Sil 1.0.2

[Scatha]

I think charge and multiple attacks are inherently different. I would expect to be able to hit a sleeping monster twice before it wakes up enough to take action, however if you charge at a monster I can't see how that could ever really apply to a subsequent strike as you will have used the force of the charge in that first blow.

There are similarities as well as differences here. It depends somewhat on the interpretation of where the bonuses are coming from. In the sleeping monster case, even if it's not defending itself properly for the second blow it may have moved unexpectedly, and @ certainly has less time to line up the blow. A simulationist (but bizarrely complicated) approach might thus be to let the moster wake up but remain unaware (evasion halved instead of [-5]) and deny the assassination bonus for subsequent blows. Either of the simple rules is an abstraction, but a reasonable approximation to this.

The choice may therefore want to be made with thought for how naturally it fits in with the other rules of combat, and perhaps an eye to balance (there have been some ludicrous characters who among other things took full advantage of the current interaction).

Edit: I guess another question is "Should all assassin types eventually want Rapid Attack?"; it seems they do at present, which feels slightly odd to me (but not extremely so, and I'm happy for them all to want Finesse and Assassination).

[Psi]

Edit: I guess another question is "Should all assassin types eventually want Rapid Attack?"; it seems they do at present, which feels slightly odd to me (but not extremely so, and I'm happy for them all to want Finesse and Assassination).

I would say it is not just assassins, but every melee character that does not use charge/knockback as a primary attack. Though maybe that is because with smith builds, you can easily get over the str/dex penalties... I appreciate it is less of a hardship to assassins with light weapons having less of a str penalty.

I would also add that my "ludicrous character" hardly took advantage of this as only Ds, Hs and high end uniques ever survived the first blow...

[half]

Though maybe that is because with smith builds, you can easily get over the str/dex penalties...

Yes, the -3 to effective strength is balanced around characters with reasonable scores. If someone has, say, strength 4, then they'd ideally like a longsword or bastard sword in their main hand and a shortsword in their off-hand (or when rapid-attacking). By the time it gets to strength 6 or 7 or so, then it starts to become unreasonable, with a preference for a long sword or bastard sword in one's off-hand. In general I'd like to see lower stats in the late game than we currently have. Mostly we're trying to deal with this by weakening the most crazy techniques we see, rather than limiting stat bonuses, but the latter might be needed.

The other main problem with two-weapon fighting is holding a very powerful artefact in the off-hand. Narsil, Glamdring and (recently) Ringil have been offenders here. They each provide some very serious non-combat bonuses, making them great in the off-hand even at relatively sensible strengths.

[Scatha]

I appreciate it is less of a hardship to assassins with light weapons having less of a str penalty.

There's an effect there, but I don't think it's the main difference! Ignoring the penalties, Rapid Attack normally gives you an extra round's worth of attacking before they get to respond. With Assassination your first attack is usually much more effective than subsequent attacks. Rapid Attack gives you a second attack with this large bonus, which is much better than "just" another round's worth of attacking.

I would also add that my "ludicrous character" hardly took advantage of this as only Ds, Hs and high end uniques ever survived the first blow...

I'm not quite sure whether this helps or hurts your case.

Interesting point about potentially everyone wanting RA in the end with the high stats, by the way. I don't think this should be the case, but I'm not sure what the appropriate kind of tweaks to change the fact are.

[Jungle_Boy]

I found another bug. If you equip an empty lantern of brightness it does not identify, rightly so but if you then fuel it up it still does not identify unless you remove and reequip it.

[WaveMotion]

I think I found a typo. The monster recall for some spiders says: "It can bite to entrace for (+14, 2d13)…"

[half]

I think I found a typo. The monster recall for some spiders says: "It can bite to entrace for (+14, 2d13)…"

Thanks for catching this. Will be fixed in 1.0.3.

[half]

I found another bug. If you equip an empty lantern of brightness it does not identify, rightly so but if you then fuel it up it still does not identify unless you remove and reequip it.

This sounds a bit harder to fix...

[Magnate]

This sounds a bit harder to fix...

Just call object_check_for_ident() at the end of the refueling function.

(Er, actually I'm not sure if your version of the ID code has that ... but hopefully you know what I mean.)

[half]

Just call object_check_for_ident() at the end of the refueling function.

(Er, actually I'm not sure if your version of the ID code has that ... but hopefully you know what I mean.)

Good point. Fixed.

[WaveMotion]

Hi, I also posted this on a ladder comment but I'll also post here in case you missed it.

I think there's a bug in line 1326 of melee1.c, which says:

if (p_ptr->paralyzed && (net_dam < 1)) net_dam = 1;

It seems that if an already paralyzed player is being hit with a paralysis attack, then the player will be re-paralyzed and dealt 1 point of damage, even if his armour completely negated the attack.

[T-Mick]

May have found a bug. When I try to make the inventory sub-window visible while on the title screen, the game crashes. Doing it in game-play works though. You've probably found this already, but I don't know.

[half]

Hi, I also posted this on a ladder comment but I'll also post here in case you missed it.

I think there's a bug in line 1326 of melee1.c, which says:

if (p_ptr->paralyzed && (net_dam < 1)) net_dam = 1;

It seems that if an already paralyzed player is being hit with a paralysis attack, then the player will be re-paralyzed and dealt 1 point of damage, even if his armour completely negated the attack.

Ha! Amusingly when I was fixing this I first decided to delete that legacy line of code as I didn't think Sil needed to make sure entrancing monsters killed their targets before starvation set in. I then noticed this bug and couldn't work out what caused it or replicate it, as I'd already accidentally fixed it by removing that line...

[T-Mick]

How exactly does picking locks work? Does it draw on a certain skill, or is it just random?

[half]

How exactly does picking locks work? Does it draw on a certain skill, or is it just random?

It is a perception check, opposed against the door's difficulty. There are 7 different strengths of lock, just like in Angband. Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I didn't remove most of those -- surely 3 is enough? Or 1?