[V] Rogues -- what should be done about them?
Matthias Kurzke
weakest of all classes, with the least "special abilities".
Currently their advantages are early good stealth, good fighting
abilities, some early special spells. Almost all of this comes early.
In more detail: Rogues get the Detect Objects and Detect Treasure spell.
The Detect Treasure spell is nice for some early money, but forces you
to carry a pick. (This could be amended by making Stone to Mud earlier
and cheaper for Rogues.) Money, however, doesn't affect the later part
of the game.
Detect Objects is nice, but only gets powerful later when vaults get
common and you can peek into them using this spell. In these later
stages, most other classes have this power, too. Mages and Rangers have
Detect Enchantment, and Priests even have Clairvoyance. In my opinion
Detect Enchantment should be removed and Clairvoyance should only light
up the level (which is powerful enough already) but not detect objects.
Instead of Detect Enchantment, we could give Magic Mapping to Rogues and
Rangers (I never understood why it is priestly in Angband).
Rogues do not get Teleport Other as a spell. Why?
Rogues have a hard time carrying around lots of half-empty spellbooks.
For instance, Kelek's is only used for Recharge III, a spell rogues
badly need because they don#t get enough spells in their books.
Rogues have some good starting abilities - stealth, searching, and
disarming ability are not too bad. Unfortunately, stealth doesn't
increase with level, and all classes have access to the same
stealth-giving items, so this doesn'T make rogues very special. Having
to rely on stealth makes the rogue weaker, in fact, since this means
aggravating artifacts are junk. I think a stealthy rogue clearing a GCV
with Stone to Mud and Teleport Other without killing or even waking up a
single monster would be very much in-character.
The disarming abilities of Rogues are laughable since there are trap
destruction spells available cheaply. Also, locked doors are rare and
patience (or tunnelling, or the spell) opens them for anyone. (Door
bashing, by the way, is the second most useless command in Angband after
jamming doors - in the way these are currently implemented, locked and
jammed doors could just be removed without doing much harm).
So what can be done?
I won't advocate the "set traps" ability for rogues here now (and I
think both the OAngband and the PsiAngband implementations of this idea
are not really the completely right thing for Vanilla. I want neither
single-class commands in addition to 'm' and 'p' nor many single-class
objects).
With stealing -- stealing money is boring because money is worthless.
Stealing objects from monsters doesn't make sense unless monsters are
generated carrying their inventory (which would be a waste of memory
unless we make some good use of it). Only interesting thing left would
be taking out objects from below a monster (nick the artifact from below
the sleeping dragon in the GCV) but that is usually done using Teleport
Other.
I would like to give more and more special spells to rogues. In some
other thread, I suggested a far-Identify (ID a targeted object, possibly
not even in LOS); someone else suggested *ID*. Yet another possibility
would be a telekinesis-like spell, to facilitate stealing.
At least we should rewrite the current spell list a little bit and add
Teleport Other.
Any other suggestions?
Matthias
Anthony David
> In vanilla Angband, something should be done about Rogues. They are the
> weakest of all classes, with the least "special abilities".
> Currently their advantages are early good stealth, good fighting
> abilities, some early special spells. Almost all of this comes early.
[good ideas snipped]
>
> With stealing -- stealing money is boring because money is worthless.
> Stealing objects from monsters doesn't make sense unless monsters are
> generated carrying their inventory (which would be a waste of memory
> unless we make some good use of it). Only interesting thing left would
> be taking out objects from below a monster (nick the artifact from below
> the sleeping dragon in the GCV) but that is usually done using Teleport
> Other.
>
> I would like to give more and more special spells to rogues. In some
> other thread, I suggested a far-Identify (ID a targeted object, possibly
> not even in LOS); someone else suggested *ID*. Yet another possibility
> would be a telekinesis-like spell, to facilitate stealing.
keen eye for value is the mark of a good rogue.
>
> At least we should rewrite the current spell list a little bit and add
> Teleport Other.
>
> Any other suggestions?
Greater critical chance for striking a sleeping monster ala backstab.
--
Anthony David
Gambling(n): A discretionary tax on those asleep during high school maths
http://adavid.com.au/
0xA72CE1ED fingerprint = EA1E C69E FE59 BBE1 AA4B F354 BD09 9765 A72C E1ED
Pertti Särelä
Matthias Kurzke wrote:
> In vanilla Angband, something should be done about Rogues. They are the
> weakest of all classes, with the least "special abilities".
> Currently their advantages are early good stealth, good fighting
> abilities, some early special spells. Almost all of this comes early.
>
[snip lots of good ideas]
> Any other suggestions?
>
> Matthias
How about giving them a spell that gives a perfect stealth for a fairly
short while. As far as I know, teleport other wakes the monster it targets.
How about giving rogues silent teleport other, which allows teleporting
monsters without waking them. Another interesting solution would be to give
rogues a high level sleep spell that works like mass genocide. It would
attempt to sleep all monsters on the level or on the screen.
--
P(5.0.1) C "Uazaza" DMPo L:29 DL:850' A+ R++ Sp w:Eol, the dark elf
A/Pe(Z) L/D/W H- D c-- f(-) PV+ s- TT- d P++ M+
C-(-) S+ I So B-- ac GHB SQ RQ++ V(+) F:Balance mage spells
VanWaySkywolf223
{snip good ideas}
>
>Any other suggestions?
>
How about giving rogues some kind of evasion abilities? At low levels they
could halve missle attacks, mid-levels breathe and at high levels quarter it?
