(journeyman)

12/06/07 05:53 AM

Wield from runes compare to enchants

Now that the tinkers have fire and cold runes what has this done to the enchanters? Well first off, why would you ever want a flame or icy from them. A *2 flame/icy give +6 or 7 wield where as a 39% rune only give +2% wield. And second, there is no chance of ruining the weapon on runes since you cannot fumble them like you can with enchants.

My questions is, should the wield from runes or enchants be changed and why or why not?

Charon

(enthusiast)

12/06/07 06:13 AM

Re: Wield from runes compare to enchants

I suppose it would depend on the relative strength of them. The fumble chance is an excellent point though.

The only advantage (assuming comparable WC to wield) I can think of is that a chanter can do them VERY fast compared to a tinker rune.

Cerberus

(addict)

12/06/07 10:58 AM

Re: Wield from runes compare to enchants

I have always thought this to be odd, and it was only made more pronounced now that there are direct comparisons to be made between the two. I think wield amounts for minor enchantments are now, and have always been slightly high while those for runes have been mildly low.

Originally Posted By: Drey

... a chanter can do them VERY fast compared to a tinker rune.

I don't think this is relevant for something that only ever needs doing once. Chanters put icy/flames on an item a number of times too, which will probably bring their times closer together. In any case, I don't find it significant in 30 minutes vs 5 minutes when they're done once per weapon.

mathias

(newbie)

12/10/07 03:54 PM

Re: Wield from runes compare to enchants

I agree that something needs to be done with this. It is making icy/flame enchants on xp weapons fairly obsolete. But, on the flip side you can add flames/icy on top of the runes which increases to total power of that weapon. Perhaps the damaging power of icy/flames (and its level obviously) should be increased to justify a higher wield % ?