Itemization for spellcasters?
Peter Knutsen
When last I played Angband and Zangband, almost a decade ago,
itemization for spellcasting character classes was *extremely*
primitive. Has the situation improved?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Timo Pietilä
> Hi
>
> When last I played Angband and Zangband, almost a decade ago,
> itemization for spellcasting character classes was *extremely*
> primitive. Has the situation improved?
At least I don't understand what you mean by "itemization". Elaborate,
please.
Timo Pietil�
Magnate
news:4b015824$0$277$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> Hi
>
> When last I played Angband and Zangband, almost a decade ago, itemization
> for spellcasting character classes was *extremely* primitive. Has the
> situation improved?
Sorry, what is itemisation? Turning things into items?
CC
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> When last I played Angband and Zangband, almost a decade ago,
>> itemization for spellcasting character classes was *extremely*
>> primitive. Has the situation improved?
>
> At least I don't understand what you mean by "itemization". Elaborate,
> please.
"Itemization" is a very common word when discussing MMORPGs such as
World of Warcraft, and it refers to the addition of (findable or
craftable) items that enhances the character's (class) powers.
A melee fighter class gets boosts to his innate class powers from magic
weapons and armours; they make him better at using his fighting skills.
A spellcaster did not, in those versions I played, get many bonuses from
items, except INT bonus items. He could just find wands and staves that
contained spells that he could make those items cast, but they never
enhanced his *own* spells.
An hypothetical example of increased itemization in Angband, could be a
magic ring that makes the wielder's level count as 3 higher, for the
purpose of calculating the damage of fire-based spells. (ISTR that many
damage-causing spells have damage that goes up with character level,
meaning there's some sort of formula or function involved.)
Another example would be a staff that halves the mana cost of utility
spells (this could be defined as all spells that do not cause damage, or
it could be defined somewhat more narrowly; either way it would
presumably be flag-based within the compiled code, or within the scripts).
Less specific itemization is also possible, for instance a head slot
item that adds +33% range to all ranged damage-causing spells, but I
like specific bonuses a lot, because they're much more flavourful.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Ray
> "Itemization" is a very common word when discussing MMORPGs such as
> World of Warcraft, and it refers to the addition of (findable or
> craftable) items that enhances the character's (class) powers.
> A spellcaster did not, in those versions I played, get many bonuses from
> items, except INT bonus items. He could just find wands and staves that
> contained spells that he could make those items cast, but they never
> enhanced his *own* spells.
> An hypothetical example of increased itemization in Angband, could be a
> magic ring that makes the wielder's level count as 3 higher, for the
> purpose of calculating the damage of fire-based spells. (ISTR that many
> damage-causing spells have damage that goes up with character level,
> meaning there's some sort of formula or function involved.)
> Another example would be a staff that halves the mana cost of utility
> spells (this could be defined as all spells that do not cause damage, or
> it could be defined somewhat more narrowly; either way it would
> presumably be flag-based within the compiled code, or within the scripts).
> Less specific itemization is also possible, for instance a head slot
> item that adds +33% range to all ranged damage-causing spells, but I
> like specific bonuses a lot, because they're much more flavourful.
You're right. Those are excellent examples of the sort of thing
Angband does not have. The situation is unchanged; you can find
items that allow specific casts - some are charged and some per-
day - but nothing that changes the spells you cast in any way,
or gives you a bonus in any circumstance where you can choose what
spells to use it with.
Casters are weakest of all Angband characters, both in offense
and defense. If you want to survive them, you basically have to
pretend they're weak fighters who can cast a few spells. I think
the things you describe are good ideas. Another possibility is
that the recently-added branding rings (which add elemental
damage for weapon hits) could increase damage on matching
elemental spells for casters. But I'm not the maintainer and I
have no idea how difficult any of this would be to add to Angband.
Bear
Timo Pietilä
> Casters are weakest of all Angband characters, both in offense
> and defense. If you want to survive them, you basically have to
> pretend they're weak fighters who can cast a few spells.
I guess you have never played priest? Or got mage in high levels? Both
beat warrior any day in both offense and defense.
Timo Pietil�
Timo Pietilä
> Timo Pietil� wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>> When last I played Angband and Zangband, almost a decade ago,
>>> itemization for spellcasting character classes was *extremely*
>>> primitive. Has the situation improved?
>>
>> At least I don't understand what you mean by "itemization". Elaborate,
>> please.
>
> "Itemization" is a very common word when discussing MMORPGs such as
> World of Warcraft, and it refers to the addition of (findable or
> craftable) items that enhances the character's (class) powers.
