[V] Dwarf as race too strong?

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Nov 29, 2005, 9:57:00 AM11/29/05
to
Hi all.

I just looked at Werner Bär message where he said that Dwarf mage is not
challenge char. It should be IMO, so that means only one thing: Dwarf is
too good as race.

Dwarf has several advantages over most other races:

High Hit dice: d11 (Half-Troll has d12, everybody else has d10 or less)
High STR (+2)
High CON (+2)
High WIS (+2)
rBlind.

(That makes perfect priest)

And only few disadvantages:

Low INT (-3)
Low DEX (-2)
Low CHR (-3)
bad stealth (-1)

If dwarf mage can be played without it feeling like challenge char even
that it has -3 to INT then there must be something to counter that.
RBlind is only thing that is mage-positive so rBlind is probably too
strong as internal resist for spellcaster. Or high int is too easy to
get. Any suggestion for replacement ability? SUST_CON + RDark? Weaken in
other ways? Maybe suck with magic devices? Even worse stealth than it
is?. Lower HD to 10 (after all dwarfs are small in size)?

I have one balancing suggestion for game items: Replace RConf with
RBlind in Amulets of Magi. That brings rBlind slightly more accessible
to all race/class combinations.

Timo Pietilä

J.H.Jongejan

unread,
Nov 29, 2005, 10:16:34 AM11/29/05
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I just looked at Werner Bär message where he said that Dwarf mage is not
> challenge char. It should be IMO, so that means only one thing: Dwarf is
> too good as race.
>
> Dwarf has several advantages over most other races:
>
> High Hit dice: d11 (Half-Troll has d12, everybody else has d10 or less)
> High STR (+2)
> High CON (+2)
> High WIS (+2)
> rBlind.
I am currently playing a dwarf warrior.

>
> (That makes perfect priest)
> And only few disadvantages:
>
> Low INT (-3)
> Low DEX (-2)
> Low CHR (-3)
> bad stealth (-1)
>
> If dwarf mage can be played without it feeling like challenge char even
> that it has -3 to INT then there must be something to counter that.
> RBlind is only thing that is mage-positive so rBlind is probably too
> strong as internal resist for spellcaster. Or high int is too easy to
> get. Any suggestion for replacement ability? SUST_CON + RDark?
Sounds acceptable to me.

> Weaken in other ways? Maybe suck with magic devices?
They already have problems using rods/staves etc. (You fail to use...)

>
> Even worse stealth than it
> is?. Lower HD to 10 (after all dwarfs are small in size)?
But dwarves are known to be very tough and enduring.

>
> I have one balancing suggestion for game items: Replace RConf with
> RBlind in Amulets of Magi. That brings rBlind slightly more accessible
> to all race/class combinations.
>
> Timo Pietilä
With kind regards,

Jan Jongejan
Dept. Comp.Sci.,
Univ. of Groningen,
Netherlands.

Werner Bär

unread,
Nov 29, 2005, 10:57:03 AM11/29/05
to

"Timo Pietilä" <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> schrieb...

> I just looked at Werner Bär message where he said that Dwarf mage is not challenge char. It should be IMO,

It's hard to design races with such a goal in mind ;-)

> so that means only one thing: Dwarf is too good as race.

Not necessary. Much depends on playing style.

> Dwarf has several advantages over most other races:
>
> High Hit dice: d11 (Half-Troll has d12, everybody else has d10 or less)

Has very high effect on mages, low effect on warriors

> High STR (+2)

nice to have for early mages.

> High CON (+2)

Very valuable in late game

> rBlind.

Very valuable in early and mid game.
Especially in V 3.x where Thengel grants resist confusion.
Thranduil is clearly better (ESP), but in 2.9.x i often used
cap of seeing.

> And only few disadvantages:
>
> Low INT (-3)

Quite a big drawback. Makes the first few levels quite hard
(say until you have 10 spell points)

> Low DEX (-2)

not important for mages (except for theft)

> Low CHR (-3)

not important

> bad stealth (-1)

Not important for mages.
In fact, i rate stealth very high for most characters, to take out
enemies one by one. But mage wants to hit several monsters with
one spell, so stealth isn't very valuable.

> If dwarf mage can be played without it feeling like challenge char even that it has -3 to INT then there must be something to
> counter that.

> RBlind is only thing that is mage-positive so rBlind is probably too strong as internal resist for spellcaster.

It is strong, but not hard to get later on.
Thranduil is great for mages, so rBlind isn't hard to get later.

> Or high int is too easy to get.

This mage had to use a ring of int until very late (elven rings).
Other mages have to use a ring of con instead.

Sum of int+con is -1 for drwaves, and 0 for half-elfs and elves,
which are supposed to be mage characters. Not a big difference.

It's the fact that mages have two stats they really need to max out -
constitution and intelligence. A challenge character for a mage would
be a race where both stats are low.
Best mage for me is hobbit, since he has bonus to both stats, along
with very high skills at about everything except melee.

> Any suggestion for replacement ability? SUST_CON + RDark? Weaken in other ways? Maybe suck with magic devices?

Worse magic device would be a way. Since int is low, i used offensive
rods much until late stat gain.

> Even worse stealth than it is?.

Desn't affect mages as much as other classes IMO.

> Lower HD to 10 (after all dwarfs are small in size)?

I don't care much for hit dice (see my preference for hobbits),
but take them as a boon.

I have to say that this was a V 3.0.5 character.
In 2.9.x, i wouldn't have tried it.

First thing is that old mages really want 18/50 int as early as
possible (if you want to play them as a spellcaster, not a weak rogue).
Now i can start with 18 int (point-based), and each point (say,
a small ring from the BM) makes a difference.

Second change is upgraded magic devices. Wands are now used and
recharged instead of sold. An early OOD attack rod makes
a big weapon.

Third change is lightning bolt. An early beam spell reduces the spell
points needed for big groups (orcs and trolls) by a large amount.
This spell suddenly makes bad stealth good for a mage, not a drawback.

So if you want a dwarf mage to be a challenge character, just switch
back to 2.8.x. ;-)

Werner.

pete mack

unread,
Nov 29, 2005, 11:57:12 AM11/29/05
to

Timo Pietilä wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I just looked at Werner Bär message where he said that Dwarf mage is not
> challenge char. It should be IMO, so that means only one thing: Dwarf is
> too good as race.
>
> Dwarf has several advantages over most other races:
>
> High Hit dice: d11 (Half-Troll has d12, everybody else has d10 or less)
> High STR (+2)
> High CON (+2)
> High WIS (+2)
> rBlind.
>
> (That makes perfect priest)
>
> And only few disadvantages:
>
> Low INT (-3)
> Low DEX (-2)
> Low CHR (-3)
> bad stealth (-1)
>
> If dwarf mage can be played without it feeling like challenge char even
> that it has -3 to INT then there must be something to counter that.
> RBlind is only thing that is mage-positive so rBlind is probably too
> strong as internal resist for spellcaster.


Like Werner says, it's the magic devices that count. I played Dwarf
mage with reasonable success recently, though got killed from diving
too fast. I was carrying 15 attack rods, about 1/2 of them fire bolt.
And I was wearing an Amulet of Regeneration for mana. It is hard
character at the start, since Dwarf is bad with a bow, and only has a
few mana points. But it gets easy when an OOD rod shows up, or even
reasonably powerful wands. (Recharge penalty is annoying, but there
are lots of wands.)

CON and INT matter a lot, but the Dwarf STR and magic devices is what
makes carrying all those rods feasible.

Half-Ogre or Half-Orc Mage is a real challenge, since they are also bad
with devices. I don't see why Dwarf needs to be so challenging, too.

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Nov 29, 2005, 12:41:23 PM11/29/05
to
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:57:00 +0200, Timo Pietilä
<timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>I just looked at Werner Bär message where he said that Dwarf mage is not
>challenge char. It should be IMO, so that means only one thing: Dwarf is
>too good as race.

Disagreement. Mage is terribly powerful class at end game, dwarf covers
the early game weakness of mage pretty well. That's all. Plus, resist
blindness is very nice, but by the time you really *need* it, that's
just equipment convenience, balanced by need for extra INT source. In
any case, they obviously aren't so easy that mediocre players are
posting slews of Dwarven YAVPs, so IMO they are not *too* easy, even if
easiest race.

--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com

konijn_

unread,
Nov 29, 2005, 2:41:31 PM11/29/05
to
What he says.

T.

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Nov 29, 2005, 8:28:17 PM11/29/05
to
pete mack wrote:

> Half-Ogre or Half-Orc Mage is a real challenge, since they are also bad
> with devices. I don't see why Dwarf needs to be so challenging, too.

