True Damage

Sejam bem vindos a mais uma coluna Hexcriba, com a temática de “Dano Verdadeiro”, vamos falar a respeito de algo importantíssimo para o Runarcana mas pouco trabalhado até esse momento pela “herança” do D&D 5ª edição: Os tipos de Dano.

Classic Damage

Part of the combat mechanics of RPG systems is in the types of damage caused by the most varied types of attacks. In some systems this damage is simplified to the maximum by having only one type, while in other systems there are the most varied divisions of damage.

O Runarcana se origina da união de League of Legends e Dungeons & Dragons 5ª edição. Enquanto em versões anteriores existiam muitas variáveis que causavam dano, na quinta edição isso foi extremamente simplificado, como aconteceu com boa parte do sistema.

In League of Legends, the damage is divided into three categories, magic damage, physical damage and true damage. While magic damage is reduced by items that provide magic resistance, physical damage is reduced by items that provide armor. True damage is not reduced by anything, but is applied directly to the target.

O próprio D&D, em suas versões anteriores, já aplicou a mecânica de redução de dano, normalmente de forma complexa que envolvia categorias de dano, fontes de redução de dano e que se complicava ainda mais com os tipos de materiais e ataques que conseguiam quebrar essas resistências a dano.

Nessa simplificação da quinta edição, os danos foram divididos em duas categorias Físicos e Mágicos: Enquanto os Físicos se subdividem em  perfurante, cortante e contundente, os danos Mágicos se subdividem em ácido, elétrico, energético, ígneo, gélido, necrótico, radiante, trovejante, venenoso e psíquico.

This division mechanics helps to greatly accelerate the system, making the resistances and immunities more easily calculated and the time invested in it less. Many people may prefer it this way, but we have seen that in Runarcana, given the differences in the world (and even those brought by history) this formula has not been satisfactory.

Reviewing Damage

Then, the revision of the sources of damage that we are elaborating for the system for the future comes into play. Don't worry, it won't be applied yet in version 1.21 because besides being in an initial and rudimentary stage, other reforms still need to be done.

O que divido com vocês aqui, são alguns pensamentos que tem norteado essa revisão, algumas ideias que temos que irão ampliar o leque de possibilidades ao mesmo tempo que aumentam as estratégias e até mesmo os perigos. 

Initially we want to separate the damage into two basic categories, simple damage and magic damage, referring not only to the type of damage caused, but to its source and its behavior.

Enquanto atualmente temos o dano ígneo que é um dano em sua própria categoria, o mesmo não é definido como dano mágico ou dano “físico”, sendo apenas o dano causado pelo fogo. Uma resistência a dano ígneo funciona com esse tipo de dano independente de sua origem. 

What we have in mind is that fire damage remains one of the many damages within the category of "elemental damage" which is still simple damage but, at the same time, there is magic fire damage, which we will call here incinerating damage.

While previously a resistance or immunity to fire damage would work with fire from any source, be it from a bonfire or the blowing of a dragon, with this revision this immunity would work only with the bonfire damage, since the damage caused by the dragon would become " fire magic ", or in a simplified, incinerating.

Creating this differentiation is important and interesting in a scenario where magic is so present and creates elements that exist only through magic itself. In this case, immunity to fire damage would either have no effect with incinerating damage, or it would give maximum resistance to incinerating damage (reducing it) by half, this is part of what we are still deciding.

Damage Resistance

When we talk about resistance to damage, in a system derived from the 5th edition, we have the following scale "weakness, resistance, immunity and absorption". Creatures with weakness to a type of damage, receive double the damage when caused by that source; creatures with resistance receive only half the damage from a source that has resistance; creatures with immunity do not receive damage from a source that has immunity and, finally, creatures with absorption recover life points from damage caused by that source.

Besides these resistances, there is still the "common" where the damage is caused normally, this is the normal condition in which the damage does not act in any different way and is the standard condition that the characters of the players have in relation to all the damage.

Characteristics of Origins, Classes, Runessence, Magic or Magic Items can change this, giving the characters these varied resistances of interaction with sources of damage. Sometimes some bad condition can give vulnerability to one type of damage while a good one can give from resistance to absorption.

These scales are interesting for improving how players evolve as well as giving more properties to fought creatures. A fire elemental that feeds on fire damage and suffers greater damage from icy sources is more interesting and suited to this creature's fantasy.

Once the damage is divided into "simple" and "magical," the Fire Elemental could absorb fire damage but have no interaction with "incinerating" damage, receiving damage from that source as usual. The logical explanation for this would be that the incinerating damage, although it has the nature of fire, acts in a magical way, affecting the very magic that makes it exist. Perhaps instead of receiving this damage it normally had only resistance or even immunity, variations that could be explored by fire elementals of different levels of power.

Types of Damage

O aspecto das resistências é apenas um dos que pretendemos abordar nessa revisão de dano, outro aspecto importantíssimo é a variedade dessas fontes. Enquanto o D&D 5ª edição trás um total de 13 tipos de dano, a revisão de danos que estamos trabalhando pode ter por volta de 30 tipos de dano diferentes, com alguns sendo variações de danos simples tornados mágicos.

