Now I know everybody says hammer everybody goes hammer. Why is hammer better than swords minus the low endurance styles (with shaman at max lvl endo wont matter nearly as much).

Two main reasons, depending on how you elect to play. The first (and most common reason stated) is because the backsnare from the hammer style at 34(?) can't be resisted and can be reapplied as many times as needed (as long as the target doesn't have root immunity). A warrior can slam (9s stun) and follow up with the backstyle, and if they're caught out of position, it makes it that much harder to regroup. The second reason is endurance costs. While they aren't remarkably higher for sword styles, they certainly play a role. I've ran out of range of our shaman in fights before, and the precious 10-15% endurance saved can be the difference between regrouping or simply dying. My personal issue with swords (as a warrior) is that there are too many required openings to accurately predict. I have one for "you block," one for "you parry," and one for "you evade" that I must decide between. In an RvR sense, even 1v1, I don't want to rely on a parry to make a bleed proc hit. Simply put, hammer is simpler. I will say this, however, that a zerker can split spec between hammer and sword and still be very effective. The main reason zerkers do this is because of how weapon skill works, and to get neutral damage against armor types. I hope this provided some insight to your question

Rendiviel wrote:Two main reasons, depending on how you elect to play. The first (and most common reason stated) is because the backsnare from the hammer style at 34(?) can't be resisted and can be reapplied as many times as needed (as long as the target doesn't have root immunity). A warrior can slam (9s stun) and follow up with the backstyle, and if they're caught out of position, it makes it that much harder to regroup. The second reason is endurance costs. While they aren't remarkably higher for sword styles, they certainly play a role. I've ran out of range of our shaman in fights before, and the precious 10-15% endurance saved can be the difference between regrouping or simply dying. My personal issue with swords (as a warrior) is that there are too many required openings to accurately predict. I have one for "you block," one for "you parry," and one for "you evade" that I must decide between. In an RvR sense, even 1v1, I don't want to rely on a parry to make a bleed proc hit. Simply put, hammer is simpler. I will say this, however, that a zerker can split spec between hammer and sword and still be very effective. The main reason zerkers do this is because of how weapon skill works, and to get neutral damage against armor types. I hope this provided some insight to your question

Ok so I do get swords is a bit more "complex" with its styles and therefore I can see a slight advantage to hammer in that regard. But Rag is a slightly better slow that conquer. So the main reason is the back style snare? swords has rag which is slightly better (like 4 seconds more duration or something small). So I can go swords if I like swords better than hammer and be just as viable?

In this patch version Ragnarok is not a snare. It just does damage. If you want a rear snare you have to be hammer.

it's not really more or less complex, both sword and hammer has block/parry styles.

It's just that Hammer has a pretty damn good snare (not as good as armsman snare, but still).
And Sword doesn't. As its snare requires 2 skill uses, cost more endurance , last less than half the duration of Hammer's snare.

Still Sword should have the upper hand in terms of dmg.
It's not even Ragnarok Growth rate, because Conquer/sledgehammer combo is almost there. It is because of Slash dmg > Crush dmg against many "popular" classes.

Why not Axe ? it's slash and still has snare in anytime chain.

ConstentinNL wrote:Why not Axe ? it's slash and still has snare in anytime chain.

Endu cost

axe for life

the only reason to skill sword over another weapontype is the high to hit bonus on the taunt style.... but that only applies to shadowblades i think.
for all other classes hammer is superior.


axe is useless

woopdiwoop wrote:Endu cost

Axe has relatively low endu cost, unless you spam the taunt, but you shouldn't go Axe if you plan on doing that.
Sword's anytime has a high cost (14~16 endurance I would say).
The issue with Axe is the bleeding effect on the second part of the frontal chain and first part of the back chain, making grouped RvR kind of awkward. It's quite powerful for solo / small groups though.
On a side note, with Sword you're forced to go 50.

Cadam wrote:axe is useless

Isnt Axe the slowest 1handed weapon thus the best weapon for berserker ?
I agree on axe style though, just talking about the weapon here since serker will only use left axe styles.

Cadam wrote:axe is useless

You know nothing! =D

I uses axes on my warrior strictly for the looks, were the viking realm afterall.

Regardless if it isnt "the best"

Minaor wrote:Isnt Axe the slowest 1handed weapon thus the best weapon for berserker ?

and for SB too imho

Warrior is really one choice - hammer.

r4gz wrote:Warrior is really one choice - hammer.

Why choose 1 when you can have 2 ?
42shield 50sword 4X hammer (with auto train)