Hamer or Sowrd - Guild Wars Forums

Dki · Apr 08, 2006, 12:58 AM // 00:58

OK guys i made my first W/Mo and i was wondering what is beteer Hamer or sword

Thanks in Advance

Joh · Apr 08, 2006, 01:07 AM // 01:07

Depends on how you want to play. Hammers tend to deal more damage and have knockdown skills, with the penalty of not being able to wield a shield. Swords attack faster, seems to focus more on conditions (ie Sever Artery, Gash, Hamstring) but gives you the option to wield a shield in return.

As I said, there's no "better". It all comes down to what you feel like playing. I say try both and decide for yourself.

Haggard · Apr 08, 2006, 01:12 AM // 01:12

I went sword to start with, switching to axe later. I've given hammers a couple of tries but.. as a friend of mine once said "the hammer has no place in PvE" (dont flame me, hammer loving forum-goes), and indeed it does annoy me when i get a warrior in my PUG using one.
Only two days ago, our 'tank' for Oro farming, in full FoW armour, brought a bar of full hammer attack skills, with Devastating Hammer as his elite. He knew to take the gear, but then ran straight into the Oro defend part, buggering the whole run.

Dki · Apr 08, 2006, 01:13 AM // 01:13

Thanks i am gona do that tes both of them
Thanks

$hade. · Apr 08, 2006, 01:22 AM // 01:22

Also Sword is alot faster and does focus on more conidtion type attacks (Deep wound, Bleeding etc) Hammer is more slower and powerful and you cannot weild a shield. I would say for PvE a hammer would be pretty good but depends on what you like. I personally like the axe. It's quick and can do more dmg than a sword.

Just that the dmg varies alot more.

Haggard · Apr 08, 2006, 01:28 AM // 01:28

The dmg varying isnt a big issue for me, I use axe because it has such damn good skills. But the new Sword skills in factions look darn tasty, so keeping hold of my sword hat and victos blade here.

Dki · Apr 08, 2006, 01:41 AM // 01:41

OK so if you have a sword and u are a warrior u can use the faction skill once faction come alive?

Kook~NBK~ · Apr 08, 2006, 01:46 AM // 01:46

Axe!

And yes, once Factions comes out, you can use those skills - if you have it on that account.

VitisVinifera · Apr 08, 2006, 02:19 AM // 02:19

hamer or sowrd? I say go aex

Haggard · Apr 08, 2006, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Some warriors are opting for swords in GvG, because of the massive spike from Gash + Final Thrust, and also its very easy to get hold of a 'perfect sword', Victo's Blade, which a friend managed to get for 7k a few days ago, wheras there is no Axe equivalent to it, only Furious, Sundering (bah), and Cruel.

mattjones527 · Apr 08, 2006, 02:50 AM // 02:50

I think sword/axe/hammer each are superior in different situations. If its a PvE build I like sword the best in most cases. With the current skills I would only reccomend axe if you have an axe elite, but thats just my opinion.

Kyle · Apr 08, 2006, 04:10 AM // 04:10

As stated swords lay conditions. Hammers lay your opponent on the ground. basic as that. You also loose shield. But if you were a W/R you could use tigers fury to speed up your hammer.

Murder In China · Apr 08, 2006, 05:23 AM // 05:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitisVinifera

hamer or sowrd? I say go aex

|\|0, g0 \/\/|30.

nummer · Apr 08, 2006, 06:24 AM // 06:24

my w/mo uses sword and hammer both, i simply swap out the skillpoints and helmet(superior runed +3,+1) so i can adapt to the mission or zone i intend to run.

example, undead , azures, elemental golems and so on dont bleed. so use hammer. also, a lot of casters? use dwarvern battle stance to interupt for 9 - 10 secs. hammer users should have tactics skills equipped like doylak and *watch yourself*.

axes are simply more versatile because of the skill tree, they do decent damage but dont really specialise in either Knockdown or conditions..

my money says own a green hammer and a gold/green sword shield combo, and 2 helmets.

also for the first areas of the game, ascalon - to lions arch, hammers are simply great as youll get a max for cheap and lots of enemies are bulnerable to thier blunt hits, im my opinion.