Dependent upon saves, of course. If done properly it could give rogues a
better chance of survival without being totally overwhelming.
**************************************************************************
****** The only sovereign I can allow to rule me is reason. The first
law of reason is this: what exists, exists; what is, is. From this
irreducible, bedrock principle, all knowledge is built. This is the foundation
from which life is embraced.
Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means of
discovering them. Reason is our only way of grasping reality - it's our basic
tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject
reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see.
- Richard Rahl in Terry Goodkind's Faith of the Fallen
**************************************************************************
********
David Pannette
VanWaySk...@aol.com
**************************************************************************
********
Joseph Oberlander
> Teleport Other.
>
> Any other suggestions?
Remove ALL spells that can be used for combat(damage-dealing).
Add in Teleport-Other
Add in *Identify*
Add in intrinsic free-action at level 20 and intrinsic resist confusion
at level 40.
Add in backstab(first melee weapon strike on a sleeping monster is always
a exceptional hit(good, great, etc))
Ringwraith
> Remove ALL spells that can be used for combat(damage-dealing).
>
> Add in Teleport-Other
I must be in the minority here, but Teleport-Other seems to me like a
too heavy a spell to give to a non-pure-spellcaster. It's more of a
brute force magic power than most of the combat spells.
I like the other ideas that have been thrown around, but this one
seems too out of character.
--
Bahman Rabii
bah...@topped-with-meat.com
http://www.oangband.com/
Jonathan Ellis
Joseph Oberlander wrote in message <3C0D25FF...@earthlink.net>...
>> At least we should rewrite the current spell list a little bit and
add
>> Teleport Other.
>>
>> Any other suggestions?
>
>Remove ALL spells that can be used for combat(damage-dealing).
Agreed. Except Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill: rogues use poison
routinely.
>Add in Teleport-Other
>Add in *Identify*
As another spell, placed in one of the high-level books (Keleks is
the most likely), which mages don't get, as I don't think mages *should*
get *ID*? Or, perhaps, as an intrinsic high-level power, accessed using
the "U" command, which is not yet used in vanilla?
>Add in intrinsic free-action at level 20 and intrinsic resist confusion
> at level 40.
Intrinsic resist confusion is too powerful IMHO. Intrinsic see
invisible or free action would be nice.
How about Speed +1 every 10 levels?
While I'm not sure that the trap-kit system from Psiband or
Pernband is the right one for vanilla (fun though it is, in these two
completely different variants), I do like the idea of rogues setting
traps for monsters. And I've just been playing Baldur's Gate 2, where
thieves do get some nice powers, as they go up in level...
Suggestion as to how to manage this:
As thieves go higher up in level, they become able to set better
types of trap - accessed by the "U" command for special class-based or
race-based (or, in those variants which have mutations, mutation-based)
powers. Spike traps, Poison spike traps, Confusion traps, Holding traps
(monster can cast spells and attack in melee, but may not move),
Paralysis traps, Exploding traps (damage = "meteor" type, i.e.
unresistable by anything, but affects objects on the ground as if it was
fire.)
Each trap that is set on a level, counts against the *permanent*
mana total of the rogue. If he has 31 mana normally, and sets a trap
which costs 10 mana points to maintain, then his maximum total is
temporarily lowered to 21. When the rogue leaves the level, all existing
traps are destroyed, and the maximum mana total restored to its original
level.
Each trap costs, not a set amount of mana, but a variable amount in
a set range, chosen by the rogue. The more mana is spent in making this
trap, the more damaging it will be, and the less chance there will be of
it making a saving throw (if saving throw is applicable.) Of course,
this means that there is also less mana left for the rogue to set more
traps, so choose carefully... Every trap that is set remains there until
(a) disarmed by the rogue (trap is automatically destroyed, rogue
regains the maximum-mana points that he spent), (b) disarmed by a
monster (if certain monsters are granted the ability to disarm traps:
same effect as if the rogue disarmed his own trap, but the monster may
set it off instead of disarming it: chance of disarming = 25% plus
monster's level minus rogue's level, capped at 100% or 0%), or (c) the
rogue leaves the level.
>Add in backstab(first melee weapon strike on a sleeping monster is
always
> a exceptional hit(good, great, etc))
Good idea. Not a better chance of a critical hit, but a
*compulsory* crit on sleeping monsters - if it was with *all attacks in
that first round*, it would actually be worth something.
Also: make teleport-other not wake monsters up, when done by a
rogue. (You teleport Ancalagon out of that GCV. Next turn, an unexpected
Nexus Q teleports you away: you land near him... and tiptoe quietly away
without him waking up.)
A useful power to add into vanilla would be Invisibility, if anyone
can work out a balanced method of doing so. Rogues could really use
invisibility along with their stealth - if invisible, there should be a
chance, based on stealth, that monsters will actually fail to notice the
player, even if they are awake, and instead mill around aimlessly
(monsters move randomly but do NOT attack each other or the player - if
two monsters attempt to occupy the same space, the stronger succeeds as
if he had MOVE_BODY, with the weaker one pushed aside: and they do not
cast spells. If an invisible monster accidentally bumps into the player,
it "attacks" him in melee but only does half damage.)
An invisible rogue could then be allowed to get a proper "backstab"
even on an "awake" monster, if it didn't see him because he was stealthy
enough while invisible.