It's not challenging if you choose just about any other class. For mage
it should be: -3 to INT _alone_ should be enough to make it so.

Dwarf makes perfect priests, excellent warriors and paladins, useful
rangers and rogues (because melee is good). If it isn't challenge with
mages then it is good at everything.

Which is worse: Dwarf mage or High-Elf priest? Both are made for
magic-users in opposite class.

If you can play High-Elf priest without it feeling challenge I agree
that Dwarf does not need tweaking. They are just excellent races.

(Maybe higher XP penalty for dwarfs then?)

Timo Pietilä

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Nov 29, 2005, 8:36:12 PM11/29/05
to
R. Dan Henry wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:57:00 +0200, Timo Pietilä
> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>>I just looked at Werner Bär message where he said that Dwarf mage is not
>>challenge char. It should be IMO, so that means only one thing: Dwarf is
>>too good as race.
>
> Disagreement. Mage is terribly powerful class at end game, dwarf covers
> the early game weakness of mage pretty well. That's all. Plus, resist
> blindness is very nice, but by the time you really *need* it, that's
> just equipment convenience, balanced by need for extra INT source.

OK. How about just making rBlind slightly more common to make it less
exceptional compared to other classes. Change rConf in Amulet of Magi to
rBlind?

> In
> any case, they obviously aren't so easy that mediocre players are
> posting slews of Dwarven YAVPs, so IMO they are not *too* easy, even if
> easiest race.

They at least need bigger XP-penalty then. It is very minor change, and
hardly even noticeable if you go from 20% to...lets say 50%. High-Elves
have 100% penalty and they are still considered very easy.

Timo Pietilä

pete mack

unread,
Nov 29, 2005, 8:47:45 PM11/29/05
to

I always figured Dwarves to be easy for Priest & paladin, adequate for
Mage and Warrior, and bad for rogue and ranger. For DEX-dependent
fighter classes, Dwarf takes forever to get a decent number of blows.
And rogue/ranger INT bonus is not enough to overcome -3 penalty from
dwarf.

Neil Stevens

unread,
Nov 29, 2005, 10:00:19 PM11/29/05
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:
> They at least need bigger XP-penalty then. It is very minor change, and
> hardly even noticeable if you go from 20% to...lets say 50%. High-Elves
> have 100% penalty and they are still considered very easy.

All experience penalties do is make the game less interesting. They
slow the game down and force you to do more repetitive things, since you
have to find more experience in the same number of dungeon levels.

Don't bother.


--
Neil Stevens - ne...@hakubi.us

'A republic, if you can keep it.' -- Benjamin Franklin

Eddie Grove

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 1:45:14 AM11/30/05
to
Timo Pietilä <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> writes:

> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:57:00 +0200, Timo Pietilä
>> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> I just looked at Werner Bär message where he said that Dwarf mage
>>> is not challenge char. It should be IMO, so that means only one
>>> thing: Dwarf is too good as race.
>> Disagreement. Mage is terribly powerful class at end game, dwarf
>> covers
>> the early game weakness of mage pretty well. That's all. Plus, resist
>> blindness is very nice, but by the time you really *need* it, that's
>> just equipment convenience, balanced by need for extra INT source.
>
> OK. How about just making rBlind slightly more common to make it less
> exceptional compared to other classes. Change rConf in Amulet of Magi
> to rBlind?

Why not give it them both? And add in (+10,+10)? It feels as if
I see Eonwe more often than I see an amulet of the magi. Beefing
it up will make little difference in any game I play.

If you want to do this kind of thing, add a new amulet of rBlind
and make it fairly shallow and fairly common. Also, an amulet
of rBlind + rConf + rSound makes sense too, perhaps with the same
depth/rarity as weaponmastery.


Eddie

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 3:04:12 AM11/30/05
to
Eddie Grove wrote:
> Timo Pietilä <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> writes:

>>OK. How about just making rBlind slightly more common to make it less
>>exceptional compared to other classes. Change rConf in Amulet of Magi
>>to rBlind?
>
> Why not give it them both? And add in (+10,+10)? It feels as if
> I see Eonwe more often than I see an amulet of the magi. Beefing
> it up will make little difference in any game I play.

You dive fast. It makes quite a big difference. {good} Amulets are
fairly common deep in dungeon. For normal player Amulet of Magi is
relatively common in GV:s. Also deep unique drops can easily contain one.

> Also, an amulet
> of rBlind + rConf + rSound makes sense too, perhaps with the same
> depth/rarity as weaponmastery.

That would be more "of magi" than magi. That creates a lock with one
item. There are very few items in game that offer it (PDSM, Gondor
and...<searching>....only Bladeturner apparently). Not bad, but it needs
to be very deep/rare item for balance.

Only other amulet besides "of magi" giving non-luxury high resist is
Trickery (and few artifacts). I don't think we need more of these. IMO
resists should come from armors, abilities from amulets and rings and
slays from weapons. In my own variant none of the (non-artifact) amulets
will give resists.

Suggestion: game mechanics-change: Move rBlind from resist to ability.
Then you might get it from multitude of different items which can
combine more easily with random resist to produce lock. It doesn't fit
in resist anyway because it doesn't reduce damage from any source. It is
more like Free Action which provides immunity to effect.

Timo Pietilä

Ojomax

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 3:10:11 AM11/30/05
to
On 2005-11-30 07:45:14, Eddie Grove <eddie...@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote:

> Timo Pietil� writes:
>
> > R. Dan Henry wrote:

> >> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:57:00 +0200, Timo Pietil�
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I just looked at Werner B�r message where he said that Dwarf mage


> >>> is not challenge char. It should be IMO, so that means only one
> >>> thing: Dwarf is too good as race.
> >> Disagreement. Mage is terribly powerful class at end game, dwarf
> >> covers
> >> the early game weakness of mage pretty well. That's all. Plus, resist
> >> blindness is very nice, but by the time you really *need* it, that's
> >> just equipment convenience, balanced by need for extra INT source.
> >
> > OK. How about just making rBlind slightly more common to make it less
> > exceptional compared to other classes. Change rConf in Amulet of Magi
> > to rBlind?
>
> Why not give it them both? And add in (+10,+10)? It feels as if
> I see Eonwe more often than I see an amulet of the magi. Beefing
> it up will make little difference in any game I play.

I think I've seen an amulet of the magi a few hundred times (it wasn't that deep
and rare an item in earlier variants, but still...) and Eonwe once. It's obvious
you were just exaggerating, but...
If amulet of the magi was changed back to a 2500' item or maybe even a 2000'
item, and given back its old rarity, it would have real difference. By 3500' an
artifact amulet, or some kind of other good amulet, is probably found, so it
doesn't make any sense to keep amulet of the magi as a 3500' item. (It would be
something like changing potions of slow poison to 3500' items.)
There is no forgetting that the whole dwarf mage problem is because mages are
too strong in late game. Removing the most powerful mage spells would do some
balancing nicely. (Mages did it just well before they were added, so why
couldn't they still do it??) Tampering with the resists of Amulet of the Magi
would hardly do any balancing, since it is not only used by mages.

Ojomax


Werner Bär

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 7:36:58 AM11/30/05
to

"Timo Pietilä" <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> schrieb...

>> Half-Ogre or Half-Orc Mage is a real challenge, since they are also bad
>> with devices. I don't see why Dwarf needs to be so challenging, too.
>
> It's not challenging if you choose just about any other class. For mage it should be: -3 to INT _alone_ should be enough to make
> it so.

In 3.0.x, the big breakpoints (stat 18/00, 18/10, 18/50) are removed.
Since 2.9.?, you have point based generation.
Before, a dwarf mage could only start with 17 int, which i think would
have been a challenge in that version.

Second, it's not only int that matters. You can play a strong mage
character like a weak rogue or ranger for some time. If you want a
mage with -3 int to be a challenge character, you need to reduce
the ability to make damage with a bow or melee or magic devices
for a mage. Dwarf mage is quite good with magic devices, and
probably good in melee (which my mages don'T use).

> Dwarf makes perfect priests, excellent warriors and paladins, useful rangers and rogues (because melee is good).

IMO dwarf don't make good rogues. I want stealthy rogues.
Bad stealth plus the bad bow skill make them lousy early rangers.
With a mage, i don't care much for stealth, and (usually) don't care
about missile weapons at all.

> Which is worse: Dwarf mage or High-Elf priest? Both are made for magic-users in opposite class.

High elf is very good in about all skill, which makes them
useful for anything (if you are patient to overcome to 100+ exp
penalty). I didn't win (play?) high-elf priest yet, but i don't
think they are bad. The -1 wis is more than compensated by all the
other great stats, and they have great skills. I assume they just
have to play like a paladin a bit longer than usual; every priest
plays mostly like a paladin until they have enough mana for 3 orbs.

> If you can play High-Elf priest without it feeling challenge I agree that Dwarf does not need tweaking. They are just excellent
> races.
>
> (Maybe higher XP penalty for dwarfs then?)

Maybe. I rarely play dunadain and high-elves, partly because of the
penalty (and partly because they are just too powerful).

If you want to make dwarf mage bad for my playing style, reduce
the magic device skill. If you want to make them challenging
for other players, increase the melee and missile penalty for mage.

But what about hobbits then? In my experience, they are the best
race for about everything. Their skills are simply great (except
melee).

BTW i had a half-troll mage winner a long time ago (in 2.8.x).
This one really was a challenge character. Bad int, and bad at
everything except melee. I had to play him like a very fragile
rogue with a few additional spells (genocide!) and better minimum
fail rate (at times). (my mages didn't use GoI)

I assume a half-orc mage qould be a challenge, too. Bad int
and lousy skills.

And a real challenge mage character would be one with a penalty
to both int and con.

Werner.

Eddie Grove

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 1:46:51 PM11/30/05
to
Ojomax <lahtone...@suomi24.fi> writes:

> On 2005-11-30 07:45:14, Eddie Grove <eddie...@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote:

>> I see Eonwe more often than I see an amulet of the magi. Beefing
>> it up will make little difference in any game I play.
>
> I think I've seen an amulet of the magi a few hundred times (it wasn't that deep
> and rare an item in earlier variants, but still...) and Eonwe once. It's obvious
> you were just exaggerating, but...

I didn't mean to exaggerate, though perhaps I did. When I find Eonwe,
it's "how nice". When I find an amulet of the magi, it's "Oh Wow!!".
Most of my winners find Eonwe. OTOH, some chars of mine have found
more than one amulet of magi, so those could be more frequent overall.

> If amulet of the magi was changed back to a 2500' item or maybe even a 2000'

I don't remember the old days any more. They don't count. :)


Eddie

pete mack

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 3:08:00 PM11/30/05
to

Timo Pietilä wrote:
> pete mack wrote:
>
> > Half-Troll or Half-Orc Mage is a real challenge, since they are also bad

> > with devices. I don't see why Dwarf needs to be so challenging, too.
>
> It's not challenging if you choose just about any other class. For mage
> it should be: -3 to INT _alone_ should be enough to make it so.

Well, here's a dump of a dwarf mage after stupid death. You tell me if
it's a challenge character or not. (Start base stats were +17 INT, +15
STR, +15 CON, +14 DEX, more or less. Combat for most of game was using
devices, Dwarf Mage's one strong point.)

A single RoCON, or slower diving, would have saved my ass ...

Spell failure rate = 1%.

[Angband 3.0.6 alpha 3 Character Dump]

Name Harriet Miers Self RB CB EB
Best
Sex Female Age 50 STR: 18/15 +2 -5 +2
18/05
Race Dwarf Height 47 INT: 18/94 -3 +3 +7
18/164
Class Mage Weight 117 WIS: 16 +2 +0 +4
18/40
Title Conjurer Status 44 DEX: 16 -2 +1 +1
16
HP -26/370 Maximize Y CON: 18/40 +2 -2 +4
18/80
SP 173/235 Preserve Y CHR: 10 -3 +1 +0
8

Level 35 Armor [33,+87] Saving Throw
Superb
Cur Exp 602022 Fight (+2,+2) Stealth
Excellent
Max Exp 602022 Melee (+10,+12) Fighting
Superb
Adv Exp 675000 Shoot (+14,+15) Shooting
Superb
MaxDepth 2600 ft Blows 1/turn Disarming
Superb
Turns 1197372 Shots 2/turn Magic Device
Heroic
Gold 223206 Infra 50 ft Perception
Good
Burden 129.5 lbs Speed +3 Searching
Fair

You are the only child of a Dwarven Miner. You are a credit to the
family. You have dark brown eyes, straight black hair, a three foot
beard, and a dark complexion.


abcdefghijkl@ abcdefghijkl@
Acid:......+.++... Blind:............+
Elec:.+....+.++... Confu:......+......
Fire:.+....+.++... Sound:......+......
Cold:.+....+.++... Shard:.............
Pois:............. Nexus:......++.....
Fear:............. Nethr:.............
Lite:........+.+.. Chaos:.............
Dark:........+.... Disen:.............

abcdefghijkl@ abcdefghijkl@
S.Dig:++........... Stea.:.......+...+.
Feath:............. Sear.:.............
PLite:..........+.. Infra:.............
Regen:....+........ Tunn.:.............
Telep:+............ Speed:.+.....+.....
Invis:............. Blows:.............
FrAct:.........++.. Shots:.+...........
HLife:............. Might:.+...........


[Last Messages]

> The Mature red dragon claws you. <2x>
> The Mature red dragon misses you.
> The Mature red dragon cries out in pain.
> The Mature red dragon claws you.
> The Mature red dragon misses you.
> The Mature red dragon bites you.
> The Mature red dragon cries out feebly.
> The Mature red dragon flees in terror!
> The Mature red dragon dies.
> You feel something roll beneath your feet. <2x>
> The Draconic quylthulg magically summons a dragon!
> You have found 548 gold pieces worth of adamantite.
> The Great crystal drake breathes shards.
> You have been given a deep gash.
> You die.


[Character Equipment]

a) The Beaked Axe of Theoden (2d6) (+8,+10) (+3)
It increases your wisdom and constitution by 3. It slays dragons.
It
slows your metabolism. It grants you the power of telepathy. It
activates for drain life (120) every 40 turns. It cannot be harmed
by
the elements.
b) The Short Bow of Amras (x2) (+12,+15) (+1 to speed)
It increases your intelligence, wisdom, and dexterity by 1. It
increases your speed, shooting speed, and shooting power by 1. It
provides resistance to lightning, fire, and cold. It slows your
metabolism. It cannot be harmed by the elements.
c) a Mithril Ring of Strength (+2)
It increases your strength by 2. It sustains your strength.
d) a Diamond Ring of Intelligence (+3)
It increases your intelligence by 3. It sustains your intelligence.

e) an Agate Amulet of Regeneration
It speeds your regeneration.
f) The Phial of Galadriel
It lights the dungeon around you. It activates for illumination
every
10+d10 turns. It cannot be harmed by the elements.
g) The Full Plate Armour of Isildur [25,+25] (+1)
It increases your constitution by 1. It provides resistance to
acid,
lightning, fire, cold, confusion, sound, and nexus. It cannot be
harmed by the elements.
h) The Cloak 'Colannon' [1,+15] (+3)
It increases your stealth and speed by 3. It provides resistance to

nexus. It activates for teleport every 45 turns. It cannot be
harmed
by the elements.
i) The Large Leather Shield of Celegorm [4,+20]
It provides resistance to acid, lightning, fire, cold, light, and
dark.
It cannot be harmed by the elements.
j) an Iron Crown of the Magi [0,+8] (+3)
It increases your intelligence by 3. It provides resistance to
acid,
lightning, fire, and cold. It sustains your intelligence. It
grants
you immunity to paralysis. It cannot be harmed by the elements.
k) The Set of Leather Gloves 'Cammithrim' [1,+10] {LitePliteFA,!!}
It provides resistance to light. It sustains your constitution. It

lights the dungeon around you. It grants you immunity to paralysis.

It activates for magic missile (2d6) every 2 turns. It cannot be
harmed by the elements.
l) a Pair of Soft Leather Boots of Stealth [2,+8] (+2)
It increases your stealth by 2.


[Character Inventory]

a) a Book of Magic Spells [Magic for Beginners] {10% off}
b) a Book of Magic Spells [Conjurings and Tricks] {@m2, 10% off}
c) a Book of Magic Spells [Incantations and Illusions]
d) a Book of Magic Spells [Resistances of Scarabtarices] {!d!v!k@m5}
It cannot be harmed by the elements.
e) 2 Books of Magic Spells [Raal's Tome of Destruction] {@m6,!d!k!v}
It cannot be harmed by the elements.
f) 5 Chartreuse Potions of Cure Critical Wounds
g) 4 Cloudy Potions of Healing {!*}
h) 4 Scrolls titled "iteplu nepkho" of Teleportation {!*}
i) 4 Scrolls titled "plevly tabme" of Word of Recall {!*, 50% off}
j) 3 Scrolls titled "unibie cre" of *Identify* {!*}
k) a Scroll titled "suni crebek" of *Destruction* {!*}
l) an Aluminum-Plated Rod of Teleport Other {!!}
m) 3 Rusty Rods of Light {!!,@z4}
n) 3 Titanium Rods of Acid Bolts (3 charging) {!!}
o) 7 Lead Rods of Fire Bolts (2 charging) {!!}
p) 4 Copper Rods of Frost Bolts (3 charging) {!!}
q) a Magnesium Rod of Lightning Balls {!!}
r) an Amethyst Ring of Resist Poison
It provides resistance to poison.
s) a Robe of Permanence [2,+25] {Stats,HLife,RChaos}
It provides resistance to acid, lightning, fire, cold, chaos, and
life
draining. It sustains all your stats. It cannot be harmed by the
elements.
t) a Cloak of Protection [1,+18]
It provides resistance to shards. It cannot be harmed by the
elements.

u) a Steel Helm of Regeneration [6,+9]
It speeds your regeneration.


[Home Inventory]

a) 3 Books of Magic Spells [Magic for Beginners] {10% off}
b) 2 Books of Magic Spells [Incantations and Illusions]
c) a Book of Magic Spells [Resistances of Scarabtarices] {!d!v!k@m5}
It cannot be harmed by the elements.
d) a Book of Magic Spells [Raal's Tome of Destruction] {@m6,!d!k!v}
It cannot be harmed by the elements.
e) a Book of Magic Spells [Tenser's Transformations]
It cannot be harmed by the elements.
f) 2 Violet Mushrooms of Restoring
g) a Cloudy Potion of Healing {!*}
h) 2 Yellow Potions of *Healing* {!*}
i) 3 Misty Potions of Restore Mana
j) a Scroll titled "iteplu nepkho" of Teleportation {!*}
k) 30 Scrolls titled "poox vivgre" of Teleport Level {!*}
l) 10 Scrolls titled "plevly tabme" of Word of Recall {!*, 50% off}
m) 3 Scrolls titled "unibie cre" of *Identify* {!*, 40% off}
n) a Scroll titled "wunzun nej ulk" of Banishment {!*}
o) 2 Redwood Staffs of Teleportation (11 charges) {!*}
p) a Silver Ring of Damage (+11)
q) an Amber Amulet of Charisma (+3)
It increases your charisma by 3. It sustains your charisma.
r) Partial Plate Armour of Elvenkind (-3) [22,+11] (+2 to stealth)
It increases your stealth by 2. It provides resistance to acid,
lightning, fire, cold, and shards. It cannot be harmed by the
elements.
s) a Large Leather Shield of Elvenkind [4,+10] (+2 to stealth)
It increases your stealth by 2. It provides resistance to acid,
lightning, fire, cold, and nexus. It cannot be harmed by the
elements.

t) an Iron Helm of Seeing [5,+4] (+2 to searching)
It increases your searching by 2. It provides resistance to
blindness.
It grants you the ability to see invisible things.
u) a Small Sword of Gondolin (1d6) (+15,+10)
It slays orcs, trolls, dragons, and demons. It provides resistance
to
dark. It lights the dungeon around you. It grants you immunity to
paralysis and the ability to see invisible things. It cannot be
harmed
by acid or fire.
v) The Halberd 'Osondir' (3d5) (+6,+9) (+3)
It increases your charisma by 3. It slays giants and undead. It is
branded with fire. It provides resistance to fire and sound. It
makes
you fall like a feather. It grants you the ability to see invisible
things. It cannot be harmed by the elements.
w) a Long Bow of Extra Shots (x3) (+9,+8) (+1)
It increases your shooting speed by 1.
x) 23 Arrows (1d4) (+3,+3)


Harriet Miers the Dwarf Mage
Began the quest to kill Morgoth on 11/14/2005 at 05:58 PM
============================================================
CHAR.
| TURN | DEPTH |LEVEL| EVENT
============================================================
| 17571| 100 | 5 | Reached level 5
| 40726| 200 | 7 | Killed Grip, Farmer Maggot's dog
| 53966| 250 | 7 | Killed Fang, Farmer Maggot's dog
| 61208| 250 | 8 | Killed Bullroarer the Hobbit
| 71710| Town | 8 | Killed Farmer Maggot
| 91828| 350 | 10 | Reached level 10
| 145693| 500 | 12 | Killed Lagduf, the Snaga
| 214162| 700 | 15 | Reached level 15
| 224784| 750 | 15 | Killed Mughash the Kobold Lord
| 354981| 950 | 20 | Reached level 20
| 415297| 1100 | 21 | Killed Ulfast, Son of Ulfang
| 418674| 1100 | 22 | Found The Set of Leather Gloves 'Cammithrim'
| 484153| 1200 | 23 | Killed Golfimbul, the Hill Orc Chief
| 525749| 1400 | 24 | Killed Wormtongue, Agent of Saruman
| 527822| 1400 | 24 | Found The Halberd 'Osondir'
| 562862| 1450 | 24 | Killed Angamaite of Umbar
| 574531| 1450 | 25 | Reached level 25
| 668899| 1600 | 26 | Killed Nar, the Dwarf
| 692080| 1600 | 27 | Killed Shagrat, the Orc Captain
| 712263| 1650 | 27 | Killed Sangahyando of Umbar
| 740781| 1700 | 27 | Killed Orfax, Son of Boldor
| 743025| 1700 | 27 | Found The Dagger 'Dethanc'
| 774275| 1750 | 28 | Killed Grishnakh, the Hill Orc
| 809862| 1950 | 29 | Found The Set of Gauntlets 'Paurhach'
| 856714| 1950 | 29 | Killed Ulwarth, Son of Ulfang
| 865658| 2000 | 30 | Reached level 30
| 912352| 2000 | 30 | Killed Ugluk, the Uruk
| 945341| 2000 | 31 | Destroyed Uvatha the Horseman
| 999480| 2050 | 33 | Killed Ulfang the Black
| 1001720| 2050 | 33 | Found The Set of Gauntlets 'Paurnimmen'
| 1009261| 2050 | 33 | Killed The Queen Ant
| 1057252| 2050 | 33 | Killed Azog, King of the Uruk-Hai
| 1058214| 2050 | 33 | Killed Lokkak, the Ogre Chieftain
| 1071069| 2050 | 33 | Found The Full Plate Armour of Isildur
| 1085812| 2050 | 33 | Found The Beaked Axe of Theoden
| 1087439| 2050 | 33 | Killed Uldor the Accursed
| 1117636| 2200 | 34 | Killed Khim, Son of Mim
| 1134399| 2350 | 34 | Found The Phial of Galadriel
| 1134704| 2350 | 34 | Finally, a light source! (No more PLite)
| 1137673| 2350 | 34 | Killed Ibun, Son of Mim
| 1137996| 2350 | 34 | Found The Two-Handed Sword 'Mormegil'
| 1140987| 2400 | 34 | Killed Tom the Stone Troll
| 1143342| 2400 | 34 | Found The Set of Gauntlets 'Pauraegen'
| 1146003| 2400 | 34 | Killed Beorn, the Shape-Changer
| 1172005| 2500 | 35 | Reached level 35
| 1180179| 2550 | 35 | Found The Cloak 'Colannon'
| 1188650| 2600 | 35 | Found The Bastard Sword 'Calris'
| 1192305| 2600 | 35 | Found The Sabre 'Careth Asdriag'
| 1193635| 2600 | 35 | Found The Short Bow of Amras
| 1194412| 2600 | 35 | Found The Short Sword 'Dagmor'
| 1194835| 2600 | 35 | Found The Large Leather Shield of Celegorm
============================================================
| 1197372| 2600 | 35 | Killed by a Great crystal drake.
| 1197372| 2600 | 35 | Killed on 11/15/2005 at 11:34 PM.
============================================================
============================================================


[Options]

Adult: Allow purchase of stats using points : yes (adult_point_based)

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 4:57:38 PM11/30/05
to
pete mack wrote:
> Timo Pietilä wrote:

>>It's not challenging if you choose just about any other class. For mage
>>it should be: -3 to INT _alone_ should be enough to make it so.
>
> Well, here's a dump of a dwarf mage after stupid death. You tell me if
> it's a challenge character or not. (Start base stats were +17 INT, +15

Good dump. This helps to analyze what needs to be done if any. It shows
that -3 to INT is preventing you to get 0% failure without one more
INT-boosting item and rBlind isn't that important (you have rLight and
rDark).

Maybe Dwarf is just fine, Werner is just too good with mages. Maybe just
some minor changes then (XP penalty, Amulet of Magi rConf->rBlind -change).

I myself rarely play mages, so I'm little bit rusty about how well
different races manage with that profession. Priests and warriors are my
favorites.

Timo Pietilä

konijn_

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 9:37:00 AM12/1/05
to
>Maybe Dwarf is just fine, Werner is just too good with mages. Maybe just
>some minor changes then (XP penalty, Amulet of Magi rConf->rBlind -change).

Hey Timo,
I respect you as a player and even as a visionary to make Angband a
better game.
But if Dwarf is fine, let's not give an XP penalty and leave the amulet
alone please.
I like vanilla very much, it uses a true and tried recipe, if you know
what I mean.
Or, as Ford said , if aint broke...

T.

Bahman Rabii

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 1:34:48 PM12/1/05
to
> They at least need bigger XP-penalty then. It is very minor change, and
> hardly even noticeable if you go from 20% to...lets say 50%. High-Elves
> have 100% penalty and they are still considered very easy.

Do you really like XP penalty as a tool for balancing the races? I
consider tedium-based penalties an abomination.

half

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 2:36:14 PM12/1/05
to
In <1133462088.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Bahman Rabii
wrote:

>> They at least need bigger XP-penalty then. It is very minor change,
>> and hardly even noticeable if you go from 20% to...lets say 50%. High-
>> Elves have 100% penalty and they are still considered very easy.

>
> Do you really like XP penalty as a tool for balancing the races? I
> consider tedium-based penalties an abomination.

I understand this concern, but I'm not sure that it is really valid.
Easier races are easier to play with at the same dungeon level, so for
an equal difficulty, people tend to play them at a deeper dungeon level
for a given experience level. Since the rewards at that deeper level are
quite a bit higher, without the experience penalty, the easier races
would play quite a bit faster than the others. There remain two
questions which might tip you in favour of reducing the penalties (or
not applying larger ones):

1) Are the experience penalties so large that it does actually take
longer to play the easy races?

2) Would the game be improved if every race required less experience?

As a third option, I suppose that the choke points in [V] such as stat
gain and so forth might also end up keeping characters of easy and hard
races on the same DL at an equal XL.

Personally, I'm inclined to go for 2), but think that there really
should be experience based penalties to make all races play at the same (
ideal) speed, whatever that happens to be.

Cheers,
half.

pete mack

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 3:30:03 PM12/1/05
to

Well, I wanted to try Mage for the first time in a long time, but
didn't like diving with such a weak & fragile class. So I went for a
race that advances reasonably fast and has good HP. It wasn't too hard
to find a workaround for the bad INT. I picked Dwarf Mage because
through stat gain it fits a play-style I know: ranger, but using
rods/wands instead of arrows. (Assuming you find Caspanion, getting
to +10 INT/+10 CON should be doable, post-stat-gain.)

Half-Orc might be a good thing to try instead, since the INT penalty is
less, but that means giving up even more missile capability, and losing
the use of OoD devices until cl 14 or so.


I have just a few complaints about V balance & game play:

* Half-Orc is too bad with a bow. He should be more like his cousins,
the Black orc and the Uruk. Give him +5 instead of -5 thb. (I like
the idea of Half-orc being better with a bow than a
Dwarf. 'Your father was an Uruk, but it is unacknowledged.')
* (Along same lines: Gorbag, Lugdush, Azog should shoot ARROW_2 or
ARROW_3.)
* Ranger ID sucks too much. It doesn't much affect game balance, it's
just a pain in the ass. (Make the spell easier/lower mana, or make
pseudo-ID show {average}.
* Rogue combat from NPP is too good to miss.
* Follow-by-smell AI should be enabled by default. With
follow-by-smell, it's still easy to evade monsters, but you can't abuse
the ability anymore.

Dwarf Mage being too powerful isn't on my list :)

Jeff Greene

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 7:19:53 PM12/1/05
to

"Bahman Rabii" <bahman...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1133462088.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Just curious....why do dwarves have a wisdom bonus? It just isn't consistent with the dwarf characters in Tolkein. They seem to be more temperamental and stubborn than wise.

-Jeff

Antoine

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 7:31:48 PM12/1/05
to

And no Tolkien dwarves seem to have the slightest religious vocation...

A.

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 8:52:04 PM12/1/05
to

IMO Amulet of Magi _is_ broken. It is now _too_ good with rConf. rBlind
is better for it. I would do that anyway even if I wouldn't touch Dwarf
any way.

Recently I have been collecting "to do" -list for my own variant. I
haven't got time or I have just been too tired to code anything for it
(or I have been too busy just playing angband), so development for it is
pretty much stopped just now. But that is one of the things that got
changed.

Here is some of the main changes, some of them already made:

rChaos will again give immunity to confusion effect. (not damage).
That simplifies item balancing by making one part of the lock more easy
to get.

Several items tweaked to reflect that.
Several artifacts tweaked or removed if not useful.
Several items tweaked just because I can tweak them :-)

Several monsters tweaked.
-Some deep uniques removed or replaced.
-Dragons are made much more dangerous in melee
-Elemental dragons will not be weaklings anymore
-Angels replaced with near-equal Ainur

Races tweaked.
-Half-troll replaced with Half-giant (with same attributes).
-Half-orc will be better for warrior, ranger and rogue,

Classes tweaked
-Ranger pseudo upgraded to strong but slow type

Spells tweaked for both types (to balance few things, I hope)

I'm also thinking about switching to o-combat, but that requires a lot
of weapon-changes. 4GAI could also be added, but it again needs a lot of
work to balance. and I'm very curious about Eddies "no identify"-idea. I
have no idea how far he is in that, but it sounds interesting.

Any ideas what I should call my variant? I was thinking something in
line of Timos Vanilla angband IE TVangband, but for some reason seeing
my name in game name makes me nervous. It doesn't belong in there.

Timo Pietilä

Nick McConnell

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 8:55:40 PM12/1/05
to
On 2005-12-02 01:31:48, "Antoine" <ma...@guildgame.com> wrote:

> Jeff Greene wrote:
> > Just curious....why do dwarves have a wisdom bonus? It just isn't consistent with the dwarf characters in Tolkein. They seem to be more temperamental and stubborn than wise.
>
> And no Tolkien dwarves seem to have the slightest religious vocation...
>
> A.

This is why I have changed dwarves to +INT in FAangband. As far as I can work
out, it's a D&D thing that elves have high INT and dwarves high WIS, but it
seems the wrong way around to me.

Nick.
--
Nick McConnell
O C "Death XI" SFN L:24 DL:21 !A R--- !Sp w:Spear of Freezing
A/NPP/O/Po/St(Qk) W/L H- D- c-- f- PV+ s- d++ P++ M+
C-- S- I* So+ B+ ac !GHB SQ? RQ+ V-/V+ F:NPP notes, etc.


Eddie Grove

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 9:23:33 PM12/1/05
to
Timo Pietilä <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> writes:

> Recently I have been collecting "to do" -list for my own variant. I
> haven't got time or I have just been too tired to code anything for it
> (or I have been too busy just playing angband), so development for it
> is pretty much stopped just now.

I can surely relate to all of that!

> I'm very curious about Eddies "no
> identify"-idea. I have no idea how far he is in that, but it sounds
> interesting.

I have it working for egos. I have figured out what to do for
mushrooms/potions/etc to do those right, but it is too much work.
For now I am going with the current [terrible] system for id on them.

> Any ideas what I should call my variant? I was thinking something in
> line of Timos Vanilla angband IE TVangband, but for some reason seeing

People would think TV stands for television!
Besides, it won't be vanilla after you are done.


Eddie

Nick McConnell

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 9:17:10 PM12/1/05
to
On 2005-12-02 02:52:04, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Timo_Pietilä?=
> Any ideas what I should call my variant?

Moominband? :)

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 2:40:32 PM12/2/05
to
Nick McConnell wrote:
> On 2005-12-02 02:52:04, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Timo_Pietilä?=
>
>>Any ideas what I should call my variant?
>
> Moominband? :)

No, thank you. Why moominband?

Timo Pietilä

konijn_

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 3:19:28 PM12/2/05
to
>IMO Amulet of Magi _is_ broken. It is now _too_ good with rConf. rBlind
>is better for it. I would do that anyway even if I wouldn't touch Dwarf
>any way.

FYI, broken means that once a feature/option is available to the player
all other
possible substituting feature/options are not viable.

Translated to Angband this means that you think the Amulet of Magi has
no comparable
equivalents and will always be worn once found. I think this is not the
case.
The most broken items in Angband are the +10/+15 speed artifacts, the
one ring and
anything PDSM .

T.

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 3:47:48 PM12/2/05
to
konijn_ wrote:
>>IMO Amulet of Magi _is_ broken. It is now _too_ good with rConf. rBlind
>>is better for it. I would do that anyway even if I wouldn't touch Dwarf
>>any way.
>
> FYI, broken means that once a feature/option is available to the player
> all other
> possible substituting feature/options are not viable.

That is not my translation of broken. Item is broken when it isn't what
it is supposed to be. Usually unbalancing strong, sometimes too weak.

> Translated to Angband this means that you think the Amulet of Magi has
> no comparable
> equivalents and will always be worn once found. I think this is not the
> case.
> The most broken items in Angband are the +10/+15 speed artifacts, the
> one ring and
> anything PDSM .

PDSM I agree, it is too strong (mini-Bladeturner). Speed artifacts and
the One are so rare that it doesn't matter that they have no substitute.
They are supposed to be game-ending strong items. Ergo they are not broken.

Timo Pietilä

konijn_

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 6:11:50 PM12/2/05
to

If they follow the definition of broken, they are broken. But I concur
it is
irrelevant for these items. Can you also concur that Amulet of Magi is
not
broken or even _broken_ ;)

You are allowed to call it too powerful ;)

T.


>
> Timo Pietilä

Anssi Ramela

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 6:29:43 PM12/2/05
to
Timo Pietilä kirjoitti:

Maybe he knows that Tove Jansson was born in Finland...

Just like we are.

Anssi Ramela

Nick McConnell

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 8:15:27 PM12/2/05
to
On 2005-12-03 00:29:43, Anssi Ramela <anssi.spam...@welho.com> wrote:

> Timo Pietil� kirjoitti:
> > Nick McConnell wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-12-02 02:52:04, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Timo_Pietil�?=


> >>
> >>> Any ideas what I should call my variant?
> >>
> >>
> >> Moominband? :)
> >
> >
> > No, thank you. Why moominband?
> >

> > Timo Pietil�


>
> Maybe he knows that Tove Jansson was born in Finland...
>
> Just like we are.
>
> Anssi Ramela

I guess I spend way too much time thinking about what mythologies could be
translated into a *band variant (NarniaBand? PotterBand? BuffyBand?), and I
happened to have just been thinking about the Jansson books when I read Timo's
post. Probably the Finnish connection influenced me a little too (which make
me think - why so many good *band players from Finland?).

I _must_ try harder not to post my stream of consciousness.

Otto Martin

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 9:43:42 PM12/2/05
to
Nick McConnell <nckmc...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Probably the Finnish connection influenced me a little too (which make
>me think - why so many good *band players from Finland?).

Nothing else to do for one third of the year.


Otto Martin - really should get back to playing Z...
--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 1:44:21 AM12/3/05
to
konijn_ wrote:

>>konijn_ wrote:

>>>FYI, broken means that once a feature/option is available to the player
>>>all other
>>>possible substituting feature/options are not viable.

> If they follow the definition of broken, they are broken.

Where did you get that definition? I haven't seen any "official" game
specific definition to word broken. AFAIK thing is broken when it
doesn't do/is not what it should.

Timo Pietilä

camlost

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 1:54:34 AM12/3/05
to

It's fairly common terminology. Broken generally means that something
is worth more/more useful than it's difficulty of obtaining warrants.
It generally means that using/doing that thing is far more effective
than other strategies...

Of course, broken could simply mean not doing what something should.
But generally it refers to game balance that is severly off... at least
in my experience.

Joshua

pete mack

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 2:13:29 AM12/3/05
to

I still don't understand why AoMagi is broken, according to you. Yes,
RConf is nice, but your average mage is going to be wearing Caspannion
or one of the other RConf armors by 3500'. And if you are short on
INT, of course you will wear it. Just like Priest will wear Devotion.
OoD, Magi is nice, since it gives rconf. But Trickery is arguably
nicer since it gives RPois+Speed+stealth, and DEX = more blows for OoD
Trickery. In fact, all 4 of the big amulets are pretty powerful.
(Devotion is probably the weakest, since it's resist isn't so useful.
But Devotion is sort of redundant, since AoWIS has higher pval anyway.)

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 10:15:29 AM12/3/05
to
pete mack wrote:

> I still don't understand why AoMagi is broken, according to you.

Simple: it is too powerful with rConf. It is my opinion and I stated it
in that sentence where I said it is broken. I know many people doesn't
feel that way, but OTOH most didn't feel it was wrong to give Eonwe
extra dice, boost Ringil with blessed -flag etc. I did.

There are a lot more than just AoMagi that is broken (IMO), it was just
one example and got in the discussion because it is perfect amulet for
mages: in addition to rConf it gives INT boost. By changing that rConf
to rBlind you weaken Dwarf mages, but others don't get as big weakening.
After all rBlind is one of the hardest resist to get.

Timo Pietilä

pete mack

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 11:53:28 AM12/3/05
to

If RBlind is one of the hardest resistances to get, changing RConf to
RBlind makes AoMagi stronger. Like I said, by the time you get that
deep, you almost certainly have RConf on your Armor if you are a mage.

You will want to be wearing (decreasing by preference)
Caspannion
Soulkeeper (though you won't have it.)
Isildur

Rohirrim
Celeborn

others

The top 3 give CON or INT+CON. 4 of top 5 give RConf. So unless you
are not so lucky with Armor, you won't be needing RConf when AoMagi is
in depth. By removing RConf, you are hurting the guys with the bad
luck not to find Caspannion even more. (Though they will probably be
wearing Carlammas or Necklace anyway...)

I agree that removing RConf will make artifactless challenge harder,
since AoMagi is only ordinary object type that confers RConf...

camlost

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 12:34:52 PM12/3/05
to

Sangband gives AoM both RES_CONF and RES_BLIND, but doesn't grant
SUST_INT or have an INT pval. Of course, that doesn't work as well in
Vanilla, now that there are amulets of devotion.

Would giving AoM RES_BLIND and AoD RES_CONF be a more appropriate
solution? Also remove RES_FIRE and RES_DARK from AoD and perhaps the
CHA bonus (not that anyone really cares...). Or does that make AoD too
good?

Joshua

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 1:02:04 PM12/3/05
to
pete mack wrote:
> Timo Pietilä wrote:

>>There are a lot more than just AoMagi that is broken (IMO), it was just
>>one example and got in the discussion because it is perfect amulet for
>>mages: in addition to rConf it gives INT boost. By changing that rConf
>>to rBlind you weaken Dwarf mages, but others don't get as big weakening.
>>After all rBlind is one of the hardest resist to get.
>
> If RBlind is one of the hardest resistances to get, changing RConf to
> RBlind makes AoMagi stronger.

Not so. RBlind isn't as important as rConf because you can get saving
throw against spells, and resistances for light and dark are pretty easy
to find (and both elves resist light and half-orc dark). It also doesn't
reduce any damage from any source.

> Like I said, by the time you get that
> deep, you almost certainly have RConf on your Armor if you are a mage.
>
> You will want to be wearing (decreasing by preference)
> Caspannion
> Soulkeeper (though you won't have it.)
> Isildur
>
> Rohirrim
> Celeborn

Apparently that depends of playing style or char. My preference is
usually this:

Caspanion (for rPoison, CON and spellcasting stat. rConf is usually just
bonus to make it even better)
Rohirrim (for combination of rBasic4, rSound and rConf, and combat stat
boosts.
Celeborn (for activation, rBase4, rDisenchantment and rDark)
Isildur (This and Rohirrim swap places if I don't need combat bonuses)

> others

Elvenkind or DSM with poison/conf depending of what I need or Dwarven
for CON and STR (and FA).

> I agree that removing RConf will make artifactless challenge harder,
> since AoMagi is only ordinary object type that confers RConf...

There are also several egos with possibility of rConf and two DSMs. With
artifactless you usually end up with good elvenkind shield and DSM as
main armor.

Timo Pietilä

pete mack

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 2:53:20 PM12/3/05
to

Timo Pietilä wrote:
> pete mack wrote:
> > Timo Pietilä wrote:

> Apparently that depends of playing style or char. My preference is
> usually this:
>
> Caspanion (for rPoison, CON and spellcasting stat. rConf is usually just
> bonus to make it even better)
> Rohirrim (for combination of rBasic4, rSound and rConf, and combat stat
> boosts.
> Celeborn (for activation, rBase4, rDisenchantment and rDark)
> Isildur (This and Rohirrim swap places if I don't need combat bonuses)

That's pretty much what I said, since I was talking about Mages, who
likely need CON more than STR/DEX. (I also threw in Soulkeeper for the
heck of it.)

3 of 4 of these have RConf, including both that have +CON and/or +INT.
What I am saying is that if you are wearing any of the top armors
except Celeborn, RConf on your amulet doesn't help anything. In that
case, RBlind is better. If what you have is Celeborn, then I agree
RConf is a big problem. In that case, what changing AoMagi to RBlind
really does is weaken Celeborn (and MH/Balance DSM), and slightly
strengthen the others.

David J Richardson

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 5:17:04 PM12/3/05
to
In article <3vdr51F...@individual.net>,
Timo Pietilä <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

Which in most cases is not crucial, as discussed this week, given there
are extra items of telepathy available now.

Also, when thinking about balancing, there's two situations to think
about anyway -- with or without random artifacts. In the latter case,
some of the rarer protections (eg. confusion, blind) can come along
easier (as does aggravation!)

(Wishes vanilla did normal artifacts + randarts simultaneously)

--
David J Richardson -- dav...@richardson.name
http://davidj.richardson.name/ -- Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ -- Boomerang Association of Australia

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 5:25:40 AM12/4/05
to
pete mack wrote:
> Timo Pietilä wrote:

>>Apparently that depends of playing style or char. My preference is
>>usually this:

>>Rohirrim (for combination of rBasic4, rSound and rConf, and combat stat
>>boosts).


>>Isildur (This and Rohirrim swap places if I don't need combat bonuses)
>
> That's pretty much what I said, since I was talking about Mages, who
> likely need CON more than STR/DEX. (I also threw in Soulkeeper for the
> heck of it.)

Mages are weak. I usually value STR very high with mages +2 to STR can
mean +1 to speed and/or extra carrying capasity. +1 from Isildur is
rarely good enough. Sometimes it is.

Timo Pietilä

Tagore Smith

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 10:27:33 PM12/4/05
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:
> pete mack wrote:
>
> > I still don't understand why AoMagi is broken, according to you.
>
> Simple: it is too powerful with rConf. It is my opinion and I stated it
> in that sentence where I said it is broken. I know many people doesn't
> feel that way, but OTOH most didn't feel it was wrong to give Eonwe
> extra dice, boost Ringil with blessed -flag etc. I did.
>
> There are a lot more than just AoMagi that is broken (IMO),

<snip>

I think part of the problem here is that you are just too good at V to
play with good race/class combinations without restrictions. For most
people, Angband is not too easy, given that most people who play never
win, and that a lot of long time players rarely do :). I think I'm a
fairly strong intermediate player (thanks, in large part, to your, and
others, postings on rgra), but I wouldn't consider playing without
artifacts, at least not with the intention of winning. If you can win
that kind of challenge game in a few tries then maybe V as a whole is
somewhat broken for you.

Maybe Timoband should be named Proband (or RockyRoadBand, in keeping
with the ice cream flavor motif), and be difficult enough that even you
have to struggle to win it with optimal combinations. I suspect its
following would be devoted, but small :).

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 3:35:56 AM12/5/05
to
Tagore Smith wrote:

> I wouldn't consider playing without
> artifacts, at least not with the intention of winning. If you can win
> that kind of challenge game in a few tries then maybe V as a whole is
> somewhat broken for you.

That maybe true. I can win without artifacts just as easily as with
artifacts. It just takes a bit longer to get char that is strong enough
to beat Morgoth.

> Maybe Timoband should be named Proband (or RockyRoadBand, in keeping
> with the ice cream flavor motif), and be difficult enough that even you
> have to struggle to win it with optimal combinations. I suspect its
> following would be devoted, but small :).

If I get it done it won't be that hard. But I would ephasize more of
artifactless gaming and play less attention to artifacts. Game basics
should come from ego-items and normal items and artifacts should be just
a sugar in top of that. IOW artifacts are made rarer, fewer and more
powerful (so that once you actually find one it will be "special" and
not "crappy *thancs") and egos are balanced so that you can play with
them without too much struggle.

IMO currently many players value artifacts too high. Some of them are
actually much worse than egos at the same level, and many are about same
as corresponding ego.

Timo Pietilä

Tagore Smith

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 3:14:31 PM12/5/05
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:
> Tagore Smith wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't consider playing without
> > artifacts, at least not with the intention of winning. If you can win
> > that kind of challenge game in a few tries then maybe V as a whole is
> > somewhat broken for you.
>
> That maybe true. I can win without artifacts just as easily as with
> artifacts. It just takes a bit longer to get char that is strong enough
> to beat Morgoth.

Hmm- that's interesting. Maybe I should give it a try. I am not a
really patient player though- I find that the longer the game, the more
likely I am to do something really stupid (my current game is a case in
point- it may be the longest game I've ever played, and I almost offed
myself in an incredibly dumb way last night- it's the only time this
character has really felt like he might die).

The two classes I've played most are warriors and rangers- sounds
tricky with a warrior, but a ranger is probably ideal for artifactless.
When you play this way do you just not use artifacts, or do you modify
your angband installation to not generate them? Seems like the latter
would be a bit easier, as you wouldn't have excellent items getting
converted to artifacts. You would also avoid the potential frustration
of finding Feanor in an artifactless game.

Regardless of whether or not artifactless is terribly difficult, I seem
to remember you seriously playing a bookless artifactless hobbit mage
at one point (did you ever win that one?), so I think my point stands.

> IMO currently many players value artifacts too high. Some of them are
> actually much worse than egos at the same level, and many are about same
> as corresponding ego.

There are certainly a lot of artifacts in the game that I have never
even wielded, as a better ego item will have almost always showed up
already. The deep artifacts do seem to have one real advantage though,
in that they are multi-purpose in a way that only a few ego items are.
My current char is wearing non-artifact armor, and it would be churlish
of me to complain about it, as it is the best body armor I've ever
found, but getting no stat boosts from it has made keeping both Wis and
Con high a bit tricky (char is a priest)- I've been wearing AoWis and
RoC (and Amrod till 4900', for Con and regen, though the latter is not
all that big a deal anymore). It's not that big a deal- I suspect I had
a minimal winning kit quite a while ago, but I'm not using ASC at all,
so some summoning uniques were a pain. I have a +4 HA that I have used
in some cases, and I'm sure I could have won like that, but it involved
some trade-offs.

Then Gothmog dropped Thorin at 4900', and the extra con rippled through
my entire kit, as I was able to add other multi-purpose artifacts in a
number of slots. There is no respect in which the reconfiguration was
detrimental, and it really improved things. Actually, this character
may be the strongest I've ever had, mostly due to the length of the
game and one very lucky find.

So I think that artifactless is not so hard for you because you are
very good at making kit tradeoffs, and are able to win with a kit that
many would have a hard time winning with. You're also consistent enough
to play long games without making fatal errors.

Eddie Grove

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 3:48:53 PM12/5/05
to
"Tagore Smith" <tag...@tagoresmith.com> writes:

> When you play this way do you just not use artifacts, or do you modify
> your angband installation to not generate them?

There is a birth option you can set. There is no need to modify anything.


Eddie

David J Richardson

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 3:57:50 PM12/5/05
to
In article <1133813671.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Tagore Smith" <tag...@tagoresmith.com> wrote:

> My current char is wearing non-artifact armor, and it would be
> churlish of me to complain about it, as it is the best body armor
> I've ever found, but getting no stat boosts from it has made keeping
> both Wis and Con high a bit tricky (char is a priest)

Sounds veeeery familiar -- my current priest just found Power Dragon
Scale Mail (second time in a decade! woohoo!) , and now I'm madly
scrambling for totally different equipment...

Tagore Smith

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 4:01:05 PM12/5/05
to

Ah, cool, thanks. I feel dumb for not realizing that- I've probably
seen it several thousand times. This is why I have a hard time with
long games :).

Tagore Smith

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 4:13:30 PM12/5/05
to

David J Richardson wrote:

> Sounds veeeery familiar -- my current priest just found Power Dragon
> Scale Mail (second time in a decade! woohoo!) , and now I'm madly
> scrambling for totally different equipment...

Yep, it is a different kind of kit for sure (I'd never found PDSM
before). I found it pretty early, so I have been able to plan for it
(though it takes some of the fun out of looting a vault when you're
pretty much leaving everything there- Celeborn is the only other armor
I've kept). That's also why the game has been so long- that and the
fact that I haven't played priests in a long time, other than in a comp
a few months ago. I'm mostly past the point of playing cautiously just
because I find something nice early (the opposite is generaly true,
actually), but in this case I figured I'd make an exception.

Hugo Kornelis

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 7:30:32 PM12/5/05
to
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:19:53 -0500, Jeff Greene wrote:

(snip)
>Just curious....why do dwarves have a wisdom bonus?

Hi Jeff,

My theory - it's a leftover from the D&D roots of Angband.

In D&D, high WIS improves saving throws against magical attacks. Since
dwarves are supposed to have high innate magic resistance (I believe
that Tolkien wrote that somewhere, or else it's just made up by the
inventors of D&D), they need high WIS to get increased saving throws
against magic.

Best, Hugo
--
Your sig line (k) was stolen! (more)
There is a puff of smoke!

