 |
|
|
|
Related Topics:
| Warriors own...until - Funny, Last night we did a 7 man LBRS and it was going great, 3 pallys, 1 warrior, 1 druid, a hunter and a rouge. The warrior was owning as they usually do, all of a sudden fighting the green elietes our warrior starts getting owned. He died twice..
Guns for warriors - I'm thinking about picking up a gun to the ranged attack, but I don't recall ever having seen a gun trainer anywhere. Do they exist, or do guns not need training to be used? Cybela (41 NE warrior,
Warriors nerfed again!"!!!!! - Warriors - Rage from dealing damage has been - All Rage awards are averaged with our expected rage per swing (adjusted for weapon speed). The above is a joke to us Fury specced Come on Blizzard give us
Haha! Take that warriors! - Patch: Defense skill will no longer reduce the chance players have to receive the Daze effect when attacked from behind by Now you'll see what if feels like when some lowlevel creep pokes you in the back while you are trying to..
Dual wield for warriors - Any opinions on this? I finally got around to getting trained in it, and like it so far, but I'm curious as to what others think. Cybela (44 NE warrior,
|
|
|
Next: Stupid Warrior Tricks....
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 1085
|
(Msg. 46) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:57 am
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>games>warcraft (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 24, 11:45 am, RogerM <roger.mc....DeleteThis@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> zeeta6 wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 3:18 am, "Shammy" <n....DeleteThis@nothing.com> wrote:
> > > Hello, Brian!
> > > You wrote on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:28:33 +0000 (UTC):
>
> > > BT> Shammy <n....DeleteThis@nothing.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> I have levelled my warrior to 60 just before TBC came and I have no
> > > >> idea what are you talking about, they are very fast to lvl as fast as
> > > >> any other class...
>
> > > BT> Nonsense. Too gear dependent, too much downtime. They are nowhere
> > > BT> near as fat to level as some other classes. A BM-spec hunter can
> > > BT> probably level to 70 before a warrior to 60.
>
> > > A BM hunter... the easiest class/spec in wow well imo they can level as fast
> > > as rogues, specially dagger rogues (I levelled a dagger rogue).
> > > I'm really starting to doubt the experience of some people when you say
> > > warrior is so hard to level... I understand prot ones are hard but to say
> > > levelling an arms warrior is hard....
>
> > I'm quite surprised actually. I have 65 rogue that I'm currently
> > leveling. 70 mage and a 62 warrior and a 35 hunter. Hunter for sure
> > is the easiest. Actually too easy really.
>
> Agreed. I got bored and stopped leveling my hunter for months because it
> was too easy.
>
> > Mage comes second. Now
> > the other two classes - warrior and rogue are quite painful to me.
> > Rogue a bit less painfull than warriors.
>
> > I think the reason why anyone finds rogue easy/fast like the hunter is
> > probably because they have good gear. Any class will be tremendously
> > easy if they are lvled it mostly blues. Mage and hunters on the other
> > hand are not that much gear depenedent and as such are much easier to
> > lvl.
>
> IMO, the most important factors are how fast you can kill a mob (and
> NOTHING kills faster than a mage), and how well you can escape from a
> bad pull. Pet classes are extremely good at the latter, and just happen
> to be quite good at the former.
>
> --
I'd argue that rate of leveling is based more on player skill, gear,
and planning than it is over how fast you can kill a mob. Just
because you can't level a warrior fast doesn't mean that someone else
can't. Perhaps they have tried different specs, different gear
configurations, different quests, different mobs, there is a rather
large combination of variables that can come together in just the
right way that allow a warrior to level fast. Some people like the
challenge of finding ways to do things that other people haven't tried
before.
If I were you, I would reword your comment from "warriors are really
slow levelers" to "in my experience, warriors are really slow to
level" and instead of becoming defensive when people challenge that
conclusion, ask them what they did to make a warrior level faster.
Warlocks are definintely one of the classes that has been know for
easy and fast leveling, yet I know a few warlocks who just plod along
in levels because they don't know how to make a warlock work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 1085
|
(Msg. 47) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:05 am
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 24, 11:50 am, RogerM <roger.mc....DeleteThis@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Shammy wrote:
>
> > R> It's a nice item. Unfortunately worthless to mages. Pretty foolish to
> > R> do a PUG instance without a mage, anyway.
