Removal of low level branding spells.

[Siegurt]

Well, I have to say I hate that lethal infusion was removed from the starting necromancer book, the other early brand spells were infrequently useful (typically you found them too late to take advantage of them, by the time you reach lair you usually have some kind of branded weapon), but that spell made early necromancers significantly more playable until you found a decent weapon, there's a significant gap between "I can kill stuff with pain" and "Vampiric draining can get me corpses to animate" which lethal infusion filled nicely.

In case you aren't aware of what I'm talking about:
http://s-z.org/neil/git/?p=crawl.git;a= ... 169934e826

I also disagree with the commit's contention that they were 'optimal before every fight' (Since you often acquire a branded weapon fairly early) and IMHO, a well designed level 2 spell should be very useful, until it's surpassed by something else, which is exactly what these spells do, in my experience they stop being optimal to use about the same time as level 2 conjurations do, if not slightly earlier.

I also don't see how a spell they are any more annoying to use than conjurations, or corpse animating, or defensive spells, or well, all spells at all, ever. ('za<tab><tab<tab>' isn't worse than 'zafzafzafzaf' nor is it significantly worse than '<tab><tab><tab><tab>' (since in theory 1 'za' knocks 25% of the '<tab>s' you have to do off your total))

Also the whole point about it being 'optimal before using un-id'd scrolls in case it's a brand weapon scroll' is REALLY minor, I mean that's true, *if* you are still using an un-branded weapon, of a sufficiently good base type that you care if it gets a decent brand *and* if you have those spells at the time *and* haven't already gotten a brand weapon scroll. And to boot, the current iteration, where branding scrolls can target any weapon in your inventory and can re-brand weapons make it even less likely to be an issue.

Anyway, I'm in a bad mood after having traveled a bunch, so this may be overly negative, if so I apologize, but this is a change I just can't get behind at all (Although I'm certainly hoping to hear arguments to change my mind, I don't like feeling *this* irritated with a change).

Anyway, I searched the dev wiki, the ##crawl-dev logs and the forums and I couldn't find any discussion of this other than the comment in the commit itself, so I thought I'd take it here to discuss and state my opinion on the matter.

[and into]

Well, it was kind of silly to have freezing aura (lvl 2 charms/ice) in book of ice, which mostly contains higher level spells, and ditto for fire brand in book of fire. The lower level brand spells are a bit silly, but I think lethal infusion in necromancy is fine, and that is after all the one spell removed in that commit that has a substantial effect on game play, as it appears in a starting book.

So yes, taking out lethal infusion from the book of necromancy seems a bit overzealous. Mainly because draining is near the bottom in terms of the best damage-dealing brands. Basically if lucky you'd pick up a vanilla quarterstaff or a dire flail and use lethal infusion on it for a cheap decent early weapon, but by Lair you'd often find a better weapon that is incompatible with lethal infusion.

On the other hand if you added the spell corpse rot into book of necromancy, I'll forget everything I just said.

[Siegurt]

Actually draining is secretly pretty darn good. Fsim doesn't account for it's bonus damage taking some amount off max hps:
https://crawl.develz.org/mantis/view.php?id=8324

It's actually on par with freezing/frost/elec/disto depending on what kind of weapon it's being used with (Of course there's a rather large category of things which are immune, but they aren't too common when you're casting LI)

[crate]

Drain brand is good but if you think lethal infusion is worth keeping around then I would suggest you fix the spell's problems. It has all the "usual" charm problems, plus a few more, which were discussed in the other thread about these spells in this forum: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11297&p=157719&hilit=fire+brand#p157719

Corpse animating has lots of its own problems so that's not exactly a great "counterexample" (permanent allies in general are hugely problematic in crawl).

[Klown]

Outside of fire brand to kill hydras, never liked these personally!

[Siegurt]

Well, the 'usual' problems with charms, as I understand it, are:
1. They provide too diverse and too strong (in aggragate) of a bonus for too little investment, you can train just enough charms to get a fairly large number of spells barely castable, and they reamain effective throughout the game.
2. Having access to a large number of charms, and having them castable, results in optimal behavior being to cast all of the charms you have at your disposal before every combat, resulting in a great deal of overhead (casting all those spells and then resting to get back all the MP afterward)


1. Isn't really much of a problem for the brand spells (As I pointed out, they expire in usefulness before very long)
2. Isn't as large of a problem for low level branding spells as it is for other types of charms, casting a branding spell makes a combat shorter, rather than longer, reducing the total amount of time you spend button mashing and the amount that you have to rest afterwards.