Rilder · Apr 08, 2006, 09:48 AM // 09:48

heres what I think its made out to be

Hammer: Offensive weapon with high damage skills and base damage plus powerfull knockdowns

Sword: Defensive with riptostes , shield and conditions

Axe: Well balanced with conditions, a shield for stances and strong damaging attacks

Personaly I use a hammer for PvE standard grouping and a sword for farming... axes can kiss my behind

Replicant · Apr 08, 2006, 09:56 AM // 09:56

my W/Mo started out as a Hammer, then went to sword then went to axe... i've never left Axe since.

in my opinion Axe > Sword > Hammer

Axe - 6-28 damage, higher max damage for a chance of harder hits, swings about the same speed as a sword and most skills are adrenaline based. Not many Conditions.

Sword - 15-22 damage, higher min damage for a constant damage range, swings a little faster then axes but not noticable. and most skills are energy based. also has many Conditions (Bleed, Cripple etc..)

Hammer - 19-35 damage, highest damage but big gap of damage, swings the slowest of all melee weapons and cannot use a shield.. Skills are about even on Energy/Adrenaline. Mostly seen in PvP for knockdowns and usually called newbs in PvE..

just my 2 cents.

Swinging Fists · Apr 11, 2006, 08:24 PM // 20:24

Hammer users have higher damage, even with the slower attack rate. Hammer users have no shield, thus -16AL, which is maybe increasing damage taken by about 30% ? In addition to less armor, hammer warriors lose the benefit of any mods than can accompany a shield, including +60 hp, -3 dmg, perhaps additional AL, whatever. It seems to me that PvE hammer warriors have no intent on "tanking" for the team or for that matter protecting the squishies from opposing mobs. They are about dealing out damage themselves and have not a whole lot of concern about what the rest of the team is doing.

When I play my SS Necro with hammer warriors in PvE, I have a difficult time using SS because 1) they make no attempt to aggro multiple enemies, thus making SS moot, 2) they do kill (most) foes fairly rapidly, so any mobs that happen to come around only get hit with one or two helpings of SS. I realize that yeah, they are probably beating individual foes quicker than a sword would, but it isn't much of a team effort, and I would estimate that it takes longer to take out the entire mob because the team isn't working together.

Now, I am also a W/Mo, and I mainly use sword (Victo's), but that's more just a matter of familiarity and I will be developing my axe and hammer skills as I progress. I think there is a time and place for each of them. But to think that ANet made hammers just flat out superior to sword or axe (or the other way around) just can't be right.

Also, the hammer warriors that I mainly play with have no other characters, so all they know is warrior. I'm wondering if a lack of knowledge of other professions might contribute to some hammer warriors belief that they are superior ? Just a thought.

Mandy Memory · Apr 11, 2006, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Im assuming you mean pve, in which case you need a sword for riposte...how else can you solo?

Akhilleus · Apr 11, 2006, 10:24 PM // 22:24

as someone with a alot of warriors, which use swords, axes, hammers, in all forms of combat (i will only use pve chars in pvp, so any character i have has had experience in both) i must say the following.

A: no, swords do not have more conditions than axes...in fact, they have less, in that most axe-warrior condition-skills apply an added damage amount, whereas only gash does this for sword warriors (excluding desperation blow).
the difference is in how the conditions are layed out, particularly hamstring vs axe rake; the sword warrior has the advantage here, since they can use hamstring right off the bat, with no adrenaline buildup needed.
all in all, i think swords are the most versatile; an emagalation of damage, defense, conditions, adren attacks, and energy attacks. this has its advantages, and its faults. sword warriors dont have the high-end damage of axe warriors, but instead have a higher average damage. overall, worse for spiking, but sword warriors have a penchant for being able tot ake enemy warriors down; hence why in most higher level gvgs, when combating an overextended warrior, and simentaneously keeping pressure on the enemy casters, it is the sword warrior that will hunt down the overextended warrior.
one of their key flaws, is that unlike axe warriors, they are vulnerable to e-denial; but at the same time, are slightly less suspetable to adrenaline-stopping skills.

B: hammers, the most damage per hit, hands down. damage over time though, is another matter...also significantly less resiliant than axe or sword warriors.
their advantage is in knockdown; and with it the ability to floor casters (literally). hammer wars are ideal for taking down mushy targets, and fast-casting prot monks. they are, however, absolutly terrible when used against a propperly built sword or axe warrior.

