damage types

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:42:34 +0200, "jeroen" <neperdenep@nep.np> wrote
in Message-ID <10nlu2ln1hcdk2a@corp.supernews.com>:

> but if this same bow has extra dmg type like slashin and blodgoin, does that
> mean it will ignore the so called piercin resist from enemies , or does the
> bow do more dmg?

Unfortunately, it's usually not beneficial to add extra damage types
to a weapon. For example, with a bow, normally only piercing DR
blocks damage. But if you add bludgeoning extra damage type, then
bludgeoning and piercing will block the damage. It doesn't give any
extra damage.

--
=''' Lord Alexander
c-OO Bastions of War Team PvP Arena
\ http://www.bastionsofwar.com
- Alec Usticke - alec@usticke.org

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

Alec Usticke <alec@usticke.org> wrote in message news:<2qjon0dh6p12pdmaf5a9ubcmvr19uq0hm0@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:42:34 +0200, "jeroen" <neperdenep@nep.np> wrote
> in Message-ID <10nlu2ln1hcdk2a@corp.supernews.com>:
>
> > but if this same bow has extra dmg type like slashin and blodgoin,
> > does that mean it will ignore the so called piercin resist from
> > enemies , or does the bow do more dmg?
>
> Unfortunately, it's usually not beneficial to add extra damage types
> to a weapon. For example, with a bow, normally only piercing DR
> blocks damage. But if you add bludgeoning extra damage type, then
> bludgeoning and piercing will block the damage. It doesn't give any
> extra damage.


Are you sure about this? What you are saying means that the
morningstar (piercing and bludgeoning) is the most easily blocked
weapon, and there is no advantage to using one. What the developers
are likely trying to model is that the weapon IRL produces two kinds
of damage, and you get the benefit of the most appropriate (beneficial
to the attacker.)


MadKaugh

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

Randy Kerchmar wrote:

>> Unfortunately, it's usually not beneficial to add extra damage types
>> to a weapon. For example, with a bow, normally only piercing DR
>> blocks damage. But if you add bludgeoning extra damage type, then
>> bludgeoning and piercing will block the damage. It doesn't give any
>> extra damage.
>
>
> Are you sure about this? What you are saying means that the
> morningstar (piercing and bludgeoning) is the most easily blocked
> weapon, and there is no advantage to using one. What the developers
> are likely trying to model is that the weapon IRL produces two kinds
> of damage, and you get the benefit of the most appropriate (beneficial
> to the attacker.)

Yes, he is right. Look at weapons with piercing *and* slashing damage like
longswords, they are blocked with items which gives resistance to any of the
damage types - e.g. if you attack an opponent wearing an Archers Belt
(damage reduction vs. piercing) which such a weapon, *every* hit will cause
less damage. OTOH, NWN morningstars only deal out bludgeoning damage.

Hans

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

"Hans Wein" <hwein_nospam_@gmx.net> schreef in bericht
news:clld14$gg5$00$2@news.t-online.com...
> Randy Kerchmar wrote:
>
>>> Unfortunately, it's usually not beneficial to add extra damage types
>>> to a weapon. For example, with a bow, normally only piercing DR
>>> blocks damage. But if you add bludgeoning extra damage type, then
>>> bludgeoning and piercing will block the damage. It doesn't give any
>>> extra damage.
>>
>>
>> Are you sure about this? What you are saying means that the
>> morningstar (piercing and bludgeoning) is the most easily blocked
>> weapon, and there is no advantage to using one. What the developers
>> are likely trying to model is that the weapon IRL produces two kinds
>> of damage, and you get the benefit of the most appropriate (beneficial
>> to the attacker.)
>
> Yes, he is right. Look at weapons with piercing *and* slashing damage like
> longswords, they are blocked with items which gives resistance to any of
> the
> damage types - e.g. if you attack an opponent wearing an Archers Belt
> (damage reduction vs. piercing) which such a weapon, *every* hit will
> cause
> less damage. OTOH, NWN morningstars only deal out bludgeoning damage.
>
> Hans


So, my conclusion here is, if a weapon has two or more type dmg, it make
the weapon LESS usefull . because there now more creatures out there who are
resist to your weapon or even immum. ...

thats kinda suks, but good to know...

jeroen.