>
> > You seriously seem to lack experience in wow honestly. What are your classes
> > and level/spec?
>
> That's a little class bragging there, but mages ARE extremely useful in
> PUGs. One reason IS the ability to resupply forgetful players with
> provisions. The other reasons are the best AoE abilities and the best CC
> ability. The tank and the healer aside, for the majority of instances,
> three mages would fill the group best.
>
> --
I'd say they're useful but definitely not required, nor does joining a
pug with no mage a bad decision. Instances where CC isn't an issue,
such as Black Morass, negates one of your arguments, and while the
packs of 3 whelpings might be mage aoe heaven, other classes can
handle those just as well.
With 3 mages you lose the ability to bring in a warlock for soulstones
and healthstones, presenting a wipe problem. You lose the ability to
bring a rogue who can pick locks on doors and chests. You lose a
hunters ability to trap mobs that you can't sheep. Because of your
AoE advantage, the best tank for that group would be a paladin tank,
which limits your already small available tank pool. Diversity in a
group is always a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 802
|
(Msg. 48) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:09 am
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:06:01 -0000, pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>Yeah, except that some of them will be casters and refuse to come into
>melee range to get their butts kicked. My new favorite toy is the
>poultryizer - in groups with lots of melee and one caster, it does wonders
>in rounding everything up. You can handle two-caster groups by chickening
>one and using the other caster as your first target.
Ahh, the wonders of Gnomish engineering..  I've never, ever done
engineering.. Maybe I should give it a try.
Ever had it backfire on you?
With caster groups, (Ogres in Zangarmash for eg, some shamans, some
melee) I generally target the casters first.. the melee mobs can hit
me all the way want and the reckoning procs take the casters down and
(hopefully) provide some interupts. That worked well, but the Nagas
were too much of a problem to do that with. Those casters do a 'Circle
of uber stuff' thing so I had to keep moving around to stay out of
them., still, I did "Now we're still Friends" enough times to get
honored with Sporregar for the shield and the Unending Spore frond is
really useful.
>>I had a problem in Nagrand because the first set of 30 you have to
>>kill are neutral.. no proximity aggro. I had to run around spamming
>>consecrate to get enough together.
>
>Yeah, that was a pain. I did most of the neutral ones by throwing my shield
>at one, and then hitting another while the first waddled towards me.
But that only gets you two at a time.. One memorable occasion I
managed to get 8 Clefthoofs at once.. they were fairly close together
to start with so Av Shield got three, and I just rank 1 consecrated
another 5. For about 5 minutes I couldn't actually see my character at
all. I did have to lay on hands for that one.. 5 Stomps in a row. >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 131
|
(Msg. 49) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:09 am
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 24, 7:26 am, RogerM <roger.mc... DeleteThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It's a nice item. Unfortunately worthless to mages. Pretty foolish to do
> a PUG instance without a mage, anyway.
LOL - You sir, are a funny little man. What the heck makes a Mage so
important? Water? Food? pfffft. Any player worth their salt carries
their own supply of any item that they need. I personally feel kind
of insulted when a mage hands me a stack of Cinn-A-Buns or whatever
those useless things are.
As a rogue, I love the Spore Frond. Free food, when I'm grinding is
nice. >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 1085
|
(Msg. 50) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:41 am
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 24, 2:23 pm, RogerM <roger.mc... DeleteThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Aboo wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 7:26 am, RogerM <roger.mc... DeleteThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > It's a nice item. Unfortunately worthless to mages. Pretty foolish to do
> > > a PUG instance without a mage, anyway.
>
> > LOL - You sir, are a funny little man. What the heck makes a Mage so
> > important? Water? Food? pfffft. Any player worth their salt carries
> > their own supply of any item that they need.
>
> We were talking about PUGs. The percentage of players worth their salt
> is considerably smaller than in guild runs. Tell me you haven't had
> players announce during a run that they are out of
> food/water/ammo/reagents.
>
> > I personally feel kind
> > of insulted when a mage hands me a stack of Cinn-A-Buns or whatever
> > those useless things are.
>
> Insulted? - Okay...
>
> > As a rogue, I love the Spore Frond. Free food, when I'm grinding is
> > nice.
