The Tavern

It's a oft-repeated meme that there is no such thing as a "mage" in crawl, because everybody casts things and everybody hits things with a weapon. But there is a line, and it's this: spellpower-dependency.

When faced with one of the most dangerous fights in a given area, such as an orb of fire in zot5 or the rune vault in shoals 5, do you:
1. Use some non-magical buffs, then hit things with a weapon? You're a fighter.
2. Use some spells that are not very spellpower dependent, such as cloud spells or most charms, then hit things with a weapon? You're a fighter with support magic.
3. Hit the enemy with highly spellpower-dependent magic such as fireball? You're a mage.
4. Hit the enemy with spellpower-dependent magic such as fireball, then hit them with a weapon? You're a fighter-mage.

Few characters are true fighter-mages. Most of them are enchanters.

Note that it doesn't make any difference what you do with popcorn. Just because you kill the chaff with a weapon doesn't make you a fighter-mage, if when faced with the most dangerous fight for your XL you switch over to spellpower-dependent magic.

Let me rephrase it. Would you rather have archmagi added to your current armor, or slay+5 added to your current armor? If you would rather have archmagi, you're a mage. If you would rather have slay+5, you're a fighter. If it's hard to decide, you're a fighter-mage.

I think the complaint you usually see on these boards is that labels aren't useful or necessary, and you should be willing to pick up anything that would help your character regardless of it's considered a magical or non-magical thing. If it's useful, it's useful. Not that we just need to refine the labels further until they become accurate

That being said, if you want to make more labels to apply to more characters, go for it. I generally play fighters with support magic, and I'm definitely guilty of ignoring useful items sometimes, although this is mostly over inventory space/not caring about the item, rather than over if it's considered magical/non-magical. One day I'll actually use a wand of enslavement.

I'm confused... My last dunnowhatnow DsCj used lots of high spell power dependant magic all the game including zot but he had to hit oof with a stick because it was quicker and safer than using parrow or b. Cold then whatever is him? He isn't either 3 or 4.

Oh I hoped to find either slay+5 and archimage for that fellow, so the other test isn't helping me like now

nago wrote:I'm confused... My last dunnowhatnow DsCj used lots of high spell power dependant magic all the game including zot but he had to hit oof with a stick because it was quicker and safer than using parrow or b. Cold then whatever is him? He isn't either 3 or 4.

Oh I hoped to find either slay+5 and archimage for that fellow, so the other test isn't helping me like now

If something survives long enough to reach you in melee then you have officially become a fighter. You must don your robes to the nearest lava pit, burn your books and kneel before Trog for forgiveness

The important thing is that words like "mage" or "caster" have different meanings to different people and simultaneously there exist words in English that can express whatever the person using the words "caster" or "mage" or the like is trying to say in a clear fashion. The OP's definitions are reasonably useful but unfortunately not adopted by everyone ... so you might as well just write out the definition you're using instead of saying "caster".

I generally don't handle every dangerous fight in the same way on any character, and on many characters, I don't handle every dangerous fight at every stage of the game with tools from the same category. A lot depends on what the enemy is, positioning, and the exact context in which the encounter has occurred. This is why I don't think that even the more specific labels suggested in the OP are all that helpful in terms of capturing Crawl game play (well, at least how I play), either.

When I train a weapon on a character that can cast bolt of fire, it isn't to "deal with popcorn." It is because there are many situations, including dangerous ones, in which being capable of melee is valuable (not just convenient, though of course there are times when it is also more convenient).

Additionally, many spells (and not just "support" spells, though this is another term that can be very slippery in the context of Crawl) are much more effective when the character using them can also hold its own in melee.

What do you call a character that uses fireball versus orbs of fire, though?

wheals wrote:What do you call a character that uses fireball versus orbs of fire, though?

Bad

As far as I can tell, most posters use "caster" to mean "character that doesn't use melee", and "melee" to mean "character that doesn't cast spells."

