I still think Warriors are the easiest class

[Timo Pietilä]

You get teleport self at CL7, and detect monsters whenever you want it. You might get very unlucky, but usually you should be able to avoid orcs with a mage.

Mage weak point is actually late game. Their HP is so low that it makes fighting big opponents difficult. That means a lot of avoidance in situations where other class can fight. Avoidance itself is not a problem with mage (banishments, *destruction*, TO), but tends to get boring really fast.

[Timo Pietilä]

Back to warriors are the easiest class...
Unless you play a very conservative game, it's just not so.

I'll rephrase that: "Unless you are not diving, it's just not so."

Warriors are easy class. One of the easiest. I'd put it in third position in difficulty factor.

Priests, Rangers, Warriors, Paladins, Mages, Rogues.

Not sure about mages after they got their spells changed, haven't played them. Also for some reason I can't get comfortable with rogues. Not good enough spellcaster, not good enough melee-fighter and not good enough archer. Jack of all trades, master of none. Many edges, all of them blunt. Priests are just plain easy, rangers have artillery without comparison combined with spells that are more than enough for fighter of that caliber. One is excellent survivalist, other has ranged attack without comparison. That's why they are in front of warrior. Paladin fails in both compared to warrior, but has advantage of better fighting skills and HP over mage and rogue.

Point with warriors is not that damage output so much as easiness of maxing the vital stats early. No need to max spellcasting because there is no spellcasting, you get very good bonus to STR, DEX and CON from start and can actually completely ignore the spellcasting stat unlike any other class. They also have best HP-dice and advance in clevel faster than any other class.

They might not be the fastest class, but they definitely are easy class.

[PowerDiver]

I'd have to play a priest but I found that it was really hard to get over the first half of the game with a mage. I had to be super careful at all times. If you run into Orcs in the early game that could kill you right there.

You get teleport self at CL7, and detect monsters whenever you want it. You might get very unlucky, but usually you should be able to avoid orcs with a mage.

[Fendell Orcbane]

Warriors are the hardest class to win with for me. Easy to get to level 30, but a pain in the endgame. And the endgame takes longer than the first 30 levels.

I think I´d go: priest > wizard > ranger > paladin > rogue > warrior

Im a bit uncertain about order of half-csters, but the 2 true casters are definitely top. And priest has the easiest auto-pilot

I'd have to play a priest but I found that it was really hard to get over the first half of the game with a mage. I had to be super careful at all times. If you run into Orcs in the early game that could kill you right there.

[Fendell Orcbane]

Back to warriors are the easiest class...
Unless you play a very conservative game, it's just not so.
The half-casting classes have huge advantages over most warriors:
* Rogues have fantastic detection and stealth, and almost as many HP as warriors.
* Rangers have a whole lot of magic, extra shots, significantly better stealth, and adequate HP
Both rogues and rangers have much better magic device ability than Warriors, which give them a big advantage for all races except High Elf, and a huge advantage for Half-Orcs and Half-Trolls.
* Paladins have nearly the same melee and HP, useful magic early and phenominal magic late. (Late game Paladins are powerful to the point of being boring.)

Honestly I haven't played a paladin yet, but I cna say that I had a far easier time with a warrior than with a ranger. The hand to hand makes up for a lot of stuff, also you can use rods and staves to make up for the lack of detection. First time I played a warrior I won. And I was diving quickly, my turn count was way lower as well.

[Estie]

Warriors are the hardest class to win with for me. Easy to get to level 30, but a pain in the endgame. And the endgame takes longer than the first 30 levels.

I think I´d go: priest > wizard > ranger > paladin > rogue > warrior

Im a bit uncertain about order of half-csters, but the 2 true casters are definitely top. And priest has the easiest auto-pilot

[Pete Mack]

Back to warriors are the easiest class...
Unless you play a very conservative game, it's just not so.
The half-casting classes have huge advantages over most warriors:
* Rogues have fantastic detection and stealth, and almost as many HP as warriors.
* Rangers have a whole lot of magic, extra shots, significantly better stealth, and adequate HP
Both rogues and rangers have much better magic device ability than Warriors, which give them a big advantage for all races except High Elf, and a huge advantage for Half-Orcs and Half-Trolls.
* Paladins have nearly the same melee and HP, useful magic early and phenominal magic late. (Late game Paladins are powerful to the point of being boring.)

[Therem Harth]

Ah... It was the Book of Lost Tales, the Silm's precursor. It has Turin fighting Morgoth alongside Eonwe, though it's not entirely clear who does the slaying. But none of it is canon at all.

(Not sure re Tulkas, it's been a long time since I read the Silm.)

Edit: to make it clear the thing in Lost Tales is an endtime prophecy, the equivalent of Ragnarok.

[Timo Pietilä]

Defender is cribbed from D&D. As is half of the game. :P

Really I don't see the point in Tolkienifying it, it's already about as un-Tolkien as it can be while still being influence by Tolkien. I mean we've got:

- Human mages (magic is heavily linked to immortality in the Tolkienverse, even Aragorn barely has any magical ability)

"Magic" as it stands for in Tolkien universe is not linked to immortality, immortal beings just understand the nature of the world better than mortals. There were human magic too (but obviously nothing as powerful as maiar had).

That whole world was full of "magic". Everything in it.

Obviously magic in Angband is not the same as in Tolkien world.

- Rings and boots and armor that let characters fly (Earendil and Elwing did that, but they used a flying ship and actual wings respectively)

Those do not exist in angband either.

- Hounds that breath elemental chaos (even Steve Erickson doesn't have Hounds of Chaos!)

Zephyr hounds in general are not Tolkien origin. But OTOH neither are Titans. Or Tarrasque. Or several other beings like Basilisks and Carrion Crawlers.