Of course, attacking or casting a spell should cancel invisibility
for several turns (5?) if it is permanent (i.e. got by wearing an
invisibility-providing item, such as The One Ring or a Ring of
Invisibility), or totally (if it is temporary, such as by drinking a
potion of invisibility). And if you weren't stealthy enough (say, if you
were a non-rogue), then monsters will probably be alerted to your
presence anyway, and detect you by hearing or smell, or by the
footprints you leave in the dust on the floor. Some monsters should
naturally be able to see invisible (including all nine Nazguls and many,
but not all, high-level undeads.)
Jonathan.
Kieron Dunbar
> Stealing objects from monsters doesn't make sense unless monsters are
> generated carrying their inventory (which would be a waste of memory
> unless we make some good use of it). Only interesting thing left would
It makes perfect sense to me. As monsters don't have objects which are generated
via different algorithms, you only need to know the number of objects a monster
(or unique) still has before they first leave the monster's inventory rather
than what any of them are. There wouldn't be a lot of point unless you give a
benefit to stealing from a monster, though, as not having to kill it when you do
have to spend time next to it just isn't enough. Generating better objects on
average for thieves than murderers (as in ADOM) would be one possibility.
--
kwaheri, Kieron (reverse username to reply)
Ceilti OCahill
Hello,
I'm one who thinks rogues should be heavily worked on, and no longer ignored
except in a few variants. Eyband has even banned them because of a perceived
lack of interest in them.
I myself play few rogues, They have simply no excitement. Pern is trying to
change that but I like the ideas presented here better.
My own idea (perhaps), is to give rogues even more stealth at the begining of
the game. The way Shadow Faeries are done in Oangband. only more. Give the new
robust empowered rogue 'heroic' stealth at the start.
Ceilti
The only truths are the stars in the heavens and all that lies beneath them
is interpretation.
Mikko Lehtinen
<josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Add in intrinsic free-action at level 20 and intrinsic resist confusion
> at level 40.
If rogues had free action, I wouldn't like to play gnome rogues.
This is one thing that I don't like about Zangband races and
professions: racial powers, class powers, and spells overlap too much.
For example, I don't like to choose a gnome Trump mage, because then the
innate teleport power seems less useful.
-Mikko.
Timo Pietilä
Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote in message <3C0D25FF...@earthlink.net>...
> >> At least we should rewrite the current spell list a little bit and
> add
> >> Teleport Other.
> >>
> >> Any other suggestions?
> >
> >Remove ALL spells that can be used for combat(damage-dealing).
>
> Agreed. Except Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill: rogues use poison
> routinely.
>
> >Add in Teleport-Other
> >Add in *Identify*
>
> As another spell, placed in one of the high-level books (Keleks is
> the most likely), which mages don't get, as I don't think mages *should*
> get *ID*? Or, perhaps, as an intrinsic high-level power, accessed using
> the "U" command, which is not yet used in vanilla?
I don't like the idea to give *anybody* *ID* (maybe this could be made more
common if player chooses randarts?)
Using some "U" / class / race could be implemented, though. Maybe
brand-poison for missiles/weapons for rogue? Poison is weakest of brands
because many creatures resist it.
> >Add in intrinsic free-action at level 20 and intrinsic resist confusion
> > at level 40.
>
> Intrinsic resist confusion is too powerful IMHO. Intrinsic see
> invisible or free action would be nice.
> How about Speed +1 every 10 levels?
Speed looks good. Very good. Rogues should be *fast* compared to any other
class choise we have now. Maybe with restricts to armor (no hard armors with
speed bonus for example). Something like monks in zangband.
Maybe also increasing stealth with level. This is not the case currently.
> A useful power to add into vanilla would be Invisibility, if anyone
> can work out a balanced method of doing so.
This is something I would like to see too. Maybe something like confusion to
monsters in LoS except that attacking other monsters are not allowed.
> Rogues could really use
> invisibility along with their stealth - if invisible, there should be a
> chance, based on stealth, that monsters will actually fail to notice the
> player, even if they are awake, and instead mill around aimlessly
> (monsters move randomly but do NOT attack each other or the player - if
> two monsters attempt to occupy the same space, the stronger succeeds as
> if he had MOVE_BODY, with the weaker one pushed aside: and they do not
> cast spells. If an invisible monster accidentally bumps into the player,
> it "attacks" him in melee but only does half damage.)
Exactly like this.
Timo Pietilä
--
A(2.9.3) CI(x) "Wanderer" GnM L:28 DL:1000' A-- R--- Sp-- w:Magic Missile
A/Gu L/W/D H- D c-- f PV+ s-(+) TT- d(+) P++ M+
C-- S+ I-(++) So+ B++ ac GHB- SQ RQ++ V+ F:Z Rod Stacking
Matthias Kurzke
> Hello,
>
> I'm one who thinks rogues should be heavily worked on, and no longer ignored
> except in a few variants. Eyband has even banned them because of a perceived
> lack of interest in them.
>
> I myself play few rogues, They have simply no excitement. Pern is trying to
> change that but I like the ideas presented here better.
>
> My own idea (perhaps), is to give rogues even more stealth at the begining of
> the game. The way Shadow Faeries are done in Oangband. only more. Give the new
> robust empowered rogue 'heroic' stealth at the start.
>
That would be nice, but I'm searching for differences that will still be
important until the end of the game.
>
Matthias
Ira Blum
news:20011204185752...@mb-fw.aol.com...
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm one who thinks rogues should be heavily worked on, and no longer
ignored
> except in a few variants. Eyband has even banned them because of a
perceived
> lack of interest in them.
>
> I myself play few rogues, They have simply no excitement. Pern is
trying to
> change that but I like the ideas presented here better.
