Poll: Does anyone actually like being the "warrior"?

[FilipJPhry]

Well, in games like Dragon Age or MMORPGs, being the tank is really boring. But on a game like Bethesda's Fallout games or other games that don't have tactical squad-based gameplay, using a guy with alot of strength and uses big two-handed melee weapons is very satisfying. Even with high strength, you can still have high intelligence to unlock quests.

 

[Jodah]

I liked warrior in DA2. Other than that...not so much.

 

[Skratt]

I stopped playing MMOs, but right up until the end I was always a caster. I liked the idea of the warrior class, but for some reason, aside from a death knight, I just couldn't be bothered.

In single player games, I almost always go for the warrior. In Skyrim I plan on playing a Nord meat grinder - no magic hybrid. I may replay as a mage or rogue if they have improved the guild quests and storylines.

 

[Sectan]

I'm always the warrior tank in my guild. For WoW, at least, there's so much mobility in PvE and tanking feels like I'm doing something more than poking or throwing magic at the boss's back. I am a protector of the group. When shit goes down I'm front and center to deal with it. I am The Tank. Plus tank gear is pretty bad ass. Smacking someone in the face with a shield is so satisfying.

 

[thebeast2000]

I have played a warrior twice in my gaming life, once in elder scrolls 4, where i just played the warrior to hammer my way through the game because warriors are broke as hell in that, and the second time was in requiem momento mori where i just played one because the added gore of that game made it so much fun to use swords and watch my enemies limbs come flying off after a final strike

every other time i run a rouge because they can usually do immense damage and wipe out enemies in 2 seconds flat, and if they don't kill them fast they dodge everything, i just like the idea of killing things before i can take damage and no matter how you slice it in a properly leveled battle a warrior will always take at least 1 hit probably more, the only time i can see myself playing a warrior any time in the future is if i can either spray ninja gaiden levels of blood or the warrior actually has skills to make up for it being boring

 

[ultrachicken]

I think that warriors would be much more fun if not for the fact that they almost always have a linear progression. If they were more varied in how they deal with enemies, then I would be more drawn to them.

Of course, the novelty of hitting things with an axe never quite wears off, but taking out enemies silently from the shadows is more my style.

 

[soldier9501]

I'm always playing a typical warrior class. There's an unparalleled level of satisfaction to be had when you can defeat anything in the game with little more than a sharp or blunt instrument of some kind.

 

[krazykidd]

Nope never a warrior ... On my first playthrough. I prefer glass canon to brink wall. The exception to this is in dark souls , i refused to play a mage because i guessed it was going to be over powered and right i was . I started as a bandit and having no clue what a bandit does , i accidently made him a tank/warrior . I didn't touch magic till i was about soul level 100 and was on my second playthrough . But honestly i always go as mage if i have a choice because i remember the black mage in FF1 being so cool!

 

[OpiateChicken]

i only use mages only in oblivion because of how OP they are.
and in everything else i love being the tank/warrior
either being able to kill someone in one hit. or just having their weapons bounce harmlessly off. from fire emblem to guild wars. and pretty much every Tactical/MMO/RPG game

Shamans SUCK!

Well not true, they fucking own Archers and even Snipers.

But I still prefer Ert/Lucius.

 

[Kataiser]

I play pure melee in Mabinogi. Love it in that game. Any other game? Ehhhh... not so much. Don't know why; it's just not fun.

 

[EvilPicnic]

The mechanics for a warrior tend to fairly simple:- you run forward and hack & slash. Whatever build of warrior you get, they generally end up as a tank.

And in a party-based CRPG (e.g. Baldur's Gate) you are going to easily find party members who can fill that tanking role, because of its simplicity. In Baldur's Gate you have several npcs who make great tanks, especially Minsc, who is pretty much as good a tank as your PC is ever going to be.

Making your PC something other than a tank allows you to fill other roles, for example; Dynaheir is a great mage, but because of her specialization she can't cast Confusion or Chaos spells, and there is a serious lack of other good-aligned mages in the game. Your PC can fill that gap.

A varied party is an effective party.

Throw in the possibilities of game-over if the PC is killed (which is more likely on the front line), and playing a character other-than-a-warrior seems attractive. Not that it's not fun sometimes.

 

[Ovoon]

Yes, all the time. It's more immersive for me.

 

[Hasido]

most rpgs i play a rogue or wizard type character, but in D&D, my characters usually are some kind of face-to-face melee combatant who uses a rediculous strategy.

EDIT: i guess I'll give an example for those who are interested.

I once made a character who abused the hell out of trip-attacks with a guisarme

another one was a fighter/rogue who could always treat someone as flat footed on his first attack in a round. (bonus points for being able to bypass armor with a standard action)
also every sneak attack he did resulted in a stackable 1 damage bleed and staggered the target.

made a duel weilding character who used two weapons which gave -1 AC and d12 20/X3 damage, and would stun the target whenever he hit with both.

a character who at level 30 (long ass campaign) had 500 HP and no stat below 17 (highest stats were strength and charisma at 31). this guy had 6 levels of the combat sorceror variant and was a dragon desciple among some other things. (as a side note his bluff was high enough that he could use suggestion without the use of magic)

 

[adragonofgold]

You asked.. If I LIKED playing the warrior. No I do not like playing as the warrior. BUT I do play the warrior... usally the 3rd or 4th play through.

 

[Jeremy Meadows]

Hell yeah, warriors and barbarians all the way. I"m not looking to sit down and map out all different kinds of effects, spells, potions, etc. I kill things. That's what I do. And I like it that way. I hit, I stab, I kill, done. Simple.

 

[Rawne1980]

I will admit I do like playing a warrior class.

Healers are usually my first choice in group based RPG's and MMO's but warrior is my other side.

Nothing beats beating in some pixelated faces with a big axe.

 

[bpm195]

I prefer an active support character, and unfortunately in too many games that means either healer or tank. Tanking also is the most common form of crowd control and when well done it's a game changer. So I play tanks often enough. Never melee DPS though; too common.

 

[Lunar Templar]

warrior is my MAIN class, all others a secondary.

and since its such a basic class, i will very literally judge the rest of the game by how well they did the warrior

 

[Techsmart07]

I'm usually the rogue/sniper character that has spells to back up my sneakiness.
However, I am not against playing a melee character if the system supports it well. Oblivion did not support it well... When enemies generally have more HP than me after the first few levels (I learned the no-level rule quickly), dish out as much damage as you, and healing supplies are limited, I don't like being the warrior. However, being at 80% chameleon and getting x8 sneak attack damage of 95% of combat is incredibly effective, especially when they can't find you after you hit them.

 

[brodie21]

i play the assault class in battlefield, once you get past the initial rifles and unlock the launcher, it gets pretty good