Vulnerability

"

Udnya wrote:

This may seem like a huge change to a lot of players and is probably out of the question this far into the game, but why is Vulnerability not a red gem with STR as the primary required stat?

Hear me out. This gem has major connections to Physical/Stun/DoT (Fire is str based) and block and stun recovery. If someone can tell me a few good reasons this is a blue gem with int as the only requisite I would be happy to listen.

Would greatly appreciate this gem being red, and it just feels like it should be, if not purely for the reasons above then for the sheer fact that we lack STR/Red gems. Some may argue curses in general are more geared to intelligence by design, I just find that to be a weak argument.

Strength is associated with stun and dealing more damage though hitting things harder - strengthening yourself. Weakening the enemy instead accomplishes a similar mechanical effect, but is thematically different, and fits better with int. The physically feeble magic user who can curse others to drain them of their better strength is a common fantasy trope that fits well with the thematic associates of int, while strength has thematic ties to strong warriors and systems of honour, which in many cases run counter to the associates of a vulnerability curse - the common tropes people think of are the barbarian with a system of honour, who actively seeks out strong opponents to fight, and would never use magic to weaken them and remove the challenge. The primary strength curse, Warlord's Mark, is thus the one which doesn't weaken the enemy, but rewards you for defeating them at their full strength.

Mechanically, having it in int lets it be equally accessable to both strength and dex characters who invest in int for support - anyone using physical damage/stun (strength) or DoT (dex) can weaken the enemy's ability to mitigate those by reaching into some int to allow them to use the magic - thus providing a tool which helps distinguish a pure strength character from a strength/int one, and the same for dex. It's also very useful with minions, which tend to int, without being too powerful with the primary int means of damage dealing.

Yes, this does mean that curses in general are less likely to align with strength and more with int. Curses are an int thing, primarily. That said, while it doesn't currently have an attribute, and you shouldn't expect to ever get a gem for it, I personally consider Silence to be a strength associate curse.

Fun fact: I designed the original set of 8 curses (Temporal Chains, Elemental Weakness, Warlord's Mark, Punishment, Enfeeble, Critical Weakness, Projectile Weakness, Vulnerability) - Chris, Jonathan and Erik left (for PAX, iirc) and asked me to come up with some ideas for what debuffs they could give and put them in as prototypes for testing when they returned. Beyond the mechanic of casting with an AoE and applying a debuff to each thing in the AoE, the only specific guidance I was given was Russell insisting we had to have one like Iron Maiden from D2. In the end, all 8 I designed got put in the game, with only one major change - I'd had Warlord's Mark as "Drain Essence" in int (granting power charges, of course). Chris and the others correctly identified it as the one which thematically made a lot of sense as strength. It was decided at the time that Vulnerability definitely belonged in int.
None of the others even changed their name, so I'm responsible for us having so many things called "X Weakness", for which I'm sorry. I ran out of creativity in the naming when they were prototypes and when they were going in no-one suggested anything better to switch any too, so we stuck with them. Other people didn't seem as bugged by it as me.

"That Curse of Lack of Ballistic Depth Perception" is the best thing I've read this week, thanks for that.
I still think given time we might have come up with better names, more in line with "Vulnerability" etc. For example, I think Flamability, Conductivity and Frostbite are better than just Fire/Cold/Lightning Weakness.