Hi all, I was trying out the Unique item Eternal Eclipse with warpath; but noticed it wasn’t proccing whilst channelling warpath. Warpath IS doing void damage and fire damage, yet it doesn’t have the tag void, which doesn’t seem to make sense to me. When I use void cleave, which is also both fire and void (it has the tags) it works fine.
If warpath is doing both damage types, then why doesn’t it have the tags?
I was wondering if there was a dev who could enlighten me on this fact or if it is in fact a bug that needs to be addressed.
It does look like it’s a bug since generally when conversion nodes are exclusive one of them will say that it has no effect if the other is taken, but neither Apocalypse While nor Arsenal of Flame say that.
It may well be that the bug is that Apocalypse Whirl doesn’t say that it has no effect if the fire conversion node is taken though.
Warpath can only have one of it’s 3 tags at the same time either physical, fire or void.
Void Cleave is explicitly gains a Fire Tag, when speccing Riftflame and deals 50/50 base fire/void damage. This is a very unique trait from Void Cleave.
What added damage you give a skill doesn’t change its tags, that is how it’s supposed to work.
I try it a while back, iirc you get 1 tick with the extra Flat every 2-3 sec (I can’t remember the cd on the item)
Imo that item can only be used on Void Cleave
Yeah see I’ve chosen the fire conversion, but only gone up to the echo node (not full conversion) in hopes that since it would be doing both damage types, it’d be effected by the unique. Fortunately I am using void cleave and managed to hit a 200k crit with it last night (only level 72 so I was impressed) so that part is great.
However, logically it doesn’t make sense that it isn’t affected. Some strange interaction with tags like the guy above stated.
It is what it is I guess shrug, just gotta get a good LP version and juice it hard with melee damage.
Well, you simply assumed that “attack of type X = an attack that deals damage of type X”.
But in reality, it’s “an attack of type X = an attack that has the tag X”.
I’d say it makes a lot of sense. Just look at the distinction between Melee and Spell. There are many Melee attacks that cause Spell damage: Warpath and Smite, Multistrike and Smite, Void Cleave and Ravaging Aura, Judgement and Consecrated Ground, etc.
But even though these Melee attacks cause Spell damage, it doesn’t make these Attacks into Spells. The Damage Type system works the same way.
edit: to avoid any confusion for other readers. The statement above is simplified.
Mechanically speaking, Melee attacks always deal only Melee damage. Any Spell damage always comes from proccing another class skill or subskill:
And yet the vast majority of the time, that assumption is correct, the only time it isn’t is if there’s specific element damage added (such as from Mourningfrost).
Those melee attacks aren’t doing spell damage though, nor do they (Warpath & Multistrike at least) get the spell tag. Judgement does have the spell tag but that only applies to the consecrated ground proc, Void Cleave doesn’t get the spell tag even when you take the ravaging aura node.
They don’t, they proc a thing that does spell damage. If the melee attack did spell damage then it (the melee attack) would benefit from all of the flat & % spell damage modifiers.
Shadow Daggers, very briefly after implmentation, had the spell tag, so it would benefit from any flat & % spell modifiers, but the devs removed the tag, sadly.
It states “your next void melee attack” and “your next fire melee attack”. Warpath is a melee attack that does both those damage types; but because it doesn’t receive the “void” tag it doesn’t count.
It just seems odd because the discrepancies in other skills that occasionally receive the tags from similar situations. I’m basically reiterating what Llama8 is saying.
It makes sense, but it doesn’t also I think we can agree on that.
Yeah, that’s why I think the bug is that the void conversion node doesn’t state that it has no effect if the fire conversion node is taken since that’s what all other full conversion nodes say (Riftflame is a partial conversion).
When a damage of a given type is added to a skill, it doesn’t affect the base damage of that skill. Quite logical too - if I set my sword on fire, the physical force of the swing is still there.
Based on that, assuming that adding new damage of a given type will change the nature of the skill doesn’t make much sense.
I never said they get the spell tag.
Yes, I am aware there isn’t a fire spell component in the hits of Warpath, I know how it works. I’m not talking about that. I’m using common sense to explain things.
If your spec is Warpath proccing Smite, your Warpath is now casting Spells that do damage of the spell type. If you stop using Warpath, the spells stop too, which means it is in fact your Warpath doing this. Ergo, your Warpath is doing Spell damage.
The whole example was: because Spell damage is now caused by my Warpath, it isn’t logical to assume that Warpath itself is now a Spell. The same applies to damage types.
It does receive the Void tag, but only when you take the Conversion node. You didn’t take that, you only took the Echo node.
The Fire conversion node in Warpath (named Earthscorcher) states that.
If the effect from the 2h sword was based on the damage dealt, it would say “next instance of void damage”, “next damaging void hit” or something like that. “Next attack” doesn’t mean it depends on damage dealt, it means it depends on using a skill.
And we know it needs to be a skill with the correct tag, because we have tested it. For example, I can throw a Javelin which reduces the mana cost of my “next melee attack”, then If I use a skill without the “Melee” tag like Abyssal Echoes, the mana reduction won’t work.
The same wording is used in various other Sentinel passives (Sacred Forge in Javelin tree, Patient Doom in VK tree, Alignment in Paladin tree, etc.).
“Attack” specifies it must not be a spell = must have Melee, Throwing or Bow tag.
“Melee” specifies it has to be a melee skill = must have the Melee tag.
“Void” specifies it has to be void damage type skill = must have the Void tag.
Yes, I did say that, because that’s what happens. When Warpath procs Smite, Warpath causes spell damage.
For example, Javelin specced into Holy Trail does spell damage over time, but has no spell tag. Rive specced into Energy Wave does spell damage hits, but has no spell tag. Same with Warpath.
But all of your examples are NOT the skill you are using. All of these are triggered subabilities (some of which have a skill spec tree and some which don’t).
Yes, but Warpath isn’t doing spell damage, none of the damage modifiers on Warpath’s skill tree affect the damage that Smite does. Warpath is not doing the spell damage, Smite is doing the spell damage. Subskills and procs are not the same as the main/proccing skill.
But what you are using and what is dealing the damage are two seperate things.
Some things are subskills within the skill tree from the skill you are using and some are other specialisable skills. There can be an argument about the subskilsl without their own skill spec tree being part of the skill, but yet there are seperate, they have their own tooltip and their own scaling tags.
How you are arguing here amkes you not acount for anything the game systems do.
You jsut say you press skill X and all the things happening on screen are “that skill”, but they are not.
Depending on the details of why we are arguing, like a cetain effect from a Unique or a certain passive or whatever, it depends if that is important or not.
But disregarding how the game functions doesn’t work. Even if you as the player don’t care for the exact details. If you don’t want to learn and embrace hwo the game truely works you will have a hard time understanding a lot of things in the future.
EDIT: This is also important not onyl for the pure damage part, but what skilsl are directly used and what skills are triggered, becaus there are a lot of affects, like Uniques, Skill Tree Nodes or Passives that care for direct use.
I guess you are having a problem with the semantic.
Me and @Llama8 are usually very pedantic, especially when it comes to how in-game systems work, because nuance is very important for a lot of cases.
So if you want to say it in a loose way to explain it to a player who is not familar with LE, your way of describing it is fine.
But once you are discussing the game on a more veteran and nuanced level, your way of describing is incorrect and misleading.
