Randart plans

[fph]

I would appreciate seeing some early- and mid-game artifact jewelry. Currently artifact rings and amulets only arrive quite far in the game.

Nothing overpowered of course but it would add some variability to the early game.

[Derakon]

Artifact ring with rBase showing up in the ~500-1000' range. Artifact amulet with +1 all stats showing up slightly later. How's that?

[Antoine]

Artifact ring with rBase showing up in the ~500-1000' range. Artifact amulet with +1 all stats showing up slightly later. How's that?

Positively diabloesque
A.

[fph]

Artifact ring with rBase showing up in the ~500-1000' range. Artifact amulet with +1 all stats showing up slightly later. How's that?

I like the idea of the amulet. For the ring, rBase feels a bit meh, but I guess that's what needed the most at that depth.
Another stat I'd like to see on an early-game artifact is See Invisible.

[Nick]

If you want to add 13 more artifacts, just pick 13 of these base items and add an artifact for them.

What I was actually looking at doing was giving the option for standarts vs randarts to be less of a binary choice; I may do this anyway independent of other considerations (via a settable constant).

I'm planing to repurpose this thread to ask questions as I do the randart update. Here are the first two:

• Are there some existing artifacts that should be removed (there certainly do seem to be a lot of Paur* gauntlets)?
• What do people think of "off-type" properties - slays, brands on non-melee-weapons, extra shots on non-bows, etc ?

[Sky]

is there any way that the power dragon mail could be made of a different ego class than the rest of the dragon armors?

i have no use for a dragon armor which is essentially resist 2 elements and maybe breath attack, but then the PDSM falls under the same squelch category, with its ... 7 resists?

[Derakon]

What I was actually looking at doing was giving the option for standarts vs randarts to be less of a binary choice; I may do this anyway independent of other considerations (via a settable constant).

A birth option to do (some mix of) standarts+randarts together in the same game wouldn't be unreasonable. Actually if we had parameterizable options, you could have one for "how many standarts to have" and one for "how many randarts to have", anywhere from e.g. 0%/100% (normal randarts game), 0%/0% (no artifacts at all), 100%/100% (full sets of both standarts/randarts), etc.

I'm planing to repurpose this thread to ask questions as I do the randart update. Here are the first two:

• Are there some existing artifacts that should be removed (there certainly do seem to be a lot of Paur* gauntlets)?
• What do people think of "off-type" properties - slays, brands on non-melee-weapons, extra shots on non-bows, etc ?

For the former: I wouldn't be opposed to merging all the Paurs into a single pair of gloves, and all the Thancs as well. Revert the damage back to what it used to be though. A 1d4 (+4,+6) Dagger of Elements with all three elemental brands, activating to fire three elemental bolts, etc. is more interesting as an artifact and would be better-balanced than a 2d4 (+8,+12) Dethanc or whatever IMO.

The only other artifacts I can think of that frankly aren't that interesting are Amrod/Amras and some of the early cloaks (Colluin and Luthien are the only interesting cloak artifacts). I'm not saying that said artifacts aren't necessarily useful at the time you find them, but I can't remember them ever being a key piece of kit; they're just mild incremental upgrades over whatever I had before.

[Nick]

A birth option to do (some mix of) standarts+randarts together in the same game wouldn't be unreasonable. Actually if we had parameterizable options, you could have one for "how many standarts to have" and one for "how many randarts to have", anywhere from e.g. 0%/100% (normal randarts game), 0%/0% (no artifacts at all), 100%/100% (full sets of both standarts/randarts), etc.

I regard the constants.txt file as a collection of paramterizable options, and this plan (which I like) is easily achievable that way.

[Pete Mack]

Most early game artifacts are pretty meh, so why would amulets or rings be different? SI shows up on so much stuff already, the value of another is minimal. Weapons (artifacts and otherwise), lanterns, hats, rings, even the occasional cursed ego bow. So another source isn't all that useful.

I like the idea of the amulet. For the ring, rBase feels a bit meh, but I guess that's what needed the most at that depth.
Another stat I'd like to see on an early-game artifact is See Invisible.