>
> As I said, it's a nice item. Except for mages.
>
> And since you want to trade insults: melee DPS is a joke, as is Sap.
>
> --
Wow, did you see all that credibility fly by? I think I saw it come
out of that window..... >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 23, 2007
Posts: 1186
|
(Msg. 51) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:45 pm
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
zeeta6 wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 3:18 am, "Shammy" <n....DeleteThis@nothing.com> wrote:
> > Hello, Brian!
> > You wrote on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:28:33 +0000 (UTC):
> >
> > BT> Shammy <n....DeleteThis@nothing.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> I have levelled my warrior to 60 just before TBC came and I have no
> > >> idea what are you talking about, they are very fast to lvl as fast as
> > >> any other class...
> >
> > BT> Nonsense. Too gear dependent, too much downtime. They are nowhere
> > BT> near as fat to level as some other classes. A BM-spec hunter can
> > BT> probably level to 70 before a warrior to 60.
> >
> > A BM hunter... the easiest class/spec in wow well imo they can level as fast
> > as rogues, specially dagger rogues (I levelled a dagger rogue).
> > I'm really starting to doubt the experience of some people when you say
> > warrior is so hard to level... I understand prot ones are hard but to say
> > levelling an arms warrior is hard....
>
> I'm quite surprised actually. I have 65 rogue that I'm currently
> leveling. 70 mage and a 62 warrior and a 35 hunter. Hunter for sure
> is the easiest. Actually too easy really.
Agreed. I got bored and stopped leveling my hunter for months because it
was too easy.
> Mage comes second. Now
> the other two classes - warrior and rogue are quite painful to me.
> Rogue a bit less painfull than warriors.
>
> I think the reason why anyone finds rogue easy/fast like the hunter is
> probably because they have good gear. Any class will be tremendously
> easy if they are lvled it mostly blues. Mage and hunters on the other
> hand are not that much gear depenedent and as such are much easier to
> lvl.
IMO, the most important factors are how fast you can kill a mob (and
NOTHING kills faster than a mage), and how well you can escape from a
bad pull. Pet classes are extremely good at the latter, and just happen
to be quite good at the former.
-- >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 23, 2007
Posts: 1186
|
(Msg. 52) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:07 pm
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
petertrei DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 11:45 am, RogerM <roger.mc... DeleteThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > zeeta6 wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 24, 3:18 am, "Shammy" <n... DeleteThis @nothing.com> wrote:
> > > > Hello, Brian!
> > > > You wrote on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:28:33 +0000 (UTC):
> >
> > > > BT> Shammy <n... DeleteThis @nothing.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> I have levelled my warrior to 60 just before TBC came and I have no
> > > > >> idea what are you talking about, they are very fast to lvl as fast as
> > > > >> any other class...
> >
> > > > BT> Nonsense. Too gear dependent, too much downtime. They are nowhere
> > > > BT> near as fat to level as some other classes. A BM-spec hunter can
> > > > BT> probably level to 70 before a warrior to 60.
> >
> > > > A BM hunter... the easiest class/spec in wow well imo they can level as fast
> > > > as rogues, specially dagger rogues (I levelled a dagger rogue).
> > > > I'm really starting to doubt the experience of some people when you say
> > > > warrior is so hard to level... I understand prot ones are hard but to say
> > > > levelling an arms warrior is hard....
> >
> > > I'm quite surprised actually. I have 65 rogue that I'm currently
> > > leveling. 70 mage and a 62 warrior and a 35 hunter. Hunter for sure
> > > is the easiest. Actually too easy really.
> >
> > Agreed. I got bored and stopped leveling my hunter for months because it
> > was too easy.
> >
> > > Mage comes second. Now
> > > the other two classes - warrior and rogue are quite painful to me.
> > > Rogue a bit less painfull than warriors.
> >
> > > I think the reason why anyone finds rogue easy/fast like the hunter is
> > > probably because they have good gear. Any class will be tremendously
> > > easy if they are lvled it mostly blues. Mage and hunters on the other
> > > hand are not that much gear depenedent and as such are much easier to
> > > lvl.
> >
> > IMO, the most important factors are how fast you can kill a mob (and
> > NOTHING kills faster than a mage), and how well you can escape from a
> > bad pull. Pet classes are extremely good at the latter, and just happen
> > to be quite good at the former.
