Question about diving

[Derakon]

I am absolutely against the idea of forcing the player to grind to become capable of taking on stronger foes. It's the gameplay equivalent of putting up a "You must be this tall to go on this ride" sign; pointless hoops the player must jump through to actually move on with the interesting gameplay.

[camlost]

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.

Sounds like fun! Also sounds a lot like Oangband, except with skills.

Is NPP 4GAI different from S/O 4GAI? I'm pretty sure it started out in O.

[Tiburon Silverflame]

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.

Nope. Scales always went higher...there just weren't many routes to get there. 24 Str was always possible, tho...girdle of giant strength. Later, there were tables extending all the scores out, altho the benefits were a mixed bag considering the work involved.

And 18 OldE D&D is pretty much comparable to 18 Angband, in terms of what you get *at that point*. The fact that OldE didn't go beyond that is a separate issue.

[NotMorgoth]

I have to say, I do think Dungeon Crawl handles stats much better than Angband:

There are only 3 stats: str, dex, int.
Starting stats are determined by your race & background.
Every 3 clevels, you get to increase a stat of your choice by 1 point.
You also get race-based stat increases at certain clevels, which may be either random or focussed towards 1 or 2 stats, depending on race.
There are no permanent stat-gain potions, instead stat potions give a significant temporary bonus to the stat and game attributes relating to it.
AFAIK, the effects of stats are mostly linear, but I can't be sure of this as I haven't looked at the relevant code/spoilers.

Overall, I think it is a better thought-out system, as it was probably designed from scratch for a roguelike rather than taken from a RPG.

[fizzix]

I am absolutely against the idea of forcing the player to grind to become capable of taking on stronger foes. It's the gameplay equivalent of putting up a "You must be this tall to go on this ride" sign; pointless hoops the player must jump through to actually move on with the interesting gameplay.

what is the fundamental difference between grinding for EXP and grinding for stat-pots?

(IMO grinding for EXP is more interesting because doing it efficiently requires tackling difficult monsters, while grinding for stat-pots efficiently requires killing weak monsters.)

Note I don't grind for EXP yet I'm always around level 35-45 when I hit the bottom.

[Derakon]

I don't know what grinding for stat potions is like since I don't do that. I get my potions as I go, and I keep going down even if I don't like where my stats are. The only things I block my descent for are free action and the basic 4 resists, and the resists are increasingly given less weight when deciding if I should descend.

I was reacting to this bit:

I'd like there to be a significant difference between a level 50 character and a level 45. Enough so that beating the game at level 45 should be a tremendous challenge.

If I can make it to the bottom of the dungeon and be able to kill most of the enemies down there, then I ought to be able to take on the end game with a reasonable chance of success. That's it. No considerations of experience or equipment or stats or whatever; that's my criterion. if we can't achieve that organically then the game needs to be improved.

[fizzix]

I don't know what grinding for stat potions is like since I don't do that. I get my potions as I go.

I have to scrounge for !Con potions at the bottom. I find that less interesting than, say, having to battle some greater undead for another clevel.

[Zyphyr]

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.

Point based isn't even vaguely a problem.

Point Based is simply a shortcut around waiting for your system to roll 50000 times for an autoroller to hit your desired stats.

An autoroller is simply a shortcut around "Those stats suck, lets roll again."

Purely random stats work in pen-and-paper games because you have a GM who can a)say "you rolled it, you are going to live with it", and b)tailor the challenges to fit your abilities.

Lacking B, most people aren't going to put up with A.

[Derakon]

In short, you're willing to go with weaker starting players. If you want to enforce that restriction on others, then the correct answer is to reduce the number of points players start with in point-buy (and the max bonus the autoroller allows). But you'll still have players putting all their points into CON/main stat/STR and dumping the others. If you want to enforce players not min-maxing their characters to the maximum extent allowed...sorry, no. Not gonna happen.

[Timo Pietilä]

I don't agree with this. Right now part of the challenge in the game is getting Con, Str and spell stat/dex up to 40. If you changed the curves, where 18/150 is good enough, endgame equipment becomes trivial. You'd have to do some major rebalancing.

This goes without saying. If we tweak stat-system in any way you need to rebalance things. Game is too tightly tied to stat-development. Especially HP and CON and spellcasting and spellcasting stat.

For starters we could change spellcasting stat requirement for failure rates, so that with high enough clvl you can get 0% failure with low level spells even with lower spell stats. Maybe tie attack spell damage to stat as well as clvl to compensate so that high stat is still desirable, just not required for reliability.

I would also like to see your skill of killing things partially tied to monsters directly so that killing 1000th hound of some type is easier with certain clvl than killing first of its kind. Make experience a bit more tanglible concept. Your char is excellent at killing orcs, but doesn't have a clue how to deal with his first greater demon. Kind of clvl gives general improvement, kill count gives specific improvement. Monster XP value should also reflect this kill count value so that first one counts more than rest (with clvl-based caps in both ends).

Does require some real tweaking and rebalancing though, so I'm not sure anyone is willing to do such work, especially when game is already so good. Maybe some day, just not today.

[camlost]

In short, you're willing to go with weaker starting players. If you want to enforce that restriction on others, then the correct answer is to reduce the number of points players start with in point-buy (and the max bonus the autoroller allows). But you'll still have players putting all their points into CON/main stat/STR and dumping the others. If you want to enforce players not min-maxing their characters to the maximum extent allowed...sorry, no. Not gonna happen.

You could give every player a base of 13 in every stat, and eliminate rolling.

[Derakon]

So in other words, every single half-troll warrior will begin life with stats of 18/40, 7, 9, 11, 18, 6? No choice in the matter?

I mean, it's not like my half-troll warriors ever differ among themselves, because I know what stat distribution I want, but this still seems a bit weird. Rolling stats for a new character is just one of those things you do, you know?

Mark me up as confused but not inherently opposed.

[camlost]

So in other words, every single half-troll warrior will begin life with stats of 18/40, 7, 9, 11, 18, 6? No choice in the matter?

I mean, it's not like my half-troll warriors ever differ among themselves, because I know what stat distribution I want, but this still seems a bit weird. Rolling stats for a new character is just one of those things you do, you know?

Mark me up as confused but not inherently opposed.

That is what I meant (not that I'm advocating for it). It's a good way you could manage to not have players scumming for decent rolls. 13 is halfway between 8 and 18, so by some senses, it's average.

[Nick]

Most of this thread looks to me like a solution looking for a problem...

[Pete Mack]

Most of this thread looks to me like a solution looking for a problem...

What Nick said. Complaints about stats, without careful specification of how stats are unbalanced, aren't going to help.