Simply put, your original statement was sloppy. You stated who uses surge against magic users, when magic users can encompass plenty of classes warriors do surge against. If you had said, "Who uses surge against guardians and wiccans?” then your statement would have had merit. You were corrected on your statement being too broad, since the group you named included all of the classes I mentioned.

What kind of person gets proofs in general? I'd say "smart" people. While I'm sure it may be a bit tacky with the full plate, you can still use it and as a result, you can still get the 10% protection it affords. And you have always been able to proof cloaks/coats against magic.

One thing I would like to point out (and feel free to correct me if the analogy is too unworkable ) is that I think of wounds and wound afflictions as the 'passive' component of warrior combat, to compete with demesnes from druids and mages and fae/angels/demons from wiccans and guardians.

The differences are that unlike all other 'passive' effects, the warriors version is slightly easier to avoid, yet it always occurs along with damage, it stacks, and it is FAR harder to cure.

I don't mind the damage warriors do, but I don't like that they do that kind of damage in addition to easy afflicting. I don't think the balance between wounding/damage is quite right yet.

If it were up to me, I'd prefer more versatility in a combat situation than certain race/weapon combinations being vastly superior to others. For instance, what if the effect of weapon and racial stats was decreased slightly, and instead warriors gained two different types of attacks - either damage-based (4/3 the current damage, 1/3 the current wounding, no chance to wound afflict), or wound-affliction-based (4/3 the current wounding, 1/3 the current damage)? Meh, I don't know enough about warriors to suggest something reasonable, but I do know I don't like their current setup.

This argument is flawed. You take 33% of your max health, which you attempted to imply was "excessive." As I think is quite clear, it is not. 33% is very low, actually, considering you do not possess all of the potential abilities/items to reduce the magic damage you receive.

Finally, your race examples are skewed in favor of your argument. You have a magic WEAKNESS and still take only 33% of your max health as a Taurian. Munsia, as a Furrikin, has NO cutting weakness. Quite the opposite, she has almost a 30% bonus (barkskin, 100% cutting charm).

=====================================================

In sum, your argument boils down to this:

You take a minimal amount of damage from a high intelligence moonburst (with a racial weakness), lacking trans magic and a magic proof, yet have high constitution and high strength.

Munsia, myself, and other non-warriors take a HUGE amount of damage from your attacks, with trans resilience and all of the defenses we can obtain, yet have low constitution because our racial choices do not offer high constitution with high strength.

=====================================================

I'm not saying you deal "too much" damage. I'm saying that you take no magic damage that can compare. You have tried to argue that the damage you take is similar to the damage you receive from magic attacks. Sorry, that isn't the case.

Damn. You saw right through me. I was hoping to lead some unsuspecting forum readers into believing that warriors do in fact need more damage.

Oh on a side note, my GM said proofed-cloaks have no actual effect, since proofing was meant to be for great-robes only. Is that true?

Proofing itself is messed up. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Last time I tested an electricity proof on my great robes, it did nothing.

No, you were attempting to imply that magic damage was on par with warrior damage. You tried to throw out numbers as a "soft target" that you take *gasp* 1800 damage from a single moonburst! Well, that wasn't very accurate given your max health and your lack of trans magic.

You even went further by saying:



While yes, I do have four total aggressive Fae (brownie, pixie, banshee, crone), you also have wounding and traps and a hound.

=====================================================

In sum, you didn't say that warriors needed to do more damage, you tried to justify the damage you do. If you are going to do so, I suggest not using moonburst as the means to do it.

First:

1. That was general, not aimed at you. Put down the shield, I'm not attacking.

2. It was supposed to mean that if non-warriors aren't able to keep the warrior from attacking (which is sounding like the case) then perhaps they need better ways to do so (ways to hinder that don't leave you unable to attack for example).

12 hits going to Amputate isn't insane. Eventualy Amputate which ruins you isn't crasy. Going to critical from no wounds in one-three hit IS extreme, though, given the current system.

That is insane we are not blademaster we are not bonecrushers we have one axe or sword meaning we hit slower we hit less often if we miss we miss our whole offense strike not half like a blademaster or bonecrusher. It shouldnt take a reasonable good greatsword or whatever axelords percision base weapon 12 hits thats 24 blademaster hits you dont expect not to get legtendon or pinleg from a blademaster in 24 straight hits.

Whereas you can attempt to formulate logical ideas about amputated limbs, you cannot match Geb's expertise on this topic. Geb is a top notch combatant who has proven himself quite competent in "combat" and issues that surround it. The examples you provide are often logical, but the variables contained within them are all manipulated and lined up to suit your argument.

