Staff+ giant size= warrior?

Was a while since i posted suggestions here so dont flame me to hard

I will only speak about normal level 50 warriors in semi decent gear, no cabal powers, no elite player (that can play a anyclass and rule) and no top end armor.

This post will adress 3 things.

1. giant size warriors>all other warriors 95% of the time

2. staff > all other weapons WAY to often

3. Shield totally and utterly suck for a warrior.

I find it very boring that giant size warriors is so much better then most other warriors (a few races can do decent, but most cant do well at all). I think warriors if any class should be a class where all races can do good and therefore some things need to be adressed.

Weapons: as it is now staff is way to good, the defence with a staff beats all other weapons easy and with pugil the offence is not far behind. The big problem as i see it is pugil. I like the fact that the defence is very good with it but its should not rule like it does now, i think pugil need to be weakened to some extent to make other weapons comparable better. One idea would be removing the extra attacks and make pugil a triggable effect that launch a few quick strikes with a chance to sligtly lag your opponient, 2 rounds lag to do it

Shields: nobody i seen use shield as warrior, thats to bad because its would be fun if not everyone was a cockiecutter. My proposal is adressing small races + shields.

Shield mastery: gives a new skill shield bash, that should be counted on dex+str and not size, automatic shieldslam, if you make any shieldblock a turn you get a free shieldslam doing something like MASSACRE in damage non magic damage. Also give shieldmastery warrior a slight resistance to bash and bodyslam. This way a small race would be able to lag a giant warrior equal well with shieldbash as a giant can bash a small race. The extra damage from the shield would make up for dualweilding somewhat and works more like a damage shield.

Note that the shield changes should only apply to warriors that chooce shieldmastery.

Just a few thoughts

I always felt that the two shield skills for a warrior should be combined into one. Given the number of warriors who use it(and yes, I know there is always one of those, "Well so-and-so uses a shield and he does just fine" instances, but were talking about warriors as a whole), in comparison to pugiling/dual wielding warriors, combining the two shield lores might attract more people.

I have always thought warriors needed a total revamp. More selectable skills along the way, not just a choice at 50. That way small races can adapt to be useful fighters. I dont think it is just a matter or staffs and shields but really the class as a whole. Giants definately make better warriors which I think is not bad as a rule, but at least with well thought out changes the other races could be competitive.

Like rangers maybe there could be three paths, roughly involving Pure power and size for giants, tactical fighting for smaller classes and maybe something inbetween for those who arent too big or too small.

I agree, smaller races def at a disadvantage compared to larger races. Not nessecarily highest on the lists but I think dex should factor in. I guess they are harder to kill not by much.

Yes, in semi-decent gear a giant warrior is probably superior because of two things:

1. More hit/dam due to more str.

2. Semi-decent gear can't grant you the 80-90% bash nullification rate that decent gear can thus giant sized warrior get full benefit of command denial.

If we only consider with 'average' eq on a class that that makes or breaks on eq then of course it comes up short everytime.

If you get your pick at lvl 50, then its a different game all together - even just 'above average' eq (which warriors need) will show a remarkable difference.

I also find it hard to believe a warrior will take a shield skills over others when:

1. Its pointless to use a shield vs any caster/communer except MAYBE a bmage. Is that 50% of battles right here you'd never get to use your lore?

2. You could choose another mastery/lore that will be used more often.

I think that a single lore skill is a hard call since most warriors weapon selection is dependant (or should be) on what class they are fighting and

not what mastery/lore they have chosen.

L-A

Give them all the lores at 50.

i think Blademasters should have never been created. instead, warriors and berserkers could have been brought into the modern age. ("blademasters" were never even asked for.)

i think Blademasters should have never been created. instead' date=' warriors and berserkers could have been brought into the modern age. ("blademasters" were never even asked for.)[/quote']

Actually, blademasters were asked for a ton, but that's hardly the point.

However, bringing warriors and zerks into the "modern age" is definitely one of my goals, so ideas on them will be looked at carefully, rejected, and remolded into my own plans.

please make halfling, elf and drow warriors viable again!!!!!!!!

edit: oh yea, dwarves and duergars too

i didn't realize they were ever decent warriors.

halfling warrior used to be decent, and I can see a few tweaks that could make every single warrior viable. I guess that any warrior viable, baring gnomes perhaps, but you'd need some pretty leet gear. I know that warriors are eq dependant, but I don't think that you should have to be in the best gear to even be considered a decent warrior. I guess it just appears to me that there isn't much strategy to warriors beyond choosing the right weapon combos going into a fight. Its pretty much bash bash bash and hope to outdamage your opponent.

i didn't realize they were ever decent warriors.

