Angband Philosophy II: Magic

[AnonymousHero]

(ship)

(I think you got the formatting slightly wrong, but...)

... that almost read like bible verse!

[AnonymousHero]

I like Sil a lot, but it is very very dry. The game is really boiled down to the core tactical gameplay.

Angband is a different sort of game entirely, with more content and I'd say a lot easier too. But I don't think that arguing for more of a well defined set of core rules that create varied gameplay is the same as wanting a more Sil like game.

I'm all for more content, just a bit wary about the way it is added if that makes any sense.

It makes sense. It's just not very consistent... as none of us are . I probably even agree about the "easier" bit... until you know the systems of Sil by heart and can thus "win every time" or just abort if you realize that you're not going to win. I hear this happens a lot with Smiths. The fact that Sil is a (much much) shorter game in general favors this strategy. My main point is that: You can be a lot more ignorant of game systems and still win Angband (somewhat by luck), but that doesn't really apply to Sil. (Not to pick on Sil specifically, it just seemed like a comparison people 'round here would know. I actually think a better comparison is BGT:No-reload with an arcane spellcaster.)

[Tibarius]

mage class

What are the biggest drawbacks playing the mage class right now (3.5.1)?
1. Mages Play differently from warrior types, in that way, that warrior types
have no limitation on stuff they find. I think it would be a good idea to
change game mechanics so that mages work in a similar way. You find
something, you should be able to use it.
2. Spell books have level requirements, either abolish those (because you
are already limited by the number of spells you can learn and that is
level dependant) or make them int dependant, the more powerfull the
spell, the higher the minimum int to cast it
3. As alternative their could be no minimum requirement and the spell
power is derived from the characters intelligence (this would give thieves
and rangers a "natural" balance compared to mages. Mages only need to
push con and int, while ranger and thieves additionally require str/dex
for multiple blows per turn.
4. I like the idea to have smaller steps of gaining power by learning single
spells instead of gaining access to a whole new book of spells. I liked the
idea of finding spell scrolls which can be coppied into an empty spell
book. Ignoring could work as with other stuff ... ignore scrolls or scrolls
of a certain power group (1 to 9).
5. We need MORE diversity in the spells and maybe not every game every
spell is available. In one game you start with burning Hands, the other
one with magic missile.
6. I think only the first book / first few spells should be available in town.
Being able to buy 4 out of 9 spellbooks leaves the mage with only 5
spellbooks to find, of which again only 4 are realy relevant to him.
7. One way to Limit ranger / thieves offensive power would be to require
for powerfull spells, less powerfull spells to be learned. Like:
burning Hands: damages adjacent monster for 1d6
flame bolt : damages monster within range 3 for 1d6
fire bolt : damages monster within range 6 for 2d6
fire ball : damages monster within range 6 for 2d6, blast radius 1
meteor shower: fires 3 meteors within range 9 for 3d6 damage each
8. Reduce range of spells / breaths / shooters
maybe 4 categories:
touch: target must be adjacent
close: range within 3 spaces
medium: range within 6 spaces
long: range within 9 spaces
9. Make spells work versus uniques, but make it level dependant like the
Chance of success is player level : monster level. If you have the same
level you got a 50:50 chance the spell would work. If you are half the
level it is 25:75.

[TJS]

One issue with this line of thinking is that a) it's incredibly hard to "minimize" the game (e.g. TMJ, etc.) without a clear idea as to where you're going, and b) even after "minimizing", there's no guarantee that you won't break everything again if you add new things.

Personally, I'm a fan of the "let's add a few things, see how they work out and then think about shrinking things again (repeat)" philosophy. (I'm guessing a lot of other Angbanders and Angband developers are too.)

I can certainly appreciate the extreme design that went into, for example, Sil, but I can't say that I actually like the game very much in practice. I think this stems from a desire to see games actually evolve (even radically, even if it takes a few generations). I don't think Sil is going to evolve very far from where it is now -- it's kind of achieved a local optimum and can't get out of it without radical redesign. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing -- it's just not for me.

I like Sil a lot, but it is very very dry. The game is really boiled down to the core tactical gameplay.

Angband is a different sort of game entirely, with more content and I'd say a lot easier too. But I don't think that arguing for more of a well defined set of core rules that create varied gameplay is the same as wanting a more Sil like game.

