-
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. -
I also think that for most of the dual element spells, it ought to inflict all damage before handling monster death.
The exceptions are where the spell explicitly calls for sequential attacks, most notably Meteor Swarm. However, Lightning Strike is also described as sequential, so now might not have been the best time to raise the issue 8-)
Oh, and also on LS, its odd that it does more sound damage than lightning...Comment
-
Its not that the thancs are great but rather that by the silly way blows work, you find better weapons when you cannot use them, and by the time you *can* use them, you have found even better stuff.
A real life katana is around 2.5 pounds."i can take this dracolich"Comment
-
“We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see.”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are DeadComment
-
None of the object weights are realistic when considered as actual weights--not just weapons, but every single object in the game. They're derived from the old D&D encumbrance tables, and are intended as a measure of how inconvenient an object is to carry. Think of an object's game weight as being something like a sum of its actual weight and its volume. Things that are small and dense are easier to carry around than bulky objects of equivalent mass, and the displayed weight reflects this.
This encumbrance system actually works pretty well as a model of how much stuff a character can carry in his backpack before it slows him down, since in the real world that certainly does depend on both weight and volume. For weapons that are actually being wielded rather than merely carried, it's totally unrealistic, but it still serves a useful gameplay function in making it so that there are meaningful distinctions between different types of weapon.Comment
-
Ye ye whatever. Ive been DM since 1984 (age:12) and we've banged our heads countless times on people casually carrying around a 10ft pole, you sure dont need to tell me about encumberance.
Despite this, dnd gives multiple attacks to high level players, whereas STR only affects tohit/dmg calculations. But the way Angband works ..
Look. Ideally, we would have this: a scale where weapon weight and damage increase equally, with a slight skewer in favour of damage, at the exchange of possibly missing a blow.
This is because its very easy to find magical weapons. And hitting is also easy. In dnd, a +4 magic bonus is MASSIVE and likely to only result in hits on the level-appropriate monsters you face (for warriors, that is).
In Angband, you can easily find a 1d4 +10 dagger that you get 3 attacks with, but the equivalent heavy weapon is 3d4 +10, NOT 3d4 +30. In fact magic bonuses are more relevant than slays or brands until past midgame when big hitters come into play and the bonuses curve levels off at around +18.
From a practical standpoint - once you have rBase from elvenkind, and have all your starting gear ready - there is a number of weapon artifacts you always discard, like the orc slayers, because you simply do far more damage with a dagger of fire brand.
And by the time you are capped at 5 or 6 blows, you are already in Aglarang/Anduril territory. You would have to be VERY unlucky to be using Til-y-arc for damage once you are 18/100 in STR and DEX.
However, if you wizard a CL50 char with 18/*** and look at the artifact list, you will see that Elvagil and Aeglin ARE in fact stronger that the daggers, its just that, for practical reasons, this doesnt happen to the player, because stat increase does not develop in the same way that rarity drop does."i can take this dracolich"Comment
-
Has any experimental variant tried rebasing the enchantment range to be a function of weapon dice rather than 'about 10'?
So you would be looking at 1d4+4 vs 3d4+12?
Wouldnt stop you leaving home with a dagger, but at least the better weapons would bias heavier...Comment
-
Specifically? Not sure. Crawl has bigger bonuses on big weapons & T4 has %stat instead of diceComment
-
Thematic gripe with the necromancer class:
The so-called-necromancer is initially perhaps the worst class at dealing with undead, and throughout the game they are weaker against undead than any other monster type.
A proper necromancer class would be looking at level appropriate undead as less of an obstacle and more of a resource.Comment
-
“We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see.”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are DeadComment
-
Given the necromancer Command spell, it seems to be heading that way already...
OK, brainstorming idea:
Low level spell "Tap Unlife"
Autotargets nearest undead monster, including invisible or wall-embedded monsters (Or it isnt much use against early undead which tends to be invisible passwall)
Inflicts damage starting about 2 or 3d4 and scaling up slower than other spells (reasonable early, but insignificant later). But gives the same amount to the caster as mana.
Expected result: early undead become cheap targets and may even be situationally beneficial (if you happen to find one when you need the mana)
Later undead you still have the option of slurping a bit of mana which wont do real damage, but might fuel a real spell.
Completely obsoletes once Power Sacrifice or an unmanagable pile of !mana and _magi make the the whole mana recovery thing laughable.Comment
Tweet
Comment