I see characters as Trog Worshippers or Non-Trog Worshippers

wheals wrote:What do you call a character that uses fireball versus orbs of fire, though?

Dead.

what if I use a cloud spell in Shoals but might+tab vs an oof (this is a very common situation for my "casters" btw)

Sar wrote:what if I use a cloud spell in Shoals but might+tab vs an oof (this is a very common situation for my "casters" btw)

Then it sounds like you'd be a fighter with support magic.

It is possible to change. Maybe you became a plain fighter by Zot.

PArrow is my favorite support spell.

What if I kill oofs roughly 50/50, some with melee, some with ood?

duvessa wrote:As far as I can tell, most posters use "caster" to mean "character that doesn't use melee", and "melee" to mean "character that doesn't cast damage spells."

FTFY

Sar wrote:PArrow is my favorite support spell.

What if I kill oofs roughly 50/50, some with melee, some with ood?

Then you're a fighter-mage.

That is contrary to your definition in the OP, which states that a fighter-mage uses offensive spells first and only switches to melee afterwards (possibly when mana is exhausted, or when the enemy closes in melee range, the definition doesn't elaborate).

Edit: furthermore, what use is a distinction like that? Can you give a concrete reply to what stat should each character advance (except for the universal "do whatever, stats don't matter that much")? Does it influence god choice significantly? What's the practical application?

Sar wrote:That is contrary to your definition in the OP, which states that a fighter-mage uses offensive spells first and only switches to melee afterwards (possibly when mana is exhausted, or when the enemy closes in melee range, the definition doesn't elaborate).

That is the usual pattern, to switch to melee when the enemy closes to melee range or the player runs out of MP. But my wording wasn't intended to exclude other orderings of melee and magic. The only essential characteristic is that you're using both highly spellpower-dependent spells, and melee, in the most dangerous fights.

Edit: furthermore, what use is a distinction like that? Can you give a concrete reply to what stat should each character advance (except for the universal "do whatever, stats don't matter that much")? Does it influence god choice significantly? What's the practical application?

Fighters can best improve their performance in the most dangerous fights by increasing their physical stats and skills, or by learning support spells that don't require high spellpower and that usually assist melee rather than take the place of it. They don't need very high int.

Mages can best improve their performance in the most dangerous fights by increasing their int and magic skills to get higher spellpower and damage and cast higher level spells. That doesn't mean they don't also want to train a weapon. However, the weapon has a lower damage output than their spells, so it's best used on riffraff, not dangerous foes. Also, mages tend to have poorer defenses (lighter armor and/or lower dex and/or less defensive skills trained) than fighters so they don't want to be in melee range if the enemy is dangerous.

In order to improve their performance in the most dangerous fights, fighter-mages want to improve their magic spellpower as well as their physical damage output. They may have to split their stats between physical and int. Or maybe they have Chei stats, or use a fast weapon with a constant damage brand so they can put more into int.

Berder wrote:That is the usual pattern, to switch to melee when the enemy closes to melee range or the player runs out of MP.

That is an interesting observation that contradicts my experience. There are types of enemies I want to melee and there are types of enemies I want to cast spells at. This doesn't even always correlate with the "hardness" of such enemies, too (simulacra are trivial most of the time yet I would prefer to take them at range unless I had rC+++). Running out of mana is generally not a great thing anyway as it shuts down a spectrum of your offense and possibly defense as a hybrid.

Edit: the rest of your post seems like a generally sensible advice. Except for "fighter-mages" part, I guess. I am still not sure about those.

If you reach for your rod before your spellbook...you might be a fighter.

Sar wrote:
Berder wrote:That is the usual pattern, to switch to melee when the enemy closes to melee range or the player runs out of MP.

