Why are only melee punished by weapon specific skill gems?

I give up you people are so dumb.

"

LostForm написал:

Like wise you can grab any ole' weapon of the right type and start using the skill you want.

The whole point of this thread is that it has to be a weapon of the right type. Only melee has to do that by being forced to choose between eight (nine, arguably) weapon categories. No one else.

"

Anyone can do anything at the base level.

One cannot use a sword with Glacial Hammer, at any level.

"

You can literally go to the vendor, grab any weapon of the right type and start using the skill.

The whole point of this thread is that it has to be a weapon of the right type. Only melee has to do that by being forced to choose between eight (nine, arguably) weapon categories. No one else.

"

If you are arguing that you cant find the base types you need you are wrong.

Then lucky thing that this isn't the argument being put forth.

"

I really do not understand your point here. You can literally grab any sword and do puncture, whether it is a good idea or not is a wholly seperate matter, but the exact same matter that spell casters have to deal with, or bow users, or anyone playing the game. You made choices, now you have to find gear to support your choices. period.

I'm more than happy to repeat my point, over and over again, until you do understand. Melee is imposed upon with an additional restriction: not only must they pick a melee weapon, it has to be a *certain, specific* melee weapon in order to use the skill of their choice. Any bow user can use any bow skill. Any magic user can run around practically naked flinging fireballs. But no melee is permitted to use a sword with Glacial Hammer. Period.

"

just as you could go buy a white axe and go around cleaving.

Whereas, you CANNOT go buy a white scepter and go around cleaving.

"

If you are saying you cant find an item to make your skill work at all, i suggest you try the vendor. But you are not saying that, you are saying that spell casters dont need gear, which is purely wrong.

Does your Cleave work on that strawman? A magic-user with crappy armor and weapons can still fling Fireballs. A bow-user with a terribly unsuited white bow can still fire Lightning Arrows. A player with a sword -- a white sword, a magic sword, a unique sword, any sword -- can never, ever, EVER use Glacial Hammer with that weapon, despite the fact that it's a melee skill. He MUST exchange it for a hammer. No bow user is ever forced to make this exchange. No magic wielder is ever forced to make this exchange.

"

Just as melee is limited to which weapons support their skills, so to are casters, and bow users and wand attackers limited to which gear support their skill choices. I agree here, everyone has a narrow selection from all weapon types that actually can support the skills they use.

If by "support" you mean "can use the goddamn skill at all", then yes, the selection for melee is indeed far more narrow than other base character archetypes.

"

Decisions are great, agreed. But you are saying you dont want to make choices right after. You are just biased here.

Yes, I'm biased: I'm biased toward giving melee the same fair shake that ranged and casters have. I'm biased toward giving melee the same flexibility, the same variety, the same ability to choose that the other archetypes have. Silly, prejudicial, biased me.

"

everyone has choices period. If you want to use maces, choose to use skills that maces support. If you want to use ground slam with axes...well, it is not an option, and doesnt need to be one, because it does not meaningfully change anything except reducing choices available to a player.

Did you just say that ALLOWING players to use additional weapon types on various skill gems REDUCES choices available to a player? Did I read that correctly? Beuler?

"

You keep saying things like this. Go pick up any mace that drops, any mace at all, and use ground slam. It works. But it is a terrible idea, just like picking up any bow and shooting any bow skill with it is probably a terrible idea.

But may I also pick up any mace that drops, any mace at all and use cleave? No? Why in the hell not? What purpose does that serve? How is the game improved? How does THAT restriction -- a restriction that ranged [almost] never faces, that magic users never face -- make the game better? How does imposing this restriction almost exclusively upon melee make sense? How is that unbiased? How is that fair?

"

Just like you cant shoot explosive arrow with a wand. Or lighting strike with a bow. You have to pick weapons that support your skill choice period.

They are not "just like" one another. They are, in fact, almost wholly unlike one another. A vast plethora of melee skills have arbitrary restrictions on which melee weapons can be used with them. Ranged has excruciatingly few such restrictions. Magic gems have none. This is not the same. This is the poster child of different.

"

just like not all projectile attacks can be used by a wand or bow.

Yes, just like that. Except that melee is eight times as restricted. And magic isn't restricted at all. Now we're getting somewhere!

"

There are even some abiliteis that can be either projectile or melee and work with everything!

Once again demonstrating the wild inconsistency of it all.

"

There is not rhyme or reason why dual strike (an attack with two weapons) shouldnt work with wands other than the developers decided it was a melee only attack. It is not game breaking that some melee skills only work with certain melee weapons, it is simply a design decision, one that adds meaningful choices to the game.

And we, in turn, challenge and question this design decision, as in fact it does not add a meaningful choice, but an arbitrary, empty choice that serves only to restrict and funnel melee game play -- again, the one archetype that hardly needs more restricting.

