Rune-based ID

[Derakon]

Nice to see that rune-ID has come full circle and we are back to using consumables to ID stuff. :^)

*rimshot*

The difference being that now, you only have to ID things once! Also, presumably the rarities of these items will be set so that you will still want to make use of ID-by-use when possible.

[Nick]

A point of terminology

So far, we've been calling this ID system "rune-based". At least in my mind, though, it has not been explicit that, for example, every item with resist fire has a particular physical rune engraved (stamped, burned, whatever) onto it which gives it the "makes the player resist fire" property. I have just taken learning the resist fire rune to mean being able to detect on inspection that the item gives resist fire.

I'm starting to think, though, that it should actually be made explicit that items carry physical runes. In particular, if we want to be able to examine what runes the player has learned, and get explicit messages on learning a new one, then the hand-wavy ambiguous approach starts to become confusing.

Opinions?

[fizzix]

So far, we've been calling this ID system "rune-based". At least in my mind, though, it has not been explicit that, for example, every item with resist fire has a particular physical rune engraved (stamped, burned, whatever) onto it which gives it the "makes the player resist fire" property. I have just taken learning the resist fire rune to mean being able to detect on inspection that the item gives resist fire.

I'm starting to think, though, that it should actually be made explicit that items carry physical runes. In particular, if we want to be able to examine what runes the player has learned, and get explicit messages on learning a new one, then the hand-wavy ambiguous approach starts to become confusing.

Opinions?

I think that approach is best. You should be able to Inspect an item and know it's properties and then you should also be able to know that it has N unknown properties. Those could be given two letter effects as well.

You can then have a new knowledge screen along with objects and monsters etc. that has runes.

[Derakon]

So far, we've been calling this ID system "rune-based". At least in my mind, though, it has not been explicit that, for example, every item with resist fire has a particular physical rune engraved (stamped, burned, whatever) onto it which gives it the "makes the player resist fire" property. I have just taken learning the resist fire rune to mean being able to detect on inspection that the item gives resist fire.

I'm starting to think, though, that it should actually be made explicit that items carry physical runes. In particular, if we want to be able to examine what runes the player has learned, and get explicit messages on learning a new one, then the hand-wavy ambiguous approach starts to become confusing.

Opinions?

I see no harm in explicitly labeling things as runes. Well okay, I do see two potential issues:

1) Innate properties of an item should not be bestowed by a rune. A longsword isn't 2d5 because it has a Rune of 2d5 Dice inscribed on it; it's 2d5 because that's the damage that you take when you get whacked in the face by a sharp piece of steel of that size. IMO this speaks towards such "basic properties" (dice and base AC) being automatically known.

2) When your average armor gets hit by acid, it suddenly acquires a negative AC rune. This is weird, but I think it's also enough of an edge case that it's not really worth worrying about.

[Nick]

I think that approach is best. You should be able to Inspect an item and know it's properties and then you should also be able to know that it has N unknown properties. Those could be given two letter effects as well.

Two letter effects?

You can then have a new knowledge screen along with objects and monsters etc. that has runes.

Agreed.

Innate properties of an item should not be bestowed by a rune. A longsword isn't 2d5 because it has a Rune of 2d5 Dice inscribed on it; it's 2d5 because that's the damage that you take when you get whacked in the face by a sharp piece of steel of that size. IMO this speaks towards such "basic properties" (dice and base AC) being automatically known.

Eloquently put

When your average armor gets hit by acid, it suddenly acquires a negative AC rune. This is weird, but I think it's also enough of an edge case that it's not really worth worrying about.

Actually, I think this throws up a problem with acid damage. Disenchantment reducing armor enchantments makes sense; acid doing so doesn't. My suggested fix is that acid reduces the base armor class.

[Nomad]

So far, we've been calling this ID system "rune-based". At least in my mind, though, it has not been explicit that, for example, every item with resist fire has a particular physical rune engraved (stamped, burned, whatever) onto it which gives it the "makes the player resist fire" property. I have just taken learning the resist fire rune to mean being able to detect on inspection that the item gives resist fire.

