New Background Idea: Antiquity Knight

[MisterPersonMan]

Here's something I came up with relatively quickly. I'd like to see a couple more Zealots, and Hepliak is a god I find very fun. Thoughts?


Begins worshiping Hepliaklqana.

Starting Equipment
+0 vorpal weapon of choice (short sword, mace, hand axe, falchion or spear) or unarmed
+0 robe
Ration
One random scroll

Starting Skills and Stats
Fighting: 2
Chosen Weapon's Skill: 4
Armor: 1
Dodging: 2
+7 Strength
+4 Dexterity
+1 Intelligence


Here it is. I wasn't sure whether it'd be better if the stats given were more general and less fighter-oriented, but I don't find playing Hepliak as a caster quite as fun (ancestor getting in the way and all that) so I thought it'd be better to do it this way. Not like it matters much, since it's just a thrown-together idea, but I like to come up with things that could potentially actually work.

I like the sound of the name, but there are already two classes that are named "knight". Best I could come up with in a short period of time, but I'm sure there's a better one.

[Octopode-monk-of-XOM]

-very too strong (ancestor XL1)
-hep is a god with ally, Death Knight was a Zealot worshipping Yred

i personally don't like either of the gods and don't think this would add much to crawl

[Siegurt]

FWIW, if you want to try Hep with a caster, try a FE and use inner flame on your ancestor

[MisterPersonMan]

-very too strong (ancestor XL1)
-hep is a god with ally, Death Knight was a Zealot worshipping Yred

i personally don't like either of the gods and don't think this would add much to crawl

Like I said, this is something I threw together. I could easily just change some things if it's too powerful in early game. I thought that cutting 10% of HP when you're at your most vulnerable, as well as starting with a robe when the background is obviously weighted towards melee fighters, would be enough to balance for the early game; but perhaps I'm incorrect. Maybe the vorpal brand was too much?

[acoolguy]

If there is any Zealot background i'd want it would be Slime Knight.

[sardonica]

I thought that cutting 10% of HP when you're at your most vulnerable, as well as starting with a robe when the background is obviously weighted towards melee fighters, would be enough to balance for the early game; but perhaps I'm incorrect. Maybe the vorpal brand was too much?

You're not cutting 10% HP because your ancestor has HP.

[chequers]

Zealot backgrounds are usually justified by saying "the game plays meaningfully differently for characters that start with this god compared to starting atheist and finding a the god in temple". Berserker starts with Berserk, which trivialises much of the early game. AK starts in the abyss. CK starts with Xom (and so is a special case). How is starting with Hep meaningfully different?

[sanka]

checkers: I do not think your proposed logic applies to Berserkers. I do not think that the first ability of Trog is that different from many other God's first ability -- if starting with berserk is so different from getting it later, then starting with an ancestor, starting with heroism, etc. is also different from not starting with them.

I think that the logic behind Trog allowed as a starting god is simply that it used to be so, and it is popular, crawl needs an easy and relatively simple start for beginners (Trog forbids magic), and most importantly, we do not need a second such class with a different god -- one exception to the rule is enough.

I also do not think that AK starting in the abyss is that important - the best action is to leave it almost immediately anyway. It could be important if you think it of as an opportunity for a challenge: remain in the Abyss. This makes sense for CK as well, since Xom early is even worse than Xom later: so CK is a challenge class. And this logic could be applied to any god where starting with them gives an opportunity for an extra challenge: Chei and Quazlal.

The logic behind AK also could be that it is hard to get a Lugonu altar. But then why we can't start with Jiyva as well.

Of course, most likely the set of starting gods are mostly arbitrary heritage, and it does not make sense to search for a common reason.

[Sprucery]

Slime Knight has been proposed several times before (by me too), but the dev response has always been "not going to happen". I would be happy with just making Jiyva a temple god (or even just ensuring a Jiyva altar in D).

Anyway, in my understanding the probability of getting a new zealot background to happen rounds to 0%.

[MalcolmRose]

I'm a big fan of any and all new Zealot classes. This seems like a fun idea - not so sure about the random scroll, though, since you're sort of encroaching on Wanderer design space at that point.

[TheMeInTeam]

If there is any Zealot background i'd want it would be Slime Knight.

This one has a real, meaningful downside too.

In contrast to death knight I don't think Paladin needed to go, TSO is one of the weaker gods in the early dungeon so having him from "go" wouldn't lead to the kind of absurdity you'd have with a D:1 ancestor or fast access to derived undead en masse. Though when he was removed crawl was a pretty different game so maybe it was stronger back then.

[duvessa]

TSO doing nothing in the early dungeon is exactly why Paladin was removed.

[TheMeInTeam]

TSO doesn't do "nothing" though. It's just weaker than alternatives, initially. This is offset by having access to the benefits quickly, and having a good late game.

Accuracy is more important early on before weapon skill gets improved, similarly the extra SH is not nearly as beneficial as heroism but it's still significant enough to matter especially in early-mid dungeon where corridors are still easy to reach consistently.

Compared to stuff like Yred/Hep/Kiku/Nemelex type stuff it wouldn't be gamebreaking either.

Another nasty one would be Chei. No point looking for that early pillar then and would be pretty miserable, though I suppose the turn count hunters would like it.