Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Yikes. Lots of people who have no clue what they are talking about...
Warriors bring significantly more dps than a knight given similar gear, and no, DPS does not have diminishing returns within the scope of this topic unless the content is completely trivial for what you've brought, in which case any additional member is useless. Some pretty basic logic there.
Most DPS in this game worth bringing have some pretty robust agro management tools such that, given equal gear and skill, warrior agro is not going to be a big issue unless you're a pants-on-head newb.
Is the warrior's extra dps and tankiness worth losing knight snap agro and utility? Depends on your comp and camp. But with some really basic agro management warrior is almost certainly going to produce higher xp/hour, especially considering that outside of end-stage eternal Velious, for the vast majority of the timeline, knights have a dirty, stinking 40% XP penalty (into the 60's if you're a fatty or iksar). Additionally, warriors are infinitely better than knights for applications such as duos and trios, specifically duoing with ubiquitous shamans.
And I say that as a longtime knight aficionado, really the only role I love to play outside rangers.
|
I'm genuinely curious if there's data to support warrior DPS just being significantly more than knight DPS, especially for groups. Knights are on the same damage table as warriors and also benefit from the 2h bonus now. This isn't vanilla where knights truly did suck. SKs final 52/58 pets can also quad for 39/46. I recently leveled a warrior to 60, was using KT axe. I know it's not great, but never once felt I was blowing my knights away in DPS.