I didn't see any drain-specific problems in that particular thread (I did a find for 'drain' and 'draining, either I missed it or it was in another thread), I did see another thread where someone mentioned that max-hps-reducing kiting as a problem with the drain brand, however since kiting is possible with any weapon, and kiting with a drain weapon is only marginally more effective than doing so with an unbranded one (and less effective than using a venom branded one) I don't see how that's really a complaint against this particular brand or spell.

I realize that corpse animation (And to some extent every spell that can be cast "out of combat") is perceived as a problem, but I personally think it would be a pretty damn boring game if all of those types of spells were removed. And honestly I don't find it any more annoying to cast some spells, then tab some stuff to death, then I do to use conjurations to blast a bunch of things to death, one doesn't take any more effort or time, or resting afterwards than the other for me.

[crate]

The problems with lethal infusion are exactly the problems with fire brand and freezing aura.

see viewtopic.php?p=157404#p157404 and viewtopic.php?p=157551#p157551 along with this argument that I hinted at but didn't fully explain: they encourage carrying around a weapon worse than what you find (!!) and doing a lot of weapon swapping (e.g. you would rather use a +3 scimitar of nothing instead of a +1 scimitar of flaming or slicing, despite the +3 scimitar being a worse weapon ... but you still want to carry both weapons. This is less of a problem without brand spells since you're unlikely to have multiple weapons with the same basetype and different brands (and you wouldn't carry a +3 scimitar over a +2 scimitar of slicing anywhere).

Personally I also think a spell becoming useless by changing from "powerful effect" (+25% damage, or something thereabouts with draining) to "literally does nothing at all" at an arbitrary breakpoint (finding a branded weapon) (or really just a spell doing that at all) is somewhere from "weird" to "awful", but that's more subjective. Things like magic dart or even infusion still do something even well after they're not worth using.

[HilariousDeathArtist]

Removing these spells is the wrong way to "fix" problems with them.

they encourage carrying around a weapon worse than what you find (!!) and doing a lot of weapon swapping

Yes, this can be slighty tedious at times, but having two different branded weapons encourages weapon swapping too. I happily would carry two of the same weapons with different brands to be able to choose which is best in each fight.

Perhaps having the brand spells override the current brands (temporarily or even permanently) would be a solution to this problem, then you only need one of each type of non-artefact weapon. If they are too easy to cast, make them higher level spells.

Edit:Does any background start with War Chants book now? That book seemed odd with only low level spells.

Personally I also think a spell becoming useless by changing from "powerful effect" (+25% damage, or something thereabouts with draining) to "literally does nothing at all" at an arbitrary breakpoint (finding a branded weapon)

My KoAM used both Fire Brand and Freezing Aura over 200 times with his unbranded quickblade, surely these spells are not always useless once you find a branded weapon.

I understand if perhaps these spells should not be in a spellcaster's starting book, but I feel removing them entirely is a mistake.

The brand weapon spells allowed you to make optimal decisions, but it was not always the same brainless decision, i.e. cast Freezing Aura before every fight. You had to decide if that would be a good decision against the foo of cold or if another spell (or other brand spell) would be a better idea.

[Tiktacy]

How about instead being brand weapons, they just deal extra damage each hit based on spell power, and it remains until you deal a certain(spellpower based) amount of damage.

To prevent them from being underused/overused, raising them a few levels and making them affect branded weapons might work. Maybe only effecting branded weapons if your spell power is high enough?

[johlstei]

It would still be yet another spell you want to cast before every fight, which is tedious, especially since you'll want to check monster resists first.

[Baldu3]

I'd like brand spells a lot more if instead they applied a buff to the caster, and would then override whatever brand is on the wielded weapon.

[BrewFall]

Why not have them last for an unlimited duration until you switch weapons? Or if you want to be weird have the necromancy brand also curse your weapon when you cast it.

