Rune magical damage absorption

[So_1337]

You know, I completely forgot about that. I do remember it being that way, now that you mention it. Great catch!

Another thing that's broken about rune spells currently is that they only absorb physical damage and not spell damage.

EDIT: Dang, can't delete my post. Forgot I'm in Code Submission, not Development. Sorry for the extra chatter.

[ChaosSlayerZ]

So_1337, I don't think regular Rune suppose to absorb spell dmg- that what Spell absorption effect is for, and its only found on handful of spells, like Spellshield

[So_1337]

It absolutely worked with the wizard epic and manastone/manarobe.

[ChaosSlayerZ]

those were technically self beneficial effects, and yes i remember that to.
But did it ever actually protected from an actual nuke?

[So_1337]

I seem to remember it that way, but I'd love to hear someone else confirm it. I know that as a necro, trying to lifetap caster mobs who had runes on I'd either get no health back at all, or a reduced amount (subtract the rune value from the lifetap damage, get healed for whatever overflowed; no heal if the rune held up).

So it sure worked for NPC casters that way. I didn't use them often since I was a poor necro and had a hard enough time keeping peridots, coffins, and essence emeralds on hand for pets, summons, and rezzes =P

[ChaosSlayerZ]

I guess i will go and search Alak forums for any references to this.

[cavedude]

Moved this here, as it was a better place for a discussion. The commit did not include a change to the type of damage absorbed, only the stun.

[So_1337]

Yes, sorry for the derail. Thanks for the new thread. Never should've made the first post that got this started, but I could only edit it afterwards, not delete it outright.

[ChaosSlayerZ]

OK I am digging on Alak, reading all posts on Rune and Berserker Strength, as it uses the same effect type, as well as any other types with "absorb damage" type of effect. Out of 30+ spells I looked at I found a total of ONE useful comment:


"It does make you invulerable for a short period of time against melee. Spells still hit you."

[So_1337]

This spell also blocks spell dmg like harm touchs etc. so you can see how usefull it is. BtW it is self only so dont try and ask a necro to cast it on you... wont stack with barrier of force cause we cant cast it on a wizard to begin with.

Source.

[ChaosSlayerZ]

looks like we will need more concrete evidence =)

[pfyon]

I seem to recall that it would block all kinds of damage.

The advantage of spellshield was that it wouldn't get eaten up by melee, so if you needed the shield for a big spell hit (ie, emperor ssra), then you didn't need perfect timing, spellshield just sit on your tank til it got used up.

[ChaosSlayerZ]

what we need to do is ask 1 LIVE chanter of lev 9 to nuke himself =)

[Shin Noir]

If this is still being discussed, don't you remember killing Dracoliche back in the day, or venril sathir? How did you kill them? How did you survive that NASTY NASTY high proc rate lifetap ?
You chain rune'd. There was a bug even, if you had a rune on (even Shield of Songs from bard), the damage wouldn't carry through, so the 1200 lifetap it procced, as long as you had a rune on, even a 40 point one from shield of songs, it'd absorb the spell entirely and you would actually survive.

But that bug aside, this is from a loooooooong time ago pre-luclin when they did a massive revamp on spell buffs (remember when bards would cast something and it always stack? e.g. dain hammer casted by a bard would stack with focus? haha), and I do believe current live still utilize rune absorbing spell dmg. Unless, when spell shield being implemented they decided they would split the purposes...

Thought I'd share, even if it isn't too useful.

[ChaosSlayerZ]

Ha!

Look at the Shield of Song Alak description!!!

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/s...tml?spell=1450


1: Increase Absorb Damage by 20
2: Increase Absorb Magic Damage by 20


Its 2 separate effects!