Sun and Moon - is this normal?

[Constentin Lévine]

54 minutes ago, MaxQuest said:

I have checked this, but there is a melee range filter.

Not in the current Nexus version of CP extra (335-2-0-5) :

The melee filter is nice especially for Xoti who can gain wounds on melee kills, and as Priest she can gain wounds with Barbs of Condemnation and Pillar of Faith (both are melee) !

[MaxQuest]

2 hours ago, Constentin Lévine said:

Not in the current Nexus version of CP extra (335-2-0-5) 

Oh

Hmm, I've just checked the CP change:

• Turning Wheel now provides bonus damage with ranged weapons as well.

 

It looks like we thought that it only works with weapon attacks. So changing the range filter from "melee" to "none" was enough. But it has no source filter..

So, what is the preferred way?: to let the lash be added to damage from:

1. (perceived vanilla) melee weapon attacks (both weapon and spells)
2. (actual vanilla) melee attacks (both weapon and spells)
3. (cp intented change) all weapon attacks
4. (cp as is now) all attacks
5. all melee attacks (weapon and spells) AND ranged weapon attacks (this will require two status effects)
6. other?

 

2 hours ago, Constentin Lévine said:

Barbs of Condemnation and Pillar of Faith (both are melee) !

Didn't know of that))

Edited August 27, 2022 by MaxQuest

[Constentin Lévine]

50 minutes ago, MaxQuest said:

• (perceived vanilla) melee weapon attacks (both weapon and spells)
• (actual vanilla) melee attacks (both weapon and spells)

The list of (damaging) spells they are concerned by the melee lash is :

• Barbs of Condemnation
• Pillar of Faith
• Touch of Death
• Sunless Grasp
• Grimoire Slam
• Concelhault's Crushing Doom

Also walls, but they dont benefice from Turning Wheels, the wall itself doesnt have the ability (it is like a summon). That is useful to know to proc some melee defensive things like Blade Turning.

So I think only the change for "source":"weapon" is significant and match with the CP Change, do you?

[MaxQuest]

2 hours ago, Constentin Lévine said:

So I think only the change for "source":"weapon" is significant and match with the CP Change, do you?

Agree

Will specify the source in the next CP update, to:

 

            "Range": "None",

            "Source": "Weapon",

[Elric Galad]

On 8/25/2022 at 7:18 PM, MaxQuest said:

I really like the idea of Wayfarer healer, but that short range makes it hard sometimes to bring characters that need healing close enough. Also it was making the party more subject to enemy AoEs.

Also it becomes the same as AoE of Sacred Immolation; which provides a good visual indicator.

Would you prefer there to be some separate talent that would increase the flames (and maybe even beacons) AoE?

A talent would be closer to the original and avoid power creep to some extant (just an option, arguably not a very strong talent).

The thing is that 2.5m radius is incitative to go in the middle of melee. 
The current range is already greater than LoH and Wayfarer alread works perfectly fine as healer in my experience.
I strongly suggest to get other people opinion.

On 8/25/2022 at 7:18 PM, MaxQuest said:

Yeah, there definitely are more broken things, this was one was just easy and fast to implement.

Well, I can include it in some .AntiCheese package later on, if I'll have the time to implement that list some days)

The thing is range is a bit the signature of the subclass, and taking it away does not really solve the issue as according to this thread Non Elements spells can also be exploited by ALL subclasses (and possibly elements spells can be exploited by other subclass too).

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/124903-furious-cheese-with-a-solo-fury/

Another route could be to limit all spells to a lower range. There are not tons of concerned spells. We even have a list in the above thread. 

On 8/25/2022 at 7:18 PM, MaxQuest said:

Wow), that's quite a cost increase)

Personally I was thinking about rising it's cost to 6 or 7 wounds; with the main intent to make it harder to cast back-to-back.

Taking into account earlier monk ability I estimated 3 wounds ~ 1 martial ressource, and according to my own benchmark, WotW was closer to a 3 martial ressource ability (such as Whirling Strikes).

On 8/25/2022 at 7:18 PM, MaxQuest said:

I like quite an array of changes there

But many are not fitting into CP.Basic and CP.Extra, as they are somewhat conservative. I will think about that later.

