Do you think Stance of the Gladiator will successfully allow prot to be viable dps?

[Archimtiros]

Well of course, but that's what makes it fun. Ever seen two knights fight with large swords (2 handed)? It's not nearly as exciting as one would imagine.

Ever seen 2 people with sword and board fight? It isn't as exciting either. 1-2 blocks, parries, one good thrust and its over. I fail to see what this has to do with the topic?

No argument there, but the whole situation of anyone "ignoring most/all defensive benefits and only" attack could be commented as the obvious turn of events in any game that utilizes a threat system where most damage (regardless of reason) is focused on a single target.
Why would a 30 foot tall dragon only attack the one target while 9/24/39 other people attacking him are grouped up adjacent to him?

But you were relating the idea to a historical reason; I pointed out that historically the protection spec style of play was more correct.

I feel I should of specified the use of the shield in "their," but I was referring to the movie. Unless you thought that the movie, which is based on a comic based on an event in history was going to be 100% accurate. Or, perhaps you thought that the long gone, historical Spartans physically hit a theater?

I don't even know what this comment means.

If you are referring to how I scoffed at 300's lack of historical accuracy; It's pretty valid. The story is still an awesome story; but they changed a whole bunch of things that I don't think actually improved the story at all. Example would be Ephialtes being a deformed hunchback instead of just some greedy peasant, I get that, makes him a little more likeable, gives a reason for his betrayal aside from greed; but the whole part with Xerxes harem of deformed bastards was a little much.
There are a few other things, but it doesn't particularly matter as it isn't the point of this discussion.

My point to Raug regarding history was made above. My point to you was the "the movie, which is based on a comic based on an event in history" doesn't have jack all to do with decisions regarding changes in the games, OR the topic which is "Do you think Stance of the Gladiator will successfully allow prot to be viable dps?"

[Darkfriend]

Sorry to burst your bubble but that movies style of combat was a joke (as was almost everything else in the movie, it wasn't even very historically accurate aside from the battle in general and the place it happened. I love how the naval battle always gets glossed over in movies too). Sure it was fun to watch though.

Shields have always been used to bash, but not as much as you'd think. Shields are big. Shields are heavy. It's not as simple as swinging your arm out every 5 seconds and smacking someone in the face. Generally they'd be used to push more than "slam" an opponent. Even with the smaller buckler style Shields were rarely used as "weapons"; a bash is not an attack so much as a move designed to disorient, disarm or mask your attempt to put your sword through the enemies stomach.
Nobody kills with a Shield unless they've run out of all other options (and get pretty lucky to boot).

The majority of their use has always been defense. If you really wanted to be historically accurate; wouldn't "defending yourself first and using the shield to bash second" (Prot) be apt than "ignoring most/all defensive benefits and only using the shield to attack?" (Glad).

For an Army, the true power of the Shield, as both the Greeks and Romans used to extreme effectiveness was the "shield wall" in which shields would be interlocked to cover eachother. Actual warfare very rarely devolved into the massive individual melees you see in 300 or Sparticus, it simply isn't their strength.

For individuals, not quite so much with the Roman or the Greeks, but "dual wield" fighting has been (rarely) seen throughout history, as has the use of 2hrs. The Japanese, Viking, and Scottish used 2hrs to great effect (Spears, Axes and Swords). They weren't fast melee weapons by any means. Often used as first strike weapons, then dropped in favor of something lighter and easier to use.

Even in modern times there is a German School of Fencing based around the historical system of combat taught in the Holy Roman Empire in the Late Medieval, Renaissance and Early Modern periods (14th to 17th centuries).

Yes, in reality you will never see an army of people running around whirlwinding with two 2h weapons. But then you won't see any heroic throws, heroic leaps, chain lightnings, turning people into frogs, summoning demons or riding dragons either.

TLDR: Stop trying to use history as a reason for gameplay. You are usually wrong, and it doesn't matter in a fantasy setting.

Captain America would like a word with you about saying a shield is not a weapon archi.!

[Archimtiros]

Captain America would like a word with you about saying a shield is not a weapon archi.!

You used a ! after a . Your argument is rendered invalid.

[Lexanna]

If you want to be a viable DPS, then DPS. Stop trying to make it one more thing a Tank has to bring to the table of a raid. As a Tank my DPS is in the amount of Damage I don't take.

[Darkfriend]

You used a ! after a . Your argument is rendered invalid.

murica don't care about none of your fancy english nonsense.

[Jackielope]

murica don't care about none of your fancy english nonsense.

America does care about its national language, thank you very much. Don't hide behind our country to cover up your own shortcomings when it comes to actually using English properly.

However, Captain America is more of a paladin. Avenger's Shield and all that.

I do still think it would be interesting to have a DPS spec or subspec work with a 1h and shield, but I won't hold my breath if Blizz screws it up or just drops it entirely.

[Better]

no, the extra aggro would cause you to pull off of a tank if you were doing viable DPS, I think tanks are going to be doing roughly 60~% of the DPS that a normal DPS would be doing, so if the stance allowed 95-100% of the DPS damage (being viable) then you would be tanking due to vengance being mitigation only.

The idea behind a sword and shield DPS sounds cool, but would be a nightmare for balance. The DPS that take less damage for no reason have already had that taken away, so why add another now?

[Darkfriend]

America does care about its national language, thank you very much. Don't hide behind our country to cover up your own shortcomings when it comes to actually using English properly.

However, Captain America is more of a paladin. Avenger's Shield and all that.

I do still think it would be interesting to have a DPS spec or subspec work with a 1h and shield, but I won't hold my breath if Blizz screws it up or just drops it entirely.

Someone's sarcasm meter is broken lol

[nightfalls]

You used a ! after a . Your argument is rendered invalid.

