Regarding Spellcasting, attacking, and "more" modifiers...

This has been on my mind for a while now, and if possible it would be great to get some dev insight on this issue.

There's a pretty huge disparity in the availability of MORE modifiers to damage for attacks vs casting spells. More importantly, the MORE modifiers to spell damage almost always come at a fairly big risk cost, whereas modifiers to attack damage are seemingly easy to get, and mostly free of cost.

For example, Righteous Fire provides a nice buff to spell damage, but comes at the cost of you burning to death. Pain Attunement is another DPS boost, but at the cost of you risking your life to getting tapped by chaos damage. (Yeah, Shavs/Lorica is a thing. I get it.)

Now, let's look at the attack side of things. Hatred provides almost the same benefit as PA, but comes at the measly cost of some mana reserved. No risking your life, there. The same pretty much applies to all the other attack auras, though they aren't specifically a MORE modifier. Attacks also have a pretty nice selection of gems that give a similar benefit, but with the wimpy cost of... making skills cost more. Melee Physical Damage, Physical Projectile Attack Damage, Added Fire Damage, etc.

Feel free to provide examples to the contrary, but I can't help but feel that spell casting (note, not CoC) is being actively punished, whereas attack damage is being disproportionately rewarded. The takeaway for me is that casters should risk dying to do a decent amount of damage.

Why is this? Is this the meta that was sought from the beginning? Was it just another weird consequence of the constant balancing act? If so, are there plans to address this in the future?

Signed, Guy who loves casting.

Well, two disadvantages that melee attackers have is the inherent danger of being up close and personal to the enemy, and also that melee damage depends very heavily on the base weapon type. Whereas casters often care more for the explicit mods on an item such as spell damage or cast speed rather than what base wand/sceptre the mods are attached to, melee attackers need both the right mods and the right base item together.

Conc Effect comes to mind, but yes I see your point ->

The next question is it correct to be able to scale attack based damage to crazy amounts like what is happening now?

Wait and see, I'm sure the patch is gunna be good for casters ^.^

"

Grimmhammer wrote:

Well, two disadvantages that melee attackers have is the inherent danger of being up close and personal to the enemy, and also that melee damage depends very heavily on the base weapon type. Whereas casters often care more for the explicit mods on an item such as spell damage or cast speed rather than what base wand/sceptre the mods are attached to.

Agree with both points, however! Melee chars can usually stack enough defense to more than make up for the dangers of getting up close, and I would guess that most of the successful attack builds aren't melee at all. Ranged attacking seems to be the absolute king of the ring... and for the most part, can take advantage of almost every offensive MORE modifier that a melee char can.

"

chundadragon wrote:

The next question is it correct to be able to scale attack based damage to crazy amounts like what is happening now?

I can't say. Keep in mind, I'm not calling for a nerf to anyone here, just mainly curious about why the choice was made to make casters risk their safety to do damage, but not (let's just specify ranged) attackers.

Also, attack speed is easier to come by than cast speed and weapons are easier to scale with crit than spells.

As some-one who remembers the days of low-life RF Spark, it was hardly risking their life when built properly xD

"

Chundadragon wrote:

As some-one who remembers the days of low-life RF Spark, it was hardly risking their life when built properly xD

Of course. A well-built char with proper gear really isn't risking shit. But, it's interesting that attack builds aren't even asked to make a sacrifice.

ok pointless thread, spells got more base damge then average weapons, thats why they need more more modifiers then spells,

if melee woudnt do more dmage then casters then it would have 0 benefits and no ine would play it

really sad to see such threads being made by long time supporters which should have an understandment of basic gameplay mechanics


Casters do fine without lowlife(wich isnt danger at all, only for the wallet) and righteous fire( which isnt danger to because you build for it) they dont have to risk anything, then only thing you can risk in poe is being in melee range, which casters and ranged attackers dont have to do

and if melee wants do do more dps thers abyssus( is not safe only 40-50 increased phys dmage taken)

"

StormHunter wrote:

ok pointless thread, spells got more base damge then average weapons, thats why they need more more modifiers then spells,

Wrong actually.

"

Fireknight wrote:

Irrespective of this I'll give you an example from my low-life setup. Looking at the wrath gem on my low-life ST wrath: 28-442 additional lightning damage on attacks. For simplicity, I will add these together and just call it 470 additional lightning damage.

Next add the "Increased effect of auras" nodes:

470 * 1.91 (91% increased aura effect)

897 lightning damage added from wrath now

Add in other sources of weapon elemental damage:

gear: 107% weapon elemental damage

passives: 20% weapon elemental damage, 30% weapon lightning damage

gems: 10% increased WED and 60% more WED

8972.371.6 = 3401 lightning damage added

We haven't even gotten to the low-life specific buffs yet, and the aura already adds more damage than a level 20 arc/spark.

My belly doesn't feel good though :(