Angband Philosophy II: Magic

[MattB]

You should play BG no-reload more. It's just incredible. Not sure about PS3/Wii/Whatever, but BG2 no-reload is crazy hard and interesting.

I'll dust off the disks then!
Problem is, my PC has major scvhost memory leak issues (something to do with windows update, even though I've disabled it - supposedly). The upshot is that I have to restart my PC several times a day, so maybe no-reload is off the cards for now.

And no worries - no need to apologise!

[AnonymousHero]

I'll dust off the disks then!
Problem is, my PC has major scvhost memory leak issues (something to do with windows update, even though I've disabled it - supposedly). The upshot is that I have to restart my PC several times a day, so maybe no-reload is off the cards for now.

And no worries - no need to apologise!

Use a virtual machine! Btw, it's not necessarily *literally* no-reload. If you hit a random bug which just ends your game, it's usually deemed OK to continue from there. (Etc.)

The idea is just that choices that you make during the game should matter.

EDIT: You'll want something like SCS/SCSII to make it an actual challenge...

[Timo Pietilä]

by drolem depth (level 45) a player should have access to at least one of the following.

Method of detection of neutral/visible monsters (detect monsters/reveal monsters/detection)
200+ HP and resist poison (whatever the drolem breath value is) + a mechanism of escape (teleport/teleport other/teleport level/destruction)

This is really close to being satisfied, but it does require more "grinding" than I prefer for priests. Maybe it's just my preference.

Rods of Detection a bit more common and earlier?

It's not the drolem what I'm afraid when playing priests (they are so rare, and don't wake up easily), but hounds. You don't have any means of detecting gravity hounds without detection or ESP. Group of gravity hounds can kill you by slowing you (no haste) stunning (making spells harder) and by phasing you to bad spot where you definitely didn't want to end up.

But I'm OK with that. It brings a bit excitement into game, not knowing all of time that you are safe. It also teaches you the importance of HP.

[fizzix]

Rods of Detection a bit more common and earlier?

It's not the drolem what I'm afraid when playing priests (they are so rare, and don't wake up easily), but hounds. You don't have any means of detecting gravity hounds without detection or ESP. Group of gravity hounds can kill you by slowing you (no haste) stunning (making spells harder) and by phasing you to bad spot where you definitely didn't want to end up.

But I'm OK with that. It brings a bit excitement into game, not knowing all of time that you are safe. It also teaches you the importance of HP.

Gravity hounds are just as rare as drolems! Drolems will also be awake by the time you stumble on them with a normal priest with crappy stealth. They're equal problems.

Personally, I would like gravity hounds to be moved to the same tier as plasma hounds, and time hounds to be moved to the same tier as chaos hounds. I'd also like to see the divisor for time and gravity increased so the damage isn't as high (it's mainly the side effects that should scare you.)

[Derakon]

Personally, I would like gravity hounds to be moved to the same tier as plasma hounds, and time hounds to be moved to the same tier as chaos hounds. I'd also like to see the divisor for time and gravity increased so the damage isn't as high (it's mainly the side effects that should scare you.)

I've never understood the fear of time hounds. The HP damage from time breaths isn't very significant. Sure, they can drain you pretty badly, if you get caught out without any escapes -- in which case, what the hell are you doing? Even if you're at normal speed and you spend a turn in full view of an entire pack, you're extremely unlikely to eat more than, say, 3 breath attacks before getting another turn. So that's 3 substantial drains of your stats/experience, which sucks, but isn't going to be remotely fatal.

Gravity and plasma hounds have more mayhem potential, no question. I don't know that gravity hounds need to be moved deeper, though. Just carry proper escapes for your depth, and play carefully.

[fizzix]

I've never understood the fear of time hounds. The HP damage from time breaths isn't very significant. Sure, they can drain you pretty badly, if you get caught out without any escapes -- in which case, what the hell are you doing? Even if you're at normal speed and you spend a turn in full view of an entire pack, you're extremely unlikely to eat more than, say, 3 breath attacks before getting another turn. So that's 3 substantial drains of your stats/experience, which sucks, but isn't going to be remotely fatal.

Gravity and plasma hounds have more mayhem potential, no question. I don't know that gravity hounds need to be moved deeper, though. Just carry proper escapes for your depth, and play carefully.

The problem is that they move faster than the other hounds at the same depth, and breathe for 50 unresistable damage. If you're not at +20 speed, you're likely to eat a lot more than 3 breaths if you are unfortunate enough to teleport into a room of them. Granted, the reduction of monster group size has helped a lot with both time, plasma and gravity not being fatal.

IMO time hounds should either be made the same speed as the other nearby hounds, or the damage should be reduced further, so it's mainly the status effect you fear.

[Timo Pietilä]

Gravity hounds are just as rare as drolems! Drolems will also be awake by the time you stumble on them with a normal priest with crappy stealth. They're equal problems.

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.

[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+.

[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.

[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.

[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]

holy vs unholy axes

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

[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]

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.

[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).