Warrior got a lesson ;)

[R2D2]

found this ... and found it... well... funny in a way.... :lol:
that'll teach 'em... ;)

---

From a game point of view I want to design my Warrior to be doing damage in a very warrior like fashion. Not sneaking behind like a rogue, and not with magic like a mage. I want to lop off heads with my axe. I want to charge into battles and kill things, not just let those things hit me while other people do the killing. Most importantly I want to design my own warrior around that ideal.

- TalentedGirl


TalentedGirl, I’ve read a few of your posts here, so correct me if I’m wrong. Your issue is with the warriors “lack� of flexibility, right? As I read your posts, I get the feeling that part of the problem is that any time you end up in a group, you’re being asked to use defensive stance and taunt, yet you prefer using battle stance all the time (correct me if I’m wrong here).

The warrior is one of the more flexible classes because warriors have multiple stances. Battle stance allows a warrior to deal more damage, however a warrior using battle stance will never be equal to a rogue or a mage (current rogue problems aside)

If this is an issue that you want to use the same stance for all fights, but the members of your group are asking you to switch stances, then the problem might not be with the class.

Battle stance is great for some situations, and defensive stance is great for others. In most groups a warrior is better off using defensive stance, because it helps keep the other group members alive, which allows the group to inflict more damage.

The exception to this “suggestion� is when a group has more than one warrior. In which case, it’s is usually optimal to have one warrior in defensive stance while the extra warriors use battle stance.

So when the other members of your group seem frustrated, it’s because they feel that you’re the one being inflexible. You have a class that can switch roles around, but if you select the same stance for every fight, it might put the group at a disadvantage.

There is no rule that says a warrior has to use defensive stance in a group. However, if a group has a warrior, chances are good that the group will better off if the warrior uses defensive stance and taunt. This will allow the priests to heal, and the mages to deal damage (other wise they have to run for their life after casting a spell).

Anytime one player insists on doing the same thing every time even when its not in the best interest of the group, the other players might not be too happy.

All classes have some flexlibity, which allows them to play different roles in a party. Priests get a number of spells that help them solo; they also get some spells (smite) that allow them to be “mage like�, but priests are still the best healers in the game. The smite spell allows a priest to switch in role in some situations, but they will never be at the same level as a mage when it comes to damage.

Let’s say a group has two priests, and they find there isn’t a large need to heal. In this case, it might be better to have one priest heal, while the other smites (or they can both heal a little and smite a little). To play any class well, a player should adapt their play style based on the group and the fight. Always use a classes flexibility to your advantage.

Here is an example from the “other� point of view.

As a warrior, I’m sure you look forward to grouping with priests, because a good healer will keep you from dieing. But there is no rule that says a priest is required to heal you when you need it (it’s just a VERY good idea for priests to heal their teammates) If the priest wants to, he can just cast smite every time and never heal anyone. How would you feel about a player who used kept using smite even when you are about to die?

The priest might have a good reason for what he’s doing; he might enjoy casting damage spells more than healing (at which point it might be a good idea to recommend to this player that he might enjoy playing a mage).

Does the fact that the priest didn’t heal you imply that the priest class is inflexible?

I believe the problem is tied to the strengths of the priest vs everyone’s expectations of what a priest should do.

In this example, the party would have been better off if the priest had healed (at least part of the time) instead of using smite all the time. So, is it an unfair expectation for a priest to heal in a group? What if the priest likes casting smite?

I’ve found that when grouping with players I don’t know, I tend to make assumptions about their play style based on their class, and they tend to do the same to me. Just like you might assume a priest will heal you, other players might assume that you’ll “protect� them from damage during a fight (aka Tank).

You don’t have to play the way everyone wants you to.

- BWhittle

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/threa...352#Post164352

[Kalazor]

http://www.warlocksden.wowmb.net/viewtopic.php?t=2224

Already a post with that same quote on the Den :P.

[R2D2]

ooohh... hmm.. guess I should have read it after all... I didnt think it had anything to do with that...

well.... nvm then