Why are only melee punished by weapon specific skill gems?

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

LostForm написал:

Good luck cleaving things with a bow. Or shooting explosive arrows with your wand. Cuz those weapons work with every attack, and are not saddled with weapon specific skills.

Good luck beating up that strawman. It's very clear that the argument being put forth is that bow users and wand users have full range of the use of gems for those weapon classes, whereas melee users do not. If your argument had any real merit, you'd be defending it, not pretending to misunderstand ours.

full range of skills specifically for a wand: 1. power siphon, total skills that work with wand? 3. Glad melee have so many fewer options lol.

every single thing in this game limits your other options. It is called choices. You choose a path, and you walk down it. If you want a different path, you go back the way you came, or you blaze a new, usually inefficient trail to a different path, and walk on that one. Nobody has a wide open field, it is all mutually exclusive paths. Every single character must make choices that create specialization, from skill choices to support choices, to gear choices, and socket colors. Everything is based off your choices, there is no build that lets you willy nilly pick from any skill in the game. (though the marauder and templar starting areas do come the closest, as you pick up a bunch of life and life regen, and then proceed to make your damage dealing choices, so you have a while before you start specializing in damage type, and before then switching just involves getting your sockets and gear mods right)

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

wrathmar написал:

It’s common to see different skills for different weapon types in RPGs. For example GW1 had melee built around this concept.

Yes, that is quite common. What's not so common is seeing restrictions around this principle applied to one class of weapons (melee) but not to others (ranged, spell).

Well then if we view all weapon types we have. Wands, Bows, Staves, Unarmed, Fist; 1h/2h Swords, Maces, and Axes.

If you view both classes together (melee and ranged); Wands and Bows are the most restrictive with many skills being Wand/Bow only. Melee skills are more versatile allowing them to be used with multiple weapon types. A few skills can be used by all like elemental hit and frenzy.

Out of all weapon types Bows have the most attack skills available while wands have the fewest.

If you view the Melee class separately Axes have the fewest attack skills available.

"

wrathmar написал:

If you view the Melee class separately Axes have the fewest attack skills available.

less than claws/dagger? I only counted four that an axe couldnt use. well 5, you can either use dual strike or sweep. or neither with shield, but you would pick up shield charge and tempest shield as options then, so...tradeoffs.

"

LostForm написал:

"

wrathmar написал:

If you view the Melee class separately Axes have the fewest attack skills available.

less than claws/dagger? I only counted four that an axe couldnt use. well 5, you can either use dual strike or sweep.

Honestly I have yet to play a melee claw/dagger class you’re probably right that they are more restrictive than axe. I only notice the axe restriction because I have played that build. Personally I would like to see an axe specific skill.

@OP
I don’t think that removing the weapon type restrictions would be a good thing. I think they should instead add some skills for the types that are currently lacking options.

The thing is simply, that the different characteristics of the various melee weapons are used to implement some variety, for the reason to offer/demand decisions: melee weapons differ between this sub-classes:

*blunt weapons: maces (including sceptres)
*sharp weapons: swords, axes

it makes no real sense to stomp things with an 'edge', a Groundslam with an axe would split the ground instead of shaking it...

daggers as daggers are somewhat special, also logical: how to knockback huge foes with such tiny blades??

wands are not comparable, spells are what it makes different, cause they are, spells - they dont need any weapon at all (but prefer from the options that assist them: wands, daggers, sceptres...

And in general, if these differentiations between the melee weapons are 'killed' - why then to have different types at all, why to have different skills at al if they all do exactly the same?

"

wrathmar написал:

Well then if we view all weapon types we have. Wands, Bows, Staves, Unarmed, Fist; 1h/2h Swords, Maces, and Axes.

If you view both classes together (melee and ranged); Wands and Bows are the most restrictive with many skills being Wand/Bow only. Melee skills are more versatile allowing them to be used with multiple weapon types. A few skills can be used by all like elemental hit and frenzy.

That's actually the OP's point: that wands and bows have no variety, no sub-classing, and thus no distribution in which sub-classes of those weapons can use which gems. ALL bows can use ALL bow gems; but only some melee weapons can use some melee gems.

And as this sub-classing is clearly a *restriction* -- not a feature -- then it is unfair that this sub-classing be inflicted upon melee users, but ranged and casters get off scot-free.

"

Out of all weapon types Bows have the most attack skills available while wands have the fewest.

Hardly relevant to the topic at hand; they introduce new skills every day in any event.

"

If you view the Melee class separately Axes have the fewest attack skills available.

I believe the OP preferred to view the topic from the perspective of how many classes of melee weapons are permitted for use with particular skill gems. Thus: find a bow gem; grab any ol' bow. Find a wand gem; grab any ol' wand. Find a melee gem: now find a weapon from only among the specific selection of weapon sub-classes permitted for that particular melee gem. This is the disparity being identified.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

wrathmar написал:

Well then if we view all weapon types we have. Wands, Bows, Staves, Unarmed, Fist; 1h/2h Swords, Maces, and Axes.

If you view both classes together (melee and ranged); Wands and Bows are the most restrictive with many skills being Wand/Bow only. Melee skills are more versatile allowing them to be used with multiple weapon types. A few skills can be used by all like elemental hit and frenzy.

That's actually the OP's point: that wands and bows have no variety, no sub-classing, and thus no distribution in which sub-classes of those weapons can use which gems. ALL bows can use ALL bow gems; but only some melee weapons can use some melee gems.

And as this sub-classing is clearly a *restriction* -- not a feature -- then it is unfair that this sub-classing be inflicted upon melee users, but ranged and casters get off scot-free.

Ranged have two sub classes, wand and bow. Both of which have skills specific to that subclass.

"

Mr_Cee написал:

The thing is simply, that the different characteristics of the various melee weapons are used to implement some variety, for the reason to offer/demand decisions

Yet this same principle can't apply to bows of various shapes and sizes? To spell casting implements of various natures? This seems staggeringly counter-intuitive to you, somehow?

"

it makes no real sense to stomp things with an 'edge', a Groundslam with an axe would split the ground instead of shaking it...

Common sense, the hallmark of every fantasy ARPG.

"

daggers as daggers are somewhat special, also logical: how to knockback huge foes with such tiny blades??

Yes, clearly my thin wisp of a witch can readily knock back huge, hulking bears six times her size with the use of a one-handed club, but it's utterly ridiculous for my thick, muscular marauder to knock back the tiniest skittering spider with the weight of his two-handed sword. Logic!

"

wands are not comparable, spells are what it makes different, cause they are, spells - they dont need any weapon at all (but prefer from the options that assist them: wands, daggers, sceptres...

Perhaps you could elaborate on the real-world physical principles that establish the precedent for this fascinating observation? I fear that I left my Ouija board in my other pants.

"

And in general, if these differentiations between the melee weapons are 'killed' - why then to have different types at all, why to have different skills at al if they all do exactly the same?

These weapons still have different stat requirements, different ratios of damage to attack speed, different intrinsic bonuses. They already possess sufficient variety. What purpose does it serve to restrict characters from their use? Why FORCE them to be so limited? Melee, of all people?

"

wrathmar написал:

Ranged have two sub classes, wand and bow. Both of which have skills specific to that subclass.

Now you're reaching. It's clear that the game is divided into three general categories of play, as are the gems. I could just as arbitrarily state that the game has two different kinds of damage dealers: physical (bow, melee) and magic. That doesn't change the fact that melee -- distinct from both bow users and magic users -- must match weapon sub-category to gem; whereas bow wielders and magic wielders have no such restrictions.