Why are only melee punished by weapon specific skill gems?

"

shoju написал:

With my Marauder, I NEEDED a 2h'd weapon (pref mace) to make it "work"
With my Templar, I NEEDED a 1h'd Sceptre to make it "work"
With my Summoner, I could use a Wand, Dagger, Sceptre or even the oddly itemized staff, and I was fine. It doesn't impact my ability to call forth the dead, or use Arc. (I have since specialized in 1h + shield for simplicity, but I could use staves for a while)
With my Ranger, I need a bow.

That raises an interesting aspect of this issue that we have yet to explore: multiple skills. Magic-users can merrily enjoy the benefits of alternating or rotating between the use of several different attack spells to handle different situations, blithely ignoring any weapon restrictions therein. As can bow and wand flingers; they can have, for example, their "aoe" skill and their "boss" skill and never have to worry about weapon types or weapon swapping or what-not.

Melee, on the other hand, are largely relegated to being one-trick ponies. Think there's two skills that you'd like to run around with and use? Then better compare them first, as they need to be compatible with one another, insofar as that their respective lists of allowable weapons need to overlap. Worse, this in turn could serve to *further* restrict a melee's available weapon choices, as not every weapon allowed for skill A may be allowed for skill B, and vice versa.

"

Part of me wishes that there were 1h'd skills, 2h'd skills, Projectile Skills, and Spell Skills. It would keep all the skills in 4 categories, instead of putting an addendum individual skills. It would also allow for wands to use Projectiles.

That would be a simple, intuitive and sensible approach; I concur.

"

LostForm написал:

I would like to revisit the argument on the hybrid weapons, and the argument that it hurts melee more that weapons are hybrid.

I don't recall anyone asserting that the hybridization of melee weapons hurts melee more than anyone else. I for one was simply noting that hybridization affects melee at least as much as the other classes; and that this fact only serves to compound melee's current dilemma.

"

There is no melee skills tied directly to a hybrid weapon type. If you can use the skill with a dagger, you can use it with a sword. If you can use a skill with a staff or scepter you can use the skill with mace. Wanders are boned (again).

Wanders use wands, as opposed to short wands, long wands, blunt wands, pointy wands, two-handed wands, and wands-with-dangly bits. A wand is a wand is a wand.

"

Spell casters on the other hand can only choose from hybrid roll weapons to boost their skills, and thus have an RNG monster to battle everytime they go searching for a wepon upgrade. I would argue that having the weapon type restriction on melee skills actually helps balance this fact.

This is demonstrably untrue. Spell casters do not have to choose ANY WEAPON AT ALL to use their skill. You can cast Fireballs with a wand. You can cast Fireballs with a bow. You can cast Fireballs with a sword, mace or axe. You can cast Fireballs with a rusty spoon. Again: whether it's a good idea or not is irrelevant. You CAN do it. Melee CAN'T. THAT is the argument.

"

Wanders lose in this regard, and they have the least amount of skill options. If this thread was talking about how wanders are punished by weapon specific skill gems, I would be in support.

If you in turn will agree that melee is also punished severely and unfairly by weapon specific skill gems, then I'm more than happy to join forces. I'm all for variety and giving players more options.

"

The melee skills though...it is for game balance and also player choices having meaning. Pretty simply explanation actually.

The restrictions on melee skills provide absolutely no benefit regarding game balance, inflicting meaningless restrictions on an already suffering archetype. That is the simple explanation.

The thread was over with this response.

"

wooli написал:

Heres are the list of weapon classes in the game

Dagger
Claw
Sword
Axe
Mace
Staff
Wand
Bow
Unarmed

You have decided to group the weapons into these groups

Dagger
Claw
Sword
Axe
Mace
Staff
as (Melee)

Bow
as (Bow)

Wand
as (Wand)

And then you proceed to complain that the weapons in the 'Melee' group behave differently to each other and have restrictions on gems.

And you compare them to the other groups and say that all the weapons in the group 'Bow' (which happens to only be .. bows..), behave the same, and all the weapons in the group 'Wands' (which happens to only be wands..), also behave the same.

