Hamer or Sowrd

OK guys i made my first W/Mo and i was wondering what is beteer Hamer or sword


Thanks in Advance

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.

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.

Thanks i am gona do that tes both of them
Thanks

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.

The dmg varying isnt a big issue for me, I use axe because it has such damn good skills. But the new Sword skills in factions look darn tasty, so keeping hold of my sword hat and victos blade here.

OK so if you have a sword and u are a warrior u can use the faction skill once faction come alive?

Axe!

And yes, once Factions comes out, you can use those skills - if you have it on that account.

hamer or sowrd? I say go aex

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.

I think sword/axe/hammer each are superior in different situations. If its a PvE build I like sword the best in most cases. With the current skills I would only reccomend axe if you have an axe elite, but thats just my opinion.

As stated swords lay conditions. Hammers lay your opponent on the ground. basic as that. You also loose shield. But if you were a W/R you could use tigers fury to speed up your hammer.

|\|0, g0 \/\/|30.

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.

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

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.

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.

Im assuming you mean pve, in which case you need a sword for riposte...how else can you solo?

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.

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 has been down entirely too much recently, so luckily I printed out the attack rates a while back. Hammer is every 1.75 seconds (instead of 1.5). Sword and axe are, in fact, every 1.33 seconds. I know your whole decision is not based on the difference between 1.5 v 1.75, but I just wanted to correct the record for others.

What I'm about to say is not to down the hammer, but there are other points that haven't been mentioned.

Yes, hammer has interrupts, but so does sword (savage slash) and I assume axe does too, although I'm not familiar with axe enough to be certain.

Hammer does inflict weakness and blind. Correct. But who does these conditions affect? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe only other warriors are affected. I know blindness has no impact on any of my spellcasters. So, these conditions are limited to only one class, where bleeding, deep wound, etc. imposed by sword / axe apply to all comers.

Also, in addition to the shield protection, sword warriors also have riposte and deadly riposte, to not only prevent damage, but also to deal it back and then some, and in the case of deadly riposte, with bleeding thrown in as well.

Also, and I think this goes back to my previous post, I think the difference in mentality comes through a little bit when mentioning the imposition of the conditions, such as blind and weakness. In PvE, unless you are talking about soloing, you have an entire party to deal weakness, blind, whatever. The purpose of a "tank" is to absorb the damage so the spellcasters can do their jobs. The warrior is not supposed to be the only one attacking, but they are supposed to be the only one(s) being attacked, so much as possible.

The 30% damage difference between shield and no shield was, in fact, figured with the non-linear scale in mind, using the very calculator available on this site.

Using AL 100 vs. 116 and Base Dmg 50:
AL 100 = 25.00
AL 116 = 18.95

Divide 25.00 / 18.95 = 1.319

So, since I trust the calculator on this site, I can say that comparing Droks armor (against physical) with or without a shield, you will take 31.9% more damage with each strike without the shield.

How about throwing in a shield with a -3 damage reduction:

116AL - 3 = 15.95

Divide 25.00 / 15.95 = 1.567

Now, your hammer warrior takes 56.7% more damage per strike.

Above numbers assume a base damage of the attack of 50. I tried to pick a number that would reflect a reasonable estimate of damage taken. The % difference with the shield that has absorption would increase as the damage amount goes down, according to my ancient math skills.

Hope this helps somebody.

Thank you for the correction.

Not to nit pick, but rangers are a big one. And as I play mainly PvE, everything tries to wand you, and yes, it does add up.

In theory, yes, however, not in practice. My experience in Pugs and a few guilds and split guild groups says that you rarely have more than 2 or so.

Single tear. Anet has outright said that this is not how they designed the character class. Yes, it happens, but my heart aches for all those out there designated as mere "meat shields".

Hmm. I was estimating from old calculations I have half forgotten based on 60 and 80 Al. I was clearly mistaken, however. Oh, and I was hoping no one would point out that last part

All in all, well said and very respectful. Thank you for clearing up my mistakes. I will indeed look at other weapons, again. I assume I'll be sticking with my trusty KD/interrupts, though.

Yeah, I, as well, appreciate the corrections. I think I jumped to a conclusion there about the purpose of the tank, but it just impresses the hell out of me when I see a tank aggro all the mobs and the spell casters don't have to run around. Those are some of the best PUGs I've been in.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that warriors shouldn't be dealing damage - in fact, I agree with posters in other threads who argue that warriors are the best of all classes at dealing damage (since the AoE nerf). But I do think, in PvE, the self-preservation of the shield is very important.

For PvP - it is an entirely different ballgame and I would certainly benefit from the community's thoughts.

tanks using hammers are less capable than sword and axe warriors but still viable

end of story.

Just play smart and you can make anything work and fill any role your profession is needed to fill. I was thinking of buying another GW account JUST so I can have a hammer warrior for PvE... mind you I got a great hammer waiting. Just don't fall into the 'these are the skills you need to be elite' mindset. Every skill in the game has its use... well, almost every skill. I can see a KD Warrior/Assassin build doing well with a dagger switchout after the KD.

Neither. You should use a wand. Get flurry, and you'll be elite.

Victo's Battle Axe ftw

1 word Axe..... If u don mind me sayiong Axe owns everything lol my vis b axe owns a ice drag sword or a rams hammer without question go with axe !!

When, oh when will people learn just how bad sundering is?

Besides that, the Warrior=Tank mentality that is going on here is quite sad in my opinion. Now let me explain where I stand on this. I have 2 warriors, a Monk, an Elementalist and a Necromancer at the moment. Now, putting the necro aside as she's only lvl 14, that leaves me with 4 characters. If, say, I want to go to the fissure of woe, I will take my monk, because smiting is effective down there, (I play exclusively smiting.) However, if I were to take another character, I would go for my W/R wielding a hammer. Why? Simply because Hammer is a more reliable Kd than my elementalist. A point had been made in another thread that the only reason eles get into fow groups and such is because they can kd the monks. Now, tell me why a hammer warrior would be less effective? The only situation they would need any help at all in would be if there were 2 monks, but most every class has an interrupt of some kind to deal with such a situation.

As for the best combination for dealing with the healers down there, we should take a leaf out of the PvP book of tricks though. Mo/Me Divine Favour/Energy Denial FTW!