OK guys i made my first W/Mo and i was wondering what is beteer Hamer or sword
Thanks in Advance
Hamer or Sowrd
1 pages • Page 1
Depends on how you want to play. Hammers tend to deal more damage and have knockdown skills, with the penalty of not being able to wield a shield. Swords attack faster, seems to focus more on conditions (ie Sever Artery, Gash, Hamstring) but gives you the option to wield a shield in return.
As I said, there's no "better". It all comes down to what you feel like playing. I say try both and decide for yourself.
As I said, there's no "better". It all comes down to what you feel like playing. I say try both and decide for yourself.
I went sword to start with, switching to axe later. I've given hammers a couple of tries but.. as a friend of mine once said "the hammer has no place in PvE" (dont flame me, hammer loving forum-goes), and indeed it does annoy me when i get a warrior in my PUG using one.
Only two days ago, our 'tank' for Oro farming, in full FoW armour, brought a bar of full hammer attack skills, with Devastating Hammer as his elite. He knew to take the gear, but then ran straight into the Oro defend part, buggering the whole run.
Only two days ago, our 'tank' for Oro farming, in full FoW armour, brought a bar of full hammer attack skills, with Devastating Hammer as his elite. He knew to take the gear, but then ran straight into the Oro defend part, buggering the whole run.
Also Sword is alot faster and does focus on more conidtion type attacks (Deep wound, Bleeding etc) Hammer is more slower and powerful and you cannot weild a shield. I would say for PvE a hammer would be pretty good but depends on what you like. I personally like the axe. It's quick and can do more dmg than a sword.
Just that the dmg varies alot more.
Just that the dmg varies alot more.
K
Some warriors are opting for swords in GvG, because of the massive spike from Gash + Final Thrust, and also its very easy to get hold of a 'perfect sword', Victo's Blade, which a friend managed to get for 7k a few days ago, wheras there is no Axe equivalent to it, only Furious, Sundering (bah), and Cruel.
K
n
my w/mo uses sword and hammer both, i simply swap out the skillpoints and helmet(superior runed +3,+1) so i can adapt to the mission or zone i intend to run.
example, undead , azures, elemental golems and so on dont bleed. so use hammer. also, a lot of casters? use dwarvern battle stance to interupt for 9 - 10 secs. hammer users should have tactics skills equipped like doylak and *watch yourself*.
axes are simply more versatile because of the skill tree, they do decent damage but dont really specialise in either Knockdown or conditions..
my money says own a green hammer and a gold/green sword shield combo, and 2 helmets.
also for the first areas of the game, ascalon - to lions arch, hammers are simply great as youll get a max for cheap and lots of enemies are bulnerable to thier blunt hits, im my opinion.
example, undead , azures, elemental golems and so on dont bleed. so use hammer. also, a lot of casters? use dwarvern battle stance to interupt for 9 - 10 secs. hammer users should have tactics skills equipped like doylak and *watch yourself*.
axes are simply more versatile because of the skill tree, they do decent damage but dont really specialise in either Knockdown or conditions..
my money says own a green hammer and a gold/green sword shield combo, and 2 helmets.
also for the first areas of the game, ascalon - to lions arch, hammers are simply great as youll get a max for cheap and lots of enemies are bulnerable to thier blunt hits, im my opinion.
heres what I think its made out to be
Hammer: Offensive weapon with high damage skills and base damage plus powerfull knockdowns
Sword: Defensive with riptostes , shield and conditions
Axe: Well balanced with conditions, a shield for stances and strong damaging attacks
Personaly I use a hammer for PvE standard grouping and a sword for farming... axes can kiss my behind
Hammer: Offensive weapon with high damage skills and base damage plus powerfull knockdowns
Sword: Defensive with riptostes , shield and conditions
Axe: Well balanced with conditions, a shield for stances and strong damaging attacks
Personaly I use a hammer for PvE standard grouping and a sword for farming... axes can kiss my behind
R
my W/Mo started out as a Hammer, then went to sword then went to axe... i've never left Axe since.
in my opinion Axe > Sword > Hammer
Axe - 6-28 damage, higher max damage for a chance of harder hits, swings about the same speed as a sword and most skills are adrenaline based. Not many Conditions.
Sword - 15-22 damage, higher min damage for a constant damage range, swings a little faster then axes but not noticable. and most skills are energy based. also has many Conditions (Bleed, Cripple etc..)
