Changing energy damage types

[Cuyo Quiz]

I waqs going to propose something very akin to what EP said. Thus i go with him in this endeavour.

For those wanting the holy damage type, maybe we can make it some sort of weapon special, as it was proposed before while discussing the Paladin's sword damage type. It could do double damage to undeads, or to simplify it, it could just ignore the energy resistance of a unit.

Now, i think of energy as the thing that makes the world flow, and that magi use to make what they desire of it. As such, following logic, energy wouldn`t be resisted by all living units, because it would mess with their own "energy flow". Undead however, would be weak to it, because a crude magical contraption of energy is the reason of their existence. I also guess that mytical or nature-tuned cratures as Drakes and Woses WOULD resist energy.

That is all, i think.

[JW]

Becephalus:
What I was going for with my proposal was more of a net with which to work rather than a work-with-what-we-have concept. Perhaps a clearer description of the concepts will benefit all:

Heat: gain of energy in existing matter
Cold: loss of energy in existing matter
Energy: bombardment of pure energy
Null: removal of energy or bombardment of anti-energy

torangen:
I agree that the removal of religious conotations is a good thing as it leaves religion open-ended to the player

EP:
I like your run-down of what your proposal would entail with balancing. Copy that mostly except all units would be somewhat weak to both energy and null (or perhaps 0% is defined as "somewhat weak"). The only exceptions I can imagine would be mages (Energy) and Undead (Null). Skeles would then be less resistant to cold, say 20%, as I imagine when bones freeze they would become more brittle.

Ghosts would be almost entirely resistant to Null (80%ish) and completely vulnerable to Energy (also 80%ish). This would make them extremely weak to some types of mages (that would be somewhat more common).

There's alot more to talk about, but I will when I'm thinking more clearly and am more patient with typing.

[Elvish_Pillager]

The only exceptions I can imagine would be mages (Energy) and Undead (Null). Skeles would then be less resistant to cold, say 20%, as I imagine when bones freeze they would become more brittle.

Ghosts would be almost entirely resistant to Null (80%ish) and completely vulnerable to Energy (also 80%ish). This would make them extremely weak to some types of mages (that would be somewhat more common).

From your descriptions, I'd imagine that undead and Ghosts would be the very MOST vulnerable to Null, since it takes away magic, and magic is all that keeps them going.

[JW]

The only exceptions I can imagine would be mages (Energy) and Undead (Null). Skeles would then be less resistant to cold, say 20%, as I imagine when bones freeze they would become more brittle.

Ghosts would be almost entirely resistant to Null (80%ish) and completely vulnerable to Energy (also 80%ish). This would make them extremely weak to some types of mages (that would be somewhat more common).

From your descriptions, I'd imagine that undead and Ghosts would be the very MOST vulnerable to Null, since it takes away magic, and magic is all that keeps them going.

I was thinking Ghosts in particular were a source of negative (anti-) energy, therefore energy would hurt them most. If you perceive them as energy then energy attacks shouldn't hurt them as much.

[Cuyo Quiz]

I prefer the fire/cold/energy scheme, as it is less... complicated, in both the system and the metaphysical implications .

[Becephalus]

I prefer the fire/cold/energy scheme, as it is less... complicated, in both the system and the metaphysical implications .

I agree insofar as i still don't understand what null is supposed to be adding except more complexity.

[JW]

Null just provides the theoretical framework for all damage types to exist. I figured Undead could be described with such a notion but perhaps it is inappropriate. I still believe it to be a good concept, although it doesn't add much to the game practically in all honesty.

[Cuyo Quiz]

So i guess i'll change some resistance tags acccording to EP's scheme and try it out.

Anyone has an alternative to that system or does it seem like a simple, good compromise in general?.

[Elvish_Pillager]

So i guess i'll change some resistance tags acccording to EP's scheme and try it out.

How's it coming?

[Cuyo Quiz]

So i guess i'll change some resistance tags acccording to EP's scheme and try it out.

How's it coming?

Not yet, studies getting in the day. Please wait until monday were i should have free time, or come forced to make some of my own. By then, i should have had some reckless unit facings to see how it works.

[deserter]

and finally - those Holy Amulets. Well, I'm not sure what effect turin is going for with his Amulets of Undead Slaughterage, but if necessary, we could keep the Holy type for special cases where undead slaughterage is desirable. Not for everyday units though.

For those wanting the holy damage type, maybe we can make it some sort of weapon special, as it was proposed before while discussing the Paladin's sword damage type. It could do double damage to undeads, or to simplify it, it could just ignore the energy resistance of a unit.

I was going to propose just this to EP's amulet issue. (then I saw Cuyo's post and now I have to just agree with him(or her?).)
So the amulets would obviously give the weapon ability "holy", which would double the damage against undead units. (not DA)

I have ideas for holy/fire/cold however I don't want to complicate issues in this thread by discussing them now. I think we can change them later and independently. If you want to discuss holy/fire/cold, please open a new thread to do so.

In changing weapon types thread David said this... So what was those ideas? (I'm sure that he is already typing those here. )

[Elvish_Pillager]

I have an idea for the "holy" attack special.

Instead of being "holy", it's "Slay (race)" so it could be "Slay undead" or "Slay naga" or whatever. And it makes the weapon deal 2x damage to that race.

It would be nice to get a whole standard unit filter instead of just race, but it's a little hard to put that in one line.

[jonadab]

I have an idea for the "holy" attack special.

Instead of being "holy", it's "Slay (race)" so it could be "Slay undead" or "Slay naga" or whatever. And it makes the weapon deal 2x damage to that race.

I like this, because it gives campaign writers significant latitute. For instance, it is traditional to imagine a magical sword of elvish make that has special power for fighting orcs, but with a little more inventiveness, and with custom races, lots of things are possible.

The holy amulets might have to become holy weapons (e.g., holy sword, holy sling) that grant new attacks with the slay undead attribute, but I don't think that harms much; arguably the most significant effect of such a change is to allow the unit to retain its normal weapons for use against non-undead units. (Yes, it also prevents levelling from increasing the undead slaughterage out of all proportion to sanity as with e.g. an amuletized Great Mage. Isn't that just such a terrible shame, now.)

It also raises the question of whether to allow "hybrid" units that have more than one race (generally, a mount and a rider) so that a "slay horse" weapon would work equally well against Paladins and Outriders. To me, that seems unnecessary (for horses, just use pikes, and gryphons and wolves have their own weaknesses already), but I'll toss it out there anyway.

[scott]

I like the slay idea as well.

To me, that seems unnecessary (for horses, just use pikes, and gryphons and wolves have their own weaknesses already), but I'll toss it out there anyway

Untoss! Untoss!

[JW]

Why not call it Bane?

Undeadbane
Werewolfbane
Orcbane
Humanbane
etc...

You could have a Sword of Orcbane. Not bad for campaigns now, eh?