Trolls and regen

[ZenDragon]

I don't know if this has been covered before, I couldn't find it anywhere.

Does Regen stack if playing a half-troll and wearing an "regen

[Derakon]

No. Regeneration is either on or off; there are no degrees of strength for it.

[Magnate]

Originally Posted by Derakon

No. Regeneration is either on or off; there are no degrees of strength for it.

Yet.











(filler spoils effect)

[Derakon]

Oooh, can we split it into mana and HP regen too?

[Magnate]

Originally Posted by Derakon

Oooh, can we split it into mana and HP regen too?

http://trac.rephial.org/ticket/1182

[Derakon]

Well, here's a rough patch to split regen into HP and mana regen. There's three main problems I see with it:

* I had to push "impair mana regen" off of the character screen to make room for the new flag. No idea what the proper action is here, since there's quite literally no room for more flags. Add a second page with just one flag?
* It breaks savefile compatibility since the flags have been shuffled around (I used up TR2_XXX5 and TR2_XXX6 and created TR2_XXX1)
* object.txt, ego_item.txt, artifact.txt, and p_race.txt are all broken now because the REGEN flag is invalid, replaced by REGEN_HP and REGEN_MANA.

I've only done very rudimentary testing -- I switched all REGEN to REGEN_HP to fix the object file incompatibility, created a new amulet of "mental regeneration", rolled up a high-elven ranger, punted him to level 50, and generated both regen amulets. With bodily regeneration he gets ~4HP/round and 1SP/round, with mental regeneration he gets ~2HP/round and 2SP/round. A half-troll warrior gets ~5HP/round; a half-troll priest gets ~5HP/round and ~.66SP/round. I think half-troll priests just got a lot less viable.

The patch is based off of the downloadable 3.1.2v2 source from oook, not the nightly. Sorry. I should've thought about that before starting work...

[Pete Mack]

I have to say, but I hate the idea of two different regenerations.

What you are really doing is making warriors and Half-Trolls relatively weaker, apparently just to be mean. (Just what we need, another flag that half-trolls need to be other than useless for spell-casting, and is utterly useless for warriors, even though it increases the valuation of randarts.)

Edit:
To paraphrase somebody or other. I'll keep my single regen flag. You can keep the change.

[TJS]

Originally Posted by Pete Mack

I have to say, but I hate the idea of two different regenerations.

What you are really doing is making warriors and Half-Trolls relatively weaker, apparently just to be mean. (Just what we need, another flag that half-trolls need to be other than useless for spell-casting, and is utterly useless for warriors, even though it increases the valuation of randarts.)

Edit:
To paraphrase somebody or other. I'll keep my single regen flag. You can keep the change.

Who is to say that half-trolls won't be given regen for both types?

I like the change and think it will make equipment/class/race choices even more interesting which has to be a good thing.

[Derakon]

Originally Posted by Pete Mack

I have to say, but I hate the idea of two different regenerations.

What you are really doing is making warriors and Half-Trolls relatively weaker, apparently just to be mean.

Yes, this does mean that there's a chance for warriors to get items with a useless-to-them SP regen ability. Making a challenge class harder does not bug me very much, especially since the change makes for interesting decisions for every single other class. Though I still think that warriors could use a boost in other ways.

As for half-trolls, well, it always struck me as absurd that they have incredible mental restoration abilities. Hitpoint regeneration is quite powerful enough on its own. They won't be bad priests now, but they will be reliant on their physical abilities for longer.

Personally, what I suspect will happen is that SP regen will be rather more rare than HP regen. Then give inherent SP regen to gnomes and they suddenly become much more interesting as casters.

[d_m]

Originally Posted by Derakon

Yes, this does mean that there's a chance for warriors to get items with a useless-to-them SP regen ability. Making a challenge class harder does not bug me very much, especially since the change makes for interesting decisions for every single other class. Though I still think that warriors could use a boost in other ways.

I don't think Warriors should be a "challenge" class. I think that even though all other classes get spells, warriors should be considered the "default". Some classes (ranger) are a lot easier than warrior and some (mage) are probably a bit harder. But I think that changes which make the game significantly worse for warriors should be avoided, even if it benefits casters.

Warrior is a good introduction to the game for new players who won't understand the magic system, spells, etc as well. Warrior also has a (potentially) more straightforward play style than a priest or mage. Finally, warriors don't have any significant kinds of abilities which other classes can't get (unlike spells) so gameplay which is interesting for warriors benefits all classes (unlike adding a priest spell which benefits 1-2 classes only, or adding a mage spell which benefits 1-3 classes).

I actually kind of want to remove the "Satisfy Hunger" spell for this reason. Right now food is basically just a penalty for playing a Warrior (or being low level). Either it's an interesting problem (and everyone should do it) or it's tedious (in which case warriors shouldn't need to be the only ones annoyed by it).

There are already a bunch of items out there that are useless to warriors (!mana, mushrooms of debility, _magi) so I'm not sure if this change is as bad as Pete says. It means that 50% of the current regeneration items a warrior finds now won't be useful, and the other half will be the same. But it also means that each regeneration item casters find is only 50% as good as it was previously. So it sort of nerfs regen across the board.

But I disagree that non-spell casters are an outlier which can be dismissed or ignored.

EDIT: fixed some grammar mistakes.