Talk:Warrior

Archive

---

• 2010

You know it's sad but true

So in Guild Wars 1, particularly before all of the expansions, warriors were the most important professions other than monks. In high-level competitive PvP, a good warrior was essential to victory. I was pretty damn good :) According to a panel discussion by ArenaNET, the warrior is meant to be a simple class to play, very introductory for most players. I wonder if this is mutually exclusive with the warrior being a class of choice for highly competitive players.. I wonder. Any ideas? — Omigawa 7:30, 29 Jan 2011 (UTC) 02:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Simple to play does not equal simple to master. Every profession has its own areas of expertise and its own unique aspect in gameplay. The warrior is a good starting-out profession in most games, and ArenaNet didn't want to break from that tradition. For the same reason, elementalist is the easiest to start with of the scholars and the ranger is the easiest to start with of the adventurers. - Infinite - talk 03:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In almost all MMO's Warriors are very simple to pick up and play, but as the OP said, very difficult to master. GW2 seems to following an archetypal class creation process so I think Warriors will remain the easy-to-learn-difficult-to-master-class. It looks to me like warriors will remain the primary frontliner and their role in PvP will not be able to be replicated by other classes. 71.158.171.210 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Power (trait) deleted

Article was speedily deleted. Did it change to a different name or something? --Xu Davella 08:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, [[Power (trait line)|found it]]. --Xu Davella 08:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Body Build

In the first one, the warriors were huge, muscular line-backers of men, and I didn't really like that. Any one know what the warriors will look like? Gschmechel25 14:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we can see females and males (and 2 females) in various rendered art. Also here. They're pretty muscular. As for the other races, they will look like these: asura, charr, norn. Sylvari are not yet revealed as they are being redesigned. Note that all soldiers wear the same armor, so the norn image might also be a guardian, whereas the asura one is a guardian. This shouldn't introduce massive changes in looks. - Infinite - talk 14:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, there's no such massive difference between, say, a thief and a warrior males. Note also that they've said something about body proportion choices, so you might be able to make an even slimmer warrior. Oh, and infinite, there's two women in the second picture... All four seem to wear heavy armor. Tuomir 15:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the age. Blindness kicking in and all. -rolls eyes- (Thanks for that note.) - Infinite - talk 15:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Infinite. They aren't as bulky as the old warriors, which is more along the lines of what I meant. Gschmechel25 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad about the warriors not looking that bulky oh and Tuomir could you link to where A-net said something about proportions please ^^? thanks in advance <3 --The Holy Dragons 05:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Bulky" soldier class characters would've been logical, but it seems GW2 is going for a more "Let's be as unreasonably unrealistic as possible." approach with the exception of weapons. Why limit weapons per profession but not body-types? It makes no sense. GW2 is basically contradicting itself. They should either try to be somewhat realistic or not rather than half-assing it. Teddy Dan 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Tyrians are actually German and thus refuse to use inefficient set-ups. I bet Martin would hide behind that. :P - Infinite - talk 12:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The body proportion sliders are something that I don't even remember where I heard it from, I just remembered reading of it from somewhere. Heck, it could have been someone speculating in here... But I'm pretty sure I've read of them nevertheless.Tuomir 15:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It was stated in one of the more recent interviews. I just can't be arsed to point out which one. - Infinite - talk 16:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Viability of Ranged Warrior?

With the all the available range attack options, does anyone feel that it would be practical to make a ranged primary warrior?71.234.85.55 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been mentioned that ranged warriors are equally viable to melee warriors. How that works out in-game is currently not determined, so there is no direct answer to hand out. Personally I dislike a ranged-focussed warrior, but I will dedicate 1 of the weapon sets to ranged combat to allow more utility. - Infinite - talk 01:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I dislike most ranged fighting beyond casters and, well, RANGErs. I feel GW2 is not-so-subtly killing off rangers by basically divvying up all of its practical uses between other professions. The only thing it has left of its own is pets, and that's just depressing. I'm pretty sure having a pet is not going to make up for a bunch of other professions being able to do what you can do, only better (in most cases). Warriors have some pretty strong ranged attacks and are likely going to be better at melee, Thieves have traps (at least one of which seems very useful)and can actually make some practical use of stealth mode. Maybe I'm just bitter about seeing other (primary) professions capable of doing (better) what my favorite profession is meant to specialize in. Teddy Dan 16:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Warrior ranged damage will probably be lacking, considering their armor class and that fact that ranged DPS should always be lower than melee. Rangers are not meant to specialize in anything. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 21:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Besides pets(/bestial companions), traps and ranged physical combat. Hybrids can still specialize, just not in what they're hybrids of. Warriors will likely be no less lacking in ranged physical combat than an average ranger. Rangers have shortbows, but warriors have rifles. Teddy Dan 22:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"The ranger is a jack-of-all-trades and a master of them all as well." Warriors will hopefully deal a ranger's shortbow damage with their longbow; the ranger's ability to move would make up for the lower armor. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So Anet is breaking the traditional lore mold, again. Typically, in fantasy, a ranger or other hunter-hybrid is not as strong or adept at melee combat as typical fighters nor as adept at magic as typical mages. With that quote, Anet has admitted to more of its atypical intentions. Of course, (to the best of my knowledge, so far) GW2 rangers aren't going to be using spells in the same sense as the scholar class, so they're technically not fighter~caster hybrids. More like fighter~acrobat/warrior~thief hybrids with pets. Still, a lack of spells contradicts the "master-of-all-trades" comment. Teddy Dan 03:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they aim for jack-of-all-trades in the sense of all its weapons are equally viable to a ranger.

