[Magiclysm] The Great Damage Randomization and Normalization #78611
+148
−188
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Mods "[Magiclysm] The Great Damage Randomization and Normalization"
Purpose of change
Or as we called this kind of thing when I played World of Warcraft, "nerfalization"
The spellcasting proficiencies are really neat but no existing spells were updated to account for them, which means that already-powerful Magiclysm combat spells would gain an additional +30% damage bonus at Master proficiency level. I don't want to remove the proficiencies and that leaves only one option--nerfing damage.
Also, when Magiclysm was first created the
RANDOM_DAMAGE
flag could only allow you to randomize between the maximum possible damage at max level and the minimum possible for your current level, so it could only make spells more powerful. That's not true anymore thanks tomath
, and since damage numbers everywhere else in the game are random, spell damage should be too.Describe the solution
Reduce damaging spell damage pretty much across the board.
Randomize spell damage using the
RANDOM_DAMAGE
spell flag and math statements so you can't predict your spell's damage.Describe alternatives you've considered
Testing
Line count might be an issue, we'll see if this needs more than one PR
Additional context