Buff on Strength needed!

Rangers have expertise, which can significantly lower their energy costs for a lot of skills

Mesmers have fast casting, which can significantly lower casting times for spells and signets

Necromancers have soul reaping, excellent for energy management

Elementalists have energy storage, which can boost their energy past 100 at times

Paragon's Leadership is very useful energy management for shouts

Monks have divine favor, making their heals a lot more effective

What about strength? This attribute does only 1% armor penetration per point on an attack SKILL. Considering that warriors generally don't go for high armor targets, strength does not really increase the damage output of warriors by much. Compared to the usefulness of the primary attribute with the other classes, strength is WAY underpowered. Many warriors can do sufficient damage even without a lot of points into strength. I would like to see strength give either +1 damage per point, 1% armor penetration on every attack, 2% on an attack skill, or increase max hp by 10hp per point (seeing how energy storage gives an elementalist +3 energy per point, i don't think 10hp per point would be too extreme - a vitae rune gives 10hp anyway, and an attunement rune only gives 2 energy)

10hp per point in strength? as in 160 damage from strength att alone at 12+1+3 or additional 160hp for the warrior at 12+1+3?

yea if you had +10 health per strength you could easily go over the amount taken up by the sup strength ruin. that + a sup vigor rune would put a tanks health at a fairly high amount =.=

The armor penetration idea is pretty lame, but, at the same time, warriors are beastly melee powerhouses, so I don't think they need any buffs. They're probably the most well-balanced melee class, and if it ain't broke don't fix it imo.

Wars have always had a bad primary but this is no way to solve it......

Strength is strong enough as it is, having many useful skills as well as being a requirement for shields. Complaining about its inherent effect is taking a very narrow view on what the attribute does for you when you spec into it.

I actually think that strength is a pretty strong primary.

Apart from +10 hp per point which would be too much strenght does need to be buffed in some way, maybe making armor penetration affect every single hit and not only attack skills, or make it work only with attack skills buffing penetration by 2% per point. Furthermore it does not stack with skills like sundering blow. As it is now it has SOME good skills, some good skills, and a crappy effect compared to other primary attributes.

lol if warrios had extra AP from strength and +1 dmg per attack

16 axe/sword/hammer
10 strength
9 fire/water/air magic

14 dmg from conjure+10 more from strength+10-14 more with a smiter bonding you with SnH=WAY WAY WAY too overpowered war's as they would have +38 dmg to each attack without adding in dmg from evis+exe or whatever else


and if you had +10 health from each point in strength thats 130 extra hp to gvg shock warriors, putting most wars(using 2 minor runes) at...we'll lets see

480 base health
+50 health-sup vigor
+60 health-axe/shield
+40 health-full survivor insgnia
+20 health-2 vigor runes
+130 health-13 strength
780 health warriors without buffs, that seems a bit imbalanced to me


personally i think strength is fine as it is as even when pounding on a monk the difference from 0 strength and 13 strength is very noticeable

You are dumb if you think strength is underpowered. Almost as dumb as those people who think soul reaping is underpowered.

It gives you access to the most important stuff, like bulls, rush, flail.

Compared to other classes it kinda is. But thats just looking at others primarys.... its good how it is.

Though saying +10hp per point is very retarded.

Strength is actualy one of the most powerful primaries out there. Like others have stated, it's passive ability may reek, but the skills in the line are some of the strongest and most varied of any other primary attribute. If you think warriors need a bigger incentive to invest in strength other than the ability to wield a shield and use the skills in the attribute, you're not playing the same game as me.

13% penetration on a shock axe build is very nice...
The only buff I can think of would be str/2 % penetration on auto attacks, but it's not like warriors need it.

actualy the increase would be at strength 16 only + 135 hp, due to the fact that hp malus from sup strength is higher, then sup vigor, so nothing with +160 hp, it are in the end only 135 ...

I think imo somehow too, that Strength needs a buff

Either too instead of +1% Ap per point it should be +1 Damage, this way Strength would become a serious good Attack Buff Attribute, if it would increase permanent your damage by 16 points, also this would balance the damage ratio compared to Dervishs, which do compared to Warriors way to overpowered melee damage as base damage...