C: axes; great condition potential, and warrior vs warrior its their conditions that makes them strong, particularly weakness. they are, however, used as spike-warriors, namely because while their average damage is lower than that of a sword warrior, when they do land a critical hit, the potential for damage is...considerable. next to hammers warriors they ahve the highest potential damage-per-hit out of warrior weapons, and unlike hammer warriors, they ca use shields, which makes them tougher to take down. one of the strong points, and faults, of axe warriors, is their absolute reliance on adrenaline attacks. this means they can give a disregard to energy (something most sword warriors cannot afford to do), but at the same time, a single soothing images can shut them down without hex removal.
because of their merging of damage potential and defense, they are the prime choice warrior build for most pvp teams.

tuperwho · Apr 11, 2006, 10:39 PM // 22:39

I did all 3. I started sword because I liked the look and the plot gives you more sword skills to work with than the other weapons early in the game. I then went axe for a change of scenary and to see the "uber power" everyone claims it to have. After a period of this, I went hammer, and will never go back.

Guildwiki is down, so I could not check to be certain, but I believe that the following is correct for weapon speeds: sword/axe = 1 attack every 1.33 sec. hammer = 1 attack every 1.5 sec. This is not as big a difference as many would assert. Further, since attack speed boosts are percentages, under the influence of one, this difference shrinks even smaller. Thus, the slower speed is easily made up by the combo of additional damge of a hammer, plus the ability to do lenthy knockdowns/interrups and things like blind enemies.

And yes, without a shield, you take more damage. The armor scale is not linear, though. With the curve of the line as it stands, I believe -16 armor equates to 15-20% more damage taken (based on 2^x, where x = gain or loss of armor/40). The added defense you get from knockdowns, AoE blindness, and weakness make up for this, however. By taking fewer hits, you outdo the -16 defense, imo.

In conclusion, Hammer!! Yes, even in PvE.

Apr 08, 2006, 12:58 AM // 00:58	#1
Dki Academy Page Join Date: Apr 2006 Guild: MFH Profession: W/Mo	Hamer or Sowrd OK guys i made my first W/Mo and i was wondering what is beteer Hamer or sword Thanks in Advance

Apr 11, 2006, 08:24 PM // 20:24	#17
Swinging Fists Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Mar 2006 Profession: W/Mo	Hammer users have higher damage, even with the slower attack rate. Hammer users have no shield, thus -16AL, which is maybe increasing damage taken by about 30% ? In addition to less armor, hammer warriors lose the benefit of any mods than can accompany a shield, including +60 hp, -3 dmg, perhaps additional AL, whatever. It seems to me that PvE hammer warriors have no intent on "tanking" for the team or for that matter protecting the squishies from opposing mobs. They are about dealing out damage themselves and have not a whole lot of concern about what the rest of the team is doing. When I play my SS Necro with hammer warriors in PvE, I have a difficult time using SS because 1) they make no attempt to aggro multiple enemies, thus making SS moot, 2) they do kill (most) foes fairly rapidly, so any mobs that happen to come around only get hit with one or two helpings of SS. I realize that yeah, they are probably beating individual foes quicker than a sword would, but it isn't much of a team effort, and I would estimate that it takes longer to take out the entire mob because the team isn't working together. Now, I am also a W/Mo, and I mainly use sword (Victo's), but that's more just a matter of familiarity and I will be developing my axe and hammer skills as I progress. I think there is a time and place for each of them. But to think that ANet made hammers just flat out superior to sword or axe (or the other way around) just can't be right. Also, the hammer warriors that I mainly play with have no other characters, so all they know is warrior. I'm wondering if a lack of knowledge of other professions might contribute to some hammer warriors belief that they are superior ? Just a thought. Last edited by Swinging Fists; Apr 11, 2006 at 08:27 PM // 20:27..