"

you have said this in every single line now. you can grab any ole' mace and starting ground slamming. This is not limited to bow users. It can be a white mace, any base type, it doesnt matter, you will be able to use ground slam.

And I'll say, again, on every single line: you cannot grab any ol' mace and start cleaving. Why not? Will it really start raining frogs?

"

Get over it guys, the choices are meaningful and add diversity. On all fronts.

Get over it, guy: we challenge this design and petition for change. On all melee gems.

"

I do agree with wrathmar though, a few new wand attacks would be good, a new dagger/claw attack would be good. Possibly a new skill for axes that doesnt work with swords.

Yes, let's solve the problem by exacerbating it. That always works.

"

pengant написал:

I give up you people are so dumb.

If you lack the patience to continue defending your point and feel you must resort to attacking the speaker, then yes, you should give up. But that fault lies with you, not with them. And frankly, I'm far more impressed by the tenacity of the person who patiently defends a bad point than the person who aggressively attacks his opponent on behalf of a good point.

Indeed, insulting others will only serve to drive them further away from considering your points, thus accomplishing the very opposite of why you created this thread in the first place. So if you're searching high and low for "dumb" behavior, I would heartily suggest you consider just what you've accomplished to date, and reflect.

Isn't the bow specific skills just a set of skills that require a particular weapon type, just like any other skills?
Is the problem that you can't LA with a sword, or what?

"

Xaxyx написал:

The whole point of this thread is that it has to be a weapon of the right type. Only melee has to do that by being forced to choose between eight (nine, arguably) weapon categories. No one else.

No the whole thread is you guys saying some crazyness about how melee are the only ones that need gear to make your build work. Nothing else.


Every player has to find mods to make your character work. Weapon type is just another mod. Everyone has to get their mods right to make their build work. Melee is no exception. And getting the weapon type mod wrong is not as detrimental as getting other mod combos wrong, as you still have a nice weapon to sell if the only thing that makes it not right for you is the weapon type.


It is like getting pissed that I have to find energy shield armor to make me have energy shield. I should get energy shield from pure armor, I should get energy shield from the evasion stats, I should get energy shield tabula rasa. Why do I have to find specific types of armor to get energy shield?!

"

They are not "just like" one another. They are, in fact, almost wholly unlike one another. A vast plethora of melee skills have arbitrary restrictions on which melee weapons can be used with them. Ranged has excruciatingly few such restrictions. Magic gems have none.\ This is not the same. This is the poster child of different.

no... it is exactly the same. I linked you projectile skills that could not be used with projectile weapons. This thread is about melee skills that cant be used by melee weapons. You are showing Your bias and inconsistency to say that these are seperate issues. They are in fact the crux of the biscuit. Everyone is limited by choices they make.

And you saying spell casters can use spells while having no wepon equipped is actually making your argument weaker, as that is your actual stance that spell casters are not restricted to what gear makes their abilities work. Work, as in effective. Not being able to cast a spell, and the spell being totally inefficient and ineffecutal, are very close on the spectrum of 'unusable -> useable', where as you are in here making sound like spellcasters are mapping while naked. It is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of what spell casters actually need for them to use spells.

Summons aside, but I am pretty sure things like a skeleton faster casting totem can be is used by melee rather effectively as well. But Summons really are a totally seperate issue, as anyone can cast them all the time, but the pool of gear to actually make them stronger is limited to almost entirely uniques, outside of necro aegis and a good shield.



I would like to revisit your stance on the hybrid weapons, in that it hurts melee more that weapons are hybrid. 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. 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.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

pengant написал:

I give up you people are so dumb.

If you lack the patience to continue defending your point and feel you must resort to attacking the speaker, then yes, you should give up. But that fault lies with you, not with them. And frankly, I'm far more impressed by the tenacity of the person who patiently defends a bad point than the person who aggressively attacks his opponent on behalf of a good point.

Indeed, insulting others will only serve to drive them further away from considering your points, thus accomplishing the very opposite of why you created this thread in the first place. So if you're searching high and low for "dumb" behavior, I would heartily suggest you consider just what you've accomplished to date, and reflect.

Indeed I give up. I am apparently not very good at expressing my points in a civil manner. Luckily, I don't give a damn.

I also didn't post this to impress anyone, so again don't care.

I only resorted to insults when it was pretty damn clear that nothing in the world would drive them any closer to understanding my point. So may as well drive them further away, but atleast get a chance to insult them on the way :D

Gl to you.

"

Xaxyx написал:

Or... they could simply make more allowances on the existing melee skills. Would that really be so bad? Would anyone's game experience become sadfaced if someone could suddenly Glacial Axe?

