Staff+ giant size= warrior?

Giant advantage is basically because of two things: High str and large size. The large size allows wielding two handed weapons in one hand...which is one of the BEST things you could ever wish for as a warrior. High str gives crucial hit/dam and allows to wield higher dam weapons, more shaman resistant, etc.

Storm warrior is down there with the half-elves as it is anyways.

Minos and stones are tough, but align really limits them.

Fires are great or horrible depending on who you fight, which I like.

--

The two warrior races that need the most help are half-elf and gnome. Both have very medicore stats and few perks (giant weakness in the gnome).

Since it is very hard to change skills so that they will balance with EVERY race that uses them, it is better to give lower races more perks or the higher races less. Giving race-specific skills, automasteries, etc, will help balance things more evenly. Random thoughts:

half-elf: I have a whole thread on this

storm: remove the wood vuln and add something else

dwarf/duergar: +1 str, axe mastery

gnome: race-only constructable weapons (instead of edging daggers/cards/ranger staves, make something else, etc), ID lore (wisest race, right), lots more things because they are gnomes...

I'm really more concerned about ogres than giants in general. I -really- dislike how ogres are the best choice (or very close to it) for every class they can be. Just -1 size (two handed weapons become really two handed) and -2 str for ogres and things will be fine.

I thought all races other than giants, ogres and minos had warriors removed from their class lists?

I'm with Celerity on the Ogre thing. Seems to me they definitely need a tone down, even if nothing too major. Maybe drop a point or two from dex.

Seems this thread has gone a little off topic, but getting back to the idea of staffs making warriors, this is a common misconception. A decked warrior (widely recognized as neccesary to succeed) will do exceedingly better against almost all opponents when they are dual wielding. Staffs are a convenient thing to fall back on when you are suffering in terms of your equipment, or are equipping, but they just aren't as effective in experienced PK as you all make them out to be. Staffs are largely ineffective against other people that are decked, and therefore have high hitroll, when compared to dual wielding.

Think about some melees that did well, and consider how often they fought using staffs. If we exclude cabal weapons, there are very few. If you want to win your fight against someone skilled, rather than just survive and do alright, a staff often won't cut it. The staffs out there that aren't cabal weapons are not "godly" as someone mentioned, and their damage potential is tons lower than other weapons.

Not to discredit any of your opinions, but if you haven't actually tried it, please don't reply telling me how wrong I am. This post is mainly to clear up the misconception of the original poster, and many that followed, not to discuss warriors as a class.

You think warriors are underpowered? How many of you have played four+ warriors of different races to pinn?

sigh

First and foremost, you will learn very quickly with a warrior that staff is not the end-all. Yes, unfortunately for most people, warriors require THINKING. An ogre? Sure, go ahead and pick staff. But would you pick staff with a half-elf or an elf? No. It's all about the selectability. You have to play your cards right, or yes, you will suck like the 95% of warriors in the past.

The best races for warriors are, hands down, fire giant, halfling, ogre, slith, and dwarf/duergar (these two don't really differ enough to qualify as seperate). All four of these races have a very accesible vulnerability, but also have the means to compensate for it. Halfling can have AC out the ***, making them almost impossible to bashlock. The other three have weapon/spell vulnerability, that saves and the defensive capability of the class can make up for. And as far as slith go... how can you not like this warrior? It's the perfect mage killer. Put your expertise and mastery into spear, and you'll end up with 110% in the skill. Dual wield spears against mages... There are some very nice spears out there. Make use of them.

Humans, half-elves, and avians are going to make average warriors, just like they make average everything else.

The other two giant races, and minotaurs will make average warriors, simply because they're, again, average races with no real vulnerabilities, thus no real power potential.

Elves, drow, and gnomes... why would you ever play a warrior in this race? All three of these races are, fantasy-historically speaking, bound to the arcane or the divine. They don't go around bashing people's skulls in - they pray for someone else to do it. It balances out, because they make better mages than the other races.

Do warriors need anything to make them a viable class? No, not a damned thing.

Do warriors need anything to make them a viable class to most people? Yeah. Hellstream, maybe.

Okay that's...five races (six if you count Dwarves/Duergar seperately). And Slith don't have a vuln....

