Re: What about THIEVES?

[Peter Mardahl <peterm@soda.berkeley.edu>]

In message <199405260401.AA20592@bolero.rahul.net>, Mark Wedel writes:
> A few thoughts.
>
> There should probably be a search command (with the key binding
>code, you could bind it to a single key).  The implicit command would search
>that object/area.  There should also be a serach movement mode, which
>lowers the players movement speed, and which has a lesser chance of
>finding the various traps.

  I like these ideas, they're certainly viable.  I had imagined 
'searching' to be a very directed thing, which is why i wanted
it to be a range-attack.  Also, i figured it would be something that
one would want to repeat a lot, which is why i wanted to make it
bound to a direction key....  Searching in every direction at once
when the command is given is certainly fine with me.  I have
absolutely no objection.
>
> I also don't see why things like disarm/pick lock/backstab/pickpocket
>need to be range commands.

  No objection to that either.  Sounds like a better idea to me.  Probably
easier, as well.  I'll do it this way if/when I do it.  I'm still
hoping someone will do it for me.  :)

> Generic Note:  Try a 'help bind' sometime.  You can bind things so
>that F1, shift-F1 and control-F1 do different things.  I find this
>very handy for setting up related spells (R2 is detect magic, S-R2 is
>detect curse, and C-R2 is identify.  All the spells I need when I bring
>back items.  I do something similar for R1, being cure confusion, cure
>poison, and heal).  This could easily be done for theif actions.

  In general I prefer to bind spells to actual keys,  I find this
more mnemnonic (sp?).

> Also, backstab could just be something done whenever you are behind a
>monster and attack it.

  This makes more sense than my proposal.  Sounds good.

> I do agree that all those changes would be a good idea.

  yes, thanks for the helpful suggestions about implementation.

> I think it would also be nice to have chests that are never trapped, and
>some that are always trap, and a third random category.  Same for doors.

  OK.  The only thing is that this would require changes to maps.  
I wanted to install traps in such a way that all maps would have traps
in them already, without any editing.  Perhaps we can simply make
the 'third random category' the chest archetype that currently exists.

> The idea with doors is that in this way, if you go onto some maps, you
>never know if it is safe to bash down a door or not.  More randomness
>in maps owuld be interesting.  Maybe add an object 'random_monster'.

  The random_monster idea is certainly intriguing....

Regards,

PeterM