Do you see how you have twisted some logic just to make an argument?

If we were to follow on your example of grouping, maybe the argument is melee vs range for example, then I would at least group Bows and Wands into 'Range'. In which case, yes the sub classes within the group 'Range' does have restrictions on gems, just as the melee does.

Perhaps a more valid argument would be to say that certain weapon classes have more skill gems available for them to use than others. (Bows probably have the most, and dagger/claws the least. I'm guessing this, someone else can do the maths :p)

Furthermore, a few people in this thread need to look up the term suspended disbelief. Players expect to shoot fireballs and that's okay to our brains because we don't really have any backing from personal experience, so it's plausible. However, the mental image of causing a miniature earthquake/rift capable of stunning/damaging your foes with a dagger causes your brain to go "wtf" and then the belief in this imaginary world you are playing in is shattered.

It's not the skills in melee that are broken, it's the mechanics that involve melee in the first place that break it's usage. There are no defensive mechanics exclusive to melee weapons that would give them an edge [compared to ranged] to compensate. Instead, ranged, who should be actively mitigating damage, can slap on tons of life leech and lololol away.
Want me to put it more simply? Melee is broken because it's the only skill set in the game that has point blank range with nothing to compensate. "Fixing" skill games like this thread suggests wouldn't actually fix anything. It's an argument born from twisted logic, as explained in the quote.

Edit:
I'd actually like to take this a step further to prove a point and argue that ranged weapons don't have enough intrinsic stat options to compete with melee weapons. I mean, there's no bow that gives me longer stun duration or more accuracy or any mod for that matter. Melee weapons get all the free stats, I just get some range on everything with no options. I even have to equip a Wand to use Power Siphon! Absurd. (Not an actual argument, just making a point).

Edit 2:
I would also like to say that I could see skills like Glacial Hammer being renamed and reworked to function with 2 handed weapons, as that could be plausible. However, I don't think ALL melee weapons should be able to facilitate all melee gems. Some just plain don't make sense.

Using a skill that is not supported at all by your gear is basically the same as not being able to use the skill.

Getting a wand with all +spell casting stats in no way raises the effectiveness of your wand attacks. The fact that they can use the skill at all is clearly balanced by the game not letting the skill be effective in damaging opponents when it is not buffed at all by players gearing choices.

In this game, your offense by and large comes from your gear for every single build in the game. Players choosing to specialize in offense in their skill tree and not relying on gear for offense are quite well balanced by the fact they are going to die,repeatedly, due to a lack of defense. This game allows you to gain enough offensive prowess from gear alone to make defensive specialized skill trees still able to kill monsters. The converse of this is not true. This game will not allow you to survive the enemies in this game if you specialize in offensive skill tree and try to gain defense from gear alone. You will Die horribly, over and over.

Therefore, for a spell caster to even be able to use their skills for more than fireworks display or a light show, they need weapons with specific mods. Just because the specific mods they need on their weapon does not change the art work does not change the argument. And spell casters also have to choose different mods for different spell types. Period. They must choose weapons that support their specific skill choices, or they might as well not even use the skill. Casting spells without a weapon equipped, or a 2 handed axe, or w/e does make flashy animations, but those flashy animations will not kill on level monsters in a meaningful way, therefore, they really can not use their skill in relation to the game content.

It is the same boat everyone is in. The mods on melee weapon needed just might so happen to change the art work of the weapon you are holding. Nothing else is really affected in terms of balance. You might not be able to make flashy animations with no wepon, or the wrong weapon type, but in terms of balance against the content, you are no worse off than a spell caster being able to cast a spell while not having a weapon equipped.

The upgrades to your current weapon are balanced. The hardest to getting a BiS type weapon for your class would have to go:
1.) wander (wants imbued wand (one weapon sub type) and has to roll against hybrid rolls)
2.)followed closely by dagger crit specialized builds, might even be equal to wander, looking for a 80% crit implicit dagger, rolling against hybrid rolls.
2.5)dw ele groundslam needing one attack based scepter, possibly some serpent stance ground slam staff build
3.)melee at large, casters.
4.)Bow users (they got it relatively easy, but there is still bows that make abilites work effectively or make it so you might as well not be able to use a given ability because it is severly ineffective)

The fact that melee have to have a specific weapon type, that can roll pure attack mods only is very well balanced out by spell casters needing to roll against hybrid rolls to get gear upgrades.

