Difference between revisions of "Talk:See invisible"

From NetHackWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "==SLASHEM== Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --~~~~")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==SLASHEM==
 
==SLASHEM==
 
Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --[[User:Tjr|Tjr]] 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 
Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --[[User:Tjr|Tjr]] 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 +
:It's not just invisible items, pixies are extremely brutal if you lack both see invisible and telepathy, and with intrinsic telepathy but no see invisible it'll likely still get at least one theft in before you even know it exists. There's also star vampires, which are always invisible, but they appear late enough that you should have see invisible by then. And invisible items are still somewhat of a nuisance; while I was doing some SLASH'EM testing in explorer mode I used the starting wand of wishing to wish for a scroll of charging. It was invisible and thus couldn't be read. -- [[User:Qazmlpok|Qazmlpok]] 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:32, 13 August 2011

SLASHEM

Is see invisible really that important, given invisible items are exceedingly rare? --Tjr 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not just invisible items, pixies are extremely brutal if you lack both see invisible and telepathy, and with intrinsic telepathy but no see invisible it'll likely still get at least one theft in before you even know it exists. There's also star vampires, which are always invisible, but they appear late enough that you should have see invisible by then. And invisible items are still somewhat of a nuisance; while I was doing some SLASH'EM testing in explorer mode I used the starting wand of wishing to wish for a scroll of charging. It was invisible and thus couldn't be read. -- Qazmlpok 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)