Talk:Inherent modifier

=O Oh, my many faults... v.v Well, any data that has to be added? Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 18:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Most people I now don't call them 'old school' but 'merchant fodder'. MithTalk 19:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

They say the vamp strength mod is the only one not an inscription. What about the -er +%dmg weapons? Justice 08:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I said so. I wasn't aware back then (all this was based on personal research). You may add it, if you want. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What should it be called and should there be a page of its own like "vampiric strength"? Is that actually an ingame term or is it player divised? I just know they exist because I have an axe with it on it and was wondering if I was missing something. Justice 16:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The term vampiric strength is on itself quite informal. All I can give as advice is; be bold. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PvE Inherents

what about the PvE inherent mods? (i haven't seen a page with the +armour against npc types around) --Universe 22:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree - this wiki seems sorely lacking a nice, clear article and/or table(s) showing the similarities and differences possible between gear from inherent source areas and inscribable source areas. I think that would help a lot of people. Alas, writing up such a thing can take a good chunk of time. I've yet to feel inspired enough to learn how to make wiki tables.  :( But +1 internet point to whoever eventually rises to the challenge! LicensedLuny 05:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For posterity, another example. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

More examples. Dual Attribute Staff / 3 Prof wand / OS Demons Shield / Dual "inscription" unreplicable. How about pics for dual vamp / zealous strength? (I have other examples but didn't wanna spend time cropping screenshots but i can if others don't wanna) Durp da durp 16:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A little old, I know; but I had this vamp strength item lying around Zuphix 15:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Vampiric strength has an example on its page so does Zealous strength anyone have other examples? I never saw a staff with the +15^-1energy regen. Anyone have a screenshot of one? Durp da durp 00:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've only seen that mod on melee and ranged weapons (axes/swords/bows) -Chieftain Alex 08:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I mean like Seize the Day not the zealous strength. I sorta forgot the energy after the 15 >.< Vamp / zealous strength i have from drops but didn't put because their pages had them, wands with 15 energy ^-1regen i see as drops sometimes but i've heard it can be on staves (or once could) but have never seen an example. Does a high energy staff at the expense of a lil degen ever happen?Durp da durp 14:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok I don't quite understand what you're saying this time. Do you meana staff with two +15e -1 regen mods? (i.e. +30e -2 regen) or just a single +15e -1 regen mod? -Chieftain Alex 17:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

<reset indent> a staff with +15 energy -1regen as the inherent. Just one inherent. I know wands can have it as an inherent but never saw it on a staff. Is it ever on a staff as the inherent or is the hsr and hct all they ever have? I guess that might be the one thing an insc staff can get an OS one can't :( The mention i made to vamp/zealous strength was referring to having a few bows/axes/swords with one of them. It just i always hoped for a hsr 20% +10e max dmg staff with the 15 energy -1 degen as an inherent so with an insightful head it would be a 30 energy -1 energy degen staff. Like any insc. staff with a sieze the day on it. It's probably just wishful thinking tho Durp da durp 23:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Staff with effects like the ones Onkk has only OS gold drops. Even like a collector Lotus Staff i'd be happy with but no Faction collectors have 15e ^-1 regen on a staff that i know of and only EotN ones have it. Was it ever on a staff before NF with the inscription or EotN collectors? Durp da durp 22:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"inherent prefix" is an oxymoron

This seems to be confusing two different concepts. An inherent mod is, explicitly, one that is not a prefix or suffix, and means that a prefix or suffix can be further attached because inherent mods don't use either slot. If it's a prefix that is always attached and can't be changed, then it's an invariable prefix. An "inherent prefix" is semantically equivalent to "inscription prefix", i.e. doesn't exist. Hold Me Closer, Necromancer 06:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

People are using inherent to refer to any mod that cannot be removed, whether it's a prefix or something else. I've never seen anyone in the game refer to an invariable mod.

Inherent means built-in to the weapon (not the terminology); it has nothing to do with prefix or suffix. I see nothing semantically wrong with inherent prefix since inherent doesn't automatically equal inscription.

However, whether or not there's a semantic issue, we document the terms people are using (not the ones that they should use). Accordingly, I've rephrased the intro. I've also highlighted that, strictly speaking, there are three concepts (inherent, invariable, and weapon-class-bonus)... and that it's usage, not semantics that drive the description in the article. I hope that is a satisfactory compromise. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)