd and played right. They rank fast and easy (REAL easy). THe down side is that if you aren't on your game or aren't eq'd like you need to be you are dead. Bear in mind you can NEVER be ready for ALL possible opponents. Its the draw back of the class.

Eq is what a the warrior class 'balance' will turn on. They do not necessarily need fancy skills, the class is strong enough when used without bells and whistles.

L-A

But then again I also remember "someone" making that dk and litterally getting kills by only using trip.

:D

That's an oversimplification, but yes, that was a large part of it.

L-A

To answer the +dex on giants - I disagree with this as well.

For fires - they CAN be delicate. In the same way that ogres can be delicate. By the same token they can be bastards to fight - espeically if you can't take advantage of their vuln.

Storms - I know little about the, but you don't have to carry a boat and get advantage on the water. I think this would be a big draw card, even to the extent of giving up dirt kick (other ways to blind would give you a LOT of advantage here).

Stone - someone mentioned that you don't see many of these. For the life of me I can't work out why. I had a lv 50 stone zerk and they are a GREAT race. Vs ogres, you don't have magical vuln, you get a resistance (it is better than ogre hp, no matter what anyone says) plus innate mastery. Great str, good con (very decent hp). I believe stone giants to be one of the most underused races in the game.

All the giants get innate mastery of 2h, slam/bash and enhanced damage. This is a lot - and I don't mean just by cutting down of training time. They have low dex as the trade off. Giving more dex = better melee defenses and they are already very strong melee races. Most people simply don't play them because they feel safer with their ogre hp.

L-A

I never understood that either LA, I'd much rather have the stone resistance also than the ogre hp. Ogres have all that hp to make up for that HUGE weakness. Invokers rip through them like butter usually unless they've awesome gear and are skilled. I've even seen a moderate invoker tear through a good ogre. A stone giant will have very nice hp and less risk of loosing it not to mention the racial masteries.

Maybe because that low wis and int are a pain in the @$$?

taking all of this in, i guess now that fully comprehend what i always sort of knew in the back in my mind but never wanted to admit to myself, which is a warrior will be shortlived and a very successful warrior can probably only be attained by a potent veteran or elite. by successful i mean a warrior with both a smoking PK record and was able to really strike fear in *all classes *of its peers. so warriors wont have a long life (those that are continually active). and they will always be re-equipping. and they will be sack lunches for ca/co's. unless you're really really good. this understanding isnt too uplifting, but hey it's whatever. and there are many yardsticks to a "successful character," among which are an RP oriented character, a cabal workhorse, a con-death character, a learning character. i'll never be near good enough to be playing a universally feared warrior, but i've always wanted to at least see one, or be around at the same time one exists. because honestly i dont ever remember any, except for the legendary 1.0 pantheon of Awesome Warriors that people remember from 6 years ago. they still are a good ranking and learning class too.

Last good warrior I remember seeing was Cjuk. He inspired a lot of fear and I condied two chars before ever seeing him die. But once he did in the midst of a cabal war he was toast.

Maybe because that low wis and int are a pain in the @$$?

Ogres:

2 pracs a level, learn in 2.

Vuln to ALL things magical - aff, mental, mals and weapons.

Innate mastery of fast healing (+1 on zerks for regen).

Stone giants:

2 pracs a level, lean in 3. Might cost you 10 or 20hp on trains.

Resist all phycials attacks.

Vuln to mental.

Innate mastery of two handed, enhanced damage and bash/bodyslam.

Low int and wis aren't that bad if you know how to train, though I do prac defenses to 75% on all chars now. Players WILL use magic weapons to hurt an ogre more, but MUST use magic weapons in order to not hurt a stone giant less. Though not all players think of this at the time :-)

Goldbond: It can be done, but you have to understand warriors are based both the eq they have and the way they know how to use it. With the current playerbase being SO focused on getting eq and runs through the areas happening all the time, if you want to do well as a warrior (IMHO) you must:

1. Know your eq set. This means knowing HOW you want to play ie saves vs hit dam, etc. Its easy to know the 'good' and 'great' eq, but its another thing knowing how to put 20 or so pieces together for maxiumum effect.

2. Have the time to hunt down and maintain the eq. 2 hours a day is probably not enough.

3. Know how to play a warrior - and I don't mean dirt;bash;bash;bash;

Cheers,

L-A