Staves as starting weapon for monks

[danr]

If you want to talk about staves for other backgrounds or early game balance, go here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=619&view=unread#unread

This thread is just to discuss whether monks as a starting class should have the option of starting with a quarterstaff.

I think this would be a great enrichment of the monk class, which are currently basically the poor cousins of transmuters.

[MrMisterMonkey]

just like Fi/Gl are the poor cousins of Cr/Re/CK/Be, right?
how exactly do staves work with unarmed combat, anyway?
or is your idea just to make it a choice for monks, like how all the other backgrounds get their pick of one of a bunch of samey weapons?

If this is about making some nice weapon/UC synergy (and letting monks opt into it), I'm all for it, but if you're just providing a staves start, whatever

[danr]

- No - Fi/Gl have strengths that those other classes don't
- I'm not sure, but this would be an alternative to unarmed skill.
- I guess so.

[MrMisterMonkey]

not sure how a staves start gives them anything special
looking at general uniqueness alone, it would blur their definition a lot, and it was never particularly strong
(just another punchy class but with unarmed combat instead of a weapon and slightly more dodging/stealth bias than a gladiator but less than an assassin. hurray)
((with staves: just another punchy class but with unarmed combat or staves and slightly more dodging/stealth bias than a gladiator but less than an assassin. hurray))

on differentiation from transmuters specifically, they're a slight bit smoother early on
admittedly, this isn't a strong differentiation, but adding staves wouldn't really help out
(staves choice: even easier start but gets weaker over time, has to ditch staves (might as well have started Gl/As), pick up evocations and magic (might as well have started magic or Ar), or deal with it)
((plays the same, regardless -- see below for details))

really, if unarmed combat can't get its own special playstyle, I'd just merge Fi/Gl/Mo and give a choice of robes/armour, since they pretty much all play the same
(bumping into things until they die, running around corners if something with a ranged attack shows up, etc.)

[~edit: so I see you removed a bit of your post while I was writing - well played~]

---

That is, don't get me wrong, I agree that monks are lacking, but I just don't think staves would help them unless the staves actually augmented them, creating a new significantly different playstyle, rather than being more of the same.

[danr]

I wouldn't mind the alternative of merging them into one super melee class where you could also choose between heavy or light armour, but that complicates the character creation process. That's also a much more ambitious proposal than simply adding an option for Monks. I've learned that it's the modest proposals that have the best chance to make it in.

Fighters IIRC start with scale mail, well on the path to heavy armour. Gladiators are different - they are more lightly armoured, but also have some throwing skill, although those nets get chewed up so much that I don't use them much. However, they still have leather and a buckler. Monks have a robe and not much else. They are about the "simple" life or whatever.

The _general_ playstyle is the same but they do start with different skills. My whole thing is about not forcing people to start with skills they don't want.

This would be for a playstyle that is very weighted towards dex/EV, which is very different from fighters. The long term playstyle is to go hybrid - you eventually as a monk learn magical abilities, and at some point you find a staff that boosts your damage from your magic school.

This is very different from a spellcaster just picking up a quarterstaff at some point. The first levels of the game would be spent focusing on melee and NO spellcasting, instead of spellcasting interspersed with bits of melee to try to train your non-existent fighting skill. You would only get into magic by the middle game.

Given their scholastic nature monks should (if they don't) start with more Int than the other melee classes, and the lowest Str of any melee class. This again is aimed toward the long term goal of getting into elemental magic that will boost damage with the appropriate staff.

The fun of it is that to boost late-game damage this is pretty much the path you have to take, but kind of like a draconian, you don't know what staves or spellbooks you will find first, and these will really shape your late game flavour. This again is different from caster starts, where you have a pretty good idea what will be your main magic schools. Shoot - playing a draconian monk this way would be really cool.

I realize monks could do this now, but some species are not as good at unarmed and if you are wanting to try this approach it would just be nice to be able to choose staves over UC.