I feel this thread's completely outlived its usefulness (if there was any of it to begin with).

[Super Kami Dende]

I hope they also add "While in Gladiator stance you may epuip 2H weapons in your Main hand.

Just so I can hold a Polearm and a Shield.

PHALANX!

[Vintersol]

TLDR: Stop trying to use history as a reason for gameplay. You are usually wrong, and it doesn't matter in a fantasy setting.

So, it's ok to wield two handers, even if it's used in history battles? Or using plate armor for protection? But shield / sword combat is historically inaccurate? Wow.... that's so much fail, i need a third party facepalm....

[Bookofblade]

If you want to be a viable DPS, then DPS. Stop trying to make it one more thing a Tank has to bring to the table of a raid. As a Tank my DPS is in the amount of Damage I don't take.

If you took the talent you would be a dps, would have nothing to do with what you bring to the table it would be exactly the same as switching to your fury spec when you didnt need to tank.

no, the extra aggro would cause you to pull off of a tank if you were doing viable DPS, I think tanks are going to be doing roughly 60~% of the DPS that a normal DPS would be doing, so if the stance allowed 95-100% of the DPS damage (being viable) then you would be tanking due to vengance being mitigation only.

The idea behind a sword and shield DPS sounds cool, but would be a nightmare for balance. The DPS that take less damage for no reason have already had that taken away, so why add another now?

There is no aggro increase on glad stance so i dont see how you would be worried about the aggro gain. Also devs have stated they will be aiming for tank dps to be about 75% of a dps not 60%

I feel this thread's completely outlived its usefulness (if there was any of it to begin with).

Then dont post in it? Some of us have enjoyed seeing the opinions and discussion involved when people are able to stay on topic

[Archimtiros]

So, it's ok to wield two handers, even if it's used in history battles? Or using plate armor for protection? But shield / sword combat is historically inaccurate? Wow.... that's so much fail, i need a third party facepalm....

Not what I said. I said it is more historically accurate to use a shield as protection spec does (ie: defensively), rather than as glad spec does (offensively).
And then I expanded my post into why tryin to use historical accuracy as an excuse for design in a fantasy game is dumb. You can't use history as an excuse for why you want something, and then ask to be able to throw fireballs and shit.

The post was neither pro or con towards Glad Stance, it was simply pointing out why "history" is a poor reference and most people use it incorrectly to begin with, like all the people who claim 2hrs are unrealistic.

[Xayl1]

I hope so I am enjoying this trend that blizzard seems to be picking up of letting certain spec be used in interesting ways. if done right it would make raid and PvP comps more varied.

[TheBoxLife]

I really hope it ends up being viable. I remember when I first started playing WoW I specced arms but used a sword and shield, I felt like such a badass. I was so bummed out when I found out it wasn't viable.

[Archimtiros]

I really hope it ends up being viable. I remember when I first started playing WoW I specced arms but used a sword and shield, I felt like such a badass. I was so bummed out when I found out it wasn't viable.

I remember all the melee hunters, 2h fury warriors and 2h enh shamans too. The last two were optimal for a good while as well.

[Artorius]

I think in the end of WotLK prot warriors with ArP gear and the 2p t10 bonus (20% shockwave and Shield Slam damage increase) were more than viable at PVP... Hell they were better than arms. More CC, more burst, more mobility...
Although Shadowmourne Arms was absolutely ridiculous...

[Magally]

You know...I started out in vanilla wanting to DPS on my warrior with a sword and shield. If this works that way and makes it viable then hell frickin yeah! Ill look like a scrub and DPS with a sword and shield an y day!

This.

I have always played the sword and board DPS in every RPG I possibly could, I've wanted it in WoW forever (Even levelled an heirloomed up Warrior as Prot just to kick some ass with that set up) Seeing this talent at BlizzCon made my week. I hope it's viable.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, if we go back to cata-esque, the 'squish' won't seem too bad, which (for me) is kind of sad. I was/am expecting a big enough squish where they won't have to do it again expac after expac.

If you've been paying attention to the tweets, you'd see that squishes are probably going to become habitual, and for good reason.

Right now, they've confirmed that there will be large ilvl increases during WoD, because that's the only way to make sure that 2 tier old gear isn't perfectly viable for new tiers without insanely strict tuning. So our stats will grow very big over the course of WoD again like they have in previous expanions, but they could counter constant inflation again by squishing after WoD, and every expansion.

Because that ilvl inflation to make tiers more distinct stops being relevant when the raids are no longer relevant, so you might need a 150 ilvl gain DURING WoD thanks to the tiers, but once it's over you could squish is down to 50 ilvls and move onto the next expansions. Curb stomping exponential growth before it gets too much, at the cost of needing to do squishes in every beta.

[Mefistophelis]

I hope they manage to balance it and it's not some weird talent everyone cries about in PvP while in PvE no-one takes it.
Also I think this stance might be better to be put as a baseline in prot warriors at ~60 level. Would be fun (remember in WoD base damage on abilities goes away, ergo tank damage in low levels will suck majorly)

- - - Updated - - -

Well of course, but that's what makes it fun. Ever seen two knights fight with large swords (2 handed)? It's not nearly as exciting as one would imagine.

Ever played Dark Souls PvP ... 2hand sword fighting is more exciting than you would imagine.

[Raugnaut]

I wonder, IF it does successfully allow prot to be viable dps, how would the AoE be? Fury has WW/Meat Cleaver, Arms has slam cleave/sweeping strikes, but Prot really only has TC, which Arms also has. Also, Arms/Fury would also have access to the other 2 lvl 90 talents for more AoE damage.

Theres only so much blizz can buff deep wounds for glad warriors before it becomes silly.