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:42:18 +0200, "Hans Wein" <hwein_nospam_@gmx.net>
wrote:

>
>Yes, he is right. Look at weapons with piercing *and* slashing damage like
>longswords, they are blocked with items which gives resistance to any of the
>damage types - e.g. if you attack an opponent wearing an Archers Belt
>(damage reduction vs. piercing) which such a weapon, *every* hit will cause
>less damage.

That's nuts! Was it really that hard to get the p&p rules right in this
instance?


--
Hong Ooi | "I like snowballs."
hong@zipworld.com.au | -- CA
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Sydney, Australia |

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

Hong Ooi wrote:

>> Yes, he is right. Look at weapons with piercing *and* slashing
>> damage like longswords, they are blocked with items which gives
>> resistance to any of the damage types - e.g. if you attack an
>> opponent wearing an Archers Belt (damage reduction vs. piercing)
>> which such a weapon, *every* hit will cause less damage.
>
> That's nuts! Was it really that hard to get the p&p rules right in
> this instance?

This is a good question. I can't imagine why it should be impossible,
because the engine already generates different attack animations - watch a
character using a longsword, some of the blows are swinging-slashing, the
other looks like a typical move with a short sword in the hand. Maybe it's
just Bioware's philosophy ;-)

Hans

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

Hans Wein wrote:

> Yes, he is right. Look at weapons with piercing *and*
> slashing damage like longswords, they are blocked with
> items which gives resistance to any of the damage types
> - e.g. if you attack an opponent wearing an Archers Belt
> (damage reduction vs. piercing) which such a weapon,
> *every* hit will cause less damage. OTOH, NWN morningstars
> only deal out bludgeoning damage.
>
> Hans

By analogy, if you are hit with a weapon or spell that has a magic
attack that you are resistant to, then you should be able to resist the
mechanical damage as well, since you resisted the weapon.
Or if you are hit with a weapon or spell with two magic attacks and you
are resistant to one, then you should shrug off the whole thing.
In other words, either resistance to cold or resistance to bludgeoning
would protect you from all of the effects of a hailstorm spell. Or
elves' sleep immunity means that elves cannot be harmed in any way by a
weapon that causes sleep. This just seems so wrong.

OTOH, a poison arrow should not do poison damage unless it penetrates,
so piercing resistance should defeat the poison as well.
So sometimes the one resistance defeates the weapon approach makes
sense.

Separate issue; only going by the game manual and the text
descriptions, which might be incorrect, the longsword does slashing,
the morningstar does piercing and bludgeoning. Are you saying in the
game data it is different?

Madkaugh

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

John Salerno wrote:

> (However, the other
> point about how the engine seems to show different attack
> types with weapons suggests that there are various ways to
> use the same weapon, meaning a weapon with piercing and
> bludgeoning can be wielded two different ways to get either
> effect. I guess that's what people don't like.

The NWN game engine only allows one type of wield, even on weapons that
clearly call for more - double weapons and bastard swords. Nor is there
any provision in NWN for using the flat of a sword. Multiple damage
types from a single weapon are more on the order of spikes doing
piercing damage while the weight of the weapon does bludgeon damage.


> Whereas a weapon with two different damage types would need
> to actually produce both types of damage to score a hit, so
> resistance to one blocks the entire hit.

You are saying that the weapon with two damage modes is like the poison
arrow being blocked, not like the elf being hit by the sleep sword. It
is not intuitive to me. I assumed that the point of dual damage was
just the opposite. You could beat the critter to death or you could
make it leak, whatever it was succeptible to.

MadKaugh

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

kerchmar.randy@epa.gov wrote:
> Hans Wein wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, he is right. Look at weapons with piercing *and*
>>slashing damage like longswords, they are blocked with
>>items which gives resistance to any of the damage types
>>- e.g. if you attack an opponent wearing an Archers Belt
>>(damage reduction vs. piercing) which such a weapon,
>>*every* hit will cause less damage. OTOH, NWN morningstars
>>only deal out bludgeoning damage.
>>
>>Hans
>
>
> By analogy, if you are hit with a weapon or spell that has a magic
> attack that you are resistant to, then you should be able to resist the
> mechanical damage as well, since you resisted the weapon.
> Or if you are hit with a weapon or spell with two magic attacks and you
> are resistant to one, then you should shrug off the whole thing.
> In other words, either resistance to cold or resistance to bludgeoning
> would protect you from all of the effects of a hailstorm spell. Or
> elves' sleep immunity means that elves cannot be harmed in any way by a
> weapon that causes sleep. This just seems so wrong.
>
> OTOH, a poison arrow should not do poison damage unless it penetrates,
> so piercing resistance should defeat the poison as well.
> So sometimes the one resistance defeates the weapon approach makes
> sense.

