what is, exactly, a warrior?

[Sky]

i was puzzled a short while back when i read someone saying how the warrior lost his bonus blow; i played quite a lot of warriors and have always seen them have multiple blows from the start, so i just assumed this was factored in, and not something instead due to the stat distribution.

so, it just happens that i played to full games to completion with rogues (one Half Troll, one Half Orc) and at the end, i noticed they also get 6 blows .. wth?

I dismissed this class because i thought they didn't have as much DPS in the endgame, and instead they fight as well as warriors do, and on top of that they have several useful spells.

so .. exactly .. what does a warrior do? just pFear at CL30 ?? that doesn't seem like a good trade. surely 3 hp per level can't match having Shield, Resistance, infinite TO, TS, Stun, a valid AOE, Clairvoyance, DT, DM, Haste, Hero, and enchant weapon + armor.

[Philip]

Well, rogues might be unbalanced right now. Possibly taking off some of the buffs would be reasonable, though a lot of the things you mention (DT, enchant) are unimpressive, or even borderline useless. I don't remember them ever having usable AOE damage, and it seems like something they should not have.

In general though, Warriors are for people who actually use 3 hp/level (multiplied by CON bonus?) and higher melee skill and a slightly more favorable blow tree, and the extra stats. My first win was with a warrior, even though I much preferred playing mages and rogues, even at the time. They're pretty hard to kill, and consumables and devices do a lot.

I would also note that you could say much the same about Warrior vs Paladin, and about Paladin vs Priest.

[Pete Mack]

@sky--I always felt that warriors losing the extra blow was a mistake; it means they don't do significantly more damage with the heaviest weapons than rogues or (high-dex) paladins.... and it's particularly hard on half-trolls, which seems like a huge mistake.

[Derakon]

The thing warriors do is have bigger numbers than anyone excepting lategame rangers. They have the best hit dice, the best melee, great ranged, and until recently more blows/round than anyone else (agreed with Pete on that front though).

It turns out that in a game that is in large part about having big numbers, a class built around having big numbers is actually pretty good! Warriors are able to play at a pretty good clip for the entire game. Their lack of versatility hurts, of course, and I'm not trying to claim that they're the best class (for whatever nebulous definition of "best" you want to use), but really they do quite well.

[Sky]

Well, after my first win and a decisive shift in playing style, i now do tend to agree that the game isn't nearly as hard as it feels like to a new player. So, im not saying warriors are WEAK, but still, they lost the one ability that differentiates them from the other classes.

Rogues do have acid ball and shock wave, so if you need to AOE some hounds, that counts.

Let's just say i won't be playing warriors anymore. The hp boost (maybe 100hp endgame over a rogue) just doesnt justify the loss of magic.

I think that, when a class just isnt appealing because of theae reasons, it needs to be changed.

[Huqhox]

For me the warrior should be the ultimate melee machine with a bit of archery skill thrown in. Throughout the game they should be measurably better than other classes at dealing melee damage, much as Rangers are much better at archery.

The next closes class for hand to hand should be Paladins with Rogues and Rangers the next tier down.

Personally I think they need the extra blow and maybe not just pFear at 30 but maybe other buffs (+1 speed every 10 clevels or something).

Just my 2p

They are still very playable though

[Thraalbee]

I am happy with the current situation but would not mind trading for better melee and crap ranged attacks. Warriors are great for the most simplistic playstyle - It moves, it dies. Also, i like the small extra challenge they given for ironman.

[Sky]

Ranger: mulches arrows but deals 2x ranged dps as a mage. 1000hp. Can TS and CLW (really useful with phase and spam CLW). Strong endgame melee. Shield haste resistance slow.
Mage: MBan, endgame spells. 900 hp, 400dps melee, shield haste resistance slow. 0% TO. Rune.
Priest: 1000hp. OOD, *Heal. 500dps melee. Clayrvoiance.
Paladin: 1050hp, Heal, 550dps melee.
Rogue: 1000hp, shield haste resistance slow. 500dps melee. Clairvoyance.

Warrior: 1150hp. 600-650dps.

[Nick]

Warrior: 1150hp. 600-650dps.

Barely has to use any keys other than the arrows

[Nomad]

I am happy with the current situation but would not mind trading for better melee and crap ranged attacks. Warriors are great for the most simplistic playstyle - It moves, it dies. Also, i like the small extra challenge they given for ironman.

I'd quite like to have two non-spellcaster classes: melee-based Warrior and some kind of ranged attacker class - maybe specialised towards crossbows?

[Huqhox]

I'd quite like to have two non-spellcaster classes: melee-based Warrior and some kind of ranged attacker class - maybe specialised towards crossbows?

Perhaps Rangers shouldn't be half casters? Thematically it makes a lot of sense for Paladins as they are 'holy avengers' and also for Rogues since it's long been established in e.g. D&D that they learn some casting ability. I'm not sure that's thematically true of Rangers, except that monster archer types fire magic missiles (to avoid the problem of free ammo) so it seems symmetric that Rangers can too.

Obviously that's a massive change, but thought I'd put that one out there...

[Nick]

Just reminding everyone that 4.2 is slated for race/class revamp (among other things), with particular reference to this thread.

[fph]

Barely has to use any keys other than the arrows

On the contrary -- a priest could get by using only arrows and p; a warrior needs r, q, a, u, z, ...

[Derakon]

I rather like that Angband doesn't hew closely to the by-now established tropes for fantasy classes. Rogues in Angband are actually very skilled melee combatants (barely less capable than paladins). Mages are not completely incompetent at fighting, and may well want to get their hands dirty from time to time. Everyone, regardless of magical aptitude, makes heavy use of magical devices. These are all good things.

In other words, I don't have a problem with classes all being generalists to some extent. Of course there should be things that each class excels at, and things that they're "worst" at, but even the things they're worst at they should still be capable of doing. Even a mage can fight. Even a warrior can sneak.

[Estie]

What happened to warriors is this:

Warriors used to have 6 blow max compared to 5 for hybrids and 4 for casters. Then someone pointed out - correctly, imo - that the heaviest weapons shouldnt allow for full amount of blows even with maxed stats. Enter fractional blows, now everything is possible.

But this is hard to implement, getting everything right, so it was done in too simple a way where only the last absolute blow is affected - blow 5 -> 6 - instead of the last blow the class has. So only the warrior doesnt get his full amount of blows with the heaviest weapons. And since the majority of endgame weapons are - rightfully so - of the heavy types, in effect the warrior lost his endgame damage advantage.