That said, they seem to try for a system like that on all professions thus far, most notably the thief (who even had dual skills to underscore this fact). - Infinite - talk 08:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

GW2 rangers don't use staves, scepters or caster focus items (but they do use warhorns and torches). We're getting off-topic, though. Teddy Dan 16:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Scythes Anyone?

Just a thought here, wouldn't it be a good idea to have warrior's use the scythe now? As they are not bringing the dervish back, should the weapon really die because the profession is? Just an idea. Let me know what you think. WarriorsDontSuck 09:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the necromancer uses the scythe when they enter death shroud, but that mechanic's been updated so I dunno now. --Xu Davella 09:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

At the moment scythes are not implanted in the game. Maybe we will see it in future expansions. Also, personally I think that the greatsword is a good alternative. -- Cyan 09:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

On the necromancer? I'm not really sure that would be a good idea with the low armor, but if its while in death shroud. And i figured they were not in yet. I also like the great sword but the scythe is unique WarriorsDontSuck

True, I also like the scythe as weapon. There is indeed a necromancer skill with an animation where it seems to hold a scythe, but I think that was not the death shroud, but another skill. Searching for a screen right now. -- Cyan 09:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, necromancers' staff skills are animated with a black, shadowy scythe that replaces their staves. I must add, though, the necromancer was/is/is being/has been reworked (whatever state it is in now) and they might have changed things. - Infinite - talk 11:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Weapon swap recharge info obsolete?

"The warrior can equip and alternate between two weapon sets, but doing so in combat induces a recharge to prevent continuous switching between weapons. This recharge can be decreased by equipping the Weapon Mastery trait once gained." Is this info outdated, or is this recharge specific to the Warrior only? As far as I know, other professions don't have this recharge on weapon swapping. Arshay Duskbrow 09:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that weapon swap recharge applies to everyone (or, at least, those who can weapon swap). Aqua (T|C) 14:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Warrior was the first profession capable of swapping weapons in combat introduced, so that might have been some kind of example how weapon swapping differs from original Guild Wars. Mediggo 15:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

all professions have the ability to swap weapons during a fight (with a recharge after) except for the elementalist which isn't able to swap weapons (during combat) --The Holy Dragons 17:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? Must be a quite short recharge then, I've never noticed it in all the videos I've watched. Ah well. Arshay Duskbrow 09:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about Engineers. They only have one weapon slot as well, but are able to get around that by making kits and backpacks. Ptarmigan 12:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, everyone has a weapon swap cool down. Even ele's have it on their attunements. It's very short, between 2 - 10 seconds. They basically just want to prevent ppl from spam swapping for just one skill. Engis have backpacks and kits with normal slot skill recharge times. --Moto Saxon 15:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

and the cool down may have been left out of the demo to make it more enjoyable. But devs have stated that cool downs are in the game, but are short. --Moto Saxon 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I played a warrior during the Beta, the combat swapping cooldown is there, but it only lasts for a few seconds. So, I started with a rifle and pulled my foes to me, then swapped to my melee set to finish them off. By the time they were finished, I was able to swap back again. It really isn't noticeable unless you are switching back and forth constantly for some reason. 70.64.65.186 18:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Physical

"Physical — is a warrior skill type that involves physically damaging a foe or group of foes." I don't think that those skills focus on damaging foes. It's more about crowd control and distance management. Gnarf 15:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably, feel free to change it, I couldn't find a good way to describe the skill type, xD. Jnew 15:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Attacking