I'm starting to think, though, that it should actually be made explicit that items carry physical runes. In particular, if we want to be able to examine what runes the player has learned, and get explicit messages on learning a new one, then the hand-wavy ambiguous approach starts to become confusing.

This was how it was handled in v4 with the affix system, and I think it worked pretty well there. Individual runes had randomly generated names in the same way as scrolls (I put together a bunch of vaguely Norse sounding seed names as a third section in names.txt, which are still available here if you wanted to recycle them) and had their own section on the knowledge menu. So when you inspected an item you could e.g. see that it had the known rune "Resist Fire" plus unknown runes named Ogg, Norn and Knud. Which is handy from an inventory management perspective because you can then see that, say, both those helmets you're carrying have the same rune and you can safely ditch one of them.

[bio_hazard]

Two letter effects?



Actually, I think this throws up a problem with acid damage. Disenchantment reducing armor enchantments makes sense; acid doing so doesn't. My suggested fix is that acid reduces the base armor class.

Then what would enchant armor scrolls do?
1) If acid damage, scroll fixes all acid damage, then adds magical bonus upon subsequent reading?

2) Tries to add +1 to acid and +1 to magical bonus?

3) randomly picks either acid or magical bonus?

[Nick]

Then what would enchant armor scrolls do?
1) If acid damage, scroll fixes all acid damage, then adds magical bonus upon subsequent reading?

2) Tries to add +1 to acid and +1 to magical bonus?

3) randomly picks either acid or magical bonus?

My instinct is just attempt to increase the enchantment as currently; base AC is physical properties, + to_a is magical. Acid damaged gear can't be fixed.

[Derakon]

My instinct is just attempt to increase the enchantment as currently; base AC is physical properties, + to_a is magical. Acid damaged gear can't be fixed.

If that's too irksome, we can add a Scroll of Repairing that restores a point of non-magical AC to damaged armor. I can't imagine it'd be too difficult to implement.

[yyt16384]

My instinct is just attempt to increase the enchantment as currently; base AC is physical properties, + to_a is magical. Acid damaged gear can't be fixed.

What will happen when it reaches 0? Get destroyed? Not a good idea because some useful ego items don't have IGNORE_ACID.

[bio_hazard]

My instinct is just attempt to increase the enchantment as currently; base AC is physical properties, + to_a is magical. Acid damaged gear can't be fixed.

I actually kind of like this, but I think most people won't, because it kind of kills the utility of item squelch. If items degrade but are not repairable, it means you'll always be on the lookout for items that are even p-val but undamaged, so you'll have to check your kit, see what's damaged, then figure out how to temporarily unsquelch that until you find a replacement, then resquelch.

What you propose is more or less like Diablo where armor degrades, except here you aren't allowing it to be fully repaired.

[Derakon]

What will happen when it reaches 0? Get destroyed? Not a good idea because some useful ego items don't have IGNORE_ACID.

Considering that Iron Crowns can be damaged by acid and have an AC of 0, I assume "fully-damaged" armor just stops providing an AC bonus. Full-out nonvoluntary item destruction would be supremely unpopular with our players.

[bio_hazard]

(Mostly) flavor suggestion- some races/classes should know a few runes at outset.

For Race, know runes based on their intrinsics if any, e.g. gnomes should know FA

Class specific runes- Warrior knows pFear, Priest knows Slay Undead, Paladin knows Slay Evil, etc...

[takkaria]

2) When your average armor gets hit by acid, it suddenly acquires a negative AC rune. This is weird, but I think it's also enough of an edge case that it's not really worth worrying about.

Maybe acid should lower base AC instead? [edit: just saw that nick already suggested it, should have scrolled down first!]

Also with a rune-based approach you could have flavourful new messages on disenchanting gear: "your sword's runes slip away"

[Nick]

Maybe acid should lower base AC instead? [edit: just saw that nick already suggested it, should have scrolled down first!]

Great minds never scroll down