That is an interesting observation that contradicts my experience. There are types of enemies I want to melee and there are types of enemies I want to cast spells at. This doesn't even always correlate with the "hardness" of such enemies, too (simulacra are trivial most of the time yet I would prefer to take them at range unless I had rC+++). Running out of mana is generally not a great thing anyway as it shuts down a spectrum of your offense and possibly defense as a hybrid.

Edit: the rest of your post seems like a generally sensible advice. Except for "fighter-mages" part, I guess. I am still not sure about those.

I'd say that if you're using spellpower-dependent magic on an enemy that's dangerous in melee, and using melee for other dangerous fights, that qualifies you as a fighter-mage.

I do see the pattern I mentioned come up often, though. For instance, if you are casting OOD at a monster you can also melee, you'll probably switch to melee when it gets close. Same thing if you simply have strong melee and use conjurations as a weaker ranged attack to soften enemies up.

Berder wrote:Fighters can best improve their performance in the most dangerous fights by increasing their physical stats and skills, or by learning support spells that don't require high spellpower and that usually assist melee rather than take the place of it. They don't need very high int.

Mages can best improve their performance in the most dangerous fights by increasing their int and magic skills to get higher spellpower and damage and cast higher level spells. That doesn't mean they don't also want to train a weapon. However, the weapon has a lower damage output than their spells, so it's best used on riffraff, not dangerous foes. Also, mages tend to have poorer defenses (lighter armor and/or lower dex and/or less defensive skills trained) than fighters so they don't want to be in melee range if the enemy is dangerous.

In order to improve their performance in the most dangerous fights, fighter-mages want to improve their magic spellpower as well as their physical damage output. They may have to split their stats between physical and int. Or maybe they have Chei stats, or use a fast weapon with a constant damage brand so they can put more into int.

This captures pretty well why I think arguments about what a "real" fighter or caster or melee or blaster or whatever consist of are counterproductive. Berder's classifications are trapping him into thinking that a character that fits into one of his boxes must remain in that box.

Once you start dividing characters up into neat little boxes you stop considering whether the best way to improve your "fighter" is to diversify by picking up Monstrous Menagerie, or Haste, or Conjure Flame. You stop thinking about whether your hybrid might actually be best off training Evocations. You (apparently) never under any circumstances train Stealth or Invocations.

These neat rules and tiny boxes may be helpful for very new players that are struggling to deal with all the choices in a brutal and unforgiving game, but experienced players are only limited by them.

So far, I've played Wz exclusively, so I'd consider my characters caster or mage or what-have-you, and in this person's view using a weapon is ideally a tactical decision that has more to do with positioning than battle preference. For instance, if I have a group of enemies held in a choke point, and they are under an AoE spell that makes damages the area continuously, I'll often "hold" them in place by standing and poking them while they freeze or burn. Also, the number of enemies makes a difference. The return on investment for casting as a Veh worshipper is much improved at higher numbers. That is, casting two firestorms to kill one enemy is a poor choice, leaving 18 MP used for a return of a little, while casting two to wipe out many pays for itself with the MP returned (which makes such spells wonderfully "free" in zigs. Of course, this is in the idealized endgame. In the build-up to that, brute melee is often required until one's skills are sufficient to wage battle specifically as one chooses.

Therein lies what I think is the bigger difference: the attitude of the players about the game they play. That is, are you one who wishes to play what you want and to try to get there, or are you one who has no wishes and plays with what you're given to the end of simply winning? That's the most crucial choice in this game, I think. As for me, I'm decidedly in the former camp.

Aule wrote: That is, are you one who wishes to play what you want and to try to get there, or are you one who has no wishes and plays with what you're given to the end of simply winning?

Yes, that's an important difference, and as someone in the latter group I'd elaborate that, personally, while I most enjoy Crawl when I am playing to win, that doesn't mean my enjoyment from Crawl comes from winning. Rather, I find the game play most compelling when my goal is to survive, and it is the game play that I enjoy. "Winning" as such in Crawl is (maybe) a high score and (always) a slightly different flavor message for the game over screen. It is like a classic arcade game in that sense. There aren't characters you are invested in, there isn't a story that gets tied up (satisfactorily or not), and there isn't some separate loot or crafting mini-game. (There are options for extending game play and for a bit of big loot hunting (Ziggurats), but these are not the focus of the game and this is intentional in its design approach.)