>
> I don't have a class with a pet yet, but in PuGs I've sometimes found
> pets to be a royal pain. Perhaps its just inexperienced pet owners,
> but
> I've more than once had a group wipe because a pet brought in numerous
> adds. It happened just last night in the troll ruins of STV.
>
> PT
Oh, yes. I think we have ALL seen that happen a few times. It IS,
indeed, a question of handling the pet correctly. Very funny the first
time you see it, but it gets old VERY fast.
Frankly, I have gone on record in this NG as saying that a hunter should
only use a pet in an instance if he is BM spec. There are things that
can happen to pets to cause unwanted adds and that problem means that
only a BM pet is effective enough to be worth that risk.
-- >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 18, 2006
Posts: 4047
|
(Msg. 53) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:43 pm
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Barry Freeman <bazz.DeleteThis@nospam.co.uk> writes:
>Ever had it backfire on you?
Yeah, but it's not that big a deal.
>With caster groups, (Ogres in Zangarmash for eg, some shamans, some
>melee) I generally target the casters first.. the melee mobs can hit
>me all the way want and the reckoning procs take the casters down and
>(hopefully) provide some interupts. That worked well, but the Nagas
Yep. As per usual prot paladin technique, the more enemies are hitting you,
the faster your target goes down.
>were too much of a problem to do that with. Those casters do a 'Circle
>of uber stuff' thing so I had to keep moving around to stay out of
>them., still, I did "Now we're still Friends" enough times to get
>honored with Sporregar for the shield and the Unending Spore frond is
>really useful.
That's still my main shield at 69 - the spore effect is really useful at
keeping aggro.
>But that only gets you two at a time.. One memorable occasion I
>managed to get 8 Clefthoofs at once.. they were fairly close together
>to start with so Av Shield got three, and I just rank 1 consecrated
>another 5. For about 5 minutes I couldn't actually see my character at
>all. I did have to lay on hands for that one.. 5 Stomps in a row.
Clefthoofs are annoying because you get knocked down by them on occasion.
I'm impressed by 8 at once - there's not a lot of places in Nagrand where
you can get them together fast enough to avoid some evading back. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews. >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 01, 2006
Posts: 335
|
(Msg. 54) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:56 pm
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 01, 2006
Posts: 335
|
(Msg. 55) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:58 pm
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
RogerM wrote:
> I didn't say it was wrong, I asked what the motivation was.
no, you didnt say it was wrong but you implied it was wrong based on
your questioning of his motivations. who cares what the motivation is?
he's having fun. thats all that matters.
> Right, questioning. Asking for an answer. There was no condemnation of
> his play style.
there's a difference between questioning and patronizing.
--
kim <3 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 06, 2005
Posts: 270
|
(Msg. 56) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:15 pm
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
RogerM <roger.mckay RemoveThis @ns.sympatico.ca> contributed wisdom to
news:47975EB5.93E751FF@ns.sympatico.ca:
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>>
>> BUT as you say, that doesnt seem to pan out later on. The "obvious"
>> pros and cons of the class dont hold out for some reason.
>>
>> Gandalf Parker
>> --
>> One thing I dislike about WoW.
>> Kids used to see me and call me Santa. Now they see me and call me
>> Trogg.
>
> Hey Gandalf. How long have you been playing WoW? We have spoken in the
> past in the pc.strategy NG. Now THAT place appears to be DEAD.
Just starting up. My highest character so far is a 30lvl Hunter on
Shadowsong. Im enjoying the game instead of fast burning. Trying to
actually wander into things instead of googling everything. Lots of
mistakes but its fun.
My son and I have characters covering most classes and professions. We
have guilded them as "the Parker Clan" and are cross supporting their
resource needs
Gandalf Parker >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 06, 2005
Posts: 270
|
(Msg. 57) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:17 pm
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Mark Reinhold <markr.TakeThisOut@mbrnet.com> contributed wisdom to
news:9l3gp353jsge9g5jrg2joqpmudpc226fb9@4ax.com:
> On 23 Jan 2008 14:55:06 GMT, Gandalf Parker
> <gandalf.TakeThisOut@the.dead.ISP.of.Community.net> wrote:
>
>>Caphel <porkster.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> contributed wisdom to
>>news:04dd62a9-ea10-43f9-
>>890e-7b70470d09fa@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> I have just last night managed to get my warrior to 70. They are
>>> quite a slow and painful class to level. I have already levelled a
>>> shaman to 70, that was quite quick and easy, a rogue, also quick and
>>> easy, and a hunter, don't even go there on that one, hunter
>>> levelling is on a whole new level of easy.