Good point, but may I point some of your most recent suggestion aren't that conservative ?

I admit a new CP package for less conservative stuff would help me keeping BPM consistent with CP.Basic and Extra

On 8/25/2022 at 7:18 PM, MaxQuest said:

Yeap, most likely. The consistent part is tough though.

The pilot idea is:

• to change Firebrand damage from fire/pierce to fire (and add +2 Pen to compensate for that)
• all summoned elemental weapons (Blackbow, Minor Blights, Draining Touch and Firebrand) that deal only one damage type are "true" elemental weapons. These cannot damage related elem_immune enemies (e.g. Flame Blight immune vs Firebrand); but these will cause bonus effects on enemies that are weak to that element (Ice Blight might get shaken/../.. when hit by Firebrand). 
• the found elemental weapons - deal two types of damage phys/elem - these weapons can deal damage to elem immune enemies with the remaining phys damage type. But their main attacks won't cause shaken/../.. on enemies with related weakness. (like with current CP.Keywords, via Elemental Weapon keywords)
• Sun and Moon is a "regular" weapon that deals crush damage; but it's Burn/Frost procs will get respective keywords. Thus these procs will benefit from Scion of Flame/Secrets of Rime talents and Ring of Focused Flame acc bonus; also they won't damage respective fire/frost immune enemies. 
• either remove elemental keywords from weapons that don't deal elem or phys/elem damage; or convert them from phys to phys/elem (and switch their keywords like CP.Keywords currently does, e.g: Fire -> Fire weapon). Also adjust their penetration accordingly.

 

So a rule of thumb would be:

• weapons that have only one damage type, and that one is (Burn, Freeze, Shock, Corrode) - won't be able to deal damage to respective elem_immune enemies. These weapons will also be able to inflict specific affliction on respective elem_weakened enemies. These weapons are also all summoned.
• weapons that have phys/elem - will try to deal their phys damage to respective elem_immune enemies; but will not apply special effects to respective elem_weakened enemies. These weapons are all sold or looted.

Yeah, that's good principles.

[Noqn]

On 8/24/2022 at 4:58 PM, MaxQuest said:

included Carnage and Powder Burns indicators (credit goes to Noqn)

On 8/25/2022 at 7:18 PM, MaxQuest said:

The pilot idea is:

• to change Firebrand damage from fire/pierce to fire (and add +2 Pen to compensate for that)
• all summoned elemental weapons (Blackbow, Minor Blights, Draining Touch and Firebrand) that deal only one damage type are "true" elemental weapons. These cannot damage related elem_immune enemies (e.g. Flame Blight immune vs Firebrand); but these will cause bonus effects on enemies that are weak to that element (Ice Blight might get shaken/../.. when hit by Firebrand). 
• the found elemental weapons - deal two types of damage phys/elem - these weapons can deal damage to elem immune enemies with the remaining phys damage type. But their main attacks won't cause shaken/../.. on enemies with related weakness. (like with current CP.Keywords, via Elemental Weapon keywords)
• Sun and Moon is a "regular" weapon that deals crush damage; but it's Burn/Frost procs will get respective keywords. Thus these procs will benefit from Scion of Flame/Secrets of Rime talents and Ring of Focused Flame acc bonus; also they won't damage respective fire/frost immune enemies. 
• either remove elemental keywords from weapons that don't deal elem or phys/elem damage; or convert them from phys to phys/elem (and switch their keywords like CP.Keywords currently does, e.g: Fire -> Fire weapon). Also adjust their penetration accordingly.

 

So a rule of thumb would be:

• weapons that have only one damage type, and that one is (Burn, Freeze, Shock, Corrode) - won't be able to deal damage to respective elem_immune enemies. These weapons will also be able to inflict specific affliction on respective elem_weakened enemies. These weapons are also all summoned.
• weapons that have phys/elem - will try to deal their phys damage to respective elem_immune enemies; but will not apply special effects to respective elem_weakened enemies. These weapons are all sold or looted.

Just me or is this much more convoluted than it needs to be? I'd say go for one solution over a mix of several.

