Revamping combat

[Derakon]

The way I envisioned the finesse / power balance was that each weapon would have a value that indicated how strongly it benefited from finesse vs. power. Something like a longsword would have a 50/50 split, a dagger would be weighted strongly towards finesse, a maul strongly towards power. Let's make up some numbers to make this more concrete:

Warrior: 100 finesse, 150 power
Rogue: 150 finesse, 80 power
Ranger: 120 finesse, 50 power

Dagger: 80% finesse, 20% power
Longsword: 50% finesse, 50% power
Maul: 5% finesse, 95% power

Rogue with dagger: +120% finesse bonus (2.2 blows/round), +16% damage bonus
Warrior with maul: +5% finesse bonus (1.05 blows/round), +143% damage bonus
Ranger with longsword: +60% finesse bonus (1.6 blows/round), +25% damage bonus

If these weapons all had the same base damage (100, let's say) for some strange reason, then the DPS would break down as follows: Rogue: 255.2 damage/round; Warrior: 255.15 damage/round; Ranger: 200 damage/round.

Now, there's nothing that says that the sum of the finesse and power bonuses a weapon receives needs to be 100. So you could make whips into awkward weapons by making them 50% power, 20% finesse; similarly you could represent a masterwork rapier by making it 100% finesse, 20% power. Given the way multipliers work here I suspect we'd need to be careful to avoid making useless or overpowered weapons, but the point is that it's easy to tweak things to represent how a weapon is actually used in an intuitive fashion.

[myshkin]

I don't have any particular new proposals here. A few notes in response:

• We will have to redesign how stat bonuses, resistances, and other attributes are distributed among the various equipment slots before implementing a balanced 2H/dual-wielding mechanic. Right now, it's pretty hard to forgo the benefits of an artifact shield, for example. If we have 2H or dual-wielding in the game, I'd like to see them be viable options up to and including the endgame. Also, while I share Derakon's aversion to class-specific bonuses, I can see warrior bonuses in these categories as more organic and reasonable.
• I think it's worth taking a look at Steamband's combat mechanics as well, as a source for ideas. They can't be imported directly, without lots of other changes like a skill tree, but the force mechanic seems potentially useful as another means of differentiating weapons beyond weight, without resorting to edged/blunt/etc. classifications. (Anyone up for porting Steamband forward to a modern UI? I thought someone had proposed doing this at some point, but couldn't find anything, and I don't know whether Courtney is still active.)
• One other possibility for opening up the combat system is to reduce the amount of variation due to number of blows, with a corresponding increase in the variation due to critical hits.

[tg122]

On the topic of 2H / Dual Wielded weapons, I believe some variants let you wear the shield on your back if using a 2H weapon in order to still get the stat gain/resistance bonuses without getting the armor bonus.

[Nomad]

I feel like more use could be made of the currently largely pointless division into swords, polearms and hafted weapons. Maybe do away with the priestly blunt weapon restriction, and replace it with class based skill bonuses for each category? Warriors should be skilled with all categories of melee weapons, rogues good with blades and clumsy with polearms, priests bad with everything except hafted weapons, etc.

In fact, you could expand the same to missile weapons: do away with the rangers' automatic extra shot and instead give them skill bonuses with all three types of launcher while other classes and races are at their best with one specific type.

[LostTemplar]

I am currently trying to add some difference between weapon classes in FAangband. It is nice idea overall.

[Magnate]

We will have to redesign how stat bonuses, resistances, and other attributes are distributed among the various equipment slots before implementing a balanced 2H/dual-wielding mechanic. Right now, it's pretty hard to forgo the benefits of an artifact shield, for example.

I don't think my experience agrees with that. If we ignore the obvious imbalance of Thorin being too findable and overpowered for most of the last twenty years, I think there are plenty of randart winners with wholly underwhelming shields, and plenty of weapons with lots of stats or resists.

I'm not saying we wouldn't have to make any balance adjustments at all, but I don't think it would necessarily involve wholesale redesign of how item bonuses are distributed among the other slots ... and as tg122 says, we can (if we want) still allow the non-AC bonuses of a shield worn on the back, a la Sangband.