>
> My own idea (perhaps), is to give rogues even more stealth at the
begining of
> the game. The way Shadow Faeries are done in Oangband. only more.
Give the new
> robust empowered rogue 'heroic' stealth at the start.
>
I've been playing some rogues in pernband, and though I keep dying for
stupid reasons, they have been fun. (different stupid reasons than
when I play other characters.) by the way, Kelek's Practical Joke:
wasn't funny.
Ira
Werner Baer
"Matthias Kurzke" <maw...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:3C0CA534...@gmx.de...
> In vanilla Angband, something should be done about Rogues. They are the
> weakest of all classes, with the least "special abilities".
> Currently their advantages are early good stealth, good fighting
> abilities, some early special spells. Almost all of this comes early.
IMO they are warriors with utility spells.
And they become real fighting machines when they find Tensors,
wich usually happenes late.
> (This could be amended by making Stone to Mud earlier
> and cheaper for Rogues.)
agreed.
> Detect Objects is nice, but only gets powerful later when vaults get
> common and you can peek into them using this spell.
It is nice to check levels with low, but not boring, ratings.
Especially in preserve mode, when you don't have the phial.
> In my opinion
> Detect Enchantment should be removed
should stay for mages IMO
> and Clairvoyance should only light
> up the level (which is powerful enough already) but not detect objects.
Thats what i said for ages ...
> Rogues do not get Teleport Other as a spell. Why?
Too powerful.
Ranger and paladins shouldn't get it too IMO.
> Rogues have a hard time carrying around lots of half-empty spellbooks.
> For instance, Kelek's is only used for Recharge III, a spell rogues
> badly need because they don#t get enough spells in their books.
Detect evil is very useful until you get ESP.
But IMO that is a big drawback for rogues -
having to carry around 7 books for a handful of spells.
I like the way Oangband rearranges the spells for the mixed classes.
There rogues only need 5 books.
The drawback is that you need more different macro files.
> Rogues have some good starting abilities - stealth, searching, and
> disarming ability are not too bad. Unfortunately, stealth doesn't
> increase with level, and all classes have access to the same
> stealth-giving items, so this doesn'T make rogues very special.
Increase the stealth bonus for rogues.
> The disarming abilities of Rogues are laughable since there are trap
> destruction spells available cheaply.
Oangband solution:
The spell has a 5% chance to set off the trap.
The disarming ability of rogues should be better than this
at level 20-30.
Werner.
DarkGod
<ib...@jrfii.com> wrote:
> "Ceilti OCahill" <cei...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20011204185752...@mb-fw.aol.com...
>> My own idea (perhaps), is to give rogues even more stealth at the
> begining of
>> the game. The way Shadow Faeries are done in Oangband. only more.
> Give the new
>> robust empowered rogue 'heroic' stealth at the start.
> I've been playing some rogues in pernband, and though I keep dying for
> stupid reasons, they have been fun. (different stupid reasons than when
> I play other characters.) by the way, Kelek's Practical Joke: wasn't
> funny.
It's random.
--
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------
DarkGod comes from | Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards
the hells for YOU ! :) | because they are subtle and quick to anger.
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------
Pe W Olorin YSo L:50 DL:696 A+++ R+++ Sp++ w:Mage Staff of Mana(240%)
Pe*/PM*(Cr) D H- D c++ f- PV s- TT- d++ P++ M+ C- S++ I+++ So++ B/-
ac- GHB- SQ+ RQ V+++ F:Mage playing Mage-like(see Pernangband Sorcerors)
Joseph Oberlander
> > >Remove ALL spells that can be used for combat(damage-dealing).
> >
> > Agreed. Except Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill: rogues use poison
> > routinely.
I prefer a non-magic version. Axe *ALL* spells(use wands!) and
give them poison brand(class ability(U key)
> > >Add in Teleport-Other
> > >Add in *Identify*
> >
> > As another spell, placed in one of the high-level books (Keleks is
> > the most likely), which mages don't get, as I don't think mages *should*
> > get *ID*? Or, perhaps, as an intrinsic high-level power, accessed using
> > the "U" command, which is not yet used in vanilla?
Either way would work.
ONLY THIEFS GET *ID*. Nobody else. This is supported as in AD&D appraisal
is a thief-specific skill that costs double for any other class to learn.
At 30th level or so, they should get something as useful to them
as Genocide(*ID*. At 40th or so, they should get mass identify(area-effect,
standard identify) to compensate for no Mass Genocide.
These guys should be able to wade through a dragon-pit drop and get the
good items in minutes.
> I don't like the idea to give *anybody* *ID* (maybe this could be made more
> common if player chooses randarts?)
>
> Using some "U" / class / race could be implemented, though. Maybe
> brand-poison for missiles/weapons for rogue? Poison is weakest of brands
> because many creatures resist it.
Yep - put this in and remove all poison spells. These buys do not
commonly know destructive magic and it is too much of a gimmie. Level
5 or thereabouts.
> > >Add in intrinsic free-action at level 20 and intrinsic resist confusion
> > > at level 40.
> >
> > Intrinsic resist confusion is too powerful IMHO. Intrinsic see
> > invisible or free action would be nice.
> > How about Speed +1 every 10 levels?
>
> Speed looks good. Very good. Rogues should be *fast* compared to any other
> class choise we have now. Maybe with restricts to armor (no hard armors with
> speed bonus for example). Something like monks in zangband.
>
> Maybe also increasing stealth with level. This is not the case currently.
Confusion isn't so bad at that level, IMO, but speed sounds interesting.
