+ 5 armor or 30 health

hey all

i have a warrior with major vigor, so my health is 446 with superior rune

should i use a +30 health or 5 armor haft? this is for pvp by the way


thanks

In theory +5 armor protects you a lot better than +30 health does.
In practice a warrior in PvP doesn't take all that much physical damage, but gets degened constantly, so my personal recommendation would be +30 health.

+30 health doesn't protect you much, but it helps a bit agains everything. +5 armour only protects against physical attacks. I would personally go for +5 elemental protection, but that was not the question

or should i have +5 armor, and +30 and just switch them around?

You should use +30 health because as a warrior you are worried more about armour ignoring damage.

yeah +30 the way to go

isnt the +5 armor vs all dmg? like regular armor. Not like the +7 vs physical dmg... it is the +5 AL, which is vs all dmg types...?

since it doesnt give specific dmg type, it is vs all right? like armor? hmm. then if thats the case, the armor and hp mods would both have even strengths and weaknesses... ya?

enjoy.

PVE: Armor is god. No more than 1 superior rune (pref. weapon), and a +45 enchanted or stance shield. (I have some places I solo farm with a Sup Strength as well as weapon, but I won't team up with other people if I'm only sporting 380 health)

PVP / GVG: Health is god. STILL no more than 1 Sup. rune, a + health always shield if you can, and a fortitude weapon. Your monk will thank you.

(By Superior I mean -75 health runes, not vigor or absorb)

Wrong.
Defense: +armor vs everything, max value +5
Shelter: +armor vs physical, max value +7
Warding: +armor vs elemental, max value +7

warrior with no shield should take +5 armor for higher protection, warrior with shield should take +30 since he already has 80-100 armor +16 armor from shield so he needs more hp and +5 armor won't do much difference

There is no logic behind that statement at all. If one is better than the other, that is the one you should go with, quite simply.

If we are talking PvP:
In the current metagame, spike is making a bit of a come back. In this case you want as high HP as you can reasonably get. I would definately advise having a minor to swap for your superior. The extra 75 health can make the difference between that infuse catching you or not. On the same note, take weapons/off hands that give you a decent health bonus all of the time (not just enchanted or stance).

Degen is also still fairly common, and against that armor does nothing.

There is some valid logic there, though the way they said it, I don't think it was actually what was running through their heads.

Since all +AL ever does is reduce damage by a percentage. Thus, at some certain point, the diminishing returns on armor start to creep in, to where a +5 AL will not be noticed against the size of hits your opponents can possibly dish out. I don't think such values are really attainable in the game, though.

Sup vigor, than Sup axe/hammer/sword Minor tactic/strentgh, whatever floats your boat seeing may have diffrent rune equips. I rather have 30 HP shield and a Zealous/fortitude weapon.

It's an age-old debate that the forum has had since the game came out. It all comes down to preference, IMO.

+5 armor > +30hp, except in the case of health degen.

Ideally you should have both for PvP
The difference in 80 vs 85 Armor is about an 6% reduction in damage. Generally this is better than 30 health.
But with a large number of Armor ignoring attacks in PvP if you had to only have one for PvP I would go with fortitude.

IMO +hp is better in the long run as it helps against EVERYTHING. Where as the +armor is useless against any type of degen which is quite common in pvp and pve. Armor is also useless against armor ignoring holy, chaos, shadow, life stealing, etc (obviously). And besides, uber weapon of fortitude sounds cooler than uber weapon of defense. In my opinion anyway.

Sometimes +5 armor doesn't make any advantage for warrior with shield. Suppose a warrior hit you with 18 damage and he has 10 str, with 116 armor the damage is 8.34 which is rounded off to 8. While 121 armor gives 7.71 damage which turns out to be 8 damage.


If a monk is hit by the same warrior, monk takes 19.97 damage -->20 damage, if he has a +5 armor staff head, he will take 18.47 damge --->18

Now you get my point, high armor warrior with +5 armor doesn't make much of a difference, +5 armor is for low armor guy.

I never use sup runes on my warr. Only vigor and absorb.

But I believe that +30 is a bit better. +5 armor REALLY isn't much.

I agree with you that armor becomes less efficent at highers level but your numbers are biased to make armor look ineffective but in the overall outlook armor still means less damage it doesnt look like much but over a long battle it will add up to more than 30 which could make it more efficent than fortitude upgrade. In perfect world you would use defensive upgrade and switch to a fortitude upgrade when you needed it best of both worlds.

Your example would only be true if all warriors attacked you from the front using an non elemental weapon which are optimal conditions to get the most armor which is not always the case.

Now if it was a warrior who attacked you from the rear with an ebon or icy weapon (Which any smart warrior will switch to attack another warrior) it becomes an 80 vs 85 armor question (85vs 90 with plate) or 96 vs 101 if you factor in a shield when attacked from the front. These are the conditions you must consider when doing your math.


PS Strength doesnt do anything for normal attacks just attack skills