Quote

to change Firebrand damage from fire/pierce to fire (and add +2 Pen to compensate for that)

Personally I'm firmly against removing damage types from weapons. Dual type is a cool concept and a part of the weapons' identities. Also, making the weapons less versatile against 99% of enemies is more intrusive than a clarity issue against 1% of enemies.

Quote

the found elemental weapons - deal two types of damage phys/elem - these weapons can deal damage to elem immune enemies with the remaining phys damage type. But their main attacks won't cause shaken/../.. on enemies with related weakness. (like with current CP.Keywords, via Elemental Weapon keywords)

For this reason, I don't think the Elemental Weapon Keywords should be any part of the solution. On top of the known vanilla breaking behavior, it most likely causes a lot more issues we've yet to discover.

 

The closest thing to a clean, regression-free "fix" is imo to give Keyworded Weapons a secondary elemental damage type, if they have none. (And adjust Pen.) While the original "unexplained immunity" behavior would remain, it offers more clarity (which weapons are elemental?) and is arguably a good standalone tweak anyways.

I'll post the table again:

On 7/25/2022 at 1:49 PM, Noqn said:

Like this?

Weapon	Keyword	Vanilla Dmg	Suggested Dmg
Dragon’s Dowry	Fire	Pierce	Pierce/Burn
Sun And Moon (Sun)	Fire	Crush	Crush/Burn
Sun And Moon (Moon)	Frost	Crush	Crush/Freeze
Animancer Bow	Electricity	Pierce/Shock	-
Thundercrack Pistol	Electricity	Pierce	Pierce/Shock
Lord Darryn’s Voulge	Electricity	Slash/Shock	-
Grave Calling	Frost	Slash	Slash/Freeze
Hel Beckoning	Acid	Slash/Pierce	Slash/Corrode
Frostseeker	Frost	Pierce/Slash	Pierce/Freeze
Frostfall	Frost	Crush/Freeze	-
Firebrand	Fire	Burn/Pierce	-
Caedebald’s Blackbow	Acid	Corrode	-

Edited August 27, 2022 by Noqn

[MaxQuest]

On 8/28/2022 at 12:16 AM, Elric Galad said:

A talent would be closer to the original and avoid power creep to some extant (just an option, arguably not a very strong talent).

Understood. If there are such doubts, then it is not fitting into current CP packages that well; and it's better to implement it as talent or trinket and in separate package/mod if I'll have the time for that...

 

On 8/28/2022 at 12:16 AM, Elric Galad said:

The thing is range is a bit the signature of the subclass

Hmm. My associations with fury were: storm spells, jolts everywhere, evading melee

Range sure helps against melee, but it went a bit overboard.

 

On 8/28/2022 at 12:16 AM, Elric Galad said:

to this thread Non Elements spells can also be exploited by ALL subclasses (and possibly elements spells can be exploited by other subclass too).

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/124903-furious-cheese-with-a-solo-fury/

True that. Plague of Insects with 15m range and 5m AoE looks like the greatest offender

 

On 8/28/2022 at 12:16 AM, Elric Galad said:

Another route could be to limit all spells to a lower range. There are not tons of concerned spells. We even have a list in the above thread. 

Yeah, those spells with 15m range could have a lower range. And not even wizard has so many far-ranged spells as druid.

Although in this case it's no longer a simple change or adjustment, and rather a plain nerf. I think this would better suit some AntiCheese package.

 

On 8/28/2022 at 12:16 AM, Elric Galad said:

Good point, but may I point some of your most recent suggestion aren't that conservative ?

Kind of)

 

On 8/28/2022 at 12:16 AM, Elric Galad said:

Yeah, that's good principles.

Keywords, for elemental weapons and some "conjuring" spells is the main thing left for CP update.

