Warriors are useless in 90% of the games content

[Penish]

they still haven't found the right combo for dsm's meds, at least it keeps the threads alive.. lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Naethyn already pulled your pants down.



He posed that question. You admitted no content really needs knight spells.



Fun times.

Are we gonna morph this into another DSM thread?

Perhaps you should just schedule an appointment with your therapist to point out where, on the doll, the mean trolls touch you.

You have not been reading the thread if you think Naethyn "pulled my pants down". This is typical Troxx nonsense and lack of reading comprehension.

Naethyn made a logical mistake, because he only looked at the necessity for Warrior Discs and Knight Spells, while not looking at the necessity for Tank Mitigation and DPS. He ignored that to try and win the debate.

The problem is Tank Mitigation and Tank DPS are also unecessary for most content. This is why you see Enchanter/Cleric duos, Enchanter/Shaman/Monk trios, etc.

The only thing Naethyn showed was that tanks aren't necessary at all for most content, which is true.

When a group wants to use a tank, then you can compare which tanks are better for the job, by looking at their kit as a whole. Knight kits are better for most content, unless the content needs Warrior Discs. This is due to Warrior agro issues, and lack of utility on the Warrior's part. They can't fill multiple roles, which limits their usefulness in 2-4 player groups. DPS diminishing returns often limit the extra DPS a Warrior brings as well.

[bcbrown]

If nothing is necessary then anything is possible.

[Troxx]

Lol

[Snaggles]

I still don’t think the majority of you are parsing the difference between a red blade warrior and a pleb Ntov 2h knight on blues. Neither is touching a rogue let alone a charmed pet but the warrior isn’t doing great. Any difference might be a shaman pet…if that. This not saying which is better either, most properly geared 2h knights are smashing blues.

Meanwhile on a 30 second fight that’s maybe two spells which is almost no mana. You can pick the timing of when they land for ideal threat vs hoping for RNG which at maxed dex is 2ppm off the main hand or 1ppm in the same duration.

For generic grind and semi-raid use my pally has only had me wishing I had a warrior twice: Bro Z and the General in Kith. Both situations where adding a healer fixes the problem. If I had a warrior instead of a paladin I’d be fine with that too. Being able to use a ratio 2h for low threat dps is a nice hat trick even if tanking non-Lord/Lady stuff would be more ice skating than with a knight.

TBH, out of a bit of raid insecurity I’ve considered finishing the warrior as well. The knight doesn’t bring as much to the table other than trash tanking and SF clicks. Since then I’ve leveled up a bane wiz and cleric, both having even less dkp in them than my paladin let alone any properly equipped warrior. I’m sure I’ll finish the warrior eventually but I’ve just never seen a problem we couldn’t solve with a knight not involving a CH chain of more than 2 people.

[Troxx]

I have a NTOV 60 paladin and a 60 Frostreaver warrior.

The paladin and warrior can both solo easy shit. They both lock aggro equally well. The warrior takes a lot less damage and does 30-40% more damage despite having an objectively worse weapon.

Both hold aggro. Warrior does most all better. Honorable mention to Paladin for spell kit utility.

Sk has a shit spell book by comparison.

Ewww.

[enjchanter]

You guy are missing the point

Paladin is fun
Warrior is boring

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I have a NTOV 60 paladin and a 60 Frostreaver warrior.

The paladin and warrior can both solo easy shit. They both lock aggro equally well. The warrior takes a lot less damage and does 30-40% more damage despite having an objectively worse weapon.

Both hold aggro. Warrior does most all better. Honorable mention to Paladin for spell kit utility.

Sk has a shit spell book by comparison.

Ewww.

This shows your inexperience with Knights quite well. Paladins and Shadowknights can solo better than Warriors. If you don't understand this, you've only soloed "easy shit".

You also don't understand agro if you think a Frostreaver Warrior can hold agro equally well to a Paladin/SK. Frostreaver can be used by Knights by the way.

Finally, you don't seem to understand damage mitigation, as Paladins and Shadowknights also have methods for damage mitigation. Heals, Taps, Fear Kiting, etc. Warrior Discs are only needed on a small percentage of content.

You don't have an SK, which is probably the cause of your lack of understanding of SKs.

Please stop trolling, or please learn the game so you can be informed.

[Duik]

Troxx, i think your lesson is about to begin.

[Soothsayer]

At least warriors are viable at level 60. I remember having a blast on my warrior when Green first launched, and then I hit 50 and realized I was literally just a sub-par melee DPS that almost never got to tank cool stuff. I spent so much time gathering the annoying list of clickies and consumables that they required, and for all that effort, I occasionally got a pity offtank spot or a rare chance to tank Phinny every once in a great while. Raiding with Kingdom at level 50 as warrior was definitely the nadir of my EQ experience. It sucked. I eventually stopped playing... didn't really have the energy to reroll after so much time and effort on my warrior.

If a new server happens, I'm 100% rolling SK and never looking back. Probably gonna be an Erudite for maximum style and coolness points, too. For posterity, I do NOT recommend playing a warrior for any reason in pre-Kunark EQ. They're straight up trash.