Current master post 4.2.0

[archolewa]

Agreed. I much prefer the model that wands should be reserved for when you jeed them, and rods should be used for the simple cases. With this observation, perhaps some rods should be deleted? I haven't carried a rod of fire bolts or the like in a looong time.

I've been running some rogues lately, and I'm going to have to disagree with this. I really like that rogues are so reliant on wands. Not only does it make for a really different game than the paladins and priests that I've mostly been playing, but at least with the new spells, it makes the rogue *feel* much more like a rogue, i.e. a tricksy fellow who heavily relies on "mechanical" tools rather than swords or spells.

[Pete Mack]

@Arch--
This doesn't mean that recharge shouldn't sometimes fail catastrophically. For what you describe, archery is the right answer, possibly with a poison brand spell to juice it a little in the endgame.

[archolewa]

@Arch--
This doesn't mean that recharge shouldn't sometimes fail catastrophically. For what you describe, archery is the right answer, possibly with a poison brand spell to juice it a little in the endgame.

I wasn't disagreeing that recharges shouldn't fail catastrophically sometimes, I was disagreeing with the idea that wands should be used "only in emergencies." I don't see any reason why we can't have a class that leans heavily on wands, and supplements with weapons and arrows. Especially since wands provide things that arrows don't (like a success chance that depends solely on the player, and AOE). Besides, rangers are already the archer guys. No sense in making rogues a poor man's ranger.

Maybe Rogues get a recharging spell with a higher success chance than mages, since it sounds like it's the tap-recharge combo that's broken and not necessarily recharge by itself. Not sure if Rogues get the Tap spell, because I haven't found all three spellbooks yet but if they do, you could always remove Tap from their spell list.

[Pete Mack]

Oh, sorry. By 'when you need them' I meant more than just emergencies. I also meant 'really worthwhile fights that you otherwise couldn't afford.' Which is not to say that a poison brand spell wouldn't be a good idea, too...

[wobbly]

So, quiver shenanigans.
I went over the 10 stack limit: 9 pebble/shot stacks + 1 bolt stack + 1 arrow stack. My best stack of sling shots ended up in the inventory & the bolts & arrows remained in the quiver despite the fact I'm using a sling. My inventory goes up to the letter 'w', a full pack.

I then inscribed all my pebble/shots so they'd move into the quiver. Now my inventory goes up to the letter 'v' suggesting I have room for 1 more item, except it wont let me pick another item up, it thinks the pack is still full.

[archolewa]

Oh, sorry. By 'when you need them' I meant more than just emergencies. I also meant 'really worthwhile fights that you otherwise couldn't afford.' Which is not to say that a poison brand spell wouldn't be a good idea, too...

My bad on the misinterpretation. Still like the idea of an arcane-based character whose offensive "spells" come from tools rather than knowledge/innate-power/wherever-it-is-arcane-spells-come-from-in-Angband.

That being said, I would also not turn down a poison brand. It could replace the steal-and-teleport spell. Haven't found a use for it yet, since near as I can tell, you only teleport if you steal successfully.

[DavidMedley]

Yes - it's a percentage bonus to damage from when your device skill is greater than the object level. It can be up to 138%.

Revisiting this... INT is already such a dump stat for all non-INT casters. Shame to take away one of the few things it does well for all classes.

[Sky]

i tried playing some 4.2 with little success.

my two main observations are:

1. the new color for the ground and walls looks really bad - iam having a hard time distinguishing stuff from the background. too bright by far. I would really be much happier if there was an option to have the background set as it was in 4.1
2. the new dice size thing doesnt work on ranged weapons, and also works in weird ways on ordinary weapons.
Stuff that i know should be doing a lot more damage, doesn't; but i guess this was the intended result, to have bigger weapons hurt more and lighter ones hurt less. However, wouldn't this simply result in endgame stuff being even stronger? Things like MoD - or anything heavy, really, when you already have high stats.

[wobbly]

Does the cover tracks spell do something useful at the moment? or is it actually a minus to have this cast?

I've been seeing this funny effect in the AI where sometimes you phase out of melee & the enemy takes a few steps in the wrong direction before correcting itself & tracking you properly. I'm guessing that's the monster picking up the scent of where you were a few turns ago. It seems as currently implemented scent is actually a penalty to monsters tracking you.

[backwardsEric]

Font seemed to change. There's extra space between characters, making it hard to read in the windows...I had been using fixed width Menlo size 14, but now to make it fit in the inventory window i have to set it to 12 point but there's still extra space between the characters.

I've attached a set of patches from git format-patch for the Cocoa rendering in the nightly build so that the text is more compact. It will still take more space for the same content than 4.2.0.

[Nick]

New builds up on the nightlies page and angband.live (although still not playable on angband.live - we're not sure why yet). Source here. This update has some technical fixes to the macOS and X11 ports from backwardsEric, and a fix for teleport messages by sanedragon.

Not a lot of development happening at the moment, but I should have some more time soon.

[PowerWyrm]

name:EAT_LIGHT
power:0
eval:5
desc:absorb light
lore-color-base:Yellow
lore-color-resist:Light Green
effect-type:eat-light
[B][COLOR="Red"]lore-color-base:Light Green[/COLOR][/B]
lash-type:MISSILE

This line is probably a copy/paste error.

name:SHATTER
power:60
eval:300
desc:shatter
lore-color-base:Yellow
lash-type:MISSILE

Wouldn't "SHARDS" be better here?

[Grotug]

I just noticed that daggers have been increased to 150 gold, yet main guaches are still 84. Shouldn't they cost at least 184 or 200 gold? Rapiers are still 104 gold.

[DavidMedley]

"Creature" in Recall

The word "creature" seems to be a informationless noun used to drape adjectives like "evil" and "non-living" onto. It could be replaced by the "base" creature. It would be a bit redundant at times, but at other times would be very informative to someone who doesn't know the bestiary very well. This would also take a bit of pressure off the "name" and "desc" fields.

Examples: Recently I saw complaints that a "Water Spirit" doesn't have a spirit (for Necromancer purposes). Putting "elemental" in place of "creature" might clear that up. The "Tamer" often confuses me because Shockbolt's tiles make it look like a centipede, and he doesn't have any "taming" powers. Having "person" (or perhaps "human" or "humanoid") in there would clarify what this lover of nature is.

EDIT: We're already replacing the word "creature", but I think only in line with "slays". Could get a bit awkward to say "natural spider" for pretty damn unnatural spiders! But leaving off natural and just going with the base creature name would lead to ambiguity about what "slay animal" slays. Most of the slays seem pretty obvious when the player is given the base creature title.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

A nit-picky "bug". We should probably review the class "title" names. E.g., Can a necromancer "Summoner" anything?