Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
CF: Re: Are these bugs?
> Some odd things I've noticed that may or may not be bugs:
> 1) Holy Word vs Banishment
> As far as I can tell, there are three differences between these two Holy
> Effect cone spells. Banishment adds Death to the attack vector, it does
> zero damage, and it gets no wisdom bonus. That zero damage stumped me for a
> while, until I realized that Death attacks don't depend on damage, only on
> the relative levels of the caster and target. So, with that zero, the Holy
> Effect vector does 3 * 0 damage. Why is it there? Shouldn't Banishment at
> least hurt a little even if the target is strong enough to resist being
No, when I wrote the spell, I intended it to be a 'clean up the annoying
small fry' spell, not a general utility spell. It works exactly as intended.
If you want to do damage to things, you have Holy [Orb|Word].
> 2) Undead
> Only priests of a cult that considers undead their enemy (or unaligned?
> priests) can banish them or slay them with Holy Word, but any priest (of
> sufficient level) can Turn or Command them. Should Turn Undead and Command
> Undead be usable if undead are neither friends nor foes? Lythander and
> Mostrai, for example, should have _no_ power over undead, while Gaea and
> Valriel should be better than "unaligned" at turning them, but not so good
> at controlling them. Devourers on the other hand, should be able to Command
> Undead especially well, but unable to turn them at all.
These are all good ideas, in my opinion. Why not see if you can build
a consensus and code these changes?
> 5) Rare Prayers
> From reading the gods.c code, when a god considers whether to grant a
> rare prayer, only prayers of aligned paths (and non-repelled - redundant? if
> not redundant, why isn't non-denied checked?) are considered. That makes
> them extremely rare and encourages priests to switch gods to learn all the
> spells. Wouldn't attuned or neutral be better?
Hmm, you should probably forget prayers learned when you switch gods.
> 6) Protected && Vulnerable == immune to protection?
> It's possible to be protected and vulnerable to the same attack type,
> which apparently cancels out. (dam *= 2; dam /= 2;) That kinda makes
> sense. But why would Lythander grant his priests protection from confusion
> AND make them vulnerable to confusion? It not only cancels out, but it
> prevents any other Protection from Confusion magic from working. This /has/
> to be a mistake, right? Even if protection is made additive, it just
> doesn't make sense.
This HAS to be a problem with the archetype.
> 7) Your weapon still hungers to slay enemies of ... nobody in particular
> Gods only grant slaying power to weapons that aren't already enchanted
> to slay something. Any particular reason for that? I don't see why Valriel
> should decline to make a Dragonslayer also slay demons and devils. It would
> just become a Dragonslayer of Valriel.
> The gods' refusal to bless each other's sacred weapons already prevents
> one weapon from being blessed to slay the enemies of multiple gods. There's
> no problem with adding a god's attacktype to a magical weapon. If it's just
> a matter of merging the slaying fields, I have a patch for that. I'm
> testing it now and it seems to work okay.
I thought I'd used strstr to search for stuff in the slaying field,
which means you'd just have to add stuff to it: a slaying field like this:
"undead, demon, bear, vulture, Ross Perot"
would slay all of these things. Or at least it would once. Is strstr not
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to firstname.lastname@example.org]