>
> A melee fighter class gets boosts to his innate class powers from magic
> weapons and armours; they make him better at using his fighting skills.
>
> A spellcaster did not, in those versions I played, get many bonuses from
> items, except INT bonus items. He could just find wands and staves that
> contained spells that he could make those items cast, but they never
> enhanced his *own* spells.
For pure spellcasters there are spellbooks and mana generating items but
not much else. OTOH that is the case with all other classes too, mage
and priest are just ordinary class with better spellcasting abilities
(like possibility to get zero failure and more spells). They do not
differ much from other classes, and spellcasting ability does not count
as "innate class power". Mage and priest just are better at it than
paladin, rogue and ranger, that's all.
This isn't very complex game and it is fine as it is. This is Quake or
roguelikes. If you want more odd behavior try nethack, it is Leisure
Suit Larry of roguelikes.
Timo Pietil�
Matthew Vernon
> For pure spellcasters there are spellbooks and mana generating items
> but not much else. OTOH that is the case with all other classes too,
INT-bonus stuff is often really helpful at reducing %-fail, and
increasing SP. Rblind and Rconf are really handy at still being able
to cast your spells, too ;-)
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Psi
> When last I played Angband and Zangband, almost a decade ago,
> itemization for spellcasting character classes was *extremely*
> primitive. Has the situation improved?
Maybe not in V, but O variants have specialities which you can select
at breakpoints (CL based in O, task based in FA). For mages there are
ones that increase the level of the spell, allow you to cast spells
quicker etc.
In ToME you can get specific items that increase your spell power,
mana reserve etc
Otto Martin
>Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>An hypothetical example of increased itemization in Angband, could be
>>a magic ring that makes the wielder's level count as 3 higher, for the
>>purpose of calculating the damage of fire-based spells.
>>spells
>>item that adds +33% range to all ranged damage-causing spells, but I
>>like specific bonuses a lot, because they're much more flavourful.
>You're right. Those are excellent examples of the sort of thing
>Angband does not have. The situation is unchanged; you can find
>items that allow specific casts - some are charged and some per-
>day - but nothing that changes the spells you cast in any way,
>or gives you a bonus in any circumstance where you can choose what
>spells to use it with.
The first suggestion that comes to my mind is to simply take the item
flags we already have (things like FROST_BRAND or REGENERATION are the
most simple, but you could probably use most of them) and make them
affect spells; making cold and healing spells more powerful in the above
examples. If you want to get fancy, make the item type or it's plusses
change how the spell is made more powerful.
This is a more variantish idea, but I like it. It might make many
currently boring artifacts slightly more usable for a mage. I'd focus
first on using weapon flags, since the actual weapon is often less
interesting for casters, but armor flags might also be used in some
ways.
The main problem with creating more specific items is that the more
fighting-oriented classes will have no use for those items, and the
notorious junk problem certainly shouldn't be exacerbated.
Otto Martin - too bad most spells have just one numerical attribute...
--
I can be tactful. I just generally don't see the point.
http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=215
Peter Knutsen
> Ray <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>You're right. Those are excellent examples of the sort of thing
>>Angband does not have. The situation is unchanged; you can find
>>items that allow specific casts - some are charged and some per-
>>day - but nothing that changes the spells you cast in any way,
>>or gives you a bonus in any circumstance where you can choose what
>>spells to use it with.
Also, finding charges items (rods, wands, staves) isn't an actual power
boost to the spellcasting character, because it only improves
versatility, not power, measured in damage output per time unit.
Contrast this with a Fighter or Paladin who replaces his ordinary weapon
with an element branded weapon. BANG! Instant tripled damage!
It bothers me a lot that Mages can't get the same noticable boost in raw
power by finding items, since finding random items is to me one of the
biggest attractions in roguelike games.
(I'm not saying a Mage-boosting item should triple the damage caused by
all spells of one element. Something like +25% more damage, or giving
damage as if the Mage's level was 1 or 2 higher, will probably be plenty.)
> The first suggestion that comes to my mind is to simply take the item
> flags we already have (things like FROST_BRAND or REGENERATION are the
> most simple, but you could probably use most of them) and make them
Early in this millenium, if not late in the previous, I suggsted that
REGENERATION should be split up into REGEN_HP and REGEN_MANA.
ISTR my idea was that I wanted to add mana regeneration to a fairly
common head slot item, Crown of the Magi or something, which currently
wasn't too attractive for mages, since it only had an INT bonus and a
few non-combat flags. Adding mana regeneration would be nice, but with
the then system, it was only possible to add *both* mana and HP
regeneration at the same time, which I thought was needlessly powerful
(and might also cause non-spellcasting classes to choose to wear that item).
Regeneration could also be divided up into speeds, so that there's Slow
Mana Regen, Fast Mana Regen, Slow HP Regen and Fast HP Regen. I figure
fast could be as fast as the current REGEN, and slow could be 1/2 or 1/3
as fast, which I presume would still be noticably faster than natural regen.
Such a more fine-grained system opens up for adding limited regeneration
to more items, items that in a way ought to have it now, but doesn't
because the only version of regeneration available in the current code
is too powerful.
> affect spells; making cold and healing spells more powerful in the above
> examples. If you want to get fancy, make the item type or it's plusses
Yes, that's one possibility, but it means Mages will tend to use
warrior-gear.
I'd rather have staves (as in hand-held weapons) as Mage-themed weapons,
with low damage, but nifty plusses to spells.
> change how the spell is made more powerful.
> This is a more variantish idea, but I like it. It might make many
> currently boring artifacts slightly more usable for a mage. I'd focus
Also making the artifacts more flavourful, and more precisely envisioned.
> first on using weapon flags, since the actual weapon is often less
> interesting for casters, but armor flags might also be used in some
> ways.
Armour flags can be a problem, because there are many armour slots, so
with randomly generated armour flags, it could become dangerously easy
to pimp a Mage to an extreme degree, with spell-boosting flags.
Also, the general idea is that one uses one's Hand slots to boost one's
damage output, and that's what "mage itemization flags" would do: Allow
the Mage to do more damage per time unit, in exactly the same way as,
e.g., a Fire Brand sword allows a Fighter to do more damage per time
unit, relative to before when he only had an ordinary sword.
It also forces Mages to choose what to optimize for. For instance, a
Fighter is in some situations forced to choose between a weapon with
very high damage-output, but it's fire-based damage (FIRE_BRAND flag) so
it's poor against fire-resistant enemies and very poor (useless, IIRC)
against fire-immune enemies, OR use a weapon with a lower damage-output
(big plus to damage) that works against everyone.
It should be the same with Mages, so that they can choose to wield items
that boost one particular element of damage, thereby temporarily
specializing in that element, but then not being particularly strong
against foes resistant or immune to that element.
Obvious candidates for spell-boosting flags are Hand slots (either a
kind of wand that is wielded, possibly one such wand in each hand, or a
quarterstaff wielded in both hands) and Ring slots.
> The main problem with creating more specific items is that the more
> fighting-oriented classes will have no use for those items, and the
> notorious junk problem certainly shouldn't be exacerbated.
Well, the main problem with Angband is that not all classes can and wil
complete the game playing as what they are. E.g. from what I've heard,
Mages do not complete the game playing as mages, but playing as
spellcasting melee fighters.
If it becomes more feasible to complete the game with a Mage playing him
*as* a Mage, i.e. accompishing goals by casting spells rather than
swinging with melee weapons, then Angband will become a much better game
than it currently is.
> Otto Martin - too bad most spells have just one numerical attribute...
Well, they have mana cost and damage dice roll, and don't they also have
a failure chance?
To that could be added range. Most fighting in Angband is fairly close
range, but I could see standard damage-spell range being 12 tiles,
damage-spells designated as short range being limited to 7 tiles (I
think 6 tiles might be too short), and long-range ones having a range of
20 tiles, or even 25. That would be one "axis of differentiation".
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> On Nov 16, 1:48 pm, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>When last I played Angband and Zangband, almost a decade ago,
>>itemization for spellcasting character classes was *extremely*
>>primitive. Has the situation improved?
>
> Maybe not in V, but O variants have specialities which you can select
> at breakpoints (CL based in O, task based in FA). For mages there are
That's not itemization.
> ones that increase the level of the spell, allow you to cast spells
> quicker etc.
>
> In ToME you can get specific items that increase your spell power,
> mana reserve etc
Ah, that's what I'm asking for. Maybe. Depends on how specific it can
be. I think items that give specific bonuses, e.g. to spells of one
element, are more fun than items that gives across-the-board bonuses.
Another option is a specialized mana reserve, i.e. one that can only be
used for one purpose, such as only on healing spells, only on utility
spells, only on movement spells (teleportation and so forth), only on
detection spells, or only on damage-spells of one element. This could be
for one slot only, perhaps the Head slot, so that the code won't have to
keep track of more than one specialized mana reserve ever. (The item
should instantly lose all mana if un-worn, and would only start
regenerating mana from zero once worn again.)
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Nick McConnell
[snip]
> It bothers me a lot that Mages can't get the same noticable boost in raw
> power by finding items, since finding random items is to me one of the
> biggest attractions in roguelike games.
[snip]
> Early in this millenium, if not late in the previous, I suggsted that
> REGENERATION should be split up into REGEN_HP and REGEN_MANA.
>
> ISTR my idea was that I wanted to add mana regeneration to a fairly
> common head slot item, Crown of the Magi or something, which currently
> wasn't too attractive for mages, since it only had an INT bonus and a
> few non-combat flags. Adding mana regeneration would be nice, but with
> the then system, it was only possible to add *both* mana and HP
> regeneration at the same time, which I thought was needlessly powerful
> (and might also cause non-spellcasting classes to choose to wear that
> item).
>
> Regeneration could also be divided up into speeds, so that there's Slow
> Mana Regen, Fast Mana Regen, Slow HP Regen and Fast HP Regen. I figure
> fast could be as fast as the current REGEN, and slow could be 1/2 or 1/3
> as fast, which I presume would still be noticably faster than natural
> regen.
>
> Such a more fine-grained system opens up for adding limited regeneration
> to more items, items that in a way ought to have it now, but doesn't
> because the only version of regeneration available in the current code
> is too powerful.
[lots of snip]
Sounds to me like you should be making a variant.
Nick.
Timo Pietilä
> Otto Martin wrote:
>> Ray <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> You're right. Those are excellent examples of the sort of thing
>>> Angband does not have. The situation is unchanged; you can find
>>> items that allow specific casts - some are charged and some per-
>>> day - but nothing that changes the spells you cast in any way, or
>>> gives you a bonus in any circumstance where you can choose what
>>> spells to use it with.
>
> Also, finding charges items (rods, wands, staves) isn't an actual power
> boost to the spellcasting character, because it only improves
> versatility, not power, measured in damage output per time unit.
>
> Contrast this with a Fighter or Paladin who replaces his ordinary weapon
> with an element branded weapon. BANG! Instant tripled damage!
It is also BANG! Instant tripled damage for mages and priests too for
melee-weapon.
> It bothers me a lot that Mages can't get the same noticable boost in raw
> power by finding items, since finding random items is to me one of the
> biggest attractions in roguelike games.
Your problem is that if you create such an item also rangers, paladins
and rogues get that boost, and then what you actually manage to do is
weaken warriors. Nothing else. Maybe that could increase versatility
which is good thing, but it also requires a good deal of balancing and
playtesting.
Sounds to me a idea for a variant.
Timo Pietilￜ
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> Also, finding charges items (rods, wands, staves) isn't an actual
>> power boost to the spellcasting character, because it only improves
>> versatility, not power, measured in damage output per time unit.
>>
>> Contrast this with a Fighter or Paladin who replaces his ordinary
>> weapon with an element branded weapon. BANG! Instant tripled damage!
>
> It is also BANG! Instant tripled damage for mages and priests too for
> melee-weapon.
The fact that players choose to have their Mage characters use melee
weapons, as their primary damage-dealing, method *proves* that Angband
is broken.
It *fails* as a roleplaying game, because some character classes do not
stay in role.
>> It bothers me a lot that Mages can't get the same noticable boost in
>> raw power by finding items, since finding random items is to me one of
>> the biggest attractions in roguelike games.
>
> Your problem is that if you create such an item also rangers, paladins
> and rogues get that boost, and then what you actually manage to do is
Rangers, Paladins and Rogues have their own damage-dealing methods,
based on weapons, and in the case of the Rogue also on stealth.
If they end up using items intended for Mages, then the balance is
wrong, and the newly introduced mage-boosting items are too powerful.
The problem right now is, those items aren't there at all, and therefore
Mages cannot be played *as* Mages.
If I want to play a character whose role-function is that of an
RPG-style Mage, accomplishing his goals (killing monsters and taking
their stuff) via the traditional Mage method of causign damage with cast
spells, Angband does not serve me, it does not give me that opportunity.
> weaken warriors. Nothing else. Maybe that could increase versatility
> which is good thing, but it also requires a good deal of balancing and
> playtesting.
Are you saying that Mages complete vanilla playing *as* *Mages*?
As opposed to playing like warriors, or like warrior-mages?
> Sounds to me a idea for a variant.
Rather than arguing that vanilla is broken and should be fixed, based on
objective criteria, and on clearly defined ideals for what the word
roleplaying mean in a computer game context?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Timo Pietilä
> Timo Pietilￜ wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>> Also, finding charges items (rods, wands, staves) isn't an actual
>>> power boost to the spellcasting character, because it only improves
>>> versatility, not power, measured in damage output per time unit.
>>>
>>> Contrast this with a Fighter or Paladin who replaces his ordinary
>>> weapon with an element branded weapon. BANG! Instant tripled damage!
>>
>> It is also BANG! Instant tripled damage for mages and priests too for
>> melee-weapon.
>
> The fact that players choose to have their Mage characters use melee
> weapons, as their primary damage-dealing, method *proves* that Angband
> is broken.
No, it doesn't. Angband is angband, not roleplaying game.
You can use spells if you want to.
> It *fails* as a roleplaying game, because some character classes do not
> stay in role.
This is not roleplaying game, this is roguelike computer game.
>>> It bothers me a lot that Mages can't get the same noticable boost in
>>> raw power by finding items, since finding random items is to me one
>>> of the biggest attractions in roguelike games.
>>
>> Your problem is that if you create such an item also rangers, paladins
>> and rogues get that boost, and then what you actually manage to do is
>
> Rangers, Paladins and Rogues have their own damage-dealing methods,
> based on weapons, and in the case of the Rogue also on stealth.
>
> If they end up using items intended for Mages, then the balance is
> wrong, and the newly introduced mage-boosting items are too powerful.
Why would balance be wrong if they use items intended for mages? Why
should there be any items that cannot be used by other classes that use
magic?
> The problem right now is, those items aren't there at all, and therefore
> Mages cannot be played *as* Mages.
Yes you can. Angband mage is like it is. You can play magic-only as
offensive method if you want, it just is harder to play that way.
> If I want to play a character whose role-function is that of an
> RPG-style Mage, accomplishing his goals (killing monsters and taking
> their stuff) via the traditional Mage method of causign damage with cast
> spells, Angband does not serve me, it does not give me that opportunity.
If it doesn't serve you then it doesn't serve _you_.
>> weaken warriors. Nothing else. Maybe that could increase versatility
>> which is good thing, but it also requires a good deal of balancing and
>> playtesting.
>
> Are you saying that Mages complete vanilla playing *as* *Mages*?
Yes. You can play mage as magic only for damage dealing. Armors are of
course generic and everybody uses same stuff.
I have also played non-ego, non-artifact priest, but that is slow and
after you get to the stat-gain it starts to get boringly difficult.
> As opposed to playing like warriors, or like warrior-mages?
You can play mage that way. Early game isn't easy if you play that way,
but it can be done.
>> Sounds to me a idea for a variant.
>
> Rather than arguing that vanilla is broken and should be fixed, based on
> objective criteria, and on clearly defined ideals for what the word
> roleplaying mean in a computer game context?
Roleplaying isn't main concern in roguelikes. Roguelikes in general are
more a shoot-em-up games than roleplaying games. You spend almost no
time in developing your character and lot of time improving your gear
and tuning your combat tactics. There is no interaction between
potential hostiles and you, and you can't trick anybody with clever (or
not so clever) verbal combat.
Timo Pietilￜ
Matthew Vernon
> No, it doesn't. Angband is angband, not roleplaying game.
>
> You can use spells if you want to.
My mages use spells most of the time, anyhow. OTOH, maybe this is why
I never win :)
Nick McConnell
> Rather than arguing that vanilla is broken and should be fixed, based on
> objective criteria, and on clearly defined ideals for what the word
> roleplaying mean in a computer game context?
In the decade since you last played, Angband has actually survived quite
nicely without "itemization for spellcasting character classes". I
understand some people rather enjoy the game - and some, like Timo, were
playing when you left and are still playing now.
As for fixing it based on objective criteria and clearly defined ideals,
I wouldn't hold your breath. Angband's evolution so far has gone in
fits and starts, subject to the vagaries of a series of very different
maintainers and the small rag-tag dangling at their tail. I rather
foresee this random walk continuing into the future; thankfully, because
I really don't relish the prospect of the game I know being subjected to
"clearly defined ideals for what the word roleplaying mean in a computer
game context".
Nick.
Matthew Vernon
> It *fails* as a roleplaying game, because some character classes do
> not stay in role.
I think you're making a category error. Angband isn't a roleplaying
game.
