Iron Reflexes + Leather and Steel
There is no "both"
Leather and steel applies one, and only one, modifier. The value of the modifier is a 24% increase. The modifier applies to evasion rating and armour. It is not a 24% increase to evasion rating, and a separate 24% increase to armour. It's "24% increased Evastion Rating and Armour". One bonus, with two things it can apply to. Just like "10% increased elemental damage" applies to cold dmage, fire damage and lightning damage. There is never any situation in the game where one bonus can be applied twice to the same value. When you convert cold damage to fire damage using the support, the elemental damage bonuses don't apply twice. The damage either is or isn't elemental. If you have evasion, you total all increases to evasion rating. Leather and steel applies, because it affects evasion rating. If you have armour, you total all increases to armour. Leather and steel applies, because it affects armour. If you have evasion converted to armour, you total all increases which apply to either of those things. Leather and steel applies, so is included. It does not "apply twice", it's one bonus, and it's either applied or isn't. | |
"1) No, damage over time can't benefit from penetration. There's no way for that to work. Penetration is 'at the time this hit applies, I pretend the resistance value is lower". DoT isn't applied as a hit at a time, it's a constant thing. 2) Even if it did, refer to the bolded part of my quote. Fire damage dealt by an attack and burning damage caused by an ignite triggered by an attack are not the same value. | |
When you convert something, it's affected by modifiers to the thing converted from, and the thing converted to.
If you have IR, your armour is still affected just by increases that apply to armour. You evasion is converted to armour, and affected by any increases that apply to either evasion or to armour. 1) You take your base armour, and apply any increase that applies to armour - this includes Leather and Steel. 2) You take your base evasion, and apply any increase that applies to armour, or to evasion. - this includes Leather and Steel. 3) Add those two numbers together. That's your total armour. "There is only ONE bonus, and it applies to both armour and to evasion. Armour is increased by the bonus, because it's armour. Evasion is increased by the bonus, because it's evasion. The numbers match your version a), but your description is inaccurate - there is one bonus, not two separate bonuses. "500 base armour is increased by the total of all increases that apply to armour. In this case, the only bonus in play is "24% increased evasion and armour", so that total is 24%. so 500 * 1.24 = 620 armour from base armour. Base evasion is converted to armour, and affected by all increases that would apply to armour, or to evasion. In this case, the only bonus in play is "24% increased evasion and armour", so that total is 24%. 500 * 1.24 = 620 armour from base evasion. When you are totalling increases that apply to evasion, L&S is included, because it applies to armour. When you are totalling increases that apply to armour, L&S is included, because it applies to evasion. When you are totalling increases that apply to either armour or evasion, which you do for the evasion converted to armour by IR), L&S is included, because it applies to armour or evasion. A bonus either applies or does not apply. Yes or No. One bonus cannot "apply twice" to one value. Either it applies, or it does not. L&S simply has two cases when it applies - if the thing is armour, or if it's evasion. | |
"I did give numbers - for the first case I said the numbers were sa you listed in your example, and for the second I gave explicit correct numbers. "No. My formula said evasion was increased by "total increases to armour and evasion". You're applying only "total increases to evasion", which is not correct. As I said before, evasion which is converted to armour is affected by modifiers which affect either evasion or armour, not only by those that effect evasion. This throws off your example with the numbers. "This is entirely correct. |