[PowerWyrm]

What do people think of "off-type" properties - slays, brands on non-melee-weapons, extra shots on non-bows, etc ?

Slay/brand on gloves. After all, it's the most logical item to use if you want to put a brand or a slay on something. For the static arts, expand the Paurs with a weak brand (the frosty one already has it) --- they would suck less. For the other ones, Cambeleg and Fingolfin are already great, Cammithrim has plusses, so I don't see where to put a slay there. Well Mithril Gauntlets and Alchemist's Gloves don't have a corresponding art... or Eol.

Extra attacks/might/shots on anything else than the weapon/shooter is a heresy.

[PowerWyrm]

Are there some existing artifacts that should be removed (there certainly do seem to be a lot of Paur* gauntlets)?

The "Trollshaws" crap. This means the Orcrist/Glamdring/Aeglin trilogy. Those are pathetically weak, and usually found when you don't have the STR/DEX to get more than 1.x bpr with them, making them more useless than a +0 +0 dagger. Maybe not remove them, as they have a "backstory", but seriously improve them.

Paurs and Thancs are fine, at least the elec/acid ones, because they're meant to be used at low level, where you have rFire/rCold from a ring, rElec or rAcid from an amulet and the last base resist from a Thanc or a Paur.

[Derakon]

Extra attacks/might/shots on anything else than the weapon/shooter is a heresy.

Once again I'm going to suggest that we do away with extra shots in its entirety. I've yet to see someone make a convincing counterargument.

[Grotug]

A birth option to do (some mix of) standarts+randarts together in the same game wouldn't be unreasonable. Actually if we had parameterizable options, you could have one for "how many standarts to have" and one for "how many randarts to have", anywhere from e.g. 0%/100% (normal randarts game), 0%/0% (no artifacts at all), 100%/100% (full sets of both standarts/randarts), etc.



For the former: I wouldn't be opposed to merging all the Paurs into a single pair of gloves, and all the Thancs as well. Revert the damage back to what it used to be though. A 1d4 (+4,+6) Dagger of Elements with all three elemental brands, activating to fire three elemental bolts, etc. is more interesting as an artifact and would be better-balanced than a 2d4 (+8,+12) Dethanc or whatever IMO.

The only other artifacts I can think of that frankly aren't that interesting are Amrod/Amras and some of the early cloaks (Colluin and Luthien are the only interesting cloak artifacts). I'm not saying that said artifacts aren't necessarily useful at the time you find them, but I can't remember them ever being a key piece of kit; they're just mild incremental upgrades over whatever I had before.

I think the Paur* gloves that don't confer a to-dam bonus or weak brand could be merged into a single better artifact like the thancs but maybe keep the one with the (+3, +3) and weak brand separate. I think your thanc suggestion is interesting, though if you are going to cripple its to-dam, you might want to leave the dice augmented at 2d4? Other than Sting, artifacts generally have unusually high to-dam. So maybe 1d4 (+8, +9) would be better?

Not sure why you single out Amrod and Amras as the only non-interesting artifacts. I always like finding these, though I find Amras to be quite a lot more interesting than Amrod. How do you differentiating interesting form useful? What existing artifact do you find interesting but not very useful (or interesting and useful)?

I'd really like to see an amulet artifact that is as good or slightly better than "Trickery. I don't get why a non-artifact amulet is the most powerful amulet in the game (unless there is an artifact that's better than "Trickery that I've never found).

"Dwarves: not bad, but by the time I find it it is quite meh. Maybe DL55 native depth would be good. "Elessar: the fast recharge on the activation is cool, but it always loses out to "Trickery (maybe other classes find it more useful to "Trickery than the fighter ones I pick?). How about another high resist instead of rFire? Maybe rDark? Maybe the other ones don't need a buff and "Trickery simply needs a nerf? Remove rNexus or rPois from it? Swap "Trickery's rNexus with "Elessar's rFire? So 'Elessar has rPois and rNexus and "Trickery has rNexus and rFire?

