Chengband Magic System Discussion
Chris
Here is what I have in mind:
[1] No more spellbooks.
[2] Each caster picks one or two realms, just like now.
[3] Each caster has a fixed set of spell slots. The number of slots
varies with the class, but rogues, paladins, chaos warriors, etc will
have few slots while mages, priests, sorcerers will have many slots.
[4] Scrolls hold spells. Any player can read a scroll, which casts
the held spell (Perhaps with restricions ... see below). Casters have
the options to copy the spell from the scroll into a vacant slot.
This produces an empty scroll. Casters may also copy a spell from any
slot into an empty scroll.
[5] Each spell belongs to one or more realms. Casters can only copy a
scroll if it matches one of their realms.
[6] Each spell has a rank: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, Elite.
[7] Each class has rank restrictions. So a Red Mage can copy spells
form any realm, but only if their rank is Beginner or Intermediate.
Other classes may have access to spells of a certain rank, but suffer
higher fail rates, casting costs, etc. Perhaps Elite scrolls can
never be read except by casters that have access to realm and rank.
[8] Potions hold spells. Which spells are allowed in potions is
restricted and table driven. Potions may only be quaffed or thrown.
[9] Rods, staves and wands hold spells, and work just like they do
now. Perhaps casters can move spells from scrolls to staves and
wands? So that empty staves of nothing would become useful.
Anyway, these are just ideas percolating at the moment. Obviously,
this will wreak havoc on game balance for a bit, but I really like the
idea of finding ?ManaStorm for example. Also, the current book
approach is very lumpy ... players are starved the next book, and them
whammo! All at once. While a scroll based approach smooths out spell
acquisition. Also, slot management adds a new game dimension, as you
should have to choose wisely. And finally, this would allow us to
give some more middle damage spells to help ease the progression of
pure casters to end game status. You could find a 300hp Mana Storm
spell, a 400hp Mana Storm spell, and eventually, a 500hp version. You
get the idea ...
As usual, thoughts and criticisms are welcome!
Thanks,
--Chris
Dave Zhang
I'm generally supportive, of course! Comments and suggestions to follow.
[3] Each caster has a fixed set of spell slots. The number of slots
varies with the class, but rogues, paladins, chaos warriors, etc will
have few slots while mages, priests, sorcerers will have many slots.
I'd actually like to propose that each caster gets a fixed number of "total spell levels." Mana Storm is 45, and would occupy 45 spell levels, while Teleport Self (Chaos) is 15. That way, the player has a choice to have a large number of low level utility spells, or a few big spells. The player should also be allowed to replace spells, within the confines of his realms, arbitrarily.
[6] Each spell has a rank: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, Elite.
This may not be necessary, because each spell already has a level from 1 to 50. Just make a cutoff (Elite being 35+, say).
[7] Each class has rank restrictions. So a Red Mage can copy spells
form any realm, but only if their rank is Beginner or Intermediate.
Other classes may have access to spells of a certain rank, but suffer
higher fail rates, casting costs, etc. Perhaps Elite scrolls can
never be read except by casters that have access to realm and rank.
The Red Mage makes things tricky, because they have access to the first 2 books, which are not necessarily the lower-level spells. For example, a Nature Mage has Stone Skin at level 10 (3rd), but Summon Animal at level 25 (2nd). But Red Mage isn't that popular a class and I wouldn't be saddened to see it altered into spells from any school below clvl 30 (with perhaps some revisions on the levels of spells).
[8] Potions hold spells. Which spells are allowed in potions is
restricted and table driven. Potions may only be quaffed or thrown.
I'd actually like to make Potions separate from Scrolls. There are generally a lot more offensive/utility spells than defensive spells. Making them all Potions seem kinda silly (Potion of Rockets? Potion of Wall of Stone? Potion of Doom Bolt (a beam spell)? Potion of Genocide? And potentially the funniest one: Potion of Phlogiston! (Would that be the same as a Flask of Oil?)
Also, I'd generally like to make Potions and Scrolls distinguishable by more than mode of destruction.
[9] Rods, staves and wands hold spells, and work just like they do
now. Perhaps casters can move spells from scrolls to staves and
wands? So that empty staves of nothing would become useful.
I'd like to propose that Wands and Staves be significantly different. Right now, Wands and Staves have different spells, and Staves don't stack well. In the revised magic system, Wands and Staves could potentially have the same spells, and so they become almost identical.
I propose:
Wands: (1) can be recharged by the player, (2) hold spells up to a certain level (35?), (3) are easily drained of charges, (4) have relatively few charges each (limited to ~10), (5) can stack in the inventory, and (6) have a fixed effect that is not dependent on the player level.
Staves: (1) cannot be recharged by the player (once charges are used up, it's useless), (2) hold high-end spells, (3) are resistant to charge drain (maybe charge drain only 1-3 at a time?), (4) have potentially up to 50 charges, (5) never stack in the inventory, (6) holds 2-4 different spells (i.e. a Staff of Mana Storm and Healing and *Destruction*, use a charge for any effect), (7) have effects that depend on the player's class/level, and (8) are very rare.
I'd be very hesitant about allowing the player to craft Wands or Staves. Spending 10 game days in town to make 400 charges of Healing is no joke!
Cheers,
Dave
--
---
David Yu Zhang, Ph.D.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute Fellow of the Life Sciences Research Foundation
Wyss Institute, Harvard University
Chris Kousky
>> restricted and table driven. Potions may only be quaffed or thrown.
>
> I'd actually like to make Potions separate from Scrolls. There are
> generally a lot more offensive/utility spells than defensive spells. Making
> them all Potions seem kinda silly (Potion of Rockets? Potion of Wall of
> Stone? Potion of Doom Bolt (a beam spell)? Potion of Genocide? And
> potentially the funniest one: Potion of Phlogiston! (Would that be the
> same as a Flask of Oil?)
>
I agree ... I had in mind that the spells allowed in potions would be
restricted and table driven. Pretty much, this would restrict potions
to the current types, but there might be some new opportunities (e.g.
Potions of Stoneskin might be OK).
Hmmm ... Potion of Rockets actually sounds nice. Just don't drink one!
Chris Kousky
Ah! So there won't be holy jihad or anything if I make this change!
That's good news!
>
>> [3] Each caster has a fixed set of spell slots. The number of slots
>> varies with the class, but rogues, paladins, chaos warriors, etc will
>> have few slots while mages, priests, sorcerers will have many slots.
>
> I'd actually like to propose that each caster gets a fixed number of "total
> spell levels." Mana Storm is 45, and would occupy 45 spell levels, while
> Teleport Self (Chaos) is 15. That way, the player has a choice to have a
> large number of low level utility spells, or a few big spells. The player
> should also be allowed to replace spells, within the confines of his realms,
> arbitrarily.
>
Well, I need to limit the slot number anyway, so that the user has a
reasonable list to choose from. Restricting the total spell levels
also is a good idea ...
>>
>> [6] Each spell has a rank: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, Elite.
>
> This may not be necessary, because each spell already has a level from 1 to
> 50. Just make a cutoff (Elite being 35+, say).
That saves work :)
>
>>
>> [7] Each class has rank restrictions. So a Red Mage can copy spells
>> form any realm, but only if their rank is Beginner or Intermediate.
>> Other classes may have access to spells of a certain rank, but suffer
>> higher fail rates, casting costs, etc. Perhaps Elite scrolls can
>> never be read except by casters that have access to realm and rank.
>
> The Red Mage makes things tricky, because they have access to the first 2
> books, which are not necessarily the lower-level spells. For example, a
> Nature Mage has Stone Skin at level 10 (3rd), but Summon Animal at level 25
> (2nd). But Red Mage isn't that popular a class and I wouldn't be saddened
> to see it altered into spells from any school below clvl 30 (with perhaps
> some revisions on the levels of spells).
>
Well, for the Red Mage I guess we could just table what spells they
could learn. So they get all realms, but the spell must be listed in
a table some place ... not hard to do.
Anyway, how come nobody plays these guys?
> I'd like to propose that Wands and Staves be significantly different. Right
> now, Wands and Staves have different spells, and Staves don't stack well.
> In the revised magic system, Wands and Staves could potentially have the
> same spells, and so they become almost identical.
>
> I propose:
>
> Wands: (1) can be recharged by the player, (2) hold spells up to a certain
> level (35?), (3) are easily drained of charges, (4) have relatively few
> charges each (limited to ~10), (5) can stack in the inventory, and (6) have
> a fixed effect that is not dependent on the player level.
>
> Staves: (1) cannot be recharged by the player (once charges are used up,
> it's useless), (2) hold high-end spells, (3) are resistant to charge drain
> (maybe charge drain only 1-3 at a time?), (4) have potentially up to 50
> charges, (5) never stack in the inventory, (6) holds 2-4 different spells
> (i.e. a Staff of Mana Storm and Healing and *Destruction*, use a charge for
> any effect), (7) have effects that depend on the player's class/level, and
> (8) are very rare.
>
I'll keep this in mind. Probably, this is all a long way off. I just
wanted to know if I was off my rocker with this idea ... :D
Thanks,
--Chris
Dave Zhang
Well, for the Red Mage I guess we could just table what spells they
could learn. So they get all realms, but the spell must be listed in
a table some place ... not hard to do.
Anyway, how come nobody plays these guys?
I think you did at one point, but you were the only one to play one above clvl 35 or so. It's pretty weak-sauce, and it doesn't even have the benefit of bragging rights like the Tourist does. You argued at one point that Healing and Rune of Protection were nice, but seriously I'd just play a Priest if I wanted those :-D
What are you up to these days anyway? You said you were taking a break from coding, but I don't see Mighty Easily Insulted being updated!
Dave
> I'd like to propose that Wands and Staves be significantly different. RightI'll keep this in mind. Probably, this is all a long way off. I just
> now, Wands and Staves have different spells, and Staves don't stack well.
> In the revised magic system, Wands and Staves could potentially have the
> same spells, and so they become almost identical.
>
> I propose:
>
> Wands: (1) can be recharged by the player, (2) hold spells up to a certain
> level (35?), (3) are easily drained of charges, (4) have relatively few
> charges each (limited to ~10), (5) can stack in the inventory, and (6) have
> a fixed effect that is not dependent on the player level.
>
> Staves: (1) cannot be recharged by the player (once charges are used up,
> it's useless), (2) hold high-end spells, (3) are resistant to charge drain
> (maybe charge drain only 1-3 at a time?), (4) have potentially up to 50
> charges, (5) never stack in the inventory, (6) holds 2-4 different spells
> (i.e. a Staff of Mana Storm and Healing and *Destruction*, use a charge for
> any effect), (7) have effects that depend on the player's class/level, and
> (8) are very rare.
>
wanted to know if I was off my rocker with this idea ... :D
Thanks,
--Chris
Chris Kousky
>> level (35?), (3) are easily drained of charges, (4) have relatively few
>> charges each (limited to ~10), (5) can stack in the inventory, and (6) have
>> a fixed effect that is not dependent on the player level.
>>
>> Staves: (1) cannot be recharged by the player (once charges are used up,
>> it's useless), (2) hold high-end spells, (3) are resistant to charge drain
>> (maybe charge drain only 1-3 at a time?), (4) have potentially up to 50
>> charges, (5) never stack in the inventory, (6) holds 2-4 different spells
>> (i.e. a Staff of Mana Storm and Healing and *Destruction*, use a charge for
>> any effect), (7) have effects that depend on the player's class/level, and
>> (8) are very rare.
>>
Some more thoughts. Wands are things you point at monsters, so they
tend to hold attack spells. Staves hold more of the utility stuff,
but occasionally give attack and area effects. So there is definitely
a distinction with what these items can do that perhaps, I shouldn't
change.
I didn't really have in mind a free for all where one would start
finding wands of curing and such ... I guess I still need to thing
thru what I want. But for your staff idea, it might be a good idea to
also allow wizardstaves to hold a spell (I'm sure I've seen that
before but don't know how other variants have implemented it).