If I had to analyze Crawl's most basic elements, I'd say it is part survival game with emphasis on threat assessment and risk management, part board game with an emphasis on positioning and LOS management, with rpg-like character building. Some people derive more enjoyment from certain of those elements over others. Though I do like seeing my @ grow stronger over time and get new toys, I personally don't get so much out of the RPG-like stuff.

I find it more interesting when I am reassessing my options and asking, "What can I do to keep surviving, based on what's available?" rather than saying, "What do I have available that helps a mage/fighter/etc.?" To me, the latter question puts the cart before the horse. If you had chosen only to develop magic abilities and some basic defenses while worshiping Vehumet, and that's it at the time of death/ascension, then you had a mage. Depending on the context, that may or may not have been a good idea in terms of maximizing your chances for survival, but it wasn't the case that your character "was a mage," but rather that you made your character a "mage," and then continually chose to keep it a mage.

To my thinking, "Shooting fireballs at something then whacking it with a weapon" is a specific tactic, which may or may not make sense depending on the situation. It is not a template for character development, as such. Characters capable of using that tactic (or a tactic very similar in terms of actual game play) include characters that found the spell fireball and put in the training to make it helpful, characters that found certain evocable items and put in the experience to make them helpful, characters that worship certain gods and got the piety and invocations training to make the divine abilities helpful, and so on. There tends to be a not-very-clarifying conflation of flavor and game play in trying to find the line between "fighter" and "mage," with the exception of (most) characters in the very early game, and also characters being intentionally built according to an a priori archetype.

Lasty wrote:Once you start dividing characters up into neat little boxes you stop considering whether the best way to improve your "fighter" is to diversify by picking up Monstrous Menagerie, or Haste, or Conjure Flame. You stop thinking about whether your hybrid might actually be best off training Evocations. You (apparently) never under any circumstances train Stealth or Invocations.

Of course you can train Stealth (unless in heavy armor) and Invocations and Evocations. Those elements aren't different between mages and fighters.

Should a fighter cast Haste or Conjure Flame? That would make him a fighter with support magic, since both spells work ok at low int. Should a fighter cast Monstrous Menagerie? If he does, that makes him a fighter-mage, and he'd need moderately high int to make it work well, because it's not great at crappy spellpower. If he happens to have 10 int - then probably the benefit of Monstrous Menagerie is not worth the XP and turn to cast.

That's not a good example, since summons basically work so that, if you can cast them at an acceptable fail rate, and the monsters the spell generates are useful given your depth, spell power doesn't matter terribly much. You could get tons of damage out of menagerie with int in the teens with sufficient training in summons: it makes pretty hard-hitting stuff that either has ranged or is a high-speed pack. There's even a level 5 summon called shadow creatures that doesn't depend on spell power at all and can create the nastiest things you'll encounter on the the current level for most branches. Not coincidentally it's a spell frequently recommended for "melee" characters.

Trying to dictate that someone casting this level of spell with this level of weapon skill fits a particular notion of playstyle which should be adhered to is basically a waste of time. Beyond the extremes of "doesn't use magic" and "only uses magic", or perhaps talking about the sets of crawl's backgrounds, these labels tend to serve little purpose.

gammafunk wrote:There's even a level 5 summon called shadow creatures that doesn't depend on spell power at all and can create the nastiest things you'll encounter on the the current level for most branches. Not coincidentally it's a spell frequently recommended for "melee" characters.

Not coincidentally, a low-int fighter casting shadow creatures would be a fighter with support magic, since it doesn't depend on spellpower.

