Rune-based ID

[Rydel]

Heavier armors that have minuses to hit have to-hit runes in them. That's a bit weird, I think, since minuses come from the armor being heavy, not runed.

Agreed - it seems odd for non-magical items to have any runes in the first place. It would make more sense for the base parts of an item to be known and not have runes, then use the runes just for magical enchantments.

[calris]

OK, I'm a little late into the conversation and play testing of Rune-ID, but here are my brief thoughts:

• It felt odd (like really, really, odd) to be running around wearing every piece of gear I found just lying around. I know cursed gear got removed a while ago (and I missed the whole conversation around that), but it just feels wrong to randomly wear stuff with total disregard for the negative effects.
• I missed the bit about Identify being added back in so I spent the whole time stressing about giving away a scroll of *Acquirement* just to ID it (same with stat gain potions, etc.). Yes, I was too low level to come across any, but I was worried.
• Why not add a new scroll which gives the player knowledge of a random rune they don't already know about. Call it a Scroll of Rune Lore. Have maybe a Scroll of *Rune Lore* which gives the player knowledge of multiple runes. The runes the player learns about from these scrolls won't necessarily be unidentified runes on equipment they are carrying
• Hmmm, now that I think about it, the Lore scroll collection could include scrolls for each of Potions, Wands, Staves, Rods, Mushrooms, and Scrolls
• Hmmm, put 'Rune Lore' in Tomes (still with the '?' symbol) - Different colours for different lore (Brown for Mushrooms, Grey for Scrolls, Red for Runes, Blue for Potions, etc.)
• Not sure if it's there already, but we need a way of knowing how many runes we don't know yet (just like we can tell how many potions we haven't identified yet)

[spara]

Heavier armors that have minuses to hit have to-hit runes in them. That's a bit weird, I think, since minuses come from the armor being heavy, not runed.

[spara]

I wouldnt want to have to try to activate every unknown item/artifact...

I'm not finding _that_ many items with activation for it to feel tedious, but that's just me of course. And after playing a while one kind of knows what the activation will be, so I get your point. However I would prefer one time activation per activation type to recognize it. Just for the immersion and ambiance and such. Every new @ is a virgin for me .

[Nomad]

I think the issue is that there are multiple different item categories to be taken into account.

• DSM breath weapons. These are immediately obvious to the player even before pickup, and therefore it's silly for these to require activation to learn.
• Element rings. If you pick up a Ring [+something] with rFire, you already know it's a Ring of Flames, and having to activate it to learn that seems pointless. (OTOH, if the activation is immediately known, it leaks information the other way - a ring that activates for flames will obviously have the rFire rune. But then, the same is true of any item where you know some runes but not others yet.)
• Ring of Digging. The digging bonus is apparent on wielding, so the activation is obvious.
• Open Wounds. Kind of a weird quirky edge case where both the Impair HP rune and the activation are unique, so learning one makes the other obvious anyway.
• Standarts. There are quite a lot of these to remember, but experienced players will know at least some of them, especially for things like the artefact lights.
• Randarts. Completely random, impossible to predict, and include potentially negative stuff like +1/-1 stat effects, banishment, deep descent, destruction, etc.

Looking at that list, I think I'm leaning towards the idea that all activations should just be apparent on pickup. In most cases they're obvious to the player and requiring activation to learn them is just unnecessary jumping through hoops; the only time they're actually a complete mystery is with randarts, and that's a side option anyway.

[Estie]

I wouldnt want to have to try to activate every unknown item/artifact. So if activations have to be tried to be identified, it should say on the unid item: "this item can be activated". With rod/staff/wand this information is implicit from the item type.

While it is consistent to require activation to identify the type, I dont like it at all to do so for egos and artifacts:
With rod/staff/wand the player has no idea what it does unless he tries it; with other items, any experienced player knows what the activation is going to be if he has even partial information about its other rune(s). You are introducing new cases of having to force the game to admit existing knowledge, exactly the thing that is unfun about the id game. The only exception that comes to mind are randarts. Otherwise, is there any item where knowledge of a single other rune does not allow to infer the activation type ?

[Derakon]

Mm, and I suppose allowing activation while the item is in the inventory would mean that players would carry around certain artifacts for use as "rods". I was trying to think of a way for players to not have to equip the item to find out what it does (assuming they already recognized all the runes on it, of course), but okay, fair enough.

[spara]

Foremost the behavior should be consistent. Since rods, staves, rings and wands require ID by use, then I would say that the activations should too.

[wobbly]

It potentially matters for the cloak with teleport on it. Mostly it depends on whether there's plans for cursed items or harmful activations in the future.

[PowerWyrm]

I'm inclined to say that all activations should be obvious on pickup. Is there a compelling reason for this not to be the case?

Activations are like devices, you should know them when you successfully activate something the first time.

[Derakon]

I actually can't quite recall - I'll check when I get back to working on this branch.

I'm inclined to say that all activations should be obvious on pickup. Is there a compelling reason for this not to be the case?

[Nick]

Is there some rational reason for some of the item activations to be hidden and some instantly known? For example rings of fire, acid etc. need to be activated once to be known, but for example leather gloves of Cammithir are instantly identified to produce magic missiles.

I actually can't quite recall - I'll check when I get back to working on this branch.

[spara]

Is there some rational reason for some of the item activations to be hidden and some instantly known? For example rings of fire, acid etc. need to be activated once to be known, but for example leather gloves of Cammithir are instantly identified to produce magic missiles.

[Nomad]

Rune-based auto-inscription is leaking information - in a previous game, I set up an inscription of {FA} on items with free action. Playing another game with the same save file, I picked up an unidentified pair of gloves and they immediately auto-inscribed {FA} despite the fact I haven't learned the rune for it yet.

[spara]

I've played with Ranger and Warrior so far. For the ranger the spell seems to come available a bit too fast, while the ID game is still hot. I suggest upping the CLevel for it a bit. The spell can also be considered to be more powerful, since it's a permanent ID. For the warrior I'm craving for more ID scrolls. Not much, just a bit more. I suggest upping the dungeon probability little. Also helps ironmen. If they need any help I mean, they're ironmen after all .