Revamping combat

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[fizzix]

I like Djabanete's option for two-handed wielding of heavy weapons in the early game. I guess two-handed wielding could be viewed as +3 STR, +3 DEX. Or +5 STR. I don't know, it's been a long time since I looked at the blows calculation.

Another related point that magnate had in his list also deserves some consideration. Weapon speed (or the inverse, weapon inertia). It bothers me that a whip gets multiple blows due to its weight. Really a whip is very slow weapon and it should get a penalty. However, this the weapon that is the most out of place, so I'm not sure it's worth worrying about it too much. The blows calculation could have the structure of:

Blows = F( f1(Dex, Weapon Speed), f2(Str, Weapon Weight)).

This would also allow us to fix the silliness that has morning stars, ball and chains, and flails all being essentially identical. Flails would weigh less but have lower speed.

One thing that was apparent to me when I tried to write some weapons descriptions was that I know very little about medieval weaponry... So I'm not sure I'd be the best person to decide what should weigh how much, and what should be fast.

[Magnate]

I feel like I've brought this up before, but Hengband has a really smart way of keeping both heavy and light weapons relevant throughout the game. All weapons can be wielded one-handed (but of course, some require great strength to do so effectively). Many weapons, though, permit two-handed wielding. This means that you can choose to sacrifice the use of a shield in exchange for a virtual Strength bonus that impacts your blows/round and your damage. Weighing damage against AC and attributes is an interesting decision process that often stays relevant well into the mid-game in my experience. (Eventually, in the late game, you'll always need the attributes, once you find a good enough shield.)

If the goal is to render early game weapon choice non-trivial and give heavy weapons a boost in utility, this is a perfect solution in my opinion! And it's quite intuitive and realistic. With Vanilla's new enhancements to "I"nspecting, there could even be a sentence saying "if you switched to wielding this two-handed, you would get 2.4 blows instead of 2.2."

++

I like this a lot. I deliberately left dual-wielding and/or two-handed wielding off my list because I didn't want to start a tidal wave of realism issues, but this is one that I like. For me it's kind of in the third tier of combat changes: sort out the basic mechanics of melee, then sort out shooting and throwing, then add bells and whistles like dual/2h wielding and unarmed combat. But as sethos said earlier, this all needs to be planned out carefully before it's coded, so I'm definitely up for bearing 2h wielding in mind when considering the heavy/light weapon issues.

[Djabanete]

I feel like I've brought this up before, but Hengband has a really smart way of keeping both heavy and light weapons relevant throughout the game. All weapons can be wielded one-handed (but of course, some require great strength to do so effectively). Many weapons, though, permit two-handed wielding. This means that you can choose to sacrifice the use of a shield in exchange for a virtual Strength bonus that impacts your blows/round and your damage. Weighing damage against AC and attributes is an interesting decision process that often stays relevant well into the mid-game in my experience. (Eventually, in the late game, you'll always need the attributes, once you find a good enough shield.)

If the goal is to render early game weapon choice non-trivial and give heavy weapons a boost in utility, this is a perfect solution in my opinion! And it's quite intuitive and realistic. With Vanilla's new enhancements to "I"nspecting, there could even be a sentence saying "if you switched to wielding this two-handed, you would get 2.4 blows instead of 2.2."

[bio_hazard]

I like the "finesse/power" categories. This is sort of similar to the ToME 4 system, btw. This is nitpicky, but I kind of prefer "mastery" over "finesse". I like the idea that different races/classes might have different aptitudes with different weapons, and so a hobbit rogue is likely to kick butt with a small stabby thing while a troll priest may do more damage with a tree trunk. I think this would be a great solution to promoting this with soft vs. hard guidelines.

In terms of the slashing/crushing/(& maybe piercing)- I like this in principle. I don't mind the carrying swaps around- if you have X > 1 weapon needs, it seems that would give that much more probability that a new weapon drop might be an upgrade. My concern though is that when you multiply damage type with slays/brands, that it greatly expands the combinations, and maybe will be too diluting and/or create combinations that are almost always inferior.

[sethos]

Back in my D&D days, there were monster resistances to damage types, but there were also some weapons that could do damage multiple ways, notably polearms and large axes (a Modern maul has an axhead with a blunt hammer on the rear side for blunt/ edged, a halberd would have a spearpoint and axehead for edged/piercing). Is this something that we really want to implement? I actually am for it as far as flavor/ realism goes, but who's going to code all this, I wonder?

Secondly, I do rather fear the idea of physical immune and or magic immune monsters - Eog golems and such would become quite deadly for mages, and (Archliches/ ? ) for warriors. Not a problem, just something to consider.

