More thoughts on v4

[Derakon]

Alternately your default level of craftsmanship has imperfect balance, a slippery grip, etc. which results in the weapon being harder to use than a well-crafted one. That might not affect how hard you can strike but it could easily affect how easily you can hit your target.

[sethos]

and the flip side means that an otherwise decent "Mixed bag" item, ex: broken sword of (Insert awesome affixes here) would become permanently nerfed, you can no longer "Enchant" it up to being as good as a non-broken sword.

I started this reply thinking that this was a bad thing...
but a "broken" sword SHOULD never be as good as a "mastercraft" sword.

I like it.

[Magnate]

Hmmm. Would Restore Item restore a Broken sword to a normal (no affix) sword?

[fizzix]

Can weapons really have a non-magical bonus to hit? Discuss. (3 marks)

The only argument I would make against it has to do with difficulty of displaying the information. Adding more +s and -s is a no-go with an already packed display.

However, we have something of an advantage in that to-hit values impart very little information to the end-user, where to-dam plusses clearly do. I think if this route is taken, we should strongly consider not displaying to-hit information on the main line and relegating it to the inspect screen.

[Jungle_Boy]

" "

I agree with this, make affix names start at +3 or 4 bonuses.

[ogozi4]

Yes, indeed. Things get a little fuzzier when you talk about craft/magical bonuses to weapons. The dice can't really handle to-hit changes.

They sure get really fuzzy!

[Starhawk]

Can weapons really have a non-magical bonus to hit? Discuss. (3 marks)

There is plenty of precedent for this just in the various editions of D&D, where various non-magical bonuses to hit and damage were introduced. Sometimes this was because of craftsmanship (the "masterwork" quality) and other times because of the use of a special material (a mithril or adamantine weapon).

One could argue that some items in LOTR, such as Bilbo's coat of mail, were not strictly magical -- that they instead gave extra bonuses because of the manner and method of their construction and the material of which they were made. While Sting had an obvious enchantment, as did the various named magical swords such as Glamdring, I don't think your average dwarf-crafted platemail carried an enchantment in the way that we're used to thinking about such things.

[Malak Darkhunter]

Item suffixes are interesting, one thing I noticed in the descriptions is what they can't be harmed by are sort of double posted, you have for instance:
it hates fire, acid, lightning etc...

and then again you have : It cannot be harmed by acid,fire, lightning,

it's sort of double described in the description.

[Timo Pietilä]

Item suffixes are interesting, one thing I noticed in the descriptions is what they can't be harmed by are sort of double posted, you have for instance:
it hates fire, acid, lightning etc...

and then again you have : It cannot be harmed by acid,fire, lightning,

it's sort of double described in the description.

Doesn't "hates" mean it is harmed by corresponding element? Those are opposite of each other, not same twice?

[flechette]

He's saying there are items that have 'hates fire' and 'cannot be destroyed by fire' on the same item. It needs to be one or the other, or they shouldn't be able to be on the same item...

[Magnate]

He's saying there are items that have 'hates fire' and 'cannot be destroyed by fire' on the same item. It needs to be one or the other, or they shouldn't be able to be on the same item...

Well, if the base object type (arrow) has HATES_FIRE, and yet the actual object (mithril arrow) has IGNORE_FIRE, then you do end up with both on the same item. This isn't a problem, providing that the description code knows how to handle it. Which it does, now. It no longer says "can be destroyed by fire" if the object has both flags, it just says "cannot be harmed by fire".

But what you're seeing is the runes, and both runes are still there. It's just that one of them is overridden by the other.

[Nomad]

But what you're seeing is the runes, and both runes are still there. It's just that one of them is overridden by the other.

I think that overridden runes should be hidden too, so that you only see the best one an item has out of Immunity/Resists/Ignores/Hates. It's redundant information and the rune list already ends up epic enough on artefacts that have a ton of different properties.

[Derakon]

But then you'd have extra knowledge if you saw e.g. some leather armor missing its usual hates-fire rune.

[Magnate]

But then you'd have extra knowledge if you saw e.g. some leather armor missing its usual hates-fire rune.

That - and some players would ask why some runes were shown but not others etc. This is one of those areas where it's not possible to please everyone.

[takkaria]

But then you'd have extra knowledge if you saw e.g. some leather armor missing its usual hates-fire rune.

But does it even make sense for hates-fire to be a rune if it's a property of the material of the item? I don't see a rune on my wooden table that gives it the property of being usable to heat the room when my gas runs out.