Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: saving throw and multiple attacktypes
- To: crossfire (at) ifi.uio.no
- Subject: Re: saving throw and multiple attacktypes
- From: KAWAMOTO Yosihisa <>
- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 13:16:40 +0900
- References: <> <>
- Sender:
In message <>
"Mark Wedel" <> wrote:
> > 0. What is saveing throw? I can't understand a meaning and an
> > idea of these words.
> >
>
> The idea of a saving through comes from D&D. Basically, as determined by some
> luck, level, and other protections, you may be unaffected by some attack type.
>
> Thus, a high level person is not as likely to become confused, poisened, etc
> as a low level person
I understand the idea of saving throw(through?). Thank you.
> > 1. Is this a specification or just bug of multiple attacktypes?
>
> I personally think it is a bug - if you have something that attacks with fear
> and weaponmagic, that should work by doing both damage and possibly causing
> fear.
If this is a bug, how about following modification? Is it
necessary to take account of AT_MAGIC?
--- attack.c- Tue Jan 2 20:58:39 1996
+++ attack.c Wed Mar 6 12:42:46 1996
@@ -511,7 +511,8 @@
/* the following includes a secret saving throw for magic:
you get TWO saving throws for magical attacks! */
(RANDOM()%20+((op->protected&type)?5:1) >= savethrow[op->level]))
- return 0;
+ type &=~(AT_PARALYZE|AT_FEAR|AT_POISON|AT_CONFUSION|AT_SLOW|
+ AT_CANCELLATION|AT_DEPLETE);
CLEAR_FLAG(op,FLAG_SCARED); /* Or the monster won't hit back */
if(get_owner(hitter))
> > 2. Praying at the alter add some attacktypes to a weapon but
> > almost weapons lose the attacktype 'physical'. I think
> > leaving 'physical' is better. Are there any reason to lose
> > 'physical'?
>
> If attacktype weaponmagic replaces physical, it makes a lot of sense. But
> this is a tough question. A weapon that attacks both fire and physical may be
> better than one that attacks just fire or just physical depending on the
> monster.
>
> However, I can say that there should never be a weapon with attacktype of both
> physical and weaponmagic - weaponmagic is just a much improved physical in some
> sense (there are very few monsters immune to weaponmagic, there are a fair
> number immune to physical.)
I see. It seems good to leaving physical.
--
iKAWAMOTO Yosihisa!