Hey there turbo, nobody is saying that warriors as a class are underpowered. People are talking about different race + warrior combinations being underpowered.

You can't just look it like warrior vs thief, which is better in melee? You HAVE to add in the race factor. Gnome warrior vs undead thief?

And yes, some of us HAVE played a lot of races to 50 as a warrior, so calm down about that.

The point of the original post isn't to say that staves are the only possible way to make a warrior strong, but to say that almost all warriors will be giant-sized and have staff as an expertise, if not mastery.

Personally, I've never had staff as a mastery. It seems a huge waste to me, but that is my opinion and beyond this thread. Every one of my warriors (except the half-elf) has had a staff expertise though.

Halfling warriors (when combined with right cabal) were good in the far past, with huge availability of strong armor, but that isn't the case now, and I'd be surprised to see a very strong halfling (not avatar, etc) warrior ever again. A halfling warrior might become semi-strong, but a ogre/giant warrior in that same position would MUCH, MUCH stronger.

You mention ogres being able to pick staves and be fine. You also mention that elves, half-elves would have to pick different weapons. That is the point of the thread...you yourself say that elves make crap warriors.

A slith -might- be able to dual spears against a powerful mage/communer, but flails and axes are soooo much better, lending strength to the stronger races again.

Do warriors need anything to make them a viable class? No, not a damned thing.

You are very right here, but you've asked the wrong question. Do certain races need anything to make them a viable warrior? Yes, very much so.

Actually, slith do have a vuln, and a fairly easily accesible one, at that. And five races? Let's take a look at the other race/classes, for a second.

Invoker can be played by 6 races.

Battlemage can be played by 6 races.

Monk can be played by 2 races.

Berserker can be played by 9 races.

Ranger can be played by 9 races.

Blademaster can be played by 11 races.

Cleric can be played by 9 races.

Thief can be played by 12 races.

Ninja can be played by 6 races.

Bard can be played by 7 races.

Dark-Knight can be played by 3 races.

Necromancer can be played by 4 races.

Warriors? They can be played by 16 races. The average number of races that can play each class is: 7

So you think warriors need a tone-up because they have 5 GOOD races that can play them, and three races that can play them with average ability... Where's the logic in that?

Not to mention that this isn't even a question of ability. Race/Class only sets a baseline. The player behind the character determines how far the class can be taken, just like it always has. And I think that's something people have lost sight of over the years. People think that because the majority of a group of people have limited success with a race/class, or a class itself, that it sucks. Well, the majority of people cannot have success. That defies the very definition of the word success, at least in this sense, because in this sense success for one person is failure for another. Honestly, people. If you suck at PK, get over it. Don't call your chosen race/class underpowered.

I'm going to argue the opposite about this.

If takes a very elite person to place a certain race/class combination well, it does not mean that the class is balanced. It means that if the full potential of the combination is tapped, you can do alright.

Maybe somebody who is incredibly skilled can play an elf warrior very well. Does that mean that elf warriors are just as strong and balanced with ogre warriors? Not even close.

A race/class is balanced if the majority of players that play it do neither extremely well nor poor.

Try and reign it in, its lookin to start gettin a little flamey in here.

I don't think that staff and pugil is the real issue here, as a pinned warrior will seldom use a staff in pk (dual wield against most mages/communers, polearm > staff against ranger/battlemage), might use a staff against other warriors/serks/blademaster depending on class/skill/cabal. Staff is a very good choice against mobs (if it can't be disarmed) but in most other cases there is a better choice in pk.

As to the ogres, don't forget they also take MASSIVE damage from spells and need really good eq to stand a chance against a skilled caster/communer. I think they are "overpowered" against mobs but don't need much balancing against other players, if any.

I would also like to see the high dex based warriors be a more interesting choice, I've played only one of these at 50, tactic has to be quite different than with ogre/giant, I think they should get a skill that ogre/giants do not get that helps them exclusively against fighting those races with more str/size than them, their dex advantage does not help enough in most cases.

Also do not forget that almost for any class there are certain races that do better in it than others.

