Angband Forums

Angband Forums (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/index.php)
-   Vanilla (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Class/magic feature branch (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?t=8777)

Philip December 30, 2017 21:43

Perhaps you would die less often if you relied more on devices to do damage? More mana would also make running away from monsters you can't handle easier.

I feel like a lot of the ideas you propose are more variant territory, notably with spell acquisition and your new spells, both of which diverge significantly from current mechanics (some of them are also a bit overpowered).

Nick December 30, 2017 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tibarius (Post 127195)
I think acid, fire, electricity and cold are NATURE effects and have basically nothing to do with arcane magic.

I'm thinking of electricity, fire and cold as artificially produced effects. You might be right about acid. I think all of them can be argued both ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tibarius (Post 127195)
Here are the spells from the old mage class with my understand of their type:

OK, I'll remove the ones I agree with and add comments where I disagree (and I'll leave the base elements aside too)

Quote:

detect monsters - nature
I think this is arcane (and probably should include detecting invisible monsters at level 15-20). Detect Living will be the nature spell. Think of this as detecting disruption in the air of the dungeon, or something like that
Quote:

light area - arcane
Anything to do with light is holy

Quote:

Confuse Monster - arcane
Charming of creatures is nature
Quote:

Trap/Door Dest - arcane
Interesting point, and we don't have one of those. Doors, yes, arcane; traps, maybe it depends on the type of trap, but probably arcane as well, actually. Note that in 4.1 traps are actually disabled temporarily.

Quote:

Sleep Monster - arcane
Nature
Quote:

Wonder - holy
Interesting - I had called it arcane, but maybe you're right
Quote:

Stone to Mud - arcane or nature
Yes, I said nature, but you could argue arcane
Quote:

Polymorph Other - arcane
Creature manipulation I have as nature; you could possibly argue death (messing with spirits and bodies)
Quote:

Reveal Monsters - nature
Same applies here as to Detect Monsters
Quote:

Slow Monster - arcane
Nature
Quote:

Haste Self - arcane
I have this as nature - direct effect on the player
Quote:

Mass Sleep - arcane
Nature

Quote:

Resist Cold - nature
Resist Fire - nature
Resistance - nature
You're probably right here, although I had given them to arcane.
Quote:

Shield - holy
Good point - this is probably right
Quote:

Shock Wave - nature
Explosion - nature
These feel arcane to me
Quote:

Meteor Swarm - nature ?
That was my feeling too
Quote:

Rift - arcane
I've gone with gravity as a nature element

Quote:

Word of Recall - arcane
Yes, or holy? I don't have strong feelings
Quote:

Rune of Protec - holy
Yes, that's probably correct
Quote:

Berserker - holy
I'd probably call this death
Quote:

Enchant Armor - arcane / holy
Enchant Weapon - arcane / holy (if you think of it as blessed)
Yes, I'd say holy

Quote:

Bedlam - arcane
Nature
Quote:

Word of Destr - death
I've given this to both holy and death

Some of your new spells are really interesting, too.

Thanks for all your input on this. I'm inclined to think I need to go away and come back with a new spell list based on these ideas, and we can see where we stand.

Derakon December 30, 2017 22:45

It sounds like, in general, we can characterize the realms something like this:

* Nature: biological and mental buffs and debuffs; effects and elements associated with natural disasters
* Holy: "positive" (non-mixed-blessing) buffs that aren't nature; anti-undead/evil/demonic; light
* Death: mixed-blessing buffs and non-nature debuffs; effects associated with undeath/evil/demons; darkness and nether (and hellfire?)
* Arcane: "technical" effects dealing with raw manipulation of magical energy; detection and knowledge; exotic elements

Nick December 31, 2017 01:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 127200)
It sounds like, in general, we can characterize the realms something like this:

