Feedback:User/Falconeye/Better Damage Type Mechanic

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Time Attack (Asura).jpg Under Construction:

Fines doubled in work zones

Mental Block.jpg Brain Fart
This material needs all the help it can get.
(I'm sure I meant something mo' better.)
Supportive Spirit.jpg OK to edit
You have permission to edit this page as long as you respect its intent. (I reserve the right to revert.)

..."though we are also considering toning down the power of the armor-ignoring damage as well"...

— Upcoming changes and features

All damage has a specific type. This classification is used by many skills and armor insignia to determine when their effects come into play. Such effects are often in the form of extra or reduced armor and also give damage reduction against a particular damage type. Many monsters have unseen monster only skills that makes them vulnerable or resistant to certain damage.

— Damage types

Even though this update is mostly limited to Elementalist elite skills, we are also addressing some normal skills for Elementalists that we felt could use some changes and a few non-Elementalist skills that have become too powerful.

— Update - Thursday, December 8, 2011

Damage types[edit]

See also: Feedback:User/Falconeye/Runes & Insignia's
See also: User:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Temp/Elementalist rebalance

Most pen & paper and card games averages 10 damage types (such as D&D and Magic) which allows game balance for resistance/vulnerable against damage 33% the time; and only immune/fragile to 10% time under precise circumstances.

Typeless damage[edit]

If a skill's description does not specify a damage type, it generally inflicts either elemental damage, physical damage or magical damage; whichever is most appropriate to the skill-type/profession/attribute/etc.

Armor-ignoring damage[edit]

Main article: Armor-ignoring damage

Anet errored by allowing Armor-ignoring (or AID) to become the norm and prevelant; instead of the rare exception, like Sacrifice/Lifestealing. Nothing should be absolute; only the increased difficulty in countering them.

Example: D&D 3rd edition gave Rogues signature "Sneak Attack", which was only usable 50% of the time, against 50% of foes, during 50% of quests/missions; despite being a vast improvement over previous editions (AD&D Editions 1-2 had "Backstab" which only functioned as such). Players & DM's argued that Constructs, Undead and even Oozes all have exploitable weaknesses (albeit much harder to get at then a living organic creature); if one knows how to reach them. Version 3.5 (and 4th edition) revised the core rules, allowing Sneak Attack to be 100% effective, which better demonstrates the Rogue's cunning ability to locate a foes weakpoints and apply just the "right amount of pressure".


  • Prior to the May 25th, 2007 update, wands and staves inflicted light damage rather than holy damage, which was functionally identical to the attack damage type holy damage.
  • Prior to the Month 00th, 2012 update, wands and staves inflicted dark damage rather than shadow damage, which was functionally identical to the attack damage type shadow damage.