And speaking of conjuration, I partially agree with Constentin Lévine response above. Here are some assorted thoughts:

• Wall of Thorns: probably shouldn't have Poison kw on ability itself, since the ability only summons thorny plants. Or put it for "extra info" (and a little extra duration if you have bonus Poison PL)?
• Garden of Life: (?) ability by itself only grows/conjures plants as well. 
• What about Venombloom, Vile Thorns, Plague of Insects: (?)
• Minor Kalakoth's Blights: makes sense to also have Elements keywords, if we assume that wizard channels elemental powers to conjure them
• Caedebald's Blackbow: ability itself probably shouldn't have Acid keyword; wizard conjures a terrifying bow that shoots acid arrows. So it's enough only attacks to have Acid kw, right?
• Firebrand...: (?) if wizard conjures a blob of fire that coalesces into a sword, then yes, ability should have Fire keyword; but if it is a piercing sword in flames, probably not. Also should casting Firebrand ability remove Frost/Water negative effects from the caster? And should it get Conjuration keyword?
• Draining Touch: (?) should the ability have Acid keyword? (it's not a `conjured weapon` but rather hands are transmuted into that thing)
• Nannasin's Cobra Strike: probably shouldn't have Poison keyword on ability itself, as wizard doesn't conjure them from poison

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by MaxQuest

[dgray62]

Firebrand really should be fire/slash, not fire/piece. No one would thrust with a 1.5-2m great sword like a rapier, unless you're a giant with tremendous strength.

And yes, Nannasin's Cobra Strike shouldn't have the Poison keyword, unless a raw DoT is added!

Edited August 31, 2022 by dgray62
typo correction

[NotDumbEnough]

Nannasin's Cobra Strike DOES have a damage over time effect which counts as poison. I think it's best to keep the keyword in place so players aren't confused as to why skeletons are not suffering from the DoT damage.

[MaxQuest]

On 8/28/2022 at 1:22 AM, Noqn said:

Just me or is this much more convoluted than it needs to be? I'd say go for one solution over a mix of several.

Well, let's see if we can simply it further)

 

On 8/28/2022 at 1:22 AM, Noqn said:

Personally I'm firmly against removing damage types from weapons. Dual type is a cool concept and a part of the weapons' identities. Also, making the weapons less versatile against 99% of enemies is more intrusive than a clarity issue against 1% of enemies.

I like dual damage types as well, but mostly because I am a bit lazy) and would prefer to keep swapping weapons to a minimum.

The proposed change to Firebrand, was mostly to:

• keep it in sync with PoE1
• avoid minor confusion about is it made of pure fire or not; is it a conjured sword (basked in flames); or is it really caster conjuring some fire blob and giving it the form of a sword. In later case it would make sense for the Firebrand summoning ability to have Fire keyword (and thus be even used as a counter to hostile Water/Frost DoTs and lingering effects, if there are any)
• make the explanation of elemental weapons kw easier. E.g: all summoned elemental weapons have single damage type. Although if we'll go on a different approach it won't be necessary
•  

On 8/28/2022 at 1:22 AM, Noqn said:

On 8/28/2022 at 1:22 AM, Noqn said:

the found elemental weapons - deal two types of damage phys/elem - these weapons can deal damage to elem immune enemies with the remaining phys damage type. But their main attacks won't cause shaken/../.. on enemies with related weakness. (like with current CP.Keywords, via Elemental Weapon keywords)

For this reason, I don't think the Elemental Weapon Keywords should be any part of the solution. On top of the known vanilla breaking behavior, it most likely causes a lot more issues we've yet to discover.

I have checked the gamedatabundles, and if needed we could make those weakness effects trigger from Elemental Weapon Keywords too.

E.g. Shaken when attacked with Frost or Frost Weapon kw. And so on.

 

On 8/28/2022 at 1:22 AM, Noqn said:

The closest thing to a clean, regression-free "fix" is imo to give Keyworded Weapons a secondary elemental damage type, if they have none. (And adjust Pen.) While the original "unexplained immunity" behavior would remain, it offers more clarity (which weapons are elemental?) and is arguably a good standalone tweak anyways.

I like adding a second damage type to the already "elemental weapons" which are not so obvious for being elemental keyworded, like Frostfall, Frostseeker, Thundercrack, and the rest from your table. 

But this won't fix the issue of getting "immune" messages when attacking with Grave Calling an Ice Blight.

Although yes, there definitely is a better chance for player to understand why he gets that "immune" when he sees that one of weapon's damage types is elemental.

