Josh Sawyer's video on the "strength increases magical damage" debate

[FlintlockJazz]

"BILBO BAGGINS! DO NOT TAKE ME FOR SOME CONJURER OF CHEAP TRICKS!"

 

*Sparks fly from armpits*

Gives a completely different impression!

[Oneiromancer]

Abstract.

 

Basically this. Of course one might say that there is a point where a particular attribute influencing a specific action would be too "out there" no matter how abstract the attribute or action are. The (in)famous "muscle wizard" might be a funny archetype to play as but it's deep in the realm of "**** rules. The only rule we need is the rule of cool!"  which isn't necessarily fitting for a setting like PoE. Unless I'm horribly mistaken and it actually works like that even irl. That would explain why Chris Avellone writing is so good.

[Lephys]

 

Yeah, but, to be fair, it was more "endurance" than raw strength. I mean, Toph was a complete BAMF, even though she was what... 10? And she fought fully-adult Conan The Barbarian dudes who were about 18-times her size and had obviously trained their muscles to a much greater magnitude.

I got the impression it was more like 'internal-strength' that you get from something like Tai-Chi (NB: it refers to the use of the stabilizing muscles for movement (as opposed to vice-versa - I mean you still use the motivational muscles but just for quick burst of movement)- these muscles are smaller but stronger (pound for pound) than the motivational muscles - so you can look slighter of build but hit like a brick).

 

First off, I friggin' love The Last Airbender (but yeah, the live-action film was a bit lacking, and arbitrarily different -- "LET'S PRONOUNCE HIS NAME 'AHHNG!' 8D!").

 

But, yeah, I get that it's kinda like Tai-Chi. But, see, even THAT'S somewhat intangible energy. Bear in mind, I'm not claiming expert knowledge of the idea of Chi here or anything. I'm not making it a point that this is specifically how chi functions. I'm just saying that, when you boil it down, there's a difference between muscle strength and chi. Even in D&D rules, a Monk didn't just get a Strength rating of 50. Why? Because what fueled the power of his attacks wasn't directly caused by physical strength.

 

Plus, in most things (including The Last Airbender), SOME people can't use that energy. There were people who could bend, and people who couldn't, no matter how disciplined they were. Which further illustrates the idea that, while contributing to the access of intangible "magic" bending energies, physical strength and physical ability do not directly = bending energy.

 

That's kind of the point. If "Might" is an abstract, numerical value representing one's potency in all things, then you suddenly cannot be strong without being also ludicrously magically capable/potent. A good example is those huge Earth benders Toph fought against in the tournament. How would you rate them, with just Might? Toph, though admittedly quite strong and disciplined for her size, could not physically lift a large rock that one of those Conan-type guys could have. But, when you throw bending ("magic") in, she's 10-times more powerful than they are.

 

Another perfect example of "How do we rate this with Might?" is a Wizard in PoE without his grimoire (he's been captured, let's say, and all his things were taken, and he's in a cell). What does his magical potency count for now, without his grimoire to act as a conduit/focus? If he has 20 Might, and no grimoire, does that automatically mean he's one of the physically burliest people on the planet? Can he pick up a rock in the cell and simply beat the door lock/hinge until it's destroyed, and escape? OR, is he actually quite feeble when it comes to not-magic, and therefore has no hope of doing anything like that?

 

The two are not the same thing, as dictated by the system itself.

 

Again I'll say, however, that, if this is the case and there's just no distinction between them, and we never have anything even remotely resembling the locked-up-grimoireless-Wizard scenario in which it would actually be useful to check physical might rather than magical might (for example), then so be it. The game isn't ruined.

 

I for one just feel that, ideally, we could have situations such as that one (situations in which it's significant whether or not you are magically potent, or physically potent, or both) in a game like PoE. I mean, character distinction? That's kind of the heart of an RPG like this. But, yeah, they have their reasons for abstracting it, and it'll be fine, even though it's still a bit weird.

 

The gist of my point is just that there's an actual reason to have them separate, beyond "it's pleasant to my preferences." It doesn't mean there's no reason to merge them, or that anyone's wrong if they're okay with them being merged. I'm okay with them being merged, but would prefer them to be separate, because of the types of situations I'd prefer to have in the game that take advantage of the distinction/separation. But, I'd also prefer the game to have made 15 million in Kickstarter funding, and to be even grander than it already is. But, I'm hardly going to argue that it's somehow wrong of the game to only have a budget of 4.x million and be the size and scope that it is.