>>
>>Ive been surprised.
>>Originally I thought that warrior was the fast burner. It rushes thru
>>the early levels. You can wear and use almost anything you find. I
>>figured my warrior was going to be my leader and bast collector for
>>being able to go anything and survive.
>
> My warrior is 61 now going pretty to 62 and up. I set him up on arms.
> His spec are 33/14/5 and now He is going quick. Lots of armor and 20 %
> crit ratings. I bet that I am 70 by the end of the month.
>
> The stuff he gets now is pretty neat.
Yeah Im trying not to fast burn. I want to enjoy playing the game up thru
the levels. But it is irritating that coming in so late means that no one
seems to shout out items that are less than 70 level, and rarely even
seem to auction any. I hate clicking on a shouted item and seeing
wonderful things then seeing that its WAY beyond my reach.
Gandalf Parker
-- Shadowsong - the Parker Clan >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 15, 2006
Posts: 752
|
(Msg. 58) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:30 pm
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
R> You said " they are very fast to lvl as fast as any other class...".
R> That is patent bullshit.
What is your experience with wow and what are your classes/levels/specs?
R> There is no objective standard to qualify a class as "fast to level".
R> We must use relative standards, and Warriors are relatively slow to
R> level compared to some other classes. You imply that all classes are
R> equally fast, and that is not true.
Well warrior is as fast to level as priests, rogues, shamans and most other
classes.......
I noticed a lot of people saying BM hunter is the best, the fastest to lvl
etc... I suppose you never ever played a feral druid? My main atm is a feral
druid and he can kill mob after mob for hours without drinking once (and not
dropping under 80% hp) because imp leader of the pack will heal it enough to
just go on, now tell me what other class can go on without rest at all? >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 23, 2007
Posts: 1186
|
(Msg. 59) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:30 pm
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Shammy wrote:
>
> R> You said " they are very fast to lvl as fast as any other class...".
> R> That is patent bullshit.
>
> What is your experience with wow and what are your classes/levels/specs?
L70 (Kara geared) mage, L57 Warrior (arms), L48 Hunter (BM spec), L32
Paladin (hedgehog), a few warlocks 20-mid30s range, L21 Rogue, L27 Holy
Priest, etc.
>
> R> There is no objective standard to qualify a class as "fast to level".
> R> We must use relative standards, and Warriors are relatively slow to
> R> level compared to some other classes. You imply that all classes are
> R> equally fast, and that is not true.
>
> Well warrior is as fast to level as priests, rogues, shamans and most other
> classes.......
>
At least you're backing away from ALL. Now you're down to MOST. That's
progress, at least. I disagree with you about rogues and shamans,
though. They can both DPS with warriors. Rogues can escape much better
than
warriors, and shamans can heal themselves during combat.
> I noticed a lot of people saying BM hunter is the best, the fastest to lvl
> etc... I suppose you never ever played a feral druid?
Not to any great degree, no. Notice that I have made no claims about
druids' leveling abilities.
> My main atm is a feral
> druid and he can kill mob after mob for hours without drinking once (and not
> dropping under 80% hp) because imp leader of the pack will heal it enough to
> just go on, now tell me what other class can go on without rest at all?
A BM hunter can, very easily. At L46, I was soloing L45 dragonkin in
Badlands. I can also (with my turtle pet) handle 4 equal level
non-elites.
I have less experience with warlocks, but I'm guessing they can too,
since they can replenish both hp and mana during combat.
When I am playing either of those classes, I return to town to vendor
trash and bank useful loot, not to purchase food and water.
-- >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 15, 2006
Posts: 752
|
(Msg. 60) Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:46 pm
Post subject: Re: bliz was saying not enough warriors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
Game Forums (Home) -> WarCraft -> World Of Warcraft Warrior |
All times are: Ekaterinburg, Islamabad, Karachi, Tashkent (change)
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
|
| Page 4 of 8 |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