=================

=================

I have took a second look at what creatures do have elemental: weaknesses, keyword immunities, AR immunities, or healing. There aren't many:

So if need be, we can make them account for Elemental Weapon keywords too.

 

Interesting finds:

• Greater Flame and Ice Blights don't have keyword immunity against Frost/Water and Fire; unlike regular and lesser blights. It's understandable that this is done such that they can be healed from respective elemental damage; but now they can be affected by effects regular and lesser blights could not
• Greater Storm Blight still has Electricity keyword immunity; which kinda defeats it's HealOnShock passive (this is likely an oversight)
• Some enemies with ConvertDamageToHealing have their AR high; others have it low or zero, in order to get more healing. Inconsistent, and will have interesting results with phys/elem weapons
• Sand blights have no damage immunity, and neither elemental kw immunity
• Dorudugan's ConvertDamageToHealing is a bit different from blights'. He converts all incoming fire damage into healing. While Greater Flame Blights convert all incoming fire damage from attacks with Fire keyword into healing (i.e. there also must be this Fire keyword on attack).

There seem to be only 9 different creatures that have elemental kw immunity, and these creatures are not that strong or important. A wild thought: what if instead of "Immunity" SE to Frost/Fire/Electricity/.. they had "HostileEffectDurationMultiplier" 0 vs these elements? Due to AR immunity, they either way won't take that elemental damage; and now they will practically ignore Frost/Fire/Electricity/.. duration effects too.

This would allow us to get rid of Elemental Weapons keywords; but still deal damage with weapons of dual phys/elem type.

Thoughts?

----

And one more:

1. when attacking a Flame Blight (which has Fire AR: immune) with Firebrand (fire/pierce) - what result would you expect as a player?
2. when attacking a Greater Flame Blight (which converts incoming Fire damage from Fire attacks to healing) with Firebrand (fire/pierce) - what result would you expect as a player?

Edited September 1, 2022 by MaxQuest

[NotDumbEnough]

1. I think I would expect it to be hit by pierce damage, just like how you would circumvent a skeleton's pierce immunity if you use a mixed damage type weapon.

2. I would expect it to work just like how it works for Fire Nagas right now. If Burn AR>Pierce AR, I deal pierce damage. If Burn AR<Pierce AR, I deal burn damage which gets converted into healing.

[Kaylon]

On 9/1/2022 at 7:51 PM, MaxQuest said:

And one more:

1. when attacking a Flame Blight (which has Fire AR: immune) with Firebrand (fire/pierce) - what result would you expect as a player?
2. when attacking a Greater Flame Blight (which converts incoming Fire damage from Fire attacks to healing) with Firebrand (fire/pierce) - what result would you expect as a player?

In both situations I would expect to pick the most favorable damage type, ie pierce.

Giving all elemental weapons dual damage seems, for me too, the most logical choice in order to have a single clear rule. 

Personally I also expect an immunity to protect only against the respective part of an attack not the entire attack. For example Rot Skulls vs crush immunes should apply only the disease, while vs disease immunes it should just deal crush damage.

For that reason I consider also the damage immunity a much better solution overall, instead of keywords. To solve the situation 2 a solution would be to increase the specific elemental damage above the other resists and also increase the healing part to compensate for the lower damage received.

[MaxQuest]

13 hours ago, Kaylon said:

In both situations I would expect to pick the most favorable damage type, ie pierce.

In first case it will happen automatically.

In second case my understanding is: blight's Fire AR has to be higher than Pierce AR... Or maybe (attacker's Pierce PEN minus blight's Pierce AR) is higher than (attacker's Fire PEN minus blight's Fire AR). Tbh I don't know if the mechanics of this takes into account attackers PEN (which can be different)

13 hours ago, Kaylon said:

To solve the situation 2 a solution would be to increase the specific elemental damage above the other resists and also increase the healing part to compensate for the lower damage received.

Yeah, that what devs did with Greater Blights. They have higher Burn, Freeze, Shock AR than their other armor ratings.

Meanwhile Fire Drake and Rathun Frostcaller have their respective elem AR at 0. And Dorudugan has 16 Burn AR (which is also his base AR). Would you like them to have it increased?

