Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Vanilla

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 23, 2010, 16:24   #1
miyazaki
Adept
 
miyazaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Age: 42
Posts: 227
miyazaki is on a distinguished road
Ranger magic...

In the recent discussions, there has been a lot of suggestions that push the classes into a place of greater symmetry. (E.g. people wanting to add a third priest-type class.) I have always found it strange that rangers only get mage magic and very few healing-type spells. And if some of the recent suggestions are adopted, the ranger will drift farther into thematic obscurity. To rectify ths, I think that rangers should be able to use magic from both mage- and priest-books. Symmetry!

Before you say that this would make them overpowered (even more so), it could be balanced so that for rangers to have the same set of spells that they have now, they would have to carry twice as many books. Detection from mage, light from priest, satisfy hunger from mage, detect traps from priest, etc. Since the addition of the quiver, rangers' inventory management has gotten way easier. Increasing the number of spellbooks would add restore some inv management pressure.

Choosing which spells they get from each side would be a challenge and best tackled by a few people (the discussion could be endless). But imagine if they had 18 usable spells in 18 different spellbooks, it would add some interesting strategic thought as well as a highly customizable character choices.

(And also knock them down to only 4 blows in melee...)
miyazaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23, 2010, 16:43   #2
ekolis
Knight
 
ekolis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
Age: 35
Posts: 911
ekolis is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to ekolis Send a message via MSN to ekolis Send a message via Yahoo to ekolis
Ooh, I like that idea... rangers survive by their wits and scrounge the spells they can understand out of the books!
__________________
You read the scroll labeled NOBIMUS UPSCOTI...
You are surrounded by a stasis field!
The tengu tries to teleport, but fails!
ekolis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23, 2010, 17:22   #3
Tiburon Silverflame
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 405
Tiburon Silverflame is on a distinguished road
Inventory is already a big issue...rangers especially will have 2 slots burned for the quiver, taking you down to 21 to start with. NO WAY do I want to have to burn more for books. Yes, I agree that I have less inventory problems with my ranger...but I still have 4-5 potions (CCW, Healing, Restore Mana, RLL, Enlightenment if I have any) and 1-2 scrolls (Banishment, Mass Banishment) to worry about. I have equipment swaps I may wish to consider. I have equipment to return to use later on.
Tiburon Silverflame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23, 2010, 18:05   #4
Philip
Knight
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Prague,Czech Republic
Posts: 864
Philip is on a distinguished road
I think rangers are healers and actually think that rangers should be second in archery to the archer (new class) and that we should deal with it the O way, making a set of ranger (druid) books that specialize in detection, healing and maybe some sort of other utility spells. If we would even add a druid, just put some offense spells into the books and add whole books of offense spells. Let rangers only use healing spells and stuff. Druids would have all the rangers spells except branding.
If ranger=archer (which in Tolkien does not) then they should get branding magic and a few other select spells. Ranger would get many druid spells and maybe the archery book without a few spells and archers would get the archery book. There might be problems coding the archer book so rangers would get it. Archers would be hard to balance and so would druids but it would be possible.
To balance druids you could not only combine the good things about the priest and mages (healing, utility and damage) but also the penalties (gloves, pointy weapons and make an even more prohibitive armor weight penalty).
Rangers rely on nature for their spells: tracking, healing and a knowledge of many secrets of teleport. You could also give them identify instead of teleportation.
I like miyazaki's idea, but 18 books? You would carry them instead of some scrolls and some potions but still too many.
Or you could just take O's magic system completely.
Philip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23, 2010, 20:55   #5
Atarlost
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 441
Atarlost is on a distinguished road
What about making it so they can use both sets, but that a the sufficient set of books is less than or equal to 9?

They could take mage 1 and 3, priest 2, Mordekein, Tensor, Purifications, and Infusions for example. There might be a few spells in the other books, but if they're designed with a sufficient spell set from a subset of books there won't be a inventory problem.

In terms of balance the boost won't hurt if projectile weapons are fixed first.
__________________
One Ring to rule them all. One Ring to bind them.
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness interrupt the movie.
Atarlost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23, 2010, 21:04   #6
PowerDiver
Prophet
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,712
PowerDiver is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atarlost View Post
In terms of balance the boost won't hurt if projectile weapons are fixed first.
If you want to make rangers be more like druids or Tolkien rangers, surely the first step is to remove the extra bow shots. Then projectile balance is the same for them as everybody else modulo the MB8 distinction.
PowerDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23, 2010, 21:13   #7
miyazaki
Adept
 
miyazaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Age: 42
Posts: 227
miyazaki is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atarlost View Post
What about making it so they can use both sets, but that a the sufficient set of books is less than or equal to 9?
Personally, I would like to see spells available in more books, and what comprises a "sufficient set" be decided by the player who has to decide on his/her own needs or playstyle. More books forces you to make more difficult choices (and at times adopt a new playstyle) which makes the game better, IMHO.

