Warrior buffing suggestion

[bron]

I had a random Idea I'd like to run up the flagpole: warriors have a hard time of it in Angband, and I would propose that they be allowed to do even more damage in melee than they do now. I see two possibilities that I like:

(1) Add +1 to the "slay" modifier. Thus, a normal attack would do 2x damage (rather than 1x), while an acid branded attack would do 4x (rather than 3x).

(2) Add to the *base* damage of an attack; essentially, give warriors extra dice on their weapon. While double seems too much, about 50% seems right.

Both schemes would strongly encourage warriors to carry very heavy weapons, which seems in-character. Note that both schemes are the same with a Slay Evil weapon (i.e. damage*3 is the same as (1.5*damage)*2).

Both are easy to implement: in the routine py_attack, between the lines
...
k = damroll(o_ptr->dd, o_ptr->ds);
k *= use_mult
...
you just add either "++use_mult" or "k *= 1.5" with a suitable "if" condition.

Admittedly this does not address the many other inequities warriors have to put up with in the game. But it bugs me that a warrior does not intrinsically do more damage when they hit with their weapon than any other class. Yes they get more blows, and get them sooner, but the hit itself is just the same.

[d_m]

I'm not sure this will make melee more favorable for warriors than ranged combat, but I do agree that either change will promote heavier weapons and give warriors a nice edge. I think I am partial to (1).

I may try this change locally for awhile and see how it plays.

EDIT: To be slightly less terse, I think the biggest reason to favor ranged or melee isn't damage-per-100-energy, but rather the terrible side effects and damage of being in monster melee range.

[bron]

the terrible side effects and damage of being in monster melee range.

Agreed. But that's sort of the way I personally think it should be: warriors should be able to do tremendous amounts of damage, but they have to get up close and personal to do it.

[Derakon]

I actually think warriors deal enough damage in melee. Their problem is dealing with being in melee range of monsters. So rather than boost their melee output, I'd suggest looking for ways to boost their defensive abilities. For example, boosting their hitdice even more would mean that they could potentially survive multiple breath attacks without having to retreat and heal, and would also mean they would be more likely to survive being surprised by an undetected nasty. Giving them improved AC from their armor (e.g. multiply their AC by 1.2 or something) would make them harder to hit and mean they'd take less damage. Maybe they could use their shields as cover to reduce incoming breath/spell damage, causing them to favor larger shields with greater coverage.

The elephant in the room, though, is the one Eddie outlined awhile back -- inventory damage is absolutely brutal for warriors since most of their gear is vulnerable -- scrolls, potions, staves, and low-level rods can all be destroyed or drained with frequently no effective recourse aside from avoiding melee, which runs counter to the general concept of the warrior.

[Magnate]

I actually think warriors deal enough damage in melee. Their problem is dealing with being in melee range of monsters. So rather than boost their melee output, I'd suggest looking for ways to boost their defensive abilities. For example, boosting their hitdice even more would mean that they could potentially survive multiple breath attacks without having to retreat and heal, and would also mean they would be more likely to survive being surprised by an undetected nasty. Giving them improved AC from their armor (e.g. multiply their AC by 1.2 or something) would make them harder to hit and mean they'd take less damage. Maybe they could use their shields as cover to reduce incoming breath/spell damage, causing them to favor larger shields with greater coverage.

The elephant in the room, though, is the one Eddie outlined awhile back -- inventory damage is absolutely brutal for warriors since most of their gear is vulnerable -- scrolls, potions, staves, and low-level rods can all be destroyed or drained with frequently no effective recourse aside from avoiding melee, which runs counter to the general concept of the warrior.

I'm convinced that the answer to this is Sangband's blanket of protection: how many warrior players would NOT give up one inv slot to make all the others invulnerable? (If we had NPP store services, we could make Fireproof Pack and Acidproof Pack available as services.)

Now that resistance protects against elemental inventory damage, things should be a little less grim. If we make rdisen give some protection against charge draining, that would help too. I'm not in favour of boosting warrior hp as I think that has too many balance implications, but I would support boosting their effective AC, perhaps 10% at cl1 and 20% at cl30 or something. We could also change the cap so that warriors can absorb e.g. 75% of damage through armour instead of the 60% that other classes can. Having said that, the vast majority of attack types are not reduced by armour, and this is something I think should be reviewed in any case but particularly for warriors.

[TJS]

I'm convinced that the answer to this is Sangband's blanket of protection: how many warrior players would NOT give up one inv slot to make all the others invulnerable? (If we had NPP store services, we could make Fireproof Pack and Acidproof Pack available as services.)