The +135 HP i think are also nothing too outrageous, that would make them now too powerful, also there are plenty of ways to take down tanks with high hp fast enough, either by suckign fast away their energy and/or disabling them to receive adrenaline, also tanks are not a great problem, their strength lies in their defense, not in their offense, get simple a build to crack the nut ^^ then won't help 135 more hp much, when you are able to easily break the defense

or instead of more Hp Strength could increase per point +1 Defense vs. physical attacks.

Strength could decrease per point by 2% the duration of physical negative conditions on you. So Bleeding, Blinding, Poison, Weakness, Cripple & Deep Wound would last with R16 32% of their duration time lesser on the Warrior, which would stack with runes, so with rune effects warriors could decrease these conditions effects to only half duration, i think thats a very good and strogn privilege for warriors.
It could be also combined with little energiy management, that warriors receive a +1 Energy per 5 points in strength, whenever a negative physical condition ends on them.
So max 3 energy gain ,whenever a neg. codition ends on a warrior, that has at least strength of 15.

Its a unique effect, no profession yet has a primary, that reduces duration of negative conditions, strength fits imo very good for this. With more physical strength a warrior can better withstand negative conditions.
With more strength, bleedigns and deep wounds won't hurt the warrior so much, with more strength you can withstand better weakness, somehow logic, or ? ^^ with more strength you body can withstand better poisons. with more strength you don#t feel so strong the pain of beign crippled. Ok, i find now no good example for blindign, but it is a physical condition, so should strength also affect it , like all other physical negative conditions

i really thought i made it abundantly clear that +1 dmg per strength att is very overpowered

and im not saying tanking wars would be the problem im saying that a 750 health target with 96 armor in gvg would be overpowered

also your rune idea also would make war's almost impervious to conditions with the 30% from strength, 20% from runes and another 20% from shield swaps

since strength is apparently so underpowered...i think fast casting is underpowered as well...i think everytime you interupt someone you should sap X energy from them where X is your rank in fast casting cause making your spells faster just isnt good enough

i kinda agree on the +1 per hit + 1% armor pen

Str is fine the way it is, it even allow for a shield.

now poor paragons can't have leadership shields, wheres the logic in that?

str is mainly fine i say maybe +1 al for every 2 ranks in str while not wielding a shield

Tactics needs buffing more.

BTW, ES is kind of lame as a skill because there are better ways to manage energy than waste a bunch of skill points to cover the fact you don't know how to play caster. ES is only good when you've got a skill that causes exaustion and then it's mostly so you don't have too little energy while waiting to recover.

Str isnt underpowered, + Warriors get Tactics as well, Ehem, 2 Main attributes, uber running ability ftw?

lol are u for real? dervish do more power at the sacrifice of lower armour in the form of AL70 instead of AL80, and also for them to reap high damage they need to sacrifice an additional AL16 which comes with the shield.

if a warrior wants high damage, he too sacrifices his shield for a hammer, albeit slightly less powerful than a scythe, but with a far more reliable damage range.

as blakecraw said, its not broken so dont fix it

Kenny

For people who don't understand or are too dumb to understand, the power of strength doesn't lie in its innate ability. Instead, it's good because of the powerful skills associated with it. Take energy storage or soul reaping for example. They have great innate effects, but most of those skills are absolutely horrible. You raise the level of those primary attributes for the innate effect. On the other hand, you raise strength because you want to run the skills that it provides: iway, body blow, bulls charge, bulls strike, disarm, enraging charge, flail, protector's strike, rush, warrior's endurance, sprint, and endure pain/signet of stamina for running. The AP is just a side effect.

Now before saying it's underpowered, try listing as many useful skills tied to any other primary attribute.

Strength has shields and all important utilitys a warrior can ask from his class.
That and it inceases your damage when u actually need it ,during spikes when you are using skills.
Watch a few GvGs and Heros Ascent battles and you will see most top guilds running two warriors, that enough is reason NOT to buff it.

It aint strong, but aint weak.
You doesnt deal much damage with strenght, but it's definatly WAY more powered than tactics, therfore you will use strenght. I cant see any possible ways to improve strenght, maybe +x% dmg each point in strenght, or +1 dmg each 3 points in strenght.

Strength has those sexy skills.
Rush, Bull's Strike ect...

If you buff it, I think it will be overpowered.

rune slots are LIMITED and you can't cover with runes all negative conditions, like you also can't with shields. Shields iwll protect you ever only vs. 1 condition, so with Shield you will reach very high duration reduction ever only max for 1 condition.