[MrMisterMonkey]

While light vs. heavy armour differ in that it's easier to cast in the former, my principle is that, generally, melee classes shouldn't concern themselves with making it convenient for players to pick up spellcasting, and spellcasting classes shouldn't concern themselves with making it convenient for players to pick up melee; hybrid classes fill this niche.
By this, I find a pure melee class designed for picking up spellcasting later inherently unreasonable.
Artificers are sort of a middle ground, as you don't really get either melee or magic, and I think your style fits in better with them, especially since they start with the Evocations to use enhancer staff melee well. This isn't to say they should start out with staves, though (they shouldn't), but you can bash with your rod of striking, if you want.

[szanth]

Well of course that's your bias of melee classes. As it stands, it's infinitely more difficult to finish the game as a pure melee character with absolutely no magic support coming in at any point at all. It benefits the character greatly to at least get some basic air spells in a pinch.

Especially since 'classes' are just a background starting point. Saying hybrids fill the supposedly small niche (pretty sure it's not) of fighters at some point expecting to gain magic abilities is kind of ... well, in my opinion, incorrect. Part of the reason Crawl is awesome is because you can start as a monk or gladiator and at some point pick up a spellbook awesome enough to make that person want to branch out, and -he can-.

[danr]

Dude, "inherently unreasonable"? A monk starting with a staff?

I think there are two main problems with background proposals:
1) If they would be overpowered, or
2) If they are redundant

This is neither. There is a big difference between a hybrid class (say a reaver or crusader) that has a starting spellbook and some skill in spellcasting, and a class that will probably want to pick up spellcasting at some point, but they have no idea what they will find. It even affects god choice - will they want to pick a god before they've figured out what their magic game will be?

Alternately, they don't _have_ to get into spellcasting. In this case, a staff monk would be a bit more of a "challenge class", and I don't think you see anything wrong with those. They could also branch into polearms, as those are also a "martial arty" type of weapon class.

In any event, you haven't made a case that this idea would be detrimental to the game, you've just argued that it wouldn't add anything. There are a number of people who are interested in the idea, and that alone shows that it would add something.

Monks are the "martial arts" class, I just think it would be interesting flavourwise to expand that concept a bit and include another traditional "martial art" in their starting repertoire. In the process it would also create a very interesting and unique game style where you will probably end up using magic but you have NO idea what kind.

Again, that is very reasonable - it's very different from pure casters and hybrids who start with their magic game pre-seeded, and from other melee fighters who can probably get away without spellcasting at all.

It is at least as different as starting with a god, or starting without one and waiting until you find an altar, and there are different classes based mostly on that distinction as well (e.g. berserkers and chaos knights vs. fighters and gladiators), or also between humans and draconians - both have undifferentiated characteristics to start, but draconians play very differently because at some point they develop random characteristics.

[Zicher]

Part of the reason Crawl is awesome is because you can start as a monk or gladiator and at some point pick up a spellbook awesome enough to make that person want to branch out, and -he can-.

And another part of Crawl being so awesome is that you can decide not to use any spells at all, and still you can have enough power to get out with the Orb.

[szanth]

Part of the reason Crawl is awesome is because you can start as a monk or gladiator and at some point pick up a spellbook awesome enough to make that person want to branch out, and -he can-.

And another part of Crawl being so awesome is that you can decide not to use any spells at all, and still you can have enough power to get out with the Orb.

Exactly. So let the man have a stick.

[danr]

What's all this stuff about starting with a quarterstaff making it easier to become a caster? It doesn't! Wizards' staves don't use Staves skill! They use Evocations and magical schools! Staves skill is almost useless for wizards' staves! Quarterstaves are completely useless for becoming a caster!

Also a melee background designed specifically to pick up casting later is one of the strangest ideas I've ever heard and I don't think it's appropriate for Crawl or any other roguelike I've played.

As for a non-caster starting with a quarterstaff? I support it. Just as 0.8 opened up long blades to fighters, it should open up staves to fighters. Monks getting them will just make them more like fighters, but whatever.

I did not know that about wizards staves. Can't a wizard staff be used as a normal staff for melee by anyone, and in that case I thought it had the same base properties as a quarterstaff, so I assumed they would rely on staves skill for their weapon delay, chance to hit, and so on.