Just playing devil's advocate, but it should be fairly well planned out before it is implemented, at least. BTW - D&D did have critical multipliers and crit ranges for different items - A rapier scored criticals frequently, but they only did double damage (3 out of 20 criticaled, but X2 damage) whereas a great maul was (1 out of 20 critical, but x4 damage) there were plenty of other combinations in between, as well. another thing to consider - can a monster recieve a critical hit? not undead, constructs, or jellies, that would be a starting point for the monsters that would take reduced damage from piercing weapons, as a piercing weapons goal is to strike a critical area with a small amount of force (just try to poke out a skeleton's heart, It don't work.). ah well, time to end the rant.

[Magnate]

Perfect - thank you. If I just keep bunging you questions you'll have the whole new combat system sorted out in no time ...

[Derakon]

I'm not sure that the meaningful variety that I think is necessary in combat skill is adequately achieved by having the rules the same for everyone bar overarching high-level skill differences.

Certainly a reasonable concern. Right now I'm mostly just spouting off my feelings, without any eye towards implementation details. Obviously feelings have to bow to what is practical to implement.

But I respect your concern that having class-specific penalties 'just cos' feels wrong. So how would you feel about a hybrid: let's say that some weapons rely purely on STR (big hammers/maces) while others rely purely on DEX (daggers, whips) and others on both to differing extents (flails, swords, etc.). But instead of using the stats directly, we use a 'skill' level derived from each stat (let's call them smashing skill and wiggling skill, respectively - so hammers need smashing skill and daggers/whips need wiggling skill). There's no reason that every class needs to have the same smashing skill at a given STR, is there? You can see warriors being better with hammers than mages, even with the same STR, right? Similarly rogues would have higher wiggling skill than warriors, at the same DEX. Does that work for you?

That's certainly a lot better than direct class-based weapon restrictions, because it's more organic. The fact that rogues are better with light weapons than with heavy ones is unchanged, but instead of simply stating the fact as a premise, it is derived from simpler premises. I much prefer emergent behaviors over fiat "this is how things should be" rulings.

Your breakdown sounds pretty reasonable. For better names, how about "weapon finesse" and "combat power"? Skill is a function of race, class, level, and (DEX for the former, STR for the latter).

Branching out a bit more, you could make blows be a function of your finesse skill and how much finesse contributes to the weapon, while damage per blow would be a function of power skill and how much it contributes to the weapon. So for example, a maul might get a 4x multiplier to damage, but still only make 1 blow per round; a whip might get 4 blows per round, but would have no multiplier to its damage. So characters with high finesse but low power will tend to make multiple light blows per round, while characters with high power but low finesse will make single, heavy blows.

You could also make finesse affect your to-hit chance regardless of weapon, while power affects your critical quality regardless of weapon. The nice thing about this is that us re-cast the to-hit bonus on a weapon as its modifier to your finesse skill (and likewise with damage and your power skill). The same would of course apply to off-weapon bonuses.

Fizzix is right about swap weapons btw: *Everybody* in Sang carries either swap weapons (warriors) or other attack forms (spells/devices) to deal with monsters that resist their main weapon. In fact the design of O and its descendants explicitly expects warriors to carry multiple weapons. But yes, I really like the idea of some monsters being more/less vulnerable to specific types of damage. Not sure whether we want to go further than just blunt/sharp - the distinction between slashing and puncturing might be more trouble than it's worth ...

In hindsight, that's to be expected -- if there's a common situation in which a swap weapon gives significant tactical advantages, then players will carry swap weapons. I'm always paranoid about losing them to elemental attacks, is all...

[Magnate]

I don't play rangers often, so it hasn't really occurred to me to think much about it, but now I'm inclined to think that shot speed should work broadly like blows per round -- that is, the rate at which you can fire the weapon is a function of your dexterity (to notch and aim), your strength (to draw / crank the bow), and the weight/multiplier of the bow (larger weight -> heavier draw -> more strength needed to draw quickly). Obviously this would need fractional shot speed to be remotely balanced.

Warriors getting innate protection from fear at clvl 30 is also problematic...there my main concerns are that a) warriors are nigh-completely neutered by being frightened, and b) their inventory is already strained by not having any spellcasting ability. Still, everyone else who wants fear protection just carries !Heroism (or, rarely, finds gear with the relevant protection). It won't hurt the warriors overmuch to have to do likewise.

So I think your "rules should be the same for everyone" approach is actually quite a bit more radical than we intend v4 to be - but in the opposite direction!

I'm not sure that the meaningful variety that I think is necessary in combat skill is adequately achieved by having the rules the same for everyone bar overarching high-level skill differences. But I respect your concern that having class-specific penalties 'just cos' feels wrong. So how would you feel about a hybrid: let's say that some weapons rely purely on STR (big hammers/maces) while others rely purely on DEX (daggers, whips) and others on both to differing extents (flails, swords, etc.). But instead of using the stats directly, we use a 'skill' level derived from each stat (let's call them smashing skill and wiggling skill, respectively - so hammers need smashing skill and daggers/whips need wiggling skill). There's no reason that every class needs to have the same smashing skill at a given STR, is there? You can see warriors being better with hammers than mages, even with the same STR, right? Similarly rogues would have higher wiggling skill than warriors, at the same DEX. Does that work for you?

Fizzix is right about swap weapons btw: *Everybody* in Sang carries either swap weapons (warriors) or other attack forms (spells/devices) to deal with monsters that resist their main weapon. In fact the design of O and its descendants explicitly expects warriors to carry multiple weapons. But yes, I really like the idea of some monsters being more/less vulnerable to specific types of damage. Not sure whether we want to go further than just blunt/sharp - the distinction between slashing and puncturing might be more trouble than it's worth ...

[Derakon]

How do you feel about extra shots for rangers?

I don't play rangers often, so it hasn't really occurred to me to think much about it, but now I'm inclined to think that shot speed should work broadly like blows per round -- that is, the rate at which you can fire the weapon is a function of your dexterity (to notch and aim), your strength (to draw / crank the bow), and the weight/multiplier of the bow (larger weight -> heavier draw -> more strength needed to draw quickly). Obviously this would need fractional shot speed to be remotely balanced.

Warriors getting innate protection from fear at clvl 30 is also problematic...there my main concerns are that a) warriors are nigh-completely neutered by being frightened, and b) their inventory is already strained by not having any spellcasting ability. Still, everyone else who wants fear protection just carries !Heroism (or, rarely, finds gear with the relevant protection). It won't hurt the warriors overmuch to have to do likewise.

[fizzix]

Mages already get penalized for heavy weapons because they're too weak to wield them effectively. That's the kind of "penalty" that should be in the game. Not a penalty which is some distant DM going "Says here on this character sheet that you're a mage, so you get -1 to damage for each pound your weapon weighs over 3." That's not playing fair, to me -- the rules should be equal for everyone, just their starting circumstances are changed. If you stumbled into high-STR gear for your mage and want to wield heavy weapons, sure, go for it.

How do you feel about extra shots for rangers?

The only concern I have with this approach is finding a way to make it meaningful without devolving into "everyone carries a swap weapon for when their main doesn't work." Otherwise it sounds like an excellent idea. ISTR that SAngband has weapon damage types and monsters that resist those types, as you described; trying to kill e.g. a skeleton with anything beside blunt trauma was an exercise in frustration.

I don't see a way around this. Everything about making different weapons better in different situations screams "swap." For warriors it would probably be swap weapons, I don't see a way around this. I don't think it's bad for gameplay though.

[Derakon]

I think outright restrictions are a very bad idea for angband, but penalties are a good idea. We already have these in place, with mages getting a SP penalty if their armor is too heavy, and priests getting a penalty for using a sharp weapon. We could add to the penalties/bonuses. Paladins could get a bonus using heavy weapons, Rogues for light weapons, warriors are very good at all weapons, etc. Mages get a penalty for heavy weapons, priests for sharp weapons. I don't have specifics for how this would work, just a general idea.

The armor restriction applies to everyone equally (well, except warriors, who of course have no mana to lose). Mages arguably care the least about it since they have the most mana; their bugbear is being slowed by the sheer weight of their gear, not being unable to cast spells in it. And the priest sharp weapon penalty is IMO stupid and should go.

Mages already get penalized for heavy weapons because they're too weak to wield them effectively. That's the kind of "penalty" that should be in the game. Not a penalty which is some distant DM going "Says here on this character sheet that you're a mage, so you get -1 to damage for each pound your weapon weighs over 3." That's not playing fair, to me -- the rules should be equal for everyone, just their starting circumstances are changed. If you stumbled into high-STR gear for your mage and want to wield heavy weapons, sure, go for it.

Which isn't to say I'm arguing for some "everyone's a blank slate with the same ultimate potential" type of system. We currently have class-based skills that dictate effectiveness in a large number of areas and that seem to work fairly well. But they're broad overarching things; warriors suck with all magic devices. Priests suck with all ranged combat. And so on. Narrowing things down by item subtype is the kind of thing that bugs me.

There's yet another option which involves going back to splitting AC into absorption and evasion. I tried this once, and it didn't make much difference. But I know why, and can adjust accordingly. The effects refactor will help this.

<snip>

The only concern I have with this approach is finding a way to make it meaningful without devolving into "everyone carries a swap weapon for when their main doesn't work." Otherwise it sounds like an excellent idea. ISTR that SAngband has weapon damage types and monsters that resist those types, as you described; trying to kill e.g. a skeleton with anything beside blunt trauma was an exercise in frustration.