Spell Bounce

[Guest]

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

I get killed quite a bit because of spell bounces lately. I either fire
a magic missile which comes back to me or put a monster to sleep as well
as myself. I take it the distance plays a factor. Walls bounce the
spells obviously. The kind of spell matters too I guess. What are the
rules that govern spell bounces? Some safe non-spoily pointers?

 

[Guest]

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

Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
> Jym <moyen@loria.fr> writes:
>
> > Directed spells/wands may be either rays or beams. One of the category
> > (beams) does not bounce while the other (rays) does bounce and has some
> > graphical effect on the screen when used.
>
> And, because this is NetHack, there's a special case Digging is
> somewhere between both of these; it's visible, it doesn't bounce, and
> it's handled by a completely different function from anything else
> (giving it its own range calculations, for example). I list it as a
> RAY in the spoilers because that's how it's coded, but it's pretty
> much sui generis.

The digging beam does not show. Digging has an effect that is
visible. Try two experiments some time:

1) Zap a wand of digging in a big room (big room level or any room
large enough). You will see no beam and as long as you are far
enough from the nearest wall the shot will have no effect.

2) Zap a wand of digging with a blindfold. Observe no effect.
Remove blindfold and the effect becomes visible when the vision
code runs.

The visibility is a side effect of the fact that it alters the
dungeon.

 

[Guest]

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

BandC wrote:

> I get killed quite a bit because of spell bounces lately. I either
> fire a magic missile which comes back to me or put a monster to sleep as
> well as myself. I take it the distance plays a factor. Walls bounce the
> spells obviously. The kind of spell matters too I guess. What are the
> rules that govern spell bounces? Some safe non-spoily pointers?

Fire diagonally, get magic resistance and/or reflection.

Topi
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, BandC wrote:

> I get killed quite a bit because of spell bounces lately. I either fire
> a magic missile which comes back to me or put a monster to sleep as well
> as myself. I take it the distance plays a factor. Walls bounce the
> spells obviously. The kind of spell matters too I guess. What are the
> rules that govern spell bounces? Some safe non-spoily pointers?

Directed spells/wands may be either rays or beams. One of the category
(beams) does not bounce while the other (rays) does bounce and has some
graphical effect on the screen when used.

Both have a distance factor and will 'move' for a certain number of
sqaures, sometimes (always ?) deduced by monsters hit in the way.

To know which is ray and which is beam, well, just make a few tries
(if it's a ray for a spell, then it's also a ray for a wand)

In rot13 (in case you don't even want that mini-spoiler) :
enlf:
pbyq, qvt, qrngu, sver, zntvp zvffvyr, fyrrc, yvtugavat.
ornzf:
pnapry, qenva yvsr, (K)urnyvat, sbepr obyg (fgevxvat), xabpx (bcra),
cbylzbecu, fybj, fcrrq, fgbar gb syrfu, gryrcbeg, ghea haqrnq, ybpx,
vaivfvovyvgl, abguvat, cebovat.


--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

Adresse mail plus valide à partir de septembre 2005.
Utiliser l'adresse de redirection permanente :
Jean-Yves.Moyen `at` ens-lyon.org

 

[Guest]

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

Jym <moyen@loria.fr> writes:
> Directed spells/wands may be either rays or beams. One of the category
> (beams) does not bounce while the other (rays) does bounce and has some
> graphical effect on the screen when used.

And, because this is NetHack, there's a special case Digging is
somewhere between both of these; it's visible, it doesn't bounce, and
it's handled by a completely different function from anything else
(giving it its own range calculations, for example). I list it as a
RAY in the spoilers because that's how it's coded, but it's pretty
much sui generis.

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Hello. Well, that was the sound of Roger's Wah-Wah Rabbits, you heard :
: them eating endives there, that's very cheap at this time of the year. :
: [...] But now we're going to talk about shirts." -- Bonzo Dog Band :

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Dylan O'Donnell wrote:

> Jym <moyen@loria.fr> writes:
> > Directed spells/wands may be either rays or beams. One of the category
> > (beams) does not bounce while the other (rays) does bounce and has some
> > graphical effect on the screen when used.
>
> And, because this is NetHack, there's a special case Digging is
> somewhere between both of these; it's visible, it doesn't bounce, and
> it's handled by a completely different function from anything else
> (giving it its own range calculations, for example). I list it as a
> RAY in the spoilers because that's how it's coded, but it's pretty
> much sui generis.

Oh ?
I certainly guessed that digging was not reflected by walls but actually
did not bother about things such as amulet of reflection... (and since
digging does not seem to harm living being, this is not really important).
Just copied your spoilers.

Anyway, I don't thing that does a big difference since I can hardly see
when it would be useful/harmful to have digging being reflected.

--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

Adresse mail plus valide à partir de septembre 2005.
Utiliser l'adresse de redirection permanente :
Jean-Yves.Moyen `at` ens-lyon.org

 

[Guest]

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

Jym <moyen@loria.fr> writes:

> Anyway, I don't thing that does a big difference since I can hardly see
> when it would be useful/harmful to have digging being reflected.

