Life Leech vs Life on Hit

I just got my claws shadow to the point where he can take ghost reaver, only to discover that technically, I have no life leach. I'm going to focus on two problems here. The first is from a usability point of view, the second from a broader design point of view.

So nowhere in the game is "life leach" ever declared as an official type of damage, or some sort of official noun. All abilities which increase it clearly state that x% of life is leached from the enemy. This is exactly the same as saying x% life is stolen from the enemy, because its used as a verb. In this context, leach and steal mean exactly the same thing, and both result in life being gained from causing damage. If you want to make a point, make the abilities say "1% Life Leach Gained". Then life leach is used as an official type, and it cannot be replaced by other similar words. Then you know that the life gain mentioned in ghost reaver is of a specific type, and that not all forms of life gain are the same type.

Secondly, there should be no difference. Life Leech and Life on Hit should be treated basically identically. Their source and application method can be different, that's fine, but anything affecting life gained from striking enemies should affect both equally. Otherwise you are just making mechanics needlessly obscure and opaque. If claws turn into life leech in later levels anyway, then why aren't the early level claws as well? If the game constrains additions of fractional health, then make it constant life gain as it currently is, but just make it a form of life leach as well. The need for the differentiation is not immediately obvious to me.

Why should there be no differentiation between life leech and life on hit? One takes a percentage of your (usually physical) damage, and the other gives you integer life per enemy hit on attacks.

What people seem to be missing here is that they are never stated to be different.

Here's some precedent.
There are two types of physical damage modifiers. One is a percent increase, the other is a flat increase (+50% physical damage and +1-2 physical damage). However, abilities that, for example, convert physical damage to fire, will work equally on both types of physical damage.

However, when dealing with the two life gained on hit modifiers, which are exactly comprable in this situation (constant vs percentile), now all of a sudden the one type of life gain is a special kind. First of all it shouldn't be, second of all its never mentioned that the two are different, anywhere.

Regardless of how you feel about it, the semantics are undoubtedly ambiguous. I've made the mistake, others have made the mistake, this thread will probably prevent more from making the same mistake. The wording has to be changed at the very least.

"

Vipermagi wrote:

Both Physical Damage modifiers are called "Physical Damage".
Gain on Hit and Leech are entirely different words. Coincidentally, they are not the same. Who would have thought.

I can then only assume that life regeneration passives do not operate on the same value that life increase passives do? After all, life increase passives increase "maximum life" whereas regeneration passives operate on "life". Two different phrases means that they must apply to two different values, correct?

If you want to base your entire argument on the single arbitrary verb "leach" then I will have n problems finding countless examples where different phrasing is used in cases where their is no difference.

Do you honestly believe that the phrases "gained on hit" and "leached on hit" are sufficient to imply two completely different forms of resource gain?

Yes.

Life on hit is immediate.

While leech is over time.

You don't leech on hit, you leech from (physical attack-) damage dealt, so both the condition (on hit/ damage dealt) and the effect (gain/leech) are entirely different.

The problem is, that in path of exile things work (in most cases) exactly as stated and descriptions have to be taken by word. This is different from other games, where alternating descriptions are used for the same mechanic or effects are phrased entirely different from what they technically do. Therefore people are getting used to interpretating the meaning of an effect's description as they would like it to be.

"

Here's some precedent.
There are two types of physical damage modifiers. One is a percent increase, the other is a flat increase (+50% physical damage and +1-2 physical damage). However, abilities that, for example, convert physical damage to fire, will work equally on both types of physical damage.

If anything, the two are like "50% of physical damage converted to fire damage" and "+3 Fire damage" to each other in the sense that both leech and conversion depend on a given value and that both lifegain and added damage grant benefits independently from anything else.
Of course this is still an inaccurate comparison.

"

However, when dealing with the two life gained on hit modifiers, which are exactly comprable in this situation (constant vs percentile), now all of a sudden the one type of life gain is a special kind.

It has already been said why the two are not comparable: life gain on hit applies anytime you hit something, independently from the amount and type of damage you deal (it is only bound to the condition) while leech is bound to both a condition ([physical attack-] damage dealt) and a value (amount of [physical] damage dealt).

"

First of all it shouldn't be, second of all its never mentioned that the two are different, anywhere.

It doesn't need to be mentioned additively because it is a conclusion you can draw from each effect's description.

I don't understand what all this semantic chatter is for.

The complaint is that Ghost Reaver does not work with Life on Hit. That's fine, and it's probably better to say it (more clearly) in a thread in the Beta Passive Feedback forum.

Whether or not it 'should' based just on the wording of the keystone is ridiculous. Keystone balance decisions aren't made because of how we interpret wording :)