Hammer - 19-35 damage, highest damage but big gap of damage, swings the slowest of all melee weapons and cannot use a shield.. Skills are about even on Energy/Adrenaline. Mostly seen in PvP for knockdowns and usually called newbs in PvE..
just my 2 cents.
in my opinion Axe > Sword > Hammer
Axe - 6-28 damage, higher max damage for a chance of harder hits, swings about the same speed as a sword and most skills are adrenaline based. Not many Conditions.
Sword - 15-22 damage, higher min damage for a constant damage range, swings a little faster then axes but not noticable. and most skills are energy based. also has many Conditions (Bleed, Cripple etc..)
Hammer - 19-35 damage, highest damage but big gap of damage, swings the slowest of all melee weapons and cannot use a shield.. Skills are about even on Energy/Adrenaline. Mostly seen in PvP for knockdowns and usually called newbs in PvE..
just my 2 cents.
S
Hammer users have higher damage, even with the slower attack rate. Hammer users have no shield, thus -16AL, which is maybe increasing damage taken by about 30% ? In addition to less armor, hammer warriors lose the benefit of any mods than can accompany a shield, including +60 hp, -3 dmg, perhaps additional AL, whatever. It seems to me that PvE hammer warriors have no intent on "tanking" for the team or for that matter protecting the squishies from opposing mobs. They are about dealing out damage themselves and have not a whole lot of concern about what the rest of the team is doing.
When I play my SS Necro with hammer warriors in PvE, I have a difficult time using SS because 1) they make no attempt to aggro multiple enemies, thus making SS moot, 2) they do kill (most) foes fairly rapidly, so any mobs that happen to come around only get hit with one or two helpings of SS. I realize that yeah, they are probably beating individual foes quicker than a sword would, but it isn't much of a team effort, and I would estimate that it takes longer to take out the entire mob because the team isn't working together.
Now, I am also a W/Mo, and I mainly use sword (Victo's), but that's more just a matter of familiarity and I will be developing my axe and hammer skills as I progress. I think there is a time and place for each of them. But to think that ANet made hammers just flat out superior to sword or axe (or the other way around) just can't be right.
Also, the hammer warriors that I mainly play with have no other characters, so all they know is warrior. I'm wondering if a lack of knowledge of other professions might contribute to some hammer warriors belief that they are superior ? Just a thought.
When I play my SS Necro with hammer warriors in PvE, I have a difficult time using SS because 1) they make no attempt to aggro multiple enemies, thus making SS moot, 2) they do kill (most) foes fairly rapidly, so any mobs that happen to come around only get hit with one or two helpings of SS. I realize that yeah, they are probably beating individual foes quicker than a sword would, but it isn't much of a team effort, and I would estimate that it takes longer to take out the entire mob because the team isn't working together.
Now, I am also a W/Mo, and I mainly use sword (Victo's), but that's more just a matter of familiarity and I will be developing my axe and hammer skills as I progress. I think there is a time and place for each of them. But to think that ANet made hammers just flat out superior to sword or axe (or the other way around) just can't be right.
Also, the hammer warriors that I mainly play with have no other characters, so all they know is warrior. I'm wondering if a lack of knowledge of other professions might contribute to some hammer warriors belief that they are superior ? Just a thought.
as someone with a alot of warriors, which use swords, axes, hammers, in all forms of combat (i will only use pve chars in pvp, so any character i have has had experience in both) i must say the following.
A: no, swords do not have more conditions than axes...in fact, they have less, in that most axe-warrior condition-skills apply an added damage amount, whereas only gash does this for sword warriors (excluding desperation blow).
the difference is in how the conditions are layed out, particularly hamstring vs axe rake; the sword warrior has the advantage here, since they can use hamstring right off the bat, with no adrenaline buildup needed.
all in all, i think swords are the most versatile; an emagalation of damage, defense, conditions, adren attacks, and energy attacks. this has its advantages, and its faults. sword warriors dont have the high-end damage of axe warriors, but instead have a higher average damage. overall, worse for spiking, but sword warriors have a penchant for being able tot ake enemy warriors down; hence why in most higher level gvgs, when combating an overextended warrior, and simentaneously keeping pressure on the enemy casters, it is the sword warrior that will hunt down the overextended warrior.
one of their key flaws, is that unlike axe warriors, they are vulnerable to e-denial; but at the same time, are slightly less suspetable to adrenaline-stopping skills.
B: hammers, the most damage per hit, hands down. damage over time though, is another matter...also significantly less resiliant than axe or sword warriors.
their advantage is in knockdown; and with it the ability to floor casters (literally). hammer wars are ideal for taking down mushy targets, and fast-casting prot monks. they are, however, absolutly terrible when used against a propperly built sword or axe warrior.