* Nature: biological and mental buffs and debuffs; effects and elements associated with natural disasters
* Holy: "positive" (non-mixed-blessing) buffs that aren't nature; anti-undead/evil/demonic; light
* Death: mixed-blessing buffs and non-nature debuffs; effects associated with undeath/evil/demons; darkness and nether (and hellfire?)
* Arcane: "technical" effects dealing with raw manipulation of magical energy; detection and knowledge; exotic elements

Yeah, that looks pretty good. In fact, I'll have a go at actually splitting up all the elements (I largely did it in an earlier post, but let's try and have a definitive list):
  • Nature - poison (maybe death gets to use this too), water, ice, gravity, sound, plasma, meteors
  • Arcane - missile, mana, arrow, force, nexus
  • Holy - light, holy orb
  • Death - dark, nether, chaos, disenchantment
This leaves
  • acid, electricity, fire, cold - I kind of want to leave all these available to either nature or arcane (and maybe even death, for fire and cold)
  • shards - a bit like the previous, they could be used directly by nature or as the outcome of an explosion by arcane
  • inertia, time - could really be anything.

How is this looking?

Derakon December 31, 2017 02:15

Looks plausible to me. I don't think we necessarily need to make every element available to some realm; there's nothing wrong with e.g. nobody ever getting access to a plasma or disenchantment spell. I like the idea of the basic elements being more shared, as well, because they're the only elements that have common resistances and semi-common vulnerabilities, so there's marginally more choice to whether you use them or not. No reason to limit those choices to only one realm.

If you do give gravity/inertia spells to any casters, make sure that you don't do what ToME2 did and allow them to apply a large, stacking slow effect to monsters. Getting 10 turns to every 1 of a given monster's turns was fun, but probably not very balanced. :)

Tibarius December 31, 2017 05:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick (Post 127201)
Yeah, that looks pretty good. In fact, I'll have a go at actually splitting up all the elements (I largely did it in an earlier post, but let's try and have a definitive list):
  • Nature - poison (maybe death gets to use this too), water, ice, gravity, sound, plasma, meteors
  • Arcane - missile, mana, arrow, force, nexus
  • Holy - light, holy orb
  • Death - dark, nether, chaos, disenchantment
This leaves
  • acid, electricity, fire, cold - I kind of want to leave all these available to either nature or arcane (and maybe even death, for fire and cold)
  • shards - a bit like the previous, they could be used directly by nature or as the outcome of an explosion by arcane
  • inertia, time - could really be anything.

How is this looking?

Looks good so far, even tho i would say mind based spells are more arcane than nature. But ok.

I agree that not every type must be available for player realms.

I see the base elements clearly as nature type. And that would be the difference to arcane realms - having the option to use the vulnerabilities of monsters to a larger degree. I think it is a good idea to keep the realms unique in some way.

Poison is death in my eyes because the motive is already damaging, while the elements in themselves are neither good nor evil.

I agree that fire and cold are elements also fitting for death theme.

For the hybrids:
battlemage = fighter + arcane (mage)
rogue = fighter + death (necromant)
ranger = fighter + nature (druid, that name is ok for me)
paladin = fighter + holy (priest)

detections:
arcane: monster (the opposite of living would rather be non-living, but thats too few from game mechanics point of view i guess)
nature: living
holy: evil
necromant: good?

unique powers:
arcane: mana attacks (unresistable) / teleport other
nature: elemental brand (ranger) / meteors
death: haste self / improved sneak / (rogue, for that reason time fits best for death)
holy: enchant armor / enchant weapon / rune of protection / holy orb

I guess healing is nature (low/medium) and holy (medium/high).

For the sake of gameplay i think banishment and mass banishment should be removed. They totally break the game mechanics. And Morgoth should be evil so that holy spells do double damage.

I wonder if detections / haste / resistance are required from all magic types because of game mechanic balance.
For the same reason i wonder if reducing the number of books from 9 to 5 is a good idea either.

fph December 31, 2017 14:52

Designing a new magic system is surely fun, but what is your final goal for the game? Making magic more Tolkien-esque? Introducing new classes to add variety into the available caster options? Fixing some drawbacks with the existing mage/priest classes (and if so which ones)?

