Talk:Damage types

Article is misleading and/or incorrect when it states that Leshrac's Diabolic Edict is an example of mixed damage when it also defines mixed damage as being reduced by magic resistance, armor, and blocking items (such as shields). Diabolic Edict is not blocked by shield. Reference http://www.playdota.com/changelogs/6.72b This should be explicitly stated if Edict is going to be used as an example.

Possible rewrite
I don't blame this page for confusing the attack type and damage type system since DotA 2 in general tends to do this, and it was pretty complicated in WC3 to begin with. However, some things do need to be fixed: 1. Most abilities are not listed. Ideally, every ability with damage that is not Attack Type: Spells, Damage Type: Magic should be listed. 2. Echo Slam and Flaming Fists have Damage Type: Enhanced, not Damage Type: Universal. Enhanced damage is prevented by the ethereal state, while Universal damage is prevented by nothing. 3. There is NO explanation of the difference between damage type and attack type. Attack type determines how the damage is reduced by armor type (as well as by spell resistance, in the case of Attack Type: Spells), while damage type determines how the damage interacts with ethereal and magic immune states (as well as reduction by armor value, in the case of Damage Type: Normal). Without this explanation, there is simply no reason that, for instance, Test of Faith deals half damage to siege units, or Cleave is unreduced by armor value. 4. HP removal is not damage. It is an entirely distinct way of reducing HP. HP removal is not reduced or amplified by skills like Bristleback or Soul Catcher, is not reflected by skills like Blademail, does not disable Blink Dagger or Heart of Tarrasque, does not aggro creeps, does not give Soul Assumption charges, does not give assists, and so on. It is in no sense damage, and if it must be included on this page that should be made clear. 5. Attack Type: Spells and Damage Type: Magic need to be distinguished. Damage Type: Magic means the damage penetrates ethereal but is blocked by magic immunity (and is not reduced by armor value), while Attack Type: Spells means the damage is reduced by Armor Type: Hero and by any additional spell resistance abilities and by Pipe (exception: Damage Type: Universal is never reduced by Pipe). By distinguishing these two, "composite damage" (Attack Type: Spells, Damage Type: Magic) and "pure damage" (Attack Type: Hero, Damage Type: Magic) make much more sense.

I think I'll give this page a rewrite when I have a chance. 129.22.208.134 21:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Making a new section is the only way I can post here
It will NOT let me fix the formatting of this edit, as it repeatedly tells me it has been "identified as harmful". If this wiki is to ever get off the ground, it needs to be editable.

One universal damage source missing?
Brewmaster's Primal Split earth panda's Pulverize deals damage to magic immune units and the damage is reduced by magic resistance. It's also been clearly stated on by developers, so I'm pretty sure about this one.

Source: http://nyazo.jp/p4jCpNn3.png http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=94533


 * You're right, confirmed it in a lobby. The damage is not affected by armor value, is affected by magic resistance, goes through magic immunity, and does additional damage vs ethereal units. --Artorp (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Should be noted it was Enhanced damage in DotA, not Universal. To my knowledge Enchanced damage does not exist in Dota 2, Echo Slam doing amplified damage vs ethereal units as an example. --Artorp (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Some physical damage spells are missing from the list.
Viper's Nethertoxin, Xin's Sleight of Fist and necrowarrior's Mana Burn are the legit ones.

CK's Reality Rift is the one I'm not sure about, created a talk page for the CK article to discuss.