How is this "inappropriate"? We have melee backgrounds that start with magic, and we have species whose magic aptitudes evolve later in the game. I guess any new idea will always seem strange at first.

Monks getting staves will make them more like monks. Fighters have shields, which really don't work with staves. So do gladiators. Scale mail + shield is very different from robe + quarterstaff + unarmed combat.

[danr]

It's more that I think robe + quarterstaff is more like robe + UC than it is to hand axe + scale mail + shield.

It sounds like we need more information on the effectiveness of wizard staves with staves skill.

Think of it as just how fighters are somewhat designed to adopt Okawaru later on, this is a melee class that is somewhat designed to go hybrid later on.

But even if the magic thing is off, I still think that a) staves should be available as a starting weapon (why not?) for those who want to try them for some reason, and b) that the monk class is the most logical place to do this.

If staves, apart from wizard staves, are pointless as a weapon class then they should just be dropped from the game. If they are a good class, then why not make them available as a starting background?

[MrMisterMonkey]

danr, you seem to think I'm not really opposed to letting monks start with staves
really, and I have said this before, I just think it's not adding anything, but you may have confused my refutations with me hating your idea

As for people being interested in it, I don't trust this as a measure of how much this would add to the game; people always pretend weapons or EV/AC/SH have different playstyles, but really, it's all pretty samey, at least until special moves get in.

On you being shocked about "inherently unreasonable", I think you missed a very important point: I was explaining how designing a melee background around going spellcasting is unreasonable, not how monks starting with staves is unreasonable. You justified your idea with this whole spellcasting deal, and I was simply spelling out why I find this invalid.

For the most part I agree with minmay, too.

[Curio]

I'm just gonna ask then, why staves needed at all?
2 types of weapon. Low aptitudes almost with every race. 1 starting class with it.
What the heck "Staves" doing in Crawl then???

[dpeg]

I like the idea of monks getting an option between UC and staves for three reasons: It fits flavour-wise. The choice makes most sense on a monk who doesn't get a shield anyway. It allows to provide the staff option into a background without requiring special cases in other background (Fi, Gl). The main drawback, as I see it, is that Mo would now also come with an additional choice prompt.

Regarding what staves are doing in Crawl: When the founders of DCSS faced this question, they added lajatangs. This is not to say that staves are sacrosanct, but I like the concept of a properly two-handed weapon class.

Regarding no overlap between magical and other staves: We are free to say that melee properties of magical staves (in particular, to-hit and speed) are governed by Staves skill, chance of special effect governed by Evocations skill, damage of special effect by magical skill.

[danr]

Thanks dpeg.

Regarding the main drawback of adding another prompt: this could be solved by just giving monks both skills, in some balance to be decided by the devs, but I don't know enough about UC to know whether that would be good or bad. This would be consistent with how Gladiators currently get both UC and a weapon skill.


[Everything below here written before seeing dpeg's post]

Okay, I think we're narrowing in on the issue.

Forget the spellcasting aspect of it. Minmay, you say you don't care, so I guess there's no point arguing further.

MrMonkey, there is a playstyle difference with staves: they really don't work with shields. There's a special line of code specifically for staves that cuts damage output in half.

Further, as pointed out elsewhere, all classes get the same starting XP divided among their starting skills.

Fighters and gladiators get shields / bucklers and so some of their starting XP goes into shields which really don't work well with staves. It just doesn't make sense that a background would have trained staves and shields, and for this reason nobody would pick staves even if they were an option for fighters or gladiators.

This is doubly the case because, esp. if I'm wrong about wizard staves, the only weapon upgrade you can find is a branded quarterstaff or a lajatang, and the lajatang really doesn't compete with the other top-end weapons.

Unless, and this would be another way to go, if fighters with staves did not get shields and instead they got extra levels elsewhere.

Finally, even if you feel AC/EV/SH are really just the same playstyle, for some of us there is a role-playing element to the game that goes beyond pure numbers and tactics - there's just the "romantic appeal" I guess is the best way to describe it. Not everyone cares about that I guess.

