attack delay

[acvar]

I guess maybe it could do with a minor nerf at low levels then, I dunno it doesn't really seem like much of a problem to me if some rare items change how you play when you find them.

Rare items changing your game play is fine. The problem is that it takes zero investement to use powerful weapons, but massive investment to use powerful spells. I realize this was done to "balance" spellcasters, but in reality it is a boon for spellcasters. The spellcaster that happens upon a powerful object weapon or spell can start using it with much less investment then the non-caster. The caster already has a high int and spellcasting to use the powerful spells he finds, and he need not invest in either stats or skills to use a powerful weapon. The melee character needs to radicaly change everything if he wants to exploit the high level spells he finds. He must start pumping a different stat, and drop massive amounts of skill points in at least 2 skills to even have a chance of using the "boon" he found.

The only way you are going to nerf the tripple sword and other high damage weapons is to make them less damaging compared to the "low" damaging weapons. Slower or not the tripple sword is just better then the falchion most of the time. If there is less difference in the damage they do, and the primary difference is in thier starting weapon speed then there is a huge reason to use that falchion at low levels. Once both get to the same or similar speed due to skil advancement then the small amount of extra damage the triple does makes it the better choice. There may be other ways to solve the problem, but I have not seen anybody give one that looks like it will actually work.

[Leafsnail]

Rare items changing your game play is fine. The problem is that it takes zero investement to use powerful weapons, but massive investment to use powerful spells. I realize this was done to "balance" spellcasters, but in reality it is a boon for spellcasters. The spellcaster that happens upon a powerful object weapon or spell can start using it with much less investment then the non-caster. The caster already has a high int and spellcasting to use the powerful spells he finds, and he need not invest in either stats or skills to use a powerful weapon. The melee character needs to radicaly change everything if he wants to exploit the high level spells he finds. He must start pumping a different stat, and drop massive amounts of skill points in at least 2 skills to even have a chance of using the "boon" he found.

Ok: so what? Sure, a spellcasting character might get some benefit by finding a triple sword (although I think the loss of your buckler makes using one at zero skill a non-trivial decision). They could also get a lot of benefit out of PDA or boots of running or a huge range of other rare items. I don't think a triple sword is an overly powerful a random drop for a spellcaster.

So your argument actually instead comes down to it being unfair - because melee characters get no benefit when finding Fire Storm, spellcasters should get no benefit when finding a Triple Sword. I don't really see this as a valid complaint. Melee characters get a lot more benefit out of finding common spells (eg swiftness, repel missiles, blink, regen) than spellcasters do out of finding common weapons, and barely any investment is required to use those, so I don't see it as too unequal. In addition I don't really think a Triple Sword at zero skill is really comparable in power to Fire Storm in any way, even if it's maybe a little bit better than a Demon Blade at the same level.

The only way you are going to nerf the tripple sword and other high damage weapons is to make them less damaging compared to the "low" damaging weapons. Slower or not the tripple sword is just better then the falchion most of the time. If there is less difference in the damage they do, and the primary difference is in thier starting weapon speed then there is a huge reason to use that falchion at low levels. Once both get to the same or similar speed due to skil advancement then the small amount of extra damage the triple does makes it the better choice. There may be other ways to solve the problem, but I have not seen anybody give one that looks like it will actually work.

Is it really a problem that a very rare item does more damage than a common one? I guess it would be a problem if the Triple Sword consistently outstripped, say, a Demon Blade at lower levels, but as far as I can tell it doesn't (although the graph in the OP suggests a Claymore may be better at zero skill, assuming that's not a statistical fluke). It's not unusual for a rare item to be just flat-out better than a common one (see: PDA, Demon Blades), and that's not even 100% true in this case because you can use a shield with a Falchion.

[acvar]

Please can we get som perspective here. It is absolutely pointless that a non caster gains more from frinding common low level spells then a spellcaster gains from finding commen weapons. The spellcaster gains from finding common low level spells also. In deed he benefits more then the non caster since he will usually not have to invest anything to get them castable due to his int and spellcasting. Nobody gains from finding common weapons spellcaster or non caster.

Once again please justify why a character with no training in long blades should gain any benefit from finding a tripple sword. Why is it any difference to high level spells. Why shouldn't non casters be rewarded in the same way casters are for advancing thier skills. I don't think fighters should be picking up spellbooks with firestorm and using them without training, I don't think that casters should be picking up tripple swords and using them without training. Why is this semetry such a major issue?

Is it really a problem that a very rare item does more damage than a common one?

Rare items should be better then common items, but they should not be better without proper investment. Why is that so hard to understand? Why are you against "requireing" investment in skills and stats to make a tripple sword usefull? Why is it reasonable in your view to make spells less then useless read harmful without proper training, but not doing similar things for weapons?

[and into]

Once again please justify why a character with no training in long blades should gain any benefit from finding a tripple sword. Why is it any difference to high level spells. Why shouldn't non casters be rewarded in the same way casters are for advancing thier skills. I don't think fighters should be picking up spellbooks with firestorm and using them without training, I don't think that casters should be picking up tripple swords and using them without training. Why is this semetry such a major issue?

1.) Flavor. Just about anyone can pick up a weapon and do *some* damage with it and use it to defend themselves. Whereas spells actively hurt you when you try to use them without having (some degree of) mastery over them. Some spell books are so magically powerful that the inept cannot even read them. Etc.

2.) Game play. Asymmetry leads to more interesting decisions in this case. What you are suggesting would make Crawl much more restrictive and more rigid in terms of its "classes." Guys who have spells will be stuck with zXenter zXenter zXenter ad infinitum for a much longer period of time than they currently do. This would severely affect some interesting and fun ways of playing book backgrounds, while shoehorning less robust characters into an even more narrow role of tediously playing keep away. That would be a horrible direction for Crawl to go.

3.) Game design. Both weapons and magic depend on items and skill training, but how that plays out is very different. Fortunately since Crawl does not force you to play any background/species as a "caster," nor as a "fighter," you can adapt as you like to what the RNG provides. Because the line between "caster" and "fighter" is blurry in Crawl (and it is intended to be so), this means that having weapons and magic be non-identical in exactly how they work is a *good* thing, as the choices one makes in regard to them are more distinctive and meaningful.

Maybe there will be some reform here with attack delay, and maybe one result of those changes will be that some (or all) weapons are somewhat worse at low skill levels. But it isn't going to have anything to do with a comparison to fire storm or how casters play or whatever.

[Leafsnail]

Once again please justify why a character with no training in long blades should gain any benefit from finding a tripple sword.

That's the thing: I don't think the onus is on me to do so. It's up to you to demonstrate that this situation is unfair and should be symmetrical. I could equally ask you to justify why spellcasters get to attack characters from long range and learn a wide variety of different tactical tools while melee characters do not, or why melee characters get to swing as many times as they like while spellcasters are limited by MP.

I also don't see the thing about the Triple Sword really mattering at all - a melee class can learn spells and a spellcasting class can learn melee, and it will ultimately cost them both the same amount of XP to do so to the same degrees. The fact that Fire Storm is so inaccessible also makes it a less useful find for mages, so it balances out - heck, it's probably not worth getting at all in the vast majority of 3 rune games, making it an equally useless find for both types of classes.

Rare items should be better then common items, but they should not be better without proper investment. Why is that so hard to understand? Why are you against "requireing" investment in skills and stats to make a tripple sword usefull?

If "rare items need investment" is an actual design goal we're going with, then we'd have to scrap all egos, brands, a lot of dragon armours and most good fixedarts.