Alright, I've got a new character that I've got big plans for. The dilemma: I'm not sure whether to do a warrior or a zerk. I want to do a warrior, but I'm scared I'll suck...I don't know enough EQ to do it, I think. Unless, just maybe, the lore could make up the difference somehow. See, with a zerk, maybe I could just master headbutt and haymaker, and I'd be ok. Can anyone convince me that I can do a warrior, or should I just go zerk? Or in another words, just how good do I have to be to go warrior at 50 and survive?
Warriors/Zerks
Ranking will be easy and you should get to pinnacle quicker with a warrior.
Everyone will want you in their group. Zerks too, but a slightly higher cost for experience.
I think zerks lack something. They were given path choices and staff and still just can't seem to hold their own. Sure they are dangerous, but it's so all out or nothing that a zerk dies half the time he kills his opponant. I'd say go warrior so you can use attrition tactics.
See' date=' with a zerk, maybe I could just master headbutt and haymaker, and I'd be ok.[/quote']
I was tempted to let you figure this out on your own, but decided that it would be much easier for you if I just told you: mastering headbutt and haymaker will not save your berserker's life regularly enough (or at all, depending on how experienced you are with berserkers) to make berserkers a better/easier choice to play than warriors.
Thanks a million, that's what I was looking for, I think. And I would have figured it out anyway, as I've got a zerker already, as well. In fact, if I think about the fight with the shaman that killed me...
I always preferred warriors. There are WAY more options for you out there than most people would think. And I'm not talking selectable skills, although that IS a part of it. Anyway, I'll leave ya to figure that one out on yer own.
I love zerks. They can be strong or suck. You gotta know what to do and when. You need to be quick on the skills or you will be toast. Gotta know when to rage and not.
Indeed, and there is really only ONE race worth going zerk with, unless you want qrace, but thats besides the point.
Uh....I'd say there are 4 good zerk races. Each with their own high points. One power, one attrition, and two magic resistance.
I agree 100% with you Festy. Thing is, people think they can rage haymaker and bodyslam. Zerks are played more like warriors then if you are getting outdamaged slightly THEN you drop the rage. Don't rage and crap before you know how much of a damage difference there is.
Well, you seem to be arguing they are fine as is. Is it just me, but it seems like they lack something. You never see a really dominating zerk, ever. They are extremely fun, but they just can't seem to live long enough to be strong.
They are missing something, I'll agree with that. But I think they CAN do well the way they are.
Statham was a badass. So noone can say that there hasn't been a good zerk recently.
Okay, I play a lot of zerks. Someone somewhere in there said mastering headbutt and haymaker wouldn't save your butt regularly. Okay, sometimes it will sometimes it won't, but truly, if you master EVERYTHING necessary you will do very well. Neutral's seem to do the best. Also Zerks give you the most room to test your opponent, but the least to make a mistake. If you're testing something about them and you know it and know how to recover from it you'll be fine, if you mess up there's no way you'll ever survive. Extra hint, BEWARE of Autoraging. It is both a blessing and a curse, but if you are any path except anger and you autorage, cross your fingers and hope for the best. Zerks are heavily, though it doesn't seem it, dependant on their paths. If you're Anger you're really depending on that cool bonus to work. If you're fury you're depending on not being disarmed, and if you're Devastation you're truly depending on it's perk even though you have no control over it. You don't play Zerks, they play you and you try to follow.
Sad part is, I go over their skill set and it's like wow. They have so many edges, why dont' they do better? All I can come up with is the fact you HAVE to rage in order to gain the necessary skill to be able to cleave weapons, headbutt, or haymaker, because, if you dont' know, raging enhances all of a zerks skills. If the chance to sucessfully use a zerk skill unraged was increased, I think it would be all that would be needed to give that umpf.
Statham was forever ago. Charge, flee, charge tactic doesn't count as a successful zerk. Zerks should do GREAT, but like Festy said, they are dependant on rage. Its not just an option, you have to do it.
I'm not so sure about rage boosting weapon/shield cleave, Iyorvin. Gomanhor would always rage after cleaving the opponent's weapons, never before. And the success rate (on first cleave attempt) was at least 90%. The trick is, I think, using the right weapon.
Wasn't it changed AFTER gommy's reign though? Some reason I recall Viri doing that, I COULD be wrong though. But I KNOW for a fact it doesn't work 90% now.
I wasn't aware of any changes being made to weapon/shield cleave. I suppose we just don't know until someone tests it out... 
Wasn't a direct change, was a change as a whole to rage to enhance zerk skills. Cleaves and haymaker/headbutt. And yeah, I'd love to see you make another ogre zerk, go WM though cause they need some friggin help.