Staves, because they do not go with shields, do make for a different playstyle - just as much as a minotaur not being able to wear a helmet differentiates that species just a little more. They effectively close off an equipment slot if you choose them as your mean weapon.

That's why they make sense for a monk, who basically just has a robe and some fighting skill. They don't make as much sense for fighters (unless shields are special-cased). While I wouldn't oppose fighters getting them as a choice too, I don't think they would be a popular choice for that class.

To sum up (again)
- There's no general reason for staves to not be a starting weapon choice
- Equipment and flavourwise, monks are the best class to offer this choice to, because:
- fighters with shields would not have much use for staves
- casters with staves would be overpowered for the early game.

[danr]

I did not know that about the speed brand. With that, and what dpeg said about wizard staves getting the benefit of staves skill for weapon delay (!!!), accuracy and base damage, I can see that they are a very good class.

That just makes me want to be able to start with them more!

[MrMisterMonkey]

(On playstyle, you're still just bashing things; shields or lack thereof don't change this. Do you, as a player, dramatically change how you play if you have a shield? I don't just mean taking and dealing less damage, either.
I'm mostly nitpicking about your poor word choice here, but as I have said before, I would like a nice merger of these mostly-redundant classes.
On your minotaur example, not being able to use a helmet doesn't create a new playstyle by any means, even if it is unique.)

[Curio]

I like the idea of monks getting an option between UC and staves for three reasons: It fits flavour-wise. The choice makes most sense on a monk who doesn't get a shield anyway. It allows to provide the staff option into a background without requiring special cases in other background (Fi, Gl). The main drawback, as I see it, is that Mo would now also come with an additional choice prompt.

I don't see why having a choice is a bad thing? Can you explain your point of view?

Regarding what staves are doing in Crawl: When the founders of DCSS faced this question, they added lajatangs. This is not to say that staves are sacrosanct, but I like the concept of a properly two-handed weapon class.

They're doing this.

Let's compare two weapon-schools: Axes and Staves for example.
Lajatang and Executioner's Axe have the same chance of spawning and are the most powerful weapon in each corresponding skill. But if you don't find Exec.axe you can settle for a broad axe or a battle axe. In case of a staves - it's a quarterstaff only (not counting magic staves, about that later). It's like sticking to hand axe all game hoping to find executioner's.
My point is - we need some weapon that more powerful than quarterstaff but not nearly as powerful as lajatang

Regarding no overlap between magical and other staves: We are free to say that melee properties of magical staves (in particular, to-hit and speed) are governed by Staves skill, chance of special effect governed by Evocations skill, damage of special effect by magical skill.

So, if I understand correctly, Evocation skill governs how much bonus flame damage will have Staff of fire? If so, it will make monk playstyle more interesting. Besides of training Fighting, Dodging, UC or Staves it would be wise to train Evo also. (Btw, use of magic staff trains evocations or not?)

Staves may seem overly narrow with only two weapons, but most of the other schools have very few relevant weapons too. Every school has about two or four weapons that you're actually going to use, with the rest being irrelevant trash - half the maces & flails may as well not exist at all.

I partially agree with you. I like to have variety, even if it's only cosmetic and stats differ not very much. But M&F took it to another level. Eveningstar? That's more of a joke than a real weapon. Maybe M&F could be split in two different skills, but I don't really know what this will bring to the game.

To sum up (again)
- There's no general reason for staves to not be a starting weapon choice
- Equipment and flavourwise, monks are the best class to offer this choice to, because:
- fighters with shields would not have much use for staves
- casters with staves would be overpowered for the early game.

What on my mind - is in your post.

I might just add that skills in case of a choice between UC and Staves could be divided in this way.
If Unarmed only - 4 level as it is right now.
IfStaves - 2 levels of UC and 2 levels of Staves.
In this case monk will have auxiliary attacks with kicks, horns etc. more often and will have easier time boosting UC for this purpose. In case if monk gonna be purely stave-oriented - it could be turned off from the start. 2 level loss of Staves skill could be negligible, especially if aptitudes of many races will be rised for staves.

[galehar]

We are free to say that melee properties of magical staves (in particular, to-hit and speed) are governed by Staves skill, chance of special effect governed by Evocations skill, damage of special effect by magical skill.

