I've been thinking about this and wonder what other people think about it.

Why did you make it checkboxes instead of radio buttons?

I get the feeling three people just voted for both of them simultaneously.

Well, there are 3 votes on yes, 5 on no and 8 total so unless a conveniently equal number of people are voting neither (if you can do that) it has integrity so far.

I think I was the one who started this, because I was complaining that I was getting kind of bored with Warrior.

Here's the problem I see: Warriors as a concept are fine. They've got decent afflictions, they're tanky enough to justify the low damage output (unless you've got a ton of artifacts) and they can fight equally well just about anywhere without needed to meld or anything.

However, there are a couple of little things that make them very frustrating to play, and it revolves around random chance. The slashing/bashing concepts are a great example of this. Say I want to smite down to hit someone in the head. I have a 50/50 chance of actually hitting the head, or hitting the chest instead. Then I have to worry about stance, trueshield, parry, rebounding, reflections, timeslip and whatever else I'm forgetting that can easily stop me from hitting. Then there's the regular miss rate, and skills that enhance dodging, like acrobatics. Finally, if I do manage to hit, and hit the bodypart I wanted, the wounding system kicks in. I have to hit the bodypart enough times to build wounding, which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't still a random chance of getting the affliction I want (or nothing at all) even if I have the wounding for it.

It just seems like a ton of RNG is involved in warrior combat. I started to get a bit frustrated when I watched other people fight and realized most classes can pick an affliction (or set of afflictions) they want and simply type a command to make sure it sticks, with very little you can do to prevent it.

Regardless, I'm not saying that warrior can't be effective, I just wish it was less about beating the RNG.

I don't know if "boost" is the right word for it. Certainly you look at the rawr-monster knights like Shuyin, and the answer is "no".

On the other hand, you have the disparity in ease of use between the specs themselves- a BC or an AL can slap dulak on their weapons and swing away with stuns, having a much easier time building wounds than a knight without the ability to constantly interrupt curing. So as specs, they wind up being more straight foward and easier to use.

It has been tempting for me to switch to another archetype, one where I wouldn't have to deal with rebounding, missing, parry, the wound RNG, and all that stuff.

Now, would I like it if knights were somehow changed to require less coordination on my part? Yes. Is it going to happen? Not unless those people who ARE good at it abandon the archetype for a good long while. I mean, as a PB, I don't even want to waste my time sparring other knights, because if they have any sort of decent curing, chances are very good I'm simply never going to dent them. But I'm also not any kind of top-tier combatant even on a good day, so, meh.

What would be interesting to me, instead of a complete overhaul, would be a new knight spec that basically sacrificed the whole wound mess of skills in favor of support skills (meaning they would be not-great at one on one but useful to squad/friends). Knights would be well suited to that, as it doesn't force knights to go that route (having four other options) and would be equally accessible to every organization.

As I've said eight hundred thousand times, when I discussed this with Roark and Morgfyre a billion years ago (right before morg left), they were talking about changing the %'s per body part. In fact, Morgfyre had the changes on his sandbox. Morgfyre left, and apparently the project fell by the wayside.

The revelation I shared was that in reality you have a 60% chance to MISS (that is, not hit) the body part you use a swing at; that's why people hate them. We all have logs of dumping 8 hack downs into the chest, "hilarious" as that is.

I voted both.

I thought of this too. Many warriors already boost themselves by shelling out thousands of dollars for artifacts and runes. To balance out a warrior boost you'd need to cut down on the overpowering artifacts, and everyone knows what happens whenever you mess with artifacts people have already bought.


Not going to happen. In the players' minds, there is no such thing as a "support" spec. Look at mage/druid. The skills, demesnes, everything about them screams support, but everybody wants to be an offensive powerhouse that can take any other class one-on-one. How many times are combat logs posted where the complaint is basically "I can't beat this person, therefore, you need to change the skills so I can". Mages, druids, trackers, dreamweavers, healers, etc., they all seemed to have been originally designed as support, but people simply do not accept that such a thing exists. A support Knight would be no different.

Thats not depressing at all!

Well yeah, I mean, any new skillset is probably pulling teeth. But if you made a knight spec that was support, any knight who wanted to be a powerhouse would have no less than 4 other options to choose from. Unlike, say, mages or druids or bards, who are stuck with their one primary spec choice. (See: Necroscream having some really great support skills, but Cacos wanting exactly what you said- of course, since every single Caco MUST take Necroscream, it's understandable). Making a support knight spec would give people the option to go that way, or not, entirely within the same archetype/guild.

I whole heartedly agree. While I know mages/druids/bards are meant for support, it is really only fair they can handle themselves in 1v1.

I don't think warriors need anywhere near the boost that other guilds (not necessarily archetypes) need. See: Cantors, Cacophony, etc.

Pureblade.

I'm so going to get yelled at and told I'm wrong...but Cantors are pretty damn good. I sat down and took the time to compare skills. Cacophony need an offensive buff, yes. Cantors are very offense, minus the support -every- bard guild gets. The Cantor mid stanzas and high stanzas are powerful and highly effective in single or group combat. Their low stanzas are on par with everyone because its the regeneration bull.

Cacophony, have the most amazing low stanzas, but if you look, you'll see why. Every bard guild (if choose spec race) is guaranteed a 15 Charisma because of stat boosts, except Viscanti. The +3 CHA buff weight gives them the 15. Other than that..they're other low stanzas are pretty much lichseed without the power.

I wouldn't say that warriors need a boost, though I do wish damage was viable, and not as extreme as it once was. I also wish sacraments held some synergy with warriors and so on.

I remember writing almost exactly this in 2005 not long before giving up playing a warrior.

See above, it was being handled, then scrapped or forgotten when morgfyre left, (S)omeone (notice the capital) should get his work and implement it.

we definitely need a boost. like Isuka said, most warrior attacks have completely random hit ratios that make warrior fights more luck than skill on the top tier. although beastly warriors do exist, the fact is that unless you're decked out in artifacts you CANNOT damage kill. as an Axelord, I have to rely on Hack Down to hit the head, and somehow have built wounds up to critical without being cured, and THEN there's the low percentage chance of getting a behead, which has to go through parry and stance. It's rather frustrating, really. Execute is good, but it's hard enough to build up wounds to critical on ONE body part against anyone who has a decent curing system, let alone heavy wounds on two others.

But guys, haven't we learned anything from forging? The admin have some sort of pact with the RNGod, and it furthers their nefarious plots to take over the world when the players of warriors offer animal sacrifices on the altar of Mersenne. Warriors do beautifully when the numbers fall right, and if they don't, well, them's the breaks. Should've burned more incense with that sacrifice.