Are Runes of Protection broken

[Pete Mack]

@nullfame:
if you are willing to abuse LOS as a mage, Rune of Protection can make a huge difference against tough opponents. (I'm talking about Ungoliant, who is almost impossible for a mage to kill via ordinary methods. She does huge max damage and has massive HP--more than Sauron. Unique angels are another reasonable victim for runes.)

Another use for rune is a cheaper guaranteed escape for rangers and paladins.
If you can duck behind the rune to get out of LOS, you can rely on your non-zero fail escpaes. If the monster breaks the rune before you can escape, use your genuine guaranteed escape (?TL, ?*Desctruct*)

[Timo Pietilä]

Originally Posted by bron

I think the the "right" tactic is not Sea of Runes, but rather an ASC of runes

...

For the record, I consider this to be cheating/abuse. But it is hard to know exactly where to draw the line regarding [ab]use of Runes.

If you want "broken" usage of runes make hockey-stick corridor filled with them and then use stone-to-mud to open it up sitting in safe position. Then use rift/meteor storm/OoD/missiles to kill the baddie. Cheesy tactic, but works.

Those tactics don't work against wall-eaters, against those it is only melee-protection.

[fyonn]

Originally Posted by nullfame

ASC of runes, I don't know. I never thought of that. It seems like it would be a drain on SP or a waste of !mana, but maybe with a stack of _magi not a big deal.

the way I (ab)used them was to find a very nasty monster in a nearby room, but where there is no direct corridor connecting them. then dig an ASC almost all the way there, fill the ASC with runes, (resting when you need to) and then when it's all done, rest up, go dig through that last hole in the wall and wail on your opponent, backing up as you have to when a rune breaks. This way you still have max SP and HP when you start the battle, but still loads of protective runes. perhaps I'm just a wuss, but I never saw them as abuse as such, just my way of defeating very nasty enemies, ungoliant being a classic example, or the unique balrogs or angels.

teleport to certainly is a pain with this technique but it's work-outable.

dave

PS. one would think that res_nexus ought to make you proof against teleport to? though by that logic would it also make you proof against teleport in general..? never mind me

[nullfame]

Originally Posted by fyonn

perhaps I'm just a wuss, but I never saw them as abuse as such, just my way of defeating very nasty enemies, ungoliant being a classic example, or the unique balrogs or angels.

This is my point. If rune ASC is the way you deal with these go for it.

My solution to the spiders and angels is to not fight them unless the terrain is favorable (e.g., in a vault, twisty corridors, moated crosshatch, by an orc pit, or with create doors). The balrogs I might take on with some slay demon ammo and a _banish but the problem there is fighting 1 the other 3 are close behind via summon.

Originally Posted by Pete Mack

Another use for rune is... duck behind the rune to get out of LOS

Yeah, I guess I've done this once or twice. That strikes me as a valid, intended use. So I guess I would be in the "there can be only one" camp rather than it disappearing when you leave it, if it needs changing at all.

[Timo Pietilä]

Originally Posted by nullfame

This is my point. If rune ASC is the way you deal with these go for it.

In my view ASC is valid tactic and runes just complete it. It requires preparation which is perfectly OK and doesn't abuse the fact that targeting does not follow same rules as LoS.

What needs to be fixed is hockey stick. Using that is just plain wrong and shouldn't be possible. I have no problem with asymmetric LoS, but I think targeting is broken. IE shooting in situation like:

#####
..@..         
X#### is OK because monster is in your LoS but

#####
#..@.
#.###
X#### is not because monster is not in your LoS.

[nullfame]

ASC is okay by me. I think they are a waste of mana and/or -STM, reduce the challenge, and most threats can be taken down without them. I haven't used one since I learned what a grandmaster mystic was. You summon? Oh, I have a solution for that. Wrong.

What you describe as the "hockey stick" style (we need a glossary) I would be for getting rid of, not because I use it or have a problem with other people using it, but because I hate being on the receiving end.

[chris]

Originally Posted by fizzix

Monster summons used to be centered around the player and not around the summoner. If you wanted to deny any summons you just needed to surround yourself with 8 runes.

Since they're now from the summoner there is always at least one available space to summon in (directly behind)

Perhaps they would be more balanced if
[1] Summoning still centered summons on you.
[2] Each summoned monster has a 50% chance of breaking a rune. Or perhaps, the odds of a summoned monster breaking a rune are a function of its level.

Completely shutting down summoning seems broken ...

[Derakon]

I actually much prefer summoning around the monster instead of the player. It makes more sense to me. It also means that summoning in ASCs isn't completely useless; the summons just shows up behind the summoner (in the old days, you stood at the end of the ASC with rock all around you and no summoning was possible, period).

[miyazaki]

I don't think RoP are severely broken or overpowering. But some of the abuse would be stopped if they existed for a timed duration. Like 25+1d25 or something. I don't like the idea of casing RoP 5 times, resting, repeat to fill any space you want. A duration would give you some time to prepare but not a ridiculous amount.