Ranger spells

[ewert]

Heck, rogues are probably the most balanced class at the moment. Not overpowering in end game, not underperforming in early game ... :P

[Magnate]

I always hated finding class-specific equipment in Diablo 2. It's absolutely useless to you unless you either play multiple characters and trade between them, or are on Battle.net and are willing to trade there. For solo play, finding a piece of equipment that's intended for a different class is equivalent to finding something you can't use, a.k.a. junk. Even if you limit the class specificity to only certain ego-items, that means you're modifying the game with the knowledge that you rendered a certain item useless (or at least not notably useful, which is functionally equivalent) to 5/6ths of all characters.

Remember that each class needs to be able to kill things. Death is the only feasible source of experience, and after all, the final goal of the game is to kill Morgoth, not to sneak past him. Rogues rely on melee for killing power; nerfing it will seriously reduce their feasibility as a class. Currently I don't think they're remotely unbalanced, so why hit them with a nerf bat?

+1. Some veterans consider the rogue the challenge class, even above the warrior. (Not me - I rely on stealth - but then I'm nowhere near the best players.)

Artifacts will in future have more "themes" available (great inspiration from code-diving Sangband on holiday), but no, they won't be class-specific. Except the dungeon spellbooks, of course. But they're junk to non-users whether they're artifacts or not.

[Timo Pietilä]

+1. Some veterans consider the rogue the challenge class, even above the warrior.

Whatdoyoumean "above the warrior"? Warrior is maybe third in easiness. Priest, Ranger, Warrior, then rest. Ranger is maybe fastest, priest easiest. "Even above the mage" could be better. Mage is difficult class even at clvl 50, because it has no decent healing and very low HP and classes with INT bonus usually don't have big CON bonus if at all (Dunadan and Hobbit make exceptions to rule, but hobbit suffers low STR and low hit die). Try something like elf warrior and then try elf mage to see what I'm talking about. You need +14 to CON to max HP with elf mage.

IMO stealth should mean more. Awake monsters should not be aware of player automatically like they are now. That would make huge difference in stealth.

[Magnate]

Whatdoyoumean "above the warrior"? Warrior is maybe third in easiness. Priest, Ranger, Warrior, then rest. Ranger is maybe fastest, priest easiest. "Even above the mage" could be better. Mage is difficult class even at clvl 50, because it has no decent healing and very low HP and classes with INT bonus usually don't have big CON bonus if at all (Dunadan and Hobbit make exceptions to rule, but hobbit suffers low STR and low hit die). Try something like elf warrior and then try elf mage to see what I'm talking about. You need +14 to CON to max HP with elf mage.

IMO stealth should mean more. Awake monsters should not be aware of player automatically like they are now. That would make huge difference in stealth.

You're preaching to the choir here - I agree with all this, but I was thinking of Eddie, who frequently notes how warriors are challenging as compared with casters. But yes, my personal play style has the classes easiest to hardest as ranger, rogue, paladin, warrior, priest, mage.

[Chud]

Remember that each class needs to be able to kill things. Death is the only feasible source of experience, and after all, the final goal of the game is to kill Morgoth, not to sneak past him.

True, good point. Though it would be amusing to be able to steal his Iron Crown from his head while he's still alive... :-)

Rogues rely on melee for killing power; nerfing it will seriously reduce their feasibility as a class. Currently I don't think they're remotely unbalanced, so why hit them with a nerf bat?

I don't think they're unbalanced, just not all that distinctive. I'm just sort of thinking out loud about how to make them a little more unique.

[will_asher]

I agree that more differentiation among classes would be good though. Rangers and rogues do not either of them need to be semi-mages; more diversity in the spell set could accomplish that. Rogues could have even better stealth, perhaps, but be seriously nerfed in combat even from where they are now, to create the sense of "you're a great sneaky thief but woe to you if you ever get caught at it." Rangers can have their phenomenal archery, but again, weaken their melee to match; if anything manages to close with them then the ranger is suddenly in big trouble.

Remember that each class needs to be able to kill things. Death is the only feasible source of experience, and after all, the final goal of the game is to kill Morgoth, not to sneak past him. Rogues rely on melee for killing power; nerfing it will seriously reduce their feasibility as a class. Currently I don't think they're remotely unbalanced, so why hit them with a nerf bat?

Someone asked me a while back why I have three rogue-like classes in DaJAngband (rogue, thief, and assassin), but I made them with distinct strengths and weaknesses. The rogue is best fighter of them and the worst at magic (thought he still gets useful ones like detect monsters, detect traps, and blink among his first few spells -chance magic realm), but he is slightly less stealthy than the V rogue. The thief is better at his particular brand of magic (alchemy realm), is the most stealthy, and gets intrinsic speed, but is much worse at fighting and some skills. The assassin is as stealthy as the rogue, worse at fighting than the rogue but better than the thief. He is pretty good with magic, but his type of magic is quite different from the thief's (black magic realm).
Also, the thief is considered a non-combat class, meaning I'm going to give them the alternate ways of getting XP along with the tourist, at the same time further weakening his combat. I hoping to have killing monsters not be the only feasible source of XP for the thief and tourist.
Rangers and archers are two different classes in DJA (unlike V). The archer gets very few spells and most of them are directly related to archery. The Ranger is cross between an archer and a druid. He is good with bows, but doesn't get extra shots (or any other extrodinary archery advantages...).

[Pete Mack]

They are boring. Period.

