06-23-2003, 07:57 AM
Interesting.
"You're confusing "Spells" with the "Range" of an attack."
Well, that would be true if the opposite of "melee" actually was "ranged." Really, the opposite of melee would be to not fight at all. So, a ranged or melee attack is much more similar linguistically than you portray in your argument.
For all those asserting that a mastery is a "passive" spell, try this: Make a sorceress with zero Lightning mastery and take her round act 5 nightmare with a Baezil's Vortex. Make a sorceress with lightning mastery and do the same. Which one kills faster? How passive is that?
If your argument of ranged and not ranged is so brilliant, what about static? Static is not a ranged spell. It would be a radial spell. There are many of those, too.
For the record, she's a sorceress! They are all spells.
And by the way, as for the puritanical comment, it is you who made the assertation of PURE.
"You're confusing "Spells" with the "Range" of an attack."
Well, that would be true if the opposite of "melee" actually was "ranged." Really, the opposite of melee would be to not fight at all. So, a ranged or melee attack is much more similar linguistically than you portray in your argument.
For all those asserting that a mastery is a "passive" spell, try this: Make a sorceress with zero Lightning mastery and take her round act 5 nightmare with a Baezil's Vortex. Make a sorceress with lightning mastery and do the same. Which one kills faster? How passive is that?
If your argument of ranged and not ranged is so brilliant, what about static? Static is not a ranged spell. It would be a radial spell. There are many of those, too.
For the record, she's a sorceress! They are all spells.
And by the way, as for the puritanical comment, it is you who made the assertation of PURE.