Angband 2.7.9 Minor changes to Monster List

77 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Harrison

unread,
Nov 21, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/21/95
to
For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
list, in preparation for Angband 2.8.0, and to clean up some minor
annoyances. Note that many of the changes listed below can be "undone"
(visually) by the use of "pref" files, just like "skeletons" can still
be made to "look" like "animate skeletons" if so desired.

The "ticks" (t) were combined with the "spiders" (S)
The "umber hulk" (U) was turned into a beetle (K)
The "jabberwock" (J) was turned into a "chaos beetle" (K)
The "major demons" (&) changed symbol (U)
The "minor demons" (I) changed symbol (u)
The "giant flea"/"hummerhorn"/"fruit fly" became "insects" (I)
The "louse" is still a "louse" (l) and "resembles" an insect (I)
The "townspeople" (p) were changed into a new "race" (t)

The "F" symbol (giant fly) is now defined as "Dragon Fly"

The "gem" items now use the "$" symbol like all treasure
All treasure is now a different color from all other treasure

The "*" symbol is used for "magma/quartz seam containing treasure"

Some of the old "red" monsters became "pink" if they drain strength
Some of the old "fire" monsters became "red" in name when possible

The old "giant red ant" is now a "giant pink ant"
The old "giant red ant lion" is now a "giant red ant"
The old "giant grey ant lion" is now a "giant grey ant"

The old *low-level* "Ethereal hound" is now a "clear hound"
The "clear hound" is "ATTR_CLEAR" and is described as "translucent"
The *deep* "Ethereal hound" is no longer described as "clear"

All monsters which are "DROP_GOOD" are now also "ONLY_ITEM"

Some new monsters will probably be added in Angband 2.8.0, such as
Ogre captains, Greater Balrogs, Black Trolls, Vampire Queens, and
Giant Werewolfs, to name a few. Also, the "unique" monsters will
probably be extracted from the "normal" monster list, and defined
as "unique instances" of various "base classes", much as "artifacts"
are currently handled. Since this will probably result in the use
of the same attr/char for the "unique" and "base" monsters, and for
"consistency", some new "base" monsters will probably be created,
such as the ones mentioned above, and also Skeletal Lord, Greater
Balrog, Young Hobbit, Master Mage, and some others.

Suggestions on the "base" class for the various uniques, as well as
suggestions for new uniques, are welcome, but note that I will *NOT*
be removing any monsters (normal or unique) at this time.

Note that Angband 2.7.9 is probably going to be an EXTREMELY *beta*
version, as it is really just there to assist in the conversion to
Angband 2.8.0 which is going to be rather extreme, and thus, perhaps,
Angband 2.8.0 itself will turn out to be an *extremely* beta version.

I *really* need to come up with a "clean" formalism for "player ghosts"
which does not reek of stupidity...

Suggestions, as always, are welcome.

--- Ben ---

Daniel Quaroni

unread,
Nov 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/23/95
to
> I *really* need to come up with a "clean" formalism for "player
> ghosts" which does not reek of stupidity...

Ok... I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you talking about
using ghosts of dead chracters as uniques? If so, this sounds like a great
idea! I don't really see how it could "reek of stupidity", however.

-=-Daniel Quaroni
-=-go...@pelican.cit.cornell.edu


Daniel Quaroni

unread,
Nov 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/23/95
to
> Since each dead character can only be a Ghost once, on a single- use
> machine the chances of running into a Ghost are practically none.

Alright, alright. That's why I didn't know they existed.

-=-Daniel Quaroni
-=-go...@pelican.cit.cornell.edu


Julian Bean

unread,
Nov 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/23/95
to

In article <benh-21119...@philly30.voicenet.com> be...@omni.voicenet.com

(Ben Harrison) writes:
>For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
>list, in preparation for Angband 2.8.0, and to clean up some minor
>annoyances. Note that many of the changes listed below can be "undone"
>(visually) by the use of "pref" files, just like "skeletons" can still
>be made to "look" like "animate skeletons" if so desired.
>

All pretty cool...

>The "major demons" (&) changed symbol (U)

Except that one. I know it's inconsistent to use a symbol for a monster, but I
liked that joke.

Mainly because it took me several years even to realise the significance of
it...

>Some new monsters will probably be added in Angband 2.8.0, such as
>Ogre captains, Greater Balrogs, Black Trolls, Vampire Queens, and
>Giant Werewolfs, to name a few. Also, the "unique" monsters will
>probably be extracted from the "normal" monster list, and defined
>as "unique instances" of various "base classes", much as "artifacts"
>are currently handled. Since this will probably result in the use
>of the same attr/char for the "unique" and "base" monsters, and for
>"consistency", some new "base" monsters will probably be created,
>such as the ones mentioned above, and also Skeletal Lord, Greater
>Balrog, Young Hobbit, Master Mage, and some others.

Both sensible and cool - It will be find to explore the new monsters...

Jules


Larry Craighead

unread,
Nov 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/24/95
to
In <6...@jmlbhome.demon.co.uk> jeli...@jmlbhome.demon.co.uk (Julian

Bean) writes:
>>The "major demons" (&) changed symbol (U)
>Except that one. I know it's inconsistent to use a symbol for a
monster, but I
>liked that joke.
>
>Mainly because it took me several years even to realise the
significance of
>it...

Enlighten me, please...

Matt Craighead

Julian Bean

unread,
Nov 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/24/95
to

In article <493bop$l...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> plug...@ix.netcom.com (Larry

Sorry ;-)

When you run a process on a unix machine, you can run several at once by
issuing

command1 & command2 & command3

This means that command1 and command2 are running 'in the background'

To simply run command1 'in the background' you can write

command1 &

Now, on unix a background process is also known for obscure historical reasons
as a 'daemon' process. Like the mailer daemon that looks after mail delivery.

So the symbol for a 'demon' is obviously '&'.

Nethack took this one step further - if you receive mail on a multi-user
machine whilst playin nethack, a 'mail daemon' appears and drops a scroll of
mail ;)

Jules


>
>Matt Craighead
>

j...@map.com

unread,
Nov 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/24/95
to
In <benh-21119...@philly30.voicenet.com>, be...@omni.voicenet.com (Ben Harrison) writes:
>For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
>list, in preparation for Angband 2.8.0, and to clean up some minor
>annoyances. Note that many of the changes listed below can be "undone"
>(visually) by the use of "pref" files, just like "skeletons" can still
>be made to "look" like "animate skeletons" if so desired.
>
>The "jabberwock" (J) was turned into a "chaos beetle" (K)
>The "major demons" (&) changed symbol (U)
>The "minor demons" (I) changed symbol (u)
>The "giant flea"/"hummerhorn"/"fruit fly" became "insects" (I)
>The "louse" is still a "louse" (l) and "resembles" an insect (I)
>The "townspeople" (p) were changed into a new "race" (t)

They're not people anymore? Since they are still human creatures,
I don't think they should be split off from the regular p's.

>The old "giant red ant lion" is now a "giant red ant"
>The old "giant grey ant lion" is now a "giant grey ant"

But an ant lion is not an ant! Ant Lions eat ants (and characters.)

>Suggestions, as always, are welcome.

I've got a couple other nits about some of the above changes, but since
they are changeable in the pref files, perhaps you ought to include a base
'item and monster character definition' pref file with all of the monsters and
items so people can see what they are and change them back. :-)

// Roland Jay Roberts - Team OS/2 -
// Internet: j...@map.com
// FidoNet: Roland Roberts @ 1:321/305.5


Dennis Andrew Blazewicz

unread,
Nov 25, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/25/95
to
Ben Harrison (be...@omni.voicenet.com) wrote:
: I *really* need to come up with a "clean" formalism for "player ghosts"

: which does not reek of stupidity...
:
: Suggestions, as always, are welcome.

Some thing i was thinking about last night - When a player dies, what we get
is essentially a unique monster.. perhaps (and i'm sure this has been
suggested before, but maybe it was impractical to implement back then) when
a player dies a minor item should be "created" that appears on the level
that he/she died on. Perhaps the very same player ghost would drop this
item.. it would add a bit more of that random fun that we've come to expect
and love from Angband. And BigCrunch the 2nd would love finding a "Mace
named 'BigCrunch'" :) it would amuse him :)

Astinus
Afraid of Amused Trolls


Sebastian Hanlon

unread,
Nov 25, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/25/95
to
I am an avid AngBander (correct term?), and I have 2.7.8 for Windows, but I was
wondering...

Is it possible to compile a version for VMS?

I have access to a C compiler on my VMS system, so I thought I'd ask.

-=:|Sebastian|:=-


Shawn McHorse

unread,
Nov 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/26/95
to
In article <4967ij$s...@dsinc.myxa.com> r...@banjo.dsi.com (Randy Brown) writes:
>>The "umber hulk" (U) was turned into a beetle (K)
>But keeps it's name?

Yes, that does seem a bit odd. Suggestions?

"Tunneling Beetle"?

>>The "jabberwock" (J) was turned into a "chaos beetle" (K)

>We can't lose the jabberwock! At least keep the name if you're gonna
>change the letter. I agree that a whole letter for a single monster was
>a little annoying.

You're not losing Jabberwocks, you're gaining Chaos Beetles...:-> Only the name
and letter were changed, it's still the same nasty monster it always was. And I
really don't see the problem with losing a bit of Lewis Carroll "mythology".
Every time I see one I feel like looking for momeraths outgrabing.

Shawn McHorse
smch...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu
An Austin NorthCross-Dresser

Mike Marcelais

unread,
Nov 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/26/95
to
My spies tell me that Ben Harrison (be...@omni.voicenet.com) wrote:
| For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
| list...

| The "umber hulk" (U) was turned into a beetle (K)

ROFL!

Ok...everyone, just picture this for a minute:
Big 7' dirt devouring, gaze confuing, monstrosity.
Small, tiny, bettle slithering across the ground.
These are supposed to be the same...and every is okay about this?

[Now if only my AD&D characters could do this...]

--

+------------------------+----------------------------+
| Mike Marcelais | mrma...@eos.ncsu.edu |
| Moonstone Dragon | Magic: The Gathering Judge |
| -==(UDIC)==- | Author of ChrHack 2.3 |
+-----------------------------------------------------+

Mike Marcelais

unread,
Nov 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/26/95
to

Possible: Probably.
Has it been done before: I don't think so.
If you are a good C programmer, I'm sure you could do it (the main limitation
is that there isn't a `main-vms.c' file -- you'd have to make your own
probably adapting the unix version).

Shawn McHorse

unread,
Nov 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/27/95
to
In article <30B92778...@mars.ic.iaf.nl> Abigail <abi...@mars.ic.iaf.nl> writes:
>Bleh... Umber Hulks date from ancient Moria times... I would hate to
>lose them; I've some kind of image how they would look like... big,
>strong, build like a fridge. That's far off from how I image a beetle...

Doesn't D&D pre-date Moria? That was the first place I ever heard the term
"Umber Hulk". And is there a problem with having a beetle that is big, strong,
and built like a fridge? Your imagination seems to be failing you.

>Same reasons apply here.... I don't know exactly how a Jabberwock looks
>like, but it certainly isn't a beetle! Beetles are things you crush under
>your boots, Jabberwocks are hard to fight monsters.

*sigh* Your imagination just plain sucks. Think _BIG_. Imagine a 50-foot
behemoth in the shape of a beetle. There you have a Chaos Beetle. Just try
crushing THAT with your boots...:-)

>Djee, I'd say Angband would lose a lot of its heroics if Morgoth summes
>beetles....

Lose? Morgoth has the S_MONSTERS spell, so he can certainly summon beetles
right now if he likes. Deal with it.

Abigail

unread,
Nov 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/27/95
to
Shawn McHorse wrote:
>
> In article <4967ij$s...@dsinc.myxa.com> r...@banjo.dsi.com (Randy Brown) writes:
> >>The "umber hulk" (U) was turned into a beetle (K)
> >But keeps it's name?
>
> Yes, that does seem a bit odd. Suggestions?
>
> "Tunneling Beetle"?

Bleh... Umber Hulks date from ancient Moria times... I would hate to


lose them; I've some kind of image how they would look like... big,
strong, build like a fridge. That's far off from how I image a beetle...

I strongly urge Ben to keep the Umber Hulks (not that it matters, Ben
never listens to me). If the 'U' is needed for some reason, why not
merge the Umber Hulk with the 'X'? But please keep the Umber Hulk as a name.

>
> >>The "jabberwock" (J) was turned into a "chaos beetle" (K)
> >We can't lose the jabberwock! At least keep the name if you're gonna
> >change the letter. I agree that a whole letter for a single monster was
> >a little annoying.
>
> You're not losing Jabberwocks, you're gaining Chaos Beetles...:-> Only the name
> and letter were changed, it's still the same nasty monster it always was. And I
> really don't see the problem with losing a bit of Lewis Carroll "mythology".
> Every time I see one I feel like looking for momeraths outgrabing.

Same reasons apply here.... I don't know exactly how a Jabberwock looks


like, but it certainly isn't a beetle! Beetles are things you crush under
your boots, Jabberwocks are hard to fight monsters.

Djee, I'd say Angband would lose a lot of its heroics if Morgoth summes
beetles....


Keep the Jabberwocks and certainly keep the Umber Hulks.

Abigail

Aaron Mandelbaum

unread,
Nov 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/27/95
to
smch...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Shawn McHorse) writes:

>In article <30B92778...@mars.ic.iaf.nl> Abigail writes:
>>Bleh... Umber Hulks date from ancient Moria times... I would hate to
>>lose them; I've some kind of image how they would look like... big,
>>strong, build like a fridge. That's far off from how I image a beetle...
>Doesn't D&D pre-date Moria? That was the first place I ever heard the term
>"Umber Hulk". And is there a problem with having a beetle that is big,
>strong,
>and built like a fridge? Your imagination seems to be failing you.

Umber hulks are one-eyed, brown HUMANOIDS built like fridges. Very few
beetles are bipedal. You need more of an ant- or matis-like insect to pull
it off.

YOUR imagination seems to be rather badly stuck in a rut if every damn thing
has to be a beetle!

>*sigh* Your imagination just plain sucks. Think _BIG_. Imagine a 50-foot
>behemoth in the shape of a beetle. There you have a Chaos Beetle. Just try
>crushing THAT with your boots...:-)

[yawn] Boooooring. Two headed burbling jabberwocks are a lot better. [stomp!]

You're missing the point completely, Shawn. Imagination really has nothing
to do with it. It's the fact that these changes erode the game's atmosphere,
which is one of its strong points. I mean, I know I'm still reeling from
switching to 2.7.x from PC 1.4 just because of some silly color changes, and
this kind of thing is pretty similar.

>>Djee, I'd say Angband would lose a lot of its heroics if Morgoth summes
>>beetles....

>Lose? Morgoth has the S_MONSTERS spell, so he can certainly summon beetles
>right now if he likes. Deal with it.

No. Don't. Just edit your R_LIST.txt and pref files. :)

--
Aaron Mandelbaum

Shawn McHorse

unread,
Nov 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/27/95
to
In article <adm4.2565...@po.cwru.edu> ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) writes:
>Umber hulks are one-eyed, brown HUMANOIDS built like fridges. Very few
>beetles are bipedal. You need more of an ant- or matis-like insect to pull
>it off.

*shrug* I never had any idea at all what an Umber Hulk was "supposed" to look
like. Let's see what the Umber Hulk description from 2.7.8 has to say on the
subject: "It is a huge beetle with glaring eyes and large mandibles capable of
slicing through rock." Ok. I'm now enlightened. Now why can't Umber Hulks
be beetles?

>YOUR imagination seems to be rather badly stuck in a rut if every damn thing
>has to be a beetle!

*giggle* Just defending Ben's changes to the death...:-)

>You're missing the point completely, Shawn. Imagination really has nothing
>to do with it. It's the fact that these changes erode the game's atmosphere,
>which is one of its strong points. I mean, I know I'm still reeling from
>switching to 2.7.x from PC 1.4 just because of some silly color changes, and
>this kind of thing is pretty similar.

I just don't see how having one single monster from Lewis Carrol in the game
adds so much to its atmosphere. Why not throw in Alice as a unique while we're
at it?

>>Lose? Morgoth has the S_MONSTERS spell, so he can certainly summon beetles
>>right now if he likes. Deal with it.
>
>No. Don't. Just edit your R_LIST.txt and pref files. :)

Muhahahaha!!! Death to beetles!!!

Ben Harrison

unread,
Nov 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/27/95
to
In article <4967ij$s...@dsinc.myxa.com>, r...@banjo.dsi.com (Randy Brown) wrote:

> be...@omni.voicenet.com (Ben Harrison) writes:
> >The "ticks" (t) were combined with the "spiders" (S)

> Reasonable


>
> >The "umber hulk" (U) was turned into a beetle (K)
> But keeps it's name?

Well, yes. Note that the description has always implied that the
Umber Hulk was "sort of" a beetle anyway.

> >The "jabberwock" (J) was turned into a "chaos beetle" (K)
> We can't lose the jabberwock! At least keep the name if you're gonna
> change the letter. I agree that a whole letter for a single monster was
> a little annoying.

Why can't we lose the Jabberwock? Last I checked, people were annoyed
at the appearance of such an *obviously* non-tolkein, non-role-playing
monster in Angband, and the "summon jabberwock" code was removed long ago.

> >The "major demons" (&) changed symbol (U)

> U for unhhh...

> >The "minor demons" (I) changed symbol (u)
>
> >The "giant flea"/"hummerhorn"/"fruit fly" became "insects" (I)

> fine.


>
> >The "louse" is still a "louse" (l) and "resembles" an insect (I)

> why not combine them... leave 'l' free for something else...

I am reserving that change for when I actually need a new letter.
Since the "l" character is so similar to the "I" character, especially
on the Macintosh, they are already "identical" to me anyway. :-)

> >The "townspeople" (p) were changed into a new "race" (t)

> err, why?

First, there were more than 30 "p" monsters. Second, the "townspeople"
were using a *completely* different "color scheme" than the dungeon
monsters (for obvious reasons), and they make up an easily definable
class, and the change will, among other things, make the result of
summoning "p" monsters in town much more "obvious".

> >The "F" symbol (giant fly) is now defined as "Dragon Fly"

> excellent.


>
> >The "gem" items now use the "$" symbol like all treasure
> >All treasure is now a different color from all other treasure
>
> >The "*" symbol is used for "magma/quartz seam containing treasure"
>
> >Some of the old "red" monsters became "pink" if they drain strength
> >Some of the old "fire" monsters became "red" in name when possible

> I always thought that was confusing.

Me too. :-)

> >Some new monsters will probably be added in Angband 2.8.0, such as
> >Ogre captains, Greater Balrogs, Black Trolls, Vampire Queens, and
> >Giant Werewolfs, to name a few. Also, the "unique" monsters will
> >probably be extracted from the "normal" monster list, and defined
> >as "unique instances" of various "base classes", much as "artifacts"
> >are currently handled. Since this will probably result in the use
> >of the same attr/char for the "unique" and "base" monsters, and for
> >"consistency", some new "base" monsters will probably be created,
> >such as the ones mentioned above, and also Skeletal Lord, Greater
> >Balrog, Young Hobbit, Master Mage, and some others.
>

> Fine.
>
> I guess my major problem is losing the jabberwocks... :-)

Think of it as a "face lift" and not a "loss", the monster info is the
same, except for the description, which has been "modified", and the
symbol, and the name. Oh, and maybe the attacks were tweaked a little.

>
> -Randy

--- Ben ---

Ben Harrison

unread,
Nov 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/27/95
to
In article <4989sr$4...@holly.cc.uleth.ca>, HAN...@hg.uleth.ca (Sebastian Hanlon) wrote:

> I am an avid AngBander (correct term?), and I have 2.7.8 for Windows, but I was
> wondering...
>
> Is it possible to compile a version for VMS?
>
> I have access to a C compiler on my VMS system, so I thought I'd ask.

If it works, let me know.

If it does not, make it work, and send me patches. :-)

You will probably have to mess with (1) PATH_SEP and (2) "main-gcu.c"

>
> -=:|Sebastian|:=-

--- Ben ---

William Tanksley

unread,
Nov 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/27/95
to
smch...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Shawn McHorse) wrote to us all:

>In article <4967ij$s...@dsinc.myxa.com> r...@banjo.dsi.com (Randy Brown) writes:
>>>The "umber hulk" (U) was turned into a beetle (K)
>>But keeps it's name?

>Yes, that does seem a bit odd. Suggestions?
>"Tunneling Beetle"?

How about "Umber Hulk"? I think that's still a good name.

> Shawn McHorse

-Billy

Thomas Stockheim

unread,
Nov 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/28/95
to
be...@omni.voicenet.com (Ben Harrison) writes:

>For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster

>list, in preparation for Angband 2.8.0, and to clean up some minor
>annoyances. Note that many of the changes listed below can be "undone"
>(visually) by the use of "pref" files, just like "skeletons" can still
>be made to "look" like "animate skeletons" if so desired.

One question: Is the number of monsters limited ? If no, then perhaps
it's time to add those that are obviously missing ...

>Some new monsters will probably be added in Angband 2.8.0, such as
>Ogre captains, Greater Balrogs, Black Trolls, Vampire Queens, and
>Giant Werewolfs, to name a few. Also, the "unique" monsters will

...


>such as the ones mentioned above, and also Skeletal Lord, Greater
>Balrog, Young Hobbit, Master Mage, and some others.

I like those additions !
But how about that:
There are novice mages,priests,rogues,rangers,archers,paladins and warriors.
And then mages, priests, bandits? and hardened warriors?
But where are the stronger rangers, archers and paladins ?
I think having nocice ranger, ranger, experienced ranger, ranger lord, or
so would be fun ... The same for paladins, archers i never really liked.

As well ,there are some dragons that seem to be missing ...
Why are there no baby gold and bronze dragons ?
And where is the great wyrm of acid and the great wyrm of poison ?
I know, stupid names, but I would like to have them ...

Thomas

Jonathan Dean

unread,
Nov 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/28/95
to
In article <adm4.2565...@po.cwru.edu> ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) writes:
>smch...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Shawn McHorse) writes:
>>In article <30B92778...@mars.ic.iaf.nl> Abigail writes:
>>>Bleh... Umber Hulks date from ancient Moria times... I would hate to
>>>lose them; I've some kind of image how they would look like... big,
>>>strong, build like a fridge. That's far off from how I image a beetle...
>>Doesn't D&D pre-date Moria? That was the first place I ever heard the term
>>"Umber Hulk". And is there a problem with having a beetle that is big,
>>strong,
>>and built like a fridge? Your imagination seems to be failing you.
>
>Umber hulks are one-eyed, brown HUMANOIDS built like fridges. Very few
>beetles are bipedal. You need more of an ant- or matis-like insect to pull
>it off.

ONE-EYED? I always thought it had two insects-like eyes myself... ;-)

I agree with Ben that the Umber Hulk needed to be moved. Maybe a
strict move to the humanoid ('h') or hybrid ('H') section and keep the
name and description the same is possible. My vote would be to the
hybrids as they aren't all that many of them and the Umber Hulk is a
strange looking monster (especially since everybody's descriptions
differ).

>YOUR imagination seems to be rather badly stuck in a rut if every damn thing
>has to be a beetle!

Doesn't half to be. We could always go with a big strange looking
Hound as far as that is concerned, or heck, change it to a black 'P'
just for the fun of it. I think the goal that Ben was trying for was
to include one or two beetles that a person has to worry about.

>>>*sigh* Your imagination just plain sucks. Think _BIG_. Imagine a 50-foot
>>behemoth in the shape of a beetle. There you have a Chaos Beetle. Just try
>>crushing THAT with your boots...:-)
>
>[yawn] Boooooring. Two headed burbling jabberwocks are a lot better. [stomp!]

Sigh. Lets see, we can always move the Jabberwock to a different
group instead of renaming it. Lets see, Greater Demon is possible
('U') as it is really big and nasty, and again there is the hybrid
group ('H'). Humanoid is possible, but a really big streatch.

Moving or renaming is pretty simple and will probably have little overall
effect.

>No. Don't. Just edit your R_LIST.txt and pref files. :)

If you want you can move your Umber Hulk and Jabberwock to new groups by
simply editing your R_INFO.TXT file.

--
Jonathan Dean | "I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit.
jd...@psl.nmsu.edu | It's the only way to be sure."
| -- Corporal Hicks, in "Aliens"

Ben Harrison

unread,
Nov 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/28/95
to
In article <495c7j$5...@news.map.com>, j...@map.com wrote:

> In <benh-21119...@philly30.voicenet.com>, be...@omni.voicenet.com (Ben Harrison) writes:
> >For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
> >list, in preparation for Angband 2.8.0, and to clean up some minor
> >annoyances. Note that many of the changes listed below can be "undone"
> >(visually) by the use of "pref" files, just like "skeletons" can still
> >be made to "look" like "animate skeletons" if so desired.
> >

> >The "jabberwock" (J) was turned into a "chaos beetle" (K)

> >The "major demons" (&) changed symbol (U)

> >The "minor demons" (I) changed symbol (u)
> >The "giant flea"/"hummerhorn"/"fruit fly" became "insects" (I)

> >The "louse" is still a "louse" (l) and "resembles" an insect (I)

> >The "townspeople" (p) were changed into a new "race" (t)
>

> They're not people anymore? Since they are still human creatures,
> I don't think they should be split off from the regular p's.

They were split because, at least where "color" is concerned, they
are *completely* different from normal "p" monsters. For example,
the mean looking mercenary is red like a mage. Etc. It may take
a little getting used to, but I think people will adapt quickly...



> >The old "giant red ant lion" is now a "giant red ant"
> >The old "giant grey ant lion" is now a "giant grey ant"
>
> But an ant lion is not an ant! Ant Lions eat ants (and characters.)

Exactly. So now all "a" monsters are "ants". Really big ants. With
huge teeth.

>
> >Suggestions, as always, are welcome.
>

> I've got a couple other nits about some of the above changes, but since
> they are changeable in the pref files, perhaps you ought to include a base
> 'item and monster character definition' pref file with all of the monsters and
> items so people can see what they are and change them back. :-)

Well, Angband 2.8.0 is changing a *lot* of things, so I do not want to
spend time making a list that will be invalid soon.

>
> // Roland Jay Roberts - Team OS/2 -
> // Internet: j...@map.com
> // FidoNet: Roland Roberts @ 1:321/305.5

=== Nem ===

I mean,,,

--- Ben ---

Patrick Tracy

unread,
Nov 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/28/95
to

>For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
>list, in preparation for Angband 2.8.0, and to clean up some minor
>annoyances. Note that many of the changes listed below can be "undone"
>(visually) by the use of "pref" files, just like "skeletons" can still
>be made to "look" like "animate skeletons" if so desired.
>
>The "ticks" (t) were combined with the "spiders" (S)

Spiders and scorpions go together (they're both arachnids) but ticks
are bloodsucking parasitic *insects* - like lice. They'd probably be
better under (l).

>The "umber hulk" (U) was turned into a beetle (K)

>The "jabberwock" (J) was turned into a "chaos beetle" (K)

It's about time, actually. The umber hulks should have always been
beetles, and not that I dislike Lewis Carroll, but if there are
jabberwocks, there should also be bandersnatchi and vorpal swords and
boojums. The only problem is their colors (brown and shimmering) are
already shared with brown and iridescent beetles. Could re- name and
color the brown beetle to black, and allow the chaos beetles to be
mistaken for iridescents... <grin>

[Hmm... my newsfeed went down for a while so I'm a bit tardy posting
this, and in the meantime an arguement seems to have broken out over
whether umber hulks are beetles or not. Now, I have a copy of the
original monster manual from ADnD, so I'm aware it was originally
based on a humanoid hulk with a beetle-like head, but the *Angband*
destcription: 'It is like a huge beetle with glaring eyes and large
mandibles capable of slicing through rock.' seems to indicate a
*beetle*.]

>The "major demons" (&) changed symbol (U)
>The "minor demons" (I) changed symbol (u)
>The "giant flea"/"hummerhorn"/"fruit fly" became "insects" (I)
>The "louse" is still a "louse" (l) and "resembles" an insect (I)
>The "townspeople" (p) were changed into a new "race" (t)
>

>The "F" symbol (giant fly) is now defined as "Dragon Fly"
>

Making townspeople a new race - why? so they can be summoned? <grin>
If you just want to break apart the 'p' crowd, it might be more
reasonable to separate them into armored and unarmored humans, perhaps
even breaking armored into heavily and lightly (hard and soft /
warriors and rogues) armored humans, which would not be an artificial
distinction. I don't know which letters you'd use, though.

>Some of the old "red" monsters became "pink" if they drain strength
>Some of the old "fire" monsters became "red" in name when possible
>

>The old "giant red ant" is now a "giant pink ant"

>The old "giant red ant lion" is now a "giant red ant"
>The old "giant grey ant lion" is now a "giant grey ant"
>

That'd be nice - but pink? Yetch. I assume you're changing them to
that odd color used by nexus hounds and qulythugs, which you could
also call orange (at least on ibms).

>The old *low-level* "Ethereal hound" is now a "clear hound"
>The "clear hound" is "ATTR_CLEAR" and is described as "translucent"
>The *deep* "Ethereal hound" is no longer described as "clear"
>

A clear pack animal. Cool, even though I rather liked having two breeds
of ethereal hounds.

>Some new monsters will probably be added in Angband 2.8.0, such as
>Ogre captains, Greater Balrogs, Black Trolls, Vampire Queens, and
>Giant Werewolfs, to name a few. Also, the "unique" monsters will

>probably be extracted from the "normal" monster list, and defined
>as "unique instances" of various "base classes", much as "artifacts"
>are currently handled. Since this will probably result in the use
>of the same attr/char for the "unique" and "base" monsters, and for
>"consistency", some new "base" monsters will probably be created,

>such as the ones mentioned above, and also Skeletal Lord, Greater
>Balrog, Young Hobbit, Master Mage, and some others.
>

>Suggestions on the "base" class for the various uniques, as well as
>suggestions for new uniques, are welcome, but note that I will *NOT*
>be removing any monsters (normal or unique) at this time.
>

Not bad. I'm looking forward to meeting Skeletal Lords. But how
about changing a few of the other names - Giant/Greater/etc just don't
have much style. How about a Werewolf Sire, (plain) Balrogs and Balrog
Lords, and Ancient Sorcerors (instead of master mages - 'as old as the
hills, and as powerful').

And don't forget the dwarven king (Fundin Bluecloak). Or should that
be ** KING **? :)

Also, I think you were looking for names for the mimics (suggesting
lesser/greater/master) - how about Bottle Mimics, Ring Mimics, and
Scroll Mimics (it *is* what they're mimicking, after all).

>Note that Angband 2.7.9 is probably going to be an EXTREMELY *beta*
>version, as it is really just there to assist in the conversion to
>Angband 2.8.0 which is going to be rather extreme, and thus, perhaps,
>Angband 2.8.0 itself will turn out to be an *extremely* beta version.
>

Another argument to re-release 2.78 (stable, but still beta) as 2.79,
with the *enchant* and object overflow bugs fixed, and perhaps the
artifact rarity adjusted (not really a bug, but it has a sizeable
effect on gameplay).

>
>Suggestions, as always, are welcome.
>

>--- Ben ---
>


That's quite a game you've got,
-Pat


flanagan john thomas

unread,
Nov 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/28/95
to
Thomas Stockheim (to...@hathi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de) wrote:

: As well ,there are some dragons that seem to be missing ...


: Why are there no baby gold and bronze dragons ?
: And where is the great wyrm of acid and the great wyrm of poison ?
: I know, stupid names, but I would like to have them ...

Perhaps call them Great Vitriol Wyrm and Great Bane Wyrm, respectively.
The great bane wyrm would be REALLY nasty without poison resistance...

A Great Chromatic Wyrm would be way too nasty... besides, we already have
Tiamat.

--
John Flanagan
Student at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
flan...@uiuc.edu
"Just because it's impossible doesn't mean it can't be done."

Paul Andrew King

unread,
Nov 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/28/95
to
In article <49dt82$q...@alamo.cs.utsa.edu>,
smch...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Shawn McHorse) wrote:

>
>*shrug* I never had any idea at all what an Umber Hulk was "supposed" to look
>like. Let's see what the Umber Hulk description from 2.7.8 has to say on the
>subject: "It is a huge beetle with glaring eyes and large mandibles capable of
>slicing through rock." Ok. I'm now enlightened. Now why can't Umber Hulks
>be beetles?
>

The Umber Hulk is a monster from TSR's Dungeons & Dragons, and it isn't a
beetle. The bad news is that if TSR find out about it they might force
Angband off the net until all the D&D specific monsters are removed.

Paul K.

My newsfeed is losing posts. Please email any replies if you want to be sure I see them.

Mischa E Gelman

unread,
Nov 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/29/95
to
In article <ACE13B0F...@morat.demon.co.uk>,

Paul Andrew King <pa...@morat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The Umber Hulk is a monster from TSR's Dungeons & Dragons, and it isn't a
>beetle. The bad news is that if TSR find out about it they might force
>Angband off the net until all the D&D specific monsters are removed.
>
>Paul K.

TSR would probably NOT mind if it was on only TSR-sponsored sites(their
aol site, MPGN, their web page which should come out in 7Billion years,
etc). Then, that would reduce the availability of it(till they get
theirweb site, it would noly be on aol(aol users) and mpgn (6 users at a
time). But to avoid any nasty problems in the future, I think Angband
should either can the DND stuff(lots of it-from DFs to Vecna to Tiamat
and the DND stat system) or put it on a T$R site. That is, once people
think T$R may catch on to the existence of Angband.

--
The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, roman nor an empire.

Jonathan Dean

unread,
Nov 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/29/95
to
In article <4990aj$3...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> mrma...@eos.ncsu.edu (Mike Marcelais) writes:

>My spies tell me that Ben Harrison (be...@omni.voicenet.com) wrote:
>| For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
>| list...

>
>| The "umber hulk" (U) was turned into a beetle (K)
>
>ROFL!
>
>Ok...everyone, just picture this for a minute:
> Big 7' dirt devouring, gaze confuing, monstrosity.
> Small, tiny, bettle slithering across the ground.
>These are supposed to be the same...and every is okay about this?

Why are people assuming that if it is a beetle that it must be small?

Lets take the Killer Slicer Beetle for example. From what you have
said, I would have to conclude that it is between 2-3" long, since it
is a beetle and, obviously, all beetles are small. I have a hard time
imagining such a tiny insect doing two attacks for 5d8 damage and
absorbing over 100 points of damage in return.

I would think that something that was about 6' long or bigger could easily
do that much damage. Sure, there are no beetles that are over six feet
long, but all I have to say to that is "magic."

>[Now if only my AD&D characters could do this...]

Um, this is not D&D, and there is no reason to make sure that any monster
that appears in Angband conform to what is described to D&D, or vice
versa. If you take a look at the description as it already exists then
you may notice that it is not describing some sort of monsterous humanoid,
but a beetle, and a "huge" beetle at that.

So, if your D&D characters start thinking that their Umber Hulks are small
bugs that only need to be stepped on, then their heads should be checked,
assuming that is they survive being mangled by what is obviously a figment
of their imagination.

Andrew Solovay

unread,
Nov 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/30/95
to
In article <benh-28119...@philly30.voicenet.com>,

Ben Harrison <be...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>In article <495c7j$5...@news.map.com>, j...@map.com wrote:
>
>> In <benh-21119...@philly30.voicenet.com>, be...@omni.voicenet.com (Ben Harrison) writes:
>
>> >The old "giant red ant lion" is now a "giant red ant"
>> >The old "giant grey ant lion" is now a "giant grey ant"
>>
>> But an ant lion is not an ant! Ant Lions eat ants (and characters.)
>
>Exactly. So now all "a" monsters are "ants". Really big ants. With
>huge teeth.

Alternately, we could keep "ant lions", but have them be "K" instead
of "a"...

...if'n people really like "ant lions", that is.

--Andrew Solovay <sol...@netcom.com>

"Heaven produces myriads of things to nourish man;
Man never does one good to recompense heaven.
Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill!"
--- The Ancestress' Epitaph

Andrew Solovay

unread,
Nov 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/30/95
to
In article <benh-21119...@philly30.voicenet.com>,

Ben Harrison <be...@omni.voicenet.com> wrote:
>For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
>list...
>
>Suggestions, as always, are welcome.

Okay. Two suggestions, one minor, one major. But both should be easy
to do-- I could do 'em myself, and mail you the patch.

Minor: The "Mind flayer" should be "h" (humanoid), not "p"
(human). Humans don't have tentacled mouths.

Major: Two monster names/classes have long bothered me: "Gnomes" and
"Dark Elves".

In Tolkien, "Gnome" is an archaic name (from "Book of Lost Tales") for
the Noldor-- that is, for exiled High Elves. (Gnome" comes from the
Greek word for "wisdom".) So Tolkien "gnomes" are nothing like the
short, dwarflike beings in "Angband"-- in Angband terms, gnomes are
"High Elves".

Furthermore, in Tolkien, "Dark Elves" are Elves that never saw the
light of the Trees-- in Angband terms, a "Dark Elf" is a
plain-old-Elf, as distinct from a High Elf. They are not evil, or
especially susceptible to light-- indeed, Luthien and Legolas were
both "Dark Elves".

Suggested fix: Why not change both the character race "gnome", and all
"gnome" and "dark elf" monsters, to "petty-Dwarves"? There are already
three petty-Dwarf uniques in Angband. We could change "gnome mage" to
"petty-dwarf trickster" or somesuch; and change "Dark Elf
Mage/Priest/Sorceror/Whatever" to "Petty Dwarf Mage/Priest/Sorceror/
Whatever". The only effect on balance would be that petty-dwarves
ought not to be susceptible to light; but that's a minor change.

Whaddya think? If you (Ben) approve, I can snarf the latest 2.7.9, and
come up with patches to make this change.

--Andrew Solovay <sol...@netcom.com>

"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat."
--- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-7

M Miles

unread,
Nov 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/30/95
to
A suggestion...
F flying insects
I Insects (beetles,centipedes,etc)
l lice(and ticks)
K Kreatures of KAOS, like, say Jabberwocks, Umberhulks, Bandersnatches...

If U is a lot of letter for one creatre, k isn't much better.
I was thinking that kobold murderer (clear, hit to poison, cast spells to
trap and teleport short distances). kobold shamans. Add another unique
(Murder Lord, or something). Maybe add goblins and snotlings (just to
tick of the warhammer people, too).


Greg Legowski

unread,
Nov 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/30/95
to
In article <49i9pj$m...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,

Mischa E Gelman <megs...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>But to avoid any nasty problems in the future, I think Angband
>should either can the DND stuff(lots of it-from DFs to Vecna to Tiamat
^^^^^^
I might be remembering my mythology wrong, but I'm pretty sure Tiamat is a
figure in the Babylonian mythos, and not a T$R creation. Of course, she still
doesn't really fit in Angband anyway, and the specific interpretation of her
as a really huge powerful multicolored dragon is probably T$R's...

>and the DND stat system) or put it on a T$R site.


The DND "stat" system has become very common in a lot of different games, so
if T$R objected to that there's a lot of targets for them to worry about...
--
Greg Legowski http://www.lm.com/~gregleg/

Cliff Stamp

unread,
Dec 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/1/95
to

In article <49g00n$e...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, flan...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (flanagan john thomas) writes:
|>Thomas Stockheim (to...@hathi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de) wrote:
|>
|>: As well ,there are some dragons that seem to be missing ...
|>: Why are there no baby gold and bronze dragons ?
|>: And where is the great wyrm of acid and the great wyrm of poison ?
|>: I know, stupid names, but I would like to have them ...
|>
|>Perhaps call them Great Vitriol Wyrm and Great Bane Wyrm, respectively.
|>The great bane wyrm would be REALLY nasty without poison resistance...

Excellent idea.

|>A Great Chromatic Wyrm would be way too nasty...

Just make it deep, we need something to challenge 50 lev chars.

|> besides, we already have
|>Tiamat.

So? We have unique dragons that breath fire and Great Hell Wyrms.


--
Cliff Stamp "The higher we soar, the smaller we seem to
sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca those who cannot fly" - Friedrich Nietzsche"


Leejay Wu

unread,
Dec 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/1/95
to
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.roguelike.angband: 28-Nov-95 Re: Angband
2.7.9 Minor cha.. by flanagan john thomas@ux4
> Thomas Stockheim (to...@hathi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de) wrote:
>
> : As well ,there are some dragons that seem to be missing ...
> : Why are there no baby gold and bronze dragons ?
> : And where is the great wyrm of acid and the great wyrm of poison ?
> : I know, stupid names, but I would like to have them ...
>
> Perhaps call them Great Vitriol Wyrm and Great Bane Wyrm, respectively.
> The great bane wyrm would be REALLY nasty without poison resistance...
>
> A Great Chromatic Wyrm would be way too nasty... besides, we already have
> Tiamat.

...maybe a Great Wyrm, with, say, gravity breath and tunneling --


...i.e. a Great Earth Wyrm... ;-)

--Leejay Wu- PGP keyprint: F3 FC EB 0E 2C 31 F3 08 96 A2 B4 E2 5A 3E 47 6A --
| <fue...@cmu.edu> ...there is no light but for darkness... conflict brings |
| truth... I speak for none but myself... finger for GC, W3 URLs, PGP stuff |
--Carpe carp --- Information is power ---- this .sig last revised 950925 ---|

Craig Lewis

unread,
Dec 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/2/95
to
In article <ckjjvd_00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, fue...@CMU.EDU says...

>
>> A Great Chromatic Wyrm would be way too nasty... besides, we already have
>> Tiamat.
>
>...maybe a Great Wyrm, with, say, gravity breath and tunneling --
>
>...i.e. a Great Earth Wyrm... ;-)

Oh, please, NO. There's no resistance to gravity.
Even if the max damage was capped relatively low, it'd be breathing for
that max damage for a LONG time. As far as I can recall, the only
monsters that have gravity breath are gravity hounds and the Aether
monsters (which won't do it very often).


Stephen S. Lee

unread,
Dec 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/2/95
to
(spoiler alert)

In article <49q1do$h...@bubba.nmsu.edu>,

The max damage is currently capped relatively low, but it's still a nasty
attack ... well, there are two other monsters that have it, aether
vortices (which for some reason cannot breathe disenchantment ... does
anyone out there know why?), and Kavlax the Many-Headed (one reason why
he's one of the more dangerous uniques).

--
Stephen S. Lee (le...@fas.harvard.edu)

If love is chemistry, and sex is physics, then what is biology?

Larry Craighead

unread,
Dec 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/2/95
to
In <49kv99$8...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com>

asol...@kmassucc3-sun.us.oracle.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>Minor: The "Mind flayer" should be "h" (humanoid), not "p"
>(human). Humans don't have tentacled mouths.

Yes, true.

>Major: Two monster names/classes have long bothered me: "Gnomes" and
>"Dark Elves".
>
>In Tolkien, "Gnome" is an archaic name (from "Book of Lost Tales") for
>the Noldor-- that is, for exiled High Elves. (Gnome" comes from the
>Greek word for "wisdom".) So Tolkien "gnomes" are nothing like the
>short, dwarflike beings in "Angband"-- in Angband terms, gnomes are
>"High Elves".
>
>Furthermore, in Tolkien, "Dark Elves" are Elves that never saw the
>light of the Trees-- in Angband terms, a "Dark Elf" is a
>plain-old-Elf, as distinct from a High Elf. They are not evil, or
>especially susceptible to light-- indeed, Luthien and Legolas were
>both "Dark Elves".

Remember something here - you are presuming this game is entirely
Tolkein, which it is not by a longshot.

>Suggested fix: Why not change both the character race "gnome", and all
>"gnome" and "dark elf" monsters, to "petty-Dwarves"? There are already
>three petty-Dwarf uniques in Angband. We could change "gnome mage" to
>"petty-dwarf trickster" or somesuch; and change "Dark Elf
>Mage/Priest/Sorceror/Whatever" to "Petty Dwarf Mage/Priest/Sorceror/
>Whatever". The only effect on balance would be that petty-dwarves
>ought not to be susceptible to light; but that's a minor change.

I think this would lose some game environment. As a Dragonlance fan, I
love the mental picture of those gnomes screwing around with magic. It
would get better if they had a 50% chance of spell backfiring. :)

Dark elves have an entirely different meaning in many other worlds.
Generally they are elves who have become evil.

>Whaddya think? If you (Ben) approve, I can snarf the latest 2.7.9, and
>come up with patches to make this change.
>
>--Andrew Solovay <sol...@netcom.com>
>
>"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat."
> --- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-7

Matt Craighead

Ben Harrison

unread,
Dec 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/2/95
to
In article <49kv99$8...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com>, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) wrote:

> In article <benh-21119...@philly30.voicenet.com>,
> Ben Harrison <be...@omni.voicenet.com> wrote:
> >For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
> >list...
> >
> >Suggestions, as always, are welcome.
>
> Okay. Two suggestions, one minor, one major. But both should be easy
> to do-- I could do 'em myself, and mail you the patch.
>

> Minor: The "Mind flayer" should be "h" (humanoid), not "p"
> (human). Humans don't have tentacled mouths.

Good suggestion. The "p" for Mind flayer's was pissing me off too.
Personally "h" looks wrong as well, but it is better than "p".

> Major: Two monster names/classes have long bothered me: "Gnomes" and
> "Dark Elves".
>
> In Tolkien, "Gnome" is an archaic name (from "Book of Lost Tales") for
> the Noldor-- that is, for exiled High Elves. (Gnome" comes from the
> Greek word for "wisdom".) So Tolkien "gnomes" are nothing like the
> short, dwarflike beings in "Angband"-- in Angband terms, gnomes are
> "High Elves".
>
> Furthermore, in Tolkien, "Dark Elves" are Elves that never saw the
> light of the Trees-- in Angband terms, a "Dark Elf" is a
> plain-old-Elf, as distinct from a High Elf. They are not evil, or
> especially susceptible to light-- indeed, Luthien and Legolas were
> both "Dark Elves".

Well, "dark elf" seems to induce a lot of complaints, doesn't it?

> Suggested fix: Why not change both the character race "gnome", and all
> "gnome" and "dark elf" monsters, to "petty-Dwarves"? There are already
> three petty-Dwarf uniques in Angband. We could change "gnome mage" to
> "petty-dwarf trickster" or somesuch; and change "Dark Elf
> Mage/Priest/Sorceror/Whatever" to "Petty Dwarf Mage/Priest/Sorceror/
> Whatever". The only effect on balance would be that petty-dwarves
> ought not to be susceptible to light; but that's a minor change.

Because "Gnome" is a nice shourt familiar name that (to many people)
implies a very short wrinkled humanoid that makes a good mage.

But "petty-Dwarf" is long, ugly, stupid, and imples "less than a dwarf".

Playing a "Petty-Dwarf Mage" lacks a certain "punch", don't you think?

> Whaddya think? If you (Ben) approve, I can snarf the latest 2.7.9, and
> come up with patches to make this change.
>
> --Andrew Solovay <sol...@netcom.com>
>
> "Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat."
> --- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-7

--- Ben ---

Ben Harrison

unread,
Dec 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/3/95
to
In article <49e65m$14...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, BRR...@prodigy.com (Patrick Tracy) wrote:

> >For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
> >list, in preparation for Angband 2.8.0, and to clean up some minor
> >annoyances. Note that many of the changes listed below can be "undone"
> >(visually) by the use of "pref" files, just like "skeletons" can still
> >be made to "look" like "animate skeletons" if so desired.
> >
> >The "ticks" (t) were combined with the "spiders" (S)
>
> Spiders and scorpions go together (they're both arachnids) but ticks
> are bloodsucking parasitic *insects* - like lice. They'd probably be
> better under (l).

I thought I looked up tick and they also had eight legs. (?)

The "I" and "l" monsters are (conveniently) all multipliers, but
if ticks were added they would not be. Perhaps I will use "I" for
non reproducing insects and "l" for reproducing ones, or maybe
it is not important to have this distinction. (?)

>
> >The "umber hulk" (U) was turned into a beetle (K)
> >The "jabberwock" (J) was turned into a "chaos beetle" (K)
>
> It's about time, actually. The umber hulks should have always been
> beetles, and not that I dislike Lewis Carroll, but if there are
> jabberwocks, there should also be bandersnatchi and vorpal swords and
> boojums. The only problem is their colors (brown and shimmering) are
> already shared with brown and iridescent beetles. Could re- name and
> color the brown beetle to black, and allow the chaos beetles to be
> mistaken for iridescents... <grin>
>
> [Hmm... my newsfeed went down for a while so I'm a bit tardy posting
> this, and in the meantime an arguement seems to have broken out over
> whether umber hulks are beetles or not. Now, I have a copy of the
> original monster manual from ADnD, so I'm aware it was originally
> based on a humanoid hulk with a beetle-like head, but the *Angband*
> destcription: 'It is like a huge beetle with glaring eyes and large
> mandibles capable of slicing through rock.' seems to indicate a
> *beetle*.]

My reasoning exactly. I have even updated the description a tad
to be even more exact. Circular argument, yes, I admit..

>
> >The "major demons" (&) changed symbol (U)
> >The "minor demons" (I) changed symbol (u)
> >The "giant flea"/"hummerhorn"/"fruit fly" became "insects" (I)
> >The "louse" is still a "louse" (l) and "resembles" an insect (I)
> >The "townspeople" (p) were changed into a new "race" (t)
> >
> >The "F" symbol (giant fly) is now defined as "Dragon Fly"
> >
>
> Making townspeople a new race - why? so they can be summoned? <grin>

The townspeople have a *completely* different "color scheme" than
normal "people" you encounter in the dungeon. If you summon "p"
monsters in town, it looks weird.

> If you just want to break apart the 'p' crowd, it might be more
> reasonable to separate them into armored and unarmored humans, perhaps
> even breaking armored into heavily and lightly (hard and soft /
> warriors and rogues) armored humans, which would not be an artificial
> distinction. I don't know which letters you'd use, though.

Another advantage of using "t" for townspeople.

> >Some of the old "red" monsters became "pink" if they drain strength
> >Some of the old "fire" monsters became "red" in name when possible
> >
> >The old "giant red ant" is now a "giant pink ant"
> >The old "giant red ant lion" is now a "giant red ant"
> >The old "giant grey ant lion" is now a "giant grey ant"
> >
>
> That'd be nice - but pink? Yetch. I assume you're changing them to
> that odd color used by nexus hounds and qulythugs, which you could
> also call orange (at least on ibms).

Well, on machines using the new "color definitions" the "pink" is
really "bright red" (like on some mage books). But "pink" sounds
better than "the light red beetle". :-)

> >The old *low-level* "Ethereal hound" is now a "clear hound"
> >The "clear hound" is "ATTR_CLEAR" and is described as "translucent"
> >The *deep* "Ethereal hound" is no longer described as "clear"
> >
>
> A clear pack animal. Cool, even though I rather liked having two breeds
> of ethereal hounds.

With *completely* different semantics? What a hack... :-)

> >Some new monsters will probably be added in Angband 2.8.0, such as
> >Ogre captains, Greater Balrogs, Black Trolls, Vampire Queens, and
> >Giant Werewolfs, to name a few. Also, the "unique" monsters will
> >probably be extracted from the "normal" monster list, and defined
> >as "unique instances" of various "base classes", much as "artifacts"
> >are currently handled. Since this will probably result in the use
> >of the same attr/char for the "unique" and "base" monsters, and for
> >"consistency", some new "base" monsters will probably be created,
> >such as the ones mentioned above, and also Skeletal Lord, Greater
> >Balrog, Young Hobbit, Master Mage, and some others.
> >
> >Suggestions on the "base" class for the various uniques, as well as
> >suggestions for new uniques, are welcome, but note that I will *NOT*
> >be removing any monsters (normal or unique) at this time.
> >
>
> Not bad. I'm looking forward to meeting Skeletal Lords. But how
> about changing a few of the other names - Giant/Greater/etc just don't
> have much style. How about a Werewolf Sire, (plain) Balrogs and Balrog
> Lords, and Ancient Sorcerors (instead of master mages - 'as old as the
> hills, and as powerful').
>
> And don't forget the dwarven king (Fundin Bluecloak). Or should that
> be ** KING **? :)
>
> Also, I think you were looking for names for the mimics (suggesting
> lesser/greater/master) - how about Bottle Mimics, Ring Mimics, and
> Scroll Mimics (it *is* what they're mimicking, after all).

I was actually using "Mimic (potion)", "Mimic (scroll)", and "Mimic (ring)".

> >Note that Angband 2.7.9 is probably going to be an EXTREMELY *beta*
> >version, as it is really just there to assist in the conversion to
> >Angband 2.8.0 which is going to be rather extreme, and thus, perhaps,
> >Angband 2.8.0 itself will turn out to be an *extremely* beta version.
> >
>
> Another argument to re-release 2.78 (stable, but still beta) as 2.79,
> with the *enchant* and object overflow bugs fixed, and perhaps the
> artifact rarity adjusted (not really a bug, but it has a sizeable
> effect on gameplay).
>
> >
> >Suggestions, as always, are welcome.
> >
> >--- Ben ---
> >
>
>
> That's quite a game you've got,
> -Pat

--- Ben ---

wenchi liao

unread,
Dec 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/4/95
to
In article <1995Dec4.140147.2242@rcwusr>, <woole...@rcwusr.bp.com> wrote:
>In article <49v048$v...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, BRR...@prodigy.com (Patrick Tracy) writes:
>
>> The best solution may be to use 'I' for the miscellaneous insects that
>> don't have another category. The ants and centipedes have well-
>> established categories that don't needed breaking up.
>
>I'd say that the ants are good, but the centipedes dead-end too early.
>Perhaps there should be a centipede unique? If not, maybe the centipedes
>should be integrated into a general insects category.
>
>"Khaflach the Many-Legged" ?? :-)

or Kafka the Insect Lord...summons insects and polymorphs them to
different humanoids :-) .

[stuff about ascii representations...]
>


Julian Bean

unread,
Dec 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/4/95
to

In article <benh-02129...@philly206.voicenet.com> be...@voicenet.com

(Ben Harrison) writes:
>In article <49kv99$8...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com>, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) wrote:
>
>> In article <benh-21119...@philly30.voicenet.com>,
>> Ben Harrison <be...@omni.voicenet.com> wrote:
>> >For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
>> >list...

>> >
>> >Suggestions, as always, are welcome.
>>
>> Okay. Two suggestions, one minor, one major. But both should be easy
>> to do-- I could do 'em myself, and mail you the patch.
>>
>> Minor: The "Mind flayer" should be "h" (humanoid), not "p"
>> (human). Humans don't have tentacled mouths.
>
>Good suggestion. The "p" for Mind flayer's was pissing me off too.
>Personally "h" looks wrong as well, but it is better than "p".
>
'H' ?

Jules

Andrew Doull

unread,
Dec 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/4/95
to
(flanagan john thomas) wrote:

> Thomas Stockheim (to...@hathi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de) wrote:
>
> : As well ,there are some dragons that seem to be missing ...
> : Why are there no baby gold and bronze dragons ?
> : And where is the great wyrm of acid and the great wyrm of poison ?
> : I know, stupid names, but I would like to have them ...
>
> Perhaps call them Great Vitriol Wyrm and Great Bane Wyrm, respectively.
> The great bane wyrm would be REALLY nasty without poison resistance...
>

> A Great Chromatic Wyrm would be way too nasty... besides, we already have
> Tiamat.
>

Actually, I would suggest Great Sea Wyrm (Acid) and Great Plague Wyrm (Poison)
which sound slightly more consistent with the other worm types. I also have
Great Celestial Wyrm (Etheral), Great Chromatic Wyrm, Great Worm of Time and
Space and Great Wyrm of Power. Much more fun than those high level Q's. Of
course, nothing I have played has ever got that deep (Best, 41st Level Dunedain
Paladin who decide to keep Caspanion instead of PDSM and then ran into a Great
Wyrm of Balance)...

A.D.Venturer

Patrick Tracy

unread,
Dec 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/4/95
to
[vague spoiler-ing]


>> >The "ticks" (t) were combined with the "spiders" (S)
>>
>> Spiders and scorpions go together (they're both arachnids) but ticks
>> are bloodsucking parasitic *insects* - like lice. They'd probably be
>> better under (l).
>
>I thought I looked up tick and they also had eight legs. (?)
>

Damn, you're right. They're mites and mites are tiny arachnids. It's
amazing how transparent these gaps in the memory can be; I didn't even
know it was there. My apologies.

While they may not be related from the biological standpoint, they are
very similar in appearance and ecological niche to lice, and so could
be lumped together. Perhaps use 'p' for 'parasite' - oops, that's
already used by a two-legged variety. :)

Actually, this is all quite odd. Mites are *small* - almost below
the human threshold of sight. Yet, in Angband, they're bigger and
stronger than the lice. Which are tougher than beggars. I never did
like the idea of lice in the dungeon. Reminds me of grade school
(another type of dungeon?). :) Oh, well.


>The "I" and "l" monsters are (conveniently) all multipliers, but
>if ticks were added they would not be. Perhaps I will use "I" for
>non reproducing insects and "l" for reproducing ones, or maybe
>it is not important to have this distinction. (?)

I don't think the distinction between multipliers and non-multipliers
is important. Currently, the categorizion of letters is either by
form (Morgoth is a giant, not a demon), or essential nature (the
nightwing is a wraith, not a bat), and it seem the latter's only
purpose is to allow for summonings and other specifications by letter
in the code (pits/nests, too). Keeping them apart simply because one
is smaller and breeds and the other is much tougher is like separating
shambling mounds from the rest of the fungi because they move.

The best solution may be to use 'I' for the miscellaneous insects that
don't have another category. The ants and centipedes have well-
established categories that don't needed breaking up.

And from a GUI standpoint, it wouldn't be a bad idea to eliminate
either 'I' or 'l' - they *are* too similar with most typefaces, though
your solution of making them close cousins is also good.

Hmm... it's backtracking a bit, but why separate the dragon flies from
the rest of the flying insects at all? I've always pictured them as
colored insects with magical powers, though how they'd breathe is a
bit of a stickler. The description seems to fit this interpretation,
as well. Do you picture them as tiny little toy dragons? just fly-
sized dragons?


>> If you just want to break apart the 'p' crowd, it might be more
>> reasonable to separate them into armored and unarmored humans,
perhaps
>> even breaking armored into heavily and lightly (hard and soft /
>> warriors and rogues) armored humans, which would not be an artificial
>> distinction. I don't know which letters you'd use, though.
>
>Another advantage of using "t" for townspeople.

On the general issue of freeing up letters for use renaming,
distributing them a bit more regularly, and so on, I did a search on
some recent spoilers (v2.78) and came with with the following list of
over- and under- represented letters someone out there might find
interesting.

Under:
u
x
N
? 1
= 1
! 1
J 1
U 1
B 1/3
t 2
X 2
l 2
Y 2
2
M 3
z 3
V 3/4
k 3/4
y 3/5 *
L 3/5 *
r 4
q 4
$ 5 *
b 5 *
O 5/6 *
n 5/6 *
A 5/8 *

Over:
W 11/20 *
D 18/24 *
Z 20 *
R 23/25
d 29/30
p 48/63

There are about 10 monsters per available symbol, depending on
whether blank and non-alphabetic symbols are included. I used a
factor of two to determine whether a symbol was acceptably populated,
which works out to cut offs at 5 and 20. Asterisks mark all symbols
that may or may not fall into one of the categories, depending on
whether uniques are included, as well as all those on the borderline.
Subjectively, the special symbols (mimics, trappers, etc) are just
fine with only one or two members.


Some possible changes:

'Y' could be freed (for the proposed trees - 'Y'avanna's children?),
by lumping it with 'O' - they're all large bestial humanoids.

'R' could split up, spawning off the 'S'erpents, which might even
absorb the 'n'agas. Spiders/scorpions could then be renamed
'U'ngoliant's brood.

'M' and 'L' and 'z', could, in some combination, be combined. Mummies
and liches are both preserved corpsed, and might be the best match.
Given their history, it might be better to keep 'L' - that letter,
both in Moria (emperor liches) and Angband (black reavers) has
inspired much awe. Then, of course, 'M' would be free - 'M'orgoth?
The one creature who *deserves* his own letter...

'V'ampires could be put in with the 'b'ats. After all, the Tolkien
version was more bestial, and it makes as much sense as werewhatevers
in 'C', 'r', and 'w', despite their human traits.

Aside from 'Y', trees/Hurons/etc could also be 'N'atural creatures or
creatures of nature, or 'V'egetation.

The drakes might be split from the rest of the dragons. Perhaps 'k',
if were eliminated or dumped in with the orcs.

'p' *should* be split up. Perhaps 'u'narmored humans, such as mages,
mystics, and a selection of priests. The warriors (and some priests)
could be 'x' (x marks the spot?), or even 'k'nights.

And I know it would cause havok with summoning, but all the demons
could be dispersed. Vrock 'B', Nalfeshnee 'q', Marilith 'n', Erinyes
'H', Glabrezu 'I' or 'K', Hezrou 'R', lemures 'w', quasits/imps/manes/
homunculus in with the yeeks (twisted little manikins), balrog in with
the ogres, giants, or serpents (say giant), Bodak human, humanoid or
ogre (say ogre), and I have no idea what the hell a Tengu is, but
maybe yeeks.

And because they're so damn hard to notice (especially the black and
gray ones - I often miss the shambling mounds, and they *move*), the
mushrooms can all be lumped in with the icky things. Fung'i'! You can
squint and pretend the 'i's a mushroom, too. This should also include
the edible varieties.

Oh, not a suggestion, but check out the birds - there are *twice* as
many unique 'B's as normal monsters <grin>. It's a potentially broad
category, severly under-utilized. The other under-utilized category
is 'q' - as well as elephants and horse breeds, there could be boars
(Nalfeshnee?) and bears and more. Instead, there's four, and dozens
of insects, and *how* many worm masses and molds and jellies and and
and... :)


Well, that's all I can think of. This'll be too radical for some
people's blood, but even one or two could be interesting.


-Pat


Graeme Russ

unread,
Dec 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/4/95
to
: For Angband 2.7.9, I am making some *minor* changes to the monster
: list, in preparation for Angband 2.8.0, and to clean up some minor

: annoyances. Note that many of the changes listed below can be "undone"
: (visually) by the use of "pref" files, just like "skeletons" can still
:
: The "jabberwock" (J) was turned into a "chaos beetle" (K)
Yeah, as long as it just as bad :-)

: The "major demons" (&) changed symbol (U)


: The "minor demons" (I) changed symbol (u)

I hope you don't reserve & for something else. I always thought they
looked just how text demons should look like.

Graeme Russ : c942...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au

Andrew Doull

unread,
Dec 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/4/95
to
In article <benh-03129...@philly03.voicenet.com>,
be...@voicenet.com (Ben Harrison) wrote:

I would much rather 't' was used for trees, which should be added as a new
monster. Tolkein has a tradition of using monstrous trees (Ents etc.) and
besides which, I have really enjoyed playing with them in my version of
Angband. To date I have the following tree monsters:

Apple Tree (town monster)
Crab Apple Tree
Black Willow
Thorn Tree
Mandrake
Wormwood
Black Oak
Kudzu
Black Ent

Probably the best thing about them has been the challenge that they have posed
to the borg. Because they all have at least 100 hp (And increase in multiples
of 100), it has required a number of programming fixes (Which have made the
borg smarter, rather than hackier) to correct them. In particular, crab
apple trees would leave the borg for dead, because they had high hp (100), and
did very low damage so it thought the risk was neglible even as it was very
low on hit points. Thorn trees would kill the borg 100 % (They are fast and
fire arrows) until it started calculating danger for monsters at any range
(Based on the fire a missile code). Black willows (Casting blindness) would
leave it utterly confused until I added code for invisible monsters and blind
fighting (Which are treated as the same case). I can't wait until it runs into
Wormwood (High hp, slow tunnelling breeder) and Kudzu (High hp, fast breeder).

My borg is running a very successful Half-troll warrior (lvl 30) at the
moment. I have also ran a Dwarf warrior, who ran into a Greater Vault
very early on (I
was at the beach) including three Ringwraiths and Waldern, and survived to tell
the tale. This was before I implemented Teleport Away code too.

I have solved part of the mushroom hack, by setting a do_mushroom flag as a
part of message parsing. This is also used to detect invisible monsters and
fight monsters while blind by setting a do_invisible flag. I have rewritten
all the various try to teleport/identify/heal using various techniques as a
general borg_attempt function using a big case statement on a variable passed to
it (Such as SU_HEAL, SU_ID_FULLY etc.) and making the best choice as to what to
use. Borg_attempt has a sister function borg_supply which evaluates the
quantity and quality of supplies for the given variable eg. SU_HEAL tells
the
borg how much hit points it can heal. Additional information is stored in
auto_spells, parsed from the extended spell descriptions, or through cheating,
to determine the power of spells in this regard.

The borg makes correct choices as to whether to hit a monster with a bolt spell
or melee attack, and the best out of bolt spells and firing missiles to use. It
also reduces the power of spells it uses against weak creatures although this
is hacky. Ball spells are also used against monster groups although this is
also slightly hacky. There are a number of other changes. (It dives faster).
This is on 2.7.8, and I would love to share the code except I have no E-mail
access.

A.D.Venturer

Joseph W. DeVincentis

unread,
Dec 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/5/95
to
In article <adou01-0512...@130.216.85.153>,

Andrew Doull <ado...@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>(flanagan john thomas) wrote:
>> Thomas Stockheim (to...@hathi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de) wrote:

>> : And where is the great wyrm of acid and the great wyrm of poison ?
>> : I know, stupid names, but I would like to have them ...

>> Perhaps call them Great Vitriol Wyrm and Great Bane Wyrm, respectively.
>> The great bane wyrm would be REALLY nasty without poison resistance...

>Actually, I would suggest Great Sea Wyrm (Acid) and Great Plague Wyrm (Poison)


>which sound slightly more consistent with the other worm types. I also have
>Great Celestial Wyrm (Etheral), Great Chromatic Wyrm, Great Worm of Time and
>Space and Great Wyrm of Power.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So *that's* where Power Dragon Scale Mail comes from!


Cliff Stamp

unread,
Dec 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/5/95
to

In article <49q1do$h...@bubba.NMSU.Edu>, cle...@psl.nmsu.edu (Craig Lewis) writes:
|>In article <ckjjvd_00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, fue...@CMU.EDU says...
|>>
|>>> A Great Chromatic Wyrm would be way too nasty... besides, we already have
|>>> Tiamat.
|>>
|>>...maybe a Great Wyrm, with, say, gravity breath and tunneling --
|>>
|>>...i.e. a Great Earth Wyrm... ;-)
|>
|>Oh, please, NO. There's no resistance to gravity.

Yes.

|>Even if the max damage was capped relatively low, it'd be breathing for
|>that max damage for a LONG time.

Correct, so it would be a challenge for even high level creatures. Make
it really deep 4000 ft.

There should be some monsters that you really don't want to mess with,
I mean I have had characters that were so powerful I could clone Great
Wyrms of Balance.

Shawn McHorse

unread,
Dec 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/5/95
to
In article <4a2mj9$2...@bubba.NMSU.Edu> cle...@psl.nmsu.edu (Craig Lewis) writes:
>Having a great wyrm that can breathe ANYTHING that can't be resisted is NOT
>a good idea. Note that there is no really high hit point creature that
>routinely breathes impact, gravity, or time. There's a good reason for
>that.

Oh, it wouldn't be all _THAT_ bad. Notice how low the damage maximums are for
breath attacks that cannot be resisted. A Great Wyrm of Time would only be
hitting you for 150hp each time it breathed. Of course, the side effects are
something different...:->

Shawn McHorse
smch...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu
An Austin NorthCross-Dresser

Myrddin

unread,
Dec 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/5/95
to
ado...@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Andrew Doull) blabbed to the world:

->This is on 2.7.8, and I would love to share the code except I have no E-mail
->access.
->
->A.D.Venturer

You obviously have usenet access, post it here.
I would love to read over your code. I have made some modifications to borg
code too, but not nearly as extensive as you claim to have done.

Please, show us your work.

Myrddin Emrys mailto:myr...@uscyber.com

Craig Lewis

unread,
Dec 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/6/95
to
In article <adou01-0512...@130.216.85.153>, ado...@cs.auckland.ac.nz
says...
>(flanagan john thomas) wrote:
>
>> Thomas Stockheim (to...@hathi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de) wrote:
>>
>> : As well ,there are some dragons that seem to be missing ...
>> : Why are there no baby gold and bronze dragons ?
>> : And where is the great wyrm of acid and the great wyrm of poison ?
>> : I know, stupid names, but I would like to have them ...
>>
>> Perhaps call them Great Vitriol Wyrm and Great Bane Wyrm, respectively.
>> The great bane wyrm would be REALLY nasty without poison resistance...
>>
>> A Great Chromatic Wyrm would be way too nasty... besides, we already have
>> Tiamat.
>>
>
>Actually, I would suggest Great Sea Wyrm (Acid) and Great Plague Wyrm (Poison)
>which sound slightly more consistent with the other worm types. I also have
>Great Celestial Wyrm (Etheral), Great Chromatic Wyrm, Great Worm of Time and
>Space and Great Wyrm of Power. Much more fun than those high level Q's. Of
>course, nothing I have played has ever got that deep (Best, 41st Level Dunedain
>Paladin who decide to keep Caspanion instead of PDSM and then ran into a Great
>Wyrm of Balance)...

Having a great wyrm that can breathe ANYTHING that can't be resisted is NOT


a good idea. Note that there is no really high hit point creature that
routinely breathes impact, gravity, or time. There's a good reason for
that.

Great Time Wyrm would also be incredibly obnoxious. Even with, say, Calris,
one of the better anti-dragon weapons around, it takes several rounds to
kill any great wyrm. Do you want all your stats hit 4 or 5 times?

>A.D.Venturer

--
[This sig intentionally left blank.]


Jason Holtzapple

unread,
Dec 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/6/95
to
->Playing a "Petty-Dwarf Mage" lacks a certain "punch", don't you think?
->
->> Whaddya think? If you (Ben) approve, I can snarf the latest 2.7.9, and
->> come up with patches to make this change.
->>
->> --Andrew Solovay <sol...@netcom.com>
->--- Ben ---

You could always call them "Noegyth Nibin," their Sindarin name. :)

--
Jason Holtzapple * http://www.paranoia.com/~jth/

Even a good thing is not as good as nothing.

Mischa E Gelman

unread,
Dec 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/6/95
to
>Or merge birds and flies into 'F'lying creatures?

No no no-too many letters left over:
A-Animals
P-People
M-Monsters(Other)
U-Undead and Supernatural
And lowercase for weak, uppercase for strong

There-nice and simplified. Don't you think we're getting a bit carried
away with these groupings???


>'P' would also work well. I picture a Sasquatch being closer to a frost
>giant than an ogre, but maybe that's just me.
Not bad suggestion.

>Or you could make skeletons 'U'ndead, and have 's'nakes. This may not be
>such a good idea, though, because then you'd have to use 'U' for some of
>the boken skulls and what-not lying around, which wouldn't look right.
See my comment earlier

>Anyway, liches deserve their own letter.
Hey-some actual keeping of categories w/ under 50 occupants? COOL

>> Aside from 'Y', trees/Hurons/etc could also be 'N'atural creatures or
>> creatures of nature, or 'V'egetation.
>

>Angband takes place in a dungeon. Ever seen a tree in a cave? It sounds
>silly.
Ever seen Angels in a dungeon? Use your imagination.


--
Something you can only hear on Scooby Doo:
This mystery is getting mysteriouser every second

J. Endicott

unread,
Dec 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/6/95
to
In <4a1krr$7...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (Cliff Stamp) writes:
>In article <49q1do$h...@bubba.NMSU.Edu>, cle...@psl.nmsu.edu (Craig Lewis) writes:
>|>In article <ckjjvd_00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, fue...@CMU.EDU says...
>|>>...maybe a Great Wyrm, with, say, gravity breath and tunneling --
>|>>
>|>>...i.e. a Great Earth Wyrm... ;-)
>|>
>|>Oh, please, NO. There's no resistance to gravity.

>Yes.

Absolutly. If not with gravity breath, then tunneling and shards, maybe
with some sort of stone-to-mud breath, can cause earthquakes(Falling Rock
Zone!)...of course, if there was a Great Earth Wyrm, there should be ancient
earth dragons, ect.

On the same note, why is there no resistance to gravity? (Other than
feather-fall). If there was, the number of creatures with gravity breath
could increase. And since speed is the most unbalancing feature of the
game...


>--
> Cliff Stamp "The higher we soar, the smaller we seem to
> sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca those who cannot fly" - Friedrich Nietzsche"

--

jon = je0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
"Life is, the crummiest book I've ever read/There isn't a hook, just a lot of
cheap shots"

Aaron Mandelbaum

unread,
Dec 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/6/95
to
BRR...@prodigy.com (Patrick Tracy) writes:

>>> > If you just want to break apart the 'p' crowd, it might be more
>>> > reasonable to separate them into armored and unarmored humans,
>perhaps
>>> > even breaking armored into heavily and lightly (hard and soft /
>>> > warriors and rogues) armored humans, which would not be an
>artificial
>>> > distinction. I don't know which letters you'd use, though.

I think that's pretty arbitrary. I mean, they're all people, armor or not.
It'd make more sense to distinguish between spell using/non-spell using
people.

>>> Another advantage of using "t" for townspeople.
>>I would much rather 't' was used for trees, which should be added as a
>new monster. Tolkein has a tradition of using monstrous trees (Ents etc.)

>You could also use 'Y' (Yavanna's children). It's easy enough to move
>the Yeti and Sasquatch, and it actually looks more like a tree than the 't'.

It looks more like a tree, but the derivation is pretty obscure. I'm partial
to " myself, but that's just from playing Omega. :)

>You posted the r_info for most of these earlier, didn't you?

Can you post it again? Or e-mail it to me? Assuming, of course, that you
don't mind them showing up in my next version. :) (which'll be after 2.7.9
is released. I don't want to do another job on a beta version [shudder])

--
Aaron Mandelbaum

Ken King

unread,
Dec 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/6/95
to

>==========Mischa E Gelman, 12/6/95==========

>
>>Or merge birds and flies into 'F'lying creatures?
>
>No no no-too many letters left over:
>A-Animals
>P-People
>M-Monsters(Other)
>U-Undead and Supernatural
>And lowercase for weak, uppercase for strong
>
>There-nice and simplified. Don't you think we're getting a bit carried
>away with these groupings???
>

Far from it, I wish we had more symbols to identify specific creatures.
Without that, every time i see a creature, I have to do a look to see
whether or not I even want to approach it. How tedious that would
be.

>
>>'P' would also work well. I picture a Sasquatch being closer
to a frost
>>giant than an ogre, but maybe that's just me.
>Not bad suggestion.
>
>>Or you could make skeletons 'U'ndead, and have 's'nakes. This
>may not be
>>such a good idea, though, because then you'd have to use 'U'
for some of
>>the boken skulls and what-not lying around, which wouldn't look right.
>See my comment earlier
>
>>Anyway, liches deserve their own letter.
>Hey-some actual keeping of categories w/ under 50 occupants? COOL
>
>>> Aside from 'Y', trees/Hurons/etc could also be 'N'atural creatures or
>>> creatures of nature, or 'V'egetation.
>>
>>Angband takes place in a dungeon. Ever seen a tree in a cave?
>It sounds
>>silly.
>Ever seen Angels in a dungeon? Use your imagination.
>
>
>--
>Something you can only hear on Scooby Doo:
> This mystery is getting mysteriouser every second

Ken King
AT&T Global Information Solutions - Shared Development & Services
Kennet...@DAYTONOH.attgis.com

Patrick Tracy

unread,
Dec 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/6/95
to

>>
>> > If you just want to break apart the 'p' crowd, it might be more
>> > reasonable to separate them into armored and unarmored humans,
perhaps
>> > even breaking armored into heavily and lightly (hard and soft /
>> > warriors and rogues) armored humans, which would not be an
artificial
>> > distinction. I don't know which letters you'd use, though.
>>
>> Another advantage of using "t" for townspeople.
>>
>
>I would much rather 't' was used for trees, which should be added as a
new
>monster. Tolkein has a tradition of using monstrous trees (Ents etc.)
and
>besides which, I have really enjoyed playing with them in my version of
>Angband. To date I have the following tree monsters:

You could also use 'Y' (Yavanna's children). It's easy enough to move

the
Yeti and Sasquatch, and it actually looks more like a tree than the 't'.

>Apple Tree (town monster)

You posted the r_info for most of these earlier, didn't you? I played
with
them a bit, and liked your changes. A few comments, though. Given
their
levels, the earlier ones had too many hit points. The apple trees were
fine (no damage), but perhaps the others might be better more along the
lines of the jellies. They just took too long to kill. The thorn trees
are
*lethal*. Their speed and the fact they are always bunched - you can't
lure them into corridors to nuke them one by one - means they can do
damage fast. And their massive hit points made it very hard kill. The
same
with the spell casting types. They were more of a nuisance, not worth
fighting at all, though this is not all bad (love those magic mushrooms ;
).

>A.D.Venturer


-Pat


Shawn McHorse

unread,
Dec 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/6/95
to
In article <adm4.2614...@po.cwru.edu> ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) writes:
>Huh? Isn't Feather Fall == Resist Gravity in 2.7.x?
>No wonder those grav hounds have been kicking my ass... :/

Nope.

Feather fall is _THE_ most useless "resistance" there is. Glancing at the
source, there are exactly THREE places where feather fall comes into play.
Falling into a pit, falling into a spiked pit, and falling through a trap
door. Sure makes that Ring of Feather Falling worth getting, eh? :->

William Tanksley

unread,
Dec 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/6/95
to
woole...@rcwusr.bp.com wrote to us all:

>In article <49v048$v...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, BRR...@prodigy.com (Patrick Tracy) writes:
>> Aside from 'Y', trees/Hurons/etc could also be 'N'atural creatures or
>> creatures of nature, or 'V'egetation.

>Angband takes place in a dungeon. Ever seen a tree in a cave? It sounds
>silly.

Well, I can't recall the last time I saw a demon or dragonfly in a cave at
100', either. :)

At the same time, there is reason behind adding trees. You see, in the
Tolkien mythos trees were either phenominally powerful (the Two Trees) or
symbols of phenominal power (the White Tree). Thus, Morgoth would have HAD
to gain some and corrupt them. And what better way than by changing them
from light-dwellers to carnivores?

I also like using Y for trees, by the way. I originally wanted 't', but 'Y'
actually works better because of the size (those trees are pretty big!).

One thing about trees, though-- should they be summonable? Should trees
resist being displaced (by monsters that can do that), and if they are
displaced, should they die (torn up by the roots)?

-Billy

Aaron Mandelbaum

unread,
Dec 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/7/95
to
sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (Cliff Stamp) writes:
>cle...@psl.nmsu.edu (Craig Lewis) writes:
>|>In article <ckjjvd_00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, fue...@CMU.EDU says...

>|>>...maybe a Great Wyrm, with, say, gravity breath and tunneling --
>|>>...i.e. a Great Earth Wyrm... ;-)
>|>Oh, please, NO. There's no resistance to gravity.
>Yes.

Huh? Isn't Feather Fall == Resist Gravity in 2.7.x?

No wonder those grav hounds have been kicking my ass... :/

>|>Even if the max damage was capped relatively low, it'd be breathing for


>|>that max damage for a LONG time.
>Correct, so it would be a challenge for even high level creatures. Make
>it really deep 4000 ft.

But should it hit to cause earthquakes?

--
Aaron Mandelbaum

Patrick Tracy

unread,
Dec 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/7/95
to

>>