Thanks for the input, Strolem! Perhaps I should clarify a bit.
>>Although these last skills sound almost exactly as the skills in World of Warcraft for Warriors as well as their talents.
Try looking at the skills, feats, and talents of nearly any fantasy game and you're going to find that just about everything is used everywhere else. I was simply trying to give warriors the ability to do useful things in combat (whereas the majority of their current skills are non-combat related) without giving them spells.
>>Seems like it it giving warriors a little bit more then other melee classes.
I'm trying to get Warriors on par with Clerics and Magic-Users. Other classes need a boost too. Perhaps
you can come up with some ideas?
>>As well as giving warriors an even higher bonus on some of them even without a shield.
We don't want to rope warriors into solely being a tank class, so of course they need some bonuses that affect them when wielding two-handed weapons as well. Currently they are no different in physical combat than any other class that gets Warrior skills due to Weapon Proficiency: All. Clerics, Druids, and Mages end up with the same amount of attacks as a Warrior at level 250, and end up able to wield the same type of weapons, making them superior classes when combined with the spells they get after level 50 that are unique to them (such as Blade Barrier, Dispel Magic, Fireshield, Sanctuary, and Stoneskin).
>>Although I do not think making a shield using warrior into something that does big amounts of damage or anywhere near half of what a 2 handing using warrior does is a good idea by any means.
It's not about making them do big amounts of damage, it's about making them on par with someone wielding a two-handed weapon. Think of it this way: If you put two Warriors of the same skill level with the exact same stats and character level in an arena and gave one a two-handed weapon, and one a shield and one-handed weapon, it should be as close to a stalemate as possible. That is not the case right now. Though people may do it on the MUD, a warrior wouldn't
really grab a couple of gelatinous cubes, slap on a shield and not fight back against something clawing/slashing/biting at him. I don't think it's too outrageous to suggest that they receive ways to effectively damage an opponent while wearing a shield and wielding a small weapon. We've all seen movies about gladiators and warriors. The guy with the shield and sword doesn't just stand there, he slams them with his shield, tries to disarm them, and uses every tactic at his disposal to get the upper hand.
Thanks again! Keep the dialogue going.