13 hours ago, Kaylon said:

Giving all elemental weapons dual damage seems, for me too, the most logical choice in order to have a single clear rule. 

Good. So you endorse Noqn's suggestion. Are you ok if the weapons that went from phys to phys/elem damage would lose 1 PEN? (e.g: Grave Calling: slash -> slash/freeze)?

Also should we keep Caedebald's Blackbow damage type at acid or change it into pierce/acid?

@Boeroer, @Elric Galad, @thelee it would be great to hear your opinions on this too.

13 hours ago, Kaylon said:

Personally I also expect an immunity to protect only against the respective part of an attack not the entire attack. For example Rot Skulls vs crush immunes should apply only the disease, while vs disease immunes it should just deal crush damage.

Good. That's how currently Rot Skulls work vs Bog Oozes, which don't have keyword immunity, but have Crush AR: immune

13 hours ago, Kaylon said:

For that reason I consider also the damage immunity a much better solution overall, instead of keywords. 

In my understanding keyword immunity is mainly used to prevent crowd-control and secondary effects on target.

For example would you expect Ninagauth's Freezing Pillar to hobble an Ice Blight?

In vanilla:

• lesser and regular Ice Blights won't take damage from Ninagauth's Freezing Pillar, and won't be hobbled
• greater Ice Blights will heal for 100% of damage from Ninagauth's Freezing Pillar, but.. will be hobbled

Another question: would you expect Sunbeam to Blind a Greater Flame Blight? Because at the moment it can (but not regular or lesser one).

--------

I was proposing above, changing keyword immunity for "HostileEffectDurationMultiplier" 0 (vs that keyword), and it would help vs such cc-effects; but gotta see how it would affects DoT SEs.

 

 

[Kaylon]

42 minutes ago, MaxQuest said:

Good. So you endorse Noqn's suggestion. Are you ok if the weapons that went from phys to phys/elem damage would lose 1 PEN? (e.g: Grave Calling: slash -> slash/freeze)?

Also should we keep Caedebald's Blackbow damage type at acid or change it into pierce/acid?

Yes, I'm ok with the PEN reduction since it follows the rule of dual damage weapons. Also I see no reason to treat Caedebald's Blackbow differently and not give it dual damage. 

1 hour ago, MaxQuest said:

For example would you expect Ninagauth's Freezing Pillar to hobble an Ice Blight?

In vanilla:

• lesser and regular Ice Blights won't take damage from Ninagauth's Freezing Pillar, and won't be hobbled
• greater Ice Blights will heal for 100% of damage from Ninagauth's Freezing Pillar, but.. will be hobbled

Another question: would you expect Sunbeam to Blind a Greater Flame Blight? Because at the moment it can (but not regular or lesser one).

Personally I consider the secondary effects separate from the damage and should be separate from the main attack. In other words Sunbeam won't burn someone immune to fire, but will blind him because of the powerful light. Same with the Freezing Pillar - if you're immune to cold you don't take damage but the ground gets freezed and you're still hobbled. The Blights are maybe a bad example because they float and should be, in theory, immune to ground effects.

[NotDumbEnough]

Freezing Pillar isn't a ground effect, it's huge floating pillar of ice.

[Constentin Lévine]

6 hours ago, NotDumbEnough said:

Freezing Pillar isn't a ground effect, it's huge floating pillar of ice.

Actually, the cercle of frost the pillars of ice do is technically Ground, because this is the iced ground that hobble people. 

[Boeroer]

9 hours ago, MaxQuest said:

@Boeroerit would be great to hear your opinions on this too.

I'm not particularly invested in this matter tbh. If Caedebald's Blackbow gets pierce/corrode that's fine.
My main concern is to make the mechanics consistent, sensible and predictable. That's why I found that keyword/immunity issue so annoying. If that's been solved the details on how to design the weapon dmage in order to make it work are cool with me if it helps solving the problem.  

[Elric Galad]

On 9/3/2022 at 11:17 AM, MaxQuest said:

In first case it will happen automatically.