Apr 11, 2006, 10:24 PM // 22:24	#19
Akhilleus Forge Runner Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: If it aint expensive, it aint worth buyin'. Guild: Leading/Co-leading Bretheren Of Chaos [Dark] Profession: W/Mo	as someone with a alot of warriors, which use swords, axes, hammers, in all forms of combat (i will only use pve chars in pvp, so any character i have has had experience in both) i must say the following. A: no, swords do not have more conditions than axes...in fact, they have less, in that most axe-warrior condition-skills apply an added damage amount, whereas only gash does this for sword warriors (excluding desperation blow). the difference is in how the conditions are layed out, particularly hamstring vs axe rake; the sword warrior has the advantage here, since they can use hamstring right off the bat, with no adrenaline buildup needed. all in all, i think swords are the most versatile; an emagalation of damage, defense, conditions, adren attacks, and energy attacks. this has its advantages, and its faults. sword warriors dont have the high-end damage of axe warriors, but instead have a higher average damage. overall, worse for spiking, but sword warriors have a penchant for being able tot ake enemy warriors down; hence why in most higher level gvgs, when combating an overextended warrior, and simentaneously keeping pressure on the enemy casters, it is the sword warrior that will hunt down the overextended warrior. one of their key flaws, is that unlike axe warriors, they are vulnerable to e-denial; but at the same time, are slightly less suspetable to adrenaline-stopping skills. B: hammers, the most damage per hit, hands down. damage over time though, is another matter...also significantly less resiliant than axe or sword warriors. their advantage is in knockdown; and with it the ability to floor casters (literally). hammer wars are ideal for taking down mushy targets, and fast-casting prot monks. they are, however, absolutly terrible when used against a propperly built sword or axe warrior. C: axes; great condition potential, and warrior vs warrior its their conditions that makes them strong, particularly weakness. they are, however, used as spike-warriors, namely because while their average damage is lower than that of a sword warrior, when they do land a critical hit, the potential for damage is...considerable. next to hammers warriors they ahve the highest potential damage-per-hit out of warrior weapons, and unlike hammer warriors, they ca use shields, which makes them tougher to take down. one of the strong points, and faults, of axe warriors, is their absolute reliance on adrenaline attacks. this means they can give a disregard to energy (something most sword warriors cannot afford to do), but at the same time, a single soothing images can shut them down without hex removal. because of their merging of damage potential and defense, they are the prime choice warrior build for most pvp teams. Last edited by Akhilleus; Apr 11, 2006 at 10:28 PM // 22:28..

Apr 08, 2006, 01:07 AM // 01:07	#2
Joh Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Sweden Guild: Lucid Dreams [LD]	Depends on how you want to play. Hammers tend to deal more damage and have knockdown skills, with the penalty of not being able to wield a shield. Swords attack faster, seems to focus more on conditions (ie Sever Artery, Gash, Hamstring) but gives you the option to wield a shield in return. As I said, there's no "better". It all comes down to what you feel like playing. I say try both and decide for yourself.

Apr 08, 2006, 01:12 AM // 01:12	#3
Haggard Desert Nomad Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Urmston, Manchester, UK Guild: Greener Pastures [DVDF] Profession: W/Rt	I went sword to start with, switching to axe later. I've given hammers a couple of tries but.. as a friend of mine once said "the hammer has no place in PvE" (dont flame me, hammer loving forum-goes), and indeed it does annoy me when i get a warrior in my PUG using one. Only two days ago, our 'tank' for Oro farming, in full FoW armour, brought a bar of full hammer attack skills, with Devastating Hammer as his elite. He knew to take the gear, but then ran straight into the Oro defend part, buggering the whole run.

Apr 08, 2006, 01:13 AM // 01:13	#4
Dki Academy Page Join Date: Apr 2006 Guild: MFH Profession: W/Mo	Thanks i am gona do that tes both of them Thanks

Apr 08, 2006, 01:22 AM // 01:22	#5
$hade. Krytan Explorer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Canada Guild: [FiRM[] Profession: R/	Also Sword is alot faster and does focus on more conidtion type attacks (Deep wound, Bleeding etc) Hammer is more slower and powerful and you cannot weild a shield. I would say for PvE a hammer would be pretty good but depends on what you like. I personally like the axe. It's quick and can do more dmg than a sword. Just that the dmg varies alot more.

Apr 08, 2006, 01:28 AM // 01:28	#6
Haggard Desert Nomad Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Urmston, Manchester, UK Guild: Greener Pastures [DVDF] Profession: W/Rt	The dmg varying isnt a big issue for me, I use axe because it has such damn good skills. But the new Sword skills in factions look darn tasty, so keeping hold of my sword hat and victos blade here.

Apr 08, 2006, 01:41 AM // 01:41	#7
Dki Academy Page Join Date: Apr 2006 Guild: MFH Profession: W/Mo	OK so if you have a sword and u are a warrior u can use the faction skill once faction come alive?

Apr 08, 2006, 01:46 AM // 01:46	#8
Kook~NBK~ Grotto Attendant Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: A little chalet outside Drok's Guild: Natural Born Killaz	Axe! And yes, once Factions comes out, you can use those skills - if you have it on that account.

Apr 08, 2006, 02:19 AM // 02:19	#9
VitisVinifera Banned Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Northern California Guild: HoTR Profession: N/Me	hamer or sowrd? I say go aex

Apr 08, 2006, 02:24 AM // 02:24	#10
Haggard Desert Nomad Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Urmston, Manchester, UK Guild: Greener Pastures [DVDF] Profession: W/Rt	Some warriors are opting for swords in GvG, because of the massive spike from Gash + Final Thrust, and also its very easy to get hold of a 'perfect sword', Victo's Blade, which a friend managed to get for 7k a few days ago, wheras there is no Axe equivalent to it, only Furious, Sundering (bah), and Cruel.