And everyone can use the utility type spells like curses all of the time period, those are a moot point as everyone can use them all of the time.


A wand is not a wand is not a wand. Spellcaster wands and wand attack wands are very different. And this is what I mean by you have dilluted your own argument. A spell caster can not effectively kill content without a weapon with mods supporting their skills. They can make a light show true...but the monsters are not going to die. It would be very similar in effectiveness to not being able to cast the spell at all, or grabbing a white weapon off the vendor of the right type and trying to kill with melee skills. They are the same in effectiveness.

"

Terrornoid написал:

The thread was over with this response.

"

wooli написал:

Heres are the list of weapon classes in the game

Dagger
Claw
Sword
Axe
Mace
Staff
Wand
Bow
Unarmed

You have decided to group the weapons into these groups

Dagger
Claw
Sword
Axe
Mace
Staff
as (Melee)

Bow
as (Bow)

Wand
as (Wand)

And then you proceed to complain that the weapons in the 'Melee' group behave differently to each other and have restrictions on gems.

And you compare them to the other groups and say that all the weapons in the group 'Bow' (which happens to only be .. bows..), behave the same, and all the weapons in the group 'Wands' (which happens to only be wands..), also behave the same.

Do you see how you have twisted some logic just to make an argument?

If we were to follow on your example of grouping, maybe the argument is melee vs range for example, then I would at least group Bows and Wands into 'Range'. In which case, yes the sub classes within the group 'Range' does have restrictions on gems, just as the melee does.

Perhaps a more valid argument would be to say that certain weapon classes have more skill gems available for them to use than others. (Bows probably have the most, and dagger/claws the least. I'm guessing this, someone else can do the maths :p)

Furthermore, a few people in this thread need to look up the term suspended disbelief. Players expect to shoot fireballs and that's okay to our brains because we don't really have any backing from personal experience, so it's plausible. However, the mental image of causing a miniature earthquake/rift capable of stunning/damaging your foes with a dagger causes your brain to go "wtf" and then the belief in this imaginary world you are playing in is shattered.

It's not the skills in melee that are broken, it's the mechanics that involve melee in the first place that break it's usage. There are no defensive mechanics exclusive to melee weapons that would give them an edge [compared to ranged] to compensate. Instead, ranged, who should be actively mitigating damage, can slap on tons of life leech and lololol away.
Want me to put it more simply? Melee is broken because it's the only skill set in the game that has point blank range with nothing to compensate. "Fixing" skill games like this thread suggests wouldn't actually fix anything. It's an argument born from twisted logic, as explained in the quote.

Edit:
I'd actually like to take this a step further to prove a point and argue that ranged weapons don't have enough intrinsic stat options to compete with melee weapons. I mean, there's no bow that gives me longer stun duration or more accuracy or any mod for that matter. Melee weapons get all the free stats, I just get some range on everything with no options. I even have to equip a Wand to use Power Siphon! Absurd. (Not an actual argument, just making a point).

Edit 2:
I would also like to say that I could see skills like Glacial Hammer being renamed and reworked to function with 2 handed weapons, as that could be plausible. However, I don't think ALL melee weapons should be able to facilitate all melee gems. Some just plain don't make sense.

But there is a problem with the argument you quoted. It's not handled that way. It's seperated by skill, not by weapon type.

What Can I cast Fireball, Ice Spear, Freezing Pulse, etc... with?
Dagger
Claw
Sword
Axe
Mace
Staff
Wand
Bow
Unarmed

What Can I Power Siphon with?
Wand

What Can I Sweep With?
Staff
2h'd mace

What Can I Ground Slam with?
What Can I Incinerate with?
What Can I Explosive Arrow with?
What Can I Puncture with?
What Can I Whirling blades with?