Oh of course, and if I happen to have a few more int by any means at all and a few more levels of summons, the moment I finish memorizing menagerie I'll have transform into the fabled BATTLEMAGE. Because of spellpower. Such a useful distinction.

gammafunk wrote:Oh of course, and if I happen to have a few more int by any means at all and a few more levels of summons, the moment I finish memorizing menagerie I'll have transform into the fabled BATTLEMAGE. Because of spellpower. Such a useful distinction.

But menagerie does depend on spellpower. I mean, are you arguing that it's good at low spellpower? If it's really the case that it's not heavily spellpower dependent, then it is still just support magic. On the other hand if it is heavily spellpower-dependent, then it isn't worth getting. You can't have it both ways.

You can't transition from a low-int fighter into a fighter-mage easily, because you don't have enough int, so heavily spellpower-dependent magic won't be worth it.

Check out my sword and board melee brute - its bread and butter is axe-to-the-face, making it an absolute wrecking ball. Are you embarrassed for both of us yet?

Berder wrote:I mean, are you arguing that it's good at low spellpower?

gammafunk wrote:That's not a good example, since summons basically work so that, if you can cast them at an acceptable fail rate, and the monsters the spell generates are useful given your depth, spell power doesn't matter terribly much

Slapping a label of "support spells" on a large majority of damaging necromancy and summoning spells isn't useful. That's a massive number of damaging spells for a "fighter-only" to choose from, in addition to the "support spells" in conjurations that are somehow "allowed-even-for-fighters.". The point that some of the more well-reasoned posts have been making is that choice of spells usage is not always decided by questions like "I am a fighter, so is this spell on the designated fighter support list" but is contingent on what you judge to be useful for the char, even if only in the near-term. Me using some low-power fireball for while in swamp to kill spriggans did not turn me into a fighter-mage. The meaningful decision was "hey fireball is good vs. high ev spriggans," not "hey I'm actually a fighter-mage".

Say what you want, but there is a difference between characters who deal their main damage with magic and rely primarily on int, and characters who deal their main damage with melee and rely on str and dex with a little magic to help.

What about somebody who "pumps int," yes still hits things more than casts spells?

basil wrote:What about somebody who "pumps int," yes still hits things more than casts spells?

Possibly a hybrid, but also it may depend on what you mean by "more." Killing popcorn with a weapon doesn't make a character not a mage. The question is what you do when the situation is dangerous.

Berder wrote:The question is what you do when the situation is dangerous.

I just read through this thread and I'm confused. Why is this an important question to ask?

archaeo wrote:
Berder wrote:The question is what you do when the situation is dangerous.

I just read through this thread and I'm confused. Why is this an important question to ask?

Because you want to improve your character to enable it to deal with more dangerous enemies. If you use magic to handle dangerous enemies currently, then to deal with more dangerous situations you probably need more magic. And if you use melee to handle them, then you probably need more melee, or suitable support spells.

Just think about the archetype of a mage who hits popcorn with a sword, but casts fireball and orb of destruction when the situation is tough. He could get by entirely on magic, the only reason he uses melee is that it's convenient not to have to rest and retreat so much. And he couldn't get by just on melee. And think about the archetype of a fighter who uses a little support magic, but primarily hits things with a sword. He could get by without the support magic, but he couldn't get by without the melee.

For me if the character does a lot more damage with spells then it's a mage. If it does a lot more damage with anything else it's a fighter. If roughly the same a fighter-mage, which as mentioned in the OP is very rare (I have had one character that I remember that I would consider a fighter-mage). I don't consider casting buff spells like rmsl/phase shift to distinguish between figthers and mages. Also with enough xp most characters should become mages and spam lvl 9 spells since the highest-level spells will outperform any possible melee.

Berder wrote:
basil wrote:What about somebody who "pumps int," yes still hits things more than casts spells?

Possibly a hybrid, but also it may depend on what you mean by "more." Killing popcorn with a weapon doesn't make a character not a mage. The question is what you do when the situation is dangerous.

