Talk:Fervor (1618): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Damage Weighting: new section) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I took a paladin with no lore ranks out for a spin, and while I never got the nice 101 endroll, I got a good handful of soft enough hits to be able to cleanly back out what looks like 9 points of damage weighting. [http://pastebin.com/tQftbwhh Feel free to check my work.] [[User:PFLATS|PFLATS]] ([[User talk:PFLATS|talk]]) 20:57, 7 March 2017 (CST) |
I took a paladin with no lore ranks out for a spin, and while I never got the nice 101 endroll, I got a good handful of soft enough hits to be able to cleanly back out what looks like 9 points of damage weighting. [http://pastebin.com/tQftbwhh Feel free to check my work.] [[User:PFLATS|PFLATS]] ([[User talk:PFLATS|talk]]) 20:57, 7 March 2017 (CST) |
||
:Post on the officials claims 65 ranks = 15 points of weighting, which would put the 0 at 10, not 9. Too tired to test further tonight. [[User:PFLATS|PFLATS]] ([[User talk:PFLATS|talk]]) 21:32, 7 March 2017 (CST) |
|||
Revision as of 22:32, 7 March 2017
Tagging to move messaging to the deity-specific messaging page. VANKRASN39 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2016 (CDT)
Damage Weighting
I took a paladin with no lore ranks out for a spin, and while I never got the nice 101 endroll, I got a good handful of soft enough hits to be able to cleanly back out what looks like 9 points of damage weighting. Feel free to check my work. PFLATS (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2017 (CST)