Cursed gloves and putting on a ring
Paul E Collins
"which hand?" even though I won't be able to put the ring on either
hand.
Are there circumstances where only one hand is restricted by a curse?
Shouldn't the "which hand?" prompt be suppressed when it is
irrelevant?
P.
Kent Paul Dolan
> When I'm wearing cursed gloves and try to put on a
> ring, I'm prompted "which hand?" even though I
> won't be able to put the ring on either hand.
> Are there circumstances where only one hand is
> restricted by a curse?
Sure, wielding a one-handed cursed weapon.
> Shouldn't the "which hand?" prompt be suppressed
> when it is irrelevant?
But until you read "you can't get your gloves off,
they're cursed" (or whatever the real prompt is), the
game may not yet have had its chance to gloat over
your misfortune.
Stringing you along as far as possible is Standard
NetHack Sadism, graven in stone in the earliest
discovered functional requirements for the game,
found in those caves in France next to the hunt
paintings.
It would be a huge break with tradtion to just
quickly prompt back, "Why bother? Guess what? Gotcha
again, homey. Yuk, yuk, yuk! -- the RNG".
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Kevin Wayne
...
It seems to me that NetHack assumes that if you're silly enough to try to
put a ring on when you can't, then you'll be silly enough to try to do it
with one hand or the other before realizing that it's impossible.
--
Kevin Wayne
"Don't be taken in by what they say," remarked the third man to K., "the
punishment is as just as it is inevitable."
David Corbett
> Quoth Paul E Collins in the annals of <cl1d31$99t$1...@titan.btinternet.com>
> ...
>
>>When I'm wearing cursed gloves and try to put on a ring, I'm prompted
>>"which hand?" even though I won't be able to put the ring on either
>>hand.
>>
>>Are there circumstances where only one hand is restricted by a curse?
>>Shouldn't the "which hand?" prompt be suppressed when it is
>>irrelevant?
>
> Shouldn't the attempt to put on a ring be suppressed when it is irrelevant?
> It seems to me that NetHack assumes that if you're silly enough to try to
> put a ring on when you can't, then you'll be silly enough to try to do it
> with one hand or the other before realizing that it's impossible.
Well, yeah. After all, you're going to decide which hand to put the ring
on *before* you try to take your gloves off.
Raisse the Thaumaturge
(find_my_re...@CL4.org) wrote:
> Are there circumstances where only one hand is restricted by a curse?
Yes; when you're wielding a cursed one-handed weapon.
Raisse, killed by a dagger
--
ir...@valdyas.org LegoHack: http://www.valdyas.org/irina/nethack/
Status of Raisse (piously neutral): Level 8 HP 63(67) AC -3, fast.
Paul E Collins
> > Shouldn't the "which hand?" prompt be suppressed
> > when it is irrelevant?
>
> Shouldn't the attempt to put on a ring be suppressed
> when it is irrelevant?
The P command also applies to amulets, so NetHack can't tell whether
you're planning to put on a ring or not until it gets to the "which
hand?" stage.
P.
Kevin Wayne
...
After giving the P command, you are asked, "What do you want to put on?" If
you choose a ring, then you are asked, "Which hand?"
After all, wouldn't it be ridiculous to be asked which hand you want to put
an amulet (or blindfold) on?
Moi
> On Monday 18 October 2004 23:37 Paul E Collins
> (find_my_re...@CL4.org) wrote:
>
> > Are there circumstances where only one hand is restricted by a curse?
>
> Yes; when you're wielding a cursed one-handed weapon.
>
> Raisse, killed by a dagger
Cursed shield too, I guess.
Paul E Collins
> After all, wouldn't it be ridiculous to be asked which
> hand you want to put an amulet (or blindfold) on?
Bit of confusion here. When I said:
> > NetHack can't tell whether you're planning to put
> > on a ring or not until it gets to the "which hand?" stage
... I meant until *right before* that stage, when it's about to prompt
you and you've just selected what you're going to put on. That would
be a reasonable time to say, "Your hands are not free to put rings
on!"
P.
Raisse the Thaumaturge
> Raisse the Thaumaturge <rai...@valdyas.org> wrote in message
> news:<1156778.z...@calcifer.valdyas.org>...
>> On Monday 18 October 2004 23:37 Paul E Collins
>> (find_my_re...@CL4.org) wrote:
>>
>> > Are there circumstances where only one hand is restricted by a
>> > curse?
>>
>> Yes; when you're wielding a cursed one-handed weapon.
>
> Cursed shield too, I guess.
Trying that in explore mode reveals that the shield isn't worn on the
*hand*.
Raisse, killed by a leather golem, while helpless
Seraphim
news:13e32233.04101...@posting.google.com:
I thought that shields are generally attached to your arm, not held in
your hand.
Kent Paul Dolan
> I thought that shields are generally attached to
> your arm, not held in your hand.
Raisse just posted that the NetHack rules seem to be
that a shield is not a "hand" thingie (probably,
with respect to getting rings on and off). That's a
bit weird, since wearing one prevents two-weapon and
two-handed weapon use, which sure suggests your hand
is in intimate contact with the shield.
How to turn what you think you know, into text:
The shields I've seen and seen pictured in
physical reality, though, have two loops on the
back. Your forearm fits through one, and your
hand grasps the other.
It pretty much has to be that way. If it were
just two loops on the arm, then at least for a
small shield, the shield would spin to an
ineffective position with the first blow it
received, arms being pretty fair approximations
of cylinders for purposes of providing
(in)sufficient friction to keep a shield face
forward.
Oops:
Sigh. The above seemed such a neat and sufficent
discourse.
Then I started researching more deeply, running into
stuff that made the situation not nearly so simple.
"All shields apart from the early small ones
were hung over the shoulder via a shoulder strap
of leather."
"This is not essential for use with the round
shield, but is imperative if you are riding with
any type of shield."
http://www.regia.org/shields.htm
"Manuscripts of the period often show warriors
holding a number of spears in the shield hand
(three seems to be the most practical whilst
still gripping the shield, as shown in tests),
and another in the weapon hand."
http://www.regia.org/spear.htm
Turns out there were lots of options for holding
versus wearing shields:
[The below includes stuff of quality from relics
once used in battle to results of anthropology
studies to battle re-creation experiences to war
gaming minatures to fan art. Part of the issue
here is how shield holding is _perceived_, as
NetHack is a _game_, and thus more responsible
for matching perceptions than for matching
reality.]
This shield, for example, seems to be clamped to the
wrist rather than held by the hand:
http://www.maitlandtoysoldiershoppe.com/products/images/grenadastudios/g252-2.jpg
while these seem to be held _by_ the hand:
http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/1492/mexico/images/florentine_codex-viii-f-34r_suit_wearer1.jpg
http://shishir.home.mindspring.com/sculpta1.jpg
http://www.adonis-art.com/SN-1535-Mars-2-13x8.JPG
http://www.adonis-art.com/MiscD-1880-Warrior.JPG
http://wolflsi.werenation.com/color/wolfman.JPG
so maybe it is a "warrior's choice" thingie, leaving
the shield hand free for carrying stuff if not for
swinging.
A large shield, both kept upright by its own weight,
and braced by contact with the body, might work
slung strictly from the forearm, but then it would
be so heavy, a shield-hand weapon would be fairly
useless anyway. Thus the above bit about "leather
shoulder straps".
Of course, finding online pictures of the "backs" of
shields, either in use, or whose use is obvious from
the design shown is a bit tough, but sometimes one
gets lucky with a really good image:
http://www.npj.com/homepage/teritowe/aphaia08.jpg
http://history.smsu.edu/jchuchiak/Aztec%20Shield%202.gif
http://history.smsu.edu/jchuchiak/Aztec%20Warrior%20Weapons%201.jpg
http://kingsroyalimports.safeshopper.com/images/bn0kr4cn.jpg
most are of dubious merit, however, for deciding the
questions at hand.
Some small shields also exist that are simply held
in the free hand, it seems, and not attached to the
arm at all.
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/diirocch/29ZAW1.gif
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/diirocch/34ZAW6.gif
http://www.milnejewelry.com/Porcelain_Dolls/doll15.html
http://www.oceania-ethnographica.com/mell43.jpg
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/religion/arcproj/war/SocketedaxeheadfromKh.jpg
http://www.mailorderexpress.com/shop/prdpics/97158.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/warriorchallenge/gladiators/images/index_time_cap_01.jpg
http://history.smsu.edu/jchuchiak/jagwar.jpg
http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/12/31/2003-12-31__front01.jpg
This page has a wonderful writeup and set of image
on real armor, including shields and shield
construction, for a set of shields all round, all
held in the hand by a single handle and apparently
not at all attached to the forearm, telling how it
was done in 700 C.E. in Northern Europe. It is here
that you learn that the "boss", or raised central
area on the front of a shield, existed exactly so
that there could be a handle on the other side, and
that the handle, as seen from the back, was
countersunk into the shield via the space the boss
provided.
http://www.havenonline.com/moas/northstar/vol1no2/armor.htm
Pages which _discuss_ how shields were carried:
http://warlock.ucc.asn.au/MCRWA/Combat/Shields_Weapons/mcrshields.htm
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/weapons/armour.htm
To wrap up, NetHack is right whether it implements
that a cursed shield precludes ring change, because
the hand is "frozen" in the task of holding the
shield, or whether it implements the precise
opposite, because shields are worn, not held, and
so shield use leaves the hand free.
Both situations existed in real shield use.
Just when you think you know everything on a
subject, though, you find out it is time to start
learning everything you think you know over again
from a fresh start.
For example, who says the arm goes _behind_ the
shield?
Consider instead, say, the tarch:
http://www.xenophongi.org/rushistory/medievalarmor/tarch.htm
Heh.
xanthian.
I couldn't resist throwing in this unrelated bit of
commercial site serendipity encountered while
searching on "warrior shield" in Google Images, in
case there are any of you that like to dress for
your role when you play NetHack:
http://www.verymerryseamstress.com/lotr.htm
Doug Freyburger
> Seraphim wrote:
>
> > I thought that shields are generally attached to
> > your arm, not held in your hand.
>
> Raisse just posted that the NetHack rules seem to be
> that a shield is not a "hand" thingie (probably,
> with respect to getting rings on and off). That's a
> bit weird, since wearing one prevents two-weapon and
> two-handed weapon use, which sure suggests your hand
> is in intimate contact with the shield.
All that's really needed is for the shield to significantly
reduce movement of the arm to render a wielded weapon
useless.
In the SCA, shields have a strap and a handle. The
handle is held by the palm in such a way that an item
can still be held in the hand, but the entire arm is so
immobilized that any fighting with the item in that hand
is virtually using the shield as a weapon.
> How to turn what you think you know, into text:
>
> The shields I've seen and seen pictured in
> physical reality, though, have two loops on the
> back. Your forearm fits through one, and your
> hand grasps the other.
Right. That must have been the most common style.
> Oops:
Thanks for the neat references of other ways that shields can work.
Wes Irby
A quick wiz mode test reveals that wearing a cursed shield
while wielding a cursed weapon does not prevent putting a
ring on your left hand.
--
Wes
The early bird may get the worm,
but the second mouse gets the cheese.