Viewing Issue Simple Details Jump to Notes ] Wiki ] View Advanced ] Issue History ] Print ]
ID Category Severity Reproducibility Date Submitted Last Update
0000395 [DCSS] FR: Other minor have not tried 2010-01-12 03:51 2010-01-12 17:24
Reporter OG17 View Status public  
Assigned To dpeg
Priority none Resolution done  
Status closed   Product Branch 0.6 ancient branch
Summary 0000395: Allow undead races to use Stoneskin
Description As this is a flavor issue, rename the skill to "Stoneshell" or the like, with the flavor that it's just that - not a bodily transformation, but instead a layer of earthen armor, much like Ozocubu's Armor's ice. It'd make the Earth school more appealing to undead hybrids (ghouls in particular have a good Earth aptitude that they can't do a lot with), and as a bonus, MuEEs wouldn't be restricted from a full third of their starting book.

The spell could continue to be incompatible with other non-statue non-blade transformations, and I don't think any special explanation is necessary for that, no more so than why you can't turn into an ice spider or whatever. (Is Stoneskin's exclusiveness necessary, though? Blade Hands allows it and it's the best transformation of the normal set, while I believe all forms can use Ozocubu's Armor for an appreciable boost. Maybe global Stoneskin'd result in a sudden surge of dragon-formed players, I don't know, but AC's being reworked, regardless).

Finally, this is rather nitpicky, but if Transmutation flavor is a concern with the new armor-like description, the spell could be made to only work when over solid ground, as opposed to water or lava (that is, pound home that you're reshaping material instead of creating it) - I don't see this being an issue, though.
Additional Information
Tags No tags attached.
Attached Files

- Relationships

-  Notes
sorear (developer)
2010-01-12 04:06

I see absolutely no reason to do this, and it goes directly against a core Crawl value (features with different names should be different in more than just numbers.) Will not do.
OG17 (reporter)
2010-01-12 04:59

Sorear, are you replying to stoneskin for undead specifically, or stoneskin for undead alongside stoneskin for all transformations? It's only the first that I'm after; the other was more speculation than anything else. If so, I don't really understand your reasoning, as currently the only difference between ice armor and stoneskin is flatly "just numbers" (along with schools and one being usable with heavy armor) for every race but ghouls, mummies, and sometimes vampires. "Being restricted from three races" doesn't seem like much of a way to differentiate one spell from another here.
Eronarn (updater)
2010-01-12 05:54

Agreeing with sorear on this - undead should not be able to transmute themselves with magic, except for blood-filled Vampires.
OG17 (reporter)
2010-01-12 06:09

I also agree with Sorear on that - it's why I'm suggesting the flavor be changed so undead can use the spell, seeing how it's entirely a flavor issue.
due (developer)
2010-01-12 08:09

I think that sorear's first comment covers this excellently. Spells should be different in just numbers and functionality. Allowing undead to use Stoneskin by making it like Ozocubu's armour, only with stone instead of ice, goes against this design principle.
OG17 (reporter)
2010-01-12 09:33
edited on: 2010-01-12 09:40

Am I misunderstanding, or is the idea here that undead should be barred from Stoneskin simply so that it can have a bit of bodily transformation flavor in the spell description text? I don't think giving it a description that's closer to another spell's would really have any noticable impact at all; this is not something that people are going to care about, but gameplay options are.

For that matter, how would effectively having "earth armor" and "ice armor" be any different in this sense than Throw Frost and Throw Flame or Fire and Ice Brand, for example (e: though Bolt of Fire and Magma Bolt would be a better comparison, given the spells' functional differences)? And if "can't be used by undead" is apparently the major differentiating feature of Ozocubu's and Stoneskin, how are the spells different in the eyes of the 90% of the races that aren't affected? I don't get this at all.

jpeg (manager)
2010-01-12 10:44

I don't understand the reactions. What's so bad about changing Stoneskin (which is an awfully bland spell) to something like Fortification, an earth spell that uses surrounding earth material to increase your armour class? With this bit of flavour, it would make sense to make movement either reduce the effect (earth chips falling away) or be slowed down (having to break out of the shell). Alternatively (or in addition), the shell could hamper spellcasting like heavy armour does.

See? No transformation involved at all. And this is just one idea; I bet there are more interesting ones out there.

Not saying we need to do this, or that it should be done for 0.6, but the suggestion is not as ridiculous as it's made out to be.
due (developer)
2010-01-12 11:04
edited on: 2010-01-12 11:07

Perhaps I personally misunderstood the intent of the FR: it seemed to be primarily aimed at "let undead races use Stoneskin", rather than "Stoneskin is boring, let's make it interesting". Most undead classes are designed to be challenge classes, and regardless of this, letting everyone (race or class) use every spell, item, etc, "just because" doesn't seem to work.

However, I do agree that Stoneskin is pretty bland and boring, and like jpeg's suggestion for a change (regardless of whether or not it then allows the spell to be undead-usable).

dpeg (administrator)
2010-01-12 17:24

Closing. The underlying deficit is that Stoneskin is a boring spell, a property is shares with many others. Therefore, we need proposals to improve individual spells -- just like species, weapons etc., spells should not just differ by numbers. On top of that, the original proposal would *remove* a bit of flavour. Yes, disallowing undead the use of the spell because of the "skin" is not much, but it's something.

New ideas for spells (not just Stoneskin, also many conjurations suffer from this) are welcome!

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2010-01-12 03:51 OG17 New Issue
2010-01-12 04:06 sorear Note Added: 0001031
2010-01-12 04:07 sorear Assigned To => dpeg
2010-01-12 04:07 sorear Priority normal => none
2010-01-12 04:07 sorear Status new => assigned
2010-01-12 04:59 OG17 Note Added: 0001037
2010-01-12 05:54 Eronarn Note Added: 0001039
2010-01-12 06:09 OG17 Note Added: 0001042
2010-01-12 08:09 due Note Added: 0001044
2010-01-12 09:33 OG17 Note Added: 0001046
2010-01-12 09:40 OG17 Note Edited: 0001046
2010-01-12 10:44 jpeg Note Added: 0001050
2010-01-12 11:04 due Note Added: 0001051
2010-01-12 11:07 due Note Edited: 0001051
2010-01-12 11:40 due Category Gameplay Balancing => Feature Request
2010-01-12 17:24 dpeg Note Added: 0001057
2010-01-12 17:24 dpeg Status assigned => closed
2010-01-12 17:24 dpeg Resolution open => done

Mantis 1.1.8[^]
Copyright © 2000 - 2009 Mantis Group
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker