Warriors are useless in 90% of the games content

[Snaggles]

Absolutely no way a knight with a shield takes hits as well as a warrior even off disc. The issue is, the npc’s outside raiding where it’s an issue (ie can do vs can’t do) are few and far between.

I’ve said it before, the warrior is a 1-ton dually pickup and the knight is a half ton pickup. Either will do light jobs or even get you to work with a shiny trailer hitch. Only a few situations the bigger truck is “needed” and in general use it can be a bit more cumbersome. Just play (or drive) what you want. Having to constantly justify your decision is obnoxious. Try caring less about what EQ nerds think?

[Philistine]

I feel like warriors with spells or other simple ways to hold agro would just be too OP. They get to do virtually all raid boss main tanking in Velious. This is worth the sacrifice of other utility/ease of use IMHO.

[enjchanter]

Atleast paladins can get good use out of aob unlike warriors

[plzrelax]

I found the monk offhand punching to be a lot more effective before I got my epic. Those 15 damage fists or whatever really drop bombs. But the 9 damage fist feels pretty underwhelming.

I enjoy tanking with my paladin and I always insist the warrior in the group stays berserk

[PatChapp]

Join a group with a mage, they use the earth pet you keep aggro
Two classes with their own problems that wind up working well.
I dunno I never had problems with agro in groups on my warrior, sometimes the rogue took a few hits now and then who cares.
Didn't get his epics til 60,but I don't think they would have made much difference in xp groups.

[Gloomlord]

"Warrior does more DPS than a knight! That totally makes up for their lack of on demand snap aggro and other utility!"

Yeah, no. Why would I bring a Warrior for DPS? I'd get a Rogue, Monk, Magician, Necromancer or Enchanter for the DPS. Also, I'd like to point out that it's only until 60 that Warriors get triple attack. Before that time, there is pretty much no reason to bring a warrior unless that discipline means tackling a mob you couldn't otherwise, which is not the overwhelming majority of single group encounters.

[Zuranthium]

Originally Posted by Gloomlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why would I bring a Warrior for DPS?

That wasn't the discussion, it's about who in the tank role is doing more damage and thus contributing to the group killing more.

Monk > Warrior > (Ranger if they are a good enough tank for the content) > Shadowknight > Paladin

But besides just the tank role, groups don't always have the option of forming the exact ideal setup. You just take who is available, so it's a question of which class is better on average. Warriors not only contribute more in the tank role on average, they also can serve as DPS while not tanking for a group. Paladins can't do that very well. 2 Warriors in a group is going to kill far more than 2 Paladins, except in the case of the Paladins being the only healers around.

[Crede]

Genuinely curious where are these parses where wars just blow away knight dps, especially in velious. Tuna sword knights have surpassed rogues in certain fights.

I leveled a war to 60 with KT axe. Not the best weapon but fairly decent at 37/36 with good stats. Honestly never felt like I was doing special dps.

If you really want to play a war, then find a group who will let you zerk while the knight actually tanks.

[Zuranthium]

Originally Posted by Crede [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Genuinely curious where are these parses where wars just blow away knight dps, especially in velious.

I leveled a war to 60 with KT axe. Not the best weapon but fairly decent at 37/36 with good stats. Honestly never felt like I was doing special dps.

If you really want to play a war, then find a group who will let you zerk while the knight actually tanks.

Warrior should be trying to stay berserk in most situations where they aren't depending on Complete Heal; it's viable while tanking for plenty of group content. Warrior can dual wield, knights can not (you were playing Warrior sub-optimally). Warrior has higher offensive skillcaps and also triple attack at 60. Warrior gets precision/aggressive discipline (and precision disc on p99 is bugged to give 100% hit rate). Add up all those things and it's a big difference, a huge one when considering a Warrior using disc.

Originally Posted by Gloomlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's say we have an awesome composition here: 2 Rogues, 1 Enchanter, 1 Cleric, 1 Monk. I'm heading off to Seb. I have a choice between Warrior or Paladin. Guess which one I'm going to pick?

I'm taking the Warrior pre-Velious for a Sebilis exp group. Paladin stats are poopy at that point and they cause the group an exp penalty on top of it (technically in Velious era a Warrior still provides the group a better exp modifier, but it's very minor at that point).

Velious era, for a group like that, it generally won't matter between the Warrior or Paladin. Having the Paladin will allow the Cleric to be lazier but that's not a strictly better thing. If planning to break a hard area of the zone, Warrior popping defensive disc can be nice.

Originally Posted by Snaggles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

epics won’t fix all a warriors aggro problems with 30 second fights.

Warriors don't have an "aggro problem" unless you're with a group of bad players, or trying to fight content where your casters are too low level for root to land consistently.

[Ripqozko]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Warrior should be trying to stay berserk in most situations where they aren't depending on Complete Heal; it's viable while tanking for plenty of group content. Warrior can dual wield, knights can not (you were playing Warrior sub-optimally). Warrior has higher offensive skillcaps and also triple attack at 60. Warrior gets precision/aggressive discipline (and precision disc on p99 is bugged to give 100% hit rate). Add up all those things and it's a big difference, a huge one when considering a Warrior using disc.



I'm taking the Warrior pre-Velious for a Sebilis exp group. Paladin stats are poopy at that point and they cause the group an exp penalty on top of it (technically in Velious era a Warrior still provides the group a better exp modifier, but it's very minor at that point).

Velious era, for a group like that, it generally won't matter between the Warrior or Paladin. Having the Paladin will allow the Cleric to be lazier but that's not a strictly better thing. If planning to break a hard area of the zone, Warrior popping defensive disc can be nice.



Warriors don't have an "aggro problem" unless you're with a group of bad players, or trying to fight content where your casters are too low level for root to land consistently.

Just one thing, even war are better off with 2h for dps now . Which knights would also use. If ya dpsing you shouldn’t be dual wielding it’s worse dps.