This is my philosophy of the game, tho'. I don't believe there should be one ideal kit, either through artifacts or consumables or spellbooks. The requirements of the game should be high but there should be multiple ways to overcome obstacles.
miyazaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23, 2010, 21:32   #8
Derakon
Prophet
 
Derakon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,549
Derakon is on a distinguished road
One danger I see with making rangers get a subset of both sets of books is that it makes it much harder to rebalance the books in the future. If you decide that, say, priests need access to Protection from Evil earlier and you move it to PB2, then suddenly rangers have gotten a significant boost in power too. Or if you decide that Satisfy Hunger should be a later-game spell, then rangers don't get it at all. Both of these are a bit contrived, but they still feel weird.
Derakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23, 2010, 21:48   #9
Tiburon Silverflame
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 405
Tiburon Silverflame is on a distinguished road
If you want to make rangers be more like druids or Tolkien rangers, surely the first step is to remove the extra bow shots. Then projectile balance is the same for them as everybody else modulo the MB8 distinction.

One of the issues I've always had here is...just what exactly *is* a Tolkien Ranger? The sum total language talking about them is TINY, and the sum total of *that* which we can actually use as a basis for a class in a game is *0*. Dunedain as a race, is probably better justified than Ranger as a class.

The Angband ranger pretty much derives from the 1st Edition D&D ranger, to my knowledge. He's given archery because Angband doesn't support the concept of fighting with 2 weapons, and this is the only way to differentiate him in combat. He did have wizard spell access...along with some druidic spell access, but since the latter doesn't exist in V, it's not terribly relevant.

I think the archery problem is this dilemma:

--Bows need to do enough damage so that they're at *least* matching the single-target spell damage from a cleric or mage. And this has to be true for all classes...even those that get only a single shot.

--But once bows become this strong, then rangers, with 3 shots...are incredibly powerful fighting against single targets.

So the solution is probably to readjust the scales.

a) D&D 3.0 started with the bonuses from magical bows and magical arrows, being completely additive. They learned: this is too much. The 3.5 solution was: the bonus on the *bow* is To Hit, while the bonus on the *arrow* is to damage. This would probably be a great place to start.

b) Simply eliminate Holy Might arrows, or at *least* tone them down something silly.

c) Balance things so EVERY class gets 2 or maybe even 3 shots...yes, this means toning down shot damage a *great* deal...then you can give ranger 5 shots. 60% better...not 200% better. This also tones down the *massive* value of bows of extra shots for anyone but rangers.

d) This might mean that the damage multipliers have to change...perhaps to something like this:

--thrown 1/2 listed damage
--sling becomes x1,
--short bow becomes x1.5
--long bow becomes x2
--light xbow becomes x2.5
--heavy xbow becomes x3

Also, given that xbows have longer load times, you can slow down the rate at which extra shots are gained with them.
Tiburon Silverflame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23, 2010, 22:13   #10
miyazaki
Adept
 
miyazaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Age: 42
Posts: 227
miyazaki is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derakon View Post
One danger I see with making rangers get a subset of both sets of books is that it makes it much harder to rebalance the books in the future. If you decide that, say, priests need access to Protection from Evil earlier and you move it to PB2, then suddenly rangers have gotten a significant boost in power too. Or if you decide that Satisfy Hunger should be a later-game spell, then rangers don't get it at all. Both of these are a bit contrived, but they still feel weird.
It may be in the same book, but it can be coded so that rangers can't learn the spell until a much higher clvl, or increase mana or fail rates to make it prohibitively expensive to use early.

I brought up the idea because it seems likely that the prayer books will be rearranged soon. (Most people are in favour of change, even if there are many ideas on how to change...) There might end up being an across-the-board re-distribution of spells/prayers.

(The reason that we don't have Tolkien Rangers is because they were inseperable from their race. If we wanted to be all Tolkien about it, we should remove classes altogether and just have races. Galdalf, as a mage, certainly didn't have any melee penalties; and Bilbo was stealthy because he was a hobbit, not because he was a rogue.)
miyazaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fail rates for magic devices Magnate Vanilla 29 June 7, 2009 11:01
Magic system thoughts Mangojuice Variants 16 November 13, 2008 03:51
Hengband Trump Magic xxitheworld Variants 1 February 2, 2008 01:19
Magic Shop - Rings/Amulets SocietalEclipse Vanilla 2 July 21, 2007 21:28
Sangband magic K.I.L.E.R Variants 1 June 10, 2007 12:37


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.