Apr 08, 2006, 02:50 AM // 02:50	#11
mattjones527 Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Oct 2005	I think sword/axe/hammer each are superior in different situations. If its a PvE build I like sword the best in most cases. With the current skills I would only reccomend axe if you have an axe elite, but thats just my opinion.

Apr 08, 2006, 04:10 AM // 04:10	#12
Kyle Krytan Explorer Join Date: Jun 2005 Guild: Legends Of Teh Industry [XXX]	As stated swords lay conditions. Hammers lay your opponent on the ground. basic as that. You also loose shield. But if you were a W/R you could use tigers fury to speed up your hammer.

Apr 08, 2006, 06:24 AM // 06:24	#14
nummer Pre-Searing Cadet Join Date: Nov 2005	my w/mo uses sword and hammer both, i simply swap out the skillpoints and helmet(superior runed +3,+1) so i can adapt to the mission or zone i intend to run. example, undead , azures, elemental golems and so on dont bleed. so use hammer. also, a lot of casters? use dwarvern battle stance to interupt for 9 - 10 secs. hammer users should have tactics skills equipped like doylak and watch yourself. axes are simply more versatile because of the skill tree, they do decent damage but dont really specialise in either Knockdown or conditions.. my money says own a green hammer and a gold/green sword shield combo, and 2 helmets. also for the first areas of the game, ascalon - to lions arch, hammers are simply great as youll get a max for cheap and lots of enemies are bulnerable to thier blunt hits, im my opinion.

Apr 08, 2006, 09:48 AM // 09:48	#15
Rilder Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Feb 2006 Guild: Mystic Shadow Soldiers (MSS) Profession: R/	heres what I think its made out to be Hammer: Offensive weapon with high damage skills and base damage plus powerfull knockdowns Sword: Defensive with riptostes , shield and conditions Axe: Well balanced with conditions, a shield for stances and strong damaging attacks Personaly I use a hammer for PvE standard grouping and a sword for farming... axes can kiss my behind

Apr 08, 2006, 09:56 AM // 09:56	#16
Replicant Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Jan 2006 Profession: R/Me	my W/Mo started out as a Hammer, then went to sword then went to axe... i've never left Axe since. in my opinion Axe > Sword > Hammer Axe - 6-28 damage, higher max damage for a chance of harder hits, swings about the same speed as a sword and most skills are adrenaline based. Not many Conditions. Sword - 15-22 damage, higher min damage for a constant damage range, swings a little faster then axes but not noticable. and most skills are energy based. also has many Conditions (Bleed, Cripple etc..) Hammer - 19-35 damage, highest damage but big gap of damage, swings the slowest of all melee weapons and cannot use a shield.. Skills are about even on Energy/Adrenaline. Mostly seen in PvP for knockdowns and usually called newbs in PvE.. just my 2 cents.

Apr 11, 2006, 09:40 PM // 21:40	#18
Mandy Memory Desert Nomad Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Guild: Xen of Sigils [XoO] Profession: W/	Im assuming you mean pve, in which case you need a sword for riposte...how else can you solo?

Apr 11, 2006, 10:39 PM // 22:39	#20
tuperwho Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Jul 2005 Guild: Tenacious Knights of Doom [TKD]	I did all 3. I started sword because I liked the look and the plot gives you more sword skills to work with than the other weapons early in the game. I then went axe for a change of scenary and to see the "uber power" everyone claims it to have. After a period of this, I went hammer, and will never go back. Guildwiki is down, so I could not check to be certain, but I believe that the following is correct for weapon speeds: sword/axe = 1 attack every 1.33 sec. hammer = 1 attack every 1.5 sec. This is not as big a difference as many would assert. Further, since attack speed boosts are percentages, under the influence of one, this difference shrinks even smaller. Thus, the slower speed is easily made up by the combo of additional damge of a hammer, plus the ability to do lenthy knockdowns/interrups and things like blind enemies. And yes, without a shield, you take more damage. The armor scale is not linear, though. With the curve of the line as it stands, I believe -16 armor equates to 15-20% more damage taken (based on 2^x, where x = gain or loss of armor/40). The added defense you get from knockdowns, AoE blindness, and weakness make up for this, however. By taking fewer hits, you outdo the -16 defense, imo. In conclusion, Hammer!! Yes, even in PvE.