[*] I think it's worth taking a look at Steamband's combat mechanics as well, as a source for ideas. They can't be imported directly, without lots of other changes like a skill tree, but the force mechanic seems potentially useful as another means of differentiating weapons beyond weight, without resorting to edged/blunt/etc. classifications.

I don't really understand Steam's force mechanic yet, so I can't agree or disagree with it - but I don't see why "resorting" to distinguishing damage types would be a bad thing in any case.

Steam also has another feature that I omitted in my list of fundamental considerations: the distinction between fatigue (hit points) and injury ("wound points"). The case for this distinction is IMO not quite as clear as that for evasion/absorption - and it would mean an additional array of healing mechanics - but it's something to think about.

[sethos]

I do not think that dual wielding feels right for Angband, but I Do think that 2 handed wielding does.
My idea, again, must come from D&D - I Believe that you were treated as if you're strength were 1.5 times as high (or something to that effect, maybe 1.2 would be better) when you wielded two handed. (hmm, 1.5 modifier means 18/20 would then be 18/120, and 18/90 would be 18/***.)

well, I don't know what numbers would be best, but that's my two cents - this would also mean that the "Bonus" disappears when your character becomes exceedingly strong.

that would presents another question - if 2h fighting were introduced, should it be stopgap until you can reach top strength and get a shield, or should 2h be a viable strategy till endgame, meaning that it should give a significant bonus regardless of your stats (or perhaps beyond your normal stat maximums?)

[EpicMan]

I do not think that dual wielding feels right for Angband, but I Do think that 2 handed wielding does.
My idea, again, must come from D&D - I Believe that you were treated as if you're strength were 1.5 times as high (or something to that effect, maybe 1.2 would be better) when you wielded two handed. (hmm, 1.5 modifier means 18/20 would then be 18/120, and 18/90 would be 18/***.)

well, I don't know what numbers would be best, but that's my two cents - this would also mean that the "Bonus" disappears when your character becomes exceedingly strong.

that would presents another question - if 2h fighting were introduced, should it be stopgap until you can reach top strength and get a shield, or should 2h be a viable strategy till endgame, meaning that it should give a significant bonus regardless of your stats (or perhaps beyond your normal stat maximums?)

In DND (at least 3.5) stat bonuses were linear, in Angband they are more or less exponential. So I think to get the same effect as in DND you would need to multiply the effects of strength on melee (bonus damage, bonus to-hit, etc) by 1.5. Of course the exact multiplier needed for balance is probably different but that's a good place to start. You should also get more STR for purposes of blows when two-handing a weapon but I don't have a clue how that should work.

Despite not having a clue I do have an opinion: Since this is about combat revamp, I think there are too many blows allowed. Monsters only get up to four, I think the player should be similarly limited:
Warrior-4 (or 3)
Paladin-3 or 4, maybe 3.5? (or 2/2.5 or3)
Ranger/Rogue-3 (or 2)
Mage/Priest-2 (or just 1)

[Derakon]

What's the reason for limiting the player to four blows? Just symmetry? The player's going to need to dish out a certain amount of damage in a given amount of time; all that limiting blows does is make the amount of damage on any give round more variable (because it has to happen in fewer blows, and blows can miss).

Keep in mind that monsters are horrifically more powerful than the player in a pure-stats sense. The player's main advantage is being able to use his/her equipment intelligently. In a straight-up damage race between the player and a like-leveled unique monster, the player will generally lose.

[bio_hazard]

You make a good point about gameplay, Derakon, so it could be the large number of blows/round is necessary. However, I agree with EpicMan that it feels off. I would be in favor of player attacks getting more powerful with better kits and/or skill/CL/ whatever. By powerful, I mean more and more damaging crits. Maybe much higher chance to stun or even make a knock-back attack (with blunt or heavy weapons, potentially), or more cuts (sharp or piercing weapons). Another possibility, make crit attacks operate kind of like the ToME 2 "Curse" (I think that was it), where you have a chance to reduce enemy melee damage, to hit, or AC with good attacks.

