I'd like to challenge the assumption that demigod itself gives warriors anything that would all of a sudden make them capable of dealing out a great deal more damage than non demigod warriors. Demigod gives an extra point of strength. Someone would have to be of a race that had pretty low strength to begin with for that extra point to matter. I happen to be of a race where both the strength gains from titan and from demigod do not really matter in the least as I already had 19 strength when deffed.

I could pinleg in the first round when I was level 83. I suppose I'm just curious as to what the mechanical basis of this assumption is. Yes, if you purposefully pick a low strength race that has a balance recovery bonus to be a demigod with, then you will definitely be more powerful than the average warrior. But if you don't do that, you're going to be in about the same position you were before you got demigod, stat wise anyway.

So basically...she's wrong, because you've been OP for almost 20 levels now?

More importantly, there's also the point of, yes, picking a race with a balance bonus so that you're significantly stronger after demigod. Remember shadowlord faeling demigod Thoros? Ugh. Nasty business. That's mostly the fault of the balance bonus (again), though, not demigod.

It is an ignorant statement to try to say that the ability to get pin leg in the first round against cloth wearers is inherently overpowered. Now if I was a faeling and got pin leg in first round, well then yes, that's OP. But as Nejii has said, that's a problem with balance bonus races, not the skill itself. But I'm not going to get drawn into a pin leg argument. Most competent fighters deal with it just fine against people who are not demigod shadowlord faelings.

I was just clarifying what you seemed to be saying. She said that demigod warriors were OP because of pinleg in one round. You responded by saying you have been able to get first-round pinleg since level 83.

I'm not interested in a pinleg argument. For the record, I disagree with you on whether or not it is a problem at lower levels, but among top-tier demigod fighters it's no big issue. I was just trying to understand what you said.

While you're right, its interesting to see how your tune has changed since your latest guild hop.

As a titan bard champion with my damage boost song playing and crusader canto maxed, I did ~1500 damage to Malicia when she had ~7k health.

Nowhere in her statement did she say that demigod warriors were OP because of pinleg in one round. She said that demigod warrior damage was rough and that having been pinlegged in one round and tendoned in the next with half her health gone was an eye opener.

You are the only one who has stated anything regarding it being OP or not. Thus my statement was directed at you and was a valid statement.

Wow, okay then. I submit to your semantical superiority. I'll rephrase my original question then...

So, she is wrong because your damage and wounds have been rough since level 83?

Very good points you make.

Upgrade warriors!

Yes, in so much as her statements related to my status as a demigod warrior as opposed to just warrior.

A parable/story: (names of archetypes of have been changed to protect the innocent*)

It used to be that there was this one archetype, called knights that was able to do lots of damage. i.e. in the 2000 range (maximum). Then they got nerfed so that the most damage they ever seem able to do is 1200.

Then comes a new archetype, called minstrels , and they were pathetic, and then they were upgraded so that without much investment into the skill they can do 1000 damage. While the knights found themselves switching to become speed knights instead of damage knights because damage wasn't high enough to be worth it, and the only viable kills were with speed and afflictions.

Then they made a new archetype, called samurais , and they were able to make everyone cry with thier versatility and killing potential with little effort.

Now that two archetypes outperform the first archetype, instead of wasting time trying to fix TWO things, we can just upgrade one small tiny itsy bitsy archetype and make their large artifact investment something to be worried about, instead of something needed to minimally compete


*Any similarities to names of real archetypes is purely coincidental.

So what about the clerics, sorcerers, occultists and naturalists?

They are all living happily ever after in eternal bliss of their perfection

I understand the issues, and I do think that bards and monks need a lot of tweaking still. However, your error here (as I was trying to point out before) is that you compare nothing but damage. In order to get a better picture, you have to compare the archetype as a whole. Warriors can tank like nobody else. If a bard tried to hunt like a warrior, they would be destroyed, even with their higher damage. Warriors can also do damage and afflictions at the same time, while bards cannot.

I don't mean to say they're balanced. Bards still need to be nerfed (isn't the stun from blanknote supposed to be going away any time now?), but the bad comparisons don't really help things along. Warriors are not nearly as gimped as people seem to imply.

So, have robes been changed to deteriorate with use, yet? Still makes more sense falling apart than a set of thick metal.

Again - let's compare everything, instead of picking out random things. We could do this both ways all day long and make absolutely no progress.

One thing I see that people keep doing here is trying to compare monk damage to warrior damage. Now since there is no such thing as a damage warrior anymore (cept for maybe 2 people), this is kinda silly... the apple to oranges theory. Warriors do great wounding, while monks do crappy wounding. So if we are to continue down this road, we could simply reverse the argument that people like Celina are trying to make about monks and change it to "nerf warriors they wound more than monks" (which is also another stupid idea)....

People need to sit and realize what an archetype's advantages are... then compare them to another archetype's advantages. Not compare one disadvantage to one advantage... It always makes things seem worse than normal.

Ex. a monk chain which is 200/200/200 will never be as strong as a 200/200/200 warrior weapon. They are scaled differently. A 200 damage warrior weapon will be alot stronger than a 200 damage monk weapon... and so on and so on... The only thing that may be on the same scale is the speed, but prc and damage are not.

As a note, the thing that Catarin is leaving out in her story is that DMP occurred long after she was 83, so her wounding/damage at that level would be lower now than it was then.

Yes, there IS a reason for implementing DMP!

(As a second note, warrior Champ helms completely neuter this DMP change. Boo.)

Yes but kind of the opposite of that actually. The DMP effect on the situation of a demigod vs. a non-demigod warrior has to do with the stat increase, specifically strength. If DMP had not happened, my having 22 strength now as a demigod would increase the damage/wounding that I do quite a bit compared to the 19 strength I had at level 83. However, because of DMP as a demigod, I do about the same as I did at level 83 pre-dmp and I would argue that I would do almost the same if I was level 83 now with 19 strength as the diminishing returns for strength start at about 18 I believe.

So, yes, DMP is a primary reason for demigod warriors not being that interesting, no I would not be doing much lower damage as a level 83 now than I did pre-DMP.