Overall 3.5

[Spacebux]

I've played many of the variants that have this stuff (O, Sang, Poscheng etc.) & it is definitely something I miss when playing Vanilla. Current Vanilla rogues are what? A warrior that can cast & has high stealth? They feel that way to me. The minus side is trap setting can become more hassle then fun, but if it's unique to the rogue (& probably leave the classical rogue in, for those who like it) then you could chose to play that particular game or pick another class..

I dabbled with O as well. There are many things I like about it, as I'm sure we all have things we like about many of the other off-shoots. However, I would say that Oangband is too complex for vanilla. New players (like my first time) have no idea how to pair one skill with another in the beginning player selection phases. Eventually, they made sense, but from the get-go, they were way over any newbie's head.

I do like your point about what's in a class in Vanilla. In years past, people have explained to me (and others who question the validity of a thief that can cast almost ALL mage spells) that a rogue used to be the original class of moria / angband way back when and that the mage-class sort of morphed off into its own class later on. I have no idea what the real reason is/was; I'm like you in that it is not what most DikuMud / D&D / other fantasy game players expect when they hear 'Rogue' / 'Thief'. Just because its always been this way does not mean we need to continue to have it that way. I don't buy that argument.

[Derakon]

Well, it's clear that whatever you call the current rogue, they're filling a niche of being good at melee and good at casting spells, but not great at either. Assuming we aren't willing to nix the class entirely, do you have a better (i.e. more thematic) name than "Warrior-Mage"?

If you want "real" rogues, you'll also have to face up to the fact that Vanilla is not really built around being sneaky (after all, your ultimate goal is to kill someone, not steal something from them as in Sil). Ultimately, you have to be able to put out lots of damage and take lots of damage in a fairly straight-up fight. And again, nothing says the game has to be this way, but changing it would require extensive changes to how combat works yadda yadda yadda.

[Philip]

Gandalf? Swordspell?
I agree that a real rogue would be impossible. I may in fact prefer the current rogue system to any other possible vanilla rogue system, since every character needs to be able to fight, and rogues fit a nice niche for treasure gathering now. The mugger/assasin with great detection model is perfect.

[debo]

Rogues are still pretty damn good at melee, and the free detection and temp resist all is so useful that I still see warriors as a nerfed rogue.

[wobbly]

Strangely enough I actually like the name rogue for the current rogue. After all a rogue is not necessarily a thief. And yes I know my post didn't read that way. Eh, not always the best at writing clearly.

I'm more saying that I quite like playing thief style characters. Would be all for having 1 in there. As far as what changes would be required, would it really be that many? The variants I mentioned managed. O has many balance changes, but the basic mechanics are still the same.

In regards to Vanilla not being around stealth I've got to ask: Do you actually like the current way it handles stealth? I'll admit it has a strong pt. It's simple. Other then that, well. Yes, Angband is more fighting then sneaking. I'd love for it to have fighting and sneaking.

[Malak Darkhunter]

I dabbled with O as well. There are many things I like about it, as I'm sure we all have things we like about many of the other off-shoots. However, I would say that Oangband is too complex for vanilla. New players (like my first time) have no idea how to pair one skill with another in the beginning player selection phases. Eventually, they made sense, but from the get-go, they were way over any newbie's head.

I do like your point about what's in a class in Vanilla. In years past, people have explained to me (and others who question the validity of a thief that can cast almost ALL mage spells) that a rogue used to be the original class of moria / angband way back when and that the mage-class sort of morphed off into its own class later on. I have no idea what the real reason is/was; I'm like you in that it is not what most DikuMud / D&D / other fantasy game players expect when they hear 'Rogue' / 'Thief'. Just because its always been this way does not mean we need to continue to have it that way. I don't buy that argument.

Rangers are ment to be "warrior-mages" that was the design all the way from moria days, the idea of a rogue was the ability to cast only the detection side and protection side of the mage spells, rogues are not warrior mages, to change this goes into variant territory, maybe you should try NPP, with right options it is similar to V but has some of features you seem to like.

[Spacebux]

Rangers are ment to be "warrior-mages" that was the design all the way from moria days, the idea of a rogue was the ability to cast only the detection side and protection side of the mage spells, rogues are not warrior mages, to change this goes into variant territory, maybe you should try NPP, with right options it is similar to V but has some of features you seem to like.