Now that resistance protects against elemental inventory damage, things should be a little less grim. If we make rdisen give some protection against charge draining, that would help too. I'm not in favour of boosting warrior hp as I think that has too many balance implications, but I would support boosting their effective AC, perhaps 10% at cl1 and 20% at cl30 or something. We could also change the cap so that warriors can absorb e.g. 75% of damage through armour instead of the 60% that other classes can. Having said that, the vast majority of attack types are not reduced by armour, and this is something I think should be reviewed in any case but particularly for warriors.

I'm not sure I like the idea of giving classes extra abilities at certain character levels, because it makes the game even more impenetrable to new players. Perhaps you could just increase the warriors carrying capacity a bit so he is more likely to carry heavier armour when he finds it.

[Magnate]

I'm not sure I like the idea of giving classes extra abilities at certain character levels, because it makes the game even more impenetrable to new players. Perhaps you could just increase the warriors carrying capacity a bit so he is more likely to carry heavier armour when he finds it.

Ah you see I feel exactly the opposite: IMO there aren't enough things that happen when you level up - it's the second main reason to play O or S instead of V, because you get all sorts of cool abilities at higher levels. At the moment warriors get rfear at cl30 and, er, that's it. Apart from ranger shots, it's all about spells.

[ewert]

The +slay is something I toyed about mentally during the ranger +shots discussions, but as said I don't either think that warrior dmg is the issue (ranged damage is, damagewise). Now these:

rDis giving chargedrain protection (atleast some high amount, like 80% if not full)
+% AC for warriors

I think those could be put in very quickly into the game for testing with the nightlies, great changes.

Then the issue of protecting inventory items, npp-like store services *drool*, blanket hmm mmkay but well ... it's just AGAIN one more -1 slot for warriors, whereas ranged classes can do well without it (and warriors pay much more slots as is). So I'd definitely prefer npp-storeservices, fire/acid/elec/cold proofing items, gives uses for cash too in endgame.

[TJS]

Ah you see I feel exactly the opposite: IMO there aren't enough things that happen when you level up - it's the second main reason to play O or S instead of V, because you get all sorts of cool abilities at higher levels. At the moment warriors get rfear at cl30 and, er, that's it. Apart from ranger shots, it's all about spells.

I think Angband suffers quite a bit from breakpoints. For example 12-18 dex not making much difference and then suddenly 18/10 being miles better. I see giving classes extra abilities at certain arbitrary points (like rFear for warriors and extra shots for rangers) as a similar problem. It is yet another thing that new players have to learn.

The fact that certain abilities are updated only every ten levels is another of these weird breakpoints that you can only really learn from spoilers.

I like the idea of abilities slowly improving as they level up, rather than saying "right well warriors are a bit underpowered at lvl 30 so lets give them rFear".

[Magnate]

I think Angband suffers quite a bit from breakpoints. For example 12-18 dex not making much difference and then suddenly 18/10 being miles better. I see giving classes extra abilities at certain arbitrary points (like rFear for warriors and extra shots for rangers) as a similar problem. It is yet another thing that new players have to learn.

The fact that certain abilities are updated only every ten levels is another of these weird breakpoints that you can only really learn from spoilers.

I like the idea of abilities slowly improving as they level up, rather than saying "right well warriors are a bit underpowered at lvl 30 so lets give them rFear".

I completely agree that smooth progression is much better than breakpoints. My issue is simply that I think more things ought to progress with clev - smoothly if possible. When I have a go at fractional blows (which might not be too long now), I might try having energy-per-blow decrease with clev, from the starting value in the blows table. Since a single point of energy is quite a small amount (1% of a standard turn), we have quite fine-grained control.

The problem with most breakpoints in Angband is integer arithmetic: the difference between +1 of something and +2 is huge (Ben Harrison changed the speed system for this reason, way back in 2.7.x). Moving to fractional blows (and reworking shots) will be another step away from that (while still using integer maths, of course).

I also quite like the variant approach of % resistance (can't remember where it first appeared - O? Ey?), but that's something Takkaria hasn't embraced yet IIRC...

[TJS]

I completely agree that smooth progression is much better than breakpoints. My issue is simply that I think more things ought to progress with clev - smoothly if possible. When I have a go at fractional blows (which might not be too long now), I might try having energy-per-blow decrease with clev, from the starting value in the blows table. Since a single point of energy is quite a small amount (1% of a standard turn), we have quite fine-grained control.

The problem with most breakpoints in Angband is integer arithmetic: the difference between +1 of something and +2 is huge (Ben Harrison changed the speed system for this reason, way back in 2.7.x). Moving to fractional blows (and reworking shots) will be another step away from that (while still using integer maths, of course).

I also quite like the variant approach of % resistance (can't remember where it first appeared - O? Ey?), but that's something Takkaria hasn't embraced yet IIRC...