 

And lastly, @Silent Winter, I just want to say that I'm not so much arguing against you, directly (because I realize you were already suggesting a distinction between chi-like energy and just-plain-physical-strength), as much as I'm just emphasizing my point with the help of your words on the matter, as they brought up very useful analysis on the subject. (I didn't want you to read this and feel the need to clarify with "Well, I wasn't really saying that stuff wasn't, true," etc., 'cause I know you weren't, )

Edited February 11, 2014 by Lephys

[Silent Winter]

Plus, in most things (including The Last Airbender), SOME people can't use that energy. There were people who could bend, and people who couldn't, no matter how disciplined they were. Which further illustrates the idea that, while contributing to the access of intangible "magic" bending energies, physical strength and physical ability do not directly = bending energy.

 

That's kind of the point. If "Might" is an abstract, numerical value representing one's potency in all things, then you suddenly cannot be strong without being also ludicrously magically capable/potent.

maybe - or maybe only those who can do that become wizards - fighters just can't be wizard 'class'.  (though the reverse argument doesn't help and I take your point about how to distinguish between strength and magic that way though.

And lastly, @Silent Winter, I just want to say that I'm not so much arguing against you, directly (because I realize you were already suggesting a distinction between chi-like energy and just-plain-physical-strength), as much as I'm just emphasizing my point with the help of your words on the matter, as they brought up very useful analysis on the subject. (I didn't want you to read this and feel the need to clarify with "Well, I wasn't really saying that stuff wasn't, true," etc., 'cause I know you weren't, )

S'ok - I'm in agreement

Edited February 12, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Nonek]

Airbender, is this a euphenism for a bean conoisseur?

[rjshae]

Airbender, is this a euphenism for a bean conoisseur?

 

It does require a high protein diet....

[redneckdevil]

Instead of starting another thread ill post the question here since it seems relevant.

will there be bonuses to said mechanics to each different class?

What i mean is this, lets use might. We know it increases spell dmg and also weapon damage. Would say a fighter who has 14 might be doing the same spell damage and weapon damage as a wizard who jas 14 points might before talents/feats/etc?

Or will the fighter do more dmg with weapons then the wizard? Meaning before talents/feats/whatever the wizard would need like 18 or 20 points to match the same damage of the fighter?

 

If thats not clear enough ill give a wow example though it pains me to do so. Rogues and druids both benegit from agi in that game, but a rogue 1agi=1ap whereas a druid 1agi=2ap. Agility does the same for both classes, but one class gets a bonus to that stat over the others. So even though both classes could have the same amount of the same stat, its effecting one class signically morethan the other.

 

Would that be the same mentality here in PoE? Meaning that a fighter and wizard who has the same amount of might stat, one IS doing more weapon damage than the other and vice versa with spell damage. The stat is still increasing the wizards weapon damage, just noticebly more with the fighter though?

[Gfted1]

Instead of starting another thread ill post the question here since it seems relevant.

will there be bonuses to said mechanics to each different class?

What i mean is this, lets use might. We know it increases spell dmg and also weapon damage. Would say a fighter who has 14 might be doing the same spell damage and weapon damage as a wizard who jas 14 points might before talents/feats/etc?

Or will the fighter do more dmg with weapons then the wizard? Meaning before talents/feats/whatever the wizard would need like 18 or 20 points to match the same damage of the fighter?

 

If thats not clear enough ill give a wow example though it pains me to do so. Rogues and druids both benegit from agi in that game, but a rogue 1agi=1ap whereas a druid 1agi=2ap. Agility does the same for both classes, but one class gets a bonus to that stat over the others. So even though both classes could have the same amount of the same stat, its effecting one class signically morethan the other.

 

Would that be the same mentality here in PoE? Meaning that a fighter and wizard who has the same amount of might stat, one IS doing more weapon damage than the other and vice versa with spell damage. The stat is still increasing the wizards weapon damage, just noticebly more with the fighter though?

 

 

Theres a chart floating around here somewhere and iirc, the Might bonus is a flat percentage damage increase and weapons / spells have their own damage table. Meaning, lets say a longsword does 1d6 damage. You would roll to see if you miss/graze/hit/crit, then roll the weapon damage (?), then add the Might bonus. Same for spells.

