Well, if you also read the posts before the one I quoted to you, you’d know we were talking about logic and what “makes sense”, so you’d have the context for why I explained it that way 
I did read the post but disagree here…
This thread is over now anyway, OP’s question has been answered.
2 Likes
No, I read that. But as Heavy said, I/we can be pedantic & you said that
when it’s not. Warpath is proccing the thing that’s doing spell damage, but it’s not doing the spell damage itself.
In my line of work, being precise is important (doesn’t mean that I’m always right).
IMO, that’s the problem though, to someone who doesn’t understand how LE works, saying that “Warpath does spell damage” might make them think that they can get more damage from Warpath by using a caster-weapon without using the nodes that proc Smite/Abyssal Echoes.
I did, but it’s still objectively wrong. Sorry. Like Heavy, I’m going to have to disagree here, quite strongly.
The corrections you add in various forum topics are appreciated, but just because you disagree with a less precise explanation doesn’t automatically make the explanation incorrect.
In our case, you two are just explaining the “how”, but you didn’t actually prove me wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s by proccing another class skill, or if it’s by proccing a subskill, it doesn’t change the fact that when using a skill causes both Melee damage and Spell damage, then it is factually correct to say that the Skill does Spell damage. Ergo, Warpath does Spell damage and I guess you both can disagree all you want 
The important part - which you both clearly ignored - was the idea that adding spell damage type into our pool of damage types coming from using a skill won’t change the base damage type of the used skill.
It is ok to disagree, but what you state is something that can’t be “proven”. It is just semantic, which doesn’t apply the way you say it. Whatever.
But
I didn’t ignore that I answered that in the very first post I did.
1 Like
Yes & no. I’m reminded of the distinction between university/degree-level physics & primary/secondary school level physics (ie, quantum mechanics/relativity & newtonian physics respectively). You teach the primary/secondary school kids newtonian physics because they don’t have the background or knowledge to understand the details & nuances of the higher level stuff & as long as all you want to do is understand or model how balls or cars react when they hit each other, newtonian physics is fine. But if you want to do “proper” stuff (ie, min-maxing a build in LE or research if we continue the physics metaphor) then the lower level stuff is just going to be eflat out wrong & lead you to “incorrect” decision making.
We kinda did. You said that Warpath is doing spell damage, If you take a gladius (+10 melee damage implicit) with a t7 Spellblade’s prefix (41-50 flat spell damage) then you’d do very little damage, since Warpath isn’t a spell so it’s not going to use the flat damage from the Spellblade’s prefix. But if you took that gladius & gave it a t7 flat melee damage prefix (51-65 flat damage) then Warpath would be doing significantly more damage.
If you care to test that on the training dummy & let us know what damage numbers you get from each sword? Which do you think would give you more damage from Warpath?
No, if you are using Warpath to proc a spell, then that spell would use the flat damage from the Spellblade’s prefix to do more damage than if you had the t7 flat melee damage prefix, but then that’s the spell doing the spell damage, not Warpath.
And if you’d picked a skill which can have both components, such as Judgement or Tempest Strike, there’d have been less argument from us, though we’d likely have made sure that it was specified that those skills have both a melee & a spell component which scale separately with their respective damage modifiers.
We didn’t ignore it because it’s not wrong. Adding a load of flat spell damage is never going to make Warpath do more damage. Ever. Just like adding a load of flat melee damage isn’t going to make the spell part of Judgement or Tempest Strike do more damage. If we go back to the physics metaphor, this is like saying that one can reach infinite speed if you just keep accelerating (you can’t), or that it’s possible to know precisely both the location & momentum (or energy & time) of a thing.
Firstly, I talked about damage types, not about added damage, so you just proved you don’t know what I talked about.
Secondly, that post isn’t a reply to me. It was obviously a reply to OP, not to me. I know we have the same avatar icon, but the nickname is different 
please don’t try to pass random posts as a reply to something that was said only after your reply.
I’ll recap for you, using your wording:
- My idea had nothing to do with the “proper” stuff.
- My idea was “primary/secondary level” on purpose.
- I told you so, twice now.
- I also told you that I understand how the “university/degree level” works.
- Despite knowing what my idea was, you keep introducing the “university/degree level”.
So what is the point here now?
I know that my reply was not to you.
I just pointed out that I already stated what added damage does in regards to OP, so all further mentiosn of added damage I ignore because they were nto relevant for any of the thigns that we discussed after wards.
Your statement
Was something I ignored because there was no relevance to it in any reply or discussion here.
Then you very poorly communciated your idea.
You said and I quote:
The first section where you named the “secondary” source that actually does the spell damage was somewhat better comunnicated, but all the following mentions in this thread were very poorly communicated, hence the complaint from me and Llama to be more precise.
1 Like
You tell me.
My idea was a finished thing after I posted it for OP, it didn’t require further input (except perhaps questions from OP).
Then Llama told me how it works, I replied that I already know how it works. I don’t know why you still feel the need to teach me how it works after that
You’re the only two people having an issue with my wording.
Well, then why you feel the need to respodn back to me all the time?
You are the one arguing, after you got corrected, because of your poor communication.
From the ones active in the forum here, yes maybe.
But more importantly a lot of people are reading the forums without posting anything and that is precisely the reason why I wanted to correct your very poorly articulated statements, so new players reading the forum will not think that Warpath is doing Spelldamage
1 Like
You didn’t correct anything, because my statements were correct I also clearly stated “Warpath and Smite”, not just “Warpath”.
If this is really the only problem you have, I can edit the post, adding a note citing the mentioned subskills/spells and saying that you need to be specced into those. But this is something you could’ve told me in a single reply, not something that needs to be going back and forth in 16 posts.
I did correct you, even tough you disagree, but I guess this is leading nowhere anyway.
If you are willing to correct/adjust your post I obviously would highly appreciate that, because yes that is the reason why I am even arguing here for this long and because the OP got answered so derailing the thread isn’t an issue anymore.
Why should I directly address that and ask you to change your post, when you clearly were absolutely not comprehending why I had an issue with your way of describing it.
When somebody makes a mistake or thinks something works different you try to address it and discuss. That is what a forum is for.
But after X replies back and forth you were still not giving in the slightest and only looking for what other people are doing and never questioning your own way of describing things (because you still think it was correct).
Bye bye and have a wonderful rest of your day
“Why should I tell you what’s wrong, when you clearly don’t know what’s wrong?”.
I see, so I need to “give in” at the first sign of someone disagreeing with my post. And I cannot point out what other people are talking about.
Well, it seems to me like I’m not the one with “poor communication”.
Have a nice day aswell Heavy
1 Like
I’m not trying to teach you how it works, I’m just trying to get you to teach others how it actually works (melee skill proccing a spell rather than melee skill doing spell damage).
At one point yes, then you dropped the Smite part & just went with “Warpath does spell damage”:
That would be good, thank you.
Sorry, I thought that was obvious.