+5 speed would be nice, though I'd be tempted to make it +1 every 5 levels.
They need to be a lot faster than that mage(who can cast the spell) and
the fighter(who can dish it out twice as fast) to compensate.
> > A useful power to add into vanilla would be Invisibility, if anyone
> > can work out a balanced method of doing so.
>
> > Rogues could really use
> > invisibility along with their stealth - if invisible, there should be a
> > chance, based on stealth, that monsters will actually fail to notice the
> > player, even if they are awake, and instead mill around aimlessly
> > (monsters move randomly but do NOT attack each other or the player - if
> > two monsters attempt to occupy the same space, the stronger succeeds as
> > if he had MOVE_BODY, with the weaker one pushed aside: and they do not
> > cast spells. If an invisible monster accidentally bumps into the player,
> > it "attacks" him in melee but only does half damage.)
>
> Exactly like this.
Nice. Maybe level 20. This is comparable to the Ranger's extra shot.
Add in backstab and you can actually do damage to creatures.
Andrew Fenton
>
> > > A useful power to add into vanilla would be Invisibility, if anyone
> > > can work out a balanced method of doing so.
> >
> > > Rogues could really use
> > > invisibility along with their stealth - if invisible, there should be a
> > > chance, based on stealth, that monsters will actually fail to notice the
> > > player, even if they are awake, and instead mill around aimlessly
> > > (monsters move randomly but do NOT attack each other or the player - if
> > > two monsters attempt to occupy the same space, the stronger succeeds as
> > > if he had MOVE_BODY, with the weaker one pushed aside: and they do not
> > > cast spells. If an invisible monster accidentally bumps into the player,
> > > it "attacks" him in melee but only does half damage.)
> >
> > Exactly like this.
>
> Nice. Maybe level 20. This is comparable to the Ranger's extra shot.
> Add in backstab and you can actually do damage to creatures.
This implementation of invisibility (especially as an innate ability) is similar
to the version in Ey, where it can pose some problems, especially if you want to
dig an anti-summoning corridor and wait for the monsters to come to you (an
appropriate tactic for a thief, IMO): you spend a LONG time waiting for them as
they meander around.
Invisibility as a spell works better, namely as a temporary tactical advantage
(to snatch that ring of speed, or backstab, if that's added.)
Andrew
Ira Blum
news:9ulngb$9dqut$1...@ID-98386.news.dfncis.de...
> While under the effect of mushrooms of hallucination "Ira Blum"
> <ib...@jrfii.com> wrote:
>
> > "Ceilti OCahill" <cei...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> > news:20011204185752...@mb-fw.aol.com...
> >> My own idea (perhaps), is to give rogues even more stealth at the
> > begining of
> >> the game. The way Shadow Faeries are done in Oangband. only more.
> > Give the new
> >> robust empowered rogue 'heroic' stealth at the start.
> > I've been playing some rogues in pernband, and though I keep dying
for
> > stupid reasons, they have been fun. (different stupid reasons
than when
> > I play other characters.) by the way, Kelek's Practical Joke:
wasn't
> > funny.
> It's random.
One of my characters was killed by one. death spell, slightly less
than 5000 hp damage.
ouch.
--
A(2.9.3) CS "Gee" HEM L:41 DL:2750' A+/++ R++ Sp w:Haradekket
A W H- D- C-- f- PV+ S- TT? d P++ M?
C+ S+ !So B-- !ac !GHB SQ? !RQ V? (no advice) F:stack those Damn
Rods!:
You have activated the Rod of Speed
Your pack overflows!
The Black Pudding picks up a Rod of Speed (charging)
You feel yourself yanked upwards!
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH
nyra
>
> "DarkGod" <dar...@ifrance.com> wrote in message
> news:9ulngb$9dqut$1...@ID-98386.news.dfncis.de...
> > While under the effect of mushrooms of hallucination "Ira Blum"
> > <ib...@jrfii.com> wrote:
> > > by the way, Kelek's Practical Joke:
> > > wasn't
> > > funny.
> > It's random.
>
> One of my characters was killed by one. death spell, slightly less
> than 5000 hp damage.
>
> ouch.
Well yes, there's no knowing exactly _what_ the activation of
one of the things is, so trying them out without knowing what
they do is playing with death. If i have enough inventory slots
available i tend to pick up as many as i can carry and get them
*identified* as soon as possible. Evidently, this only kicks
into effect once i've reached Lothlorien.
Wuzat
Matthias Kurzke wrote in message <3C0CA534...@gmx.de>...
>In vanilla Angband, something should be done about Rogues. They are the
>weakest of all classes, with the least "special abilities".
> Currently their advantages are early good stealth, good fighting
>abilities, some early special spells. Almost all of this comes early.
>
Add in Sneak-- Stealth vs. awake creatures, basically. Increases energy
to move by 50, attack by 100 if backstab is incorporated (eye up the
good part of the monster... smack it hard)...
Black Market buddy.. Decreased prices in Black Market due to the
rogue-ish qualities of a BM storeowner. Allow rogues to specify an item
for a shopowner to procure?
Wuzat
Joseph Oberlander
>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> >
> > > > A useful power to add into vanilla would be Invisibility, if anyone
> > > > can work out a balanced method of doing so.