 

This could also be completely wrong.

[redneckdevil]

Mmm i like that theres a flat increase in the stats in a way. That way u can build different effective builds. And ill say this and it will sound contradictory is that i do hope that classes receives bonuses to certain areas with said stats. Meaning a fighter with points into might get a bonus percentage to a certain area that the stat deals with. This way a fighter and wizard with the same stat in might will see a difference in the dmg they are putting out with different abilities. Meaning the fighter and wizard arent dishing out the same dmg right outta the box in weapons and dmg BEFORE traits/feats/what have u are selected. If that amkes any sense.

[Silent Winter]

Theres a chart floating around here somewhere and iirc, the Might bonus is a flat percentage damage increase and weapons / spells have their own damage table. Meaning, lets say a longsword does 1d6 damage. You would roll to see if you miss/graze/hit/crit, then roll the weapon damage (?), then add the Might bonus. Same for spells.

 

This could also be completely wrong.

 

I thought there was going to be one attack roll that resolves hit/miss etc and damage. (simplifying the whole rolls part and using a 100 sided die for more range or something).

(NB: 100-sided die used but numbes made up by me) So roll a 1-15=miss (no damage, obviously), roll a 16-40=graze=lower damage, roll41-81=hit=normal damage, roll82-100=crit=high damage.

I could also be completely wrong.

 

I also read that fighters get a bonus to weapons (melee at least, probably ranged too) so they'll be dealing more damage than a wizard in melee.  But not sure where the bonus is applied.  Wizards get a similar bonus to magical damage (or maybe they're the only ones who can use a grimoire anyway - I'm less sure on this)

[Lephys]

I thought there was going to be one attack roll that resolves hit/miss etc and damage. (simplifying the whole rolls part and using a 100 sided die for more range or something).

(NB: 100-sided die used but numbes made up by me) So roll a 1-15=miss (no damage, obviously), roll a 16-40=graze=lower damage, roll41-81=hit=normal damage, roll82-100=crit=high damage.

I could also be completely wrong.

There is, but, unless they've changed it and haven't told us yet, there's going to be a damage range for many attacks. Not too long ago, Josh commented on that specifically, in relation to the attack resolution's affect on damage (half or 1.5x, with graze/crit, respectively). He was saying that the ranges won't be as vast as 2-16 and stuff like we see in D&D, because, he doesn't want you to crit on the attack resolution, but roll a 2 for damage, and end up doing 3 damage on a critical hit, then roll a graze on the NEXT hit, but roll 16 for your damage, and deal 8 damage. Your graze was almost 3X as effective as your crit! 8D

 

So, yeah, there will be a damage "roll." 

 

(Oh, and just for informational purposes, I believe the default ranges are still 01-05: Miss -- 06-50: Graze -- 51-95: Hit -- 96-100: Critical)

 

I also read that fighters get a bonus to weapons (melee at least, probably ranged too) so they'll be dealing more damage than a wizard in melee.  But not sure where the bonus is applied.  Wizards get a similar bonus to magical damage (or maybe they're the only ones who can use a grimoire anyway - I'm less sure on this)

Fighters get an accuracy bonus with melee weapons (they're supposed to be inherently better-trained with them, etc., and thus more capable of using them properly). Then, there'll probably be feats and/or proficiency-type representations that we can build up as we progress.

 

To my knowledge, there aren't any class-based passive bonuses to overall damage from certain attacks (melee for Fighter or magic for Wizard, as per your bit above), but there could be, I suppose.

 

However, in relation to the whole "why is Might all-encompassing?" thing, these class-based bonuses wouldn't really help much, since they would just make all Class X characters really buff but magically impotent, and all Class Y characters really magically potent but physically feeble. Which, the ability to make a non-feeble Wizard, for example (who, in that class-based bonuses system would basically always be feebler than other classes), is kind of the heart of the matter, here. It's what we're "losing" in the transition from the IE games (D&D rules) and PoE's own, unique IP ruleset (that's inspired by the previous ones).

