Rune-based ID

[debo]

Give mages the id spell back, have it id all runes on all items in LOS but permanently drain 1 int.

[Derakon]

Consumables run out, especially when you hit vaults. This just happened to an on-again-off-again warrior I'm playing, who entered the dungeon with a stack of 40 charges in identify staves, and still ran out. Getting the identify spell was always HUGE for me, and still is. Humbug.

By the time you're hitting vaults in any significant quantity, you should know enough runes that almost every item should auto-ID anyway. The entire goal of rune-based ID was to reduce the amount of identification the player had to do without stripping away the concept of un-identified items altogether.

[Bogatyr]

Eh, having Identify was nice, sure, but I never really felt like it was a big turning point for mages, because literally every class carried enough identification to ID everything before trying it on, if necessary. It's just that most classes used consumables for that purpose, rather than spells.

Consumables run out, especially when you hit vaults. This just happened to an on-again-off-again warrior I'm playing, who entered the dungeon with a stack of 40 charges in identify staves, and still ran out. Getting the identify spell was always HUGE for me, and still is. Humbug.

The mythos of the mage is that you get almost all of the most useful utilities, in infinite supply.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

So yeah, I'd say you're in the minority here. I don't feel like the mage needs to be compensated for the loss of this spell any more than any other class needs to be compensated for the loss of purchasable Identify consumables.

Count me in on the minority report. I think mages and priests should keep their Identify spell, although modified to only identify a single rune. In addition isn't there now an Identify scroll to identify single runes? (My only complaint with the scrolls was they stopped appearing after a certain depth, resulting in deep diving being penalized from lack of identify). Isn't this the way it works on both counts now in the nightlies, or has that been changed again?

[Derakon]

Because it seems kind of unbalanced to take an aspect of the game where one class is far better than the others, and just remove it. The mage suffers quite a lot already for its weakness, for which it is made up in convenience and control/knowledge. But like I said, I seem to be in the minority on this point, so oh well. It is always a "magical moment" for a mage to reach clev 11, a turning of a major corner in the early game.

Eh, having Identify was nice, sure, but I never really felt like it was a big turning point for mages, because literally every class carried enough identification to ID everything before trying it on, if necessary. It's just that most classes used consumables for that purpose, rather than spells.

So yeah, I'd say you're in the minority here. I don't feel like the mage needs to be compensated for the loss of this spell any more than any other class needs to be compensated for the loss of purchasable Identify consumables.

[Bogatyr]

Because it seems kind of unbalanced to take an aspect of the game where one class is far better than the others, and just remove it. The mage suffers quite a lot already for its weakness, for which it is made up in convenience and control/knowledge. But like I said, I seem to be in the minority on this point, so oh well. It is always a "magical moment" for a mage to reach clev 11, a turning of a major corner in the early game.

[AnonymousHero]

So I'm still wondering: what compensations are mages receiving in return for the loss of the identify spell? The "mage bargain" (total knowledge [detects, identify] and eventual control [kelek's] over the game/dungeon, at the expense of being very weak for a very long time) is being weakened fairly considerably in my eyes with rune ID.

Why do they need one?

[Bogatyr]

So I'm still wondering: what compensations are mages receiving in return for the loss of the identify spell? The "mage bargain" (total knowledge [detects, identify] and eventual control [kelek's] over the game/dungeon, at the expense of being very weak for a very long time) is being weakened fairly considerably in my eyes with rune ID.

[Nick]

I understand that pseudo-id is gone... but why removing the ego quality squelching categories? Before, I could squelch slay dragon and such vs westernesse and such by choosing "excellent but not splendid" as a category. Now I have to select "non-artifact" and squelch all egos in the ego item ignore menu manually...

Because the inscriptions "excellent" and "splendid" no longer appear in the game, and even the concepts they represent are no gone in the new ID system.

The =Mouse issue is now fixed in development - thanks PowerWyrm and spara for working that out.

[Estie]

I avoid testing unidentified consumables in vaults, for various reasons. For example, destruction and earthquake are some other effects I rather not have go off in the vault. It is tempting though when the inventory fills up with loot, items need to be shuffled and dropped, and then theres this additional consumable that will go away when used. Very tempting.

[kandrc]

Mass banishment

I just lost an ironman mage to ID by use when I read an un-ID'd "mass banishment" in a big vault. Character was full HP (about 180) and in a safe position, and the vault, a "Castle Death" was half, perhaps 2/3, cleared.

I like the ID-by-use mechanism, but it's often annoying with some (usually less than useful) scrolls, wands, rods, and staves that are difficult to determine. This was my first ID-by-use instadeath, and it was rather infuriating. Many items must be used in the presence of NPCs to ID, and here's one giving the opposite strategy: use in the absence of NPCs to avoid instadeath.

I don't think there's a reasonable strategy to avoid this as the game currently stands at top of tree in git. I would advocate for the old-style ID still working on consumables. Strong (big HP) characters can safely read any scroll, or use magical ID if they have it available, and weak characters can avoid new twists on old instadeaths.

[Nick]

Just a proposition, but maybe when only one of the ToHit and ToDam enhancements have been learned, enhancement could be presented with (x) notation. In this case a Ring of the Mouse (-5) <+2, +3>.

This sounds sensible.

[spara]

Nope, you just need to hit something with tohit bonus to learn it. Ring of the mouse has +0 tohit, so you won't learn the rune unless your weapon is enchanted.

But how should a random player know that? I know this is a corner case, but it sure had me perplexed for a while and I'm adequately familiar with the game.

Assume that the player does not know what a Ring of the Mouse is or does. In a case where ToHit rune has not been revealed yet, the player sees a Ring of the Mouse <+2, +3>. Not a bad ring, I would say. No clue anywhere of the negative ToDam rune. Dagger shows 0 dmg and char info shows D4-5, but that's it.

Just a proposition, but maybe when only one of the ToHit and ToDam enhancements have been learned, enhancement could be presented with (x) notation. In this case a Ring of the Mouse (-5) <+2, +3>.

[PowerWyrm]

Ah. That explains it. Hasn't happened to me before. Made me wonder though. Maybe something in the ring's inscription would be in order here?

Nope, you just need to hit something with tohit bonus to learn it. Ring of the mouse has +0 tohit, so you won't learn the rune unless your weapon is enchanted.

[spara]

Ah. That explains it. Hasn't happened to me before. Made me wonder though. Maybe something in the ring's inscription would be in order here?