Partially-elemental attacks

Derakon · June 11, 2010, 23:34

Current elemental melee attacks are "pure" element. For example, a "bite to burn" attack solely deals fire damage; thus, if the player is immune to fire, the attack does no damage. This seems wrong to me; most melee attacks should carry at least some physical damage component which works even if the player is immune to the elemental damage. Only a few monsters should have pure elemental attacks (most notably, the various 'E'lementals and their sovereigns, but also including vortices and maybe jellies).

I propose that the various elemental blows have a second entry on their line that contains the physical damage dice. So for example, an Ice troll's bite would go from

Code:

B:BITE:COLD:2d6

to

Code:

B:BITE:COLD:1d4:2d4

This would indicate that 1d4 of the damage is elemental and the remaining 2d4 is physical. In contrast, Vargo, Tyrant of Fire would have his

Code:

B:HIT:FIRE:4d6

changed to

Code:

B:HIT:FIRE:4d6:1d1

, so he can barely touch you if you're immune to fire. Or we could leave the ":1d1" off and have that imply that the attack is purely elemental (much like how many gaze and touch attacks currently in the game deal no damage whatsoever).

In particular, this would make the elemental dragons slightly more dangerous, since currently ancient and great wyrm bites are pure elemental and also their most dangerous attack.

Unfortunately, this would require a large modification to monster.txt. I count 170 elemental melee attacks in the game (out of 1624 total), and most of them would need to be modified.

PowerDiver · June 11, 2010, 23:50

Just assume the standard mechanic. One third of an elemental attack should be base, and 2/3 added by the element.

[edit] Of course, if you make this change, elemental destruction effects should be based on the reduced elemental damage.

Derakon · June 12, 2010, 00:19

I'm sorry, I must be missing how that's the "standard mechanic". It's similar to the lines drawn by resistance to basic elements, but that's the only similarity I'm seeing.

Speaking of inventory destruction, it's always bugged me how coarsely-grained that is. If you take less than 30 damage, then every item has a 1% chance of being destroyed. If it's less than 60, then it's 2%. Otherwise it's 3%. Shouldn't this number scale with your max HP or something? The inven_damage function in spells1.c can accept anything from .01% to 99.99%, after all.

konijn_ · June 12, 2010, 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerDiver

Just assume the standard mechanic. One third of an elemental attack should be base, and 2/3 added by the element.

[edit] Of course, if you make this change, elemental destruction effects should be based on the reduced elemental damage.

I quite like this idea as an option, the game would play quite differently as immunities would suddenly become much less effective.

T.

PowerDiver · June 12, 2010, 00:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon

I'm sorry, I must be missing how that's the "standard mechanic". It's similar to the lines drawn by resistance to basic elements, but that's the only similarity I'm seeing.

If you shoot branded arrows, they do X amount of damage and 2X amount of brand damage for the total (times 3) multiplier.

Zikke · June 12, 2010, 00:40

I don't think these attacks are broken right now. With resists it works well as a percentage of the damage. Immunities are like extra little nuggets of fun if you manage to find the immunity and find a monster with that attack.

nullfame · June 12, 2010, 00:43

I agree that this never made sense. It is a great wyrm, I'm sure the teeth are sharp and the jaw powerful.

OTOH, this makes clearing out a dragon pit unlikely and another thing to avoid. A classic realism v. gameplay conundrum.

Derakon · June 12, 2010, 01:54

Powerdiver: ahh, gotcha. That makes sense, I agree.

Zikke: it's not a matter of the attacks being broken; it's just weird, and one of those situations where I think realism and good gameplay actually align for once.

nullflame: if you have immunity to the dragons' breath weapons, then they're way less dangerous than they otherwise would be; they just have moderate melee attacks and a standard pile of hitpoints. You can stand in LOS of as many as you like and as long as only one can melee you you'll be fine. They're basically just upgraded troll pits at that point -- none of the elemental wyrms can even summon.

Nick · June 12, 2010, 01:57

I agree 100% with this proposal. Maybe 110%.

miyazaki · June 12, 2010, 02:09

I like it too. I found it weird that in dragon pits, baby dragons (unbranded attacks) harm you more than great wyrms (branded attacks).

How about blindness/confusion/paralyze attacks?

