Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

CF: Re: Are these bugs?



Peter Mardahl wrote:
> 
> > 6) Protected && Vulnerable == immune to protection?
> >
> >     It's possible to be protected and vulnerable to the same attack type,
> > which apparently cancels out.  (dam *= 2; dam /= 2;)  That kinda makes
> > sense.  But why would Lythander grant his priests protection from confusion
> > AND make them vulnerable to confusion?  It not only cancels out, but it
> > prevents any other Protection from Confusion magic from working.  This /has/
> > to be a mistake, right?  Even if protection is made additive, it just
> > doesn't make sense.
> 
> This HAS to be a problem with the archetype.

    Okay, so which should be changed?  Either attacktype and protected or
vulnerable.  And what should it be changed to?  I think it used to be, a few
versions ago, vuln: poison.  That's kinda harsh for low-level characters,
though.  And Lythander is a good religion for low-level characters, with
that goblin-slaying Holy Word, unless not identifying an orc chop means you
might take triple damage from it.  Every door becomes a nightmare when
you're not sure whether there might be a lethal poison needle that you just
haven't found.
    I think making Lythander vuln: fear would be a reasonable solution. 
Elves and faeries aren't necessarily cowards, but they generally prefer to
"live to fight another day," rather than "going out in a blaze of glory." 
Any other nominations?


> > 7) Your weapon still hungers to slay enemies of ... nobody in particular
> >
> >     Gods only grant slaying power to weapons that aren't already enchanted
> > to slay something.  Any particular reason for that?  I don't see why Valriel
> > should decline to make a Dragonslayer also slay demons and devils.  It would
> > just become a Dragonslayer of Valriel.
> >     The gods' refusal to bless each other's sacred weapons already prevents
> > one weapon from being blessed to slay the enemies of multiple gods.  There's
> > no problem with adding a god's attacktype to a magical weapon.  If it's just
> > a matter of merging the slaying fields, I have a patch for that.  I'm
> > testing it now and it seems to work okay.
> 
> I thought I'd used strstr to search for stuff in the slaying field,
> which means you'd just have to add stuff to it:  a slaying field like this:
> "undead, demon, bear, vulture, Ross Perot"
> would slay all of these things.  Or at least it would once.  Is strstr not
> used anymore?

    Long "slaying" fields work fine.  The problem is that gods won't give
their blessing to slay their enemies if the weapon already has something in
its slaying field.  And if they did, the fields would have to be merged, not
just appended.  Otherwise, you'd end up with a hammer of slaying
troll,goblin,troll.  It would work fine, but it looks dumb.  And merging
comma-delimited lists is a pretty simple function thanks to strtok.

-- 
            -Dave Noelle,                 dave@Straylight.org
            -the Villa Straylight,  http://www.straylight.org
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email  ==  http://www.cauce.com

Disclaimer:
This has been a public service announcement brought to you by the makers of
Sugar Coated Coffee Crunch cereal!  The high-calorie over-caffeinated way
to start your morning!  Now in Regular, Swiss Mocha, and French Vanilla!

Quote of the Day:
People who complain about the way the ball bounces usually dropped it.
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]