Lumina, Holy Avenger

Nitch is an acceptable pronounciation? Yar. That's gotta be an American dictionary! That's like saying Ruff (roof) is acceptable! It isn't!
 
No, you're right. Ruff isn't acceptable. Roof

You're arguing prescriptively. I don't say 'nitch' but that doesn't mean it's not widely accepted. On the other hand, 'irregardless' bothers the HELL out of me, and it's widely accepted. Go figure. I also have to wonder why people don't instinctively pronounce it "nish." We don't call quiches "quitches." One would think the same rules would apply.

Oh yes, bane damage. Put it back on and nix some regular dmg/dly to compensate. Or make it all bane damage. Wouldn't that be fun? :)
 
Paladins already have tons of + undead things, and the weapon was severly overpowered. 50% more damage than a rogue (on mobs they can crit on) from the /front/. Also it drops off an easy mob?
 
As it stands now there are 2 paladin weapons with equally comparable stats, 'Lumina, Holy Avenger' and 'Dawnbringer'. The ratios are 50/40 and 50/39, respectively. Would upping the ratio on Lumina, removing the proc (does 210 dmg for me), and making it entirely undead bane damage be a solution? Something like 60/40?
 
i like it

the idea of the weapon only doing dmg to undead sounds awesome. taking out the proc would reduce the DPS some and you would still have a very cool situational weapon to use against the undead.

I like it :)
 
Yeah a holy avenger should atleast do a greatly enhanced dmg vs undead compared to his dmg vs other. IMO.
 
Entirely 60/40 against undead would be identic to the old weapon, so no, that's not acceptable.
 
Great post, Melwin.

Thanks for the reply, Wiz. Looks like the old Carved Bloodrock Greatsword goes to work again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom