0002165: let "Warding prevent rotting instead of giving RNeg

(0006827)
xyblor (reporter)
2010-08-03 15:49

It would be a nerf to an already weak amulet. It would make getting rN+++ much more difficult. If you make rN++ the maximum, then it would make getting full protection much easier. Shouldn't rN have the same increments as rF and rC?

(0006832)
Lemuel (updater)
2010-08-03 18:57

Funny you call it a nerf. I would think it would make the amulet much more valuable, albeit situationally. There are lots of other sources of RNeg. No other sources of rotting resistance. And rotting is worse than draining for most characters.

(0006835)
OG17 (reporter)
2010-08-03 19:15

Would this just drain 1 hp for every time you'd normally start to rot? Not sure what "rot that otherwise would have happened" means, as it's an over-time effect.

Straight protection seems bad, as in the normal game, rotting's generally from predictable miasma, which would cause players to wait around until the amulet's ready, and later on, when unpredictable sources are more common, I'd think players would have better things to wear.

Also many resistances break from +++, eg rE and rP; ++ wouldn't be exceptional in itself.

I'd suggest a more thematic warding boost, myself, like having a chance to ignore all summon attacks instead of just weaker creatures' melee. Not sure if rRot should be so easily-available, either, as it's a pretty big distinction between living and undead.

(0006838)
Lemuel (updater)
2010-08-03 21:24

Yes, stronger protection against summons is probably better. How about a 2/3 chance for any attack by a summon (melee, ranged, spell, whatever) to fail?

(0006860)
dpeg (administrator)
2010-08-04 22:36

I like the idea a lot to replace rNeg with rRot.

On rNeg levels: currently, rNeg already behaves differently from rF and rC in that the three levels rN+, rN++, rN+++ give 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 resistance, respectively. (This is completely different for Fire and Cold.) However, I don't think that two levels of rNeg will be better.

(0006861)
BirdoPrey (reporter)
2010-08-05 00:18

I think it would be cool if warding had some kind of evocable abjuration with a cooldown, would also fit in the warding theme.

(0006862)
dolorous (updater)
2010-08-05 01:48

dpeg:
> I like the idea a lot to replace rNeg with rRot.

Seconded. However, if this is done, it still shouldn't stop ghouls' natural rotting, since that would be game-breaking for starving ghouls.

(0006863)
Lemuel (updater)
2010-08-05 04:08

Dpeg's and dolorous's modifications of the proposal sound right to me.

(0006864)
OG17 (reporter)
2010-08-05 04:35

It'd make more sense to put rRot and rN on a new amulet, then, as that's very thematic - "amulet of positive energy," "amulet of life," etc. Warding should be improved by becoming better at actually warding, anyway, not by having an unrelated resistance tacked on.

(0006865)
MrMisterMonkey (reporter)
2010-08-05 07:59

I agree with OG17.

(0006866)
KiloByte (manager)
2010-08-05 11:14

That amulet of life does make sense. Taking away rN from Warding would make it far more likely that people would need to scum randarts in order to get rN+++ -- and there are several places in the game where lacking that costs you several character levels.

(0006868)
xyblor (reporter)
2010-08-05 16:21

KiloByte: currently, getting rN+++ normally means you can't wear any jewellery besides life protection and warding. So you give up all the resistances and bonuses that your "normal" jewellery provides. That's a pretty big price to pay. Do you really think it should be much much harder to obtain rN+++? I guess it's not that big a deal since it really only matters when fighting shadow dragons (vault:8 and sometimes zot).

(0006872)
OG17 (reporter)
2010-08-05 22:17

Why would removing rN from warding and putting it on a new amulet make it "far more likely" that players wouldn't have rN? The additional amulet would slightly decrease the chance that any given amulet would spawn and all, but that's barely significant - rN amulets would basically be as common as they are now.

Though if rN actually is such a problem, giving it two dots like the proposal mentioned might be a good idea (when and where do players "scum" for it now, though?).

(0006873)
dpeg (administrator)
2010-08-05 23:10

Making Warding more useful against summons and removing its rNeg, while adding an amulet of Life with rRot and rNeg is also fine by me.

(0006882)
Porkchop (reporter)
2010-08-06 16:04
edited on: 2010-08-06 16:04

Ring of sustain abilities would be a good candidate to protect against rot.

(0006885)
jpeg (manager)
2010-08-06 23:23

I really like the idea of an amulet of life (rNeg + rRot), as long as the amulet of warding is buffed to make up for the loss of rN.

(0006892)
Kyrris (reporter)
2010-08-07 03:45

Perhaps let warding's protection apply to ranged attacks, too, and then let it accelerate the timeout of all summons in LoS every turn.

(0006896)
evktalo (administrator)
2010-08-07 10:48

OG17's note about the existence of rot resistance in an item is true (I'm thinking of the undead Swamp ending) - you'd be tempted to wait until you find the amulet. (OTOH it doesn't really hit the character **that** hard IMO).

That said, I like the amulet of life and buffing warding proposals. Kyrris's idea sounds good - it could give a deflect effect against summoned ranged attacks (with a special message: "Your amulet deflects foo!", perhaps increase your effective MR against other sorts of summoned attacks, reduce Torment and Hellfire damage from summoned sources (sounding pretty good already, doesn't it?)..

--Eino

(0006903)
KiloByte (manager)
2010-08-07 13:33

Ghouls are not alive, so the amulet wouldn't have an effect on them -- heck, it may even protect life (bacteria) from necromancy (the ghoul), making the rot faster!

(0006904)
OG17 (reporter)
2010-08-07 13:44

It should work on non-bloodless vampires, though, just to head that off, as mechanically they can use rN and rRot, and flavor-wise they're somewhat alive. It'd have no effect on mummies/ghouls/liches/bloodless vampires, but they should still be able to wear it (just like positive-energy armor, life protection rings, etc), as it'd be annoying to have the thing fall off between vampire stages (and it's possible it could be a randart base, I guess).

(0006910)
KiloByte (manager)
2010-08-07 16:36

OG17: I agree, vampires are considered to be half-alive, especially when well-fed. On mummies, it should have no effect whatsoever -- their rot is caused by purely mechanical damage of dead matter, not succumbing to a necromantic effect to which they are fully immune -- there is no reason for the amulet to do anything, be it good or bad. Necromutated folks don't have a reason to suffer either -- if we were evil, we might block necromutation from working with that amulet but that's be just unnecessary hassle. Ghouls are the only ones with a reason to suffer, and that reason is fragile as well -- it may be best to just not special-case undead in any way.

(0015443)
evktalo (administrator)
2011-10-21 20:40

Ideas moved to amulet wiki page.

--Eino

Notes
(0006827) xyblor (reporter) 2010-08-03 15:49	It would be a nerf to an already weak amulet. It would make getting rN+++ much more difficult. If you make rN++ the maximum, then it would make getting full protection much easier. Shouldn't rN have the same increments as rF and rC?

(0006832) Lemuel (updater) 2010-08-03 18:57	Funny you call it a nerf. I would think it would make the amulet much more valuable, albeit situationally. There are lots of other sources of RNeg. No other sources of rotting resistance. And rotting is worse than draining for most characters.

(0006835) OG17 (reporter) 2010-08-03 19:15	Would this just drain 1 hp for every time you'd normally start to rot? Not sure what "rot that otherwise would have happened" means, as it's an over-time effect. Straight protection seems bad, as in the normal game, rotting's generally from predictable miasma, which would cause players to wait around until the amulet's ready, and later on, when unpredictable sources are more common, I'd think players would have better things to wear. Also many resistances break from +++, eg rE and rP; ++ wouldn't be exceptional in itself. I'd suggest a more thematic warding boost, myself, like having a chance to ignore all summon attacks instead of just weaker creatures' melee. Not sure if rRot should be so easily-available, either, as it's a pretty big distinction between living and undead.

(0006838) Lemuel (updater) 2010-08-03 21:24	Yes, stronger protection against summons is probably better. How about a 2/3 chance for any attack by a summon (melee, ranged, spell, whatever) to fail?

(0006860) dpeg (administrator) 2010-08-04 22:36	I like the idea a lot to replace rNeg with rRot. On rNeg levels: currently, rNeg already behaves differently from rF and rC in that the three levels rN+, rN++, rN+++ give 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 resistance, respectively. (This is completely different for Fire and Cold.) However, I don't think that two levels of rNeg will be better.

(0006861) BirdoPrey (reporter) 2010-08-05 00:18	I think it would be cool if warding had some kind of evocable abjuration with a cooldown, would also fit in the warding theme.

(0006862) dolorous (updater) 2010-08-05 01:48	dpeg: > I like the idea a lot to replace rNeg with rRot. Seconded. However, if this is done, it still shouldn't stop ghouls' natural rotting, since that would be game-breaking for starving ghouls.

(0006863) Lemuel (updater) 2010-08-05 04:08	Dpeg's and dolorous's modifications of the proposal sound right to me.

(0006864) OG17 (reporter) 2010-08-05 04:35	It'd make more sense to put rRot and rN on a new amulet, then, as that's very thematic - "amulet of positive energy," "amulet of life," etc. Warding should be improved by becoming better at actually warding, anyway, not by having an unrelated resistance tacked on.

(0006865) MrMisterMonkey (reporter) 2010-08-05 07:59	I agree with OG17.

(0006866) KiloByte (manager) 2010-08-05 11:14	That amulet of life does make sense. Taking away rN from Warding would make it far more likely that people would need to scum randarts in order to get rN+++ -- and there are several places in the game where lacking that costs you several character levels.

(0006868) xyblor (reporter) 2010-08-05 16:21	KiloByte: currently, getting rN+++ normally means you can't wear any jewellery besides life protection and warding. So you give up all the resistances and bonuses that your "normal" jewellery provides. That's a pretty big price to pay. Do you really think it should be much much harder to obtain rN+++? I guess it's not that big a deal since it really only matters when fighting shadow dragons (vault:8 and sometimes zot).