(Remove NO and SPAM to get my e-mail address)

Antoine

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 7:38:52 PM12/5/05
to

Hugo Kornelis wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:19:53 -0500, Jeff Greene wrote:
>
> (snip)
> >Just curious....why do dwarves have a wisdom bonus?
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> My theory - it's a leftover from the D&D roots of Angband.
>
> In D&D, high WIS improves saving throws against magical attacks. Since
> dwarves are supposed to have high innate magic resistance (I believe
> that Tolkien wrote that somewhere, or else it's just made up by the
> inventors of D&D), they need high WIS to get increased saving throws
> against magic.

In Basic D&D dwarves were on a separate saving throw table anyway, so
this must have come in at a later stage...

A.

Dances With Crows

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 7:57:35 PM12/5/05
to
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:30:32 +0100, Hugo Kornelis staggered into the
Black Sun and said:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:19:53 -0500, Jeff Greene wrote:
> (snip)
>>Just curious....why do dwarves have a wisdom bonus?
> My theory - it's a leftover from the D&D roots of Angband. In D&D,
> high WIS improves saving throws against magical attacks. Since dwarves
> are supposed to have high innate magic resistance (I believe that
> Tolkien wrote that somewhere, or else it's just made up by the
> inventors of D&D), they need high WIS to get increased saving throws
> against magic.

Tolkien, Appendix A, part III, LOTR:

The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their
hearts with a greed of gold and precious things [...] But they were made
from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any
domination. Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be
reduced to shadows enslaved to another will; and for the same reason
their lives were not affected by the Ring, to live either longer or
shorter because of it.

I think that passage is where the D&D folks got their idea for having
dwarves have high magic resistance. Maybe. ICBW. OTOH, this passage
does mean that the effects of the One Ring might be different for
dwarven characters, if anyone really wanted to implement that. It'd
probably require a Nasty Hack or 2 though.

--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Jesus is the best radio producer in the beans. We need some saliva and
pickles to get mad. --MegaHAL, "The Best of MegaHAL"

Leon Marrick

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 11:51:20 PM12/5/05
to
Dances With Crows wrote:

> I think that passage is where the D&D folks got their idea for having
> dwarves have high magic resistance. Maybe. ICBW. OTOH, this passage
> does mean that the effects of the One Ring might be different for
> dwarven characters, if anyone really wanted to implement that. It'd
> probably require a Nasty Hack or 2 though.

Such a change would not be a "hack", but rather a special case.
Partly because of confusion between the two, there is too much fear of
special cases among *band coders. Uniformity is the enemy of gameplay!

The worst example of "tidy but stupid code" I have ever seen in a
*band was when paralyzation from monster blows was made fully cumulative
in Angband (sometime in the 2.7.# cycle), apparently for no better
reason than that some other effects of monster blows (such as poison) were.

--
S(all) W/D H+ D c+ f? PV++ s? d- P++ M+
C S !I !So SQ RQ V+ F:<<buffer overrun>>
http://angband.oook.cz/code

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 12:09:24 AM12/6/05
to
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:57:35 -0600, Dances With Crows
<danSPANcesw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:30:32 +0100, Hugo Kornelis staggered into the
>Black Sun and said:
>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:19:53 -0500, Jeff Greene wrote:
>> (snip)
>>>Just curious....why do dwarves have a wisdom bonus?
>> My theory - it's a leftover from the D&D roots of Angband. In D&D,
>> high WIS improves saving throws against magical attacks. Since dwarves
>> are supposed to have high innate magic resistance (I believe that
>> Tolkien wrote that somewhere, or else it's just made up by the
>> inventors of D&D), they need high WIS to get increased saving throws
>> against magic.
>
>Tolkien, Appendix A, part III, LOTR:
>
>The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their
>hearts with a greed of gold and precious things [...] But they were made
>from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any
>domination. Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be
>reduced to shadows enslaved to another will; and for the same reason
>their lives were not affected by the Ring, to live either longer or
>shorter because of it.
>
>I think that passage is where the D&D folks got their idea for having
>dwarves have high magic resistance.

Not just that. *D&D Wisdom includes Willpower, which Dwarves, being so
resistant to domination (and steadfast in the face of hardships) have
plenty of.

>Maybe. ICBW. OTOH, this passage
>does mean that the effects of the One Ring might be different for
>dwarven characters, if anyone really wanted to implement that. It'd
>probably require a Nasty Hack or 2 though.

Well, the One Ring isn't treating in any Tolkienesque way at the moment
anyway. It would only make you invisible unless you first worked to
master it and there's no basis for most of its powers in Angband.

--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com

Dances With Crows

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 4:16:47 PM12/6/05
to
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:51:20 -0500, Leon Marrick staggered into the
Black Sun and said:
> Dances With Crows wrote:
>> I think that passage is where the D&D folks got their idea for having
>> dwarves have high magic resistance. Maybe. ICBW. OTOH, this
>> passage does mean that the effects of the One Ring might be different
>> for dwarven characters, if anyone really wanted to implement that.
>> It'd probably require a Nasty Hack or 2 though.
> Such a change would not be a "hack", but rather a special case.
> Partly because of confusion between the two, there is too much fear of
> special cases among *band coders. Uniformity is the enemy of
> gameplay!

True. It might just look ugly, though, like the "Smeagol says various
things" part in 1999-era [Z]. Also, as someone else pointed out in
another reply, the One Ring's effects in the game have no real Tolkien
base. The real question here, I think, is "would making this code
change make the game more fun/more varied?" And how would ToME handle
this if DarkGod wanted to do something like that?

> The worst example of "tidy but stupid code" I have ever seen in a
> *band was when paralyzation from monster blows was made fully
> cumulative in Angband (sometime in the 2.7.# cycle), apparently for no
> better reason than that some other effects of monster blows (such as
> poison) were.

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small coders? Well, dumb things
happen in all projects.

--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see

"We should have a policy against using personal resources for company
business." "The Company didn't pay for these pants, so I'm taking them
off at the door!" --J. Moore and A. DeBoer, the Monastery

Hugo Kornelis

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 6:54:43 PM12/6/05
to

Hi Antoine,

You are right - I should have checked before posting.

I also checked my dusty copy of AD&D 1st ed players handbook, and
dwarves get no wisdom bonus there either. So I guess that it is an
Angband thingie after all.

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 1:11:55 PM12/8/05
to
Tagore Smith wrote:

> Regardless of whether or not artifactless is terribly difficult, I seem
> to remember you seriously playing a bookless artifactless hobbit mage
> at one point (did you ever win that one?), so I think my point stands.

No, that one I never won. Hobbit has too few HP and is too weak fighter.
But in theory it is winnable. I had YASD:s with all of my tries, nothing
I couldn't really avoid.

As challenge I have now artifactless, egoless, dwarf priest, but that is
stalled because I grew too fond of that char and started to be too
afraid to actually start playing (because it might die).

Timo Pietilä

Jeff Greene

unread,
Dec 8, 2005, 6:09:44 PM12/8/05
to

"Hugo Kornelis" <Ang...@hugo.is_NO_dit.c_SPAM_om> wrote in message news:949cp19744frtbvbj...@4ax.com...

> On 5 Dec 2005 16:38:52 -0800, Antoine wrote:
>
> >
> >Hugo Kornelis wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:19:53 -0500, Jeff Greene wrote:
> >>
> >> (snip)
> >> >Just curious....why do dwarves have a wisdom bonus?
> >>
> >> Hi Jeff,
> >>
> >> My theory - it's a leftover from the D&D roots of Angband.
> >>
> >> In D&D, high WIS improves saving throws against magical attacks. Since
> >> dwarves are supposed to have high innate magic resistance (I believe
> >> that Tolkien wrote that somewhere, or else it's just made up by the
> >> inventors of D&D), they need high WIS to get increased saving throws
> >> against magic.
> >
> >In Basic D&D dwarves were on a separate saving throw table anyway, so
> >this must have come in at a later stage...
> >
> >A.
>
> Hi Antoine,
>
> You are right - I should have checked before posting.
>
> I also checked my dusty copy of AD&D 1st ed players handbook, and
> dwarves get no wisdom bonus there either. So I guess that it is an
> Angband thingie after all.
>
Interesting. Also, from other posts in this thread, it seems that Tolkien thought of dwarves more stubborn than wise. It would seem to be the logical thing to do would be to improve the base saving throw for dwarves and take away the wisdom bonus. Also, I never really saw dwarves as being dumb creatures. Maybe reduce the INT penalty to balance it out? But only if people think that would improve gameplay. For some reason I have mostly played humans, so I have no idea about balance for the various classes.

-Jeff

David Howdon

unread,
Dec 12, 2005, 5:17:10 PM12/12/05