I think that's exactly how it works. From a quick wizmode test, I can already confirm that the staves skill affect the accuracy and speed of wizard staff attacks.

To sum up (again)
- There's no general reason for staves to not be a starting weapon choice
- Equipment and flavourwise, monks are the best class to offer this choice to, because:
- fighters with shields would not have much use for staves
- casters with staves would be overpowered for the early game.

I have to say, you have a made a convincing argument. Also, congrats for your perseverance
I like how you're not afraid to think outside of the box with the melee build which have an interesting option to branch into spellcasting later. If we reject stuff because there's nothing like it in the game, we wouldn't have much diversity, would we? We already have some spellcasting backgrounds with a high tendency to go hybrids (like AE), so why not the opposite?
So, let's say I like your idea (and I have commit rights )

The main drawback, as I see it, is that Mo would now also come with an additional choice prompt.

I don't see why having a choice is a bad thing? Can you explain your point of view?

Simplicity of the interface. But in this case, going from 0 option to 1 with only 2 choices isn't a big deal. As MarvinPA has started cutting into the religious backgrounds, dpeg should be able to handle this

My point is - we need some weapon that more powerful than quarterstaff but not nearly as powerful as lajatang

I think they're called wizard or magic staves.

I might just add that skills in case of a choice between UC and Staves could be divided in this way.
If Unarmed only - 4 level as it is right now.
IfStaves - 2 levels of UC and 2 levels of Staves.
In this case monk will have auxiliary attacks with kicks, horns etc. more often and will have easier time boosting UC for this purpose. In case if monk gonna be purely stave-oriented - it could be turned off from the start. 2 level loss of Staves skill could be negligible, especially if aptitudes of many races will be rised for staves.

That's an interesting idea. Maybe more 1UC, 3 staves. 1 is enough so the skill can start training itself if you want it to.

[Curio]

That's an interesting idea. Maybe more 1UC, 3 staves. 1 is enough so the skill can start training itself if you want it to.

Yeah. From what I learned, gaining 1st skill level is harder than gaining second. So, presence of 1 UC will passively skill it up, even while using staves.

My point is - we need some weapon that more powerful than quarterstaff but not nearly as powerful as lajatang

I think they're called wizard or magic staves.

Quarterstaves and magic staves have identical stats (+6 acc +7dam 120% delay). And in case of magic staves you loose a great deal of damage output if you don't have high enough evo or corresponding magic skill. More so, some branded quarterstaves (speed) are better than fire/air/earth magic-stave. Especially for those who do not want to branch into magic at all.

So here goes some number crunching:
Q-stave base stats:
+6 acc +7 dam 120% delay
Lajatang base stats:
-3 acc +14 dam 140% delay

As we can see damage output of lajatang is twice as much as of q-stave - that's quite an improvement... if you find one. But that's not guarantied at all. And adding a weapon that will fill a "missing link" would make staves a viable choice to skill in.
Stats for this weapon could be in range from/to:
Damage: 9-11
Accuracy: +3 - 0
Delay: 120-130%
And most crucial point for it would be it's drop chance - semi-rare in mid game, and common in late game.

[szanth]

Staves, as a weapon class, do need more options. They have (lumping the magical ones together) a total of three. This is not necessarily a buff, it's just evening out the field so staves are more equal.

[Curio]

deleted

[danr]

Sorry, I'm going to get stricter on this. Adding new weapons is a different topic. Which I think will have more chance of success if it is developed and discussed in its own thread and a specific new weapon is proposed.

Galehar: I like the idea of giving the "staff monk" 1 level UC and 3 in staves.

[Curio]

Sorry, I'm going to get stricter on this. Adding new weapons is a different topic. Which I think will have more chance of success if it is developed and discussed in its own thread and a specific new weapon is proposed.

Yeah, you are right. Let's stay on topic - Monks first

I deleted my message, but I think creating new topic for this is useless, because it will fill with trash-talk very fast, without any use, so i leave this at that.

[galehar]

Done.

[Curio]

Done.

