I Hope that this isn't in d 3

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Diablo III
  3. I Hope that this isn't in d 3

User Info: jaxdestroyer

8 years ago#1
Set items that have really weird perks that really don't make sense.
Let me clarify:

Sanders set seems to obviously be geared toward a necro cause in order to complete the set you have to use a bone wand. But like all the perks on the rest of the gear seems to be geared toward a melee or ranged fighter. With all the increased attack speed stuff and the wand itself has mana steal.. what necro do you know at 28 that melees on a constant basis?

Another set i remember quite well is the tal rasha set. the helm was horrible for a sorc it gave 10% mana and life leech and other stuff that wasn't all that great for a req level of 66 but yet again u needed it to complete the set. hell that whole set seems dumb besides the ammy. 84 strength required armor on a class that doesn't really use strength that much +20 dex belt in which case casters don't even need dex..
cathans ring is 6% life leech good for non casters and yet again clearly on a set geared toward a sorc with a battle staff to complete the set.
Angelic with a horrible sword even when buffed by the whole set. blues are better than that thing by the time you can use it..
for those who don't know what mana and life leech are its basically a percent of the damage you do goes back to you like if you did 100 damage you get 10 life and mana back. however this only works if you hurt your opponent with a physical source doesn't work when you hit them with a spell or upped elemental damage

there's various others and if you must know go here http://classic.battle.net/diablo2exp/items/sets/

All I'm trying to say is if your gonna have set items have them compliment each other like mavina's set or Immortal king or sigon's. That way people actually want to use a whole set.

User Info: Horizon6

8 years ago#2
So everything should be the same, straightforward and obvious?

User Info: Berserkerlxl

8 years ago#3
They should just make gear only give one stat, called stats.
That way, we can clearly know which gear is better.

User Info: Crimson Phantom

Crimson Phantom
8 years ago#4
was done according to the lore

Where tal rasha was a mighty warrior mage and thus that effect makes sense for it


not done as in a set of the +500 to y0u
The beginning of eternity, the end of time and space, the beginning of every end, and the end of every place.

User Info: SantaKhala

8 years ago#5
I don't know why they made the set items this way, but my guess is that either they wanted to be creative (intrigue issue) or they did not want them to be overpowered (balance issue).
Check out some excellent Starcraft games with Tasteless commentary at:

User Info: Freakstylez

8 years ago#6
In all words, you think everything should have itemization that makes sense?

I agree 100%, it's stupid to waste an item's potential.

It's one thing if multiple classes benefit from it can actively use whatever bonuses are present; but in the case of Sander's, especially, there's just absolutely no use for those stats and they're a complete waste.

Random item are another thing, I see no reason to ensure that each and every one is "useful."
Your fail is showing.

User Info: Freakstylez

8 years ago#7
Wow, that post was riddled with typos... I need to wake up, except I barely got any sleep. :\
Your fail is showing.

User Info: Shijimmy

8 years ago#8
So you're suggesting we should use the whole set, rather than the interesting parts to get interesting bonuses? Angelics was fine if you only took the ring and amulet, gave you a lovely +1 to all skills IIRC (cba to recheck). So what if Sander's used a wand, equip everything else and you still have something that isn't as good as most equips around 30.
Tal Rasha wasn't that bad, was more pointed to lore, and IIRC you only needed 50 str to get enough added from the other set items. 50 isn't that bad, most decent equips that a sorc wanted took something like that.

Cathans ring wasn't meant to be used as a set item. They were easy to obtain, and if you didn't get anything better, any character loved 12% ll by lvl 12.
The only set I used as a set must've been sigon. But that was only to get started.
Et ait illis venite post me et faciam vos fieri pescatores animus.

User Info: jaxdestroyer

8 years ago#9

From: Shijimmy | #008
Cathans ring wasn't meant to be used as a set item. They were easy to obtain, and if you didn't get anything better, any character loved 12% ll by lvl 12.

if it's not meant to be used as a set item then why the hell is it a set item?

User Info: MorStriochBais

8 years ago#10
I'm currently playing a game in which a complete set gives the following:

ring 1: +MC (for mages only - improves their spell dmg)
ring 2: +SC (for priests only - improves their spell dmg)
necklace: +DC (allows people to hit more with weapons - ie. for warriors)
brace 1: magic defense
brace 2: melee defense

complete set: huge boost to defense

so obviously, the complete set kinda goes all over the place, but the set bonus is something that makes it worthwhile to forgo a better item

I can see what you mean about some sets making no sense, but I also don't want all sets to be instantly useful - there should be a balance.
  1. Boards
  2. Diablo III
  3. I Hope that this isn't in d 3

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived