Ideas on Zangband monks
fripon
they inevitably end up looking very different from the martial artist
that was apparently intended. In order to get resistances, they wear
armor and (if they can get them) wield weapons that give special
abilities like speed or enhanced characteristics or whatever. And if
the weapon has multiple attacks, the monk loses little from his fighting
ability.
I suggest the following changes to keep monks looking "monkish" -
- monks keep some of their special barehanded attacks and attack
bonuses when using weapons such as nunchuks, bo staff, spear and a few
other melee weapons traditionally seen in martial arts films, including
ego and artifact weapons. However, there would be more penalties to
using other weapons.
- monks could wear robes and cloaks as armor without any penalty,
and perhaps introduce sandals as a form of light footgear that monks
could use. Similarly as with weapons, more penalties would be attached
to inappropriate armor.
- possibly monks could acquire a few more "monkish" inherent
abilities at high levels, such as having a chance of dodging bolt spells
and similar attacks.
fripon
Bruce H. McCosar
fri...@earthlink.net says...
> IMO, the problem with monks in Zangband and related bands is that
> they inevitably end up looking very different from the martial artist
> that was apparently intended. In order to get resistances, they wear
> armor and (if they can get them) wield weapons that give special
> abilities like speed or enhanced characteristics or whatever. And if
> the weapon has multiple attacks, the monk loses little from his fighting
> ability.
Coincidentally, I just started playing a Monk. I'm trying to stay in
character, for the most part. Plus, I'm really beginning to like some
of the extra HTH combat effects Monks get such as slowing and stunning
the opponent (Although it was pretty humorous when Z informed me I had
kicked a Servant of Glaaki in the ankle -- WHAT ANKLE?!? I got the same
message for The Disembodied Hand that Strangled People) On the other
hand, it is absolutely hilarious kicking Lagduf or Golfimbul in the
groin. Long Overdue! I have my boot all polished up for Wormtongue ;-)
For now, I'm playing with minimum armor (less than 14 pounds) and only
HTH attacks, except for the now-and-again ranged magic attack. I'm not
sure how this will play when I hit Big Hit Point / Multi Attack bruisers
like Bolg or Azog.
Note I found a Holy Avenger Awl-Pike (Smeagol dropped it, of all things),
but I leave it at home, though it would increase my wisdom and give me
mo' spellpower. It's more fun to stay in character. Plus I'm faster
and more effective with my martial arts... for now. Since most of my
characters die just before level 30 (kinda like the Zangband version of
Logan's Run), I'll get back to you with the post mortem in a few days ;-)
[Zangband 2.2.8 Character Dump]
Name : Wang Chung Age 20 STR: 18/10
Sex : Male Height 62 INT: 10
Race : Human Weight 153 WIS: 14
Class : Monk Social Class 61 DEX: 18/20
Magic : Life CON: 18
CHR: 11
+ To Hit 10 Level 19 Max Hit Points 197
+ To Damage 8 Experience 6015 Cur Hit Points 197
+ To AC 38 Max Exp 6015 Max SP (Mana) 20
Base AC 11 Exp to Adv. 6160 Cur SP (Mana) 20
Gold 7990
(Miscellaneous Abilities)
Fighting : Chaos Rank Perception : Superb Blows/Round: 2
Bows/Throw : Superb Searching : Superb Shots/Round: 1
Saving Throw: Excellent Disarming : Superb Wpn.dmg/Rnd: 16
Stealth : Very Good Magic Device: Excellent Infra-Vision: 0
[Miscellaneous information]
Maximize Mode: ON
Preserve Mode: ON
Autoscum: OFF
Small Levels: ENABLED
Arena Levels: ENABLED
Hard Quests: OFF
Nightmare Mode: OFF
Recall Depth: Level 14 (700')
You have defeated 601 enemies.
[Character Equipment]
a) (nothing)
b) (nothing)
c) a Ring of Protection [+11]
d) a Brass Ring of Levitation
e) an Amulet of Resist Acid
f) The Phial of Galadriel (+1 to searching) {@A4}
g) Soft Leather Armour [4,+5]
h) a Cloak [1,+5] {uncursed}
i) (nothing)
j) a Metal Cap of Seeing [3,+3] (+4 to searching)
k) a Set of Leather Gloves [1,+5]
l) a Pair of Soft Leather Boots [2,+4]
[Character Inventory]
a) 2 Books of Life Magic [Book of Common Prayer]
b) 2 Books of Life Magic [High Mass] {50% off}
c) 11 Rations of Food
d) 2 Misty Potions of Cure Critical Wounds
e) a Metallic Green Potion
f) 2 Scrolls of Teleportation
g) 2 Scrolls of Word of Recall
h) a Scroll titled "nis fudok nih" of Holy Chant
i) a Nickel Rod of Acid Bolts {@z2}
j) a Copper-Plated Wand of Stone to Mud (11 charges)
k) a Silver-Plated Wand of Polymorph (5 charges)
l) a Runed Staff of Perception (10 charges)
m) a Dagger (1d4) (+1,+5)
n) a Whip (1d6) (+2,+5)
o) a Shovel (1d2) (+0,+0) (+1) {@1}
[Home Inventory - ]
a) 2 Pieces of Elvish Waybread
b) a Large Leather Shield of Resistance [4,+15]
c) an Awl-Pike (Holy Avenger) (1d8) (+5,+7) [+4] (+4) {@0}
--
Bruce H. McCosar <mcc...@earthlink.AIRBALL>
Slam Dunk a spammer! Replace AIRBALL with net to reply.
Z/C W H+ D c-- f- PV s- d P++ M+
C-- S- I- So- B- ac GHB SQ+ RQ++ V+
Miles, and his Brandi Chastain Shirt
> Name : Wang Chung
Oh, gee. You just had to name your character after an 80's band, didn't
ya? (I like it! LOL.)
Good lick in kicking more people in the groin!
--
Miles Rost
President/Voice & Music Director
Senshi of Honor Entertainment
http://www.geocities.com/kinomizuno
ICQ#:61833351
e-mail:amim...@cloudnet.com
Julian Lighton
DarkHalf <goa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:51:33 +1300, Joe <j...@phy.auckland.ac.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>If you wanna stay in character, take off your boring armour. Haven't
>>checked, but I'd bet that taking off that soft leather armour would
>>definitely *increase* your AC.
>
>Nah, looks like the ac/weight total on his armor is low enough that it
>doesn't hurt him...
He's still losing the natural monk AC from the body armor slot. That
could easily be more than his body armor gets him.
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
"Lately I`ve been dancing in ceiling fans / Circled in secrets and playing
a game / Well I know it sounds strange / But it could be the other way
Round in a town where they don`t know your name" -- Butthole Surfers
Joe
checked, but I'd bet that taking off that soft leather armour would
definitely *increase* your AC.
> [Character Equipment]
> a) (nothing)
> b) (nothing)
> c) a Ring of Protection [+11]
> d) a Brass Ring of Levitation
> e) an Amulet of Resist Acid
> f) The Phial of Galadriel (+1 to searching) {@A4}
> g) Soft Leather Armour [4,+5]
> h) a Cloak [1,+5] {uncursed}
> i) (nothing)
> j) a Metal Cap of Seeing [3,+3] (+4 to searching)
> k) a Set of Leather Gloves [1,+5]
> l) a Pair of Soft Leather Boots [2,+4]
*sigh* My lvl 42 monk would simply die without wearing large amounts of
gear. I'm even considering putting on metal scale mail 'Julian' and taking
the AC penalty.
Joe.
DarkHalf
wrote:
>If you wanna stay in character, take off your boring armour. Haven't
>checked, but I'd bet that taking off that soft leather armour would
>definitely *increase* your AC.
Nah, looks like the ac/weight total on his armor is low enough that it
doesn't hurt him...
--
Darkhalf. I use Mindspring. You figure it out.
Angband Code
(http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/harris/angband/code.html):
Z/A+(O) W !H D c-- f- PV+ s- TT- d P+ M+
C S I+ So-- B- ac GHB- SQ RQ++ V F:Random Quests
You laugh because I'm different--I laugh because you're all the same
Prfnoff
<fri...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> - monks keep some of their special barehanded attacks and attack
> bonuses when using weapons such as nunchuks, bo staff, spear and a few
> other melee weapons traditionally seen in martial arts films, including
> ego and artifact weapons. However, there would be more penalties to
> using other weapons.
Why should monks be using *any* weapons? "Because it's traditional" is not
an argument that I'm accepting - this would probably better be made into a
new class. Monks are too powerful anyway - they get a full realm, and can
use Nature's obscenely powerful Whirlwind Attack (at least last time I
looked at it), so why make them more powerful?
-- Prfnoff (ivnert to reply)
James W Sager Iii
on Zangband monks by Dark...@nospam.com
> >checked, but I'd bet that taking off that soft leather armour would
> >definitely *increase* your AC.
>
> Nah, looks like the ac/weight total on his armor is low enough that it
> doesn't hurt him...
Zang checks slots for monks, not weight... I think this is silly.
If you have 1 piece of armor.
Metal scale of lead weight 40 Weight =100lb
And a leather
Leather [4,+20] Weight = 15lb
Its better to wear the lead weight as Zang checks over slots instead of
weight rations over slots. Kinda silly. But Zang does not slot
checking for weight. Only does slolt checking for armor penalties if
you wear something on it. Its better to wear nothing at your main armor
if at all possible, and use other armor slots for resists as you get a
large bonus to AC for wearing nothing at your main slot.
Now if you're doing over all balancing of weight, you want to make sure
you can wear all your armor such that:
Total weight of armor worn < Monk level * constant1 +constant2
Bruce H. McCosar
j...@phy.auckland.ac.nz says...
> If you wanna stay in character, take off your boring armour. Haven't
> checked, but I'd bet that taking off that soft leather armour would
> definitely *increase* your AC.
Well I'll be darned! I ditched the armor and went up to AC 108!
This is my first time through playing a Monk.
No deaths yet, but I'm Level 27, and have already had to
flee in terror from a Weird Fume that got my number....
fripon
Prfnoff wrote:
Funny, I thought the monks were a new class.
Apart from the fact that not all monks choose nature, the problem is that
even a high level monk may be better off using inappropriate weapons and
armor for resists, heightened stats, etc... Furthermore, if the weapon has
extra attacks or is an artifact or HA with both extra attacks and slays, the
monk may be considerably better off. And even if the armor causes some loss
to AC, if it has some good bonuses as well as resistances or stat gains,
again the monk is better of wearing it.
As an experiment, I created a Half-Titan monk in Zang 2.2.8 and used debug
mode to give him full stats. I then started creating items like caps of
wisdom, HA weapons with extra attacks, armor of elvenkind, and some other
items. I then compared the effect of these items on the monk at several
experience levels including level 50. Even at level 50, the monk was better
off wearing armor (including boots, helm, and cloak) and wielding a big sword
(a nodachi HA +4 attacks), since he acquired both the basic 4 resistances
and a couple other, had better attacks (more base damage not even factoring
slays) and gained oodles of spell points from the cap of wisdom and the HA.
Since the monk is penalized the same for wielding any weapon, regardless of
size and weight, and needs armor for the resistances, and likewise is
penalized on armor class similarly whether wearing a robe or mithril chain
mail (only 15 lbs, well within a level 50 monk's weight allotment), as stated
above, the monk might as well wear and wield the bigger and better stuff.
OTOH, if monks weren't allowed to wear any armor or wield any hand weapons,
they would become unplayable from the lack of resistances, special abilities
such as see invisible, and the like.
My suggestions were to encourage monks to be played as the type of
martial artist seen in asian martial arts films (which were likely a strong
influence given that Western tradition did not have fighting monks who
specialized in bare-handed combat) and where various (usually light and
frequently exotic, derived from farm implements) weapons are part of the
standard fighting forms.
Prfnoff, do you also object to mages wearing armor? They can get some
pretty high armor class while having access to two full realms of magic.
What about clerics? A Life/Nature cleric can have access to both
Invulnerablilty and Whirlwind Attack and with few armor restrictions or
penalties. Personally, I would be willing to see the magic use of monks
toned down some (although they only have access to one realm, and only from a
choice of Life, Nature, or Death magic) if they could wear robes and cloaks
and wield weapons like the bo staff and the sai. I also suggested additional
high-level abilities like having a chance of dodging bolt-type spells because
all other characters can use a shield of reflection for 100% success against
arrows and bolt-spells and I just don't think that monks should be allowed to
use shields without LARGE penalties, but they should be compensated for
giving up shields of resistance, reflection, Thorin, and Anarion (especially
Thorin - immunity to acid in a big one).
fripon
Teppo Leinonen
weaponless monks are a laugh. I can't think of many art forms that do
not incorporate weapons into the art at some point. Well, two that come
to mind are sumo and greco-roman wrestling. Not going to the point of
these styles being Arts or not, I'd like giving couple of suggestions.
1) Allow monks to wear robes and similar armour that is plausible like
gauntlets or gloves. No helms or boots and no metal armor, I'd say.
2) If we want to do without enlarging the weapons selection (Do we want even
more weapon types to choose between?) well, we could allow monks to
use daggers and staves, maybe even light swords. Althought Kung-fu has
broadswords and iaido/kendo make do with katanas.
3) If we wish for more weaponry, then why not add really odd ones? Sai,
nunchakus,
short staff, bokken (wooden katana, as deadly as steel when used against
unarmored foe),
three-section staff, various chains, hook knives come to mind easily...
Or on the other hand, why not split monks into two categories?
1) unarmed combat specialists
2) weapon-specialists
Unarmed combat specialists can't wield any weapons, but their unarmed
maneuvers get
constantly beefier. The weapon specialist gets a pick of -one- weapontype in
the creation,
as monks now have pick for the realm of magic. Then he has unlimited use of
that weapon
type, but none other. Would make it interesting to guess what sort of
artifact weaponry there
is going to be on the route down.
Well, I might have completely screwballed ideas here, but I don't mind
tossing them into the
verbal melee to see how they handle.
Argent, Drakonian Death Monk
Paul Dickinson
Teppo Leinonen wrote:
> 1) Allow monks to wear robes and similar armour that is plausible like
> gauntlets or gloves. No helms or boots and no metal armor, I'd say.
No helms? Shouldn't helms actually help monks do damage? Considering that monks
occasionally butt their opponent, wearing a helm ought to help rather than
hinder.
just my .02$ =)
> Argent, Drakonian Death Monk
Ben D.
Teppo Leinonen
Paul Dickinson <dick...@home.com> wrote in message
news:388FD892...@home.com...
>
>
> No helms? Shouldn't helms actually help monks do damage? Considering that
monks
> occasionally butt their opponent, wearing a helm ought to help rather than
> hinder.
You butt the Serpent. Your helm rams into your nose and blinds you. The
Serpent squeezes. -More-
Actually, practising kendo, I guess I made a bit of mistake with helms. But
not for damage-enhancement, I would say. Or people get serious headaches...
Argent, Draconian Death Monk, Deceased. (Again)
Gwidon S. Naskrent
wrote:
>No helms? Shouldn't helms actually help monks do damage? Considering that monks
>occasionally butt their opponent, wearing a helm ought to help rather than
>hinder.
Most helms hinder vision, and the monk has to be all eyes, so to
speak.
--
Gwidon S. Naskrent (nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl)
GSNband - http://artemida.amu.edu.pl/~naskrent/index.html
GEU/J d- s+:+ a-- C+++ ULB++>++++ P- E W++ N+++ o? K? w+ O-- M-- V--
PS++ PE- Y PGP->++ t-- 5-- X- R* tv- b+ DI-- D++
Mårten Woxberg
wrote:
>Having spent several years practising martial arts, I have to agree that
>weaponless monks are a laugh. I can't think of many art forms that do
>not incorporate weapons into the art at some point. Well, two that come
>to mind are sumo and greco-roman wrestling. Not going to the point of
>these styles being Arts or not, I'd like giving couple of suggestions.
>
Judo???
/Marten
Michael Barnes
ma...@telia.junk.com (Mårten Woxberg) wrote:
I'd have thought Aikido - may be mistaken.
Since we've got onto martial arts, I understand that one of the mainstream
arts features no small amount of pain absorption techniques. Anyone out there
know which one?
--
Campaign For The Proper Use Of Swearwords
http://www.litening.dircon.co.uk/iswear.html
Mårten Woxberg
<lite...@litening.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <38936cfb...@news1.telia.com>
> ma...@telia.junk.com (Marten Woxberg) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:11:49 +0200, "Teppo Leinonen" <t...@solagem.fi>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Having spent several years practising martial arts, I have to agree that
>> >weaponless monks are a laugh. I can't think of many art forms that do
>> >not incorporate weapons into the art at some point. Well, two that come
>> >to mind are sumo and greco-roman wrestling. Not going to the point of
>> >these styles being Arts or not, I'd like giving couple of suggestions.
>> >
>>
>> Judo???
>
>I'd have thought Aikido - may be mistaken.
Eh.. I meant.. Judo.. as in a martial art that doesn't use weapons..
>Since we've got onto martial arts, I understand that one of the mainstream
>arts features no small amount of pain absorption techniques. Anyone out there
>know which one?
Eh.. pain absorption?? Aikido has some mental training too.. IIRC
most arts just move out of the way from a harmfull blow/kick/weapon..
no need to take the hit then..
BTW It might be hard to mimic the self defense arts that are around..
cause you can't kill anyone with the techniques (well you can but they
arent meant too)
/Marten
Bruce H. McCosar
ma...@telia.junk.com says...
> BTW It might be hard to mimic the self defense arts that are around..
> cause you can't kill anyone with the techniques (well you can but they
> arent meant too)
In Hapkido, the focus is on turning the opponents attack (or weapon)
against them. Just about every countermove to a knife thrust ends up
with the opponent's arm in a painful joint lock, the blade pointing
to their own guts or chest instead of at you.
More fun with a vorpal blade, perhaps. Don't quite know what would
happen with a vampiric blade--feedback, maybe?
Michael Barnes
Bruce H. McCosar <mcc...@earthlink.AIRBALL> wrote:
> Usenet breathes chaos -more-
> ma...@telia.junk.com says...
> > BTW It might be hard to mimic the self defense arts that are around..
> > cause you can't kill anyone with the techniques (well you can but they
> > arent meant too)
>
> In Hapkido, the focus is on turning the opponents attack (or weapon)
> against them. Just about every countermove to a knife thrust ends up
> with the opponent's arm in a painful joint lock, the blade pointing
> to their own guts or chest instead of at you.
>
> More fun with a vorpal blade, perhaps. Don't quite know what would
> happen with a vampiric blade--feedback, maybe?
Orobourous
(Maybe a wound that both incapacitates and keeps alive? Torture!)
Angband Addict
is that
>> they inevitably end up looking very different from the
martial artist
>> that was apparently intended. In order to get resistances,
they wear
>> armor and (if they can get them) wield weapons that give
special
>> abilities like speed or enhanced characteristics or
whatever. And if
>> the weapon has multiple attacks, the monk loses little from
his fighting
>> ability.
>> [excellent suggestions snipped]
>
>Coincidentally, I just started playing a Monk. I'm trying to
stay in
>character, for the most part. Plus, I'm really beginning to
like some
>of the extra HTH combat effects Monks get such as slowing and
stunning
>the opponent (Although it was pretty humorous when Z informed
me I had
>kicked a Servant of Glaaki in the ankle -- WHAT ANKLE?!?
What's wrong with kicking a servant of Glaaki in the ankle?
Servants of Glaaki are humanoid (in fact they used to be human
until they were drawn to the lake and then skewered by one of
Glaaki's poisonous spines. The spine then eats away at them from
the inside until they die, and the bodies are reanimated as
zombies with a huge spine sticking through their chest...)
As for the Monk class, In Cthangband I made up a new realm for
them - the corporeal realm. However, this seems to have been a
bit overpowered, so I have dropped it in 4.0.0.
4.0.0. has the 'Zen Monk' template though, which gives you
martial arts and mindcrafting, rather than martial arts and
spellcasting.
What monks really need is to be able to get the resistances and
stuff from magic/mincrafting/whatever so that the don't need to
pick up all that armour and ruin their ac. They should also have
attacks that are effective compared to artifact weapons. Spells
or spell-like abilities that are similar to 'Touch of confusion'
would be good - e.g. Touch of Fire, Touch of Death, etc...
Dean
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Bruce H. McCosar
(Dean Anderson, maintainer of Cthangband) asked the
timely question:
> What's wrong with kicking a servant of Glaaki in the ankle?
> Servants of Glaaki are humanoid (in fact they used to be human
> until they were drawn to the lake and then skewered by one of
> Glaaki's poisonous spines. The spine then eats away at them from
> the inside until they die, and the bodies are reanimated as
> zombies with a huge spine sticking through their chest...)
Sorry, DA, I was playing Z at the time. I quote from the holy
tome of r_info.txt, Z 2.2.8 version:
"...the hand of a corpse -- bloodless and skeletal, and with
impossibly long, cracked nails."
Just a funny juxtaposition, my Monk kicking said hand of a corpse
in the ankle.
Thanks for the Lovecraftian lore, though. Wonder what would happen
if you pulled out the spine? Probably some Angbander would attach
a hilt to it, enchant it, and call it a Long Sword of Transform
Into Zombie (+10,+10).
> As for the Monk class, In Cthangband I made up a new realm for
> them - the corporeal realm. However, this seems to have been a
> bit overpowered, so I have dropped it in 4.0.0.
Vroom! Vroom! So where is 4.0.0? I play about as much Cthangband as
I do Z; I've been focusing on Z for the last two weeks or so while I
mourn the latest tragic death of a C character (A certain critter at
the bottom of a certain Tomb summoned everything but a frakkin
Mariachi band on me).
I'll be circling your website like a Giant Piranha.
> What monks really need is to be able to get the resistances and
> stuff from magic/mindcrafting/whatever so that the don't need to
> pick up all that armour and ruin their ac. They should also have
> attacks that are effective compared to artifact weapons. Spells
> or spell-like abilities that are similar to 'Touch of confusion'
> would be good - e.g. Touch of Fire, Touch of Death, etc...
Yeah, the legendary touch of death. Could work kind of like the
reverse of pets: you hit the monster, let's say a Tengu, and it
teleports away to safety. When its internal injuries kill it,
you'd see the message
You feel happy for a moment, but it passes.
Michael Barnes
Bruce H. McCosar <mcc...@earthlink.AIRBALL> wrote:
> angbandadd...@cthangband.8m.com.invalid
> (Dean Anderson, maintainer of Cthangband) asked the
> timely question:
>
> > What's wrong with kicking a servant of Glaaki in the ankle?
> > Servants of Glaaki are humanoid (in fact they used to be human
> > until they were drawn to the lake and then skewered by one of
> > Glaaki's poisonous spines. The spine then eats away at them from
> > the inside until they die, and the bodies are reanimated as
> > zombies with a huge spine sticking through their chest...)
>
> Sorry, DA, I was playing Z at the time. I quote from the holy
> tome of r_info.txt, Z 2.2.8 version:
>
> "...the hand of a corpse -- bloodless and skeletal, and with
> impossibly long, cracked nails."
>
> Just a funny juxtaposition, my Monk kicking said hand of a corpse
> in the ankle.
It's a lovecraftian quote, IIRC there's a servant digging up from the ground,
so the first thing the narrator sees is a hand.
> Thanks for the Lovecraftian lore, though. Wonder what would happen
> if you pulled out the spine? Probably some Angbander would attach
> a hilt to it, enchant it, and call it a Long Sword of Transform
> Into Zombie (+10,+10).
In the Call Of Cthulhu game, a person impaled on a spine has a chance to
remove it. Doesn't stop him/her dying but it means (s)he only has to die
once.
Angband Addict
Cthangband as
>I do Z; I've been focusing on Z for the last two weeks or so
while I
>mourn the latest tragic death of a C character (A certain
critter at
>the bottom of a certain Tomb summoned everything but a frakkin
>Mariachi band on me).
I finished coding on 4.0.0 on Saturday, and it has been given to
Elena for playtesting (by the way, since I last mentioned her,
Elena has now become my fiance so I'm a happy bunny at the
moment).
I will be releasing it to the unsuspecting world once I have re-
done the documentation (with three new magic systems and a skill
system replacing the old level/class system it needs new
documentation badly).
Dean
P.s. "It mumbles in the shadows <more>"
"The mariachi band strike up a pas a doble <more>"
Robin Munn
<angbandadd...@cthangband.8m.com.invalid> wrote:
>I finished coding on 4.0.0 on Saturday, and it has been given to
>Elena for playtesting (by the way, since I last mentioned her,
>Elena has now become my fiance so I'm a happy bunny at the
>moment).
Congratulations! I wish you (plural) much happiness.
Oh, and it's fianceE, not fiance. Comes from French: an engaged man is
a fiance, an engaged woman is a fiancee. But you can be forgiven for
perhaps not having your mind on grammar at the moment... :-)
Best wishes.
--
Robin Munn
rm...@pobox.com
Gwidon S. Naskrent
>Oh, and it's fianceE, not fiance. Comes from French: an engaged man is
>a fiance, an engaged woman is a fiancee. But you can be forgiven for
>perhaps not having your mind on grammar at the moment... :-)
That's fiancé and fiancée, BTW (mind the accents).
Robin Munn
<nask...@friko.onet.pl> wrote:
>On 7 Feb 2000 15:54:12 GMT, rm...@pobox.com (Robin Munn) wrote:
>
>>Oh, and it's fianceE, not fiance. Comes from French: an engaged man is
>>a fiance, an engaged woman is a fiancee. But you can be forgiven for
>>perhaps not having your mind on grammar at the moment... :-)
>
>That's fiancé and fiancée, BTW (mind the accents).
You're right, of course, but they're a pain to do with a U.S.
keyboard...
--
Robin Munn
rm...@pobox.com
mark edward hardwidge
Well...it may be in some languages, but in standard American
English, we do not have letters with accents. They just are not
letters, any more than we have umlouts or a double-"s" or anything
else. There are just the standard 26 letters (*2 cases).
The words are "fiance" and "fiancee". We also have "resume"
not something with accents. People who are trying to be "extra
correct", "fancy", or pretentious sometimes will put accents in their
words, but they really aren't using English then. Likewise, some
people from Mexico and South America will using accented letters in
their names. but I am uncertain whether the US government let's you
-officially- have a name composed of non-English letters.
I've always assumed that British English is composed of the
same 26*2 letters, and no others, but perhaps I've been mistaken.
--
Mark E. Hardwidge
hard...@uiuc.edu
John I'anson-Holton
British English recognizes the same 26 letters. However, its not
unheard of (at least not in my experience) for words which have been
'stolen' from other languages (primarily French) and which retain their
original pronounciations to be shown with the accute accent. I don't
recall ever seeing any of the other accents used though outside of
language classes. Of course, I am by no means an expert on the
language although its my mother tongue. Someone more knowledgeable
about British English should feel free to jump in and give us a more
authoritative opinion.
John
Angband Addict
It's nothing to do with 'official' language. I deliberately
didn't use an accent because it would not be compatible with
different computer character sets, as can be seen by the
question marks (that's 'queries' to you Americans...) in the
quoted post above.
Missing off the second 'e' *was* a genuine mistake though (a
typo rather than a mis-spelling)...
Dean
mark edward hardwidge
> question marks (that's 'queries' to you Americans...)
Hmmm. I have never heard an American refer to a question mark
as a 'query'. I even had to check my dictionary to see if it was
really an acceptable term for a question mark! (the applicable
definition said it was a 'question mark')
Where did you pick up this interesting misconception?
Angband Addict
>
> Hmmm. I have never heard an American refer to a
question mark
>as a 'query'. I even had to check my dictionary to see if it
was
>really an acceptable term for a question mark! (the applicable
>definition said it was a 'question mark')
> Where did you pick up this interesting misconception?
From computer manuals (my main source of written American-
English): the same ones that always refer to a 'full stop' as
a 'period'. I kind of assumed that they were both Americanisms.
It may be that 'query' is a computerism instead...
Gwidon Naskrent
> It's nothing to do with 'official' language. I deliberately
> didn't use an accent because it would not be compatible with
> different computer character sets, as can be seen by the
> question marks (that's 'queries' to you Americans...) in the
> quoted post above.
If your braindead mailer can't do 8-bit properly, change it (or the ISP if
that's the problem).
e-acute is found in all ISO-8859-x sets for Latin characters, and is
guaranteed to be seen as long as you stick to them.
GSN
Jake Wildstrom
mark edward hardwidge <hard...@ux11.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Angband Addict <angbandadd...@cthangband.8m.com.invalid> wrote:
>> question marks (that's 'queries' to you Americans...)
>
>as a 'query'. I even had to check my dictionary to see if it was
>really an acceptable term for a question mark! (the applicable
>definition said it was a 'question mark')
_Everyone_ knows that the symbol "?" is pronounced "what". Same as
"!", "#", and "%" are pronounced "wow", "mesh", and "double-o-seven".
(note: I didn't make these absurd names up. They're associated with INTERCAL).
But I, as an American, have heard a lot of varied Americanisms and computerisms
and have never heard the question mark referred to as a "query".
And wrt to accents, accenting fiancee is just gilding the lily, but accenting
resume is sometimes fairly useful. I remember a long chat (in a different
forum) with a friend seeking a job. After a while, someone asked him what
exactly it was that he would "resume on demand". <g>
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake "resumes on demand" Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
mark edward hardwidge
> From computer manuals (my main source of written American-
> English): the same ones that always refer to a 'full stop' as
> a 'period'. I kind of assumed that they were both Americanisms.
Well...we do say 'period', all the time. I've heard people
say 'full stop', but only when they are talking in telegram-ese, or
are looking for extra emphasis for some reason, and only very rarely.
Eric Bock
hardwidge) found this assemblage of monsters:
>Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@friko.onet.pl> wrote:
>> That's fianc? and fianc?e, BTW (mind the accents).
>
> Well...it may be in some languages, but in standard American
>English, we do not have letters with accents.
My dictionary gives 'fianc
--
Eric Bock
Z(2.3.5) CC(d50)I(nli) "Qkex" YRa(ND) L:27 DL:9 A R Sp--- w:randart fauchard
Zce(2.12)/Z(2.3.5)/R(1.06b)/A(2.83e) W H- D++ c f- PV+ s++
TT-- d P- M+ !C S+(--) I+ So++(!) B+++ ac? GHB-- SQ- RQ+++ V
Eric Bock
assemblage of monsters:
>Upon climbing a flight of stairs, hard...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu (mark edward
>hardwidge) found this assemblage of monsters:
>
>>Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@friko.onet.pl> wrote:
>>> That's fianc? and fianc?e, BTW (mind the accents).
>>
>> Well...it may be in some languages, but in standard American
>>English, we do not have letters with accents.
>
>My dictionary gives 'fianc
...fiancé. That's what I get for trying to type high-ascii :P It also uses
'resumé'; it seems to me that the accents are necessary to demonstrate the
pronunciation, because the words are not pronounced as one would expect
'fiance' and 'resume' to be pronounced (with a silent 'e').
Aside from that, there are probably many people who will see the accented
'e's as blocks, and, as seen above, an accented letter is not easily typable
on an American keyboard.
Gwidon Naskrent
> Aside from that, there are probably many people who will see the accented
> 'e's as blocks, and, as seen above, an accented letter is not easily typable
Unlikely unless they use some weirdo charset (Macs?), but even then there
should be conversions from and to ISO available.
As for typing, the Alt+e combination probably does it on an 'US-extended'
model in Windows, and in U**ix you're pretty much on your own with it :-)
Alt-233 will probably work with ISO/CP 1252 fonts, too.
GSN
Eric Bock
assemblage of monsters:
>From computer manuals (my main source of written American-
>English): the same ones that always refer to a 'full stop' as
>a 'period'. I kind of assumed that they were both Americanisms.
>It may be that 'query' is a computerism instead...
It's a printing term, as in book printing, so I suspect this usage predates
computers. I've heard it used occasionally, though rarely. The Jargon File
says it's fairly common, but it also suggests 'whatmark' and 'huh'.
Here's a list of various characters and accompanying terms:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/ASCII.html
mark edward hardwidge
>>My dictionary gives 'fianc
What kind of dictionary do you have? Neither the OED2 or my
American Heritage use special characters.
> it seems to me that the accents are necessary to demonstrate the
> pronunciation, because the words are not pronounced as one would
> expect 'fiance' and 'resume' to be pronounced (with a silent 'e').
But...you have to learn how most words are pronounced! Most
dictionaries show pronunciation, which is fine. But words don't
normally have to look like they sound. Surely your dictionary spells
"ghost" and "knight" and "enough" the standard ways, doesn't it?
> Aside from that, there are probably many people who will see the
> accented 'e's as blocks, and, as seen above, an accented letter is
> not easily typable on an American keyboard.
I see them (and repost them) as question marks, since I my
newsreader support unusual characters. (well, it probably does, but I
don't have it do so)
Eric Bock
hardwidge) found this assemblage of monsters:
>Eric Bock <eb...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>>My dictionary gives 'fiancé
>
> What kind of dictionary do you have? Neither the OED2 or my
>American Heritage use special characters.
How stange. Mine's by Random House. I've never seen anyone write them
without the accents before now.
>> it seems to me that the accents are necessary to demonstrate the
>> pronunciation, because the words are not pronounced as one would
>> expect 'fiance' and 'resume' to be pronounced (with a silent 'e').
>
> But...you have to learn how most words are pronounced! Most
>dictionaries show pronunciation, which is fine. But words don't
>normally have to look like they sound. Surely your dictionary spells
>"ghost" and "knight" and "enough" the standard ways, doesn't it?
Yes, but all three have been in the language for quite some time, while
'fiancé' is borrowed from French. French is pronounced very differently
from English, so it's necessary to mark the borrowed words somehow.
James W Sager Iii
on Zangband monks by mark e. hardwidge@ux11.c
> > question marks (that's 'queries' to you Americans...)
>
> Hmmm. I have never heard an American refer to a question mark
> as a 'query'. I even had to check my dictionary to see if it was
> really an acceptable term for a question mark! (the applicable
> definition said it was a 'question mark')
my friend calls them pounds, and CS dorks call them not signs.