I'm all for more content, just a bit wary about the way it is added if that makes any sense.

[TJS]

This is very much in line with my thinking. In fact, a different way of looking at the plans thread from a little while ago is

• 4.1 - fix longstanding problems, remove cruft, generally tighten
• 4.2 - bigger, more controversial changes - monsters, terrain, races and classes
• 4.3 - the really controversial changes - combat system and objects

Throughout this the aim is to remake the game, staying true to the core feel of what the game is like. Things which were added because they seemed like a good idea at the time, but are no longer working, need to be removed or fixed.

So I started this thread to lay a foundation for how the magic system should be working. So the nature vs magic and holy vs unholy axes are a framework for how to consider the classes, they're not prescriptive. The first thing to do with classes IMHO is to remodel the current classes (with probably, as outlined upthread, massive reduction in spells) in a more consistent way. Then if gaps in the current class are identified - some that have been mentioned include assassin, pure combat archer, martial artist - new classes can be added in a way that fits in with the overall plan for the game.

Just looked at that thread and really like all the changes in 4.1. Regarding the one-shot nature of detecting traps, I'd say better would be to give each trap a difficulty and you see it if you get above that value. In that way putting on an amulet of searching will see traps you've already encountered (which should really be the case).

Also monster mana looks like a good idea

Anyway I'm drifting off topic here.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

That doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy such a [weaponless] class - I would - but I would want it to be a challenge class that was suitably difficult (especially if you weren't a half-troll).

Precisely! It's why I think it would need to have critical hits, stunning attack (like mystics), gloves that brand the fists, etc., so that it's possible, incredibly difficult, but possible with any of the races. It was amazingly difficult as a half-troll without those embellishments and I can't imagine it as a human. As a hobbit or a kobold, fughetaboughtit.

Hey that Ent idea sounds pretty good too! I'd be interested in trying it.

[MattB]

What about an ent?
v.high strength, constitution and wisdom, but hopeless dexterity (maybe a speed penalty). Could be any class, but can't wield weapons.

Just a thought.

[MattB]

I and, if I can speak for him, I think MattB, are both advocates for the fists only class. I previously referenced a Shaolin monk, which Derakon correctly pointed out was Tolkienish at all. Perhaps another way to think of it would be like the mystic currently. Their attack with fists and feet is ferocious, having the ability to get critical hits, stun, and even knock out a @ leading to their swift death. I'd like to see some similar potential for a @ class fighter that eschews weapons. Although, come to think of it, mystics aren't very Tolkienish either.

By all means speak for me!
However, the thrill in attempting to win with no weapon (at which I came very close and ultimately failed, but you excelled), was firstly in trying to 'break' the game or, rather, to do something evidently do-able but which looked outlandishly difficult...

...and, secondly, to make a worthwhile point that bare fists were actually a viable option as they sometimes (in edge cases) did more damage than the best weapon to hand.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy such a class - I would - but I would want it to be a challenge class that was suitably difficult (especially if you weren't a half-troll).

[AnonymousHero]

I and, if I can speak for him, I think MattB, are both advocates for the fists only class. I previously referenced a Shaolin monk, which Derakon correctly pointed out was Tolkienish at all. Perhaps another way to think of it would be like the mystic currently. Their attack with fists and feet is ferocious, having the ability to get critical hits, stun, and even knock out a @ leading to their swift death. I'd like to see some similar potential for a @ class fighter that eschews weapons. Although, come to think of it, mystics aren't very Tolkienish either.

I don't think Tolkien should be assumed to be canon for Angband. I think that's damaging -- unless it's purely for flavour. Angband is primarily based on D&D (or perhaps AD&D). Of course, that in turn is inspired by Tolkien, but again... mostly just for flavour.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

... some that have been mentioned include ... martial artist - new classes can be added in a way that fits in with the overall plan for the game.

I and, if I can speak for him, I think MattB, are both advocates for the fists only class. I previously referenced a Shaolin monk, which Derakon correctly pointed out was Tolkienish at all. Perhaps another way to think of it would be like the mystic currently. Their attack with fists and feet is ferocious, having the ability to get critical hits, stun, and even knock out a @ leading to their swift death. I'd like to see some similar potential for a @ class fighter that eschews weapons. Although, come to think of it, mystics aren't very Tolkienish either.