> > >
> > > > Rogues could really use
> > > > invisibility along with their stealth - if invisible, there should be a
> > > > chance, based on stealth, that monsters will actually fail to notice the
> > > > player, even if they are awake, and instead mill around aimlessly
> > > > (monsters move randomly but do NOT attack each other or the player - if
> > > > two monsters attempt to occupy the same space, the stronger succeeds as
> > > > if he had MOVE_BODY, with the weaker one pushed aside: and they do not
> > > > cast spells. If an invisible monster accidentally bumps into the player,
> > > > it "attacks" him in melee but only does half damage.)
> > >
> > > Exactly like this.
> >
> > Nice. Maybe level 20. This is comparable to the Ranger's extra shot.
> > Add in backstab and you can actually do damage to creatures.
>
> This implementation of invisibility (especially as an innate ability) is similar
> to the version in Ey, where it can pose some problems, especially if you want to
> dig an anti-summoning corridor and wait for the monsters to come to you (an
> appropriate tactic for a thief, IMO): you spend a LONG time waiting for them as
> they meander around.
It would be an activation (U key) to keep this from being a major problem.
Julian Lighton
Joseph Oberlander <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Timo Pietilä wrote:
>
>> > >Remove ALL spells that can be used for combat(damage-dealing).
>> >
>> > Agreed. Except Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill: rogues use poison
>> > routinely.
>
>I prefer a non-magic version. Axe *ALL* spells(use wands!) and
>give them poison brand(class ability(U key)
Well, that sounds appealing. Poison brand. For that, they give up
phase door, teleport, etc.?
>> > >Add in *Identify*
>> >
>> > As another spell, placed in one of the high-level books (Keleks is
>> > the most likely), which mages don't get, as I don't think mages *should*
>> > get *ID*? Or, perhaps, as an intrinsic high-level power, accessed using
>> > the "U" command, which is not yet used in vanilla?
>
>Either way would work.
>
>ONLY THIEFS GET *ID*. Nobody else. This is supported as in AD&D appraisal
>is a thief-specific skill that costs double for any other class to learn.
What AD&D does has absolutely no merit as an argument for what Angband
should do. Yes, Angband borrowed stuff from AD&D, but the two parted
company long ago.
Not to mention that AD&D is designed for group play. Angband isn't.
>At 30th level or so, they should get something as useful to them
>as Genocide(*ID*. At 40th or so, they should get mass identify(area-effect,
>standard identify) to compensate for no Mass Genocide.
*ID* is useful, but it's no Genocide.
>> > A useful power to add into vanilla would be Invisibility, if anyone
>> > can work out a balanced method of doing so.
>>
>> > Rogues could really use
>> > invisibility along with their stealth - if invisible, there should be a
>> > chance, based on stealth, that monsters will actually fail to notice the
>> > player, even if they are awake, and instead mill around aimlessly
>> > (monsters move randomly but do NOT attack each other or the player - if
>> > two monsters attempt to occupy the same space, the stronger succeeds as
>> > if he had MOVE_BODY, with the weaker one pushed aside: and they do not
>> > cast spells. If an invisible monster accidentally bumps into the player,
>> > it "attacks" him in melee but only does half damage.)
>>
>> Exactly like this.
>
>Nice. Maybe level 20. This is comparable to the Ranger's extra shot.
>Add in backstab and you can actually do damage to creatures.
Without monster targetting, invisibility implementations are not going
to work well.
cropt
Hey, look on the bright side, that means you had at least two and still
have one. =_=
John Q. Smith
Yeah, they're lovely little buggers--no? I *always* ID them before I
use them, though. I've had my share of them that activate for "death"
or "stat loss" or somesuch. OTOH, my unbelievers have a remarkable
propensity for finding those that activate for "genocide" -- oogh; it's
kind of a pity that those are *really* hard to activate. Even so, they
can be quite fun in say, Moria when you genocide 'o' and 'T' (provided
you can stand ~300 hp loss ;) It made it *so* much easier to clear out
that greater vault I found... hehe
Matthias Kurzke
>
>>Rogues do not get Teleport Other as a spell. Why?
>>
>
> Too powerful.
> Ranger and paladins shouldn't get it too IMO.
>
>
Taking away power from Rangers is a good idea. (The XP penalty could
also be reduced). As Timo's bookless artifactless ranger proved, they
are quite powerful.
>>Rogues have a hard time carrying around lots of half-empty spellbooks.
>>For instance, Kelek's is only used for Recharge III, a spell rogues
>>badly need because they don#t get enough spells in their books.
>>
>
> Detect evil is very useful until you get ESP.
>
> But IMO that is a big drawback for rogues -
> having to carry around 7 books for a handful of spells.
>
> I like the way Oangband rearranges the spells for the mixed classes.
> There rogues only need 5 books.
> The drawback is that you need more different macro files.
>
How about adding an extra spellbook containing only Rogue-usable spells
(which might be copies of other spells) so you don't have to carry so
many books?
Matthias
Johan Kullstam
i'd like to see a completely separate rogue line of books. ranger is
a kind of fighter/mage and paladin is a fighter/priest. why have yet
another fighter/mage?
i have a vision of 5-6 rogue books. as a starting point, they would
have today's rogue spells. perhaps later versions of angband could
move to a more speciallized rogue set of magic/skills. all rogue
books are dungeon books (one or two could still be flamable, just not
available in shops). all rogue books are worth no money in shops.
the deepest rogue book be hard to find like raal's tome.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[kull...@mediaone.net]
Kaidur
> i'd like to see a completely separate rogue line of books. ranger is
> a kind of fighter/mage and paladin is a fighter/priest. why have yet
> another fighter/mage?
>
Agreed!
