Curse

beginners_luck · Oct 21, 2005, 05:59 PM // 17:59

I always hear warriors should be targeted last, etc. I also always hear that a tank is useless in pvp. So that leads me to believe that damage-dealing warriors are the way to go in pvp, with little to no defensive capabilities. After all, that's what your monks are for, right? So what happens when you run an offensive warrior on a team that targets warriors last? You get a dead opposing team. Maybe the target priority should stay the same as before, but there should definitely be some warrior-neutering skills on nearly every player's bar. That goes for rangers, too: ignore a good ranger at your peril, especially if s/he's specced out for interrupting or conditions.

Jetdoc · Oct 21, 2005, 06:04 PM // 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by beginners_luck

So what happens when you run an offensive warrior on a team that targets warriors last? You get a dead opposing team.

Doesn't matter if no one is targeting the warrior...there are many, many ways to eliminate the worry of warriors without targeting them. Stances, wards, blind, pacifism...all do the trick and allow the casters to focus on the true threats.

To run a truly offensive warrior that can make a difference, you need to equip means to counter those measures so that the casters DO need to worry about you. I believe the role of the warrior in PvP is to try to be a distraction that the monks and other casters cannot ignore.

beginners_luck · Oct 21, 2005, 06:16 PM // 18:16

Yes, and how many War/x's carry plague touch, or something akin to Wild Blow? And a few even carry smite/shatter hex. A team should consciously assume that there will be at least one good, offensive warrior coming for them, and not just deal with them in a one-by-one fashion. If they do, then what started out as "kill the monk/ele/mes/nec" turns into "ah! there's a(t least one) warrior on me! I'm defending/dying!" while the vital targets get a breather in the chaos that follows.