If it were possible to harm stone golems (or the
not-yet-existent clay/mud golems) by digging, this
would have an impact. Theoretically, a very clever
dwarf could use this wand to dig down the wall behind
you in order to bring his fellow stone giants into
the game, and then reflection could help helb you
if it were efficient, but this starts to be a little
ridiculous..

Best,
Jakob

 

[Sean]

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

Jakob Creutzig wrote:

>>Anyway, I don't thing that does a big difference since I can hardly see
>>when it would be useful/harmful to have digging being reflected.
>
> If it were possible to harm stone golems (or the
> not-yet-existent clay/mud golems) by digging, this
> would have an impact. Theoretically, a very clever
> dwarf could use this wand to dig down the wall behind
> you in order to bring his fellow stone giants into
> the game, and then reflection could help helb you
> if it were efficient, but this starts to be a little
> ridiculous..

Digging should reflect off the walls in Sokoban (any undiggable, I
guess) and destroy boulders (on any level). Serves people right for
trying to cheat!

 

[Guest]

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

Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> If it were possible to harm stone golems (or the
> not-yet-existent clay/mud golems) by digging, this

Actually, clay golems do exist.

 

[Guest]

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

"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> writes:
> The digging beam does not show. Digging has an effect that is
> visible. Try two experiments some time:
>
> 1) Zap a wand of digging in a big room (big room level or any room
> large enough). You will see no beam and as long as you are far
> enough from the nearest wall the shot will have no effect.

This may be interface-dependent, but certainly in the tty interface
digging rays show as a line of white *s, whether they dig through
anything or not.

(Camera beams show as white !s; they're the other minor exception to
the usual categorisation, though they behave as normal beams in most
other ways.)

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Hello. Well, that was the sound of Roger's Wah-Wah Rabbits, you heard :
: them eating endives there, that's very cheap at this time of the year. :
: [...] But now we're going to talk about shirts." -- Bonzo Dog Band :

 

[Guest]

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

"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> writes:

> Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
> > Jym <moyen@loria.fr> writes:
> >
> > > Directed spells/wands may be either rays or beams. One of the category
> > > (beams) does not bounce while the other (rays) does bounce and has some
> > > graphical effect on the screen when used.
> >
> > And, because this is NetHack, there's a special case Digging is
> > somewhere between both of these; it's visible, it doesn't bounce, and
> > it's handled by a completely different function from anything else
> > (giving it its own range calculations, for example). I list it as a
> > RAY in the spoilers because that's how it's coded, but it's pretty
> > much sui generis.
>
> The digging beam does not show.

It does in the graphical version on windows
(looks like a thick dark beam-cloud-something).
However, you don't get any 'whizzes by you'
messages, of course.

Best,
Jakob

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Jakob Creutzig wrote:

> Jym <moyen@loria.fr> writes:
>
> > Anyway, I don't thing that does a big difference since I can hardly see
> > when it would be useful/harmful to have digging being reflected.
>
> If it were possible to harm stone golems (or the
> not-yet-existent clay/mud golems) by digging, this
> would have an impact. Theoretically, a very clever
> dwarf could use this wand to dig down the wall behind
> you in order to bring his fellow stone giants into
> the game, and then reflection could help helb you
> if it were efficient, but this starts to be a little
> ridiculous..

Or, a bit less ridiculous, you may want to dig the wall behind an archon
to bring in your purple worm or similart stuff. That's why I said
"hardly", I can imagine situations where it would make a difference but
they seems to be so specific that they're not really worth mentioning.

Indeed, hurting <earth> golem and elementals would be a interesting thing.

--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

Adresse mail plus valide à partir de septembre 2005.
Utiliser l'adresse de redirection permanente :
Jean-Yves.Moyen `at` ens-lyon.org

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
> > Jym <moyen@loria.fr> writes:
> >
> > > Directed spells/wands may be either rays or beams. One of the category
> > > (beams) does not bounce while the other (rays) does bounce and has some
> > > graphical effect on the screen when used.
> >
> > And, because this is NetHack, there's a special case Digging is
> > somewhere between both of these; it's visible, it doesn't bounce, and
> > it's handled by a completely different function from anything else
> > (giving it its own range calculations, for example). I list it as a
> > RAY in the spoilers because that's how it's coded, but it's pretty
> > much sui generis.
>
> The digging beam does not show. Digging has an effect that is
> visible. Try two experiments some time:
>
> 1) Zap a wand of digging in a big room (big room level or any room
> large enough). You will see no beam and as long as you are far
> enough from the nearest wall the shot will have no effect.

With graphical tiles, the ray is shown even over plain floor and when no
wall/rock is dug.

> 2) Zap a wand of digging with a blindfold. Observe no effect.
> Remove blindfold and the effect becomes visible when the vision
> code runs.
>
> The visibility is a side effect of the fact that it alters the
> dungeon.
>
>

--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

Adresse mail plus valide à partir de septembre 2005.
Utiliser l'adresse de redirection permanente :
Jean-Yves.Moyen `at` ens-lyon.org

 

[Guest]

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

Topi Linkala wrote:
> BandC wrote:

>> guess. What are the rules that govern spell bounces?