C: axes; great condition potential, and warrior vs warrior its their conditions that makes them strong, particularly weakness. they are, however, used as spike-warriors, namely because while their average damage is lower than that of a sword warrior, when they do land a critical hit, the potential for damage is...considerable. next to hammers warriors they ahve the highest potential damage-per-hit out of warrior weapons, and unlike hammer warriors, they ca use shields, which makes them tougher to take down. one of the strong points, and faults, of axe warriors, is their absolute reliance on adrenaline attacks. this means they can give a disregard to energy (something most sword warriors cannot afford to do), but at the same time, a single soothing images can shut them down without hex removal.
because of their merging of damage potential and defense, they are the prime choice warrior build for most pvp teams.
A: no, swords do not have more conditions than axes...in fact, they have less, in that most axe-warrior condition-skills apply an added damage amount, whereas only gash does this for sword warriors (excluding desperation blow).
the difference is in how the conditions are layed out, particularly hamstring vs axe rake; the sword warrior has the advantage here, since they can use hamstring right off the bat, with no adrenaline buildup needed.
all in all, i think swords are the most versatile; an emagalation of damage, defense, conditions, adren attacks, and energy attacks. this has its advantages, and its faults. sword warriors dont have the high-end damage of axe warriors, but instead have a higher average damage. overall, worse for spiking, but sword warriors have a penchant for being able tot ake enemy warriors down; hence why in most higher level gvgs, when combating an overextended warrior, and simentaneously keeping pressure on the enemy casters, it is the sword warrior that will hunt down the overextended warrior.
one of their key flaws, is that unlike axe warriors, they are vulnerable to e-denial; but at the same time, are slightly less suspetable to adrenaline-stopping skills.
B: hammers, the most damage per hit, hands down. damage over time though, is another matter...also significantly less resiliant than axe or sword warriors.
their advantage is in knockdown; and with it the ability to floor casters (literally). hammer wars are ideal for taking down mushy targets, and fast-casting prot monks. they are, however, absolutly terrible when used against a propperly built sword or axe warrior.
C: axes; great condition potential, and warrior vs warrior its their conditions that makes them strong, particularly weakness. they are, however, used as spike-warriors, namely because while their average damage is lower than that of a sword warrior, when they do land a critical hit, the potential for damage is...considerable. next to hammers warriors they ahve the highest potential damage-per-hit out of warrior weapons, and unlike hammer warriors, they ca use shields, which makes them tougher to take down. one of the strong points, and faults, of axe warriors, is their absolute reliance on adrenaline attacks. this means they can give a disregard to energy (something most sword warriors cannot afford to do), but at the same time, a single soothing images can shut them down without hex removal.
because of their merging of damage potential and defense, they are the prime choice warrior build for most pvp teams.
t
I did all 3. I started sword because I liked the look and the plot gives you more sword skills to work with than the other weapons early in the game. I then went axe for a change of scenary and to see the "uber power" everyone claims it to have. After a period of this, I went hammer, and will never go back.
Guildwiki is down, so I could not check to be certain, but I believe that the following is correct for weapon speeds: sword/axe = 1 attack every 1.33 sec. hammer = 1 attack every 1.5 sec. This is not as big a difference as many would assert. Further, since attack speed boosts are percentages, under the influence of one, this difference shrinks even smaller. Thus, the slower speed is easily made up by the combo of additional damge of a hammer, plus the ability to do lenthy knockdowns/interrups and things like blind enemies.
And yes, without a shield, you take more damage. The armor scale is not linear, though. With the curve of the line as it stands, I believe -16 armor equates to 15-20% more damage taken (based on 2^x, where x = gain or loss of armor/40). The added defense you get from knockdowns, AoE blindness, and weakness make up for this, however. By taking fewer hits, you outdo the -16 defense, imo.
In conclusion, Hammer!! Yes, even in PvE.
Guildwiki is down, so I could not check to be certain, but I believe that the following is correct for weapon speeds: sword/axe = 1 attack every 1.33 sec. hammer = 1 attack every 1.5 sec. This is not as big a difference as many would assert. Further, since attack speed boosts are percentages, under the influence of one, this difference shrinks even smaller. Thus, the slower speed is easily made up by the combo of additional damge of a hammer, plus the ability to do lenthy knockdowns/interrups and things like blind enemies.
And yes, without a shield, you take more damage. The armor scale is not linear, though. With the curve of the line as it stands, I believe -16 armor equates to 15-20% more damage taken (based on 2^x, where x = gain or loss of armor/40). The added defense you get from knockdowns, AoE blindness, and weakness make up for this, however. By taking fewer hits, you outdo the -16 defense, imo.
In conclusion, Hammer!! Yes, even in PvE.