Vulnerability

"
taekvideo wrote:
Also, does the "additional 10% chance to stun" mean that if a hit would have 70% chance to stun (based on damage dealt as percentage of max life and your threshold reduction) would it increase the chance to 80%? Or is it a completely separate roll? (making it only 73% chance)

It's an additional, flat chance to Stun, regardless of damage dealt. If it effected 'threshold-Stuns', it would've reduced their Stun threshold.
"
Vipermagi wrote:
"
taekvideo wrote:
Also, does the "additional 10% chance to stun" mean that if a hit would have 70% chance to stun (based on damage dealt as percentage of max life and your threshold reduction) would it increase the chance to 80%? Or is it a completely separate roll? (making it only 73% chance)

It's an additional, flat chance to Stun, regardless of damage dealt. If it effected 'threshold-Stuns', it would've reduced their Stun threshold.


That doesn't really answer my question :(
I'm asking if this stun chance stacks with your current chance to stun which is *based on* stun threshold reduction. I know it doesn't affect the threshold itself.

The word "additional" seems to suggest additive stacking with other sources (such as your threshhold-based stun chance), but I'm not sure it does.

If it's a completely separate roll then it shouldn't say "additional chance", since it doesn't add to the chance. It should just say "Monsters have a 10% chance to be stunned when hit", which would make it clear that it's a separate roll.
IGN: Jerk, Princess

http://orbswap.info - the easy way to trade currency
the 10% is first, the damage amount is added to that despite how the curse says. it's more like chance is the normal damage calc chance plus this flat rate all on the outside.
"
taekvideo wrote:
The word "additional" seems to suggest additive stacking with other sources (such as your threshhold-based stun chance), but I'm not sure it does.

If it's a completely separate roll then it shouldn't say "additional chance", since it doesn't add to the chance. It should just say "Monsters have a 10% chance to be stunned when hit", which would make it clear that it's a separate roll.
You are correct, this currently is not an actual addition to the stun chance, but a separate roll. This will be fixed in future - thanks for bringing it to my attention.
What was the conclusion regarding "increased" damage taken from damage over time effects? As it stands I'm just a bit confused as to why the word is "increased"


Are there any other affects that could stack with it additively?
IGN: Iolar
It has been mentioned 3 times already on this thread, but the Int-based requirements don't seem fitting. Requiring INT to use the gem is fine, but they are such high values. 50 INT at lvl 1 is a bit absurd to me. If a marauder (having 14 innate INT) take a savant node on the tree, he will still only have 44 INT, rendering this curse unusable.

I'm not a huge fan of just saying it should be a red colored gem, but perhaps require both STR and INT, and sharing the load so that the individual stat requirements aren't so steep-- too steep for my lvl 70 Marauder to use as he has built with minimal investments in INT (which is quite standard to phys-based melee marauders to do).
IGNs: Runtime_Error / Syntax_Error / Unexpected_Error
"
BRavich wrote:
What was the conclusion regarding "increased" damage taken from damage over time effects? As it stands I'm just a bit confused as to why the word is "increased"


Are there any other affects that could stack with it additively?
More instances of the same stat, should another source of it be found/implemented. Also Shocked.
"
Mark_GGG wrote:
"
BRavich wrote:
What was the conclusion regarding "increased" damage taken from damage over time effects? As it stands I'm just a bit confused as to why the word is "increased"


Are there any other affects that could stack with it additively?
More instances of the same stat, should another source of it be found/implemented. Also Shocked.


Hang on... isnt shocked considered "more" damage? What exactly do you mean?


Also, would it stack additively with increased burning damage?
IGN: Iolar
well for puncture, this curse provides three boosts calculated in only two steps/parts. the initial hit's physical, then it is physical damage over time. so the physical boost and the DoT boost add together for that second step step.

a separate example although not fully connected to this curse, is the unique ice staff's "foes take +% damage while frozen" that value adds to shock stacks. so if staff listed +20% and 3 shock stacks was on foe, then foes takes 140% more damage total.

all these are 'foe takes X "increased" damage'.
Last edited by soul4hdwn on Feb 7, 2013, 4:06:42 PM
"
BRavich wrote:
Hang on... isnt shocked considered "more" damage?
Shocked is 40% increased damage taken. It stacks additively with other increases to damage taken.

Note that modifiers to damage taken are not the same as modifiers to damage dealt. Your modifiers to your damage you deal calculate the damage, then this is reduced by enemy mitigation (resists/armour/etc), then the remaining amount is affected by modifiers to damage taken.
So "increased damage" on you and "increased damage taken" on an enemy do not stack additively together, because they affect different values. So shocked on an enemy is multiplicative (sorta - mitigation gets in the middle) with your increases to the damage you're dealing, but additive with other increases to damage taken by the enemy, such as from Vulnerability.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info