Games tend to never be made with 20+ years scaling in mind. EQ faces a lot of hardship now trying to make us have "upgrades" without it becoming that we are just walking Gods. It would be way too complex I guess now to have big revamps, and thus they just introduce new things like heroic strikethrough and such but also even that eventually catches up to you.
To be clear, I wasn't complaining. I just found it interesting that warriors are so much lower without an obvious reason why. The other discrepancies within archetypes generally have obvious explanations. IE: Necros are the highest caster because they're the only one with pets, nukes and dots. Shaman are the highest priest because they're the only one with a perma pet. Etc. There was a point where it seemed like warrior AAs were just cheaper for no real reason. I remember working on my alt warrior way back when and wondering why my ranger had to pay like 27AAs to max out his fade but the warrior's was like 9 iirc. I tossed it up to a headshot tax, since thems were the headshotting days.
There is an obvious reasony why though There is an obvious reason why. Warriors (And other melee) didnt have any magic based AA or pet AAs to chase. Just melee offense, melee defense, and special class only stuff. Generally higher AA counts are detrimental, because you need to spend far more AA to gain the same lvl of power increase, since your abilities are so spread out( ex defense, paladins need healing AAs as well as physical defense. Warriors thus get a better defensive increase per AA because they don't need to buy healing ones as well).
Sorry, it wasn't clear in that post, but in the original post I was wondering why they're so much lower relative to the other melee. I get why they're low overall. And once again, I wasn't complaining about the total AA count. I just found it kind of interesting warriors were notably lower than the rest of the melee with out an obvious reason as to why that would be the case.
