Monster editor?

[GSN]

Has someone written a monster _editor_ for Vanilla or any other variant? I have found a monster viewer (BAE) with several useful features, but editing still has be done by hand.

[d_m]

I was thinking about writing one. Initially it would probably run on Linux (which is what I'm developing in).

Is there any rhyme or reason for how the current file is formatted? Reading the stuff in is easy, but writing out spells, flags and description so they are exact matches of the current monster.txt file is kind of annoying.

If there really is a hard-and-fast system of how it should be structured I'll definitely support it, but it seems pretty arbitrary right now.

[Pete Mack]

In re formatting changes: yes and no. Yes: there's no fundamental
Reason for the current format, and a canonical (machine generated) format is a good idea.

No: because any time the format changes, doing revision diffs becomes impossible. Major file changes should be bundled together.

[d_m]

Originally Posted by Pete Mack

No: because any time the format changes, doing revision diffs becomes impossible. Major file changes should be bundled together.

Do you think it would be feasible to agree on a canonical form, and then do one commit which was just reforming the file? Obviously this would only happen if people were convinced that having a canonical format was useful (e.g. if there were tools to manipulate the file and a filter to canonicalize files).

[Narvius]

I know there's a monster *generator* over on thangorodrim.net. Could be combined with that viewer thing for awesomeness.

[takkaria]

Originally Posted by d_m

Do you think it would be feasible to agree on a canonical form, and then do one commit which was just reforming the file? Obviously this would only happen if people were convinced that having a canonical format was useful (e.g. if there were tools to manipulate the file and a filter to canonicalize files).

There is a canonical form for monster flags:
http://dev.rephial.org/trac/browser/...ster/mon.flags

Flags should be in order specified there, and each new grouping should start a new line. For each flag, if there are already six flags on the same line, then it should start a new line, too.

[d_m]

Originally Posted by takkaria

There is a canonical form for monster flags:
http://dev.rephial.org/trac/browser/...ster/mon.flags

Flags should be in order specified there, and each new grouping should start a new line. For each flag, if there are already six flags on the same line, then it should start a new line, too.

Awesome, thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for.

EDIT: while you're here, what is the guideline for wrapping descriptions (if any)?

[takkaria]

Originally Posted by d_m

Awesome, thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for.

EDIT: while you're here, what is the guideline for wrapping descriptions (if any)?

Wrap at 80, and spaces at the end of a line should be moved to the beginning of the next.

[d_m]

So here are a few more questions/issues that I have about the file. Free free to defer these questions if they prove too annoying:

1. Should spells come before or after flags? Currently it seems to vary by entry. Should this be standardized?

2. Is there a canonical order for spells? Should there be? Should spells wrap after the 6th entry like flags? Should they be grouped according to spell type (this might be happening right now)?

3. There are some flags missing from the .lua file you referenced (DROP_2, DROP_3, etc). Should these be added?

4. What order should attacks be in? Currently it seems alphabetical by attack name (e.g. "bite" before "claw").

[GSN]

1. Should spells come before or after flags? Currently it seems to vary by entry. Should this be standardized?

All r_info lines are parsed independently of each other (see parse_r_info in initi1.c). The current convention merely affects human readability.

2. Is there a canonical order for spells? Should there be? Should spells wrap after the 6th entry like flags? Should they be grouped according to spell type (this might be happening right now)?

No each time.

3. There are some flags missing from the .lua file you referenced (DROP_2, DROP_3, etc). Should these be added?

Only flags that are defined in defines.h may be added. I don't know much about Lua, but I believe that any flag defined by scripts may be used only in monster definitions contained in scripts, not in r_info.

4. What order should attacks be in? Currently it seems alphabetical by attack name (e.g. "bite" before "claw").

Attack order is irrelevant except for aesthetic reasons. Currently monsters always do a "full" attack (unless they cast spells), and so does the player. Implementing D&D 3.x style full and base attacks would be more trouble than they are worth. Angband it's not THAT tactical, at least in its current form.