Question about diving

[buzzkill]

If we're going to hold onto the legacy D&D 3-18 point (plus) stat system, then these stats should somehow roughly correlate to their usefulness in D&D. Assuming this is unacceptable, not enough granularity (which I don't necessarily agree with), I'd think that possibly moving to a simple to understand 1-100 point system, with 50 being average, would work. Beyond that, a better curve needs to be used. Perfect stats should be nearly unattainable, and entirely unattainable without significant equipment boosts. The whole game seems to revolve around stat potions rather than character leveling, which seems wrong.

I'd also advocate removing point based character creation because I see it as being half the problem, but I know that it would be wildly unpopular.

[Timo Pietilä]

I completely agree with this.

When I started playing Angband the stat system made no sense to me at all.

I thought that increasing stats greater than 18 had less of an effect than increasing them up to 18. Of course the opposite is in fact true.

My preferred solution would be to remove stat gain potions entirely and cap your stats much lower, possibly at 18. It would remove the boring stat gain part of the game and make end game characters have much more variety.

Stats go currently from 3 to 40. You need space to improve a lot more than go lower, so lowering stat cap makes no sense whatsoever. However few last points of stat should not have the biggest impact, it should be more like gauss curve where biggest impact happens in half-way thru IE at 21-22 (18/30 - 18/40) and then steadily decrease in impact toward higher values.

IMO currently character development plays too small part in game. You improve your stats and gear, not char. Stat impact in different aspects of game should be lowered and character level mean more. Skills should play bigger role. I believe it would be perfectly possible to kill Morgoth with maxed stat, excellent gear clvl1 warrior if you could get your HP high enough without gaining levels. Gaining levels should mean more than just few points of HP and possibly some new spell.

My ultimate game would be cross-breed of Sangband, NPP and vanilla. 4GAI from NPP, o-combat and skills from sangband and general simplicity from vanilla. Add in darker feeling and difficulty from frog-knows and you have pretty perfect game.

[TJS]

Have you ever had your deep CL50 mage drained to an INT of 18? Spellcasting is pointless. If you want to kill anything substantial, or any noticeable number of foes, you are better off hitting them with an ego shovel. Trust me, I did that. A CL50 mage with 18 INT in D&D with the 3-18 scale is a god. The 18s in the different systems aren't remotely comparable.

I completely agree with this.

When I started playing Angband the stat system made no sense to me at all.

I thought that increasing stats greater than 18 had less of an effect than increasing them up to 18. Of course the opposite is in fact true.

My preferred solution would be to remove stat gain potions entirely and cap your stats much lower, possibly at 18. It would remove the boring stat gain part of the game and make end game characters have much more variety.

[fizzix]

It means that you have about 25% capability towards spellcasting. You have 2 mana/level on a 0 to 8 scale, and you have 10 spellcasting skill on a -5 to 57 scale.

Just wanted to highlight this. Personally I think this is bad. Although I'm not sure if the better solution is to reduce the scale or increase the abilities at 18. Maybe some from each column.

[pampl]

In old D&D...no.

This is sort of a silly tangent, but you're wrong. Any campaign that showers artifacts on players and has them fighting demi-gods and a god is going to have house rules keeping track of the ludicrous power. The rule suggestion limiting stats to 25 is small potatoes next to the rule limiting artifacts to 1/party.

[PowerDiver]

It's also not fair to say "divide an Angband stat by 2 to get a D&D score." Nope, not close in any edition. For scores up to 18, the scores are actually roughly comparable...quite comparable for 3rd Ed D&D.

Why would you say that 18 is comparable? Way back when I played, I read something about 19 simply being unobtainable. If the rules got twisted somehow to produce a 19, you were expected to undo them. A stat of 18 meant that you were as capable as allowed. That was the genesis of the ridiculous 18/xx scale for str.

In angband, even 18/50 spellstat is pathetic. It means that you have about 25% capability towards spellcasting. You have 2 mana/level on a 0 to 8 scale, and you have 10 spellcasting skill on a -5 to 57 scale. Perhaps it should correspond to an 9 on the old 3 to 18 scale. I could see as high as 14. It sure doesn't belong any higher than that IMO.

Have you ever had your deep CL50 mage drained to an INT of 18? Spellcasting is pointless. If you want to kill anything substantial, or any noticeable number of foes, you are better off hitting them with an ego shovel. Trust me, I did that. A CL50 mage with 18 INT in D&D with the 3-18 scale is a god. The 18s in the different systems aren't remotely comparable.

[Tiburon Silverflame]

If there were a D&D campaign that let the player wear near a dozen artifacts and kill a god and a demi-god, then I wouldn't be surprised that it had to keep track of attributes going up to 40

In old D&D...no. In 3rd edition, 40's possible for 1 ability score.