I don't have any good ideas for a new amulet artifact. Maybe something that provides immunity to elec or acid; possibly a Dwarven artifact similar to Thorin shield but without the rSound/rChaos. Something like: provides immunity to acid, +2 CON +2 STR -1 Stealth; Sustain CON and STR and (+1, +2).

Once again I'm going to suggest that we do away with extra shots in its entirety. I've yet to see someone make a convincing counterargument.

I think it'd be interesting to have it be possible to end up with a greater amount of to-dam bonuses by endgame, which would make weapons with extra attacks more meaningful. So if you had enough to-dam bonuses and ?*weapon enchantment*s, you could actually make Sting a viable endgame weapon.

What's the argument for doing away with extra shots? More options in gear make the game more interesting, no? Do you stay with a heavy xbow (x4) (+15, +23) or switch to a longbow of extra shots (x3) (+9, +17) <+1>? The longbow might do slightly better damage per round, but uses twice as much ammo to do so, but is better against thinning out a room full of hounds or hummerhorns and it won't run you the risk of becoming overweight like the xbow does, whereas the xbow ammo break less and do more dam per missile, so you get more mileage out of your ammo, but take longer to kill it.

[Derakon]

I think your thanc suggestion is interesting, though if you are going to cripple its to-dam, you might want to leave the dice augmented at 2d4? Other than Sting, artifacts generally have unusually high to-dam. So maybe 1d4 (+8, +9) would be better?

The 'thancs used to be 1d4 (+4,+6) as I described, and that's already a great weapon to find in the early game -- a light weapon with decent to-dam that does 3d4 damage against most enemies? That's fantastic. The enhancement to the to-dam and damage dice just made it ridiculously good. The 'thancs are supposed to age out relatively quickly; as it is, if you're any kind of melee character and you find one, you're set for damage through 1500' at least. Too much.

I'd really like to see an amulet artifact that is as good or slightly better than "Trickery. I don't get why a non-artifact amulet is the most powerful amulet in the game (unless there is an artifact that's better than "Trickery that I've never found).

Artifacts should not always be the best possible option in every slot. That said, Trickery is too powerful and should be nerfed. Lose the speed at least IMO.

I think it'd be interesting to have it be possible to end up with a greater amount of to-dam bonuses by endgame, which would make weapons with extra attacks more meaningful. So if you had enough to-dam bonuses and ?*weapon enchantment*s, you could actually make Sting a viable endgame weapon.

Basically what I'm hearing here is "only doing 450/500/600/whatever damage/round is too little, I want to be even more powerful!" Never mind what that would do to game balance. If you want to deal huge damage, go play ToME2. Vanilla at least makes some attempt to have tighter design than that, though it's not so tight as Oangband or Sangband are.

What's the argument for doing away with extra shots? More options in gear make the game more interesting, no?

The problem is that firing a single missile right now has roughly similar "power" as participating in an entire single round of melee (average damage is typically lower, but you're safe from taking melee damage, so it balances out). So adding +1 shots is effectively the same thing as adding +N blows, where N is the total number of blows/round you currently get. That is ridiculously strong. Add in the time-dilation effects of extra shots and you end up with a character that can deal vastly more damage than is available via any other mechanism, while being almost entirely safe from both melee damage and being double-moved.

+1 to launcher might is roughly similar to getting +1 blow in melee (again, less damage, but safety from melee reprisals). So might is OK; it's powerful but not unbalancingly so. +1 shots is a massive outlier in comparison.

[Sky]

Aren't those supposedly elven daggers? The equivalent of a short sword to a human, and a sword to a hobbit
Lower the base weight and you got a great little orc slayer.

Oops. Somehow i missed a wall of text between my reply and the Glamdring post.

Also, Elessar used to be king when it had (+7,+7), but even without it, the activation for heal 500 means you will save a ton of !heal and can tank bigger threats sooner.

Re: extra shots, you'll make short bows less useful if this ability disappears - you just need to make sure you cant get it on other gear. OR ... you could nerf the ranger. Give them an extra +1 multiplier, so a x6 bow becomes x7, instead of a full second shot. Other classes dont rely on endgame archery nearly as much.