Talk:Scroll of enchant armor - Revision history

Pyrzax: /* Typo? */

2026-06-11T00:47:14Z

Typo?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:47, 11 June 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:
	== Typo? ==		== Typo? ==

	The description of the formula for blessed ~~scrols~~ says:		The description of the formula for blessed scrolls says:

	equal to 9[[rnd]](3) − {{sfrac\|current enchantment\|3}}),		equal to 9[[rnd]](3) − {{sfrac\|current enchantment\|3}}),

	How does that not mean 9 rolls of 1-3 minus a fraction i.e 9-27 minus 2/3 (for +2)? Clearly that would be wrong... is the 9 a typoed '(' ? {{unsigned\|Pyrzax\|2026-06-10T01:03:09}}		How does that not mean 9 rolls of 1-3 minus a fraction, i.e., 9-27 minus 2/3 (for +2)? Clearly that would be wrong... is the 9 a typoed '(' ? {{unsigned\|Pyrzax\|2026-06-10T01:03:09}}

	:I feel like it isn't exactly rocket science to determine that it is indeed a typo and fix it accordingly. Also please remember to sign your posts. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 05:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)		:I feel like it isn't exactly rocket science to determine that it is indeed a typo and fix it accordingly. Also, please remember to sign your posts. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 05:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

			Well, I also wasn't entirely sure that the parentheses made sense, even with the typo fix, so I was inclined to have others who know the game better take a look. The page now says 1 point plus the (corrected) formula. However, the formula could go negative at +6 since rnd(3) could have a value of one. That would mean +6 could result in any of
			1 + (1 - 2) = 0
			1 + (2 - 2) = 1
			1 + (3 - 2) = 2
			And that contradicts the table below the text. The table seems to correspond to [[rnd]](3 − {{sfrac\|current enchantment\|3}}), but which is correct, the table or the formula in the text?

			——[[User:Pyrzax\|Pyrzax]] ([[User talk:Pyrzax\|talk]]) 00:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Umbire the Phantom: come on now

2026-06-10T05:56:03Z

come on now

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:56, 10 June 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:
	equal to 9[[rnd]](3) − {{sfrac\|current enchantment\|3}}),		equal to 9[[rnd]](3) − {{sfrac\|current enchantment\|3}}),

	How does that not mean 9 rolls of 1-3 minus a fraction i.e 9-27 minus 2/3 (for +2)? Clearly that would be wrong... is the 9 a typoed '(' ?		How does that not mean 9 rolls of 1-3 minus a fraction i.e 9-27 minus 2/3 (for +2)? Clearly that would be wrong... is the 9 a typoed '(' ? {{unsigned\|Pyrzax\|2026-06-10T01:03:09}}

			:I feel like it isn't exactly rocket science to determine that it is indeed a typo and fix it accordingly. Also please remember to sign your posts. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 05:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Pyrzax: /* Changes for 3.6.0 - A bug or a feature? */

2026-06-10T05:03:47Z

Changes for 3.6.0 - A bug or a feature?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:03, 10 June 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:

	——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 20:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)		——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 20:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

			== Typo? ==

	The description of the formula for blessed scrols says:		The description of the formula for blessed scrols says:

Pyrzax at 05:03, 10 June 2026

2026-06-10T05:03:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:03, 10 June 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:

	——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 20:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)		——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 20:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

			The description of the formula for blessed scrols says:

			equal to 9[[rnd]](3) − {{sfrac\|current enchantment\|3}}),

			How does that not mean 9 rolls of 1-3 minus a fraction i.e 9-27 minus 2/3 (for +2)? Clearly that would be wrong... is the 9 a typoed '(' ?

Twonk at 21:34, 14 December 2015

2015-12-14T21:34:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 14 December 2015
Line 15:		Line 15:
	:According to the email from the DevTeam I got over the weekend, this has been fixed:		:According to the email from the DevTeam I got over the weekend, this has been fixed:
	::"This change was unintentional and has now been fixed. Thanks.		::"This change was unintentional and has now been fixed. Thanks.
	::"The enchant armor code used to manipulate the armor's blessed		::"The enchant armor code used to manipulate the armor's blessed and cursed flags directly. When it was changed to go through the blessed()/uncursed()/cursed() functions instead, the uncursing case was accidentally missed."
	::and cursed flags directly. When it was changed to go through the
	::blessed()/uncursed()/cursed() functions instead, the uncursing case
	::was accidentally missed."
	:Checking the bug list, this was given the bug number C360-12. Glad I could be of some help.		:Checking the bug list, this was given the bug number C360-12. Glad I could be of some help.

	——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 20:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)		——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 20:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Twonk: /* Changes for 3.6.0 - A bug or a feature? */

2015-12-14T20:57:09Z

Changes for 3.6.0 - A bug or a feature?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 14 December 2015
Line 12:		Line 12:
	——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 16:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)		——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 16:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
	:The relevant line for non-dragon armor is at {{sourcecode\|src/read.c\|1085\|version=NetHack 3.6.0}}, and the 3.4.3 equivalent is at {{sourcecode\|read.c\|767}}. The original code is pretty obtuse, so they may have just been trying to simplify it; whether or not the loss of uncursing is deliberate is unclear, but you're right that it's inconsistent with the scales-to-mail behavior. --[[User:Darth l33t\|Darth l33t]] ([[User talk:Darth l33t\|talk]]) 19:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)		:The relevant line for non-dragon armor is at {{sourcecode\|src/read.c\|1085\|version=NetHack 3.6.0}}, and the 3.4.3 equivalent is at {{sourcecode\|read.c\|767}}. The original code is pretty obtuse, so they may have just been trying to simplify it; whether or not the loss of uncursing is deliberate is unclear, but you're right that it's inconsistent with the scales-to-mail behavior. --[[User:Darth l33t\|Darth l33t]] ([[User talk:Darth l33t\|talk]]) 19:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

			:According to the email from the DevTeam I got over the weekend, this has been fixed:
			::"This change was unintentional and has now been fixed. Thanks.
			::"The enchant armor code used to manipulate the armor's blessed
			::and cursed flags directly. When it was changed to go through the
			::blessed()/uncursed()/cursed() functions instead, the uncursing case
			::was accidentally missed."
			:Checking the bug list, this was given the bug number C360-12. Glad I could be of some help.

			——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 20:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Darth l33t: /* Changes for 3.6.0 - A bug or a feature? */

2015-12-12T19:23:35Z

Changes for 3.6.0 - A bug or a feature?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:23, 12 December 2015
Line 11:		Line 11:

	——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 16:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)		——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 16:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
			:The relevant line for non-dragon armor is at {{sourcecode\|src/read.c\|1085\|version=NetHack 3.6.0}}, and the 3.4.3 equivalent is at {{sourcecode\|read.c\|767}}. The original code is pretty obtuse, so they may have just been trying to simplify it; whether or not the loss of uncursing is deliberate is unclear, but you're right that it's inconsistent with the scales-to-mail behavior. --[[User:Darth l33t\|Darth l33t]] ([[User talk:Darth l33t\|talk]]) 19:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Twonk: /* Changes for 3.6.0 - A bug or a feature? */ new section

2015-12-12T16:51:34Z

Changes for 3.6.0 - A bug or a feature?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 12 December 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Rewrite with effects==		==Rewrite with effects==
	Have rewritten all of it, and included a complete detailing of effects. I think this format is more useful than the verbose discussion, as when trying to remember what happens if I read a cursed scroll of enchant armor whilst confused and wearing Dragon Scale Mail is easier to look up. (Answer; nothing, you can't remove erode proofing of dragon armor). There is probably a place for a '''Tips''' section detailing how people often use the spell, though that is covered in the first few paragraphs. [[User:Zaffle\|Zaffle]] 04:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)		Have rewritten all of it, and included a complete detailing of effects. I think this format is more useful than the verbose discussion, as when trying to remember what happens if I read a cursed scroll of enchant armor whilst confused and wearing Dragon Scale Mail is easier to look up. (Answer; nothing, you can't remove erode proofing of dragon armor). There is probably a place for a '''Tips''' section detailing how people often use the spell, though that is covered in the first few paragraphs. [[User:Zaffle\|Zaffle]] 04:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

			== Changes for 3.6.0 - A bug or a feature? ==

			I noticed this yesterday while playing 3.6, and just confirmed it in Wizard mode. I'm not sure if it's the intent of the DevTeam, or a bug. I put this here in case it's a bug.

			I was playing as a low-level Wizard last night. Picked up two scrolls with the same name, but that wound up in different inventory letters. OK, I thought, I can live with a cursed identify. I didn't BUC check them, and wound up reading a cursed scroll of enchant armor. My cloak of magic resistance is now cursed and -1. No big, I thought. I'll read the other one to bring it back to +0 and uncurse it. However, while it did go back to +0, the cloak is still cursed. I've also confirmed this with a studded leather armor: cursed scroll curses it, uncursed scroll raises the enchantment but doesn't uncurse it. Blessed scroll will still bless the cursed armor.

			Lines 1061-1067 in read.c indicate that reading an uncursed scroll of enchant armor while wearing cursed dragon scales will not only harden the scales into scale mail, but remove the curse. I've also confirmed this behavior in Wizard mode.

			——[[User:Twonk\|Twonk]] ([[User talk:Twonk\|talk]]) 16:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Zaffle: New page: ==Rewrite with effects== Have rewritten all of it, and included a complete detailing of effects. I think this format is more useful than the verbose discussion, as when trying to remember ...

2008-06-09T04:28:30Z

New page: ==Rewrite with effects== Have rewritten all of it, and included a complete detailing of effects. I think this format is more useful than the verbose discussion, as when trying to remember ...

New page

==Rewrite with effects==
Have rewritten all of it, and included a complete detailing of effects. I think this format is more useful than the verbose discussion, as when trying to remember what happens if I read a cursed scroll of enchant armor whilst confused and wearing Dragon Scale Mail is easier to look up. (Answer; nothing, you can't remove erode proofing of dragon armor). There is probably a place for a '''Tips''' section detailing how people often use the spell, though that is covered in the first few paragraphs. [[User:Zaffle|Zaffle]] 04:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)