> i have a vision of 5-6 rogue books. as a starting point, they would
> have today's rogue spells. perhaps later versions of angband could
> move to a more speciallized rogue set of magic/skills. all rogue
> books are dungeon books (one or two could still be flamable, just not
> available in shops). all rogue books are worth no money in shops.
> the deepest rogue book be hard to find like raal's tome.
>
Sounds OK but 5-6 rogue books is too much IMHO. 3-4 dungeon books
is enough with good non-attack spells (maybe only poison).
--Kaidur
Wuzat
Kaidur wrote in message <3C11D1DB...@ut.ee>...
Or 5-6 books with "traps" interspersed in them. Along with other trap
ideas, the traps are magicallly made throught the magic as opposed to
bought traps.
Wuzat
Matthias Kurzke
The problem then is you can then set up an arbitrary number of traps.
Mana cost would have to be high to counter that.
Bought traps OTOH waste a lot of inventory space, and can for this
reason be made rather powerful before they become unbalancing. (It is
well possible that the trap kits in PsiAngband (that seem to have made
it almost unchanged into Pern) are not powerful enough for precisely
this reason.)
But back to the books - to have to carry only four books and maybe a rod
or two would *really* help rogues, too.
Matthias
Glen Wheeler
wrote:
>
>The problem then is you can then set up an arbitrary number of traps.
>Mana cost would have to be high to counter that.
>
Or, as another poster suggested, have them take up a maintenance fee
of x mana per turn (x could be fractional, I guess...with 1 dart trap
taking 0.5 (truncated?) or 0 mana, 2 taking 1, etc). There is a bit
of magic in each trap anyway, so it does make a bit of sense. And is
wonderful gameplay-wise
>Bought traps OTOH waste a lot of inventory space, and can for this
>reason be made rather powerful before they become unbalancing. (It is
>well possible that the trap kits in PsiAngband (that seem to have made
>it almost unchanged into Pern) are not powerful enough for precisely
>this reason.)
>
I guess this is another solution, with rogues perhaps being able to
purchase traps fromt he thieves guild...
>But back to the books - to have to carry only four books and maybe a rod
>or two would *really* help rogues, too.
>
I think this is a great idea.
--
Z(2.4.0r5) F "Arkentarl" CW L:40 DL:1900' A+ R++ Sp w:Anduril
Z Tk(W) !H D c-- f PV++ s TT- d+ P++ M+
C--- S I !So B-- ac+ GHB++ SQ++/+++ RQ++ V F:Z Realms of magic :)
Garth Dighton
news.tpg.com.au>:
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:02:07 +0100, Matthias Kurzke <maw...@gmx.de>
>wrote:
>>
>>The problem then is you can then set up an arbitrary number of traps.
>>Mana cost would have to be high to counter that.
>>
>
> Or, as another poster suggested, have them take up a maintenance fee
>of x mana per turn (x could be fractional, I guess...with 1 dart trap
>taking 0.5 (truncated?) or 0 mana, 2 taking 1, etc). There is a bit
>of magic in each trap anyway, so it does make a bit of sense. And is
>wonderful gameplay-wise
>
>>Bought traps OTOH waste a lot of inventory space, and can for this
>>reason be made rather powerful before they become unbalancing. (It is
>>well possible that the trap kits in PsiAngband (that seem to have made
>>it almost unchanged into Pern) are not powerful enough for precisely
>>this reason.)
>>
I've just made a change to my personal copy of Pernangband which you might
find interesting:
To wit, a trapping kit can now be wielded in the tool slot (in place of a
digger), and 'A'ctivated to lay a trap of the appropriate type. This uses
up the appropriate load (bolts, arrows, potions, wands), but the kit
remains in your equipment and can be used to lay more traps, as long as you
still have ammo.
(The way I did this was simply to copy the trapping kit when laying it
and the load in the floor array, and make sure to silently delete the copy
when the trap is set off or disarmed).
The result is that the rogue can't set unlimited traps, because he still
needs bolts/arrows/etc., but he doesn't have to carry a dozen trapping kits
either -- usually he'll just carry two or three (Typically Arrows and
Device, sometimes Bolts), and swap them depending on what he wants to set.
--
Garth Dighton
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Matthias Kurzke
> whee...@hotmail.com (Glen Wheeler) wrote in <3c14b554.21742296@now-
> news.tpg.com.au>:
>
>
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:02:07 +0100, Matthias Kurzke <maw...@gmx.de>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The problem then is you can then set up an arbitrary number of traps.
>>>Mana cost would have to be high to counter that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>Bought traps OTOH waste a lot of inventory space, and can for this
>>>reason be made rather powerful before they become unbalancing. (It is
>>>well possible that the trap kits in PsiAngband (that seem to have made
>>>it almost unchanged into Pern) are not powerful enough for precisely
>>>this reason.)
>>>
>>>
>
> I've just made a change to my personal copy of Pernangband which you might
> find interesting:
>
> To wit, a trapping kit can now be wielded in the tool slot (in place of a
> digger), and 'A'ctivated to lay a trap of the appropriate type. This uses
> up the appropriate load (bolts, arrows, potions, wands), but the kit
> remains in your equipment and can be used to lay more traps, as long as you
> still have ammo.
>
So you interpret them as "trigger makers". (One of my old ideas was to
just have objects called "triggers" that could be generic traps of any
type).
Makes for another nice trap system, maybe not as "realistic" as the old
one. But you overcome the greatest limitation of the old system -- trap
kits don't stack very well and this means they take up an incredible
amount of inventory space. I wonder if getting rid of ego traps and
bonuses on traps (making them a lot more uniform, maybe even combining
potion/scroll/device traps and all ammo traps into two generic trap
types), leaving only possibly some fun artifact traps would have a
similarly good effect...
