Sure. We can compare max artied mage damage to max arti awesome weapon warriors. It won't change much.

And whats the max resistance a guardian or wiccan can get against magic?

Sorry, but why shouldn't warriors wear proofed greatrobes when fighting guardians/wiccans? It's not like we do physical attack damage or anything, so your armour isn't needed, you know... If you just don't want to take off your armour or whatever to be at maximum effectiveness, then...well, what can I say?

Excellent point, Shiri. Yet another option warriors have to modify their tankiness, that others don't have. You can choose whether you want robes against magic/elemental damage, or plate against physical, and the pick whether or not to surge. We're stuck with robes, no surge.

I'm tired of playing little word games with you. Unlike Cwin who is logical and Geb who is an expert in the field, you seem to post with nothing in mind other than to twist words in a sad attempt to "prove" yourself. However, you are incapable of "proving" yourself in combat so I'm going to disregard the bulk of this reply.

I would point out that when balancing, we are talking about combat skills. In Lusternia, the integration of the low-costing great runes has reached a point where they are considered a necessity for high end fighters. This isn't just my opinion - all of the warrior envoys will tell you that they are actively considered when balancing warriors. You need to not just look at one case but several cases. You can be mediocre without them - sure. But if you want to deal high end wounds or damage, you will need artifacts against some people. The same is true for magic damage and the artifact scepter.

And do not try and use your own inability to fight as a way to make statements such as why a blademaster would be better against another warrior than a bonecrusher. Murphy is probably the best warrior-to-warrior fighter out there - and he's a bonecrusher.

Rebounding, and unlike a Druid or Mage or Wiccan that has skill-based physical protection, warriors do not generally, therefore while wearing greatrobes, our physical protection would be less than that of non-warriors.

Let's think about this:

Can Ur'guard get putrefaction? Yes

Can Paladins get numen? Yes

Can Serenguard drawdown? Yes

Can Ebonguard get nightkiss? Yes

========

The only thing you don't get is barkskin, halo, or demonscales. However, you are less suspectible to damage anyways (typically) because you base health is higher because warriors tend to have high constitution races.

I was told rebounded attacks went through armour anyway. This was a while ago though, it might have been fixed.

Cute, really it is, but you keep changing your standard of comparisions to create an image that is not reflective of reality. You easily switch between hard numbers and percentages, between an optimized race/class to an unoptimized race/class. And its well known that a blademaster using rend and mantakaya will beat a bonecrusher if the two are of equal healing abilities. I don't need to know or not know how to fight for such statements to be true or not true.

Also, you have never seen me fight, so I don't know how you can say if I'm a good fighter or not. 90% of the time that I have ever been logged on has be without a system. Generally, when I log on with a system I tend to win or tie. I do believe that everytime I have fought against you I have not fought back or just used my bashing alias. Why would Daganev give a traitor the benefit of learning from a fight?

edit: And the onlything I have to "proove" is your bad argument techniques and gernally biased (read non accurate) statements about combat.

You will also note that a warrior in great robes is still far more resistant to physical damage than a mage or druid.

well out of the bunch you picked out it seems numen is the only one with the timelimit.

And they effectively have 125% or so of their normal max health, most of the time, because of vitality.

When did Putrefaction protect against Magic based attacks?

Again, list all the defenses a guardiant has against magic type damage and all the ones a warrior has. Pick the best of the two and see which one is higher.

And I don't think greatrobes work for a warrior.

Try it. I can't see why they wouldn't.

Where have I switched between optimized race/class versus unoptimized race/class? I'm of the opinion that if you are not in an optimized race/class position then you have no room to complain so I don't see how this was gathered. And furthermore, combat is a bit more complex that you make it out to be. In my opinion, Murphys is roughly of the same fighting ability as Ixion. I'm willing to bet Murphy, however, will wipe the floor with Ixion - I know he has in the past.

And yes, I have seen you fight. I've fought you in open play villages and in Faethorn. You can make all the lame ass excuses you want about how you are something precious/special that has yet to be seen and how each time that I destroyed you quite easily it was because you didn't have a system, you were using a bashing alias, etc. That's fine - but don't think such shallow excuses fly so easily.

Context, Dagenev - CONTEXT. Terenas said that warriors have less physical protection than Mages/Guardians/Wiccans in great robes (as Shiri suggested you could always switch into them versus a mage/guardian/wiccan) than warriors to physical damage that would result from rebounding. As I said, that's really not the case. A Nihilist has no "extra" physical protection from skills that an Ur'guard except for demonscales, which is like a 10% resistance... and when you factor in other things such as max health, vitality, regeneration, etc. warriors aren't really "less protected" in great robes than a guardian/wiccan/mage. They are right around the same area.

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

In the two most extreme cases, we'd have to look at a Paladin versus a Celestine:

Paladin: resistance, draconis, benediction, and numen
Celestine: draconis, benediction, halo, numen

On a raw resistance scale, we'd find that the Celestine is ahead by 5% in this case. Once we factor in other abilities like vitality, regeneration, health (paladins can modify health more than a Celestine with weathering, etc), we will find that in practice a paladin is going to be taking less total percent of his or her max health per magic attack than a Celestine even though a Celestine has 5% more magic resistance.

And yes, great robes do work for warriors just like leather armor works for warriors just like warrior tailors can use splendor robes.

All those are accessible to non-warriors of the approriate class. So I don't see what your argument is. A Nihilist can get putre + demonscales, a Celestine can get Halo + Numen, a Moondancer or Shadowdancer can get Drawdown/Nightkiss + barkskin. You're only proving my point that warriors will have less damage resistances because those defenses are available to non-warriors as well.

When discussing the fact that you were tanky against warriors you would say.. well thats cause I was a dwarf, it doesn't count. Or when discussing damage from mages and warriors you switch to percentages, but when discussing damage from wiccans and warriors you stick to hard numbers.

And I have never fought you narsrim, I know that for a fact. The only people I have come close to fighting are Diamante, Munsia, and Sylphas. You may have seen me mash my bashing alias while in a group, but thats all I do. I rarely even sip health in such circumstances. You can believe what you like, but I don't fight enemies unless I trully have to. I've taken quite a bit of flak from people because of that.

Meanwhile, the poor Druids and Mages are forgotten in all of this.

You have a demense to fly around or hide in.