Its all about getting decked I had a few decent decked warriors

If you want to beat a giant sized staff warrior with a small race warrior, there is a lore that one warrior out there right now is using BEAUTIFULLY that will allow it without a doubt. The problem with using a two-handed weapon, especially against this type of warrior, is that you rely on one object for both defenses. Think about the warrior lores, and you will see what I mean.

All right, let me comment on this.

First there is allmost no reason for a warrior to ever use a shield.

As two handed weapon provide the same defence or more.

The only instance a warrior would ever consider using a shield is to try to stop a Berserker skill (pugil is still better) and Battlemages.

Warriors should always be dualing or two handeds.

Giants are best because of bash. Their size advantage is extremely usefull.

They cannot get bashed as easely. And they bash with ease.

And trip is quite limited, as it will probably affect a human the same way as a giant.

I always thought trip should affects giants the same way bash affects halflings.

As it is you can only be triped for 2 rounds. I propose that we change this to a gradual size factor.

Halfling - > Max 1 round trip lag.

Human - > Max 2 round trip lag.

Giant - > Max 3 round trip lag.

Titan - > Max 4 round trip lag.

This way if a giant enlarges himself he will be mroe vulnerable to trip.

Again, there is plenty of reason for a warrior to keep a nice shield handy. Like I said, two handed weapons are very limited against:

1. other warriors with a certain lore

2. anything that can disarm if said 2hander is not cursed, especially BMs

3. Nowadays against monks, believe it or not, a shield might not be a bad idea

While I agree changed need to be made to help out old-school melees, I don't think a giant sized warrior ALWAYS has an advantage over other warriors. They might have it 80-90% of the time, but there are definitely situations where this isn't true.

1. Nowadays against monks, believe it or not, a shield might not be a bad idea

This is very, very true. I will say no more.

Dey

As far as the staff goes, it is gererally accepted that a staff can be an amazing weapon because of one's ability to defend himself with it, as well as its speed, which would of course be pugil. Is the problem that staff + pugil is too good, or is it that there are too many staffs in the game that are god in comparison to other weapons? I would tend to lean toward the latter.

And honestly, I think that your ability to be good with a staff should depend somewhat on your dexterity, since a staff is most effective in the hands of someone that's fast and nimble. Maybe pugil could heavily favor high-dex races. I see a giant using a staff more like a bat, whereas an avian would be twirling that thing around like a mad fool.

Maybe it's oversimplifying it a bit, but why not make it so that pugil is disabled if your dex drops below 20?

I would love to see warriors become more selection oriented. I see them as the fighter class in D&D, and fighters are all about the feats you select.

The problem I see with such a modification to the warrior class is that I always thought that warriors were one of the beginner classes on the mud, good for new players to learn with. Giving them a bunch of skill selections might be a bit too tedious.

I very much like the idea of making pugil more dexterity based, so that nimble races can defend well with a staff wheras the bigger ones, not so much. I don't like the idea of disabling pugil for anyone with less than 20 dex, as your giant races won't be able to pugil at all, but I do like the sound of reducing it's effectiveness as dex drops.

My own idea would be to make dexterity play a bigger role in how bash works against it. So a halfling has a better chance to avoid a bash than a dwarf, for example. No huge drastic changes - enough to make bashlocking still a viable tactic against the smaller non-prot shield races, but it at least gives the nimbler races a chance to avoid bashing that little bit easier.

Dey

If there are changes to make bash or bodyslam less effective, then I'd vote for reducing the lag on a miss to 2 rounds instead of three.

I like the idea of dex affecting pugil as well. Perhaps have a base of 20, and anyone with 20 dex gets normal effects from pugiling. But as your dex drops, you get less attacks from it, but if your dex is raised, you get more attacks. This way, all those ogres with a bone cane don't destroy any other melee.

I think Birdman's analogy is best, a fire giant using a staff I see them more just smashing someone's face as hard as they can a couple times, but a halfling would be twirling it like a huge baton, hitting with both ends as many times as they could.

A giant doesn't miss that much against the small sized races. Changing the lag time won't help anything. If a small race is stacking commands against a giant and can't flee if it gets lucky enough for the giant to miss, it deserves the death it gets.