Talk:Strength

Opinion

        Strength is one of the most limited primary attributes, matched only by Divine Favor. One of the main features of Guild Wars is dual professions, allowing players to be creative with their playstyle. Energy Storage and Fast Casting are useful to most combinations. Expertise has its uses, and Soul Reaping can be great given the scale of battle. Divine Favor only affects Monk spells, giving no crossover whatsoever and thereby limiting it. Strength has crossover, but it only activates with attack skills, and any skill with its own armor penetration overrides, rather than adds onto, Strength.

        At 16 Strength, you're looking at a return of only 18% more damage against 60AL casters, 70AL rangers, and 80AL paragons and warriors (if you're doing elemental damage). It drops to 16% more damage against 100AL warriors and rangers (if you're doing elemental damage). If you have an attack skill that deals 50 damage, that's only 9/8 additional damage, respectively. (+damage actually ignores armor, so the only thing affected by armor penetration should be your actual weapon damage) -- Hercanic 05:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

        Why can't Strength affect your normal strikes? That would certainly boost its usefulness across the classes. Or have it affect more than just attack skills, like Expertise? Or why not just change it entirely, to something like, say, 2-3 additional armor per Strength point? Just anything to make Strength more applicable to all, or at least most, of the other professions.

        At the very least, Strength shouldn't be overridden by a skill's own armor penetration. Categorizing Base versus Bonus armor penetration just confuses things. -- Hercanic 11:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

---

A class's uniqueness comes not only from its primary attribute, but also all other bonuses. Warriors have the best armor (even than paragons), lots of cheap and effective attack skills to choose from, and the use of adrenaline. 15-18% extra damage is also not negligeable. Alaris 16:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

---

        I was never criticising the Warrior itself, only the narrow application of its primary attribute. It constrains creativity, which is counter-productive to the intended goal of dual-classing. From a game design perspective, Strength is a poor concept that fails to synergize with a key, ubiquitous feature of gameplay.

        As for 15-18% more damage not being negligible, bear in mind +damage from skills is already armor-ignoring, so Strength is only affecting your actual weapon damage when using an attack skill.

• Sword does 15-22dmg, average of 19dmg. At 14 Strength against a 60AL target, that's a whopping 3 extra damage. If the target has over 102 armor, the bonus damage drops to 2.
• Axe does 6-28dmg, average of 17dmg. At 14 Strength, that's +3dmg as well.
• Hammer does 19-35dmg, average of 27dmg. At 14 Strength, that's +4dmg.
• Daggers do 7-17dmg, average of 12dmg. At 14 Strength, that's +2dmg.
• Scythe does 9-41dmg, average of 25dmg. At 14 Strength, that's +4dmg.
• Bow does 15-28dmg, average of 22dmg. At 14 Strength, that's +3dmg.
• Spear does 14-27dmg, average of 21dmg. At 14 Strength, that's +3dmg.

        Unless you are using Strength skills key to your build, you are better off investing in another attribute and using Penetrating attack skills or something like Judge's Insight. -- Hercanic 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally i see it like warrior's "primary attribute" is actually the armor they get. Its the max armor and you can't get it otherwise. That's the gift you get for rolling a warrior plus the special insignias. I think they moved a lot of skills into Strength cause people failed to see it like that. If they made tactics (or anything with a defensive nature) the primary many people would think that warriors were all about being tanks. You would see builds like 12 tactics/12 earth and so on. That been said i think that warriors deserve to have weapons linked to any of their attributes (strength, tactics), like every other primary does - would allow 12(tactics)/12(strength), 12/10/8(axe,sword,hammer) builds without being game breaking.

Er, bows are marksmanship, daggers are dagger mastery, spears are spear mastery, scythes are scythe mastery. The only weapons that have different kinds of attribute links are staves, wands, and focuses.

The progression chart

Do we really need a progression chart for a 1% per level effect? Cantos 02:05, 14 February 2007 (PST)

LMAO wow. Morrock 18:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Not all attacks

This needs to be spelled out more. What attacks do not get the bonus? Alaris 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

added that in inherent effect Invincible Rogue 23:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to ask is whether it apply to ranger bow attacks, dervish scythe attacks, assassin dagger attacks? Alaris 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll need to test that in isle of nameless Invincible Rogue 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "When you use attack skills, each point of Strength gives you 1% armor penetration." If you're using bow attack skills, scythe attack skills etc, you will get the strength bonus (however, don't waste time testing on daggers, as an extra 10% AP on a 7-17 base is like 1 damage tops). -Auron 23:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a better idea for the functionality of Strength. Why not change it to "Per every rank in strength, your attack skills deal +.5 damage..."? While this doesnt seem like much, this might be a bit more useful than the +1% AP, expecially with spammable skills (whirling axe, and a few others) and would cause more Warriors to use more than 3 points in strenght they normally use. At 8 strength or higher this would make a nice addition to attack skills. Media Control

The thing that makes Strength great is not its effect, but rather the fact that it contains a lot of useful skills and has shields linked to it. That compensates for the relatively mediocore effect. If you compare it to Energy Storage for example, you'll see that ES has a lot less skills, but a stronger (or at least more noticable) effect. As a Warrior, you will not only get an inherent bonus from your primary attribute, but good skills as well. Not all primary attributes can say the same (Soul Reaping, Fast Casting?). Finally, Warriors deal enough damage as it is. No need to increase it even further. 145.94.74.23 09:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone actually put the table back....

Wow. If someone can't multiply by 1, they shouldn't be playing guild wars. This is probably the most pointless table on this whole wiki. My question is would removing this violate the revert policy? Invincible Rogue 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

According to GWW:1RR, you're limited to one revert per editor. So, if you didn't remove the table before, then no. --Valshia 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again with this? --JonTheMon 03:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. I simply must agree with Jon. -- Oiseau | 03:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Vs CS

Which one is better at r12, and r16? Strength or Critical Strikes?--84.2.4.130 13:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd defiantly say Critical Strikes. -Unspoken Noob 10:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A little bit pointless?

Am I the only one that sees a 15% armor penetration bonus, that only activates on attack skills as a bit pointless? Seeing as if you want to achieve armor penetration, there are cheap skills with 25%. I'm not saying this should happen, but wouldn't it make sense for a warrior to have the additional armor effect that someone else said above? Not elemental though, it seems a bit silly for a warrior to take less damage from catching fire, just because they're more muscular. But how about "For each point in Strength, you gain +1% armor vs physical damage". -Unspoken Noob 10:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wars need an anti-hex strength based skill

Doesnt need to be super-powerful so that cover-hexes still work, just hexes wreck wars. R U Who U Want To B 07:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Each prof tends to have pros and cons, but if you wish, Feedback:Getting started. G R E E N E R 07:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

second professions says hi :3 The Holy Dragons --95.97.106.134 10:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)