> (The way I did this was simply to copy the trapping kit when laying it
> and the load in the floor array, and make sure to silently delete the copy
> when the trap is set off or disarmed).
>
The "traps as objects" code is an ugly hack, but makes adding yet
another hack like this easy :-)
> The result is that the rogue can't set unlimited traps, because he still
> needs bolts/arrows/etc., but he doesn't have to carry a dozen trapping kits
> either -- usually he'll just carry two or three (Typically Arrows and
> Device, sometimes Bolts), and swap them depending on what he wants to set.
>
>
Another bonus is the equipped trap kit is automatically indestructible.
Very nice - my Psi1.3.0 Rogue Winner had so many of his good trapkits
destroyed by fire or acid that he didn't use much except Hanisbroner's
Surprise for much of the game :-/
In any case I know that traps still need working on, and maybe even a
complete redesign/reimplementation like yours is needed to make them
really worthwhile (in addition to the fun of Genocide traps or Teleport
Level traps :-)
Matthias
Andrew Fenton
> In any case I know that traps still need working on, and maybe even a
> complete redesign/reimplementation like yours is needed to make them
> really worthwhile (in addition to the fun of Genocide traps or Teleport
> Level traps :-)
Can you explain how these work? I played a few Psi rogues (and found myself
frustrated by having to carry all those kits), but never found one of these. In
particular, I'm curious what the advantage of a genocide trap over a scroll is.
Andrew
Matthias Kurzke
Hey, someone actually played Psi Rogues besides me and my brother :-)
But there are no "special" Genocide traps. What I meant is:
A scroll of genocide in a Magic Trap will genocide the monster type that
steps on it -- without costing you any HP.
A Teleport Level scroll and a Magic Trap can be used to remove a unique
from a level.
Matthias
>
>
Andrew Fenton
> Hey, someone actually played Psi Rogues besides me and my brother :-)
Believe it or not, I played it purely to try out the changes made to rogues. Go
figure...
> But there are no "special" Genocide traps. What I meant is:
>
> A scroll of genocide in a Magic Trap will genocide the monster type that
> steps on it -- without costing you any HP.
That's how I figured it works. What I'm wondering is whether the advantage of
setting a trap rather than reading a scroll (i.e. no HP loss) ever really outweighs
the disadvantages (having to wait for a monster to trigger it, running the risk of
the trap being disarmed, etc.) Especially since rogues have pretty decent HPs
anyway.
> A Teleport Level scroll and a Magic Trap can be used to remove a unique
> from a level.
Now *this* is genuinely useful. Maybe I'll have to give Psi another whirl... :-)
Andrew
Johan Kullstam
> Wuzat wrote:
>
> > Kaidur wrote in message <3C11D1DB...@ut.ee>...
> >
> >>Johan Kullstam wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>i'd like to see a completely separate rogue line of books. ranger is
> >>>a kind of fighter/mage and paladin is a fighter/priest. why have yet
> >>>another fighter/mage?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Agreed!
> >>
> >>
> >>>i have a vision of 5-6 rogue books. as a starting point, they would
> >>>have today's rogue spells. perhaps later versions of angband could
> >>>move to a more speciallized rogue set of magic/skills. all rogue
> >>>books are dungeon books (one or two could still be flamable, just not
> >>>available in shops). all rogue books are worth no money in shops.
> >>>the deepest rogue book be hard to find like raal's tome.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Sounds OK but 5-6 rogue books is too much IMHO. 3-4 dungeon books
> >>
> >>is enough with good non-attack spells (maybe only poison).
> >>
> > Or 5-6 books with "traps" interspersed in them. Along with other trap
> > ideas, the traps are magicallly made throught the magic as opposed to
> > bought traps.
> > Wuzat
> >
>
> The problem then is you can then set up an arbitrary number of
> traps. Mana cost would have to be high to counter that.
or traps could last for a certain length of time. there are a number
of spells with a duration --- why not traps too? long enough to be
useful. short enough that you can't just coat the whole level with a
sea of traps.
> Bought traps OTOH waste a lot of inventory space, and can for this
> reason be made rather powerful before they become unbalancing. (It is
> well possible that the trap kits in PsiAngband (that seem to have made
> it almost unchanged into Pern) are not powerful enough for precisely
> this reason.)
>
> But back to the books - to have to carry only four books and maybe a
> rod or two would *really* help rogues, too.
nod. 4-5 books. only 1 or 2 flamables.
also you could have say 6 books but not need to carry them all.
consider this scheme.
* all rogue books are found in dungeon only and have no resale value.
(this fits the rogue being a sort of outlaw with manuals of dubious
legality. the rogue doesn't get any spell until player level 5,
hence finding books in the dungeon wouldn't be an overwhelming burden.)
* books 1, 2 are flamable.
* books 3-6 are fireproof.
* 3-5 cover all spells in 1 and 2 as well as adding new ones. (this
would let you drop 1 and 2.)
* book 6 would be deep and rare like raals or wog. it would have
comensurably powerful spells.
Nathan F Russell
>How about adding an extra spellbook containing only Rogue-usable spells
>(which might be copies of other spells) so you don't have to carry so
>many books?
V has had, since the beginning of time, to my knowledge, 9 books for
each caster type (with, for that matter, the same depths and values).
I don't know if folks will want to break with that.
Nathan