> Fire diagonally, get magic resistance and/or reflection.

Won't always work.

When some spell or wand bounces, it usually does so in the expected
way:

\ /
\ /
\ /
---------

However, when you fire at a wall in this way, there's always a small
chance (I believe some 5 or 10 per cent), that it will reflect straight
back to you (due to irregularities in the wall's surface).

So, if you don't have reflection, don't take any chances with, say,
wands of fire.

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me

 

[Guest]

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

Boudewijn Waijers wrote:

> Topi Linkala wrote:
>> BandC wrote:
>
>>> guess. What are the rules that govern spell bounces?
>
>> Fire diagonally, get magic resistance and/or reflection.
>
> Won't always work.
>
> When some spell or wand bounces, it usually does so in the expected
> way:
>
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> ---------
>
> However, when you fire at a wall in this way, there's always a small
> chance (I believe some 5 or 10 per cent), that it will reflect straight
> back to you (due to irregularities in the wall's surface).

Are you certain about this? I don't ever remember seeing it. The only
times I've seen diagonal bounces reflected back at me are when I've fired
into a corner.

--
Benjamin Lewis

All what we got here is American made.
It's a little bit cheesy, but it's nicely displayed. -- FZ

 

[Guest]

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

Boudewijn Waijers wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> Are you certain about [diagonal bounces sometimes reflecting back toward
>> source]? I don't ever remember seeing it. The only times I've seen
>> diagonal bounces reflected back at me are when I've fired into a corner.
>
> If Dylan is lying, I am too:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=nl&lr=&selm=86zn2pxn61.fsf%40strackenz.spod-central.org

Well, a brief perusal of zap.c would indicate you're correct (5% chance,
btw). FWIW, "lying" is not the same as "not telling the truth", the former
indicating intention to deceive, which is clearly not true for you or
Dylan.

I surprised I've never noticed this before.

--
Benjamin Lewis

All what we got here is American made.
It's a little bit cheesy, but it's nicely displayed. -- FZ

 

[Guest]

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

Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> The digging beam does not show. Digging has an effect that is
>> visible. Try two experiments some time:
>>
>> 1) Zap a wand of digging in a big room (big room level or any room
>> large enough). You will see no beam and as long as you are far
>> enough from the nearest wall the shot will have no effect.
>
>
> This may be interface-dependent, but certainly in the tty interface
> digging rays show as a line of white *s, whether they dig through
> anything or not.
>
> (Camera beams show as white !s; they're the other minor exception to
> the usual categorisation, though they behave as normal beams in most
> other ways.)
>

Jym wrote:
> With graphical tiles, the ray is shown even over plain floor and when
> no wall/rock is dug.

Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> It does in the graphical version on windows (looks like a thick dark
> beam-cloud-something). However, you don't get any 'whizzes by you'
> messages, of course.

Strange, if it's show in both the TTY interface and the tiled/graphical
interface, what interface isn't it shown in?

--
____ (__)
/ \ (oo) -Zarel
|Moo. > \/
\____/

 

[Guest]

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

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>> Topi Linkala wrote:
>>> BandC wrote:

>> Won't always work.
>>
>> When some spell or wand bounces, it usually does so in the expected
>> way:
>>
>> \ /
>> \ /
>> \ /
>> ---------
>>
>> However, when you fire at a wall in this way, there's always a small
>> chance (I believe some 5 or 10 per cent), that it will reflect
>> straight back to you (due to irregularities in the wall's surface).

> Are you certain about this? I don't ever remember seeing it. The
> only times I've seen diagonal bounces reflected back at me are when
> I've fired into a corner.

If Dylan is lying, I am too:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=nl&lr=&selm=86zn2pxn61.fsf%40strackenz.spod-central.org

(on 14 October, last year).

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me

 

[Guest]

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

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> Well, a brief perusal of zap.c would indicate you're correct (5%
> chance, btw). FWIW, "lying" is not the same as "not telling the
> truth", the former indicating intention to deceive, which is clearly
> not true for you or Dylan.

> I surprised I've never noticed this before.

I'm not. For starters, the chance is pretty low. Secondly, not every
wand is a ray type, so not every wand will bounce. Next, if you're a bit
like me, you don't use wands very often. Fourth, when you do use them,
you would probably zap them in a straight line most often, since this
makes it easier to determine there they're headed. Lastly, I usually
retreat to a corridor before using a charge, since like that, I can take
on a few creatures with one shot.

All reasons why you won't notice this very often, I guess.

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Zarel wrote:

> Jym wrote:
> > With graphical tiles, the ray is shown even over plain floor and when
> > no wall/rock is dug.
>
> Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> > It does in the graphical version on windows (looks like a thick dark
> > beam-cloud-something). However, you don't get any 'whizzes by you'
> > messages, of course.
>
> Strange, if it's show in both the TTY interface and the tiled/graphical
> interface, what interface isn't it shown in?

Maybe on some non-standard OS...

--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

Adresse mail plus valide à partir de septembre 2005.
Utiliser l'adresse de redirection permanente :
Jean-Yves.Moyen `at` ens-lyon.org