[FA] Jewellery

[Nick]

Rings and amulets are different from everything else. They're flavoured, but wieldable. There are no egos. They're also thematically different; weapons and armour are everyday items, whereas rings or amulets with any form of magical power had to be specially made. Accordingly, I'm thinking of a radical change to how they're handled, which is possible because in FA now all object properties are held with the object itself, without needing to refer to the object kind.

All rings and amulets will be generated rather like randarts. The object kinds will probably just be metals (brass, gold, mithril etc), and the more precious the metal, the more powerful the object is likely to be. No flavours (although I will probably add some flavour-text description with no gameplay effect). As with randart generation, there would be some base types which are not apparent to the player, with extra enchantments/curses attached individually. I'm also considering dispensing with all standard artifact rings and amulets (except the Necklace of the Dwarves, which would gain One Ring-like rarity and awesomeness).

Can anyone think of any negatives to this? I haven't yet.

[konijn_]

<Snip ring/amulet idea>

Can anyone think of any negatives to this? I haven't yet.

I've never gotten far with FA, so I dont really know what I'm talking about.

But, will players only find rings/amulet later in the game because they all become more powerful ? If so, then I guess the begin game becomes harder which might make FA harder to get into as a novice.

Cheers,
T.

[buzzkill]

Change is good. Jewelry is rather boring anyhow. Don't forget to remove the useless properties. There's nothing like finding an amulet of feather falling/sustain charisma. Feel free to replace them with curses if you must.

[Atarlost]

The ring of barahir is also a canonical first age artfact of some notoriety and may be worth retaining in some form.

[Nick]

But, will players only find rings/amulet later in the game because they all become more powerful ?

Good question - and the answer is no (approximately). Sticking to rings for argument's sake, I'm planning for many of the current ones (Feather Falling, Searching, Resist Fire, Free Action, etc etc) will become the basis for generating the new ones. So if you find a ring on DL3, for example, it will probably only have low power, and so will get a fairly weak basic property and not much chance of additional properties (except maybe curses). The deeper you go, the higher the power and the broader the range of options.

[Nick]

The ring of barahir is also a canonical first age artfact of some notoriety and may be worth retaining in some form.

Indeed - however it is said somewhere (I can't recall exactly where, although it is mentioned on this page) that it had no special powers, and was just an heirloom. Actually, magical rings are really not justified in the first age, but I think I can stretch the truth that far.

The other one I may keep in is Elessar; I haven't decided.

[PowerDiver]

This is a step toward "everything is a randart" which is a fine goal IMO. I don't see the point of tying anything to an artificial flavor like a base metal. I guess there is some value in being able to differentiate one ring from another in the pack without 'I'nspecting. Perhaps it might be best simply to cycle through the metals on generation or even perhaps setting the metal only upon pickup.

[Nick]

I don't see the point of tying anything to an artificial flavor like a base metal. I guess there is some value in being able to differentiate one ring from another in the pack without 'I'nspecting. Perhaps it might be best simply to cycle through the metals on generation or even perhaps setting the metal only upon pickup.

My plan here was for the object.txt entry to be "Bronze Ring", which would have an associated depth and (approximate) power. This would help with decisions based on detection ("Is it worth going into the vault for that ring?"). It also makes sense that someone making a powerful ring would use superior metal.

As for everythign being a randart, it had actually occurred to me that the same kind of thing could be done with weapons and armour, effectively removing ego types altogether. I'm not sure whether I want to do that - the ego types give some structure. In fact, the lack of structure for jewellery in this new plan is the closest I can find to an argument against it.

[PowerDiver]

My plan here was for the object.txt entry to be "Bronze Ring", which would have an associated depth and (approximate) power. This would help with decisions based on detection ("Is it worth going into the vault for that ring?"). It also makes sense that someone making a powerful ring would use superior metal.

I simply disagree. Half because in the fantasy I read, power isn't really correlated to how the ring looks, and half from a gameplay perspecitve I would rather have different one-line descriptions in the inventory list. I'd rather assert from an object generation standpoint that rings in vaults are worth going for, and rings found deeper are better, etc.

Are you in favor or opposed to the recent change to hide damage dice on detected weapons?

[Nick]

I simply disagree. Half because in the fantasy I read, power isn't really correlated to how the ring looks, and half from a gameplay perspecitve I would rather have different one-line descriptions in the inventory list. I'd rather assert from an object generation standpoint that rings in vaults are worth going for, and rings found deeper are better, etc.

Are you in favor or opposed to the recent change to hide damage dice on detected weapons?

In favour - I've done that in FA too; the metal idea is giving much less specific information than damage dice, though. This whole idea is still less than 12 hours old, so I may well change my mind. The point about one-line descriptions is a good one. They will show bonuses, but I don't know how a ring with, say, Free Action, Feather Falling and Resist Cold should appear. At least with the metals idea, you might get a rough idea of quality.

[PowerDiver]

The point about one-line descriptions is a good one. They will show bonuses, but I don't know how a ring with, say, Free Action, Feather Falling and Resist Cold should appear. At least with the metals idea, you might get a rough idea of quality.

Suppose you find 3 rings at DL 20 of the same "quality". Perhaps one is s.dig, another FF, and a third adornment [or some not valuable not obvious attribute you add later]. Maybe you try various combinations as you test things out. and learn a bit of negative info about each. I'd really want them to have different names in my pack so I could keep track of which was which.

[Nick]

Metal ring set with gemstone, where the metals are as outlined and the gemstones are random, meaningless and sufficiently numerous that you would be unlikely to have two the same?

[PowerDiver]

Metal ring set with gemstone, where the metals are as outlined and the gemstones are random, meaningless and sufficiently numerous that you would be unlikely to have two the same?

So you want the inventory to read something like

a bronze ring with amethyst, quartz, and hematite

?

I suppose that works, but I don't really see the point. OTOH, when I played with analagous ideas way back when my solution was worse.

a ring { rFire ? ? }

with one ? for each unknown rune, and no flavors at all so the player had to inscribe to tell them apart. I suppose I shouldn't criticize.

[Derakon]

If you autoinscribe items with known powers, then you should be able to tell them apart in the inventory without too much trouble. There's still a small chance of finding two rings that both have slow digestion and one unknown power, but enh.

[LostTemplar]

Why not just add random powers/curses depending on generation depth, but
keep names and base powers associated with. So it would still be rings of protection or speed etc. but with additional powers. And maybe do the same thing with ego items, add more random powers/curses, and maybe reduce number of guaranteed ones.