[b42] Poison hits even if 100% armor reduction

[jenx]

This is an interesting scenario. Your armor stops 100% of damage, so I would have thought that a poison coated weapon fails to "coat" me, but the code shows that this is not the case.

From Combat.lua, line 650 or so...

Code: Select all

	-- Poison coating
	if hitted and not target.dead and self.vile_poisons and next(self.vile_poisons) and target:canBe("poison") then
		local tid = rng.table(table.keys(self.vile_poisons))
		if tid then
			local t = self:getTalentFromId(tid)
			t.proc(self, t, target, weapon)
		end
	end

Is this logical? One could argue that the poison coating "seeps through" regardless of the damage all being absorbed, or one could argue, that if the armour stops all damage, that should include (logically, or at the least as a reward for such good armour!) stopping poison as well.

What do people think? Is this a bug or not?

[peaceoutside]

Armor is intended to only reduce physical damage.

Poison resistance exists as a separate stat.

Anything beyond that would complicate things quite a bit.

There are many different non-physical damage and status effects that can be applied to weapon attacks.

[wobbly]

Logically I find it weird (also with blocking & damage shields). As a game mechanic that doesn't have to make total sense, it okay. Blocking poison, bleeding damage & damage from being on fire I find much more problematic. Especially with counterstrike.

[phantomglider]

Logically I find it weird (also with blocking & damage shields). As a game mechanic that doesn't have to make total sense, it okay. Blocking poison, bleeding damage & damage from being on fire I find much more problematic. Especially with counterstrike.

Well, you can also block stuff like "gravity" or "the ground is on fire" or "I am in the middle of a blizzard". Frankly, making a bunch of exceptions for Block is a lot more work than it's worth.

[jenx]

The more I think about this, the more it seems to me then that DEF is more important than ARMOR. Because so many effects work IF you are hit, even if they do no damage due to high armor.

[Frumple]

I've found that defense is... inconsistent. It's better than armor when it works, but it's a lot easier to run into enemies with ridiculously high accuracy than it is to run into ones with ridiculously high APR -- so you're considerably more likely to have defense made completely worthless than you are for armor to become basically nonexistent. Even when armor "fails", so to speak, (to prevent all damage) it still mitigates at least some. Defense is all or nothing. Both is better, if you can manage it, but only the shield classes are particularly capable of that. Though several of the melee classes can do just that, so...

The if-hit stuff is an issue, but generally you want to just pile on saves (or get appropriate immunities) for the stuff armor can't cut damage away from.

The short form, for me, is that I massively preference armor over defense if I've got to choose. It's less likely to outright fail, and even small amounts of armor can help a bit, while small amounts of defense usually does jack nothing.