 

In D&D, you could make a Wizard who had good damage with melee weapons (without ever making melee weapons a superior option to your spells), or a Wizard who was feeble and had crappy melee damage/capability (accuracy and such). Either way, he was still a Wizard, and still cast spells (according to your INT), but, both Wizards could have the exact same INT value, and be just as equally magically capable. Even then, a Fighter got inherently greater capabilities (like Fighter-only feats and abilities) that made him pretty much always better with melee weapons than just about any Wizard (definitely after a few levels, if not at Level 1), even if he didn't have the same Strength.

 

Plus, all the stuff Strength affected outside of combat in D&D. There were a lot of situations that called for Strength checks, and it didn't care who your character was or what class they were. It cared whether or not they were strong enough to complete a given task/action. With Might, having those same checks would be like D&D checking Strength AND Intelligence for the exact same things. "Your INT is 18. You headbutt the guard when he gets too close to you, and it's so forceful of a headbutt, he loses consciousness and probably has a concussion. Now you can crawl over to him and retrieve the key. Good job!"

 

So, yeah, I'm not feeling class bonuses to provide physical/magic potency distinction. Because, then all those stat-check opportunities are just going to turn into class-check ones. "Oh, you have maximum Might, but you're a Wizard? Well, you're too weak to do this. You're a Fighter? Awesome! Max Might + your Fighter bonus that makes you burlier than you are magically potent = success!"

 

Or we might just not have Strength checks of old. Which would be really sad, given that we've got something in PoE that the IE games didn't really have: a plethora of scripted interactions as distinct from dialogue and the like. But, oh well. If we've got Might, we've got Might. The game will still rock.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Lephys

[Silent Winter]

Fighters get an accuracy bonus with melee weapons (they're supposed to be inherently better-trained with them, etc., and thus more capable of using them properly). Then, there'll probably be feats and/or proficiency-type representations that we can build up as we progress.

To my knowledge, there aren't any class-based passive bonuses to overall damage from certain attacks (melee for Fighter or magic for Wizard, as per your bit above), but there could be, I suppose.

Ah, that's where my wires were crossed (and on the damage roll - it's just a damage roll between higher/lower values now with less range on the damage dice) - cheers.

[redneckdevil]

Ill go ahead and state atm im not to keen on a stat that governs damage thru all sourses (melee and magic). Just cant bring myself to like the idea that if i can do alot kf damage thru magical means that same token i can do alot of damage thru melee means as well.

guess its just hard to throw off the old clerics are wise, wizards are intelligent, rogues are agile, and fighters are syrong mentality.

 

But im gonna give them the benefit of the doubt. Ill try it out and see how it feels and if not, then gigure out how to mod the stats in what i would feel is best for my personal game.

[khalil]

I'm just going to say this: while it is ok to not support all character ideas, one should consider what people will want to do.

Mage who dumped str and still can use spells effectively is going to be fairly standard, and people will be unhappy if they can't do that.

Now, I'm stuck using a goofy muscle wizard, so when my wizard is chained up and his spellbook is taken away, he gets to rip the chains as though they were paper and punch his captors into submission. Funny, but also stupid.

[Tamerlane]

But you can dump strength and use spells effectively?

[Lephys]

I'm just going to say this: while it is ok to not support all character ideas, one should consider what people will want to do.

But... that's really two separate things. One, you should consider what it is your targeted player base will want to do (the spectrum of all the popular enough desires that are feasible at all). Then, you have to consider how to support all character ideas that you're offering as interchangeable choices. We're talking general here. Not "I want to dump STR, but then melee fight everyone as a Wizard! 8D! YOU WON'T LET ME DO THAT FEASIBLY!" or anything nonsensical like that.

 

Mage who dumped str and still can use spells effectively is going to be fairly standard, and people will be unhappy if they can't do that.

Now, I'm stuck using a goofy muscle wizard, so when my wizard is chained up and his spellbook is taken away, he gets to rip the chains as though they were paper and punch his captors into submission. Funny, but also stupid.

The thing is... they're already offering muscle wizards. Meaning, if there's ANY feat of strength to ever perform in the entire game, then your Wizard with 20 Might is going to overcome it just like your Fighter with 20 Might. If your Wizard ONLY overcomes that check with soul-magic power, because he's a magic person, then your Wizard who's allowed to bash things really hard with melee weapons and such is never allowed to use his strength for anything else, ever. And if you let him use his physical strength instead of magical power to pass Might checks and the like, then you're still preventing anyone from ever making a physically-weak-yet-magically-potent Wizard. Likewise, if any "non-magical" class has 20 Might, they automatically are uber-powerful if they're ever allowed to do anything magical, ever.