And on and on and on and on. The problem comes in, when you are looking at all the melee skills that use weapons, and compare them to the spells that you can use with ANYTHING.

Can I Fireball while using a 2h'd Axe? Sure. Is it optimal? Probably not. But you can.
Can I Ground Slam While using a 2h'd Sword? NO. There is no choice. Not even if it is a "not optimal choice"

I'm not saying that the OP is 100% right, especially in the incredibly negative light he is putting on himself, but I can see his frustration. My Summoner could sport any weapon in the game, and it will not impact her ability to use Any of the skills that I use.

Spell Totem - Raise Zombie - Raise Spectre - The Auras - Arc etc...

But on my Infernal Blow Templar, I can't use a weapon type. Daggers. The Skill doesn't allow it.

It's a frustration, because it feels arbitrary in some cases. I'm not saying that my infernal blow case is arbitrary, it was just what I was staring at, while trying to find a way to fix my templar.

"

shoju написал:

The problem comes in, when you are looking at all the melee skills that use weapons, and compare them to the spells that you can use with ANYTHING.

<--> Melee skills that use weapons <--> Skills that use anything <--> Ranged skills that use weapons <--> Ranged/Melee skills that use weapons (e.g. Puncture) <-->

You gotta look at the entire spectrum (circle). Both Melee and Ranged are divided into needing specific weapons for some skills. Then, there are some skills that you can just use with anything. Then there are some skills that need specific weapons rather they be ranged or melee. It's a giant circle.

It's just a bit lopsided since there are fewer skills on the ranged side that require specific weapons so those ranged weapons tend to be better at using the unrestricted weapons with a few exceptions like daggers. The same argument from OP could be made for Ranged if there were more ranged only skills to actually make an argument for. Melee's options seem limited because you actually have more options, which divides your choices.

Melee needs help, but not this way.

"

Terrornoid написал:

The thread was over with this response.

Thanks, I'll stop posting now.

...Oh, wait, you were serious?

"

And then you proceed to complain that the weapons in the 'Melee' group behave differently to each other and have restrictions on gems.

And you compare them to the other groups and say that all the weapons in the group 'Bow' (which happens to only be .. bows..), behave the same, and all the weapons in the group 'Wands' (which happens to only be wands..), also behave the same.

Do you see how you have twisted some logic just to make an argument?

No.

...Oh, wait, you were serious? There's three character archetypes. Melee, ranged, and spell. Ranged cares about two weapons; melee cares about eight; spell casters care about zero. Everything else about gem usage and restriction applies to all three archetypes equally. Still not seeing the problem? Or is the logic just too twisted?

"

If we were to follow on your example of grouping, maybe the argument is melee vs range for example, then I would at least group Bows and Wands into 'Range'. In which case, yes the sub classes within the group 'Range' does have restrictions on gems, just as the melee does.

Okay, it's melee vs. ranged vs. spell. (Hint: we already agreed to that a few pages ago.) That's eight vs. two vs. zero.

"

Perhaps a more valid argument would be to say that certain weapon classes have more skill gems available for them to use than others. (Bows probably have the most, and dagger/claws the least. I'm guessing this, someone else can do the maths :p)

That's a terrific argument. By remarkable coincidence, it's actually OUR argument. Which side were you on, again?

"

Furthermore, a few people in this thread need to look up the term suspended disbelief. Players expect to shoot fireballs and that's okay to our brains because we don't really have any backing from personal experience, so it's plausible. However, the mental image of causing a miniature earthquake/rift capable of stunning/damaging your foes with a dagger causes your brain to go "wtf" and then the belief in this imaginary world you are playing in is shattered.

Aaaand now the topic takes a left turn. As fate would have it, I, and only I, have any authority and/or wherewithall to speak toward my brain. And in my brain, I see nothing any more fantastical about someone shooting fireballs out of one orifice or the other, or causing earthquakes via maces, axes, toothpicks or rolls of toilet paper. Once magic enters the arena, plausibility goes out the window.