Wizardstaves are true mage items, and you could get the indestructible
staff behavior that way. Any 1 spell type could be loaded into a
wizardstaff and used whenever desired. The staff could hold as many
charges as you like, and even be resistant to charge draining. So,
you could put 50 charges of Teleport if you like. ?Healing would
probably be rare ... and in order to load the staff, it must be with a
spell you could use anyway. So you would need to be a Life caster or
something.
I do like the idea of multiple spells in an item ... I just don't
quite know how to implement it :)
Anyway, lots of food for thought ...
Chris Kousky
<David...@wyss.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>> Well, for the Red Mage I guess we could just table what spells they
>> could learn. So they get all realms, but the spell must be listed in
>> a table some place ... not hard to do.
>>
>> Anyway, how come nobody plays these guys?
>>
>
> I think you did at one point, but you were the only one to play one above
> clvl 35 or so. It's pretty weak-sauce, and it doesn't even have the benefit
> of bragging rights like the Tourist does. You argued at one point that
> Healing and Rune of Protection were nice, but seriously I'd just play a
> Priest if I wanted those :-D
>
> What are you up to these days anyway? You said you were taking a break from
> coding, but I don't see Mighty Easily Insulted being updated!
>
I've been spending too much time typing on the computer, and just need
to lay low a bit. Its hard to code all day and then play! I have
been doing a little work with mutations, but not much.
Hey, I actually won a Red Mage once. Versatility is cool, but it was
definitely hard going lacking any big attack spells. I'm not sure the
Red Mage design was super well thought out. It was almost like, Hey,
we have all these realms, and all these spellbooks, lets build a class
that can only use the first two spellbooks from each realm. Would
that work? What I mean is that the spell system was designed first
without the Red Mage, and the latter was just tucked in as an after
thought. It works, but perhaps we could do better by actually picking
the spells this class could learn.
Dave Zhang
Yeah, I think they just ported Red Mage and Blue Mage directly from the Final Fantasy games, and didn't worry too much about balance... Blue Mage is another weak class, because it's a mage-type class (+0 HD) with no Eat Magic, and only offensive spells. Like a Chaos High-Mage without the Eat Magic. That's why I was also thinking of replacing the Blue Mage with the Soul Hunter class.. morph your enemies into items, in addition to learning their spells!
Ah, sorry for making you do all the work. I have some C programming experience from work, but it'd take me a long time to get up to speed for Angband code. The game's actually pretty good now, and I think the new features are decently balanced, so I highly encourage you to play(test) once you can bring yourself to face a monitor again.
My feelings on the current implementations of new classes:
Duelist: Strong! I don't want to nerf the duelist's offense though, so if you feel the Duelist is too strong, I propose to biff his stealth (because his CON is really pretty low).
Warlock: Strong early on, but Pacts are really debilitating in the mid-30's. Unless you play Angel Pact, in which case you're good. No pun intended.
Blood Knight: Haven't played thoroughly.
Archaeologist: Haven't played thoroughly.
Time-Lord: Weak! I think, given the Time-Lord's dependence on melee and/or arrows, the Time-Lord really needs a "Decadence" spell that reduces the AC of all monsters in LoS by 6 unless the monster makes a save.
Thanks again for coding!
Dave
Chris Kousky
I'll get around to play testing shortly ... You really need to win
with a Blood Knight though to show it is possible :)
For the Time Lord, we could cheese things by giving them Time Bolts or
something. Weak offensively but with various time related effects to
be determined. Was the original plan for lots of speed but no direct
offense? I have a *lot* of practice getting weak characters going,
loving the Craft HM for some strange reason. So for me, I just did my
normal, lack of offense, HM approach and it worked especially nice,
with all the extra speed.
Other Time Lord potential:
Time Schism. Tear a rift in the space time continuum. Monsters take
weak damage, but the floor is changed to a new "terrain feature",
effects to be determined. Examples include monsters can't pass, or
perhaps they might randomly Evolve/Devolve if they do. Perhaps they
slow or stop altogether (trapped in time! Yeah, that always happens
on Star Trek, so it must be possible). Or perhaps they need Time
Resistance to pass.