Display "nettability" in monster description

[VeryAngryFelid]

Suggestion: display "It can be entangled in net" for monsters which are valid targets of net.

Reasoning: It was interesting to see that many experienced players (including me) didn't know that Lom Lobon can be entangled in a net. Some monsters are immune to nets, others are not. It depends on size, ghost nature and probably something else (anyone knows all the details?).
Also it is very stupid to waste turns throwing nets on a monster just to learn that the monster is immune to them (try it with Lom Lobon ). Or probably it's even worse, as far as I remember you never get a clear message that the monster is immune so you can only guess either you were unlucky or the monster is immune.
Net is a disabler, it is kind of hex spell and I don't understand why we get a warning for Confusion when all monsters in LoS are immune to it (and we even get success chance displayed!) but not for the net.

Spoiler: show

I used my mod to learn that net has 50% chance to hit Ancient Lich with 0 throwing, is it really irrelevant info that should be hidden?

Edit. Alternative suggestion: display "immune" suffix in targeter when trying to throw a net at immune monster.

[Pollen_Golem]

If you miss:

  Code:

You throw a throwing net.
The throwing net closely misses the insubstantial wisp.

If you don't miss:

  Code:

You throw a throwing net.
The throwing net hits the insubstantial wisp.
The net passes right through the insubstantial wisp!

This is what happens now.

[dynast]

I honestly think netting lobom is not intended since he is just like a air elemental, now im curious if you can net blizzard demons, those would make sense since you can kill them with tornado. Also make TRJ net immune because its a boss mob that relies completely in the ability to move around and it has no evasion to avoid getting netted.

[Sar]

It's possible to net Lom because he's "levitating", not "flying", which is because

[Rast]

Glad you're back.

I like your last suggestion the best, since putting nettability on the xv screen makes it a bit more cluttered, and then requires players to xv every monster they want to check.

Also, the category of monsters which are immune to nets should be simplified and reduced. There should not be any such thing as a monster too small to be netted (the meshes are small too) or too large (but large monsters could have a bonus to escape the net more quickly). flying should not make you immune either. The only monsters that should be immune are those that are obviously inherently immune based on their nature: insubstantial, made entirely of air or water, made of a substance like fire or acid that would destroy the net too quickly (and those last two are debatable)

[Pollen_Golem]

You can net flying creatures though, even wind drakes. I'm pretty sure they don't levitate.

We should just have the whole table of resistances in xv with dots, pluses, crosses, and infinity symbols where appropriate. Even esoteric stuff like rDrown, rWater, rSticky, rSteam, rHellfire, rSilence, rPolymorph...

It reduces spoilers and makes navigating through the xv screen much simpler.

Even size would be better conveyed with pluses and dots because I can never remember which among huge and giant is bigger. You can have ..... stand for medium-sized, xx... stand for spriggan-sized, +++++ stand for door-sized (LOS-blocking).

[Rast]

There are LOS blocking monsters?

[neil]

For reference, the current unnettables are:

• Giant creatures (X is too large for the net to hold!)
• Stationary creatures (The net is caught on X!)
• Insubstantial creatures (The net passes right through X!)
• The "ooze" monster, but not other jellies (X oozes right through the net!)

Edit: The last time flying vs levitating mattered was 0.11. The last time flying mattered (1/3 chance of "X darts out from under the net!") was 0.14, and the last time it completely prevented netting (for non-confused flyers) was 0.13.

Since the removal of mimic monsters, the only monsters that block LOS are bushes (which are half-opaque, like smoke clouds; and are not even giant-sized, only big).

[dynast]

So i propose to make TRJ giant and lobom insubstantial, which i think they should have already been.

[duvessa]

why is insubstantial a thing

[Shard1697]

For reference, the current unnettables are:

• Giant creatures (X is too large for the net to hold!)

This is maybe the most confusing one. Without trying, I would have assumed that, for example, ogres would be unnettable, because they're really big dudes. But when you try it on them, it works-which then leads you to believe that size doesn't matter, because ogres are big dudes, right?

[Sprucery]

why is insubstantial a thing

To make a group of monsters immune to netting, rotting, petrification, constriction and Sticky Flame?