Yes, I've always thought 'Rangers', not 'Rogues', were the mix between Warriors and Mages--as per Gary Gygax's introduction of the class in the late 70s. But regardless, that's all history to me. Rogues are still synonymous with Thieves, in my mind. They ought to be doing / practicing thief-like skills. Not casting spells like a mage with muscles---that's a Ranger.

And, no, I'm not going to go off on variants to appease my wishes of what I want Vanilla to incorporate. I've tried O and looked at other variants in the past, but few are as enticing as V. Why? V is the variant I understand the most.. if I REALLY want to change something, I can pretend I'm a coder and go in and start messing with the code until I break it.

I did find and squash a bug with O a long time ago, but, the O-maintainer at that time, was AWOL... a secondary maintainer had to take the bug fix and insert it into the code.

My objective here is to give suggestions and have the developers hopefully ponder on them a good while... and start to implement one or more of them in the next couple of versions of the vanilla branch.

[Nick]

YMy objective here is to give suggestions and have the developers hopefully ponder on them a good while... and start to implement one or more of them in the next couple of versions of the vanilla branch.

...and the developers thank you for it. There are a great many things on my list for potential inclusion in V, with O-style rogues and stealth certainly being among them.

After the restructure is finished, of course.

[Estie]

Would the clutter be squelchable ?

[Spacebux]

Would the clutter be squelchable ?

I don't see why it wouldn't be.

[Timo Pietilä]

rogues and stealth certainly being among them.

IMO stealth is a skill that should increase with clvl. Not constant that can be changed only by equipment (and race/class selection).

Everyone should be rather stealthy at the high level, rogues, rangers and warriors perhaps most, but with way different starting stealth (warrior being worst of all classes at start, but quickly improving).

[Spacebux]

Pukelman 'g'

By the way, the pukelman description states that it does not resist acid, but, in game play, it does.

Now, in monster.txt, the mob description seems to be accurate... there is no IM_ACID flag.

N:276:Pukelman
plural:Pukelmen
T:golem
C:m
I:110:520:12:120:20
W:25:3:0:600
B:HIT:HURT:1d12
B:HIT:HURT:3d6
F:COLD_BLOOD
F:BASH_DOOR
F:HURT_ROCK | IM_COLD | IM_FIRE | IM_POIS
F:FORCE_SLEEP
S:1_IN_4
S:CONF | SLOW
S:BO_ACID
D:A stumpy figure carved from stone, with glittering eyes, this sentinel strides
D: towards you with deadly intent.

Yet, when you hit Pukelman with acid ball or acid bolt, in spells1.c, this condition is true for some reason... and, I'm not smert enuff to fynd itt.

if (rf_has(m_ptr->race->flags, RF_IM_ACID))
{
m_note = MON_MSG_RESIST_A_LOT;
dam /= 9;
}

I looked, and compared to earth elementals and iron golems, they both take damage from acid properly... and their flags / race type are quite similar to Pukelman. I don't get it... I just know not to trust the flags for Pukelman.

[Derakon]

May be that your monster memory is based off of an older version? That could be a subtle "savefile incompatibility" that got missed.

[Spacebux]

May be that your monster memory is based off of an older version? That could be a subtle "savefile incompatibility" that got missed.

New computer, new O.S., new d/l.

Can anyone else verify that pukelman's resisting acid?

Trust me, nothing would please me more than to blame Windoze 8.1 on this...

[Malak Darkhunter]

New computer, new O.S., new d/l.

Can anyone else verify that pukelman's resisting acid?

Trust me, nothing would please me more than to blame Windoze 8.1 on this...

Looking through my edit files, for me Pukelman dosen't have IM_ACID flag

however I did catch N:300 Colbran
has IM_POIS, however it dosen't have IM_ELEC and it should.

This next one is debatable but at N:350 and N:351 Fire Elementals have the HURT_COLD flag...but Water Elementals have the IM_FIRE Flag so I'm thinking that the IM_FIRE flag should be removed from the water elemental immunities to balance the 2 elementals out. "BUT" I'm also seeing that Water Elementals are not immune to Electricity, so that might actually balance out after all.

I have a HP DV7 laptop with Ubuntu LInux 14.04 by the way..using gedit to open .text files.