(0006872) OG17 (reporter) 2010-08-05 22:17	Why would removing rN from warding and putting it on a new amulet make it "far more likely" that players wouldn't have rN? The additional amulet would slightly decrease the chance that any given amulet would spawn and all, but that's barely significant - rN amulets would basically be as common as they are now. Though if rN actually is such a problem, giving it two dots like the proposal mentioned might be a good idea (when and where do players "scum" for it now, though?).

(0006873) dpeg (administrator) 2010-08-05 23:10	Making Warding more useful against summons and removing its rNeg, while adding an amulet of Life with rRot and rNeg is also fine by me.

(0006882) Porkchop (reporter) 2010-08-06 16:04 edited on: 2010-08-06 16:04	Ring of sustain abilities would be a good candidate to protect against rot.

(0006885) jpeg (manager) 2010-08-06 23:23	I really like the idea of an amulet of life (rNeg + rRot), as long as the amulet of warding is buffed to make up for the loss of rN.

(0006892) Kyrris (reporter) 2010-08-07 03:45	Perhaps let warding's protection apply to ranged attacks, too, and then let it accelerate the timeout of all summons in LoS every turn.

(0006896) evktalo (administrator) 2010-08-07 10:48	OG17's note about the existence of rot resistance in an item is true (I'm thinking of the undead Swamp ending) - you'd be tempted to wait until you find the amulet. (OTOH it doesn't really hit the character that hard IMO). That said, I like the amulet of life and buffing warding proposals. Kyrris's idea sounds good - it could give a deflect effect against summoned ranged attacks (with a special message: "Your amulet deflects foo!", perhaps increase your effective MR against other sorts of summoned attacks, reduce Torment and Hellfire damage from summoned sources (sounding pretty good already, doesn't it?).. --Eino

(0006903) KiloByte (manager) 2010-08-07 13:33	Ghouls are not alive, so the amulet wouldn't have an effect on them -- heck, it may even protect life (bacteria) from necromancy (the ghoul), making the rot faster!

(0006904) OG17 (reporter) 2010-08-07 13:44	It should work on non-bloodless vampires, though, just to head that off, as mechanically they can use rN and rRot, and flavor-wise they're somewhat alive. It'd have no effect on mummies/ghouls/liches/bloodless vampires, but they should still be able to wear it (just like positive-energy armor, life protection rings, etc), as it'd be annoying to have the thing fall off between vampire stages (and it's possible it could be a randart base, I guess).

(0006910) KiloByte (manager) 2010-08-07 16:36	OG17: I agree, vampires are considered to be half-alive, especially when well-fed. On mummies, it should have no effect whatsoever -- their rot is caused by purely mechanical damage of dead matter, not succumbing to a necromantic effect to which they are fully immune -- there is no reason for the amulet to do anything, be it good or bad. Necromutated folks don't have a reason to suffer either -- if we were evil, we might block necromutation from working with that amulet but that's be just unnecessary hassle. Ghouls are the only ones with a reason to suffer, and that reason is fragile as well -- it may be best to just not special-case undead in any way.

(0015443) evktalo (administrator) 2011-10-21 20:40	Ideas moved to amulet wiki page. --Eino

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2010-08-01 20:42	Lemuel	New Issue
2010-08-03 15:49	xyblor	Note Added: 0006827
2010-08-03 18:57	Lemuel	Note Added: 0006832
2010-08-03 19:15	OG17	Note Added: 0006835
2010-08-03 21:24	Lemuel	Note Added: 0006838
2010-08-04 22:36	dpeg	Note Added: 0006860
2010-08-05 00:18	BirdoPrey	Note Added: 0006861
2010-08-05 01:48	dolorous	Note Added: 0006862
2010-08-05 04:08	Lemuel	Note Added: 0006863
2010-08-05 04:35	OG17	Note Added: 0006864
2010-08-05 07:59	MrMisterMonkey	Note Added: 0006865
2010-08-05 11:14	KiloByte	Note Added: 0006866
2010-08-05 16:21	xyblor	Note Added: 0006868
2010-08-05 22:17	OG17	Note Added: 0006872
2010-08-05 23:10	dpeg	Note Added: 0006873
2010-08-06 16:04	Porkchop	Note Added: 0006882
2010-08-06 16:04	Porkchop	Note Edited: 0006882
2010-08-06 23:24	jpeg	Note Added: 0006885
2010-08-07 03:45	Kyrris	Note Added: 0006892
2010-08-07 10:48	evktalo	Note Added: 0006896
2010-08-07 13:33	KiloByte	Note Added: 0006903
2010-08-07 13:44	OG17	Note Added: 0006904
2010-08-07 16:36	KiloByte	Note Added: 0006910
2011-10-21 20:40	evktalo	Note Added: 0015443
2011-10-21 20:40	evktalo	Status	new => closed
2011-10-21 20:40	evktalo	Resolution	open => suspended
2011-10-21 20:40	evktalo	Fixed in Branch	=> 0.10 development branch

Relationships