New pit types

[JohnCW9]

So, I've had a go at designing some new types of pits and nests to add a bit of variety to the first half of the dungeon. The attached zip file has the amended pits.txt and limits.txt files if anyone wants to give them a try.

Playtesting and feedback would be much appreciated: too shallow, too deep, too much or too little reward for the risk level? I've been stair-scumming a lot in my test games to find the things, so the figures I've chosen for the average depths are a bit of a shot in the dark.

There are four new types of pit added:

* DL 15 - Kobolds
* DL 20 - Spellcasters (apprentices and kobold/orc/dark elf mages)
* DL 25 - Naga
* DL 30 - Dark elves

And four types of nests:

* DL 30 - Creepy crawlies (centipedes, killer beetles, spiders excluding phase/drider/aranea)
* DL 40 - Minor demons (excluding bodaks and death quasits)
* DL 50 - Serpents (snakes, naga, low-end hydra)
* DL 55 - Lesser undead (skeletons, zombies, low-end wraiths)

I think I corrected for the more bizarre results I got in testing, but if any monsters show up that seem like they shouldn't have been included, let me know.

I have seen what are called clone pits which say be of priest of all kinds or maybe a single chairter or Money pits

[Antoine]

That's pretty much what happens with horned reapers in Demon Pits.

hey, how about we take horned reapers out of demon pits?

A.

[CunningGabe]

hey, how about we take horned reapers out of demon pits?

A.

If people think that's a good idea, it can be accomplished by adding "s:HASTE" to the major demon pit. This forbids any major demon that can cast HASTE, and the Horned Reaper is the only one.

As far as Quylthulgs and animal pits: would anyone care if Quylthulgs just weren't animals anymore?

[fizzix]

If people think that's a good idea, it can be accomplished by adding "s:HASTE" to the major demon pit. This forbids any major demon that can cast HASTE, and the Horned Reaper is the only one.

As far as Quylthulgs and animal pits: would anyone care if Quylthulgs just weren't animals anymore?

It makes more sense to use s:KILL_BODY since that's the problem with Horned Reapers.

I've lobbied for removing ANIMAL flags from Qs for awhile. I think there might be enough support for it now.

[CunningGabe]

It makes more sense to use s:KILL_BODY since that's the problem with Horned Reapers.

It does make more sense, but it doesn't work currently -- s is for forbidden spell flags, not forbidden monster flags. But it would be easy to add the capability to forbid monster flags. I'll do that soon.

[Nomad]

It does make more sense, but it doesn't work currently -- s is for forbidden spell flags, not forbidden monster flags. But it would be easy to add the capability to forbid monster flags. I'll do that soon.

That would be great; it would certainly make it more flexible, and allow for ants' nests as well. Also, I don't know how practical it is to code, but it would be handy to be able to include/exclude specific attacks too. I was thinking of trying to make thief and warrior pits, but the only way to distinguish the two is by the EAT_GOLD attack.

[CunningGabe]

That would be great; it would certainly make it more flexible, and allow for ants' nests as well. Also, I don't know how practical it is to code, but it would be handy to be able to include/exclude specific attacks too. I was thinking of trying to make thief and warrior pits, but the only way to distinguish the two is by the EAT_GOLD attack.

I think some variants let you do a pit where you force all the monsters to be one of a few colors -- that wouldn't be too hard and should allow all the various "class" pits.

[Derakon]

Better I think would be to simply allow pits that enumerate which monsters are allowed in them, by the monster's name or index. Then you can include exactly the "priests" you want. Category-based approaches are powerful but can result in weird hacks (like trying to ban horned reapers via their spell list) which could easily break down when monsters are added or tweaked.

[Blue Baron]

You might want to take a look at z+Angband.'s monster groups it seems to have a lot of ways to include and exclude stuff.

Edit: they are defined in lib/edit/mg_info.txt.

[CJNyfalt]

How about getting rid of KILL_BODY? What purpose does it really serve?

[CunningGabe]

Better I think would be to simply allow pits that enumerate which monsters are allowed in them, by the monster's name or index. Then you can include exactly the "priests" you want. Category-based approaches are powerful but can result in weird hacks (like trying to ban horned reapers via their spell list) which could easily break down when monsters are added or tweaked.

To some extent, any approach will have a similar problem. If a priest pit identifies the monsters in it by name, and you add another priest monster, you have to remember to change the pit description.

However, it probably is worthwhile to explicitly *exclude* monsters by name.

[Derakon]

How about getting rid of KILL_BODY? What purpose does it really serve?

Flavor. Don't underestimate the value of flavor.

[PowerWyrm]

It does make more sense, but it doesn't work currently -- s is for forbidden spell flags, not forbidden monster flags. But it would be easy to add the capability to forbid monster flags. I'll do that soon.

For my variant, I've excluded some monster flags for pits/nests, so monsters in pits stay in the pit: BLINK/TPORT, PASS_WALL/KILL_WALL and KILL_BODY. Though it makes undead pits less threatening (leaves W, V, s, and a few others -- could make permarock pits instead).

[buzzkill]

Can we get a bat cave, or is that too much like the bird's nest.

[PowerWyrm]

So, I've had a go at designing some new types of pits and nests to add a bit of variety to the first half of the dungeon. The attached zip file has the amended pits.txt and limits.txt files if anyone wants to give them a try.

Playtesting and feedback would be much appreciated: too shallow, too deep, too much or too little reward for the risk level? I've been stair-scumming a lot in my test games to find the things, so the figures I've chosen for the average depths are a bit of a shot in the dark.

There are four new types of pit added:

* DL 15 - Kobolds
* DL 20 - Spellcasters (apprentices and kobold/orc/dark elf mages)
* DL 25 - Naga
* DL 30 - Dark elves

And four types of nests:

* DL 30 - Creepy crawlies (centipedes, killer beetles, spiders excluding phase/drider/aranea)
* DL 40 - Minor demons (excluding bodaks and death quasits)
* DL 50 - Serpents (snakes, naga, low-end hydra)
* DL 55 - Lesser undead (skeletons, zombies, low-end wraiths)

I think I corrected for the more bizarre results I got in testing, but if any monsters show up that seem like they shouldn't have been included, let me know.

Sounds like fun ideas... but this calls for adding a level cap for pits/nests. Adding all those low level pits/nests would make deep levels boring as hell (not only you would get j/o pits, but k pits, c pits...).

For example:
Kobolds: 10-20
Spellcasters: forget this one, it duplicates the kobold/DE pits
Nagas: 15-30
Dark elves: 30-60 (maybe deeper, 20+ DE sorcerors in a pit would rip apart any midlevel character)
Nests: dunno, those seem really weak to be level 30-55... maybe halve the levels (centipedes, snakes, minor demons... are all very low level)

As you said, it should add variety to the first half of the dungeon. For the second half of the dungeon, see my other post about angel pits, unlife nests and similar fun and lethal ideas