repartitioning spells mage vs priest

[Atarlost]

In context of the game "staves" is just the plural form of "staff". So I think Gandalf's staff does count.

I know about pluralization. Staff in Angband, though, means something very specific that Gandalf's staff is not.

Gandalf's staff is not an activateable device with a fixed effect and a finite number of charges, or even an activateable device with a fixed effect and an unlimited number of uses. It's a wieldable item, presumably a weapon though I'm not sure if he ever struck anyone with it, that enhances or focuses his ability to do magic. He uses it for multiple effects and also does magic without using it directly. In Angband terms a wizard's staff is a quarterstaff with an int and/or wis bonus, not a staff, wand, or rod.

[buzzkill]

I think that all use of something should go together. So if you know fire, you know fire offense [say fireballs] and fire defense [say resist fire]. If you agree priests should get the neutralize poison spell, which IMO is clearcut, then I think they should get all poison magic.

Priests could 'cause wounds' instead of using poison. The effect would be similar and it wouldn't be (so widely) resistible.

IMO, the priests spell arsenal should be largely effective ONLY against evil creatures and that priests should have to rely on conventional combat, magic items, and evasion to deal with the rest.

Off topic, but I don't think that I'd object to anti-evil items being slightly more powerful in the hands of a priest.

[TJS]

Off topic, but I'd like to see warriors with a couple of spells that they can use as well.

[Derakon]

Warriors with spells wouldn't be warriors. However, you could conceivably give warriors some spell-like abilities. Awhile back I wrote up some ideas geared towards ToME, some of which could be adapted to Vanilla. Basically these would be combat techniques that require some HP to use and have a cooldown timer so you can't spam them. They'd let you do things like knock enemies back, throw them, attack multiple foes simultaneously, inflict slow/stun with a single powerful attack, etc. The problem being solved (that warriors don't have nearly as many options in a fight as mages do) isn't nearly so pronounced in Vanilla as it is in ToME, though, largely because Vanilla winners have a much smaller kill count than ToME winners do.

[fyonn]

In Angband terms a wizard's staff is a quarterstaff with an int and/or wis bonus, not a staff, wand, or rod.

A bit like

the Quarterstaff of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olorin"]Olorin[/URL]  (2d9) (+10,+13)
+4 intelligence, wisdom, charisma.
Slays evil creatures, orcs, trolls.
*Slays* demons.
Branded with flames.
Provides resistance to fire, nether.
Cannot be harmed by acid, electricity, fire, cold.
Sustains your life force.  Grants the ability to see invisible things.

then?

dave

[Magnate]

This will be kind of long, but I hope relevant. Executive summary: I think a fundamental rethink is a good idea (even if it doesn't result in a lot of change), and I suggest adding classes to V.
...
I also think that there would be a lot of good and very little bad in including new classes. NPP has introduced Druids, and that (together with a modification to Rangers) might be a good first step for V. Obviously I like the FA classes, but there are other models available (DaJ, Z, ToME for example).

I've thought about this for a long time, and the only real drawback is that V then looks a lot like O or FA (or NPP, depending on the route taken). I think the original classes are quite a lot of what makes V what it is. I'm not particularly conservative, but I'd rather see how well a complete reworking of mage and priest spell realms went before introducing any new ones. I think all five V caster classes could do with rebalanced spell lists, and that would be a pretty radical change.

The main reason I think this is because I can't think of any better additional realms and classes than O's Druid, Necro and Assassin - and if I want to play those, I'll play O or FA.

[Atarlost]

A bit like

the Quarterstaff of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olorin"]Olorin[/URL]  (2d9) (+10,+13)
+4 intelligence, wisdom, charisma.
Slays evil creatures, orcs, trolls.
*Slays* demons.
Branded with flames.
Provides resistance to fire, nether.
Cannot be harmed by acid, electricity, fire, cold.
Sustains your life force.  Grants the ability to see invisible things.

then?

dave

There are no staves in Tolkien's writings as the game uses the term. The only stick Gandalf carried was his staff, represented in game by the quarterstaff of Olorin.

Yes, I said that.

[Nick]

The main reason I think this is because I can't think of any better additional realms and classes than O's Druid, Necro and Assassin - and if I want to play those, I'll play O or FA.

Promises, promises

I agree with this - a big part of the reason I based FA on O was because the classes were so good. I don't think adding new classes to V would make it an O-clone, though - the two big differences of combat system and 4GAI would remain. In fact, you could probably add 4GAI to V as well (as in NPP 0.4.x) and it still wouldn't feel much like O. And I also don't think adding new classes would detract from V at all - after all, Kobolds as a race were added without breaking it. But certainly a rethink first would not hurt.