It's also not fair to say "divide an Angband stat by 2 to get a D&D score." Nope, not close in any edition. For scores up to 18, the scores are actually roughly comparable...quite comparable for 3rd Ed D&D. And even at the high end...a 3rd Ed D&D 40 means a helluva lot.

A big difference is that D&D uses spell slots for standard casters, NOT mana. But there's no way to roll up low-level, low-power spell slots to get something actually usable, so when you can cast high-powered spells, those low-powered slots are fundamentally meaningless. In Angband, the situation is akin to when you get Raal's...all the damage spells in the basic spellbooks pretty much stop being used. BUT, since you have a mana pool, the "mana resources" that powered them, are completely "converted" to powering the better spells. 3rd Ed D&D psionics DOES use mana, so a 40 Int psion DOES get a massive boost, like the Angband character.

[d_m]

Thanks for the info, guys. I am indeed playing 3.2 and wasn't aware of some of the changes. I'll definitely put some of that oil to use. I also didn't realize how weak the short bow is. Looks like I should just sell the thing.

Keep in mind that if you find arrows +3/+3 your bow suddenly starts looking a lot better. I'd probably hang onto it but just upgrade as soon as I could.

[Wraitheist]

Thanks for the info, guys. I am indeed playing 3.2 and wasn't aware of some of the changes. I'll definitely put some of that oil to use. I also didn't realize how weak the short bow is. Looks like I should just sell the thing.

[Derakon]

Always like this. High-elf and gnome mages have always had a significant advantage over their peers because they can start with 18/50 INT, which gets them extra mana.

Frankly, given that the ultimate goal of the game is to kill a god, I have no problem with our heroes being superhuman, even at the start of the game. Just assume that the setting is sometime like the Greek golden age, when heroes were thick on the ground.

[buzzkill]

A D&D mage with an int of 18 is happy. An angband mage with an int of 18 is a dunce.

Was Angband always like this, or did stats become inflated along with everything else?

[PowerDiver]

I'm not sure it's a matter of disagreement so much as it being factually incorrect.

A D&D mage with an int of 18 is happy. An angband mage with an int of 18 is a dunce.

[pampl]

As to the exact numbers, who knows, and things are further confused by my belief that the correct way to interpret stats is to divide by two before considering them in a D&D framework, and I'm sure plenty of players will disagree with that viewpoint.

I'm not sure it's a matter of disagreement so much as it being factually incorrect. It's impossible to start with stats high enough to be a ranger or paladin under that system, and other characters would be lucky to start with a 10 or 11 in their prime requisite, something which never happens in D&D. It would also mean girdles of giant strength are more powerful than any artifact in Angband

If there were a D&D campaign that let the player wear near a dozen artifacts and kill a god and a demi-god, then I wouldn't be surprised that it had to keep track of attributes going up to 40

[Derakon]

"Realistically", crossbows would come with winches to reload them which could be used even by weak characters, but would slow reloading down. Longbows as you say would require high strength to use. But I'm not convinced that moving to such a change would be good gameplay. Best I'd consider would be having a damage/accuracy penalty for not being strong enough, much like there's the "just lifting" mode for when you're too weak to lift your melee weapon.

[PowerDiver]

So what's the point of the branding change in the first place?

Someone got a new toy, the ability to put branding in new places, and went crazy with it. It makes sense to change from 2d6 to 1d4 * 3 so that fire-based creatures take less damage AFAIAC.

IMO an unenchanted longbow should be more lethal than thrown oil, but that's not important to me. I see the oil vs longbow as being about whether you can afford the longbow. For a starting char, even a price of 150 on a longbow might put it out of reach, so you spend your last 40 AU on 10 oil. If you want the oil to do more, it really ought to have a max range of 2 or 3, and I'd prefer 2.

As for the shortbow vs longbow distinction, i.e. why would anyone ever use a shortbow, I have 2 ideas. It would not bother me if there was a minimum height to use a longbow, and e.g. hobbits and dwarves simply could not use a longbow under any circumstances. Also, str is a primary attribute for longbows. Only Odysseus could use his bow, because others were not strong enough to use it. At the moment, I am thinking about requiring str >= (might + 1)^2, so you would need 18/180 str to use an x5 launcher and x6 would be impossible. That's one way to stop weak mages from using heavy xbows as their primary damage source. As to the exact numbers, who knows, and things are further confused by my belief that the correct way to interpret stats is to divide by two before considering them in a D&D framework, and I'm sure plenty of players will disagree with that viewpoint.