Gwidon S. Naskrent
<hard...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Well...it may be in some languages, but in standard American
>English, we do not have letters with accents. They just are not
>letters, any more than we have umlouts or a double-"s" or anything
>else. There are just the standard 26 letters (*2 cases).
That's true. Which doesn't stop foreign letters from appearing. It's
the same in other languages.
> The words are "fiance" and "fiancee". We also have "resume"
MWHD gives fiancé(e) and resumé (the noun, the verb is to resume).
I'm not sure if it is an American dictionary, but probably it is.
>not something with accents. People who are trying to be "extra
>correct", "fancy", or pretentious sometimes will put accents in their
>words, but they really aren't using English then. Likewise, some
Until recently, it was common in England to write coördination and
æsthetics, something which American English never did.
> I've always assumed that British English is composed of the
>same 26*2 letters, and no others, but perhaps I've been mistaken.
That's true, but a language may have need of other letters to express
borrowed words. For example, there were originally no b, g or w in
Finnish; they came into use with foreigh words like bus or gimnastika.
Eric Bock
>I call ! explaination points when they are really exclaimation points,
>my friend calls them pounds, and CS dorks call them not signs.
Or 'bang' :)
Angband Addict
points,
>my friend calls them pounds, and CS dorks call them not signs.
Again, British English differs from American English here. To us
they are Exclaimation Marks, not Exclaimation Points.
By the way, have any of you noticed the 'Language Choice'
dialogue for some of the latest Micro$oft products (I can't
remember which, off hand). You have the choice of "English,
American", "English, Australian", "English, Canadian"
and "English, Other".
It's nice to see the mother tongue relegated to "Other"...
Still, this is from the people who produce different
encyclopedias that rewrite history depending on whether you look
at the American or British version.
Michael Barnes
eb...@uswest.net (Eric Bock) wrote:
> Upon climbing a flight of stairs, sag...@andrew.cmu.edu (James W Sager Iii)
> found this assemblage of monsters:
>
> >I call ! explaination points when they are really exclaimation points,
> >my friend calls them pounds, and CS dorks call them not signs.
>
> Or 'bang' :)
>
Does nobody use Pling anymore?
Sean Johnston
>In message <8ED4A9358...@10.0.0.2>
> eb...@uswest.net (Eric Bock) wrote:
>
>> Upon climbing a flight of stairs, sag...@andrew.cmu.edu (James W Sager Iii)
>> found this assemblage of monsters:
>>
>> >I call ! explaination points when they are really exclaimation points,
>> >my friend calls them pounds, and CS dorks call them not signs.
>>
>> Or 'bang' :)
>>
>
>Does nobody use Pling anymore?
Indeed:
! = Pling
^ = Hat
| = Pipe
~ = Twiddle
I did go through a brief spate of calling | 'control', which I think was from
the BBC-B computer?
Shamus.
-- random-sig [v2.3 10-Feb 11:30:00] [6/8 - life]
Life, loathe it or ignore it, you just can't like it.
[Marvin, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy etc.]
Sean Johnston, Logica, Bristol, UK
Bruce H. McCosar
well be me ...
> ! = Pling
> ^ = Hat
> | = Pipe
> ~ = Twiddle
No, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no....
! = Potion
^ = Trap
| = Edged Weapon
~ = Aquatic Monster
On the other hand, it might be fun to quaff your pling,
avoid the hat, and use your pipe to attack the twiddle.
--
Bruce H. McCosar <mcc...@earthlink.AIRBALL>
Slam Dunk a spammer! Replace AIRBALL with net to reply.
Z/C W H+ D c-- f- PV s- d P++ M+
C-- S- I- So- B- ac GHB SQ+ RQ++ V+
Michael Barnes
Sean Johnston <sean.j...@aethos.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 07:13:43 +0000, Michael Barnes wrote:
>
> >In message <8ED4A9358...@10.0.0.2>
> > eb...@uswest.net (Eric Bock) wrote:
> >
> >> Upon climbing a flight of stairs, sag...@andrew.cmu.edu (James W Sager Iii)
> >> found this assemblage of monsters:
> >>
> >> >I call ! explaination points when they are really exclaimation points,
> >> >my friend calls them pounds, and CS dorks call them not signs.
> >>
> >> Or 'bang' :)
> >>
> >
> >Does nobody use Pling anymore?
>
> Indeed:
>
> ! = Pling
> ^ = Hat
> | = Pipe
> ~ = Twiddle
>
> I did go through a brief spate of calling | 'control', which I think was
> from the BBC-B computer?
Yes, and it found it's way into RISC OS as the default ctrl character.
Jake Wildstrom
Bruce H. McCosar <mcc...@earthlink.AIRBALL> wrote:
>-sigh- Well, I guess SOMEONE has to say it, so it might as
>well be me ...
>
>avoid the hat, and use your pipe to attack the twiddle.
Could be a fun variant. Instead of colors, different potions,scrolls could be
different names for the same thing! You could quaff Exclamation Points, Plings,
Bangs, Wows, etc.
You have no room for a Reverse Vergule (2d8).
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+