Warfare IS the elemental damage for physical. The formula puts warfare in the exact same spot as the elemental damage for your mage.
The problem isn't that warfare is over powered. The problem is that people aren't taking high ground and putting points in Huntsman.
What does your mage do when faced with an oponent that has elemental imunity versus the element your mage specializez in?What does your pyromancer do vs a fire imune oponent?
The real problem is that weapons increase the damage of all physical attacks on top of what they get from Warfare, Scoundrel, Huntsman and Weapon Masteries. Mages do not scale with weapons and on top of that have to deal with a bunch of resists throughout the game. Physical doesn't have anything comparable to worry about.
Huntsman has nothing to do with the argument at all either. It's useful, and some don't realize that it affects spells, but then many do know, and it doesn't change how weak elemental damage is aside from a few late game and source hungry spells. The more damaging skills are too AP hungry too, and Elemental Affinity isn't the answer.
Park a Ranger and a Mage with the same Huntsman rank on a ledge after level 17. The Ranger will be auto attacking up to 3000+ non crit (My level 21 non crit auto attacks for 1900 on the ground). That's not even counting Ballistic Shot which can crit for close to 8K near the end of the game. Meanwhile, a Mage might be wanding for 150 - 200 unless they are launching higher AP costing, and longer cooldown spells that will crit for up to 3K on a nice day.
AoE isn't a valid arguement either when most enemies only come in pairs.
Could you also compare dual wield wand vs bow and crossbow, please?