[AnonymousHero]

holy vs unholy axes

I see what you did there... MOAR AXES! No, seriously, keep adding and trimming.

[Nick]

There's a lot of stuff in the game that is either unbalanced, not properly realised, is unfun or is unintuitive. Part of this I think has been caused by adding more and more content without properly balancing/fixing issues that were already in the game.

For example enchantments are boring the way they are currently implemented, as are traps, equipment drops (we need a system for hiding 90% of stuff which is ridiculous), the ID system etc. There's some great ideas surrounding all these things that I'd say are the priority in getting implemented in the game first before adding yet more stuff.

This is very much in line with my thinking. In fact, a different way of looking at the plans thread from a little while ago is

• 4.1 - fix longstanding problems, remove cruft, generally tighten
• 4.2 - bigger, more controversial changes - monsters, terrain, races and classes
• 4.3 - the really controversial changes - combat system and objects

Throughout this the aim is to remake the game, staying true to the core feel of what the game is like. Things which were added because they seemed like a good idea at the time, but are no longer working, need to be removed or fixed.

So I started this thread to lay a foundation for how the magic system should be working. So the nature vs magic and holy vs unholy axes are a framework for how to consider the classes, they're not prescriptive. The first thing to do with classes IMHO is to remodel the current classes (with probably, as outlined upthread, massive reduction in spells) in a more consistent way. Then if gaps in the current class are identified - some that have been mentioned include assassin, pure combat archer, martial artist - new classes can be added in a way that fits in with the overall plan for the game.

[AnonymousHero]

For example enchantments are boring the way they are currently implemented, as are traps, equipment drops (we need a system for hiding 90% of stuff which is ridiculous), the ID system etc. There's some great ideas surrounding all these things that I'd say are the priority in getting implemented in the game first before adding yet more stuff.

Whether Angband actually needs any more content at all is another debate, I'd lean towards probably not. Any new stuff should have the question asked "Do we really need this? How large does the game aim to be exactly?" rather than "wouldn't it be cool to have this new feature?".

Just my thoughts anyway.

One issue with this line of thinking is that a) it's incredibly hard to "minimize" the game (e.g. TMJ, etc.) without a clear idea as to where you're going, and b) even after "minimizing", there's no guarantee that you won't break everything again if you add new things.

Personally, I'm a fan of the "let's add a few things, see how they work out and then think about shrinking things again (repeat)" philosophy. (I'm guessing a lot of other Angbanders and Angband developers are too.)

I can certainly appreciate the extreme design that went into, for example, Sil, but I can't say that I actually like the game very much in practice. I think this stems from a desire to see games actually evolve (even radically, even if it takes a few generations). I don't think Sil is going to evolve very far from where it is now -- it's kind of achieved a local optimum and can't get out of it without radical redesign. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing -- it's just not for me.

[TJS]

Bit late to this thread and probably already discussed to death, but anyway...

I would really be wary adding loads of new content like necromancy and nature magic sets in Vanilla Angband. There's a lot of stuff in the game that is either unbalanced, not properly realised, is unfun or is unintuitive. Part of this I think has been caused by adding more and more content without properly balancing/fixing issues that were already in the game.

For example enchantments are boring the way they are currently implemented, as are traps, equipment drops (we need a system for hiding 90% of stuff which is ridiculous), the ID system etc. There's some great ideas surrounding all these things that I'd say are the priority in getting implemented in the game first before adding yet more stuff.

Whether Angband actually needs any more content at all is another debate, I'd lean towards probably not. Any new stuff should have the question asked "Do we really need this? How large does the game aim to be exactly?" rather than "wouldn't it be cool to have this new feature?".

Just my thoughts anyway.

[fizzix]

Drolem rarity is 3, gravity hound rarity is 4. AFAIK bigger number means more rare. So actually drolem is less rare than gravity hounds. It's just that gravity hounds are a pack and appear a lot earlier, while drolem is single monster and appears pretty late (native at dlvl 44 or 2200).

Also it is really rare to get blasted by that poison breath before you see it. 1 in 5 from five different spells means 1/25 chance that it breathes and doesn't do something else.

Hound rarity was increased at some point across the board. Forgot about that. I also thought, incorrectly it seems, that the gravity hounds were native to 40+.