Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

CF: Re: saving throw and multiple attacktypes



On Mar 10,  9:13am, Ken Woodruff wrote:
> Subject: RE: saving throw and multiple attacktypes
>
> As Mark points out there's some confusion of "attack type" versus "weapon
> effect" that needs to be worked out here as well.    I can't make sense of
> fear doing damage,
> but I can see how fire can do damage.   Maybe these should be broken out into
> separate flags, or at least interpreted differently.

 It is probably easiest to just interpert them differently (fear, confusion,
etc do no damage.)  However, I am not sure if this would cause some spells to
not function as intended.

>
> > This is a pretty good weapon - actually means that weapons with a lot
> > of attack types isn't necessarily what you want.
>
> Except that weapons with more attack types should generally have a higher
base
> damage
> than other weapons.  I would expect my flaming steel sword to hurt worse than
> an ordinary
> sword.  I guess under this model a weapon's "damage" would actually be
> "optimal damage assuming
> all attack types are effective".

 This is an assumption that probalby isn't always true (I believe some of the
items in the artifacts file will grant additional attack types without
increasing the base damage.)


 There seems to be some slight confusion on how the damage differs.  I think I
will restart them with a little more clarification:

1) Damage for all the attacks is averaged - thus if you weapon has 4 attack
types, but only 2 of them can affect the creature, you effectively do half
damage.  The formula would be something like (sum of all attack type
damage)/(numer of attacktypes)

2) Take the highest damage value.  This makes multiple attacktype weapons more
powerful. (max of all attack type damage)

3) Sum all the damage values (sum of all attack types.)

 Note that #3 and #1 have a major difference in that one is divided and one
isn't.  If the weapon has only 1 attack type, this is exactly the same.  If a
weapon has 3 attack types, this could be very different (Assuming that the
monster has immunities or protections.)

 Thus, to restate Ken's example:
I agree with this principle.  Think of it this way:  If a sword was made of
ordinary steel then all of its damage derives from a physical attack.  If you
had a magical sword  whose blade was pure fire, then all of its damage derives
from fire, no physical damage.  If you had a steel sword that was flaming, then
it would do both kinds, but to  creatures  that were immune to physical it
should only cause damage from the heat portion  of the attack.

 So lets go through the 3 cases for a creature that is immune to phyiscal, but
is being attacked by a weapon that does physical and fire:

Case 1:  Takes 0 damage from phys, and x damage from fire.  Weapon has 2 attack
types, so damage is x/2

Case 2:  Takes 0 from phys, x from fire.  max of 0 and x is is, so it takes x
damage.

Case 3:  Take 0 from phys, x from fire.  0+x is x, takes x damage.

 Note that a lot of this only makes a difference if the weapon has multiple
attack types.  If a weapon only has 1 attack type, all 3 cases are the same

 However, lets look at a similar example.  Weapon does fire & phys.  Creature
is vulnerable to fire.  Damage in each case:

Case 1: Take x from phys, 2x from fire.  This is 3x, with 2 attack types, so
damage 1.5x

Case 2:  max of x and 2x is 2x, so takes 2x.

Case 3:  sum of x and 2x is 3x, so takes 3x.

 Case 1 and Case 2 seem to be the only reasonable choices.  Note that case 2
will always be better, and it means that a weapon with a lot of attack types
will have no disadvantage (since you will always do the best.)  Case 1 averages
this out - it means that if the weapon has 6 attack types, chances are the
creature can be hit by some, might be vulnerable to others, and
immune/protected to yet others.  Over all, damage is probably going to be less
than x.



-- 
 --Mark