every skill is CAPABLE of being used in close combat (except, one could argue, charge maybe) but it doesn't HAVE to be. personally i can't believe u used that argument, it's gotta be one of the stupidest ones i've heard no offense =/

but if you aren't using the dictionary definition, then where are you getting your definition? and what MAKES that the definition?

None taken But its not a stupid argument lol its completely true, it says IF you can use something in close combat then it is melee. I take my defintion, like most other people, from the people I duel with. The only reason I consider smite/ww/charge not to be melee is because if you look at all the non contested melee skills, there are just too many differences, the last time this argument was started people were saying "well its not range, so it must be melee" someone proposed the concept of 3 attack styles instead of 2 which imo is the best idea in the history of this argument lol,

This post was edited by xXxS4v4g3xXx on Feb 18 2008 01:37pm

nah, imo the best idea is to only have 1 attack style, and if zealers, conc barbs, and fury druids can't compete then fuck 'em.

anyway, you've still dodged the question, where is your definition coming from? if the dictionary definition is "can be used at close range" and the diablo definition was changed to "must be used at close range" then that makes sense, to some extent. but where are you getting your definition?

here's where i get my definition:



ww and smite cause damage when used vs thorns.

so according to the makers of the game, they are melee.

your definition comes from....where?

I didn't dodge the question, you just missed the answer the only thing my fury druid can't compete with is necromancers so thats not even the issue lol. You can't have a definition that only applies to some of the melee skills, a definition must define them all. Both berserk and fire claw are melee skills and neither of them are effected by thorns(or iron maiden, since i know thats gonna come up eventually ), therefore you cannot use that as a definition.

This post was edited by xXxS4v4g3xXx on Feb 18 2008 01:50pm

fire claws is affected, just not as much.

personally, i'd say excluding zerk barbs is about as likely as excluding smiters or ww barbs...so i see no fault in that, i guess they aren't melee.

and you did dodge the question...WHY is that the definition? what prevents me from getting a bunch of friends who agree with me that "melee" means using psychic hammer at close range? =/

you put together countless attacks that share the exact same characteristics and you came up with the shift+click duels, a display of who's finger numbs last. I congratulate you

i vote jabzon!

Good Mannerd Melee is A STAND STILL ATTACK... Last time i checked Whirlwind was not a stand still attack, Smite is bm for obvious reasons.

yes but why is being a stand-still attack the definition of melee?????

you can say it's "good mannered" melee, that's fine, whatever. but by the definition of melee, ww and smite still apply, whether they're gm or not.

FireClaw doesn't do melee damage does it? I'm pretty sure its just fire though in all honesty I haven't "studied" the skill. Rules are made by the players, if your "dueling group" wants to call psychic hammer melee (which according to the dictionary it is ) then why not? If you are only dueling within that group then does it really matter?



Smite is not allowed in GM melee duels and it is a STAND STILL ATTACK, as I said earlier, a definition must define EVERYTHING. You can't have a definition saying "This is what is melee but this is melee too even if it doesn't apply to the first set of rules"



This post was edited by xXxS4v4g3xXx on Feb 18 2008 01:57pm

-1