Angband Philosophy II: Magic

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[AnonymousHero]

(ship)

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

... that almost read like bible verse!

[Derakon]

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.

I don't really understand this. Are you saying warriors can use everything they find? Ignoring the fact that of course every single spellbook is useless to them, they also are forced to bias their equipment towards killing things. Warriors, paladins, and rogues are unable to use "stat stick" weapons or launchers that are bad at melee combat; they also generally need to dedicate a ring slot to wearing a Ring of Damage, and possibly the other ring slot for rings of Strength/Dexterity/Damage. Characters that don't rely on being able to melee things have far more leeway in what gear they wear.

I'm not saying that warriors necessarily have a hard time of it, just that this point needs clarification.

[Tibarius]

re: Derakon

Let's see if i can use other words to say the same thing

If a warrior finds a powerfull weapon or a ring of slaying/damage he can easily put it on and use it, even if the character does not reach the maximum damage output possible for the weapon because of lacking str/dex.

If a mage finds at low levels a high level dungeon book, the book is rather useless for the character. Either the spells have a minimum level requirement which prevents casting or the required mana / int prevents casting the spell effectively.

In my eyes these two styles differ in the way game mechanics. And i think it would be a good idea to make the game mechanics as equal as possible for all the classes.

[Timo Pietilä]

i think it would be a good idea to make the game mechanics as equal as possible for all the classes.

Why?

I mean, rules of the game should be clear and same for everybody, but different classes should play differently. That's the reason to have different classes in the game.

[Tibarius]

I think to equal game mechanics for all classes serves the purpose to make all classes fun to play. I think the mage class could be much more fun to play than it is currently for myself, for example.

I agree that different classes should play differently.

[MattB]

I think to equal game mechanics for all classes serves the purpose to make all classes fun to play. I think the mage class could be much more fun to play than it is currently for myself, for example.

I don't find playing mages fun, but others do.
I find playing warriors fun, but others don't.

There would be a real danger in making all classes equally fun to play, according to one person's (or even some people's) opinion. It might make all classes 'unfun' to some other people.

(Even as I'm typing this I am becoming aware that this is not the strongest argument I've ever posted.)

[Ingwe Ingweron]

I don't find playing mages fun, but others do.
I find playing warriors fun, but others don't.

There would be a real danger in making all classes equally fun to play, according to one person's (or even some people's) opinion. It might make all classes 'unfun' to some other people.

(Even as I'm typing this I am becoming aware that this is not the strongest argument I've ever posted.)

I agree that the classes should not be made "equally fun to play" -- whatever that is. I find warriors easiest, especially with a half-troll, but maybe that's because I like bashing things. Mages, and to a lesser extent priests, I find difficult judging by the number of my @ deaths in those classes. BUT - If I can get them to the end-game, mages and priests are easy to play and win. I guess what I'm saying, quite ineloquently, is that the classes seem pretty well "balanced" already.

[Derakon]

Let's see if i can use other words to say the same thing

Thanks for the further explanation. So basically you're arguing against the minimum level requirements to cast spells. I guess I don't see this as being as big of an issue, if only because typically even after you reach the minimum required level, you'll still be pretty bad at casting the spell (high failure rate and it takes too much of your mana pool) to want to use it regularly. It takes several levels after the point at which the spell is castable before it's really useful.

So basically, without minimum levels, you'd have a spellbook full of 50%-failure-rate spells that cost way more than you can afford. Is that really a significant improvement over having a spellbook full of spells the game won't let you cast?

[Carnivean]

So basically, without minimum levels, you'd have a spellbook full of 50%-failure-rate spells that cost way more than you can afford. Is that really a significant improvement over having a spellbook full of spells the game won't let you cast?

While I don't agree with Tibarius' opinion at all, perhaps you should be thinking along the lines of what Nick said:

I'm currently looking at a scheme with

• 25-30 spells for casters (in maybe 5 books), less for half-casters
• Very few spells in common across realms
• Spells can improve with character advancement (so priests only get one healing spell, which improves)

Spells that are available, castable, but essentially useless when you really want them to help (say fighting a unique or OOD monster) are possibly the solution.

Essentially you have 4 variables at play. Availability (min level), fail rate, damage/utility, mana cost. Making availability a function of finding a source (however that plays out) instead of level dependent could allow a different style of play.

That said, the point of mages is for them to be weak, scared and mostly useless for the early part of the game. The trade off is the overpowered nature of the high level mage. Rather than making them easier to play in the earlier part of the game, I'd prefer for there to be more struggle at the beginning and more power at the top end.