Stealth isn't that important. It is important, but not that important. H-Troll warrior manages just fine and doesn't have huge stealth (IMO all warriors should have higher stealth than spellcasters).

Speaking only for yourself, of course. I find Rogue to be possibly the most interesting class of all. It's well balanced, and potentially very powerful. But only if you play it right.

[Timo Pietilä]

Speaking only for yourself, of course. I find Rogue to be possibly the most interesting class of all. It's well balanced, and potentially very powerful. But only if you play it right.

What's interesting in it? It has mediocre spellcasting, mediocre fighting, mediocre archery, mediocre level gain, mediocre HP, mediocre stats, mediocre everything except stealth. It has nothing special to it, not even drawbacks or weaknesses.

I don't say it could not be powerful. Powerful is not interesting. Every class can be powerful, I just find Rogue most boring. Or Paladin. Not sure which is more boring. Maybe Rogue, because Paladin at least has same drawback as Priest early: no detecting non-evil monsters until you have Godly Insights.

[Derakon]

Rogue is second-best in melee by the endgame (paladins start out better, but their per-level gains aren't as strong). They're third in archery, well behind rangers and warriors but also decently ahead of everyone else. Naturally they're tops in stealth. Their saving throw is average (tied with ranger), they're good at devices (ditto), and they have the second-best hit die (tied with paladin). Frankly they're better than paladins in almost every way -- unless you like the paladin spellset better than the rogue's.

Rogues certainly don't match their namesake, which typically implies a fast-moving, hard-hitting but fragile character. They're more magical thugs that know how to walk quietly than they are assassins.

[Timo Pietilä]

Rogue is second-best in melee by the endgame (paladins start out better, but their per-level gains aren't as strong). They're third in archery, well behind rangers and warriors but also decently ahead of everyone else. Naturally they're tops in stealth. Their saving throw is average (tied with ranger), they're good at devices (ditto), and they have the second-best hit die (tied with paladin). Frankly they're better than paladins in almost every way -- unless you like the paladin spellset better than the rogue's.

It is not matter of which is better. Which is more interesting, that's the question. Warrior doesn't have spellcasting at all, which makes it interesting. Priests and mages have crippled melee and bad archery, but have excellent spellcasting to compensate. Ranger has archery. Rogue and Paladin has nothing, though I find paladin to have a bit more personality (but still boring anyway).

[Derakon]

I was just refuting the "mediocre everything" claims you were making. It may not be best in anything except stealth, but it is a strong second in a few important areas. I recognize this doesn't necessarily make the class interesting for you to play.

[Timo Pietilä]

I was just refuting the "mediocre everything" claims you were making. It may not be best in anything except stealth, but it is a strong second in a few important areas. I recognize this doesn't necessarily make the class interesting for you to play.

From your list:

"Second best at fighting" is a minuscule difference to paladin and ranger, both have same amount of blows and can hit the target often enough with paladin having benefit of much better healing and ranger having ability to cast rune of protection: mediocre.

Third in archery, which means two in front, three in behind:mediocre

Saving throw is par with ranger which leads paladin and priest ahead of it (WIS being spellcasting stat, and affecting saving throw) and tied at third place with ranger with ranger having higher WIS and mage and warrior behind them (mage gains only 0.9 / level with two point difference at beginning, so after clvl 20 rogue and ranger are in par with it, except that mage has two points more WIS than rogue):mediocre

Devices are worse than mage, tied with ranger with weaker INT and just a teeny bit better than paladin and priest with warrior being far behind everybody else, which puts it again in middle of the group:mediocre

Second best hit-die tied with paladin, but with worse CON, which puts rogue behind paladin in that which again means two in front, three in behind:mediocre.

Actually the only real benefit rogue has is disarming. For that it is way ahead of any other class. Problem is that for that most classes get a spell. Stealth +2 above others can be too easily countered by equipment to be real benefit.

So: it is mediocre at everything that counts something. It is not excellent at anything that counts something or bad at anything that counts. Basically it is weaker, more boring version of ranger. Or just plain boring.

[ewert]

Or the class that varies the most per game! Rogue play experience varies lots, and as I said earlier, IMHO it has the most balanced start/mid/endgame experience.

Different folks, different strokes. So why on earth is this going on so long ...

[Timo Pietilä]

Different folks, different strokes. So why on earth is this going on so long ...

Probably because people are saying to me that rogue (and paladin) are OK, and I'm trying to tell that they are not, and why they are not (which point apparently most have not got).

It's not about balance. Or if they are good or bad. It is about them being boring. They are balanced, but they are also boring.

They need something that is "their own", like warrior not being able to use spells, or rangers archery or pure spellcasters zero failure spellcasting with crippled fighting. Something. Penalty or advantage, I don't care.

[ewert]

Probably because people are saying to me that rogue (and paladin) are OK, and I'm trying to tell that they are not, and why they are not (which point apparently most have not got).

It's not about balance. Or if they are good or bad. It is about them being boring. They are balanced, but they are also boring.

They need something that is "their own", like warrior not being able to use spells, or rangers archery or pure spellcasters zero failure spellcasting with crippled fighting. Something. Penalty or advantage, I don't care.

And you don't seem to get that many of us think they are not boring, and that they have their own niche. For me, rogue is the great combo of utility magespells + more fighting ability. And paladins are just awesomesauce, stronger melee and good priest spell selection, wicked.

I'd actually say RANGERs are the boring class, in my opinion of course. =P Because I prefer rogues to rangers ... But you see where this is going: different strokes for different folks.