Talk:Physical Resistance Rating

Should we put something on this page discussing how Mithral is borked i.e. Calvary Plate being classed as medium not heavy, but PRR only being for medium? Christopher G Lewis (Contributions • Message)

DR and PRR

Added an explanation of how PRR and DR interact. I had someone throw a shuriken at my monk with DR 10/epic and 72 PRR. He had a +12 str mod, was using +5 shuriken, and had a +2 damage ship buff for 19+1d2. It hit me for 6-7 damage. If PRR applied first, the damage would look like:

20 * 66.52% - 10 = 3.304

21 * 66.52% - 10 = 3.9692

With DR applying first, the damage looks like:

(20 - 10) * 66.52% = 6.652

(21 - 10) * 66.52% = 7.3172

Since my incoming damage was 6-7, it not only appears that DR applies first, but the damage reduced by PRR is rounded up (damage received is rounded down).--Peng (Contributions • Message) 05:25, February 7, 2013 (EST)

Thanks for this very useful contribution! --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 06:07, February 7, 2013 (EST)

There's no mention of the Bone Armor enhancement for pale master. For each action point spent you get a total of 3, 6 & finally 10 PRR when using shrouds of the zombie, vampire or lich.— previous unsignedPlease sign posts using ~~~~ comment by UsEr31-3-14 ^{( c | e | d | r | b )} at 11:10, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

• Added — Zav (C·T·E) 18:10, June 20, 2014 (EDT)

PRR formula proposed change

• Armor and Mitigation Changes
• Armor Up Developer Diary 1

before

(1 – (0.99^PRR)) × 0.65

proposed 06-09-2014

150 / (150 + PRR)

propsed 07-28-2014

100 / (100 + Rating)

PRR Formula

The A (in the reduction column) and 1-A (in the damage column) in the table are misleading (I think). The formula for the REDUCTION is 1 - (100/(100+PRR)). The formula for the DAMAGE is 100/(100+PRR).

For example, if you have 200 PRR, you would reduce damage by 1-(100/(100+PRR)) or 70%. You wouldn't reduce it by 100/(100+PRR) or 30%.

The table would make me think the opposite.

For more details see my post here.

Technomage3 (Contribs • Message • Email) 02:14, February 2, 2016 (EST)

Part of the problem in the table is that the value (A) is never defined in the article. But I guess I agree that without any other clarification, the (A) and the 1-(A) in the column headers should be swapped. --Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email) 04:18, February 2, 2016 (EST)