"

It's not the skills in melee that are broken, it's the mechanics that involve melee in the first place that break it's usage. There are no defensive mechanics exclusive to melee weapons that would give them an edge [compared to ranged] to compensate. Instead, ranged, who should be actively mitigating damage, can slap on tons of life leech and lololol away.

All the more reason why the silly restriction on weapon type is simply punishing melee players even more.

"

Want me to put it more simply? Melee is broken because it's the only skill set in the game that has point blank range with nothing to compensate. "Fixing" skill games like this thread suggests wouldn't actually fix anything. It's an argument born from twisted logic, as explained in the quote.

I'll put it even more simply: melee is even more borked due to this needless weapon restriction. Lifting the restriction would at least grant them some more versatility without breaking anything overtly. That's a simple observation, made without getting anything twisted up.

"

I'd actually like to take this a step further to prove a point and argue that ranged weapons don't have enough intrinsic stat options to compete with melee weapons. I mean, there's no bow that gives me longer stun duration or more accuracy or any mod for that matter. Melee weapons get all the free stats, I just get some range on everything with no options. I even have to equip a Wand to use Power Siphon! Absurd. (Not an actual argument, just making a point).

A fair point, and I concur. However, I'd like to see melee fixed first, as granting versatility to melee will merely add fun, but adding affixes to bows will add power, something ranged hardly needs at this point.

"

I would also like to say that I could see skills like Glacial Hammer being renamed and reworked to function with 2 handed weapons, as that could be plausible. However, I don't think ALL melee weapons should be able to facilitate all melee gems. Some just plain don't make sense.

Plausibility is a nonsensical concept in a fantasy setting.

"

That raises an interesting aspect of this issue that we have yet to explore: multiple skills. Magic-users can merrily enjoy the benefits of alternating or rotating between the use of several different attack spells to handle different situations, blithely ignoring any weapon restrictions therein. As can bow and wand flingers; they can have, for example, their "aoe" skill and their "boss" skill and never have to worry about weapon types or weapon swapping or what-not.

Melee, on the other hand, are largely relegated to being one-trick ponies. Think there's two skills that you'd like to run around with and use? Then better compare them first, as they need to be compatible with one another, insofar as that their respective lists of allowable weapons need to overlap. Worse, this in turn could serve to *further* restrict a melee's available weapon choices, as not every weapon allowed for skill A may be allowed for skill B, and vice versa.

did you really just imply that melee doesnt have aoe vs single target skills? Have you never seen someone use cleave and double strike (no weapon switch). Ground slam and heavy strike (no weapon switch). You are reaching here, your argument is unteneable and makes everything else you said weaker.

"

LostForm написал:

Using a skill that is not supported at all by your gear is basically the same as not being able to use the skill.

No, it is not basically the same. The basic distinction is that you CAN use a spell gem that's not supported by your gear, but you CAN'T use a melee gear that's not supported by your gear. At all, ever.

"

Getting a wand with all +spell casting stats in no way raises the effectiveness of your wand attacks. The fact that they can use the skill at all is clearly balanced by the game not letting the skill be effective in damaging opponents when it is not buffed at all by players gearing choices.

I'm pretty sure that even the crappiest wand in the world will spit out Fireballs more effectively than someone else's attempts to use Glacial Hammer with a sword. Do you need me to do the math for you? Hint: one of those calculates out to zero.

"

In this game, your offense by and large comes from your gear for every single build in the game. Players choosing to specialize in offense in their skill tree and not relying on gear for offense are quite well balanced by the fact they are going to die,repeatedly, due to a lack of defense. This game allows you to gain enough offensive prowess from gear alone to make defensive specialized skill trees still able to kill monsters. The converse of this is not true. This game will not allow you to survive the enemies in this game if you specialize in offensive skill tree and try to gain defense from gear alone. You will Die horribly, over and over.

Yes, I will die, horribly, over and over. But that'll at least be my choice. My choice, in a game that even you must acknowledge allows for zany, wacky, one-off builds that people manage to crowbar into working -- sometimes very effectively, even though it may at first seem counter-intuitive.