In second case my understanding is: blight's Fire AR has to be higher than Pierce AR... Or maybe (attacker's Pierce PEN minus blight's Pierce AR) is higher than (attacker's Fire PEN minus blight's Fire AR). Tbh I don't know if the mechanics of this takes into account attackers PEN (which can be different)

Yeah, that what devs did with Greater Blights. They have higher Burn, Freeze, Shock AR than their other armor ratings.

Meanwhile Fire Drake and Rathun Frostcaller have their respective elem AR at 0. And Dorudugan has 16 Burn AR (which is also his base AR). Would you like them to have it increased?

Good. So you endorse Noqn's suggestion. Are you ok if the weapons that went from phys to phys/elem damage would lose 1 PEN? (e.g: Grave Calling: slash -> slash/freeze)?

Phys to Phys/Elem -> -1 PEN (Sword gets -1 PEN for going to dual type compared to other 1 hander - that also gets an additional bonus such as spear +5 Acc) 
Phys/Elem to Elem -> +2 PEN 

I consider both as "slightly generous".

On 9/3/2022 at 11:17 AM, MaxQuest said:

Also should we keep Caedebald's Blackbow damage type at acid or change it into pierce/acid?

@Boeroer, @Elric Galad, @thelee it would be great to hear your opinions on this too.

Good. That's how currently Rot Skulls work vs Bog Oozes, which don't have keyword immunity, but have Crush AR: immune

In my understanding keyword immunity is mainly used to prevent crowd-control and secondary effects on target.

For example would you expect Ninagauth's Freezing Pillar to hobble an Ice Blight?

In vanilla:

• lesser and regular Ice Blights won't take damage from Ninagauth's Freezing Pillar, and won't be hobbled
• greater Ice Blights will heal for 100% of damage from Ninagauth's Freezing Pillar, but.. will be hobbled

Another question: would you expect Sunbeam to Blind a Greater Flame Blight? Because at the moment it can (but not regular or lesser one).

--------

I was proposing above, changing keyword immunity for "HostileEffectDurationMultiplier" 0 (vs that keyword), and it would help vs such cc-effects; but gotta see how it would affects DoT SEs.

My opinions on the whole topic in a nutshell :

1) CP current "Weapon KW" solution is a bit convoluted for my tastes so I won't go for it.

2) You won't solve the weird "creature being immune to physical attack because of KW" stuff just by fixing elemental KW. Toxic Strike has Poison KW which cause foes to be immune to PHYSICAL attacks. It makes no sense but hey it's there.

3) Weapon swapping is part of the game. If a foe is immune to a particular weapon, it's not the end of the world (crushing the wheel might be, hear that, Eothas !). 

4) Having a weapon with an elemental KW but no elemental damages associated (at least partially) is weird.

5) To be the closest from the original, I'll keep the KW on the weapon that already have it.

 

Hence, I'll go with either :
A) All Weapons with KW dealing only KW type of damages. (no immunity weirdness in this case)
B) All Weapons with KW dealing either only KW type of damages OR dual type including elemental (closest from the original). KW will be maintainted. Immunity stuff won't be fixed but due to 2) and 3) I admit I don't personnaly care.

Also you have to consider that some Spells (at least Sunlance) already works as B. Removing also KW from spells is something I won't feel ideal (druid doesn't have tons of Fire based spells already...)
 

I think A & B would fit with Sun&Moon.

 

I'd personnaly go with B as dual type of damages are fun.

If you find a technical solution for B (removing immunity from monsters + adding CC KW immunity), then bingo !

 

Blackbow could be changed to dual type without PEN change. It has the PEN of a Warbow, and Warbows have dual damages type. I wondered a bit about it in the past.

Sorry for the delay answering, but I was coming back from holidays and I had a lot of personal stuff to do. 

[MaxQuest]

8 hours ago, Elric Galad said:

My opinions on the whole topic in a nutshell :

1) CP current "Weapon KW" solution is a bit convoluted for my tastes so I won't go for it.

Fair enough

8 hours ago, Elric Galad said:

2) You won't solve the weird "creature being immune to physical attack because of KW" stuff just by fixing elemental KW. Toxic Strike has Poison KW which cause foes to be immune to PHYSICAL attacks. It makes no sense but hey it's there.

