Convince me to like the Warrior class

[Junkhead]

In this game, Warriors get stupidly outclassed by the likes of Berserker. Berserkers have significantly higher Spd, and even better HP/Str (as slight as it may be, the fact that they're winning in this important area makes it funny). I also don't think Rally Str is much to fret about. Counter sounds nice, but I've honestly never tried it because I never felt the need to have someone go through this class because there really are much better options.

And Bows suck, unless it's Lunatic+.

[Icon of Sin]

Enemy Warriors vaguely remind me of Big Daddies in Bioshock and are therefore one of my favorite generics.

Otherwise Warriors always got the shaft in terms of speed except in FE4 (high speed base/cap, though Johalvier's growth and axes didn't help) and the Tellius games. It's actually pretty funny that FEDS Berserkers get crazy high speed yet feel amazingly slow while Warriors seem a lot faster but have low speed.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Woodshooter

[Djing]

Hardest hitting archers in the game. This makes them one of the best physical supports since they have no weapon triangle disadvantage.

That's about it.

Funnily enough Warriors almost completley outclass Snipers when it comes to raw caps.

[bookofholsety]

those abs

that's about it really

also i GUESS they're slightly more defensively competent but really that's why great knights or something exist

[General Horace]

when have warriors really ever been better than berserkers in any game

[Da Bear]

Base Basilio can 1-shot Aversa... I think.

[Junkhead]

At least they weren't outclassed this bad.

[1% critted]

Warriors have utility in one shotting Fliers. But it and berserker are better as support anyway.

And if you want to have a tank Axe user, Warrior is better than Berserker(less DEF and SKL for Sol).

[deleted35362]

when have warriors really ever been better than berserkers in any game

in the gba games where warriors would turn into tornadoes whenever they did a critical hit

EDIT: i also have to add that even though berserkers were a better class, the gba games actually acknowledged that in its design. fighters were more available.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Boney

[Junkhead]

But here in FE13, Berserkers are far more common thanks to re-classing. They also have access to Wrath and Axefaire, which is alot better than what Warrior can say.

[Djing]

when have warriors really ever been better than berserkers in any game

Boyd>Largo as far as I can remember.

[Junkhead]

We're talking about raw class.

[Shadow Mir]

But here in FE13, Berserkers are far more common thanks to re-classing. They also have access to Wrath and Axefaire, which is alot better than what Warrior can say.

The Berserkers' skills fail to interest me in any way because lolwrath (20 crit is unimpressive for needing to be under half health), and I don't give a damn about Axefaire. Looking outright ridiculous relative to the GBA Berserkers (and really, any other Berserker incarnation) doesn't help their case.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Levant Fortner

[Junkhead]

No offense, but you could quit talking with "I" and start being more objective, you know...at least for these topics.

Edited August 21, 2013 by bearclaw95

[Drgnquester]

Warriors can one shot Fliers, and that's about it. All of my warriors are only in that class to get counter for those pesky Hawkeye users in L+

[Interceptor]

And Bows suck, unless it's Lunatic+.

Ashera forbid we give extra weight to a weapon type that is excellent in the game's most difficult mode. Warriors are pretty good as a result.

[Phoenix Wright]

>access to berserker class instead

>berserker outclasses warrior

>don't use warrior

the warrior is just a rich man's sniper.

Ashera forbid we give extra weight to a weapon type that is excellent in the game's most difficult mode. Warriors are pretty good as a result.

it's also, probably, the most un-touched mode too. so the amount of praise we should give warriors due to it, generally, should be minimal.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Interceptor]

it's also, probably, the most un-touched mode too. so the amount of praise we should give warriors due to it, generally, should be minimal.

"Minimal" is the difference in stat caps between Berserker and Warrior, especially as it matters in the various Carebear™ modes that don't have enemies worth giving a damn about. Runner-up descriptor: "gnat's pubic hair". Meanwhile, in Lunatic+, having a tanky bastard who can use Bows is a significant advantage over the hapless Berserker.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like if you're going to compare two classes, you shouldn't ignore the one difference between them that actually sets them apart in the first place.

