Partially-elemental attacks

[Tiburon Silverflame]

A standard format and consistent interpretation would probably make life simpler; don't have to worry if a Bite does physical and elemental while a Hit doesn't. Personally, I like separate damage ratings for the physical part and the elemental part. A fire elemental should practically be all fire, for example, while Huan is probably more physical than elemental, and Pazuzu's attack can be interpreted however one wants.

[Timo Pietilä]

Vargo is nothing.
The real winner is Pazuzu with IM_ELEC. He will be a lot tougher in melee with even 1/4 electric damage. Just what the Doctor ordered ... another reason to favor archery over melee.

I agree. I happened to have IM_ELEC when I killed Pazuzu in my comp game.

It did go like this: "Argh, there it is again, and faster than I, d*mn. Oh well, maybe I should try to kill it, it doesn't seem to have any distance attack I need to be afraid of with my immunities"....getting in melee-range..."hit, hit, hit, hit"..."No drop in HP???"..."Ah, I'm immune to his attacks" (very wide grin...).

[Pete Mack]

I took a look at the code in monster/melee1.c, and the only thing I can see that refers to the attack method is the message and whether or not the attack can stun or cut you. I certainly know that I was completely immune to Vargo's attacks when I had immunity to fire. That boss fight was...sad.

Vargo is nothing.
The real winner is Pazuzu with IM_ELEC. He will be a lot tougher in melee with even 1/4 electric damage. Just what the Doctor ordered ... another reason to favor archery over melee.

[Timo Pietilä]

I took a look at the code in monster/melee1.c, and the only thing I can see that refers to the attack method is the message and whether or not the attack can stun or cut you. I certainly know that I was completely immune to Vargo's attacks when I had immunity to fire. That boss fight was...sad.

You are right. I checked old source and I'm seeing the same, so I remember incorrectly.

[Derakon]

Doesn't apply to all forms of attacks. Monster that "touch to <add something here>" do not do any damage if you have immunity, but if it "Hits to <add that same here>" you get full damage, but not side-effects.

Hit to burn and touch to burn are different things. I think also bite and kick do deliver damage.

At least they used to.

I took a look at the code in monster/melee1.c, and the only thing I can see that refers to the attack method is the message and whether or not the attack can stun or cut you. I certainly know that I was completely immune to Vargo's attacks when I had immunity to fire. That boss fight was...sad.

[Ycombinator]

Actually, even great wyrms have unbranded claw attacks. However, that accounts for less than half their total melee output (2x claw at 4d12, 2x elemental bite at 6d14).

Yep. Even if their damage output increases twofold, one can still clean dragon pits easily with immunity.
I like this idea. It adds consistency to the game and doesn't affect gameplay too much.

[Timo Pietilä]

Current elemental melee attacks are "pure" element. For example, a "bite to burn" attack solely deals fire damage; thus, if the player is immune to fire, the attack does no damage.

Doesn't apply to all forms of attacks. Monster that "touch to <add something here>" do not do any damage if you have immunity, but if it "Hits to <add that same here>" you get full damage, but not side-effects.

Hit to burn and touch to burn are different things. I think also bite and kick do deliver damage.

At least they used to.

[Nick]

Indeed. Elemental melee attacks in DaJ are 3/4 elemental and 1/4 unresistable.

Yet again DaJ leads the way. Good work.

[will_asher]

I'm not sure, but I think DaJ already does something like this. It sounds familiar.

Indeed. Elemental melee attacks in DaJ are 3/4 elemental and 1/4 unresistable.

[buzzkill]

I'm not sure, but I think DaJ already does something like this. It sounds familiar.

[Derakon]

Actually, even great wyrms have unbranded claw attacks. However, that accounts for less than half their total melee output (2x claw at 4d12, 2x elemental bite at 6d14).

Melee attacks that blind, confuse, slow, paralyze, etc. can already have damage (example: grand master mystics have a paralyzing hit that does 15d1 damage), and to my knowledge that damage is not resistible even if you have the relevant resist -- though I wasn't able to find the relevant section of the code, so I could be wrong.

[miyazaki]

I like it too. I found it weird that in dragon pits, baby dragons (unbranded attacks) harm you more than great wyrms (branded attacks).

How about blindness/confusion/paralyze attacks?

[Nick]

I agree 100% with this proposal. Maybe 110%.

[Derakon]

Powerdiver: ahh, gotcha. That makes sense, I agree.

Zikke: it's not a matter of the attacks being broken; it's just weird, and one of those situations where I think realism and good gameplay actually align for once.

nullflame: if you have immunity to the dragons' breath weapons, then they're way less dangerous than they otherwise would be; they just have moderate melee attacks and a standard pile of hitpoints. You can stand in LOS of as many as you like and as long as only one can melee you you'll be fine. They're basically just upgraded troll pits at that point -- none of the elemental wyrms can even summon.

[nullfame]

I agree that this never made sense. It is a great wyrm, I'm sure the teeth are sharp and the jaw powerful.

OTOH, this makes clearing out a dragon pit unlikely and another thing to avoid. A classic realism v. gameplay conundrum.