Re: CF: BUG in spell_effect.c?

["Mark Wedel" <mwedel@pyramid.com>]

On Oct 8, 11:13pm, Florian Beck wrote:
> Subject: CF: BUG in spell_effect.c?
>
>
> I've just compiled CF with SPELL_FAILURE_EFFECTS defined.
>
> Didn't work: I had to change "server/spell_effect.c" line 52:
>      cast_cone(op,0,10,SP_WOW,spellarch[SP_WOW],0);
> to
>      cast_cone(op,op,0,10,SP_WOW,spellarch[SP_WOW],0);
>
> A bug? Or is SPELL_FAILURE_EFFECTS not supportet anymore?

 Its a bug.  It is not really easy for me to compile the game with all possible
options, so some things slip by.

>
>
> BTW, while SPELL_FAILURE_EFFECTS is annoying for heavily encumbered
> low-level characters, it has MUCH less impact on gameplay than I had
> expected. Considering the only fault of CF (it's too easy),
> SPELL_FAILURE_EFFECTS seem a good idea to make the game a bit harder.
> E.g: Failure effects when a low level/badly injured/confued character
> casts a (high level) spell.
>
> AND: The failure effects are quite wimpy. Not in the beginning;
> but a mana blast is not much of a problem for a mid/high level
> character. I tried to cast a spell whle carryinf a very heavy weapon:
>
> >Oh, a wyvern! Icebolt!

 I don't know if the failure uses the same type of code when you mess a scroll
(would make some sense if it does), but I have seldom seen a scroll failur
actually have a harmful effect to the player (any cone spell goes outward, so
he is not hit, etc.)

 It might make sense to have a list of 'failure effects' that happen instead of
randomly choosing a spell.  Certainly, if you mess up a spell, and a detection
spell is cost instead, that is no big deal. (as a side note, if you flub a
spell, and it turns into something that kills the monsters, I don't think you
should get exp for that - not sure if you do right now, however.)

 But a short list of bad spells could be any of the ball spells, detonated on
the player, maybe ball lightning (might hit the player instead of others), etc.


-- 
 --Mark