war nerfs(srs bznz pls)

[Brian_]

What, so you actually understood what I meant, yet feel you still need to correct what Stark said ?! So you're arguing for the sake of arguing, or what ?

If English isn't your first language or you have some other reason for the lack of comprehension, then I apologize in advance.

Because seriously... it's getting really frustrating dealing with the lack of reading comprehension. I will break it down for you one step at a time.

1. I said that you were proposing that Path be removed.

2. Stark said that you weren't removing path, just giving physical mitigation to it. That can be interpreted to mean that not only are you keeping Path's 10% damage reduction, but you're also adding physical mitigation to it due to the lack of the word 'instead.'

3. I clarified on both fronts. First with this line --

Okay, so I regard the 10% damage reduction from Path as synonymous with Path since it's the entire point of the skill. If you remove the 10% damage reduction from Path, it's no longer Path.

To clarify that when I say Path, I mainly refer to the 10% damage reduction because that is the defining property of the skill.

Then with this line --

He clearly suggested to remove the damage reduction from Path and give WAR physical mitigation instead.

To make sure we were all on the same page before going into the explanation for why you can't just remove Path's current purpose from WAR and replace it with RoH.

So clearly I didn't read when I considered even the possibility that Stark might've made a small phrasing error in his message.