Hi guys!
sorry if this has been asked before - couldn’t find a reference to the question.
overguard’s damage reduction… according to grim dawn’s wiki - it’s a PRECENTILE of damage reduction.
but in-game, the tooltip says it’s a FLAT damage reduction…
is it a ‘bug’? because… 5-70 FLAT damage reduction is… nothing when you get past level… 20.
thanks!
Miller.
While you are at it, may I ask another question?
Blastshield seems to be much stronger than it looks, at level 12 it gives you 800 damage absorption, but I feel basically invincible when it’s activated. Not even the worst Fabius spawns or an enraged Shar’zul can make my healthpool flinch, while without it he can take like 1/3 of it in one hit. Am I missing something?
It absorbs 800 damage off EVERY attack for its duration.
That makes sense :eek: (despite the fact that it has the same description with Turtle Shell, which can save you from one crit then fuck off to Neverland).
But even when it does reduce damage from every attack, I still think there’s more than that, like 800 damage of every type of every attack, no?
It absorbs 800 damage from every source, however resists will also mitigate the damage you will take even further. According to the guide, damage absorbs first, then is reduced by armor (if physical) and then further by resistances.
Although - it is strange because I had always assumed that the shield simply expired once you had taken that amount of damage absorption. Unless the skill is a buffself template and not a shieldbuff template… which would certainly explain it.
Thanks for the quick reply asylum.
but, d’you think it makes sense?
the flat damage reduction… it’s so… lame… isn’t it?
it scales TOO SLOW, for me to pay attention to it… even 50-60 damage reduction is… really low.
Well I mean… it gives you other stats too, you know?
At max level (12) you’re getting:
*66 damage absorbed
*-45% Shield recovery, aka you can block twice as often
*133% increased health regen, which if you have 0% would more than double your regen.
*150% damage blocked, meaning more than double the damage you normally blocked will be blocked for the duration.
*50% chance for stun retaliation
*Stun immunity
Honestly, just the shield stats and damage absorption alone is enough to make this a very strong skill. Half the cooldown for blocks, more than twice the damage blocked, and damage absorb. You will block twice as often and probably take no damage from those blocked hits thanks to that massive block damage increase. As stated in the guide itself:
Because shields absorb damage only after it has gone through all your other defenses, they can be a very powerful tool in your survival and should not be underestimated.
So reducing incoming damage, and then adding power to your blocking abilities, you’re talking about a huge power spike for those 10 seconds its up.
Yep! Asylum nailed it, the primary mitigation comes from %x increased damage blocked, which increases shield absorption. As for flat absorption, I’m not quite sure how effective it is in the scope of things, but it is welcome.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Does anyone know if the absorptiom from shields could apply to direct damage spells as well? Or can you even block spells? There might be a clue… for instance on block procs triggering but no damage mitigation would indicate it is strictly physical.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Block effects all damage types. The only attacks that cannot be blocked are AoE attacks.
Even DoTs, poison?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Blocking DoTs, I don’t think works but I could be wrong… but now that I think about it, DoTs are probably the reason why the overguard has flat damage absorption… Its especially strong vs DoTs, because it reduces the incoming damage from each tick.
Hrm. I think the regen is the primary mechanic at hand. When gastris the foul poisons you, that 70 absorption doesnt get very far…!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Yes, you can block DoTs.
Can you block an individual tick or just the application of the DoT? I would have assumed the latter…
The latter.
