Go
back to previous topic |
Forum Name |
Gameplay |
Topic subject | Question on damage type |
Topic
URL | https://forums.carrionfields.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=26157 |
26157, Question on damage type
Posted by HunterElf on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I'm curious about physical damage - is it all pretty much the same or are there some difference.
For example, against a human would a sword with 'rending gale' have roughly the same effect as one with a 'slash'? Would the same thing hold against a giant or an arial?
I know fire, cold, light, etc.. all cause different impacts (I've read help damage) but there are times when I've wondered if there might be some hidden effects that don't show up (not considering weapon material of course).
Just something I've been wondering about.
|
26158, RE: Question on damage type
Posted by Mort on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>I'm curious about physical damage - is it all pretty much the >same or are there some difference. > >For example, against a human would a sword with 'rending gale' >have roughly the same effect as one with a 'slash'? Would the >same thing hold against a giant or an arial?
Humans and arials have no resistance or vulnerability to physical or any of its subtypes. Giants have resist physical, which covers each of bash/pierce/slash. So, giant takes less damage than the other two from any slashing attack, including rending gale.
>I know fire, cold, light, etc.. all cause different impacts >(I've read help damage) but there are times when I've wondered >if there might be some hidden effects that don't show up (not >considering weapon material of course).
The only hidden effect I can think of is that poisonous bite can cause poisoning when coming from an *actual weapon* and not a "weaponless" melee attack, like a shifter's.
|
26159, RE: Question on damage type
Posted by Isildur on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I'm pretty sure that there are some mobs that are vulnerable to piercing attacks.
|
26160, RE: Question on damage type
Posted by Mort on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Sure, vampires used to be (not anymore though as far as I can tell) and I don't see why others couldn't be, but what does this have to do with anything I said? I'm confused.
|
26161, RE: Question on damage type
Posted by Isildur on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Nothing to do with what you said. Moreso the original post, which was asking whether there was any difference between various types of physical damage.
|
26162, Gotcha, it was just that you posted it under my post :P n/t
Posted by Mort on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
No John, you are the n/t
|
26166, Clarification
Posted by HunterElf on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I suppose I could've written that more clearly.
I know there are several common types of physical damage that are different like the blunt, slash, pierce, etc.. and that some races/mobs are vulnerable to some types.
What I'm wondering is does an attack (again using 'rending gale' as an example) have not only a physical component but an elemental one as well? Would a flying target be more vulnerable to 'rending gale' than a slash?
I was wondering the same thing about searing light - is it both light and flame or just light?
There are a lot of other examples out there. I'm just trying to figure how much is style and how much is substance.
|
26168, RE: Clarification
Posted by Isildur on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I'm not an imm but I'm pretty sure "rending gale" is just blunt, and "searing light" is just light.
One thing I'm curious about, though, is the "magicality" of attacks. I remember a discussion of dwarven "resistance to magic" where someone (Nep?) indicated it was more than just resistance to "magic damage" (e.g. "burst of energy", etc.) and a better chance to save vs. spells. It seemed like certain damage (primarily from spells, but possibly also melee) comes with a special "magic" flag that is completely separate from its damage type.
The question, then, is whether something like "flaming bite" *from a weapon* carries with it this special "magic" flag, that would make dwarves/duergar/etc. resistant to it.
|
26169, RE: Clarification
Posted by Mort on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
IIRC this came up in the same thread and he said it wasn't the case, and that only melee attacks that have the special property are voker touches?
|
26186, RE: Clarification
Posted by RandomThinker on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
You're correct as far as I know. It's basically slash/bash/pierce/probably some others I'm forgetting and mobs may be vulnerable, resistant, or immune to one but not the others.
rending gale is just blunt. searing light is just light.
As far as the magic thing goes I have no clue.
|
26191, RE: Clarification
Posted by DurNominator on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>What I'm wondering is does an attack (again using 'rending >gale' as an example) have not only a physical component but an >elemental one as well? Would a flying target be more >vulnerable to 'rending gale' than a slash? > >I was wondering the same thing about searing light - is it >both light and flame or just light?
One attack cannot be of multiple damage types. Rending gale is just a regular slash attack and the difference between them is cosmetic. Searing light is light. In addition to damage type, you can have material you can be vulnerable or resistant to. So, one material and one damage type per attack. It is that simple.
Read the helpfile of 'damage type' to see what nouns are connected to what damage types.
|