On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Peter Ajamian wrote: >> Or make a less black-and-white system for equipping. Allow mages to equip a >> long sword, but they get a huge penalty and can't cast with it wielded. >> Clerics attacking with slashing weapons become "fallen" (assuming their >> 'god' gets uptight about that). Thieves using two-handed swords don't >> sneak or hide so well. ...etc... > >Yeah, but I don't follow how that relates to what I just said, maybe you >misunderstood what I meant by "force them", "them" refered to the macros >lining up (ie the ITEM_ANTI_ bitvector should correspond with the CLASS_ >list). That can easily be enforced by not even using #defines for the >bitvector but just having a single macro like this... > >#define ITEM_ANTI(class) (1 << (class)) It was more a comment on a 'better system' than what was quoted. Sure, you could try to make them line up, but I'd rather give them their own bitvector then. Currently, not something I want to change. -- George Greer greerga@circlemud.org -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/04/01 PST