- Admin
- #1
Been re-working the elemental resistance systems and supplying indicators for it (both taking me far too long), and then I was noticing, we can indeed get away with having negative immunities, without it resulting in damage healing the target.
So, we thus have two options:
Option One: Add an interesting game mechanic in which mobs with high resistances can be made vulnerable to magical attacks they'd normally be immune to. Opening us to the mechanic that, when more monsters do add stacks of elemental vulnerability, they'll need to add more stacks on some players to make them vulnerable (eg. Cold Helm + Frostbow = Immune+50%, so they'd need to lay on enough stacks of vulnerability to defeat that.)
"Magic works akin to limited weaving of Fate, granted by the gods, who Fated the systems of reality. Thus, if one pours enough poison vulnerability magic into a rock, one will eventually be able to break it with poison magic."
Pros: More interesting mechanics with more options.
Cons: Kinda weird.
Option Two: Keep it as it is, don't let invulnerabilities go into the negatives, and don't let mobs or players invulnerable to an element become vulnerable, no matter how many layers of vulnerability are stacked on.
"No matter how much poison vulnerability you stack onto a skeleton, it isn't going to grow a circulatory system."
Pros: More intuitive.
Cons: Less interesting and less options.
As to application, for the first option, I'd probably make all mobs naturally immune to a damage type have that immunity at -3.0, so it would still take several stacks of elemental vulnerability to make them take damage from that element. Currently, to make a skeleton vulnerable to poison, for instance, that would mean you'd need at least two players with dual Envenomed Crescent Blades. However, something immune to fire might become vulnerable to it, if it stood in a Fire Bomb's area of effect for long enough. (This would not affect Holy immunity on players, as Apostle candidates are a special case, not that I ever expect to see an enemy who adds Holy vulnerability - but we already have a few who add Darkness contamination.)
The second option would just mean being more careful about making judgment calls on this sorta thing. The Pyron, for instance, probably would be immune to acid, even from a magical source.
Either way, expect to see a lot more elemental vulnerability magic flying around from both sides as the game goes on, via magic items, weapons, and certain Titles with spells.
It's the sorta meta-decision I'm a bit torn on, so take yer pick from the poll above.
So, we thus have two options:
Option One: Add an interesting game mechanic in which mobs with high resistances can be made vulnerable to magical attacks they'd normally be immune to. Opening us to the mechanic that, when more monsters do add stacks of elemental vulnerability, they'll need to add more stacks on some players to make them vulnerable (eg. Cold Helm + Frostbow = Immune+50%, so they'd need to lay on enough stacks of vulnerability to defeat that.)
"Magic works akin to limited weaving of Fate, granted by the gods, who Fated the systems of reality. Thus, if one pours enough poison vulnerability magic into a rock, one will eventually be able to break it with poison magic."
Pros: More interesting mechanics with more options.
Cons: Kinda weird.
Option Two: Keep it as it is, don't let invulnerabilities go into the negatives, and don't let mobs or players invulnerable to an element become vulnerable, no matter how many layers of vulnerability are stacked on.
"No matter how much poison vulnerability you stack onto a skeleton, it isn't going to grow a circulatory system."
Pros: More intuitive.
Cons: Less interesting and less options.
As to application, for the first option, I'd probably make all mobs naturally immune to a damage type have that immunity at -3.0, so it would still take several stacks of elemental vulnerability to make them take damage from that element. Currently, to make a skeleton vulnerable to poison, for instance, that would mean you'd need at least two players with dual Envenomed Crescent Blades. However, something immune to fire might become vulnerable to it, if it stood in a Fire Bomb's area of effect for long enough. (This would not affect Holy immunity on players, as Apostle candidates are a special case, not that I ever expect to see an enemy who adds Holy vulnerability - but we already have a few who add Darkness contamination.)
The second option would just mean being more careful about making judgment calls on this sorta thing. The Pyron, for instance, probably would be immune to acid, even from a magical source.
Either way, expect to see a lot more elemental vulnerability magic flying around from both sides as the game goes on, via magic items, weapons, and certain Titles with spells.
It's the sorta meta-decision I'm a bit torn on, so take yer pick from the poll above.