No... but if you could puncture or cleave with a two handed mace....

sadfaced

skill restrictions for weapons are a good thing imo. That being said, I would be in favor of some more ranged attack restrictions for say 'light' or 'heavy' bows. These bow classifications would need to be intrinsic properties on the existing bows, as another whole class of bows is not necessary. ie: 1 handed x-bows.... ew.

Here is my issue.

Some skills are restricted, and it makes sense, Some Skills aren't restricted. Sometimes, that doesn't make sense. The frustration can be compounded when you look and see characters that are using spells with whatever weapon they want for their build.

I think the OP's frustration comes from the frustration that can arise while playing a Melee class. GGG is aware that it can be a real PITA, and I believe that they are trying to find examples on how to fix it, while not unbalancing ranged. I wont deny that I have all but given up on my Tank Templar. I'm not an ARPG veteran like a lot of people. I came to POE from friends I used to Raid in WoW with. I was a tank in WoW, I wanted to build a tank in POE.

I tried to build an LL 2h'd Marauder, since it would function like my last character in WoW. In A3 Cruel, I felt like I just hit a wall, where I wasn't getting better gear, and I wasn't getting better skills, and I was just getting the floor wiped with my body.

So I have an Infernal Blow Templar (sceptre+Shield). He was a TON of fun until I hit A3 Cruel/A1 Merc. Then, it stopped being so much fun, and he sits idly. No longer fun to play. No longer able to survive. No longer able to "tank" with a build that should be capable of tanking.

Since then, I gave in, and rolled a summoner. I'm 66, and I'm steamrolling. I have a Ranger that's around 30, and It's a rare occurence if something even gets to me, let alone has a chance to kill me.

It just feels like Melee is more frustration than it's worth, and to top it all off, Melee have to choose a weapon type, and then stick with that weapon type, and tailor their skills to that weapon type, while looking at the Bow wielding characters, and the spellcasters, and it feels easier.

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.


It can be frustrating when you look at the skill, and wonder why you can't do X skill with Y Weapon. It's a choice of design, and I think for the most part it's working out, but there is some frustration to it.

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.

What's the difference Explosive Arrow, and Explosive "Shot"? If you use the "shot" with a bow, it's an arrow. If you use it with a wand, it's a projectile from the wand. I don't know if this could be changed now, but if designed from the ground up, the difference would have been the look of the projectile, and opens up more possibilities for using a Wand as an offensive "weapon" instead of a Stat stick (I mean no disrespect to those who Power Siphon. I have rolled a witch to try it out, and I'm having a good time so far, but lets be honest, most wands are stat sticks)

And if you wanted to get really crazy, why couldn't a "wander" Cleave? Couldn't you see a DW Wander Striking in sideways motion with both wands creating an X? Or Why can't they Double Strike with their Wand? Is there something that prohibits them from Flicking the wand twice in rapid succession to fire off a pair of projectiles?

Sorry, longer "rant" than I expected.

"

pengant написал:

Indeed I give up. I am apparently not very good at expressing my points in a civil manner. Luckily, I don't give a damn.

If you knew that about yourself, then why did you even bother to make the post in the first place? Surely you knew you'd be called upon to defend your points. Or were you -- as you've been accused of -- simply trolling? A shame, really, since I feel your point has merit, as demonstrated.

"

I also didn't post this to impress anyone, so again don't care.

Therein you've accomplished your goal.

"

I only resorted to insults when it was pretty damn clear that nothing in the world would drive them any closer to understanding my point. So may as well drive them further away, but atleast get a chance to insult them on the way :D

And that is trollish behavior at its finest. A true waste, since the audience for this thread is not the one or two posters who are arguing against the point, but the dozens who are reading and lurking, evaluating both sides of the argument and deciding for themselves. This may or may not include GGG employees. And hey, guess what? Oftentimes, when the person on one side of an argument resorts to "you guys are just too dumb to understand my brilliance," it ends up being interpreted as "I know my argument sucks, so I'm going to distract everybody by insulting my opponent". Thus, not only have you failed to convinced anyone of the merit of your stance, you've actually pushed them *away* from your stance, thus managing to alienate everyone -- even your otherwise would-be defenders. A grand slam, as it were.

But I for one always appreciate irony. I know fully well that you give as little a damn about my critiques of your argumentation style as you do about others' critiques your argument. But I also know that there are lurkers on this thread, reading both sides of *this* discussion, and perhaps gleaning something from it. They are my true audience. All I needed, all I ever need, is a sounding board. So thanks for being there for me.

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

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.

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.

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

Though it would point out that maybe bow users have the strongest options for weapon upgrades, needing to neither fight hybrid rolls, or weapon type restrictions. So maybe the needed recourse in terms of balance is creating at least two different classes of bows, and having specific abilities for both classes.

Like long bow / short bow: RoA = long bow only. Poison Arrow = short bow only etc.