I can only agree. Though the definition of invulnerablility means to be
immune to damage, this does not make the stun issue invalid or unworthy of
change. The fact is that you cannot be stunned without taking at least a
point of damage, UNLESS you have DA cast!! As far as I can tell, in EVERY
facet of melee combat, the victim must sustain a point of damage in order to
be stunned by a bash. As such, Clerics should be immune to such stuns when
under the effects of DA because they are, by definition, immune to damage.

Just my take on the subject.

----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Dailey <kevin_dailey@...>
To: <EQ-Clerics@onelist.com>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 6:50 AM
Subject: [EQ-Clerics] Oh, How I hate those 1 point bashes

> From: Kevin Dailey <kevin_dailey@...>
>
> Yeah, but I'm still astonished that with Invulnerability on, I can fall
> from a height that would flatten me for more than 1000 damage, can laugh
> at damage spells that would kill me in an instant, but can be stunned by
> a freaking low-level skeleton who bashes me for 1 measly point of
> damage. C'mon Verant, WTF?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam J. Overton [mailto:adamo@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 11:11 PM
> To: EQ-Clerics@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [EQ-Clerics] i haven't been stunned lately.....
>
>
> From: "Adam J. Overton" <adamo@...>
>
> Getting stunned while invulnerable sucks. On the other hand it's pretty
> powerful and has saved my life countless times.
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> ONElist: your connection to online communities.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>