Re: CF: Abusive Artifacts (Was: Re: Making Classes more distinct)

[Peter Mardahl <peterm@langmuir.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>]

> > Seikoh-san writes:
> 
> But why do you think god's retributive strike as magic?
> If attacktype of retributive strike doesn't have magic flag,
> then the god can hit players who have magic immunity.
> 
> I think magic immunity is powerful because there are much magics 
> which should not have magic flag in its attacktype.
> For example, electric from electiric dragon.


This is a good question.  I had no thought of magic immunity in mind
when I made the retributive strike for extremeley low grace.
Perhaps the attacktype should be changed to AT_GODPOWER, which is
really more appropriate in any case.

Also, the point about magic immunity not being so powerful is a good
one.  Not that many monsters really cast MAGIC:  they have their
spells as abilities, and therefore, magic immunity doesn't defend
from those spells.

PeterM
[to unsubscribe etc., send mail to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]

---

References:

• Re: CF: Abusive Artifacts (Was: Re: Making Classes more distinct)
• From: Nishita Seikoh <s-nisita@urdr.ics.es.osaka-u.ac.jp>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: CF: call for java enthusiasts: server time!
• Next by Date: Re: CF: Abusive Artifacts (Was: Re: Making Classes more distinct)
• Prev by thread: Re: CF: Abusive Artifacts (Was: Re: Making Classes more distinct)
• Next by thread: Re: CF: Play balance
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread