Rune-based ID

[Nick]

I have a pull request pending that adds a Scroll of Runes that identifies a single unknown rune of any type (i.e. you read it, and learn a rune you didn't know before).

I'm actually not sure we want this.

Currently we have learning by use, and learning by scroll for unknown runes on objects the player has. This new scroll would allow the player to learn runes on objects they don't have - does this have any practical advantage over the first scroll? You only need to know a rune if you have an object with it.

[PowerWyrm]

IDing a staff by "failing" to use it seems very weird...

[Nomad]

Having finally got a decent game going, I'm really liking the way the new ID system streamlines things. (And there's nothing quite so satisfying as wielding a {??} weapon at 900' and getting the message "You learn the rune of ESP".)

Just a few more thoughts on messages:

• It's a tad disconcerting to have items silently squelch on walkover so you don't know they've vanished until you try to pick them up and nothing happens. Would it be feasible to display the item name with squelch tag included (i.e. "You see a Dagger (1d4) {squelch}") before it disappears, just so it's clearer what's happened?

• I'm really liking the new ID-on-first-use of rods/staves/wands, but I think as a consequence they now need either an ID message like you get with the runes ("You identify a wand of Confuse Monster") or messages to handle the case of using them when there's nothing to act on ("There are no monsters here to confuse", "Your wounds are already healed", etc.). Currently if you test them in a situation where they have no effect, they just silently ID themselves with no feedback to indicate it's happened.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

All confirmed and fixed in development.

Does this mean a new build is available in the nightlies?

[Ingwe Ingweron]

One small nit on the new ?Identify. In the description, add the word "will" after "it". Currently it reads, "When read, it Identify a single...."

[PowerWyrm]

Just a few more thoughts on messages:

• It's a tad disconcerting to have items silently squelch on walkover so you don't know they've vanished until you try to pick them up and nothing happens. Would it be feasible to display the item name with squelch tag included (i.e. "You see a Dagger (1d4) {squelch}") before it disappears, just so it's clearer what's happened?

Sounds like a bug no? Items should still be squelched on sight, not on walkover...

[TJS]

What is the thinking of automatically identifying consumables on use?

The fact that you had to see their use in action was the only part of the old id system that actually worked and was fun before in my opinion.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

Sounds like a bug no? Items should still be squelched on sight, not on walkover...

That isn't true for weapons or armor. Until @ walks-over, you should not know if the weapon or armor is average, good, ego, or artifact.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

Bug with regard to cursed items.

@ had fully identified all the runes of the Boots of Wormtongue in his pack. @ then used two ?*Enchant Armor* and successfully broke the curse. Thereafter, the boots reverted to ?? "You do not know the full extent of this item's powers" and the "cursed" identifier remains. However, there are no new runes to learn and @ can remove the boots at will.

[Derakon]

I'm actually not sure we want this.

Currently we have learning by use, and learning by scroll for unknown runes on objects the player has. This new scroll would allow the player to learn runes on objects they don't have - does this have any practical advantage over the first scroll? You only need to know a rune if you have an object with it.

My thinking was that there are some runes that are both rare and tricky to identify by use, like resistance to nether/chaos/disenchantment and some status protections. While it's certainly true that you could just wait until you have an item with that rune and then read a ?Identify on it, the "learn a random rune" scroll can also serve to patch holes in your knowledge and thereby mean that you won't be 99% done with the "identification game" but at 3000' and still having to hold onto ?Identify so you'll be able to fill in the last few gaps.

In other words, I'd expect players to get most of the way there via ID-by-use and using the occasional ?Identify, and then get the rest of the way there via the Scroll of Runes. It should, correspondingly, be more rare than ?Identify.

[spara]

I understand that the basic diggers give pluses to digging, which is a rune, but it still feels a bit strange to have those items saying @ doesn't know their powers. Seeing a shovel in store and wondering what's it for is weird.

Would it be possible to distinguish shovels, picks and mattocks from rings etc so that the tools have pluses to digging known and rings etc don't? In other words differentiate a tool built for digging from a rune giving pluses to digging.

And yes, those consumables still have {??}.

Edit: I find those {??} for potions, rods, scrolls, staves and wands to be pointless and a bit annoying. They are not runic magic any way. Or are they?

[Carnivean]

Would it be possible to distinguish shovels, picks and mattocks from rings etc so that the tools have pluses to digging known and rings etc don't? In other words differentiate a tool built for digging from a rune giving pluses to digging.

+1 digging is the base value, so shouldn't be any different from xDy or base AC, which is to say no rune involved. Perhaps this should be described differently? Maybe +0 for normal, with bonuses starting at +1?

[debo]

With stone to mud in the game, does digging even need to be a pval? Can't it just be a flag? "Digs good" or "doesn't dig good"

[Derakon]

With stone to mud in the game, does digging even need to be a pval? Can't it just be a flag? "Digs good" or "doesn't dig good"

There's a very noticeable difference between a +1 digger and a +6 digger. Your average starting shovel isn't good for much beyond rubble and magma veins, while a highly-enchanted digger can let you bore through granite even if you're relatively weak. I don't see a compelling reason to throw away that spectrum. Remember that half the classes can't cast Stone to Mud.

[Nomad]

There's a typo in the name of the rune "encha[n]tment to hit".