Holy Pyre and Fire Resistant Demons

[Vynd]

If there was a way to change the spell so that it affected all demons and devils at full strength, regardless of fire resistance, I would like that. There aren't many spells that are specifically targeted against demons, so it is odd that one fo the few that is supposed to be particularly strong against them is in fact ineffective against many of them.

On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to change the spell so that its damage type is holy, or something like that. Because it ought to be possible for a non-demonic/undead unit with fire resistance to be able to protect themselves. The spell would definitely be too strong if there was no way for anyone to resist it, even if most units did not take triple damage.

I think this is what Cainehill is getting at with his suggestion to make the basic damage fire and the tripling holy. But does the spell really work that way? If it generates the base fire damage and then triples it, then against a fire resistant target the base damage would be zero and so would the triple damage, wouldn't it?

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Vynd:
On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to change the spell so that its damage type is holy, or something like that. Because it ought to be possible for a non-demonic/undead unit with fire resistance to be able to protect themselves. The spell would definitely be too strong if there was no way for anyone to resist it, even if most units did not take triple damage.

Any non-undead, non-demonic unit with 100% fire resistance would be immune to damage from the spell, because the added 'holy' damage only happens to undead / demonic, just as right now the triple fire damage only happens to them.

Currently, it's always possible to do damage to undead, no matter their stats, equipment, spells, and magic resistance, albeit you need death magic to do it - Dust to Dust and Wither Bones. But demons, especially commanders w/ equipment, are easy to make immune to virtually everything except spells which require a failed magic resistance check, which they rarely fail with MRs of 18+.

[Boron]

[quote]Originally posted by Cainehill:

Originally posted by Boron:


2. if it would be really so powerful it would imbalance the whole game especially if the damage would be (14+2d6 oe)x3 as caine supposes in his possibility 2 .


How would it imbalance the game? The damage is already being tripled against undead and demons, and would continue to use whatever math is currently used, simply shifting the extra damage to holy damage instead of fire.

simple because now 1. devils are 100% fire resistant so the spell doesn't apply on them.
so are many unique blood summons like arch devils and some of the demon lords.

if it would be holy damage against which is no possibility to resist at the moment and it would be armor negating then the (14+2d6 oe)x3 would even kill demon lords quite quick.


i don't want to quote the rest because i am too lazy at the moment but caine you misunderstood me
the triple resistences and so on were suggestions by me for dominions 3 because i thought that would be cool

would you like a rpg were a really unimportant priest without the help of a god could defeat an archdemon ?
it can only if his god helps him directly but not by himself .

[Cohen]

I suggested that thing ...

However it's
[14 + (2d6oe)] - [(DefenderProtection/2)*(2d6oe)]

This is the base damage done to everyone.
So it isn't so easy to kill a demon lord even if you multiply for 3 the result.

Even if the spell triples the damage don't forget to think that you've half of the protection value due to armor piercing, and you've too the 2d6 open ended to add to your halved protection value.

I'm glad that many ppl agreed to allow Holy Pyre to ignore the fire resistance of Demons and Undeads.

[Boron]

Originally posted by Cainehill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vynd:
On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to change the spell so that its damage type is holy, or something like that. Because it ought to be possible for a non-demonic/undead unit with fire resistance to be able to protect themselves. The spell would definitely be too strong if there was no way for anyone to resist it, even if most units did not take triple damage.

Any non-undead, non-demonic unit with 100% fire resistance would be immune to damage from the spell, because the added 'holy' damage only happens to undead / demonic, just as right now the triple fire damage only happens to them.

Currently, it's always possible to do damage to undead, no matter their stats, equipment, spells, and magic resistance, albeit you need death magic to do it - Dust to Dust and Wither Bones. But demons, especially commanders w/ equipment, are easy to make immune to virtually everything except spells which require a failed magic resistance check, which they rarely fail with MRs of 18+.

---

petrify would work always or ?

since demons are not lifeless drain life should kill them easy too or ?

otherwise you are right but doesn't count what you wrote for every lategame sc too ?
and if blood hadn't at least strong sc's because it has not many combat spells it wouldn't be worth considering it at all or ?

then abysia would most probably not beeing worth played anymore

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Boron:
if it would be holy damage against which is no possibility to resist at the moment and it would be armor negating then the (14+2d6 oe)x3 would even kill demon lords quite quick.

Who said anything about armor negating? It'd be just like normal damage, going against the armor (albeit armor piercing). And it wouldn't be (X+2d6) x 3, nor would it be X x 3 + 2d6. The fire damage would still be negated.

If triple damage goes as X x 3 +2d6 oe, (which seems more likely than tripling the random factor), then the demon lord takes X (base 7 for Holy Pyre) x 2, + (2d6oe / 3 (because 1/3 of the random is fire and thus negated)), minus the demon's armor / 2 +2d6 oe.

So - figuring base damage, an F2 caster, and fire resistant demon lord with armor 18, each casting would do ... 5 damage, no, 2 or 3 damage. (14 + an average of 5 1/3 from 2/3s the 2d6 oe, vice 9 + 8 average from the demon's 2d6 oe.)

Not exactly optimal for "fast" killing of demon lords.

would you like a rpg were a really unimportant priest without the help of a god could defeat an archdemon ?
it can only if his god helps him directly but not by himself .

Again - a basic priest, even an H4 priest, can't cast Holy Pyre. It takes an F2 mage. And it would take a small army of them to take down an archdemon, even if Holy Pyre were modified as I suggest.

And yes, I would play an RPG where a small army of reasonably powerful mages (F2 ain't chump change for non-pretenders, non-high summoned) had a chance to at least hurt if not defeat an archdemon.

[SelfishGene]

Hey guys if we nerf demons ill be, hmm, 4/5 for choosing a faction that gets nerfed during a PBeM. Its starting to get a little annoying Devils are fine! (At least for the next four months).

[PvK]

I can attest that smite and banishment and smite demon can all be rather effective against demons already. Holy Pyre is quite effective against the many varieties of undead and non-fire-resistant demons - I think it's interesting and appropriate that some demons are fire-resistant, including that fire-magic non-Holy spell. At most, like Arryn, I'd rename the spell before I'd make the damage from it more generic.

Just hire more 50-gold indy priests.

PvK

[Arryn]

Originally posted by PvK:
Just hire more 50-gold indy priests.

Amen.