Easiest race/class to win with?

[Zikke]

I saw in a recent thread that somebody recommended the Dwarf Warrior as the easiest race/class combo to win with. Do others agree with this? I'm curious if there is a commonly held belief of a certain combo being the easiest.

[roustk]

I saw in a recent thread that somebody recommended the Dwarf Warrior as the easiest race/class combo to win with. Do others agree with this? I'm curious if there is a commonly held belief of a certain combo being the easiest.

I'm leery of recommending a Warrior as the easiest win. They start incredibly well, but they fall behind the power curve around stat gain.

I'm partial to Half-Troll Priests -- enough brute strength to survive to stat gain (as a warrior), but with extremely strong healing and decent damage spells at high levels. They have fairly good infravision and access to Sense Invisible at level 11, so invisible creatures aren't a big problem. Weak pseudo-ID is a bother, but OOD takes care of much of the danger.

[Pete Mack]

I saw in a recent thread that somebody recommended the Dwarf Warrior as the easiest race/class combo to win with. Do others agree with this? I'm curious if there is a commonly held belief of a certain combo being the easiest.

It's one of the top choices, certainly, though I'm not sure the extra HP offset the much better stats of a High-Elf Warrior.

But there is a lot to be said for High Elf Rogue or Ranger. (Better detection and stealth can make a big difference, depending on playstyle.) Note that V Rogue may take some getting used to, since it takes a while for damage to catch up to Warrior and Ranger.

Dwarf Paladin is also good--terrible stealth, but becomes a tank once he has reasonably reliable healing and detection. It takes a little longer than the other classes, though.

In short, any reasonably strong class/race combo--full spellcasters are significantly harder to keep alive until fairly late in the game.

[momo125]

I'd say high elf rogue. They are a little slow leveling, but stats make up for it early allowing you to kill stuff a human couldn't.

[PowerDiver]

I saw in a recent thread that somebody recommended the Dwarf Warrior as the easiest race/class combo to win with. Do others agree with this? I'm curious if there is a commonly held belief of a certain combo being the easiest.

Are you referring to something I wrote? Anyway, it is not necessarily the easiest to win with, but IMO it is the best class to learn with. No deaths to blindness, and rBlind can be a little difficult to come by. In the endgame, most stats max out at 18/200, but dex maxes out at 18/150, so a dex penalty is the easiest to overcome at the end. Until you know what you are doing, hp will sometimes save you from cluelessness and allow you to keep learning.

Weak pseudo is a pain, and rogues might be a bit weak in the mid-game for novices. Half-troll warriors never get their device skill high enough. I suppose I didn't say anything against paladins in there, but I would worry that a novice would foolishly rely on spells with 5% failure rates. One important thing to learn is how inevitable it is that rare events will kill you if you let them.

[Garrie]

... I suppose I didn't say anything against paladins in there, but I would worry that a novice would foolishly rely on spells with 5% failure rates. One important thing to learn is how inevitable it is that rare events will kill you if you let them.

One thing about Angband is that you do so many things so many times, that even having a 0.1% failure rate means you will fail 1 time in 1000. If that is for Detect Traps, that will turn into quite a few fails in the course of even a short game...

The difference between 0.1% fail and 0% fail is more important than the difference between 50% fail and 0.1% fail.

[Miley]

I love playing mages - specifically Gnome, Hobbit or High-Elf. The main reason I like mages is because they can dish-out offensive spells from a distance. Since mages usually start off with very low strength, keeping their distance from their opponents is a plus to me. Unfortunately it's that same lack-of-strength that is their biggest draw-back in my opinion.

Anyway, the way I like to play a mage is for about the first 20 levels or so, going no deeper than 500 feet. Most of the monsters (minus some uniques) are pretty easy to kill at these levels with the basic mage spells. After that though, I usually like to dive... First I go to about 1000 feet and make sure I feel comfortable. Again, I'm not fighting uniques or most monsters. I'm mainly just picking up stuff - either to sell or wear. I'm basically playing that part of the game like a rogue. After I get some resistances and hopefully see invisible, I'll dive again... This time I'm after the better spell books. I'm staying out of all fights as much as I can. I figure if I can get the books then I can use the more advanced spells to kick monster butt later on in the game.

So far that strategy has worked pretty well for me. Unfortunately while I'm able to get deep into the "end-game" by doing that, I still haven't figured out the appropriate weapon/armor combination for my character so that it can actually go up against Morgie.

Another one I like playing is Kobold Warrior. The poison resistance for kobolds is great! Unfortunately they're incredibly difficult in the mid-game (before the stats go up).

[Pete Mack]

One thing about Angband is that you do so many things so many times, that even having a 0.1% failure rate means you will fail 1 time in 1000. If that is for Detect Traps, that will turn into quite a few fails in the course of even a short game...

The difference between 0.1% fail and 0% fail is more important than the difference between 50% fail and 0.1% fail.

This just isn't true. 50% fail on Heal is useless. 5% fail on Heal is very useful, if you have enough HP. A 1100 HP Dwarf Paladin can afford the 5% fail, and then use *Heal* if he takes a second shot of Mana Storm. What you can't do with 5% fail is assume that it will never fail, and that it will never fail 2x in a row. In other words, you need to plan ahead (at least) 2 moves, and decide about the max risk from an opponent before taking him on.