[fyonn]

Warriors with spells wouldn't be warriors. However, you could conceivably give warriors some spell-like abilities. Awhile back I wrote up some ideas geared towards ToME, some of which could be adapted to Vanilla. Basically these would be combat techniques that require some HP to use and have a cooldown timer so you can't spam them. They'd let you do things like knock enemies back, throw them, attack multiple foes simultaneously, inflict slow/stun with a single powerful attack, etc. The problem being solved (that warriors don't have nearly as many options in a fight as mages do) isn't nearly so pronounced in Vanilla as it is in ToME, though, largely because Vanilla winners have a much smaller kill count than ToME winners do.

I would imagine that if such "fighting techniques" were to be made available, then they should be available to everyone, just that warriors would be really good, rangers not bad, rogues alright and mages and priests terrible.

such techniques could be implemented a bit like "casting a fighting spell" from book z or something. It might also be a way to implement the oft suggested rogue's backstab ability too?

so most of the techniques could be available to the warrior (perhaps not backstab, just for rogues), most to the ranger and paladin (also accomplished warriors, but not as good). rogue would get many but not some of the advanced ones and mages and priests would get the basic ones.

but do we have enough useful techniques to consider such a path?

dave

[fyonn]

I think that all use of something should go together. So if you know fire, you know fire offense [say fireballs] and fire defense [say resist fire]. If you agree priests should get the neutralize poison spell, which IMO is clearcut, then I think they should get all poison magic.

We are not talking about putting venom [mushroom or potion or whatever] on arrows as you can do in S. That is entirely physical, and has nothing to do with magely or priestly magic.

It is also a nice way to separate the realms. Why should mages get *all* of the resistances? The basic 4 are tied together by having pack destruction effects. Poison has no destruction effect, and is the only one that does continuing damage. It splits nicely IMO.

BTW -- I think that ball spells should affect the caster. If you want to cast fireballs about, you should cast fire immunity on yourself first. Offense and defense should be intertwined. Just IMO, perhaps for some future variant, but this kind of thinking clearly influences what I think is reasonable above.

I agree with several points here. priests getting stinking cloud (and cloudkill?) seems sensible, and actually, perhaps the priests "elemental brand" could become "poison brand"?

I also agree that ball spells cast at point blank range should cause damage if appropriate. so a fireball would cause damage, thirded if the player has resistance and none if immune. Not sure if this should apply to OoD as well though. I think we assume the priest is not evil so it shouldn't be the max amount, perhaps a smaller amount?

dave

[Atarlost]

Hang on, there are people saying OoD is too offensive a spell for priests and you're suggesting giving them stinking cloud? What are mages and rangers supposed to use for crowd control in the early game?

[fyonn]

Hang on, there are people saying OoD is too offensive a spell for priests and you're suggesting giving them stinking cloud? What are mages and rangers supposed to use for crowd control in the early game?

well, I'm not suggesting that priests lose OoD, but some are suggesting that poison should be more for priests than mages. if so, then the poison attacks should be considered to be moved at least. Not saying we should, just that it should be considered.

dave

[PowerDiver]

Hang on, there are people saying OoD is too offensive a spell for priests and you're suggesting giving them stinking cloud? What are mages and rangers supposed to use for crowd control in the early game?

Anything you like. Mini-manastorm doing 6 or mini-fireball doing 12 points in the center would be fine. How about snowstorm? Whatever.

OTOH, I wouldn't oppose nothing at all. Let them carry wands of stinking cloud or learn to evade. I've been playing dwarf mages a lot recently, and the low int means somewhat limited spell selection early, so I don't even bother to learn stinking cloud until well after I have teleport self. I manage just fine without it.

[Derakon]

Personally, the idea of priests having poison attack spells seems really weird. I don't have a problem with one class knowing how to use an element offensively and another knowing how to use it defensively. They both have knowledge of the element, which they've chosen to apply in different ways.

[miyazaki]

Personally, the idea of priests having poison attack spells seems really weird. I don't have a problem with one class knowing how to use an element offensively and another knowing how to use it defensively. They both have knowledge of the element, which they've chosen to apply in different ways.

Call it pestilence. It may not be strickly Tolkein-esque but there is a fairly strong connection between holy men and illness/poison.

Priests are full on contradictions anyway: You can smash the brains out of an enemy with a maul but can't use a sword?!?