- Oh yeah, MORGOTH BEING KILLABLE. By someone other than Turin Turambar with a weapon other than Gurthang, if you count Unfinished Tales as canon. (I'm pretty sure it's not.)

IIRC according to Silmarillion it will be Tulkas that does that job, not Turin. Morgoth can be hurt and apparently "killed" like any other being with physical form, but that doesn't kill the spirit of the being. Nothing "dies" completely. Not Sauron even with loss of The Ring, not humans, not elves, not maiar or valar.

I wonder, what would have happened if there were angry Fingolfin with Ringil accompanied with Luthien instead of Beren.

[Nick]

Or that he will get hit by a falling petunias as soon as he enters the street and die.

Oh no, not again.

[Therem Harth]

Defender is cribbed from D&D. As is half of the game. :P

Really I don't see the point in Tolkienifying it, it's already about as un-Tolkien as it can be while still being influence by Tolkien. I mean we've got:

- Human mages (magic is heavily linked to immortality in the Tolkienverse, even Aragorn barely has any magical ability)

- Rings and boots and armor that let characters fly (Earendil and Elwing did that, but they used a flying ship and actual wings respectively)

- Hounds that breath elemental chaos (even Steve Erickson doesn't have Hounds of Chaos!)

- Oh yeah, MORGOTH BEING KILLABLE. By someone other than Turin Turambar with a weapon other than Gurthang, if you count Unfinished Tales as canon. (I'm pretty sure it's not.)

Etc., etc. I think the best word to describe it (and I hope this doesn't get censored) is a bastardization of Tolkien.

I'm not saying that's such a terrible thing, despite the connotation of the word "bastardization". It's just a game that people hack at and play in their spare time, it doesn't have to be a work of art. (Shouldn't be, really.) But attempting to make it more Tolkienian is a totally futile effort IMO. Effort should be put into making the game more fun and more balanced, not trying to fit into a universe that's a round hole when the game is a square peg.

[/rant]

But hey, if I were in charge of Angband development it probably wouldn't be called Angband.

[Atarlost]

Well, it was a prediction that no man will kill Witch King. Not that no man could kill Witch King. If there were an real confrontation between Gandalf and Witch King, Witch King would have lost that. Gandalf is same class with Sauron, Witch King was way less powerful being.

(Movies got that part wrong too. Just like it did the Balrog).



I agree. It just feels wrong that they don't. But for game balance reasons I'm not sure if we should give it to them.

It's the biggest problem in ToME 2, where non slay-undead stuff does no damage at all, but for balance purposes you can pull out some of the slays it has now. There's some evidence for slay troll, but that could just be high to-hit and to-dam, which would do the exemplar 1d4 dagger more good against a troll than a slay. There isn't any actual textual evidence for slay orc or slay-giant at all.

I'd make some similar changes to Gondolin. Sting is explicitly said to be good against spiders and I find it implausible that weapons be made for killing demons when nobody had ever managed to kill a demon prior to the fall of Gondolin so I'd trade slay_demon for slay_animal.

I'd probably also do something like rename the defender to Belegost and trade the non-resist abilities for the old slay set off of Westernesse. That way there'd still be a splendid weapon with slay_giant. That and I never liked the name.

[Timo Pietilä]

Gandalf was a Maia incarnated in human flesh, not a man.

It doesn't matter. I could have said Aragorn in his place. Or Faramir. Or Denethor. Prediction didn't say he can't be killed by man, it said he wont be killed by man. There is a difference.

If there is a accurate prediction that normal mortal man wont be killed by man it doesn't mean that that mortal man suddenly became immortal. It can mean that he will get a flu and die due allergic reaction to medicine he gets. Or that he will get hit by a falling petunias as soon as he enters the street and die.

[Therem Harth]

Well, it was a prediction that no man will kill Witch King. Not that no man could kill Witch King. If there were an real confrontation between Gandalf and Witch King, Witch King would have lost that. Gandalf is same class with Sauron, Witch King was way less powerful being.

Gandalf was a Maia incarnated in human flesh, not a man.

Also, Sauron was hugely more powerful than Gandalf, what with keeping part of himself in the One Ring and basically having all the other rings slaved to it, IIRC.

And the Witch King was also a pretty tough dude, even if he wasn't a match for Merry's barrow-blade. And he didn't work alone most of the time either. IIRC it's hinted in Fellowship that Gandalf is assailed by Nazgul on Weathertop, thus the lightning. Obviously he drives them off, but it sounds as though he expends considerable effort doing so.

(Movies got that part wrong too. Just like it did the Balrog).

Ah yes, the Balrog. I must say I imagined it... quite differently when I read the book.

I agree. It just feels wrong that they don't. But for game balance reasons I'm not sure if we should give it to them.

Make Westernesse a really rare and really powerful ego type then. The books said nothing about the barrow-blades lighting up a la Sting in the presence of orcs or trolls or anything, but they killed Wraiths dead.

[Timo Pietilä]

It's actually kind of ambiguous. I'm not sure if Tolkien himself was clear on if "no man" was circumvented by a woman or a hobbit or both.

Well, it was a prediction that no man will kill Witch King. Not that no man could kill Witch King. If there were an real confrontation between Gandalf and Witch King, Witch King would have lost that. Gandalf is same class with Sauron, Witch King was way less powerful being.

(Movies got that part wrong too. Just like it did the Balrog).

Certainly, though, the description of the dagger of westernesse cutting through the Witch King's knee would indicate that weapons of westernesse should slay undead if they slay anything.

I agree. It just feels wrong that they don't. But for game balance reasons I'm not sure if we should give it to them.