Palathadric Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 I've totally completed "certain Magpie quests." I'll have to get back to you on that after Quest 89. Unless I come up with another short one like Quest 82, it'll probably be the next one. Won't be for some time. Don't you mean another short one like 69? Quote
Kintobor Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 This is a post irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but relevent to the rules and to the game. I would like to bring up the point of venom. In real life, venom is a dangerous substance administered by direct introduction to the bloodstream (I.e through a syringe or fang) so why and how I ask, do heroes get enemies to administer venoms themselves. I suggest that instead of applying a venom to an enemy, we apply it to a weapon, and the next time that weapon deals damage to any enemy, that/those enemies will become poisoned/badly poisoned. Thanks -Pyro Isn't that how it's supposed to be done? I remember that being the case back in 56. Quote
Pyrovisionary Posted November 19, 2013 Posted November 19, 2013 Oh... I seem to remember someone telling me otherwise. Ok, good. Quote
Chromeknight Posted November 19, 2013 Posted November 19, 2013 Perhaps you're thinking of the mafia game, where it was the case that venom was used directly against other heroes? Quote
Kintobor Posted November 22, 2013 Posted November 22, 2013 Sandy, on the new Necromancer limits, does it include Dark type enemies as a whole, or strictly demons? Quote
Flipz Posted November 22, 2013 Posted November 22, 2013 I would hope only Demons--it would actually give Dark-types a reason for existence besides "weak to Light but not undead or demonic". Quote
Sandy Posted November 22, 2013 Author Posted November 22, 2013 Sandy, on the new Necromancer limits, does it include Dark type enemies as a whole, or strictly demons? Only demons. Dark-type enemies can be turned undead. Quote
Kintobor Posted November 22, 2013 Posted November 22, 2013 Only demons. Dark-type enemies can be turned undead. Alright, thanks for the heads up! Quote
Sandy Posted December 1, 2013 Author Posted December 1, 2013 I know I said there wouldn't be any rule adjustments for the rest of the year, but I began to feel bad about how complicated I made the Necromancer's Shield-skill, so I decided to give it a minor buff. The undead army will no longer disappear if the Necromancer is incapacitated by an effect, only if they are knocked out or the quest ends. Hopefully this will make the class a bit easier to handle. Also, the FAQ now has a clarification about how enemies with two conflicting types are handled in the case of "Raise Undead" and "Tame". Q: The Necromancer's "Raise Undead" and the Sylvan Ranger's "Tame" have limitations on the types of enemies that they affect. What about if the enemy has two types, one that is affected and another that isn't?A: In the case of enemies with two conflicting types, it is up to the Quest Master's jurisdiction if that enemy is raised/tamed, or not. Quote
Flipz Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Question because I've managed to confuse myself: if a Hero is immune to elemental damage of one element, but is hit by an attack that's dual-elemental (i.e. Guts hits Sorrow with Lifestealer in the Arena, Atramor imbues only a Ruby into his Galactic Armor and then runs into a sandstorm in the desert), is the damage unaffected by the immunity because it is of an element the Hero is not immune to? Quote
Sandy Posted December 7, 2013 Author Posted December 7, 2013 Question because I've managed to confuse myself: if a Hero is immune to elemental damage of one element, but is hit by an attack that's dual-elemental (i.e. Guts hits Sorrow with Lifestealer in the Arena, Atramor imbues only a Ruby into his Galactic Armor and then runs into a sandstorm in the desert), is the damage unaffected by the immunity because it is of an element the Hero is not immune to? That's a tricky question. The rules only say that elemental weaknesses and elemental immunities cancel each other, so to take the rules literally, if the hero is immune to one element of the attack, then he is immune to the entire attack. But then again, heroes have no elemental weaknesses to counter the immunities, it would make more sense that such attacks only deal halved damage (or two thirds of damage, if the hero is immune to one out of three elements, etc). Which ruling would you guys prefer? This might affect the whole elemental calculation business, but let's see how it sorts itself out... Quote
Scubacarrot Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I wouldn't base any ruling on the arena how it is currently, and I think that multiple elemental damage in quests is uncommon enough for it not to warrant a ruling, so I'd say QM's discretion. Quote
Flare Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 For PvP the second ruling makes more sense. Quote
Palathadric Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I would say second ruling for both PvP and enemy versus hero to counter heroes not being weak to anything. I wouldn't say the same for heroes versus enemies though. I think if enemies are immune to one of heroes gems and neutral to another, the attack shouldn't have any effect on the enemy. Quote
CMP Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I think it was run where multi-elemental damage was all nullified if you were immune to at least one of the elements, at least in Quest 75. I think it should stay that way.. Enemies immune to a certain element would ignore all damage from a multi-imbued weapon, why should it be any different the other way around? Quote
Palathadric Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Because enemies are weak to certain elements while heroes are not. Quote
swils Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 What's the damage line for "Bleeding"? I found a reference to 5hp/round on a search, does that stand? Quote
CMP Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) What's the damage line for "Bleeding"? I found a reference to 5hp/round on a search, does that stand? We discussed this a while back, but you may want to add it to your item's description since it differs. CJP says it works like Scuba's description, being 5 damage per round. It can removed by being remedied or by being healed to full health, unlike poisoned. Edited December 8, 2013 by CallMePie Quote
Kintobor Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 I believe that's the standard. Not sure why it's not an official status effect yet, it's relatively widespread. Quote
swils Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 I'll add that into the item's description, aye. Quote
Sandy Posted December 8, 2013 Author Posted December 8, 2013 Not sure why it's not an official status effect yet, it's relatively widespread. Nobody has really asked me to put it into the officially rules before this. Plus the rule page for negative effects is full already. But I see what I can do... Are there anymore widespread effects that people feel should be made official? Quote
Kintobor Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 I think the only one that needs to be added is Bleeding. Most of the other ones are Endgame's mischievous creations. Quote
CMP Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Does 'new effect that hasn't shown up quite yet' count as widespread? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.