|
From: Eino K. <ein...@gm...> - 2008-12-08 14:52:33
|
> +Artificers: > +----------- > +The Artificer is attuned to gadgets, mechanics, and magic elicited from arcane > +items as opposed to casting magic himself. As a consequence, he enters the > +Dungeon with an assortment of wands. Artificers are skilled at Evoking magical I propose making this in plural, so it becomes gender-nonspecific: Artificers are attuned to gadgets, mechanics, and magic elicited from arcane items as opposed to casting magic themselves. As a consequence, they enter the Dungeon with an assortment of wands. > @@ -2856,6 +2874,9 @@ > set_ident_type( OBJ_POTIONS, POT_POISON, ID_KNOWN_TYPE ); > break; > > + case JOB_ARTIFICER: > + set_ident_type( OBJ_SCROLLS, SCR_RECHARGING, ID_KNOWN_TYPE ); > + > default: > break; > } Even though the JOB_ARTIFICER falls through to default (and break), should there be a break; in the case itself to reduce potential of oversight later on if another class is added? I might be overtly cautious, though. :) >Log Message: >----------- >Use an explicit (int) cast for _gold_to_donation. That should fix >Eino's compile time warning. :) Hehe, thanks. :) --Eino |