This would work as explained above, the fire damage would be the simple damage of the element itself, generated by normal and physical sources, while the incinerating damage would be the damage caused by fire of magical origin, such as spells, magical creatures, etc. The list below represents a bit of how this will be if we take this direction:

• Dano Ácido – Dano Antimônico;
• Dano Elétrico – Dano Plásmico;
• Dano Energético – Dano Rúnico;
• Dano Ígneo – Dano Incinerante;
• Dano Gélido – Dano Glacial;
• Dano Trovejante – Dano Vibracional;
• Dano Radiante – Dano Luminar;
• Dano Venenoso – Dano Tóxico.

In this list we see the magical equivalence of each of these types of damage, which would generate new interactions and would give the magic an extra importance that may be necessary in a review of the magic in Runarcana.

Além dos danos acima citados, o D&D 5 conta com danos “físicos” que são subdivididos em “cortante, perfurante, contundente”. Esses danos são parte da categoria de danos físicos e a imunidade a eles normalmente aborda as 3 subdivisões, mas como eles ficariam nessa revisão de danos?

• Dano Cortante – Dano Lacerante;
• Dano Perfurante – Dano Incisivo;
• Dano Contundente – Dano Esmagador.

Dessa forma, desconectariamos o dano físico como sinônimo de dano “simples” e passaríamos a ter danos físicos mágicos. Magias que causariam esses tipos de dano  atravessariam resistências e imunidades a dano físico não mágico. Isso facilita bastante na hora de explicar o dano de socos mágicos, espadas mágicas entre outras muitas possibilidades.

Complications

If you have added the damage presented above, you have noticed that they total 22 types of damage, which conflicts with my information that we think of more than 30 types of damage. What would these others be?

• Dark
• Psychicologic
• Disruptive
• Necrotic
• Lunar
• Solar
• Magmatic

Esses são apenas alguns dos tipos de dano que estamos trabalhando no momento, ainda dimensionando como eles funcionariam, quais seriam suas fontes e quais seriam suas interações.  Realmente, em um primeiro exame, parece apenas que estamos trazendo mais complicações para um sistema baseado em D&D 5ª edição, mas não é segredo para ninguém, que tenha lido o artigo “Past, Present and Future", that step by step we seek Runarcana to be an autonomous system.

These many new sources of damage would turn every skill choice into a potentially important one, immunities would be paradoxically more and less important because just as the possibilities of player damage would increase, so would their antagonists.

Os outros danos que não estão constando acima são ainda pensamentos, ideias que estamos avaliando não apenas quanto a sua viabilidade, mas também se não seriam redundantes ou mesmo tão raros e únicos que perderiam importância. 

It may seem like bringing an unnecessary complication load in a system as lean as the 5th edition, but maybe this is a plague from someone who played 3.5 for so long (me, Arddhu) and from someone who likes to have crazy ideas (Luke). But the fact is, this excessive simplification in everything ends up bothering when we think about variety.

True Damage

In the midst of so many types of damage, perhaps there is a thought of bringing the "most important" League of Legends damage to Runarcana, the "True Damage", a damage that is neither physical nor magical, not even common, but a damage that precisely reaches the target by breaking any form of resistance to damage.

One of the sources that we cogitate on to bring about such true damage is called "Disruptive" damage, which would be something like "the damage caused by the forced disconnection of atoms in an area. Something a bit pseudo-scientific but that would find its validity within the universe of Runeter through sources like the ultimate of Vel'Koz. Another way of referring to this damage could be "nullifying".

Trazer essa categoria a mais de dano talvez fosse muito prejudicial para jogadores iniciantes, no entanto ao se pensar em níveis elevados, ou mesmo em níveis Épicos, onde muito poder foi conquistado, talvez seja uma das melhores formas de resolver embates.  Obviamente, um tipo de dano tão “absoluto” como esse certamente estaria reservado para técnicas extremamente poderosas, portadas por verdadeiras Lendas ou criaturas Épicas. 

Every thought we have in this reconstruction of the types of damage has to be thought on several levels and aspects: how this damage behaves, what sources cause it, what is the reason for it to exist, how unique it is, how powerful it can be, how destabilizing it can be?

With each answer obtained, we achieve a better understanding of both the "question" we want to solve and the "answer" we find to it. Doing something, just for doing it, often ends up generating great dissatisfaction (justified) of the people who use the system and this is something we do not want.

Conclusion

All the above steps, thoughts and ideas, are subject to modification. This idea is still in an early stage and will go through many filters, iterations and reflections before it can be made viable.

As I said above, we don't want to do this just for the sake of doing it, but we want to do it because until that moment we see that it is something important, functional and that it will respond to the needs that we have for future plans, giving all classes, abilities, powers and choices a meaning that is not empty.

Muitas dessas escolhas podem ser feitas de forma puramente estética, mas em outros casos elas acabam por cumprir e atender a certas demandas temáticas. Afinal, quem nunca achou estranho o Brand ser feito de fogo e a Annie lançar chamas nele e ainda assim causar dano? 

In search of making this system increasingly better, more fun and dynamic we develop these thoughts.

I hope you enjoyed this article and see you next week!