Also I'm not sure if Flak Cannon should be there on the list, because technically it's not a spell with physical damage, but rather a source of splash damage (I'm sandboxing an article on it for a long time). Anyways, there's no way Flak Cannon is any different from dusa's Split Shot so it should either be also added to the list, or Flak Cannon should be removed too. And Moon Glaive too, even though it's a slightly different ability. —109.87.109.212
 * And yeah, correct me if I'm wrong, but there shouldn't be any active damage buffs like Alacrity and (arguably)Walrus Puch, for the sake of consistency.
 * For this very reason there's no Enchant Totem and Empower/God's Strength/Tidebringer in the list, because it would just be irrelevant. —109.87.109.212
 * I added Nethertoxin, Sleight of Fist, Mana Break.
 * Reality rift gives a +damage buff.
 * I agree, buff placers - while they give physical damage - should not be listed as the abilities themselves don't deal any damage. But where do we draw the line? Shadow Blade gives bonus damage on the first attack (but the damage is noncritable), should it be listed? Probably, the ability itself is what causes the damage. Reality rift gives a +damage buff for one attack, but the damage is not applied when the ability lands but rather given as a bonus damage buff. So it should not be listed. What about spells that give guaranteed crit on the next attack (Jinada and Walrus Punch)? They should probably be removed, they modify the attack but do no bonus damage on their own. Thoughts?
 * I'm not sure if attack modifiers (such as flak cannon, geminate, split shot, moon glaive) should be listed. But we need consistency. Either add all of them, or remove all of them. I think they should be removed, they don't really fit the bill for "abilities that deal physical damage".
 * --Artorp (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it's hard to apply logic and draw lines in dota mechanics, but let's try to sort out the controversial ones. Jinada and Walrus punch only depend on your attack damage, they are not targetable spells and are basically +%damage buff placers, there's absolutely no reason anyone would think they are not what they are. They should be removed from the list.
 * Windwalks with backstab damage are flat damage bonuses that don't depend on your attack damage at all. Their damage isn't displayed on HUD's damage block when active neither it shows the crit symbol on hit. Also they're not really intuitive to guess the damage type of, especially meld/vendetta. And since they're all basically the same abilities, I think it's better for them all to be listed.
 * Flak/splitshot/moon glaive are self-explanatory and should not be on the list, they only deal your attack damage.


 * Alacrity/Refraction/Howl… well it's just doesn't feel right, even though they increase the attack damage by a fixed value, it would be too damn stupid to list all those buffs after "Certain spells deal physical damage instead of magical".
 * Geminate attack isn't really the same thing as those "splashes", but I agree, it's probably not supposed to be listed here. Though I'd be fine with it if it were, wouldn't have been too much of inconsistency.
 * And Reality Rift is, yes, basically the same thing as alacrity but… It's actually an enemy-targeted spell and the duration of the buff duration is so short that it's been "magical" here for how long, 2 years? IMO it's too deep of advanced mechanics to differ it from riki's blinkstrike. Except that it actually "deals physical damage instead of magical". —109.87.109.212
 * Sounds good to me, I've updated the table accordingly. --Artorp (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Pure damage interaction with spell immunity is wrong.
The pure damage section states " Pure damage affects spell immune units (since spell immunity doesn't block damage by itself), but that does not mean that a spell with pure damage can target spell immune units (eg Brain Sap icon.png Brain Sap deals pure damage, but cannot be cast on spell immune units). "

I think this is wrong. BKB's active has two components: spell immunity and 100% magic resistance. If the article were correct, then something like Pudge Hook, Sun Strike, and Chakram should not be targetable on BKB'ed targets (irrelevant, since they are not targetable spells), but should damage those targets. They do not. Whether a spell is pure damage or not is irrelevant when determining whether it goes through spell immunity; rather, the spell itself has a spell immunity piercing flag. However, a spell that does magical damage and pierces spell immunity may do not damage to a BKB'ed target.

Summon and Creep killing effects also HP Removal?
Aren't the killing blows of Hand of Midas, HotD's Dominate, Lifestealer's Consume, Chen's Holy Persuasion and Enchantress' Enchant also "HP Removal" (I don't know whether these are all of such effects)? Psion1C (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong spell immunity information
The third note under the damage types table:


 * "By itself, spell immunity does not interact with any damage type. All spells are rated as to whether or not they can pierce spell immunity independent of their damage type. Thus, spell immunity only governs if a spell has any effect, not how much damage it inflicts. To receive no effects from a spell, the spell must not pierce spell immunity and the target would require both spell immunity and 100% damage reduction of the damage type the spell inflicts."

implies that spell immunity doesn't reduce magical damage on its own, which is contradictory to the information in the spell immunity article. But doesn't spell immunity always include 100% magic resistance, meaning it always reduces magical damage to 0? --Psion1C (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not really wrong information, just not clear enough. Added few more sentences.  Bu3ny  (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, ty. Maybe it can get condensed a bit in the future, but for now it's clear enough. (--Psion1C (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)