Ozocubu's Armour

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

"..The caster and the caster's equipment are protected from the cold.."

I don't think this is true. My potions still seem to shatter under
cold attack at the same rate, and I still seem to take the same damage.
Also, the character sheet doesn't register any cold resistance. I
seem to remember relying on the cold resistance of this spell before I
switched to tilecrawl. Was that just wishful thinking on my part, or
has the spell been changed? I've just tested it again briefly on ASCII
crawl, and it does seem to make a difference.

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Erik wrote:
> Oz's Armour is just that -- armour, pure AC. Nothing more, nothing
less.

If that's the case then perhaps the spell description should be
changed in the next update, since it's so gravely misleading.

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:22:45 +0200, Erik Piper <erikNO@skySP.czAM>
wrote:

>Britto wrote:
>> "..The caster and the caster's equipment are protected from the cold.."
>>
>> I don't think this is true. My potions still seem to shatter under
>> cold attack at the same rate, and I still seem to take the same damage.
>> Also, the character sheet doesn't register any cold resistance. I
>> seem to remember relying on the cold resistance of this spell before I
>> switched to tilecrawl. Was that just wishful thinking on my part, or
>> has the spell been changed? I've just tested it again briefly on ASCII
>> crawl, and it does seem to make a difference.
>
>Oz's Armour is just that -- armour, pure AC. Nothing more, nothing less.

To clarify a little: the caster is protected from "the cold" of the
icy armor, not from "cold" in general.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry@inreach.com

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

I think the player can safely be relied on to assume that this spell
will *not* cause freezing DOT to the character. I suppose a player
might like to know that this spell won't damage his equipment, but even
so, it's still a very misleading attempt at clarification. If
something *must* be said, then how about something like "The caster and
the caster's equipment will not be harmed by the effects of this spell."

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:25:15 -0500,
strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer) wrote:

>R. Dan Henry <danhenry@inreach.com> schrieb:
>> On 1 Jul 2005 14:24:20 -0700, "Britto" <bcharles@metz.une.edu.au>
>> wrote:
>>> Erik wrote:
>>>> Oz's Armour is just that -- armour, pure AC. Nothing more, nothing
>>>> less.
>>>
>>> If that's the case then perhaps the spell description should be
>>> changed in the next update, since it's so gravely misleading.
>
>> It's only misleading if you misread it.
>
>Then maybe it shouldn't be misreadable.

No such thing. However, it could be a bit more explicit. Given the
international distribution, one needs to account for players who
aren't native English readers (those who are, but cannot or will not
read carefully, deserve to suffer as incentive to become fully
literate).

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry@inreach.com