 

Btw, a muscle Wizard who just gets to rip chains in half and tear captors apart with his bare hands is just as ridiculous as a muscle anyone who can do that. So, that doesn't really say anything about muscle Wizard builds, as much as it comments on where to draw the line in terms of the function of Strength checks in the game, whoever's using them.

 

The example I gave was that, as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson instead of Scrawny Steven, there are situations you'd find yourself in, feasibly, in which that abundance of Strength would produce significantly different options/results than a lack-thereof. Just like in PnP games. Strength is a property of your character. Not just some combat damage bonus. Grappling... climbing, jumping, carrying things, breaking stuff, knocking people out instead of just pissing them off when you punch them in the head, etc. They've got all these scripted interactions going on in this game, specifically to have a lot more of that not-just-combat aspect of stats, a la PnP games.

 

I don't really understand why any mention of a Wizard being able to perform physical feats as well as magic ones, to varying degrees of capacity, keeps being treated as some kind of ludicrous or irrelevant potentiality.

[khalil]

I don't really understand why any mention of a Wizard being able to perform physical feats as well as magic ones, to varying degrees of capacity, keeps being treated as some kind of ludicrous or irrelevant potentiality.

Because making a wizard good at one makes him automatically good at the other. It's not that a muscle wizard is stupid, it's the fact that if I want a wizard who kills things with magic he has to be a muscle wizard. I'm not saying that I don't want to be all FACE THE POWER OF MY MAGIC MISSILE HOAK HOGAN! SKRONK!, just that I find it stupid that if I want to do damage via magic that's my only option.

[tajerio]

 

I don't really understand why any mention of a Wizard being able to perform physical feats as well as magic ones, to varying degrees of capacity, keeps being treated as some kind of ludicrous or irrelevant potentiality.

Because making a wizard good at one makes him automatically good at the other. It's not that a muscle wizard is stupid, it's the fact that if I want a wizard who kills things with magic he has to be a muscle wizard. I'm not saying that I don't want to be all FACE THE POWER OF MY MAGIC MISSILE HOAK HOGAN! SKRONK!, just that I find it stupid that if I want to do damage via magic that's my only option.

 

 

That's not really entirely true, though.  If you want to make a wizard who has the highest raw damage when he hits normally, then you pump might.  But pumping intellect will increase AoE size and make your DOTs last longer, while increasing dexterity will make you hit more often and shift you towards more critical hits.  Those are both viable directions to go to increase damage without increasing "the damage stat."

[Valorian]

 

 

I don't really understand why any mention of a Wizard being able to perform physical feats as well as magic ones, to varying degrees of capacity, keeps being treated as some kind of ludicrous or irrelevant potentiality.

Because making a wizard good at one makes him automatically good at the other. It's not that a muscle wizard is stupid, it's the fact that if I want a wizard who kills things with magic he has to be a muscle wizard. I'm not saying that I don't want to be all FACE THE POWER OF MY MAGIC MISSILE HOAK HOGAN! SKRONK!, just that I find it stupid that if I want to do damage via magic that's my only option.

 

 

That's not really entirely true, though.  If you want to make a wizard who has the highest raw damage when he hits normally, then you pump might.  But pumping intellect will increase AoE size and make your DOTs last longer, while increasing dexterity will make you hit more often and shift you towards more critical hits.  Those are both viable directions to go to increase damage without increasing "the damage stat."

 

It is true, what he said is correct: "if I want a wizard who kills things with magic he has to be a muscle wizard" (if he wants to augment the wizard's killing potential he has to raise might, and dexterity, I'll add). So you need a dexterous muscle wizard for optimal killing potential... with magic.

[tajerio]

It is true, what he said is correct: "if I want a wizard who kills things with magic he has to be a muscle wizard" (if he wants to augment the wizard's killing potential he has to raise might, and dexterity, I'll add). So you need a dexterous muscle wizard for optimal killing potential... with magic.

 

"Optimal killing potential" and "a wizard who kills things with magic" aren't the same thing.  We also don't know enough about how the system will actually work to say that optimal killing potential will be the result of high dex and high might.  Could be that he's great in mano-a-mano combat, and absolutely stinks if he's got to take on more than one enemy, or that he's rubbish against bosses because he hasn't got interrupt or penetration or what have you.

