Vulnerability

Are there eny plans to make it more accessible for melee builds? This imo only offensive curse suitable for melee physical builds. Inteligence requirements make it realy hard to match for higher levels withought itemisation or passive skills investment in wortless stat.

This post is based on knowledge from a 72 staff templar. Vulnerability add 32% more physical at level 16 gem. While this sounds good, it's not comparable to other offensive curses like frostbite, elem weakness, etc which are at least 45% at level 16.

If an enemy has 0 resists and gets elem weakness, they take 45% more damage.
If an enemy has 75 resists and gets elem weakness, they take 280% more damage. It's 70% damage, instead of 25%.

Anyone else see how wrong that is? Vulnerability is always 32% more, although with the way armor works it might end up penetrating armor a bit more.

Viper, I get what you are saying. I guess it all just depends on enemy armor and I wasn't looking at the numbers closely. Enemy armor is very difficult to figure out and is not given anywhere (unlike evasion, which can be figured out using accuracy).

reduction = armour / (armour + 12*damage)

Simple numbers:
armor = 0 means 132% of damage goes through (32% bonus)
armor = 12x your damage (making it 50% reduction) means 75.1% of damage goes through (50% bonus)
armor = 36x your damage (75% reduction) means 69.4% goes through (277% bonus)

Numbers are close to elem weakness, which is probably why they went with these numbers. But, notice that the numbers are lower on both ends.

So unless enemies commonly have 36x my damage in armor (that's over 49k armor), I am better off using elem weakness when half of my damage comes from elements. Elemental resistance is very common on rare enemies. Just some food for thought for anyone in that situation. I noticed more damage after using elem weakness.

If you hit fast and light, then vulnerability might be for you. (cyclone and multi-strike)
If you hit hard and slow, then elem weakness might be for you. (the rest of the skills, like my heavy strike and ground slam)

Still seems to need a boost, even if just slightly.

Vulnerability should be changed to a STR/INT/DEX hybrid requirement. Pure INT is prohibitive.

"

Lo4f wrote:

Vulnerability should be changed to a STR/INT/DEX hybrid requirement. Pure INT is prohibitive.

I second this. Most physical based builds are not going going to be very INT based, so it just doesn't make sense how much INT this gem requires.

Is the 'more physical damage' on vulnerability stacking with other 'more physical damage' (e.g., melee physical damage) or applied separately?

For example, I hit a monster for 100 physical damage. If I link the attack gem to level 1 melee physical damage support gem (30% more phys dmg) and the monster is cursed with level 1 vulnerability (25% more phys dmg), what happens?

1) first the damage is multiplied 100*1.3 = 130, and then the 'more' from curse is applied, 130*1.25 = 162.5
or
2) the multipliers are stacked (30% + 25% = 55%) and then applied to the damage 100*1.55 = 155


I would be grateful for clarification.


EDIT:

Found it.

'Modifiers that use the word more act as multipliers, and stack multiplicatively with all other modifiers'

So the option 1) happens.

considering it says "more" may or may not imply there is other modifiers that affect foes for them to take increased physical damage. saddly there are not but it would've been fun to math out a (total physical damage delt) * (increased damage taken) * (more damage taken). =p

sorry if that was confusing.