Should +damage on weapon skills be affected by armor?

The only way to systematically test if the +damage on a weapon skill, say, Final Thrust, is affected by armor level, is to be able to produce a critical hit at the time you're using the weapon skill (Wild Blow does not count since it has no added damage). I haven't looked into it but perhaps assassins have the skills to make this possible?

So my question is, should the +damage on all weapon skills, except ones that specifically state are armor-ignoring (and there's none yet), scale according to armor level too? Of course this'll be a huge "nerf" to all weapon skills, or rebalance if you will.

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to be completely wrong about this, if the truth is revealed that armor level does help to reduce +damage.

I'm PRETTY sure it ignores armor, though, the base dmg is added -and the base dmg is reduced by the armor level.
This is the "attack" skills i'm talking about here, not the ele spells etc.

I see no reason to

The weapon skills were balanced with armor-ignoring in mind. If they were changed to respect armor, they'd have to be re-balanced to compensate for it. I like them as is, because it provides a good means of punching through hard targets.

It's easy enough to test with candycane weapons. Fixed attack damage FTW.

heh someone finaly realized that of all classes warrior is the most broken one... I dont care who had what in mind, but with all the armor ignoring, instantly reachrgable, uninterruptable and unevadable skills on their bar warriors been CRYING for a HUGE nerf for quiet a while now.

instantly rechargeable? uninteruptable? unevadeable?

you need adrenalin for it to work, so not instantly rechargeable.
you can interupt any attack a warrior does.
there isn't many skills that ignores evade/block. and those can be gimped with blind

also, i believe i've hit for less than 100 on a warrior <50% health, and with a dual 16 attribute damage boost, it must ignore armor

Why would the +damage need to be affected by armour?

In fact, what would the point of playing warrior be then? Like poking a granite wall with a butterknife X.x

And it does say that it ignores armour. It says something along the lines of "you will strike for +40 damage on the next hit"

That's your normal damage + another 40 added on top.

I think I don't get it

Yet another "I play scissors, nerf rock, paper is fine" thread. Weapon skills are already balanced to the other classes.

Erm...

How would making the bonus damage from skills be applied before armour calculations "nerf" warriors?

FYI, Almost all warriors run 16 mastery. Against a soft target they're actually doing more than 100% of their base damage. So, skills would do even more damage against soft targets and less against warriors. Sounds like a buff to me.

If the bonus damage factorred in armor, it would also factor in attack level. Since the warriors attack level is often greater than the target's armor, you would probably see an INCREASE in the warriors skill damage. So, if you think warriors are too good, there's no reason you would want to make their bonus damage factor in armor.

Excellent analogy.

Its fine the way it is...if it was changed you would see a evicerate @ 16 saying it deals +250 damage or something. (really more like +60)

plus 60al (caster al) takes 100% of the damage. this would only benifit warriors (which would cement their superiority) and rangers/assassins.