[duvessa]

why is insubstantial a thing

To make a group of monsters immune to netting, rotting, petrification, constriction and Sticky Flame?

ah, yes. it's very important that some undead and nonliving monsters have an extra source of rotting immunity on top of being undead/nonliving. and it's even more important that insubstantial wisps have a second source of immunity to the petrify spell, on top of being magic immune.

[Sar]

give them physical damage immunity imo

[Siegurt]

If this should happen, it should probably happen in the targetter like hexes

[Sprucery]

According to wiki, the list of insubstantial monsters (and other things) is as follows:

air elemental, ball lightning, battlesphere, drowned soul, eidolon, electric golem, fire elemental, fire vortex, flayed ghost, freezing wraith, grand avatar (monster), hungry ghost, insubstantial wisp, lost soul, lurking horror, orb of fire, phantasmal warrior, phantom, player ghost, shadow, shadow wraith, silent spectre, silver star, smoke demon, spatial maelstrom, spatial vortex, twister, wraith, wretched star

Doesn't look like there's any living monsters in that list. So clearly there's some overlap wrt. immunities. But immunity to netting, petrification, constriction and Sticky Flame seem significant to me. Another question is should the player be informed of all these immunities (and how).

[bcadren]

Doesn't insubstantial also give immunity to shatter? I know Spectral things are immune to shatter but that could be Insubstantial + Flying; not just Insubstantial. What's the flag that jellies have that makes them take 1/3rd damage from shatter?

[duvessa]

But immunity to netting, petrification, constriction and Sticky Flame seem significant to me.

They don't seem significant to me at all.
Also:
already effectively immune to player constriction
already immune to petrification from the spell
already effectively immune to sticky flame
literally does not exist

air elemental, ball lightning, battlesphere, drowned soul, eidolon, electric golem, fire elemental, fire vortex, flayed ghost, freezing wraith, grand avatar (monster), hungry ghost, insubstantial wisp, lost soul, lurking horror, orb of fire, phantasmal warrior, phantom, player ghost, shadow, shadow wraith, silent spectre, silver star, smoke demon, spatial maelstrom, spatial vortex, twister, wraith, wretched star

[Sar]

oozes right through the net!

rip (

[duvessa]

felids should also ooze through nets

[Pollen_Golem]

player under Fedhas penance should also ooze through nets

Spoiler: show

because they're "walking fertilizer"

[Pollen_Golem]

If size and insubstantiality are only used for net trapping, you can stick this size stat into the monster description screen:

  Code:

++++: huge
+++.: giant
++..: big
+...: large
....: medium
x...: small
xx..: little
xxx.: tiny
xxxx: insubstantial

The absolute deviation from medium size can tell you how resistant to netting they are.

[duvessa]

Maybe nets should just work on all sizes? Throwing nets in real life can be pretty big, and the larger ones could certainly impair a stone giant or dragon if they existed. Larger sizes do more damage to the net already (although the scaling is a little weird), extending that makes more sense than having a complete cutoff at giant.

[Marbit]

Maybe nets should just work on all sizes? Throwing nets in real life can be pretty big, and the larger ones could certainly impair a stone giant or dragon if they existed. Larger sizes do more damage to the net already (although the scaling is a little weird), extending that makes more sense than having a complete cutoff at giant.

Alternatively the game could just tell you that is a useless action. The game already keeps you from going into lava unless you are flying, it should also keep you from using a net in a useless way.

"The monster is too large for the net" / "The monster is insubstantial, the net cannot be caught by the net" / "this monster is too small for the net to catch"

I think that keeping some monster gimmicks is interesting... making the game obscure and allowing the player to use an item in a stupid (potentially lethal) way is not.

[duvessa]

Alternatively the game could just tell you that is a useless action. The game already keeps you from going into lava unless you are flying, it should also keep you from using a net in a useless way.

"The monster is too large for the net" / "The monster is insubstantial, the net cannot be caught by the net" / "this monster is too small for the net to catch"

This doesn't really work because unlike, say, airstrike, nets are missiles that can miss and have the potential to hit one of several targets. You might be hoping to miss the orb of fire and hit the ancient lich behind it, or vice versa.

[dpeg]

http://s-z.org/neil/git/?p=crawl.git;a=commit;h=a89439d069a6b4d68a34fc1c748d99c0a6c3fceb