Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some do, some don't. When looking at the journal, a fair number of status ailments will tell you what they suppress (e.g. stunned says it overrides prone and stuck, I think) so that's one of the easy ways to tell what will be suppressed.

 

In general, the most severe ailment in the same family will suppress the lesser afflictions, so petrified suppresses all lesser movement afflictions, terrified suppresses frightened, dominate suppresses charmed and weakened (I think) suppresses sickened. So if you mix and match these families, they shouldn't suppress one another (e.g. an enemy can be both petrified and weakened at the same time, with neither suppressing one another).

 

Further I think spell debuffs also stack with all of these, so spell effects that lower deflection will stack with other status lowering ailments (not so sure if that also applies to flanked seeing as it just lowers deflection, but it's a good rule of thumb).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What always stacks are debuffs that lower a certain defense plus another debuff that lowers a certain stat directly (which also lowers a defense indirectly). Let's say there's a spell which lowers deflection by 10. When you cast some other spell which lowers RES by 6 those two will stack and the deflection of the target will get debuffed by 16.

 

Also, the blind affliction seems to stack with a lot of other afflictions.

 

A graphic of afflictions surpressing each other would be nice...

Edited by Boeroer

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm..

 

For example: enemy is Stunned, he has -30 def/ref and -4 Per/Int/Dex. If he is paralysed after that he gets -40 def/ref and -100 Dex. But do -4 Per/Int effects stay or the buff gets suppressed as a whole?

 

Another example: if our given enemy is terrified and blind (diferrent 'categories') what his accuracy penalty will be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example: enemy is Stunned, he has -30 def/ref and -4 Per/Int/Dex. If he is paralysed after that he gets -40 def/ref and -100 Dex. But do -4 Per/Int effects stay or the buff gets suppressed as a whole?

No, the entire effect is suppressed. No drop to Per/Dex/Int from blind while stun is in play.

 

Another example: if our given enemy is terrified and blind (diferrent 'categories') what his accuracy penalty will be?

-49, -29 from blind (factoring in the perception drop) then -20 from terrified. Stacking up these debuffs is a pretty effective way to avoid harm, even if your defences aren't stellar.

Edited by Jojobobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be hard to figure out, using the console minimise your Might, give yourself absurd Intellect, give yourself all the Rogue Strikes, Knock Down, Interdiction/Painful Interdiction, Binding Roots and Threatening Presence and have yourself a ball on Sparfel using your fists to keep the damage double low. Paralysis Scrolls and Gaze of the Adragan traps can also be used to determine their effects.

 

I would do, but I'm too lazy.

Edited by Jojobobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware all Afflictions function just like any other active effect: the strongest penalty counts, they don't stack in any way (plus the explicit suppression thing of for example petrified > paralyzed > stunned, etc.). For example, I just tested Repulsive Visage plus Blindness, looking at Accuracy. The target enemy had 30 Accuracy, which dropped to 9 after Repulsive Visage (Sickened: -1 PER; Terrified: -20 ACC). Adding Blindness then dropped Accuracy to 1 (Blinded: -25 ACC, -4 PER), so the two penalties from the Blindness superceded the existing ones rather than stacking with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember blind stacking with fear effects, I'd need to double check which it's too late in the evening for me to bother with right now but I'll give it a shot in the morning so long as someone doesn't pip me to it.

 

Could be that I'm spreading horrible misinformation as per usual  :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blind + Terrified didn't in my test, so I would expect the same for Blind + Frightened (or any other combination of afflictions). It does make the most sense as well I think, it's just applying the standard "active effects don't stack" rule. 

 

It may well be that at some point in the past they did stack, though. I recall people being surprised a while ago by Sickened and Weakened not stacking for a big(ger) Fortitude debuff; apparantly those did stack in the past as well. 

 

And in fact, them having stacked originally also fits with the whole "Terrified overrides Frightened" thing, and similar affliction hierarchies. Those hierarchical afflictions pretty much affect the same stats, but to increasingly large degrees; under "actives don't stack" rules there would have been no real need to make mention of this (and implement it explicitly like that) since the overriding/suppressing would be automatic. Which further suggests that originally the "actives don't stack" rule didn't apply to afflictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blind + Terrified didn't in my test, so I would expect the same for Blind + Frightened (or any other combination of afflictions). It does make the most sense as well I think, it's just applying the standard "active effects don't stack" rule. 

 

It may well be that at some point in the past they did stack, though. I recall people being surprised a while ago by Sickened and Weakened not stacking for a big(ger) Fortitude debuff; apparantly those did stack in the past as well. 

 

And in fact, them having stacked originally also fits with the whole "Terrified overrides Frightened" thing, and similar affliction hierarchies. Those hierarchical afflictions pretty much affect the same stats, but to increasingly large degrees; under "actives don't stack" rules there would have been no real need to make mention of this (and implement it explicitly like that) since the overriding/suppressing would be automatic. Which further suggests that originally the "actives don't stack" rule didn't apply to afflictions.