[anameforobsidian]

Might is not the same thing as strength.  I assume it means strength of soul.

[Silent Winter]

I guess, in PoE world, it takes 'strength' to create 'flash in the pan' higher damage magic (though we don't know how much higher yet) but it takes concentration/willpower to control that magic to spread in a certain area or to last longer.

The thing is - both might-based and intellect-based (and dex-based or whatever the stat is) wizards can 'kill things with magic' - the might-based wizard just has higher damage in a short time in a small area, whereas the intellect-based wizard does more/the same damage over time to a larger group of enemies, with one spell.

And as Tajero said, there's also the interrupt/penetration/whatver aspect.

 

It won't be a 'High-ThisStat' wizard is 'best' - it's now a strategic choice based on play-style.

Your non-'mighty' wizard is actually behaving more intellectually by controlling their magic rather than shooting it off in a powerful burst.

[Valorian]

 

It is true, what he said is correct: "if I want a wizard who kills things with magic he has to be a muscle wizard" (if he wants to augment the wizard's killing potential he has to raise might, and dexterity, I'll add). So you need a dexterous muscle wizard for optimal killing potential... with magic.

 

"Optimal killing potential" and "a wizard who kills things with magic" aren't the same thing.  We also don't know enough about how the system will actually work to say that optimal killing potential will be the result of high dex and high might.  Could be that he's great in mano-a-mano combat, and absolutely stinks if he's got to take on more than one enemy, or that he's rubbish against bosses because he hasn't got interrupt or penetration or what have you.

 

 

Putting nitpicking aside for a moment will probably let you grasp the meaning of what people say. He clearly meant a wizard who's good at killing things.

 

We have enough information about what attributes do. Might increases damage directly, dexterity increases accuracy . These are the two attributes that you'd want to raise if you wish to deal more damage with a specific character and consequently kill things faster.

[tajerio]

 

 

It is true, what he said is correct: "if I want a wizard who kills things with magic he has to be a muscle wizard" (if he wants to augment the wizard's killing potential he has to raise might, and dexterity, I'll add). So you need a dexterous muscle wizard for optimal killing potential... with magic.

 

"Optimal killing potential" and "a wizard who kills things with magic" aren't the same thing.  We also don't know enough about how the system will actually work to say that optimal killing potential will be the result of high dex and high might.  Could be that he's great in mano-a-mano combat, and absolutely stinks if he's got to take on more than one enemy, or that he's rubbish against bosses because he hasn't got interrupt or penetration or what have you.

 

 

Putting nitpicking aside for a moment will probably let you grasp the meaning of what people say. He clearly meant a wizard who's good at killing things.

 

We have enough information about what attributes do. Might increases damage directly, dexterity increases accuracy . These are the two attributes that you'd want to raise if you wish to deal more damage with a specific character and consequently kill things faster.

 

 

I don't think I'm nitpicking at all.  Intellect makes effects last longer and increases AoE size.  That, to me, would seem to increase damage.  

[khalil]

 

 

 

It is true, what he said is correct: "if I want a wizard who kills things with magic he has to be a muscle wizard" (if he wants to augment the wizard's killing potential he has to raise might, and dexterity, I'll add). So you need a dexterous muscle wizard for optimal killing potential... with magic.

 

"Optimal killing potential" and "a wizard who kills things with magic" aren't the same thing.  We also don't know enough about how the system will actually work to say that optimal killing potential will be the result of high dex and high might.  Could be that he's great in mano-a-mano combat, and absolutely stinks if he's got to take on more than one enemy, or that he's rubbish against bosses because he hasn't got interrupt or penetration or what have you.

 

 

Putting nitpicking aside for a moment will probably let you grasp the meaning of what people say. He clearly meant a wizard who's good at killing things.

 

We have enough information about what attributes do. Might increases damage directly, dexterity increases accuracy . These are the two attributes that you'd want to raise if you wish to deal more damage with a specific character and consequently kill things faster.

 

 

I don't think I'm nitpicking at all.  Intellect makes effects last longer and increases AoE size.  That, to me, would seem to increase damage.

 

It doesn't increase damage, it just does damage to more things.