For example, you seem to be fixed on the basis that critical wounds are "difficult" to achieve. This is NOT the case for a high precision weapon. As I have stated (and proven in former logs), Daevos is capable of dealing out critical wounds from no wounds in a single assault.

Your ideas of how to fix the problem strike me as strange. If the desire is for amputated to be a powerful yet difficult to achieve affliction, what's wrong with the current system? It is in fact just that. There is no need to adjust wounding and then re-adjust the frequency of the affliction to achieve a similar situation.

=====================================================

And whoever suggested that amputate be a heavy wound affliction needs a reality check: Daevos can deal heavy afflictions (slit throat, leg tendon, etc) in a single strike from no wounds. Wouldn't it just be special if he could in turn amputate limbs faster than you can heal them?

Cloaks/coats have always meant to be able to hold protect against cold and fire, that is why they do not work. However, they supposedly do work on a greatrobe, I'd go test that to verify.

As for damage, I will be suggesting the idea that Thorgal came up a while back for elemental runes, to further decrease the damage potential of heavy hitters, from rediculous down to manageable. The level of damage that Icarus and Daevos can dish out is no joke, with drawdown/fullplate/trans resilience I take over 1800 from one of Icarus's sweep. I can heal it, but the majority of the people cannot.

Your argument isn't very realistic. First, you need to take into consideration how wounding works. There is not a single person who can knock me to critical wounds in a lunge/lunge or crush/crush. However, there are several high precision weapons that can in a single assault.

Second, you need to look at damage/wounding together. Single handed weapons cannot do high end damage and high end wounding at once. You can have either-or but not both. You can, however, achieve high end wounding and high end damage with a good two-handed axe/greatsword.

And finally, Terenas can hack on me all day and night with his nasty rapiers and he'd be lucky if he ever got close to a sliced tendon because it is easy enough to apply health and heal his damage with sparkleberry and active healing. Daevos can force his way down to critical wounds in 1-2 attacks and do twice the damage of Terenas on top of it.

Please name someone other then Daevos who can get critical in one hit with no greatrunes cause with my 500+ percision sword and Icarus 500+ percision axe i dont see it happening.

It's not possible to get critical in a single assault unless you're not wearing any armor at all.

I don't fight any other pureblades or axelords so it would be difficult for me to name people I don't encounter.

However, let's not let this degenerate into another "but my weapons suck, why must I forever live in the shadow of people who have better weapons" thread. That's a necessary evil to forging - you have a rare chance to end up with a weapon that is better than most. However, we cannot simply disregard those "better" weapons because certain people lack them.

But just for the sake of the arguing, I do believe Melan forged a 500+ percision great sword. I have no idea what became of it, but that's what I was told.

A warrior can only have "magic proof" if they wear greatrobes. Otherwise, all we get is cold or fire proof.

So if a smart warrior wears greatrobes, you must be using the word smart the way Daganev uses the word smart.

The max protection, assuming they have the right skills that a warrior can get against a magic based attack is less than the maximum protection that guardian or wiccan can get from a magic based attack.

Saying that "wounding" is passive, is the most redicilous thing I have ever heard. Passive means no input from the player, none. The only passive attack a warrior has is if they have tracking.

So you suggest only balancing against people who have every artifact that can enhance thier combat abilities? Is it trans all skills or all artifacts now also? Perhaps we should just compare Demigods to eachother, or even vernal once we figure out what that means. Perhaps we should only compare classes by very specific sets of skills. A Blademaster using mantakaya will be better against other warriors than a bonecrusher would be because of the fact that they can paralyze and drain mana from the bleeding.

After asking around, proofs appear to not be working again - period. However, that does not dispute the fact that you CAN proof a coat or cloak against magic or electricity. This was reported as an bug a very long time ago, and it never changed.

At this point, it remains up in the air as to whether it should be possible or not. There is no indication other than the AB scroll which states something like "You may now proof cloaks and coats against fire and frost."

Then demesnes sure aren't passive.

And just to clarify Daganev, let's look at an extreme example since you want to argue:

Paladins with Sacraments can get: resistance, draconis, benediction, and numen. That's over a 75% resistance to magic so no, warriors do not get the "least amount."

The point, however, was that warriors have access (as described earlier) to some magic resistance + Magic skillset. With the two, a magic attack from a guardian/wiccan is going to be dealing at most 33-40% of the max health of a warrior. Warriors can deal up to around 60% of the max health of a soft target non-warrior.