I don't mean to sound critical --- I just think it's good to have a direction in mind, when brainstorming and playtesting. It seems to me that the previous changes all had a clear goal of fixing a deficiency of the game (the ID minigame, the tedium of constantly detecting traps...), but I don't see one immediately here.

Derakon December 31, 2017 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by fph (Post 127207)
Designing a new magic system is surely fun, but what is your final goal for the game? Making magic more Tolkien-esque? Introducing new classes to add variety into the available caster options? Fixing some drawbacks with the existing mage/priest classes (and if so which ones)?

I don't mean to sound critical --- I just think it's good to have a direction in mind, when brainstorming and playtesting. It seems to me that the previous changes all had a clear goal of fixing a deficiency of the game (the ID minigame, the tedium of constantly detecting traps...), but I don't see one immediately here.

The main issue I can identify is that we have, very broadly speaking, three classes in the game right now: fighter, mage, and priest. The hybrids aren't very well-distinguished from either end. Sure, rogues are stealthy and rangers have great archery, but playstyles are pretty similar within a given magical realm. Bringing stronger differentiation into how different classes use magic ought to allow the game to support more playstyles, in theory.

That in mind, I wouldn't necessarily leap to the conclusion that every magical realm should have an associated hybrid class...or at least, hybrids don't have to be "fighter, plus they can also cast spells from X realm". For example, you could have a "swamp mage" that casts spells from both Nature and Death realms, or a, uh, Channeler, who gets only one or two hand-picked, powerful spells from each realm, plus great magic device skill. I dunno, I'm just throwing ideas out there.

clouded December 31, 2017 17:21

The Zangband design of many small realms (2 town books, 2 dungeon books) and mages/priests choosing two realms, hybrids choosing one etc is quite good and provides a decent amount of character customization without going too overboard.

Nick December 31, 2017 22:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by fph (Post 127207)
Designing a new magic system is surely fun, but what is your final goal for the game? Making magic more Tolkien-esque? Introducing new classes to add variety into the available caster options? Fixing some drawbacks with the existing mage/priest classes (and if so which ones)?

I don't mean to sound critical --- I just think it's good to have a direction in mind, when brainstorming and playtesting. It seems to me that the previous changes all had a clear goal of fixing a deficiency of the game (the ID minigame, the tedium of constantly detecting traps...), but I don't see one immediately here.

Good question.

The first thing that prompted it was a discussion (back in the old magic thread) about the fact that current classes have a whole bunch of spells that never really get used (or got superseded). This, plus recognition of the "mages/priests get a spell like this, let's give priests/mages one too to make it fair" phenomenon led me to want to cut the number of spells, and make the whole collection more coherent.

So, along the lines of what Derakon said, we get a small number of fairly distinct magic realms. Next question is, what should they be? Obviously we have mage and priest, but do we need any more, and if so what? The answers I have put forward in this thread are totally not just from copying Oangband, but from thinking about what types of "super-nature" were evident in Middle-Earth in (among others) Feanor and the other elven smiths, the wizards, the ents, Sauron, Luthien.

So in practice, we have caster classes with fewer, more focused spells - which means more reliance on devices and consumables. Luckily we can cut down the number of books.

The other thing that's worth mentioning here is that there's a revamp of the monster list going to happen too, and one of the things I want to do with that is think of monster spellcasters in terms of the realm landscape. There's also the possibility of adding monster spells inspired by player spells, and vice versa.

I hope that answers your question :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by clouded (Post 127209)
The Zangband design of many small realms (2 town books, 2 dungeon books) and mages/priests choosing two realms, hybrids choosing one etc is quite good and provides a decent amount of character customization without going too overboard.

True, and that would have been an alternative approach. It's possible that aspects of that approach could be included at some later stage, but I'll try to stick to not too many things at once :)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:50.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.