[Dragonboneman]

High Elf Ranger for me, by a country mile. Great stats, unsurpassed ranged combat, decent melee and incredibly useful utility spells... it's got the lot.
My fastest win was with a level 48 HE Ranger, who didn't even need any healing potions to kill Morgoth.
I've never really got on with priests or paladins. I like warriors, but prefer Dunedain to Dwarfs though that's just personal preference as innate sustain CON usually becomes redundant fairly early. The problem with warriors is finding enough detection gear to survive past statgain, but once you have it the game becomes much easier again.
Oh, and like Miley said, Kobolds are far less popular than they should be. Try a Kobold Rogue, I was pleasantly surprised by my first one.

[awldune]

No mention of Dwarf Priest?

[Dragonboneman]

Not from me. I've always found pure casters to be much harder to play. I've had one deep mage, but never got past 2000' with a priest.

[Zikke]

I believe a mage is a great class for somebody that has a lot of patience. I personally like classes in every game I play that have counters for anything the monsters through at me, and a million ways to escape situations. Right now I'm playing a mage in FA and I couldn't imagine doing this without all the tricks I have available that may not be damage spells, like Dimension Door, recharging, Beguile, haste self, cure poison, and especially genocide (when I get it....).

[Mondkalb]

I have played rangers for many years, both Half Elf and High Elf, but never managed to win. I have no problems getting them at high levels and deep in the dungeon, but finally I get too overconfident or too bored and they die.

My too winners so far are Dunadan paladins which I have been playing for the last couple of years.
I consider the beginning much easier with paladins because of their strong pseudo id. They also get OOD and remove curse which makes it easier to identify stuff.

[aeneas]

Not from me. I've always found pure casters to be much harder to play. I've had one deep mage, but never got past 2000' with a priest.

I actually think Dwarf Priests are one of the easiest combos, but if you like to play very fast (as it seems you do) there is a steep learning curve diving with them. One thing I did for a while that taught me a lot is playing Cliff-style- suicide diving using small levels in the old NPP with a dwarf priest. They're tougher than mages at the start, both because Priests are a bit less delicate and because Dwarves are pretty robust. But like most classes other than warrior and ranger, the key to early diving with them is playing like a poor ranger with some bennies. NPP makes this a bit easier as you are much more likely to get a good bow early. If you're playing for turns you can't really use spells for offense until you get Wis pretty high (if you're lucky you get a good HA and a big AoWis early).

I'd be really hesitant to call _any_ warrior an easy win. They're great up to around 2500', but they just have too much inventory difficulty after that, among other problems.

I would agree with you about the HE ranger. The only thing with them is that they're a bit annoying because of the lateness of a useable ID spell combined with weak pseudo- but that is a bit less an issue than it was when their pseudo was completely useless, as it was at one point. They can also be a bit of a pain for diving in some versions if you can't get enough arrows. You have to learn to conserve. Anyway, you just learn to buy out every source of ID and stock a lot of arrows.

The other thing about them is that they're really subject to the vagaries of chance- when do you find a good bow, and when do you find Tenser's. If you don't find a decent bow until 3000' it can be hard to kill some things. But none of this really applies if you are not diving pretty fast (except the ammo thing- it does mean that you have to pick your battles a bit until you can dispose of weaker enemies in H-T-H combat).

[Dragonboneman]

I actually think Dwarf Priests are one of the easiest combos, but if you like to play very fast (as it seems you do) there is a steep learning curve diving with them. One thing I did for a while that taught me a lot is playing Cliff-style- suicide diving using small levels in the old NPP with a dwarf priest. They're tougher than mages at the start, both because Priests are a bit less delicate and because Dwarves are pretty robust. But like most classes other than warrior and ranger, the key to early diving with them is playing like a poor ranger with some bennies. NPP makes this a bit easier as you are much more likely to get a good bow early. If you're playing for turns you can't really use spells for offense until you get Wis pretty high (if you're lucky you get a good HA and a big AoWis early).

I'd be really hesitant to call _any_ warrior an easy win. They're great up to around 2500', but they just have too much inventory difficulty after that, among other problems.

I would agree with you about the HE ranger. The only thing with them is that they're a bit annoying because of the lateness of a useable ID spell combined with weak pseudo- but that is a bit less an issue than it was when their pseudo was completely useless, as it was at one point. They can also be a bit of a pain for diving in some versions if you can't get enough arrows. You have to learn to conserve. Anyway, you just learn to buy out every source of ID and stock a lot of arrows.

The other thing about them is that they're really subject to the vagaries of chance- when do you find a good bow, and when do you find Tenser's. If you don't find a decent bow until 3000' it can be hard to kill some things. But none of this really applies if you are not diving pretty fast (except the ammo thing- it does mean that you have to pick your battles a bit until you can dispose of weaker enemies in H-T-H combat).

I don't think I'm a very fast player - I'm not sure how long most of my wins took, but I'd estimate the average would be around 8 million turns. My first win was extremely slow, in fact I spent so long scumming 4950' for potions I found the One Ring and Deathwreaker.
I alternate between diving and stalling, and usually kill all the uniques by the time I'm done. I do tend to play the first half of the dungeon pretty quickly though, and I don't park at <2000 seeking stat potions.
As for warriors and inventory hassles, I've never found them that bad. You have enough STR to carry a large "toolkit", and not needing spellbooks frees up a decent number of slots. The hard part of the warrior game is around the statgain phase, when you are still building your means of escape and detection as well as the ability to use them reliably.
What you say about rangers having to choose their battles applies to all the classes - if you fight when you're not sure you can win, you probably won't.