Yeah, I think sometimes it makes sense, like your example. Also, with
magical effects, it seems different than just two different physical
effects. I can see why an elf *can* be harmed by a weapon that causes
sleep, but not be put to sleep, because they are basically separate
effects. Whereas a weapon with two different damage types would need to
actually produce both types of damage to score a hit, so resistance to
one blocks the entire hit. (However, the other point about how the
engine seems to show different attack types with weapons suggests that
there are various ways to use the same weapon, meaning a weapon with
piercing and bludgeoning can be wielded two different ways to get either
effect. I guess that's what people don't like.

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

kerchmar.randy@epa.gov wrote:

> You are saying that the weapon with two damage modes is like the poison
> arrow being blocked, not like the elf being hit by the sleep sword. It
> is not intuitive to me. I assumed that the point of dual damage was
> just the opposite. You could beat the critter to death or you could
> make it leak, whatever it was succeptible to.

I agree with you, but I'm just saying that in some cases it makes sense,
like the poison arrow. A sword that does piercing and bludgeoning damage
would have to hit the target in the first place to do either type of
damage, so what I'm saying is that it kind of makes sense that if you
can block a piercing attack, you probably blocked the whole attack,
thereby avoiding the bludgeoning as well. I don't necessarily like this
either, but it makes sense I think.

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

John Salerno wrote:
> kerchmar.randy@epa.gov wrote:
>
>> You are saying that the weapon with two damage modes is like the poison
>> arrow being blocked, not like the elf being hit by the sleep sword. It
>> is not intuitive to me. I assumed that the point of dual damage was
>> just the opposite. You could beat the critter to death or you could
>> make it leak, whatever it was succeptible to.
>
>
> I agree with you, but I'm just saying that in some cases it makes sense,
> like the poison arrow. A sword that does piercing and bludgeoning damage
> would have to hit the target in the first place to do either type of
> damage, so what I'm saying is that it kind of makes sense that if you
> can block a piercing attack, you probably blocked the whole attack,
> thereby avoiding the bludgeoning as well. I don't necessarily like this
> either, but it makes sense I think.

I do not think it makes sense. To use the example of the hailstorm -
cold protection should not protect you from being bludgeoned by golf b
all sized pieces of ice; neither should bludgeon protection protect from
MAGICAL cold damage.

On Weapons:
It is also done for simplicity. Back in the days of 1st & 2nd ed AD&D
there were weapon vs armour charts which modified the to hit roll for
weapons against certain armours. Chainmail was very vunerable to
piercing weapons - being a series of interconnected holes. Plate was
good against most things but suffered vs maces and hammers - panel
beating anyone?

When 3rd ed came out they didn't use these tables, and NWN simplified a
lot of weapons to "enhance" game play.

Kharsis

Archived from groups: alt.games.neverwinter-nights (More info?)

Kharsis wrote:
>
> John Salerno wrote:
>
>>kerchmar.randy@epa.gov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You are saying that the weapon with two damage modes is like the poison
>>>arrow being blocked, not like the elf being hit by the sleep sword. It
>>>is not intuitive to me. I assumed that the point of dual damage was
>>>just the opposite. You could beat the critter to death or you could
>>>make it leak, whatever it was succeptible to.
>>
>>
>>I agree with you, but I'm just saying that in some cases it makes sense,
>>like the poison arrow. A sword that does piercing and bludgeoning damage
>>would have to hit the target in the first place to do either type of
>>damage, so what I'm saying is that it kind of makes sense that if you
>>can block a piercing attack, you probably blocked the whole attack,
>>thereby avoiding the bludgeoning as well. I don't necessarily like this
>>either, but it makes sense I think.
>
>
> I do not think it makes sense. To use the example of the hailstorm -
> cold protection should not protect you from being bludgeoned by golf b
> all sized pieces of ice; neither should bludgeon protection protect from
> MAGICAL cold damage.
>
> On Weapons:
> It is also done for simplicity. Back in the days of 1st & 2nd ed AD&D
> there were weapon vs armour charts which modified the to hit roll for
> weapons against certain armours. Chainmail was very vunerable to
> piercing weapons - being a series of interconnected holes. Plate was
> good against most things but suffered vs maces and hammers - panel
> beating anyone?

I agree that with magical effects, it's completely different.