So once again, we should cater to the weak because the strong are too good? Or maybe because even what we give the weak isn't good enough? Like I said, solely from a number standpoint, warriors have more viable races than all other classes. You also have to take into account that there are weak races for other classes. Should we tone up all of those classes, just because some races won't do well with them?

Rangers are a very powerful class. Should we give them assassinate so people can play an elf ranger well?

Thieves are a very powerful class. Should we give them Double Hellstream Trap so that people can play a faerie thief well?

Blademasters are a very powerful class. Should we give make Critical Heart be a one hit kill so that people can play a gnome blademaster well?

Under this line of thinking, bards need a major tone-up, because only one or two of their six races can be played with any sort of PK success.

Someone mentioned something about toning ogres down. I think you are nuts. If an ogre doesn't have decent saves he is just not a ogre that will be alive for very long against any decent caster.

As far as warriors are concerned, I always thought giants are better warriors vs. other melee classes. And other warriors such as halfling, dwarf, and duergar were better vs. caster/communers. This is of course with decent equipment, nothing high end rare. Although I like the idea of adding more selectable skills to warriors to give them more diversity. Almost like berserkers where you have pure power(devestation), more tactics(anger) and a little bit of both with the other one that I don't remember what its called, heh. Have a warrior that is more defensive, one that is more offensive, and a mixture of both. Of course each will have its drawbacks obviously.

p.s. I will think of some ideas for you to shoot down Behrens. Oh yea, almost forgot, I was driving through texas the other day and saw a sign that said, Behrens Court, or something like that. Thought it was funny.

Ogres take massive damage from spells, but with massive hp, it just the same as any other warrior numbers-wise.

In fact, ogres do much, much better against hard-hitting spells/melees because of bloodhaze and attrition ability. It would be interesting if instead of bloodhaze as a defensive skill for ogres, that sometimes they would take even more damage from the attack. So when ogre bloodhaze kicks in, either extremely massive damage or a graze.

Ogre vuln against 'mages' is only in maledictive spells. Otherwise, giants share the mental vuln (mainly dispel), and other races generally have much less hp and offensive power.

Ogres have extreme defensive power (good stats, regen), extreme offensive power (str, size) and one of the smaller weaknesses (comparatively-maledictive).

So once again, we should cater to the weak because the strong are too good? Or maybe because even what we give the weak isn't good enough? Like I said, solely from a number standpoint, warriors have more viable races than all other classes. You also have to take into account that there are weak races for other classes. Should we tone up all of those classes, just because some races won't do well with them?

Rangers are a very powerful class. Should we give them assassinate so people can play an elf ranger well?

Thieves are a very powerful class. Should we give them Double Hellstream Trap so that people can play a faerie thief well?

Blademasters are a very powerful class. Should we give make Critical Heart be a one hit kill so that people can play a gnome blademaster well?

Under this line of thinking, bards need a major tone-up, because only one or two of their six races can be played with any sort of PK success.

Yes (I mean in reference to race/class combinations, not races and classes as wholes), that would be the general idea behind a balanced pk system. (minus the sarcastic choices you made)

"The best races for warriors are, hands down, fire giant, halfling, ogre, slith, and dwarf/duergar (these two don't really differ enough to qualify as seperate). All four of these races have a very accesible vulnerability, but also have the means to compensate for it."

That's five races, six if you count Dwarves/Duergar as seperate races. Please think about what you are saying before you say it.

Slith do not have an "easily" exploitable vuln.

Thank you and drive through please.

Hah. Well, I'll admit that I added slith after the fact. It was an oversight on my part. Thank you for picking the least relevant part of my post out of my post.

And again, you're wrong. Sliths have a VERY easily exploitable vuln, with at least two VERY powerful weapons that can be used against them, and a VAST array of easy-to-get weapons with which to hit said vuln.

Walks away

I've seen this sort of thing far too many times, being a part of it only makes me look bad.

Evangelion, you're acting like a know-it-all...and it's starting to annoy.

You're more than welcome to disagree with any of the points that I've made that are opinion.

You can't really disagree with what I've stated that's fact. Such as the fact that sliths do in fact have an easily accesible vuln.

And I've probably played more warriors of more different races than almost anyone here, except maybe Celerity.