 

So is it fair to say then that the "label" affliction attaching to a particular spell or effect doesn't really have any intrinsic benefit other than to proc "x" afflictions on character effects? (e.g. sneak attack)

 

Debuffs would therefore just follow the same principle as suppression, which makes sense I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhhhhhhh *headdesk*

 

Testing got a bit befuddling for a second there, as it turns out Barbs of Condemnation stack with everything, that threw me for a bit (it gives a single -5 to the 'All Defenses' stat, rather than four times -5 to Fort, Will, etc.). Anyway, other than that it does seem quite consistent: penalties from drugs, afflictions, spells, of everything I tested so far they all do the expected suppression. Only exception other than Barbs is Flanked, which for some unknown reason stacks with everything as well. So yeah, generally speaking afflictions basically just function as bundles of "active/modal" type debuffs (for example, Prone and Reckless Assault don't stack either), other than for effects and abilities that explicitly depend on a character having a particular affliction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to stack buffs or debuffs on some stat, you should use spells/abilities that target the stat itself + the ones that target the group of stats it belongs to (as a single effect).

I know only two groups that can be targeted as a whole - 'all defenses' and 'all DR'. Maybe there's some effect that targets 'all attributes' but I haven't seen it.

Edited by Arddv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd say so, that does give you a lot of bang for your buck. I think of the non-disabling/mind altering afflictions you can roughly divide them into these categories, with afflictions from different categories being reasonably non-overlapping and per category roughly on descending order of strength (and those separated by / being roughly equivalent):

- Blinded, Stuck/Terrified, Frightened/Dazed, Hobbled (Accuracy / Deflection / Reflex / mobility debuff)

- Weakened, Sickened (Will / Fortitude debuff)

- Distracted, Disoriented (All Defenses debuff, like Barbs of Condemnation will stack with individual Defense debuffs)

- Flanked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to stack buffs or debuffs on some stat, you should use spells/abilities that target the stat itself + the ones that target the group of stats it belongs to (as a single effect).

I know only two groups that can be targeted as a whole - 'all defenses' and 'all DR'. Maybe there's some effect that targets 'all attributes' but I haven't seen it.

 

There isn't a ModifiedStat for  "all attributes", so that won't be possible. There is an "all defenses except deflection" though, which would also stack, but I'm not sure that's ever used on active effects (stuff like Faith and Conviction uses it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, those stack, since they affect different internal stats (ModifiedStat.Accuracy and ModifiedStat.MeleeAccuracy). You have one for Ranged as well, of course. Actually, there's also another one, ModifiedStat.MeleeWeaponAccuracy (and same for Ranged), those would stack as well. Would have to check which effects affect which version though, they have the same display name so no way to tell from the in-game descriptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blind + Terrified didn't in my test, so I would expect the same for Blind + Frightened (or any other combination of afflictions). It does make the most sense as well I think, it's just applying the standard "active effects don't stack" rule. 

 

It may well be that at some point in the past they did stack, though. I recall people being surprised a while ago by Sickened and Weakened not stacking for a big(ger) Fortitude debuff; apparantly those did stack in the past as well. 

 

And in fact, them having stacked originally also fits with the whole "Terrified overrides Frightened" thing, and similar affliction hierarchies. Those hierarchical afflictions pretty much affect the same stats, but to increasingly large degrees; under "actives don't stack" rules there would have been no real need to make mention of this (and implement it explicitly like that) since the overriding/suppressing would be automatic. Which further suggests that originally the "actives don't stack" rule didn't apply to afflictions.

Now that I've had a chance to test it, you're correct. Quite possibly it might of been an older version of the game, or maybe it's just that as the effect doesn't say "suppressed" on the enemy I assume both were applying their full effect. Me, and my filthy filthy lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the corollary of the "all defences" thing true for buffs?

 

So for instance, let's say a priest uses circle of defence (+15 all defenses) and that's mixed with another spell from a different source (+10 Fort/Will), will the characters get +25 Fort, +25 Will, +15 Reflex and +15 Deflection?

 

Also, I can never remember, but are Chanter buffs considered passive and stack with everything regardless of whether there's another effect providing the same bonus?

 

I get confused about modals too – for instance, Cautious attack seems to get suppressed by various things too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll check tonight to be sure, but Circle of Defense should indeed stack. Those in-game effect descriptions are almost all generated automatically, so if CoD was four separate buffs it should actually list them separately as well.

 

For the rest, chants and modals like Cautious Attack all fall into the active/modal category, so will suppress/be suppressed by other active/modal effects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll check tonight to be sure, but Circle of Defense should indeed stack. Those in-game effect descriptions are almost all generated automatically, so if CoD was four separate buffs it should actually list them separately as well.

 

For the rest, chants and modals like Cautious Attack all fall into the active/modal category, so will suppress/be suppressed by other active/modal effects. 

Thanks - your dedication to understanding the Pillars engine is admirable.

 

Seems to me to be all the more reason to play an offensive Chanter then if you've got someone else in the Party that can buff those things (e.g. holy meditation, shields for the faithful).

 

On another note – devotions for the Faithful and Eldritch Aim. My understanding is that these two don't stack, even though the accuracy bonus from devotions is listed as ranged accuracy and different from the "general" accuracy bonus provided by Eldritch aim.

 

I think it would be fair that modal effects shouldn't get suppressed by spells but what do I know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...