Or will you constantly need to run around most of the time?
Does being an archer provide that much more survivability?
Débuté par
Gage123
, avril 03 2011 05:34
#1
Posté 03 avril 2011 - 05:34
#2
Posté 03 avril 2011 - 05:38
You really like making topics don't you?
#3
Posté 03 avril 2011 - 05:40
Well, guessing from your question, you're thinking survivability in terms of tanking, then no, any warrior class already outdoes the archers.
What I think you may be on to, is that most people say the archers has the best survivability among any other classes in terms soloing against a large number of enemies. That's because we can constantly run around and, stop to shoot, then move on. Also known as kiting. No other class has as atrocious a natural knockback rate than archers have simply by shooting their bow of theirs. Pretty much for any solo run, the staple for archers is to use the rogue skills to run away and create a distance, and keep on kiting.
So in terms of soloing survivability, archers have that upper hand. Warriors however still excel in the standard hit for hit survivability.
What I think you may be on to, is that most people say the archers has the best survivability among any other classes in terms soloing against a large number of enemies. That's because we can constantly run around and, stop to shoot, then move on. Also known as kiting. No other class has as atrocious a natural knockback rate than archers have simply by shooting their bow of theirs. Pretty much for any solo run, the staple for archers is to use the rogue skills to run away and create a distance, and keep on kiting.
So in terms of soloing survivability, archers have that upper hand. Warriors however still excel in the standard hit for hit survivability.
#4
Posté 03 avril 2011 - 05:44
But in a party setup (less kiting), a archer will usually survive or have to deal less with getting damaged than a DW rogue right?
#5
Posté 03 avril 2011 - 06:07
Bosses have abilities that cover a large area of effect or can attack multiple party members at once.
Take the High Dragon encounter for example. While it has a powerful cleave ability that it will only use directly in front of itself and will almost certainly kill any non-tank it also has a wing buffet ability that will affect anyone in a certain radius, a tail swish and a rear kick that will damage and knock back party members behind it.
As a general rule archers take less damage and knockbacks than a dw rogue. It is also less likely to be hit by friendly fire if you stay at a distance. They are still susceptible to certain dangers like magess spells and archers' attacks however.
Take the High Dragon encounter for example. While it has a powerful cleave ability that it will only use directly in front of itself and will almost certainly kill any non-tank it also has a wing buffet ability that will affect anyone in a certain radius, a tail swish and a rear kick that will damage and knock back party members behind it.
As a general rule archers take less damage and knockbacks than a dw rogue. It is also less likely to be hit by friendly fire if you stay at a distance. They are still susceptible to certain dangers like magess spells and archers' attacks however.
#6
Posté 03 avril 2011 - 06:12
I guess it's why DW has more damaging on-use abilities than archers. Makes sense now.
#7
Posté 03 avril 2011 - 06:42
If you're playing on Nightmare, archers also don't have to worry about getting smacked in the face by their warrior companions' friendly fire. I found dual-wielding hard to use on Isabela for that reason, although Aveline killed her a lot less often than Fenris.
#8
Posté 03 avril 2011 - 07:21
FF is an issue...but if you aren't using a two-hander, shouldn't be too much of a problem. Do archers do more damage overall ignoring knockdowns etc.? Never found any of the archer skills to be worthwhile or compare to the ones in the dual wield tree.
Modifié par Gage123, 03 avril 2011 - 07:21 .





Retour en haut