"

Therefore, for a spell caster to even be able to use their skills for more than fireworks display or a light show, they need weapons with specific mods. Just because the specific mods they need on their weapon does not change the art work does not change the argument. And spell casters also have to choose different mods for different spell types. Period. They must choose weapons that support their specific skill choices, or they might as well not even use the skill. Casting spells without a weapon equipped, or a 2 handed axe, or w/e does make flashy animations, but those flashy animations will not kill on level monsters in a meaningful way, therefore, they really can not use their skill in relation to the game content.

You can win this game in white gear with a single Fireball gem. You do not NEED spell casting gear to succeed as a spell caster. You do, however, NEED to match your weapon type to a melee gem to be able to kill anything with that gem.

"

It is the same boat everyone is in. The mods on melee weapon needed just might so happen to change the art work of the weapon you are holding. Nothing else is really affected in terms of balance. You might not be able to make flashy animations with no wepon, or the wrong weapon type, but in terms of balance against the content, you are no worse off than a spell caster being able to cast a spell while not having a weapon equipped.

You are self-evidently worse off, by merit of the fact that the gem doesn't even work. At all.

"

The upgrades to your current weapon are balanced. The hardest to getting a BiS type weapon for your class would have to go:

You don't need "best in slot" to play the game. We're talking about needs here. Not desires, not wants, not blue sky "I spent 87 exalteds on my uber gear" design builds. Just needs. Requirements. Must-haves. There are no must-haves for characters who opt to use a spell casting gem for their main attacks. There IS a must-have for characters who select a melee attack for their main attack: they MUST choose a SPECIFIC melee weapon type from the allowable ones. They CANNOT use that gem without it. No amount of obfuscation will change this simple, stunningly obvious and utterly undeniable fact.

"

The fact that melee have to have a specific weapon type, that can roll pure attack mods only is very well balanced out by spell casters needing to roll against hybrid rolls to get gear upgrades.

The fact that melee are FORCED to have a specific melee weapon type, without which they CANNOT USE THEIR SKILL GEM AT ALL, is balanced by nothing whatsoever.

"

A wand is not a wand is not a wand.

When is a wand not a wand? Please provide a link to a wand -- any wand in the game, owned by anyone, ever -- with which you CANNOT use the Fireball spell (or any magic attack spell for that matter).

"

Spellcaster wands and wand attack wands are very different. And this is what I mean by you have dilluted your own argument. A spell caster can not effectively kill content without a weapon with mods supporting their skills. They can make a light show true...but the monsters are not going to die. It would be very similar in effectiveness to not being able to cast the spell at all, or grabbing a white weapon off the vendor of the right type and trying to kill with melee skills. They are the same in effectiveness.

I'm not addressing effectiveness. I'm not addressing efficiency. I'm not addressing player ability, competence, or understanding of game mechanics. I'm not talking about good players, I'm not talking about bad players. I'm not talking about hardcore, I'm not talking about softcore. I'm not talking about particular Acts, I'm not talking about particular difficulties. I'm not talking about particular fights, particular monsters, particular bosses. I'm not talking about the phase of the moon, the Prime Minister of Norway, or green cheese. I'm not talking about ANYTHING WHATSOEVER except for the following two SIMPLE FACTS:

FACT: You can pick up ANY WAND IN THE GAME, stick it in your hand, and cast Fireball.
FACT: You CANNOT pick up any melee weapon in the game, stick it in your hand, and use Glacial Hammer.

THAT is the sole point of my argument. Any attempts to divert the conversation in random directions will be futile, as I will always, patiently, purposely and purposefully, redirect them back to these two simple, basic, irrefutable facts.

"

LostForm написал:

did you really just imply that melee doesnt have aoe vs single target skills?

No. You inferred that, perhaps. No idea as to how or why.

"

Have you never seen someone use cleave and double strike (no weapon switch). Ground slam and heavy strike (no weapon switch). You are reaching here, your argument is unteneable and makes everything else you said weaker.

Have you ever seen someone use cleave and ground slam (no weapon switch)? Yeah, me neither.