Otto Martin
>Psi wrote:
>>On Nov 16, 1:48 pm, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>When last I played Angband and Zangband, almost a decade ago,
>>>itemization for spellcasting character classes was *extremely*
>>>primitive. Has the situation improved?
>>Maybe not in V, but O variants have specialities which you can select
>>at breakpoints (CL based in O, task based in FA). For mages there are
>That's not itemization.
Not exactly, but they fulfill much of the same function.
>Another option is a specialized mana reserve, i.e. one that can only be
>used for one purpose, such as only on healing spells, only on utility
>spells, only on movement spells (teleportation and so forth), only on
>detection spells, or only on damage-spells of one element. This could
>be for one slot only, perhaps the Head slot, so that the code won't
>have to keep track of more than one specialized mana reserve ever. (The
>item should instantly lose all mana if un-worn, and would only start
>regenerating mana from zero once worn again.)
As others have said, creating a variant might be for you. I'll warn you
though that learning the internals of the game may affect what kinds of
improvements you'll think of adding. Basically, the game has a long
history and many things work in a very certain way; if I understood
correctly what you're suggesting, I don't think that aligns very well
with the rest of the way things work. Of course, differentiating slots
is an interesting idea (and has been suggested before), but you need to
look at and modify them as a whole.
Otto Martin
Jonathan Ellis
"Peter Knutsen" <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> Psi wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 1:48 pm, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>When last I played Angband and Zangband, almost a decade ago,
>>>itemization for spellcasting character classes was *extremely*
>>>primitive. Has the situation improved?
>>
>> Maybe not in V, but O variants have specialities which you can select
>> at breakpoints (CL based in O, task based in FA). For mages there are
>
> That's not itemization.
Well, for mages... there are spellbooks. Which improve your ability to cast
spells, from "zero" to "possible"...
They're not the same as warriors.
-- Jonathan.
Eddie Grove
Also, there is a qualitative difference between 0% failure rate and 1% failure
rate, as well as between 1% and 3%. The stat boosting items count as
itemization when failure rates are close to 0% for important spells.
Eddie
Billy Bissette
> Otto Martin wrote:
>> first on using weapon flags, since the actual weapon is often less
>> interesting for casters, but armor flags might also be used in some
>> ways.
>
> Armour flags can be a problem, because there are many armour slots, so
> with randomly generated armour flags, it could become dangerously easy
> to pimp a Mage to an extreme degree, with spell-boosting flags.
Option 1:
Do some form of scaling to such bonuses, so that two +25% becomes
+35%, not +50%. To prevent some amount of confusion, the bonuses on
the items could be numbers that get totaled and only then converted
to a percentage. (So +5 might convert to +25%, while +10 converts to
+35%.)
Option 2:
Cap the maximum bonuses that individual slots can offer so that the
grand total is still some acceptable value. Weapons and head gear
might max at +25% while gloves max at +15%. Boots, shields, and
everything else might be +5% each. As for weapons, you might want
to further differentiate "mage" weapons from other weapons by giving
the other weapons a lower cap. For random artifacts, you might just
give "non-mage" weapons a very small chance of getting "mage" weapon
bonuses. (So you might still get an artifact sword that gives 25%,
but it isn't anywhere near as likely as a magical staff that gives
25%.)
Option 3:
Bonuses aren't additive. You just get the effect of the largest
bonus, kind of like resistances and immunities.
Seebs
> Well, for mages... there are spellbooks. Which improve your ability to cast
> spells, from "zero" to "possible"...
I still want an inscribable high-level spellbook. Immune to everything, and
you can put any six spells you want in it. High-level mages and priests could
finally stop carrying four medium-sized stacks of books from each of which
they cast maybe two spells.
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
David A Justiss
by 10 for all level-dependant effects of spells (mostly damage,
obviously). They also let you be able to cast spells while blind.
There is also a staff of mana-free spellcasting which lets you use
staff charges rather than mana to cast spells.
I like some of the ideas I've read on this thread so more
itemization will probably find its way into DaJAngband in future
versions.
The original release of DJA 1.1.0 was a little buggy, but the real
1.1.0 should be released within a week from now.
Magnate
> As for fixing it based on objective criteria and clearly defined ideals,
> I wouldn't hold your breath. Angband's evolution so far has gone in
> fits and starts, subject to the vagaries of a series of very different
> maintainers and the small rag-tag dangling at their tail. I rather
I resemble that remark!
CC
Nick McConnell
As do I...
Nick