It's possible to take the Poison KW out of Toxic Strike, and leave it on it's DoT only.

Heck, it's possible to take Poison KW even from the DoT, and rename ability into Corrosive Strike.

But yes, I get your point that changing only stuff about elemental KW, won't fix ALL immunity wonkiness.

---

Btw, we can also create placeholder keywords with the same names, but different id. Let's say "Poison" (#2) and add to Toxic Strike ability (instead of regular "Poison". This way player would understand that it is a poison ability, but it won't stop phys dmg from hitting.

8 hours ago, Elric Galad said:

3) Weapon swapping is part of the game. If a foe is immune to a particular weapon, it's not the end of the world (crushing the wheel might be, hear that, Eothas !). 

8 hours ago, Elric Galad said:

4) Having a weapon with an elemental KW but no elemental damages associated (at least partially) is weird.

Agreed)

 

P.S. The rest will answer later)

[MaxQuest]

On 9/2/2022 at 10:01 PM, Kaylon said:

In both situations I would expect to pick the most favorable damage type, ie pierce.

Giving all elemental weapons dual damage seems, for me too, the most logical choice in order to have a single clear rule. 

I am looking at this topic again.

And also at the enemies that are healed when taking Burn damage:

Right now, attaking a Greater Flame Blight with Firebrand would deal Pierce damage.

While, attacking a Naga or Fire Drake, would heal them.

Would you expect the same result/behaviour, or it's ok (as we can mouseover check their AR)?

[Kaylon]

Like I already said I expect to always do pierce damage... Personally I think weapons shouldn't magically pick the damage for the wielder. It is the wielder who should make a conscious choice and pick the best damage type based on the situation, which in these cases is pierce.  This behaviour is addressed by the game with an algorithm based just on the resistances. There could be a debate why some monster have 0 burn AR... It is to make absorption vs the element more effective or it's a conscious choice to make weapons with dual damage ineffective vs them? 

[Not So Clever Hound]

19 hours ago, MaxQuest said:

Would you expect the same result/behaviour, or it's ok (as we can mouseover check their AR)?

I would expect consistent behavior and I would agree with Kaylon. Also, although it affects a small minority of players, you wouldn't be able to check AR oddities with Wael's Challenge's on.

[MaxQuest]

4 hours ago, Kaylon said:

Like I already said I expect to always do pierce damage... Personally I think weapons shouldn't magically pick the damage for the wielder. It is the wielder who should make a conscious choice and pick the best damage type based on the situation, which in these cases is pierce.

This would require rising their Burn AR to be higher than their Pierce AR.

4 hours ago, Kaylon said:

There could be a debate why some monster have 0 burn AR... It is to make absorption vs the element more effective or it's a conscious choice to make weapons with dual damage ineffective vs them? 

Could be both

------

Combining the suggestions made in this thread, I am inclined to make the following changes:

• remove elemental-weapon keywords that were added in CP.Keywords 2.0
• give weapons that already have an elemental KW, phys/elem damage type as proposed by Noqn (and lower their PEN, if they had only 1 damage type before that)
• remove creature immunities vs elem keywords. And adjust their elem AR / immunity vs damage type accordingly.

Spoiler

Thoughts?

Edited January 12, 2023 by MaxQuest

[Elric Galad]

1 hour ago, MaxQuest said:

Combining the suggestions made in this thread, I am inclined to make the following changes:

• remove elemental-weapon keywords that were added in CP.Keywords 2.0
• give weapons that already have an elemental KW, phys/elem damage type as proposed by Noqn (and lower their PEN, if they had only 1 damage type before that)
• remove creature immunities vs elem keywords. And adjust their elem AR / immunity vs damage type accordingly.

  Reveal hidden contents

Thoughts?

Great. Seems simple and consistent.

[Opera]

I apologize for bumping this thread after 1 year, but I just found out that "CP: keywords" mod breaks bonus elemental damage on Sun and Moon's auto attacks. I have current version of the mod and after disabling it in the mod manager and restarting the game, bonus damage works fine.

@MaxQuest are there plans to implement the changes discussed above that would fix this problem ?