PVP hammer warrior build
1 pages • Page 1
I don't have a full build off the top of my head, but a hammer war is incredibly good at disruption. First, a hammer war can have enough knockdown skills to constantly interrupt a mage, and two hammer wars can knock-lock a character indefinitely. At the same time, their damage, while not shabby, will not match an axe warrior.
M
I use a hammer. Here it is.
I use three knockdown skills.
Berserker's Stance, Counter Blow, Crushing Blow, Backbreaker, Staggering Blow, Healing Breeze, Sprint, and Mend Ailment are the skills I use. If I can get one guy on the ground and we focus on him, he is totally gone. There is no way he can run away because of my three knockdown skills.
I use three knockdown skills.
Berserker's Stance, Counter Blow, Crushing Blow, Backbreaker, Staggering Blow, Healing Breeze, Sprint, and Mend Ailment are the skills I use. If I can get one guy on the ground and we focus on him, he is totally gone. There is no way he can run away because of my three knockdown skills.
N
N
K
R
My hammer build off the top of my head sence I'm not logged in is
Mighty Blow, Devastating Hammer, Crushing Blow, Heavy Blow, (aftershock) and then some other skills that I sometimes change out depending on what I am doing.
W/E by the way with 13 Hammer (with equipment) 11 Strength (with equipment) and 10 earth that is also off the top of my head so I could be off by one on one of those.
EDIT: I only count two knockdowns in your skill list nathan
Mighty Blow, Devastating Hammer, Crushing Blow, Heavy Blow, (aftershock) and then some other skills that I sometimes change out depending on what I am doing.
W/E by the way with 13 Hammer (with equipment) 11 Strength (with equipment) and 10 earth that is also off the top of my head so I could be off by one on one of those.
EDIT: I only count two knockdowns in your skill list nathan
R
r
Hammers really recieve too much flak. One of my guildmates was a devoted hammer user and at late game past ascension, he started considering changing to sword / axe. I have axes. One member has swords, and the other the hammer. I think 3 warriors with 3 different weapon sets/skill sets in combat can be one of the fiercest assassinators in existence.
Since each weapon has different unique condition capabilities [sword = bleed, axe = weakness, hammer = blind] done properly, you can cover enemies with nothing but hindrances which the enemy team's monk will need to deal with aside from healing hp dmg.
Since each weapon has different unique condition capabilities [sword = bleed, axe = weakness, hammer = blind] done properly, you can cover enemies with nothing but hindrances which the enemy team's monk will need to deal with aside from healing hp dmg.
h
Hammer Warriors are really Mesmers in platemail. Sword/Axe guys are melee Elementalists.
Once you start to understand that distinction hammers start to come into their own. Hammer skills are seriously lacking, and you aren't going to want to run a hammer guy in your average minimal coordination PUG, but as a weapon they're a perfectly reasonable option, in the right situation.
Peace,
-CxE
Once you start to understand that distinction hammers start to come into their own. Hammer skills are seriously lacking, and you aren't going to want to run a hammer guy in your average minimal coordination PUG, but as a weapon they're a perfectly reasonable option, in the right situation.
Peace,
-CxE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vindexus
Sword = Bleed/Crippled, Axe = Deep Wound/Crippled, Hammer = Weakness/Knockdown/Deep Wound.
Why would you want to blind people as a warrior? You're probably attacking a squishy target, and they don't care if they're blind. Same with Axe Twist for Weakness. Why would you be attacking 'a squishy target'? You're a tank it's your job to get in there and take as much flak as you can. From casters, rangers and other warriors alike. While there on you your casters can punish them. That's what a warriors supposed to do.
A warrior is simply a tank, a place where your monk should be able to direct heals. It's easier for 1 person to take all the damage than the monk healing 5 diffrent targets. Mainly due tp spells from the protection side of things which allow the monk to keep a target alive even when he is heavily over whelmed.
Why would you want to blind people as a warrior? You're probably attacking a squishy target, and they don't care if they're blind. Same with Axe Twist for Weakness. Why would you be attacking 'a squishy target'? You're a tank it's your job to get in there and take as much flak as you can. From casters, rangers and other warriors alike. While there on you your casters can punish them. That's what a warriors supposed to do.
A warrior is simply a tank, a place where your monk should be able to direct heals. It's easier for 1 person to take all the damage than the monk healing 5 diffrent targets. Mainly due tp spells from the protection side of things which allow the monk to keep a target alive even when he is heavily over whelmed.
H
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creed
Why would you be attacking 'a squishy target'? You're a tank it's your job to get in there and take as much flak as you can. From casters, rangers and other warriors alike. While there on you your casters can punish them. That's what a warriors supposed to do.
A warrior is simply a tank, a place where your monk should be able to direct heals. It's easier for 1 person to take all the damage than the monk healing 5 diffrent targets. Mainly due tp spells from the protection side of things which allow the monk to keep a target alive even when he is heavily over whelmed. Warriors attack squishy target because you can kill a caster in fewer than 5 seconds. Warrior vs Warrior with monks behind can take forever. Also, it's NO easier to heal 1 person if that person's life is dropping really fast, as opposed to five persons whose life is dropping slowly. It's a tough question as whether warriors should be defensively tanking or taking on offensive to eliminate opponent's casters. From a monk/caster's perspective, warriors should tank, but from a warrior's perspective, soft targets should be eliminated first as they die quicker. It really depends on whether your team is offense or defense oriented.
A warrior is simply a tank, a place where your monk should be able to direct heals. It's easier for 1 person to take all the damage than the monk healing 5 diffrent targets. Mainly due tp spells from the protection side of things which allow the monk to keep a target alive even when he is heavily over whelmed. Warriors attack squishy target because you can kill a caster in fewer than 5 seconds. Warrior vs Warrior with monks behind can take forever. Also, it's NO easier to heal 1 person if that person's life is dropping really fast, as opposed to five persons whose life is dropping slowly. It's a tough question as whether warriors should be defensively tanking or taking on offensive to eliminate opponent's casters. From a monk/caster's perspective, warriors should tank, but from a warrior's perspective, soft targets should be eliminated first as they die quicker. It really depends on whether your team is offense or defense oriented.
H
Actually, it's to a hammerer's advantage that most people use axes and swords, so fewer people would want to take a stance against knockdown as it is impractical. I wonder how a W/E does with hammerer skills, conjure lightening and Gale, which keeps enemy down for 3 full seconds but causes exhaustion. Anyone playing that build?
Creed is correct that wars should soak damage against the enemies melee in pve, but this thread is about pvp. In pvp, the wars job is to find a "squichy target", seek and destroy. This is why I think that sword and hammers are the best pvp weapons. Hamstring and Just about any hammer skill will let you stay on the target forever, mauling it in about 5 seconds.
Pounding on the other teams warriors is pointless.
Pounding on the other teams warriors is pointless.