Not sure if this is the right talk section for this but: When my friend is playing a warrior, he hits the TAB key and that targets the closest enemy. In Guild Wars (the original) you could hit the space bar and run at the enemy. In Guild Wars 2 we can't figure out a way to do that. 1st has that feature been removed? 2nd if it is still there how do you use it? When he is in combat the enemies are moving so fast that it is all but impossible to just try to keep hitting the W A & D keys to try to run towards them (or even trying to use the mouse to try to get near them (the enemy) is basically impossible.) What are we missing? Varuuth 04:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're missing a forum to post this in. But seriously, I don't believe there's any auto-move button. If you want to close distance faster, there are skills like Bull's Charge, Rush, or Savage Leap. Also, why are enemies running away from you? If you have aggro, most enemies will attack you head on. If you don't have aggro, where are they going? Thunderduck 04:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

they are running away because (for example) there are tons of enemies that come running out of a dungeon, but with all of the PCs around the other PCs are getting agro, so now my friend have to figure out where the enemy ran to so he can run to them (the enemy), and by the time he can turn the camera, figure out where they went, then run to the enemy.. said enemy is dead. Here is another example- I was playing a norn ranger, and him a norn warrior.. as he was running towards the enemy, he was in the lead, I threw an axe at the enemy and hit the thing first. Somehow even though he was closer to the enemy I now had aggro. So what happens, the enemy runs past him and to me. By the time he can spin that camera and figure out that the enemy is now behind him running to me and try to run back to it.. I have tossed a few more axes at it and killed it. This happens over and over.. Varuuth 13:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Best Quote from GW2 Forums:

Difference between bad and good players...

Bad players play warriors, Good players play guardians —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.18.245.215 (talk • contribs).

Thank you for your uninformed and unhelpful contribution. The forums are → that way. Vili 点 02:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, good players play any class they want, that's what makes them good players.174.35.247.117 22:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I play a warrior main and I am pretty good with it. However, I also play an elementalist, mesmer, and necro.

I play a Warrior Main and have a Mesmer and Thief that I also play and like. Primeortis (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

ArenaNet's developer videos on the Warrior

Hi everyone,

While discussing with the team, I realized that it may be worth mentioning the livestream video we did about the Warrior (with Isaiah Cartwright). It may be interesting material to list and I'll let the wiki decide what to do with it:

warrior: part 1: http://www.twitch.tv/guildwars2/c/2328098 part 2: http://www.twitch.tv/guildwars2/c/2328118

Thanks :) --Stephane Lo Presti talk 21:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Special Skill Types

Hello, I decided to add shouts and remove the "unique to Warrior" phrase in the skill section in order to be consistent with the other profession pages. Only Elementalist had the "unique to (profession). Shout description could use a clean up. If you disagree, please edit away. Thanks. KCT737 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Multiple professions have access to the shout skill type. Special is an ambiguous descriptor, unique is perfectly fine.--Relyk ~ talk < 02:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Where are the Hero Point totals

Some people might come on to look at the amount of hero point required to get all of the Specializations and Skills. I do not see those on there. Could we try and add the totals on either the specialization's page or on the class's page next to the specializations and skills? This doesn't just apply to warrior. It applies to all of the classes. - Primeortis

You can find them here Training/Warrior Warming Hearth (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It still should be more accessible from the main profession pages, however, since it is kinda hard to find otherwise, especially if you do not know where to look. ~SimeTalk 14:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

While I do agree we should make that information more accessible, I do not think the profession page is the right place to list it. I personally think it would be better to add it to every specialisation page, perhaps with a see also. Warming Hearth (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking we should do or we could add a link at the top saying something like "For Hero Point totals go to Training/Warrior" - Primeortis

I have added the links to the according training pages to the template {{professions nav}}, which is used on every profession page, every trait line page and every elite specialization page at the bottom. Hence, a link to the warrior training page already exists on this page. Furthermore, there is a really prominent link on the Hero point page to the Training page that can't be missed.

In my opinion any additional links are too much because:

1. Necessity: the warrior page and profession pages in general are interesting for all wiki users, no matter which level or occasion. However, the training pages address to levelling wiki users only, as soon as the levelling process is done, they don't serve any purpose for this wiki user.
2. In-game: by clicking the last skill in the training page in-game, the total required amount is shown.
3. Consistency: although this game isn't famous for its consistency, at least for the specializations it is consistent: all core specialization (trait lines) costs 60 hero points and elite specializations costs 250 points. No need to mention this on every single specialization page.

Maybe I'm missing the crucial point (all my characters are level 80), maybe the nav link is not enough... anyways I'll try to answer your request: "add a link on the top". For me this link neither fits into the disambiguation nor in the intro text at top. The first location where it might fit is in the section Warrior#Abilities below Warrior#Traits (e.g. See list of warrior training hero point costs.) although those aren't any abilities as the section header states. Would this be a visible link position?

P.S. You can sign your comments by placing ~~~~. This will substitute your username and the current time. --Tolkyria (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)