A change to the way resistance is handled will come in eventually I imagine, it will just take years of arguing before people finally accept it. The current way resistance is handled is bonkers when you think about it. If Angband was being designed now noone would choose to design it that way.

By the way, how come integer arithmetic is still being used? Is it too difficult to change or just that people have gradually grown to like it?

Something that would boost warriors especially early on is the ability to have a chance to get the extra blow with a weapon before the extra blow is guaranteed. So a starting warrior might get 1 blow with a long sword and an 80% chance of another one.

This could apply to all classes, but I think it would be more useful for warriors.

Another idea is to boost AC damage reduction and make the penalty for casters wearing heavy armour much higher.

[Magnate]

By the way, how come integer arithmetic is still being used? Is it too difficult to change or just that people have gradually grown to like it?

The simple answer is 130,000 lines of code. It's the same reason the help files are out-of-date: it's a job nobody wants to do.

Something that would boost warriors especially early on is the ability to have a chance to get the extra blow with a weapon before the extra blow is guaranteed. So a starting warrior might get 1 blow with a long sword and an 80% chance of another one.

The concept we call "fractional blows" is more consistent than this. At the moment you get an integer number of blows in return for spending one turn, which is 100 energy. If we move from "how many blows for 100 energy" to "how much energy for a single blow", we don't need any percentage chance. So your low level warrior might get down to, say, 80 energy per blow, which is the equivalent of 1.25 blows per turn, but would manifest itself in getting two blows every fourth turn. This is currently how extra shots work: +1 shot means a shot costs 50 energy, +2 means they cost 33 etc. You can tell that extra shots were added as an afterthought, because they are the only mechanic that works like this. Everything else takes 100 energy (there is some other exception like refueling a lamp or something, but it's not crucial). Personally I think there is a world of possibility here: I think casters should get reduced casting times, like 100+slev-clev ... I also think that warriors and paladins should get smaller energy-per-blow with heavy weapons, and rogues with light weapons.

Another idea is to boost AC damage reduction and make the penalty for casters wearing heavy armour much higher.

This would need a lot of balancing, as mana availability is a critical issue for casters, and armour already reduces straight melee damage by up to 60%. I think it would be sensible to extend some element of damage reduction to most (but not all) other attack types, rather than increase the 60% for normal hits. Hits like burn, freeze, electrify should have *some* element of reduction for armour, albeit not 60%. This is the flip side of them not being completely negated by immunities, which was mentioned in another thread.

[buzzkill]

I'm not sure I like the idea of giving classes extra abilities at certain character levels, because it makes the game even more impenetrable to new players. Perhaps you could just increase the warriors carrying capacity a bit so he is more likely to carry heavier armour when he finds it.

Better yet, reduce the burden of heavy armours if they are being worn and if you're of an appropriate class (maybe race could figure in a little too).

So, when a paladin dons his plate mail, it suddenly weighs only half as much. Dwarves probably have a proclivity for wearing heavy armour, elves less so.

[Jungle_Boy]

Ah you see I feel exactly the opposite: IMO there aren't enough things that happen when you level up - it's the second main reason to play O or S instead of V, because you get all sorts of cool abilities at higher levels. At the moment warriors get rfear at cl30 and, er, that's it. Apart from ranger shots, it's all about spells.

I am defnitely in favor of more and more varied abilities being given out as you level up. I think this is a great opportunity to further differentiate the classes which I think almost everyone is in favor of. It would be trivial to mention what abilities are earned in the context sensitive birth text that was mentioned in another thread.

[Derakon]

So from what I'm hearing:

* A +1% AC per level (or per every other level) for warriors might help them survive in melee range a bit
* Some form of armor-based mitigation for non-physical attacks would increase the emphasis on AC, which again warriors would be more suited to boosting
* Moving to fractional blows will certainly help them deal with packs (per my experience in games that have fractional blows)
* Blankets of inventory protection would be helpful but cost a precious-to-warriors slot; NPP-style services to immunize your pack would also help but would effectively negate inventory damage for everyone past the mid-late game (unless I misunderstand how they work).

The fact that resistances can now reduce the chance of inventory damage helps a bit, but it's no panacea. If you have a monster hitting you with a burning melee attack that deals less than 30 damage after resistances, then that's a 1% chance for destruction for every vulnerable item in your inventory, per hit. Maybe it was a 2% chance before the change, but I doubt the hit dealt more than 60 damage (the cutoff for 3%). Let's say you suffer four hits before you manage to kill the monster. That's a combined 3.5% chance for each vulnerable item in your inventory to be destroyed; may not sound high, but it's high enough that you'll still want to ditch your staffs and important scrolls beforehand -- or use archery.

Do we want to just give warriors more inventory slots than the other classes get?