Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-12-2009 @ 3:16PM
astemusdraight said...
It seems like there are alot of enchants missing from this list, and the math doesn't seem right to me. I'd go thru and actually check, but I'm not being paid to write here.
I thought rogues get 2ap per 1agi? Where is the armsman gloves enchant? I think there are alot more but I'm not really an editor here.
Reply
6-12-2009 @ 3:34PM
Selene said...
No, rogues do not get 2 AP per 1 Agil. Due to the other bonuses of agility (like crit), 1 Agil is often considered equivalent to 2 AP, but that's only a very rough rule of thumb.
Of course there are more enchants. The point of the article is enchants/enhancements that require a profession to use. Anyone can get Armsman, so there's no point in being an enchanter if that's all you want.
6-12-2009 @ 4:13PM
astemusdraight said...
"Reticulated Armor Webbing: +800 armor to gloves. This would be applied in place of +15 expertise rating or +35 AP. "
Clearly leaving out an enchant in this statement is incorrect. It wouldn't be applied in place of +35 AP. This is what I meant by missing enchants. The enchants are missing in context.
" Agility is inefficient to everyone except rogues, hunters, shamans and druid cats, who would get +22 AP from it as well as the crit/dodge/armor."
Another misleading statement, as well as being incorrect. For tanks this is largely considered one of the most useful enchants if you don't require the DEF rating. Yet no tank classes are even mentioned.
I chose a few examples to illustrate my point. If you post an article on comparisons, or include math, you should take the time to make sure they are correct. Or stick to writing things that don't require those things. Leaving things out in the context of this article is careless at best.