Example:

A Warrior Character has like all other Professions 5 Slots for Runes.
A good balanced Warriors alone uses 3 of these 5 Slots alone for 1 Superior Rune of Vigor, 1 Attribute Rune, either Minor, Higher or Superior - and 1 Superior Rune of Absorbing to reduce received damage permanently by 3...
So our Example Warrior will have left 2 Slots for Runes, where the Players has the anguish of the choice, what to put in.

And there a Warrior has a great choice. putting in Runes for more Energy, more Health, increasing with minor, higher or superior runes maybe another attribute...

and even if you decide to take runes for condition protection, all runes of them protect only vs. max 2 conditinos, would mean, you could increase your protection for maximum only 4 conditions to 50% and like said,. the shield then increases the protection to 70% only for 1 negative condition, leaving our example warrior to get forced to permanently change shields in the battle !!!

And this would have the player also to do permanently, before the condition lies on the character, because conditions durations get only removed by that % of your protetion of the value the character has in the moment, when the character starts suffering of the condition.

This would be defenitely not be overpowered, having duration reduction of 70% max for just 1 single negative physical condition maximum, 3 others than maximum 50% and the rest is then 32% max that don't get affected through the runes, nor the shield.... in the moment.

And 3 energy for every ending negative condition on you is also imo not overpowered, it would balance the overpowered difference between Dervish, which come with 5 more max energy and have double the energy regeneration of warriors + getting additional energy reg through mystic, when enchants end on them.

If that is not overpowered over Warriors, then I really don't know...
Warriors need too a little Energy Management from their primary and 3 is not too high, Dervishs get heaven healed their health beneath energy ...
********

However, beneath all this stuff about +1 damage, or other side effects like I suggested with decreasing negative condition durations on them, with higher strength, I could imagien for Strength also, that it gives Warriors every 5 rangs +1 additional Life regeneration.

So would have warriors with R15+ strength +3 Life regeneration, would be also a good cool unique inherent effect for strength, instead of more damage, more max hp or whatever ...

Agreed.

Sure, plenty of the skills in strength are good (granted, something like bulls you don't even have to really invest points into, you just take it for the KD). But strength's inherient affect is fairly weak.

That said, +130 health (people wouldn't use superior runes, the health loss from them would counter the health gain from this, similar to how signet of stamina is now) is way to ridiculous for the class that already has the highest armor in the game.

And tactics can't be saved thanks the paragon. If they just changed leadership to only work with paragon shouts then we wouldn't have half the problems with tactics.



The only other profession with so many useful primary profession skills is probablly monk.

Strength is fine the way it is. I love innate armor penetration.

Strength is good the way it is. It has Bull's Strike after all :<

lol, wut? that has nothing to do with my comment, my comment was in reference to ur previous one about how warrirors with a buff to strength would hit as hard as dervish's

all i said, was that warriors have slightly less offence in exchange for a far superior defence.

read comments before u go insane and write an essay

99% of warriors in PvP are using strength, and the other 1% fail. Why on earth would the attribute that is used 99% of the time need a buff?

It isn't really the attribute itself, moreso the skills.
Take away the skills, and you've got yourself a new Spawning Power.

Nerfing the skills and buffing the attribute can be done, but saying that, it's fine as it is because of the skills.

The main strength of Strength it's in Strength skills.

It does work with all melee attacks... but it should work also with Bow and Spear attacks.

Afterall, the more you tense the bow, the stronger the shot.

I think it does...it does not state "melee attack skills"

Oh...? Why do I though It affectged only melee attacks...?

Doh! It affects skills only, not normal attacks. I knew there was an exception.

Well,it's ok, then. It works for all attack skills.

Warriors are already very powerful. Every warrior is going to spec into strength already because of the key skills in the attribute line. A buff to strength is unnecessary and will cause warriors to become overpowered.

/notsigned. I agree with above poster. The passive ability may suck, but using it as a point of argument to buff strength while disregarding strength's main advantages makes a moot point.

Why not change Armor Pen. to Aden. Gain every rank you have in Str. it gives you an extra 1% chance of getting double the Aden.? I dont think it would make it overpowered due to it being chanced.

At least Warriors have some awesome skills in their primary attributeline. No need to change its inherent effect therefor.

the skills in strength are what save it from being the worst primary (probably one of the best). Though its inherent effect is probably the worst.