A Few Questions/Observations From an Old Player

[Timo Pietilä]

I like this behavior. If you 'I'nspect the items you'll find this behavior, so it's not a hidden punishment. It makes rations of food better for very late game anyway, which is kinda funny.

I usually collect Elvish Waybread for chars that can't cast satisfy hunger reliably. Those are light (a bit lighter than potions, quite a bit lighter than satisfy hunger scrolls), are not vulnerable to inventory damage, heal you a tiny bit and IIRC cure poison. They are also quite common late into game. Eat one when you get hungry and you are below gorged threshold enough that you can safely drink potions of healing.

To get gorged in middle of the fight is just lesson to learn, which if you are smart you need to learn only once. It's not a big deal.

[EDIT] "nearly as light as potions" -> "a bit lighter than potions"

[buzzkill]

Second satisfy hunger removes gorged state.

@ suffers from a nasty eating disorder and should seek professional counseling.

[dhegler]

I think it may have been Hack (which I guess led to Nethack)...

[Oramin]

Hmm, possibly, but I never played that much NetHack; more likely I'm remembering it from Omega or Rogue.

[Derakon]

Incidentally, didn't there used to be a "Satiated" state between "Full" and "Gorged"?

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of NetHack; as best I can recall Angband has never had that distinction.

Perhaps Satisfy Hunger should set the food counter to just below Full instead? IIRC that's where you start out with a new character. Though personally I kinda like that Satisfy Hunger is counter-indicated if you expect to be chugging potions in the near future. It creates fun dynamics.

[Oramin]

Not really. While the healing potions tell you how many turns they add to the food counter, IIRC the Scrolls of Satisfy Hunger don't tell you that they set the food counter to just under the "Gorged" state.

Incidentally, didn't there used to be a "Satiated" state between "Full" and "Gorged"?

[emulord]

I like this behavior. If you 'I'nspect the items you'll find this behavior, so it's not a hidden punishment. It makes rations of food better for very late game anyway, which is kinda funny.

[Oramin]

Assuming that we have additional scrolls of Satisfy Hunger. Besides, even with the additional scrolls, we still have to take a turn in the middle of the combat to read one. This could lead to:

Take massive damage

Start Loop:

Drink healing potion
Become "Gorged"
Read scroll
Take massive damage while reading scroll

End Loop:

I agree that healing potions shouldn't be able to trigger a "Gorged" state. I'm guessing that potions started giving sustenance as an emergency measure for those who are careless enough to not keep an eye on their food. It really shouldn't be a punishment for the players who do make an effort to pay attention.

[Timo Pietilä]

Just a warning to people about Scrolls of Satisfy Hunger. I read one before a battle with Ancalagon and had to drink some healing potions during the battle. This ended up putting me into a "Gorged" state and slowing me down by 10 points.

Second satisfy hunger removes gorged state.

[Egavactip]

Just a warning to people about Scrolls of Satisfy Hunger. I read one before a battle with Ancalagon and had to drink some healing potions during the battle. This ended up putting me into a "Gorged" state and slowing me down by 10 points. I was at +34 before being "Gorged" so that wasn't a big issue but in close fights it could get you killed.

Yes, that happened to me during my battles with Sauron and Morgoth a couple of weeks ago. I don't think a healing potion should be able to give you indigestion.

[Oramin]

Just a warning to people about Scrolls of Satisfy Hunger. I read one before a battle with Ancalagon and had to drink some healing potions during the battle. This ended up putting me into a "Gorged" state and slowing me down by 10 points. I was at +34 before being "Gorged" so that wasn't a big issue but in close fights it could get you killed.

[Derakon]

There's never a damage reduction. I would say that Belthronding is better. Remember that's 250 average whereas annihilation is 200 max.

Annihilation does flat damage; there's no random component. Also in my copy of the source it does 250, not 200, base damage (and the description of the item reflects this as well). Annihilation doesn't work against non-living opponents, though, so Belthrondig is more versatile.

I believe the damage estimates on the 'I'nspect screen take criticals into account.

[fizzix]

Are Wands of Annihilation useful for a H-T Warrior?

I only have a 51 Magic Device score. Wands of Annihilation have a device requirement of 60. So I have an 81.7% chance of success coming out to just over 200 points of damage per shot on average. Do I also get a damage reduction for such a low Magic Device score (like my Gnome Mage got a damage bonus for a high score)?

Compare with Belthronding being in the 250/round range (with Mithril and Seeker non-specialty arrows). Of course, this doesn't include the to-hit chance reduction or the possibility of crits.

There's never a damage reduction. I would say that Belthronding is better. Remember that's 250 average whereas annihilation is 200 max.

as for the original question. Rings of accuracy are useful for archery characters. But slaying is almost never worthwhile, I'd almost always rather have =damage for melee and =accuracy for archers.

[Oramin]

Are Wands of Annihilation useful for a H-T Warrior?

I only have a 51 Magic Device score. Wands of Annihilation have a device requirement of 60. So I have an 81.7% chance of success coming out to just over 200 points of damage per shot on average. Do I also get a damage reduction for such a low Magic Device score (like my Gnome Mage got a damage bonus for a high score)?

Compare with Belthronding being in the 250/round range (with Mithril and Seeker non-specialty arrows). Of course, this doesn't include the to-hit chance reduction or the possibility of crits.

[Derakon]

Well, part of the problem is the Great Storm Wyrm's stupendously huge AC. Compare against a Black Knight, which has an AC of 105. If your total to-hit bonus against him is 60, then your chance to hit is 16%; if you increase that to 80 then your chance becomes 36% (i.e. every +1 to-hit is about +1% chance to hit).

But yeah, at the point you're at now, to-hit bonuses don't mean as much. For melee anyway; I don't know the ranged combat formula and it may be different.

In v4, for what it's worth, everything has a base 75% chance-to-hit; only monster evasion affects this value (by decreasing it). Rings of Accuracy are instead Rings of Finesse, which give you slightly more blows per round -- compensating for a reduced hit chance by giving you more opportunities to hit.