[Knight]

Counter, that's about it.

[Randa]

My first reaction to this was

But then I thought, maybe a threat will work.

And then if that doesn't work this will follow you till you like them.

All kidding aside there really isn't any point to use them unless you want a bow user. But bows suck so there really isn't anything they do better tha beserkers.

[Phoenix Wright]

"Minimal" is the difference in stat caps between Berserker and Warrior, especially as it matters in the various Carebear™ modes that don't have enemies worth giving a damn about. Meanwhile, in Lunatic+, having a tanky bastard who can use Bows is a significant advantage over the hapless Berserker.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like if you're going to compare two classes, you shouldn't ignore the one difference between them that actually sets them apart in the first place.

I agree wholeheartedly, the Warrior is the much smarter route to go on Lunatic+ considering the two classes. But generally people don't play that mode, so people don't have a reason to like the Warrior passed aesthetics and potential bow usage, which is also not worth it on the Carebear^TM modes. Further, should one begin to like a class because it's good in a mode that will probably never be played? I don't really think so.

Well, the other notable difference is whether or not it's even worth it to enter into one of those classes. The skills offered by the Warrior class are also subpar considering the skills offered by the Berserker class, so why enter the Warrior class in the first place? (I am one of those people that finds Counter to be pretty useless overall when used by the player).

And on top of that the Warrior doesn't spin like a tornado anymore. So really, what's the point?

Edited August 21, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Sentimental]

I happen to really like Counter, especially when Double Dueling on some of the harder enemies. Your enemies can't hurt you without hurting themselves, unless they're from two tiles away. How can that NOT be an advantage? I love to use Counter on my archers or someone equipped with a bow on the frontlines, because the enemies will go for them and then get burned, and you don't even have to use a weapon. Rally Strength is a decent skill, better than Wrath IMO because +20 means hardly anything, especially because you're halfway in the grave for it to even matter.

Axefaire I agree is a great skill, but combined with Counter and the ability to use bows, I feel Warriors are overall better. They're at the very least a "pass through" class that you get Counter and move to Berserker for a final class.

[Djing]

And on top of that the Warrior doesn't spin like a tornado anymore. So really, what's the point?

They do when they activate Luna.

[Shadow Mir]

I happen to really like Counter, especially when Double Dueling on some of the harder enemies. Your enemies can't hurt you without hurting themselves, unless they're from two tiles away. How can that NOT be an advantage? I love to use Counter on my archers or someone equipped with a bow on the frontlines, because the enemies will go for them and then get burned, and you don't even have to use a weapon. Rally Strength is a decent skill, better than Wrath IMO because +20 means hardly anything, especially because you're halfway in the grave for it to even matter.

Axefaire I agree is a great skill, but combined with Counter and the ability to use bows, I feel Warriors are overall better. They're at the very least a "pass through" class that you get Counter and move to Berserker for a final class.

I happen to think Counter's not that great because it only works at melee range (and personally, I'd rather not gimp my offense against everything else just to counter mages and archers, which Counter does bugger all against), and the fact that it's WAAAAAY more useful for the enemy than for you (think about it - you're probably not taking enough damage for Counter to be worth it, and if you ARE... I'd think your strategy needs work). In short, having Counter's a lose-lose situation.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Levant Fortner

[Junkhead]

"Minimal" is the difference in stat caps between Berserker and Warrior, especially as it matters in the various Carebear™ modes that don't have enemies worth giving a damn about. Runner-up descriptor: "gnat's pubic hair". Meanwhile, in Lunatic+, having a tanky bastard who can use Bows is a significant advantage over the hapless Berserker.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like if you're going to compare two classes, you shouldn't ignore the one difference between them that actually sets them apart in the first place.

They're not particularly tanky.