Mage is currently rated 4.5/5 for damage in Warspear — the same as Chief — while Barbarian is rated only 3/5. But the actual numbers tell a very different story.
A typical +10 Mage has ~1,080 Magic Damage, while a +10 Chief has ~2,000 Physical Damage.
With ~50% Ferocity:
Mage: 1,080 × 1.5 = 1,620
Chief: 2,000 × 1.5 = 3,000
So the Mage has only ~54% of the Chief's raw effective damage, despite both being rated 4.5/5 for damage.
And the gap gets worse in actual PvP because players naturally have more Magic Defense than Physical Defense, largely due to Magic Defense appearing on accessories. A difference of roughly 5,000 Magic Defense can translate into around 15% additional damage reduction depending on the target's stats.
So Mage suffers from a double disadvantage:
Lower base damage → lower Ferocity-scaled damage → higher average enemy Magic Defense → even lower effective damage.
This is why saying “Mage has 4.5/5 damage” doesn't really match the practical numbers.
The argument isn't that Mage should out-DPS every class. A 4.5/5 damage class should simply have damage output that is reasonably consistent with that rating.
And the Barbarian comparison makes the rating even more questionable: a class rated 3/5 for damage can hit extremely hard, while Mage is rated 4.5/5 yet starts with almost half the raw damage of a Chief.
Mage doesn't necessarily need more utility or survivability.
It needs its actual damage output to better reflect its 4.5/5 damage rating.
By
shootercel ·
