devtrackers.gg
It's strange - in POB (and, I assume, in game) this effect stacks, but based on GGG's own wording conventions it shouldn't. Explicit "You have" and "you take" modifiers specifying a static value are not meant to stack or be modifiable. If I were reading these mods without knowing they stack I would assume that they don't. It should be worded "You take +20% of damage from blocked hits" rather than a static number.
Multiple effects saying to take an amount damage when something happens always stack - it's identical behavior to each one independently doing it's thing.
I am very excited to see what kind of weird bullsh*t people eventually come up with for this.
What is the drawback of adding the '+' wording? In the current version, the wording on the items directly contradict each other thereby leaving the player guessing how they interact. It's also very similar to Loreweave's max res in wording but functions totally differently.
Adding is a meaningful concept for damage, which doesn't apply here. Also lots of people will only see a single source of this at a time, and wonder what it adds to - people have a tendency to assume there must be a base value for things to add to.
If I block 🛡️ a hit 🎯..
Does the blocked hit count towards the "recoup x% physical damage prevented" in jugg (life) or the new divine shield passive (es) ?
If so, if one were stack 105% block damage taken along with "+40% phys damage taken" from abyssus. Take Transcendence to have no armour mitigation or any physical mitigation for that matter... does the damage prevented become negative and therefore their recouped life/es respectively become negative?
I'm not sure what to do with this information if the above assumptions are correct?
No. You won't count as preventing any damage from that hit.
In that case, wouldn't using block's inherent 'block value' of 100% and subtracting from that be the most clear way to provide the information? So in this case, "-20% damage reduction from block".
I know "damage reduction" is actually a different step in the equation, so obviously that's an imperfect wording, but wording along those lines would both be more clear and get around the "modifiers change a base value" assumption, right?
That seems substantially less clear in general
do blocks count as preventing physical damage from hits in general? (whether at 100% effectiveness or 35% effectiveness from glancing blows)
i have seen considerable confusion about this interaction this week.
If the amount of physical damage in a hit before any mitigation is calculated for that hit is higher than the amount you end up actually taking, the difference is the amount of physical damage prevented. Blocking does cause this, outside of extreme cases like the one this thread discusses.
Yeah, it bothers me too. I can always tell which section of the patch notes Mark wrote by checking for the wrong "it's".
You'd think having the other "it's" (it is) in the same sentence would clue him into the fact that the possessive its must be the other one.
I can always tell which section of the patch notes Mark wrote
I don't wrote patch notes.
Does converting the physical damage taken to elemental then counts in this formula as "prevented", or does the check for physical damage in a hit happen after the conversion?
"Damage taken as" (which is not conversion) changes which type you treat the damage as for all of the process of taking the damage - if you take the damage as a different type, you never see that as physical damage, so that isn't physical damage prevented.