Also, I'm kind of on the fence about the changes to 2-handed weapons/two handed wielding that are being discussed. On the one hand, if this let half-trolls carry weapons that were traditionally 2-handed in one hand, that would be pretty cool. On the other hand, if every hobbit mage that buffs up to 18/a billion strength is striding around with a mace of disruption in one hand and a large shield in the other, that just seems wrong. I'm not sure that the strength bonus for 2-handing a one-handed weapon really adds much. If it is adopted, it might make sense to add some changes that make shields more useful- possibly increasing saving throws, a better AC bonus, chance to negate one monster attack, or maybe a shield bash when str/dex are high enough.

[Magnate]

While I'm ambivalent about the whole 2h/dual wield thing (I see it as nice flavour but far from important), I think it's worth noting that the racial distinctions in Angband are largely for flavour and have very little impact on the game beyond starting stats. I know there are some plans to introduce more racial abilities in v4, but it seems to me (at least initially) that going down the route of race-specific rules for equipment is more complexity than it's worth. Do you really want to find that your hobbits have totally different equipment restrictions than your half-trolls? I'm not sure that many would welcome that.

[fizzix]

I know there are some plans to introduce more racial abilities in v4, but it seems to me (at least initially) that going down the route of race-specific rules for equipment is more complexity than it's worth. Do you really want to find that your hobbits have totally different equipment restrictions than your half-trolls? I'm not sure that many would welcome that.

I while ago I suggested giving races bonuses to using weapons with their race attributes and penalties for other weapons. It would be grouped, so that hobbits, gnomes, kobolds could all use each other's weapons without penalty. Humans would get no benefits from any weapons but no penalties for using another. For penalties and benefits, I was thinking something like +5 to-hit for using an appropriate weapon and -2 to hit for using an inappropriate one.

This is much more for flavor than for gameplay, so it can certainly wait while we get combat sorted out.

[Magnate]

I while ago I suggested giving races bonuses to using weapons with their race attributes and penalties for other weapons. It would be grouped, so that hobbits, gnomes, kobolds could all use each other's weapons without penalty. Humans would get no benefits from any weapons but no penalties for using another. For penalties and benefits, I was thinking something like +5 to-hit for using an appropriate weapon and -2 to hit for using an inappropriate one.

This is much more for flavor than for gameplay, so it can certainly wait while we get combat sorted out.

Yeah that's a slightly different thing - small bonuses/penalties are ok, it's "cannot wield" or "can wield a two-hander in one hand" that I was worried about.

[bio_hazard]

While I'm ambivalent about the whole 2h/dual wield thing (I see it as nice flavour but far from important), I think it's worth noting that the racial distinctions in Angband are largely for flavour and have very little impact on the game beyond starting stats. I know there are some plans to introduce more racial abilities in v4, but it seems to me (at least initially) that going down the route of race-specific rules for equipment is more complexity than it's worth. Do you really want to find that your hobbits have totally different equipment restrictions than your half-trolls? I'm not sure that many would welcome that.

I don't know that they would necessarily need to be hard restrictions, but if we are already talking about racial/class specific modifiers to other melee "skills", I don't see this as that far of a leap.

Maybe it's just that I'm fairly dis-satisfied with the way stat-gain works in Vanilla, since it serves to make characters so similar by the time they are half-way through the game. I think I'll just keep my mouth shut and explore more variants.

[Magnate]

I don't know that they would necessarily need to be hard restrictions, but if we are already talking about racial/class specific modifiers to other melee "skills", I don't see this as that far of a leap.

Maybe it's just that I'm fairly dis-satisfied with the way stat-gain works in Vanilla, since it serves to make characters so similar by the time they are half-way through the game. I think I'll just keep my mouth shut and explore more variants.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put you off - that's a perfectly good explanation, and I agree with you that V chars end up far too similar post-stat-gain. I misunderstood your original point is all.