ggg needs to take steps to make spells more approachable

the damage curses are primarily int based , and the mono element curses are less effective with melee since most physical melee will have multiple elemental sources that scale off of the physical. generally its rare to have all your damage as just physical

"

Saltychipmunk wrote:

the damage curses are primarily int based , and the mono element curses are less effective with melee since most physical melee will have multiple elemental sources that scale off of the physical. generally its rare to have all your damage as just physical

its not as rare as you think
if the dmg is converted from physical,it scales with physical dmg

every attackskill (except elemental hit which does the same dmg as any spell on top of your attack dmg) only converts dmg so if you gear right you can always use physical dmg scaling to its full potential

ofc that doesnt work with flat ele dmg bonus (which could be used as well) on gear or from auras,but those arent achievable for a caster and still work very well

do you use hatred? or increased fire damage to scale off of your physical? then 50% of your end dps is not physical , and thus vulnerability is only 50% effective technically

"

Saltychipmunk wrote:

do you use hatred? or increased fire damage to scale off of your physical? then 50% of your end dps is not physical , and thus vulnerability is only 50% effective technically

added fire and hatred are free more dmg multipliers like vulnerbility that ele dmg (or spellusers) dont have!

spells dont have any more dmg mulipliers without drawbacks (conc effect is usable for attacks as well and reduces the area of effect by 51% (0,7 of base radius x 0,7 of base radius = 0,49 of the base area,if the area is a circle)

and if you assume 2 cruses for spell/ele dmg users you can do the same for physical/attackbased builds (just add ele weakness to vulnerbility) and they are still in a much better place

...

Going to keep posting here in hopes that they will give some wort of response. They answer other threads, can't they at least tell us to piss off? Better than being ignored.

I affirm this topic, was greatly disappointed when I realized spell casting of any kind is the weakest build. This is contrary to every other ARPG where mages are glass cannons.

Why is ranger more powerful than a wizard, it makes no sense.

"

Cyten wrote:

I affirm this topic, was greatly disappointed when I realized spell casting of any kind is the weakest build. This is contrary to every other ARPG where mages are glass cannons.

Why is ranger more powerful than a wizard, it makes no sense.

because magic isnt real

anyone ever calculated what would happen if you just turn all ele dmg passivs into pen passivs (and remove increased ele dmg in the passivtree completly)
maybe adjust the notes a bit (lower to 50-75% of the current value) but the result might be a much better predictable dmg

After reading the whole 20+ pages - good god - i confirm:

1. the statuses for caster weps and rings roll extremely hard - i had wands of lvl 20 that got me into merciless while my shadow buddy upped his dps constantly just by upgrading the weps.
2. as a fire mage - fire resist mobs in the ledge = OMG get me out of here! as a lightning mage - skeletons with light resist in chamber of sins.. o.m.g x3

Spells do a great amount of damage when playing for instance with shocked x 3 + high crit + high crit chance. But I am feeling that until level 80 I won't be as effective as any ranger/melee in terms of dps. Support spell gems are scarce compared to melee buffers.

My only wish would be either to (or both!):
1.) reduce the amount of resist % the mobs have when grouped with elemental resistance and X resistance.
2.) add X type penetration passives

It became so frustrating (after playing marauder) i nearly rerolled 5 times. And swapped from fire which hits like a wet sponge when non-criting to lightning to help everyone kill mobs faster and up my really random arc dps + stormcall aoe.

Please :(