Hit things or Simulacrum or back up into undead or dispel or agonize, I guess.
http://dobrazupa.org/morgue/Basil/morgu ... 040128.txt

Berder wrote:Because you want to improve your character to enable it to deal with more dangerous enemies.

Why can't this be done without a strangely flexible label? In fact, I think it would be easier to make an accurate choice by looking at a chardump and deciding, instead of looking at a chardump then applying a label then making a decision based on that label.

I'm going to make up a number at random and say 90% of winning characters can be firmly classed as fighters or mages by these standards, with the remaining 10% fighter-mages. Someone dig up the stats to prove me wrong or shut the hell up. It's not hard, just look at the logs for recent wins.

What is the classing good for.

basil wrote:What is the classing good for.

I'm done answering pointless questions. Find the stats, prove me wrong.

Unless the stats prove me right, in which case you can ask what good it is to have a pair of words that firmly classify 90% of characters.

5/10 too predictable. The tables and the haste thing were good though.

In other words, I'm done addressing nitpicking criticisms of this until I hear some more acknowledgement of how accurate it is in describing the majority of characters. Because I'm pretty sure that if you check the stats I will be proved right, not wrong.

basil wrote:What is the classing good for.

It helps player remember important things. When I feel my character is too weak, I look at my most efficient way of dealing damage (do I use spells or weapons?) and improve it. Getting closer to fighter-mage would be a mistake here.
When I feel my fighter or mage is strong enough, I consider becoming a fighter-mage.

I am not sure what to do with weak fighter-mage (it means player already did a mistake of hybridizing too early), probably again become a fighter or mage. In real games I get frustrated and either die from reckless playing or win as soon as possible because I don't enjoy the character, it reminds me I did some mistake(s) and I am a perfectionist. Yes, I realize I should be working on it, this is not good at all.

Berder wrote:In other words, I'm done addressing nitpicking criticisms of this until I hear some more acknowledgement of how accurate it is in describing the majority of characters.

This type of classification cannot be wrong, you covered all available types:
1) use A mostly
2) use B mostly
3) use A and B

Sandman25 wrote:This type of classification cannot be wrong, you covered all available types

It can be useless though, which I think is the argument here.

Edit: I really don't like that "if you feel somewhat weak find out something you're already decent at and improve it and that is 100% a good decision". Somebody already mentioned Shadow Creatures here and it's a good example of a hideously powerful lower-level spell. Not a great idea to shoot for if you wear plate, maybe, but in lighter armour - sure. There are good charms that can boost your character significantly. A great weapon you found on your "mage" might be a better idea to train for than to continue pumping magic. Things happen.

Edit #2: I think that what people are trying to say (what I am trying to say, at least) is that it's better to think about what to get while looking on an actual character's options in the game than trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all progression plan and dismissing all the possible outliers.

Sar wrote:
Sandman25 wrote:This type of classification cannot be wrong, you covered all available types

It can be useless though, which I think is the argument here.

Honestly I think every classification is useless in some sense, it does not add any new information, it just helps to better understand information which is already available in other forms.

Sar wrote:Edit: I really don't like that "if you feel somewhat weak find out something you're already decent at and improve it and that is 100% a good decision". Somebody already mentioned Shadow Creatures here and it's a good example of a hideously powerful lower-level spell. Not a great idea to shoot for if you wear plate, maybe, but in lighter armour - sure. There are good charms that can boost your character significantly. A great weapon you found on your "mage" might be a better idea to train for than to continue pumping magic. Things happen.

I meant that if I feel that I can die on current or next floor, then I don't have time for long-term development, I must improve my character here and now.

Well depending on a stage in the game you are currently now continuing pumping, say, Fighting and Armour and Dodging or whatever might not give you much due to diminishing returns, and getting something else might help. Or might not.

The Tavern

The line between fighter and mage

The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage

Re: The line between fighter and mage