Inconsistant text on weapons and Jewellery.

Why oh why does a weapon have "to spells" after a flat damage addition to spells but not say "to attacks" if the modifier is to attacks? How hard would that be?

I have introduced a few new players to this game and seem to spend half my time helping them decipher mods - especially on weapons. A recent example was a friend using a wand with flat physical and IPD for Bladefall wondering why it wasn't better than the one they were using before. (I said it's because it doesn't say "to spells" and they, being new to the game asked what else would you use a wand for?)

It's counter-intuitive and inconsistent and really needs to be addressed IMO. Why make the game so hard for people to learn? The same thing applies to flat physical and elemental damage on jewellery - more-so in my opinion as there's no 'to spells' mod to compare it with.

(Oh and while we're on this subject if a weapon gives 'xx - xxx fire damage' why doesn't that figure increase like the 'xx - xxx' base physical damage does when Whetstones are used on it? Why does improving the quality of a weapon only increase it's physical damage?)

I love the game but get sick of having to essentially provide support to new players. It's so annoying I've stopped telling people about PoE.

There's a fair bit of nomenclature around the entire game that could greatly benefit from a tidy up.
Understandably it probably keeps getting push down priority lists.
:(

I agree.

When I first started playing PoE I was constantly confused as to what modifiers were being applied.
+damage. Ok, to what? Spells or attacks? And to ALL spells and attacks? or just ones socketed in this particular item?

Confusing as hell.

I agree too. Sometimes someone in global asks "why this <+x-y fire damage> doesn't affect my spells, even fire ones", and you answer "because in doesn't have explicit "to spells" in its text", and then you have to specify that this rule doesn't apply to "z% increased fire damage" mod on this same weapon - despite it lacking "to spells" in it text too - because, you know, reasons.

i think devs still brainstorm about a clever and short name for "secondary damage" before they change their wording on "adds X elemental damage to Y" mods on gear.

"

DemiDemon wrote:

Why oh why does a weapon have "to spells" after a flat damage addition to spells but not say "to attacks" if the modifier is to attacks? How hard would that be?

It doesn't say so because that damage isn't added to "attacks". It's added to the weapon itself. "To spells" modifiers are clearly stated because those mods affect a skill type and got nothing at all to do with the weapon the mod appears on. I find it completely logical that the mods appearing on your weapon affect that weapon only, unless they clearly state otherwise.

"

SaiyanZ wrote:

"

mynameisonlyforthegods wrote:

"

DemiDemon wrote:

Why oh why does a weapon have "to spells" after a flat damage addition to spells but not say "to attacks" if the modifier is to attacks? How hard would that be?

It doesn't say so because that damage isn't added to "attacks". It's added to the weapon itself. "To spells" modifiers are clearly stated because those mods affect a skill type and got nothing at all to do with the weapon the mod appears on. I find it completely logical that the mods appearing on your weapon affect that weapon only, unless they clearly state otherwise.

Yeah, like he said. If the text said "adds xxx damage to attacks", then it would have to apply to all attacks globally, not just those made by the weapon. Rings and Amulets apply effects globally.

eg. If you're dual wielding two weapons and they have added damage, those apply only on hit with the specific weapon and not to every single hit you make, whereas rings and amulet apply to every hit.

Well there are few things here:

1. Weapons and Rings. On Rings it should say adds XXX damage to attacks/spells, if nothing is stated it should apply to both.

2. Then there is the local/global thing. On weapons Increased Physical Damage is local while increased fire or elemental damage is global. Flat modifiers are also always local.

So what they should change is give weapons "increased local physical damage%" and of course clean up the flat damage boni on non-weapons. The flat benefits even though also local on weapons are a bit less confusing (much like the %physical damage added) since you can see the total damage of the weapon after all.

The other thing would be to make the general rule to have all mods on weapons local unless stated otherwise. This would mean damage increases like fire damage or elemental damage would need the global added in front of them since they are not on the weapon.

XXX damage to melee attacks/XXX damage to spells.

"

mynameisonlyforthegods wrote:

"

DemiDemon wrote:

Why oh why does a weapon have "to spells" after a flat damage addition to spells but not say "to attacks" if the modifier is to attacks? How hard would that be?

It doesn't say so because that damage isn't added to "attacks". It's added to the weapon itself. "To spells" modifiers are clearly stated because those mods affect a skill type and got nothing at all to do with the weapon the mod appears on. I find it completely logical that the mods appearing on your weapon affect that weapon only, unless they clearly state otherwise.

Then "to attacks with this weapon"? Or just "to attacks" on jewellery. (Then if it's attacks with weapon why doesn't it scale with weapon quality?)

Something needs to be done to differentiate it from global damage, especially on jewellery. It seems that I'm not alone in fielding repeated questions from players who haven't studied the minutiae of PoE's mechanics - casual players who want to pick up an item and know what it's going to do for them.

I feel that if this isn't addressed then too many casual players will drop the game. As it is I know of a lot of Diablo / Diablo II - LoD players of many years who have given PoE up after getting to level 50+ because it's too confusing. I think that stats on how often players give up mid-game would lend weight to my point.