Immunity

[Aaron]

Mainly here to keep it out of the main forums.

Immunity should be immune, not part immune. If its not really immune, dont bother to call it immune. This isnt about wether it should stay in the game or not, go somewhere else for that, this is about fixing it.

First thing: Ixhalovh fireborns, fireborns are immune to fire. not just kinda fire resistant. theyre fire, you cant kill a fire by burning at it harder. ixhalovs -30 fire though makes fireborns take firedamage. is there anyway to fix it, such as having fireborns be +200% fire, or even a new imune tag?

Sleek katana, on a devours player: devours immune drain, sleek katana -100% drain. either devours arent immune to drain, but just highly resistnant, or something has to be done there too. maybe five the katana some other draw back like 5-10 fire damage per turn?

discuss

[Leaf]

Immunity should be immune, not part immune. If its not really immune, dont bother to call it immune.

I suspect that any reference to "immunity" is most likely a reminent of documentation that dates back to the "pre-Partial Resistance (PR) days."

What should it be called now?

A fireborn is ____________ to fire damage.

A.) Extremely resistant
B.) Protected
C.) Unphased
D.) Exempt
E.) Resilient
F.) "Something else"

[cavesomething]

a fireborn /starts off/ with 100% resistance to fire damage

this in itself I consider to be a bit too high, I would prefer 95% personally.

[poof]

Oh you just KNOWED I was going to have to get in this one. Admit it.

Fireborn ... are ,,, fire. It makes perfect sense that a Fireborn is 100% immune to ... fire. It would be silly to make a being that is ... made ... of ... fire ... take damage from fire attacks. If it bothers developers in general (cave* in specific ) that the Fireborn are 100% immune to fire then get rid of Fireborn completely. Causing a Fireborn to take fire damage will not make sense.

[cavesomething]

sure it will, just change the msg for the arch;

"whilst often appearing to be a sentient ball of fire, fireborn are actually very small flying creatures that constantly secrete flammable gas from pores in their skin. The fireborn are cold blooded, yet operate at a very high temperature, which is supplied by the heat caused when their gas secretions burn. Should a fireborn's fire ever go out, they would quickly freeze to death, this makes cold a constant threat to them. Fire is much less of a risk to them, they are afterall used to temperatures of hundreds of degrees, however very hot temperatures, such as those found within magical fires, can cause them to overheat, causing damage to the creature as its metabolism speeds up well beyond its normal level."

[poof]

Heh heh heh, I'll continue to play the player's advocate. Yes, you can successfully change what a Fireborn is by mucking with the description. Is that what we really want? To change the race from what it is to something else just so you can be satisfied in making Fireborn take fire damage? I am on record that the fact they do not take damage is perfectly fine with me. I have no problems with some characters having 100% immunity to some things. I also have no problem with Fireborn and Dragons being monks. That is perfectly reasonable to me. I do not think of these things as so called exploits, I think of them as ways to use those races to advance those characters. Not all creatues can do all things, fine, that makes sense. But that a Fireborn can survive in fire with impunity where no other race can is Good Stuff from my point of view as a player.

To clarify my position I have never played Fireborn and am not likely to as I already have more characters than I have time for now. I have no vested interest in Fireborn staying the way it is now or changing. I do play Dragon and do have a vested interest in changes to that race.

[cavesomething]

I have no problems with some characters having 100% immunity to some things. I also have no problem with Fireborn and Dragons being monks. That is perfectly reasonable to me. I do not think of these things as so called exploits, I think of them as ways to use those races to advance those characters.

Indeed, it is certainly the case that 100% poison resistance would be much less objectionable, fire is one of the more widely used attack types, and has some far too powerful spells (meteor swarm and comet).

As it stands right now, a meteor swarm spamming fireborn is almost invincible (not least because they will lag the server so much that no one else can act).

I'll point to the mailing list where casper has outlined a very different (and interesting) way to look at such balancing issues.

[Aaron]

care to point a bit better for those of us not on it? like a linky?

i like the flying magical creature thing better. although i think elementals are fun to play, but kinda scew the balance.

another point to bring up is, why are there so damned many firemaps? what abour lightning and icestorm? or poison? if you had to worry about poison more, then other things would seem like sploits. when was the last time you had to worry about a lightning storm? 500 times more deadly than fire, and not something you can protect against easily. something that could even kill a fireborn.

[cavesomething]

care to point a bit better for those of us not on it? like a linky?

try this.
http://shadowknight.real-time.com/piper ... 10099.html

another point to bring up is, why are there so damned many firemaps? what abour lightning and icestorm? or poison? if you had to worry about poison more, then other things would seem like sploits. when was the last time you had to worry about a lightning storm? 500 times more deadly than fire, and not something you can protect against easily. something that could even kill a fireborn.

The problem is that most lightning attacks are bounced back with reflect spells. I'm inclined to say it might be better to not have that as a permenent ability at all (or reflect arrows for that matter).

If it were desirable to keep a similar effect, you could have items that were +10 ac against arrows, or +10 ac against magic, etc (would require a little bit of jiggling of the stats, but it shouldn't be too bad).

Likewise you could have a short term spell, that would cast every spell that hits the player in the opposite direction to the one that it was moving in (but only lasting a short time). You would still take the damage, but you would have another copy of the spell (probably at MIN(casterlevel, spelllevel) bouncing back (imagine having 4 wizards in the same room cast that, and a burning hands hitting one of them....)