June 11, 2010, 23:34	#1
Derakon Prophet Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 9,024	Partially-elemental attacks Current elemental melee attacks are "pure" element. For example, a "bite to burn" attack solely deals fire damage; thus, if the player is immune to fire, the attack does no damage. This seems wrong to me; most melee attacks should carry at least some physical damage component which works even if the player is immune to the elemental damage. Only a few monsters should have pure elemental attacks (most notably, the various 'E'lementals and their sovereigns, but also including vortices and maybe jellies). I propose that the various elemental blows have a second entry on their line that contains the physical damage dice. So for example, an Ice troll's bite would go from Code: B:BITE:COLD:2d6 to Code: B:BITE:COLD:1d4:2d4 This would indicate that 1d4 of the damage is elemental and the remaining 2d4 is physical. In contrast, Vargo, Tyrant of Fire would have his Code: B:HIT:FIRE:4d6 changed to Code: B:HIT:FIRE:4d6:1d1 , so he can barely touch you if you're immune to fire. Or we could leave the ":1d1" off and have that imply that the attack is purely elemental (much like how many gaze and touch attacks currently in the game deal no damage whatsoever). In particular, this would make the elemental dragons slightly more dangerous, since currently ancient and great wyrm bites are pure elemental and also their most dangerous attack. Unfortunately, this would require a large modification to monster.txt. I count 170 elemental melee attacks in the game (out of 1624 total), and most of them would need to be modified.

June 12, 2010, 00:40	#6
Zikke Veteran Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,068	I don't think these attacks are broken right now. With resists it works well as a percentage of the damage. Immunities are like extra little nuggets of fun if you manage to find the immunity and find a monster with that attack. __________________ A(3.1.0b) CWS "Fyren_V" NEW L:50 DL:127 A++ R+++ Sp+ w:The Great Axe of Eonwe A/FA W H- D c-- !f PV+++ s? d P++ M+ C- S+ I- !So B ac++ GHB? SQ? !RQ V F:

June 12, 2010, 01:57	#9
Nick Vanilla maintainer Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Canberra, Australia Age: 55 Posts: 8,653 Donated: $60	I agree 100% with this proposal. Maybe 110%. __________________ One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
non-monotonic time attacks	PowerDiver	Vanilla	3	November 17, 2009 00:46
Elemental Rings (slight spoiler)	Slick	Vanilla	11	June 17, 2009 23:54
Elemental rings and ranged attacks	Donald Jonker	Vanilla	1	February 10, 2009 16:44
Elemental attacks destroying inventory items - challenging or frustrating?	hugorune	Vanilla	24	January 28, 2009 09:23
# of attacks question	will_asher	Vanilla	2	September 29, 2007 05:07

June 11, 2010, 23:50	#2
PowerDiver Prophet Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,712	Just assume the standard mechanic. One third of an elemental attack should be base, and 2/3 added by the element. [edit] Of course, if you make this change, elemental destruction effects should be based on the reduced elemental damage.

June 12, 2010, 00:19	#3
Derakon Prophet Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 9,024	I'm sorry, I must be missing how that's the "standard mechanic". It's similar to the lines drawn by resistance to basic elements, but that's the only similarity I'm seeing. Speaking of inventory destruction, it's always bugged me how coarsely-grained that is. If you take less than 30 damage, then every item has a 1% chance of being destroyed. If it's less than 60, then it's 2%. Otherwise it's 3%. Shouldn't this number scale with your max HP or something? The inven_damage function in spells1.c can accept anything from .01% to 99.99%, after all.

June 12, 2010, 00:43	#7
nullfame Adept Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 167	I agree that this never made sense. It is a great wyrm, I'm sure the teeth are sharp and the jaw powerful. OTOH, this makes clearing out a dragon pit unlikely and another thing to avoid. A classic realism v. gameplay conundrum.

June 12, 2010, 01:54	#8
Derakon Prophet Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 9,024	Powerdiver: ahh, gotcha. That makes sense, I agree. Zikke: it's not a matter of the attacks being broken; it's just weird, and one of those situations where I think realism and good gameplay actually align for once. nullflame: if you have immunity to the dragons' breath weapons, then they're way less dangerous than they otherwise would be; they just have moderate melee attacks and a standard pile of hitpoints. You can stand in LOS of as many as you like and as long as only one can melee you you'll be fine. They're basically just upgraded troll pits at that point -- none of the elemental wyrms can even summon.

June 12, 2010, 02:09	#10
miyazaki Adept Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: BC, Canada Age: 44 Posts: 227	I like it too. I found it weird that in dragon pits, baby dragons (unbranded attacks) harm you more than great wyrms (branded attacks). How about blindness/confusion/paralyze attacks?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)