THANKS

[Strongpoint]

I don't like 1 unarmed combat (2\2) would be better, many race have less then 0 UC apttitude and they'll need to train that level up

And we need a race with good staves skill now... I'd suggest dark elf, to encourage "staff wielding monk is likely to branch into spellcasting" thing but dark elf is the last race that needs any buff.

On other hand it's so elfish to wield quarterstaff and dark elven culture should support staff wielding combat, because they are likely to use magic staffs. Seriously maybe it's possible to raise dark elven staves to +2 or even +3? Compensate it by lowering other weapon skills or shield skill. Also this can lead to the new monster in elven halls, elven monk, and that can lead to more branded quarterstaves in the game

Only minotaurs and kenkus have good (more than 0) staves, and they both have same aptitudes for other weapons.

[danr]

That's a new topic please

[danr]

So I just downloaded the latest trunk build and tried me a minotaur monk with a quarterstaff. It just looked and felt so right, even righteous! I stomped all over D:1 spreading the gospel of the stick with my wand of braining. I died to snake poison, but it was still very satisfying.

Anyhow, thanks to Galehar, and thanks to Curio, I think this was your idea initially, I just went on the warpath with it.

[szanth]

This is awesome. =D

<3

[Curio]

Anyhow, thanks to Galehar, and thanks to Curio, I think this was your idea initially, I just went on the warpath with it.

"Just went on the warpath?" Man, I couldn't do it myself, 'cos i don't have so much persuasive powers as you do - so thank you for making my idea/wish come true.

And of course Galehar, who overcame initial skepticism and thrown away conservative view of a new things proposed

Now we have to add more good staff aptitudes to make this combo viable not only for kenku and minotaur. But, yeah - that's another topic.

[danr]

"Just went on the warpath?" Man, I couldn't do it myself, 'cos i don't have so much persuasive powers as you do

I knew that law degree would come in handy eventually.

Seriously though nothing drives me harder than resistance to a good idea. That gets me in trouble sometimes.

[danr]

Seriously though nothing drives me harder than resistance to a good idea.

Because everyone agrees that it's a good idea and they're only resisting it to be obnoxious.

I knew it!

Fine - resistance to what I consider a good idea.

I can generally see the other sides of arguments though. In this case I detected a strong hint of what Dan Ariely calls the "not invented here" bias.

[MrMisterMonkey]

was anyone even resisting? pretty sure I, at least, was only pointing out how some of the reasons provided for staves for monks were invalid (this helps flesh ideas out so they don't end up lopsided and ugly), rather than resisting the idea itself (though I'd still prefer actual staves/UC synergy)

[galehar]

Sorry guys, but it seems as if the staff monk isn't going to stay. Enjoy while it lasts.

[danr]

The bug tracker is not the place to discuss that. It's weird that it's filed as a major bug.

However, I can see the point made about vastly different playstyles between staves and UC. Staves are unique enough that they probably do warrant their own class. I'm toying with the idea of a class that gets a staff and a book of cantrips, or just simply make the staff monk it's own class.

[Hushed]

I disagree with the idea that backgrounds should dictate playstyles. If that's the desired behavior, we should call them classes instead of backgrounds. It was my understanding that we don't treat them as classes because the important concept is allow players different playstyle choices. This seems like a step backwards.

[danr]

Over on the tracker, the intriguing suggestion was made to give staves to artificers. That would have synergy with the evocations skill.

[Hushed]

They're intended to dictate starting kits, not playstyles.

Then the argument on the bug tracker that monks should not have staves because staves represent a disparate playstyle from unarmed should hold no water.

[danr]

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Although backgrounds do not dictate playstyle, they do heavily influence it, especially for the early game.

The principle here is that they don't want secondary choices that have a major impact of how the build plays. I think this is why e.g. spellbook and god choices are being removed from the starting selection. Otherwise you almost have to indicate MiMo(UC) and MiMo(St) because they are significantly different starts.

So I'd support giving staves to artificers (cuz honestly, who plays these?) and also making the "staff monk" its own class.

[Hushed]

I am all for stave artificers, but would that mean rods should be treated as staves instead of maces and flails?