[johlstei]

Why not have them last for an unlimited duration until you switch weapons? Or if you want to be weird have the necromancy brand also curse your weapon when you cast it.

Doing both of those actually seems like a reasonable fix to all the low level brand spells, but I don't think the game especially needs them so I don't lament the loss. (Really I'm just sad I can't guarantee myself a freezing weapon when I find brand weapon.)

[eeviac]

(Really I'm just sad I can't guarantee myself a freezing weapon when I find brand weapon.)

This bothers me, too. I want some degree of not-god-related control over my weapon brands.

[Sar]

Why not have them last for an unlimited duration until you switch weapons?

Because the design goal is supposedly to reduce the number of low-level spells that are useful for anybody the entire game (I don't see how that's compatible with rMsl, but what do I know).

I want some degree of not-god-related control over my weapon brands.

But randomness is fun! (I'm not actually being sarcastic here.)

[eeviac]

But randomness is fun! (I'm not actually being sarcastic here.)

AFAIK Branding still gives vorp by default, so in order to get flame/freeze brands on your vanilla claymore you have to find at least 2. Preferably a few more as backup just in case you roll venom.

[Sar]

Yeah, vorpal is default and it's not that bad now that it does more damage than elemental vs. resistant enemies. Elemental ones are probably still more desirable, but now you have no sure ways of getting them. OTOH, you might luck out into elec or vamp!

[eeviac]

Yeah I know vorp was buffed a bit. What I'm getting at is with the removal of these spells and Branding's current functionality, I think I'm going to end up using big vorp weapons more often than not (unless my god provides otherwise). It's only safe to reroll from vorp if you happen to have a scroll stockpile.

Vanilla vorp being safe leads to less randomness, not more.

One option would be to make it so branding is always random, though I'd die a little inside every time venom shows up.

[Sar]

I guess. I'm usually more willing to play with random branding.

[Quazifuji]

Why not have them last for an unlimited duration until you switch weapons?

Because the design goal is supposedly to reduce the number of low-level spells that are useful for anybody the entire game (I don't see how that's compatible with rMsl, but what do I know).

People keep mentioning this in threads lately, but why is this a goal? I don't see what's wrong with low level spells that maintain utility later in the game. In fact, I consider that a good thing. I like it when low level abilities in games scale in useful ways, and early spells don't just get progressively obsoleted as a character becomes more powerful. I like the fact that splashing a bit of charms, necromancy, translations, etc. can provide good benefits for non-trog worshippers who aren't spell-based.

In particular, I really don't see a problem with low-level spells that can stay useful but are spell-power dependent, because it reduces the issue of an incredibly high investment-to-power ratio.

[Lasty]

I would be pretty happy to see brand scrolls always apply a random brand. It would allow them to very rarely generate venom on a weapon during the period when it's useful instead of only as a booby prize.

[bcadren]

People keep mentioning this in threads lately, but why is this a goal? I don't see what's wrong with low level spells that maintain utility later in the game. In fact, I consider that a good thing. I like it when low level abilities in games scale in useful ways, and early spells don't just get progressively obsoleted as a character becomes more powerful. I like the fact that splashing a bit of charms, necromancy, translations, etc. can provide good benefits for non-trog worshippers who aren't spell-based.

In particular, I really don't see a problem with low-level spells that can stay useful but are spell-power dependent, because it reduces the issue of an incredibly high investment-to-power ratio.

Agreed. I think it's a better goal that it's not completely obvious that low-level spells are completely outclassed by higher level ones and though weaker have effects that you'd still want to keep in mid and late game. That level 5 bolt spell; is still stronger against a single target than that level 9 spell that does more total damage over a larger area. That level 3 spell doesn't do much damage, but it heals me and pierces the opponent's thick armour. (Vampiric Draining is better than b.Fire on Emperor Scorps because of the ignores Armor effect). Summon Butterflies is useful for distraction and escape at any level, etc. etc.

Specific to this topic though. I've never used branding spells, I don't see the point. You'll almost always find a better branded weapon semi-early in the game.

[Sar]

Vampiric Draining is better than b.Fire on Emperor Scorps because of the ignores Armor effect

What? Were you using extremely low-power BoF, like, barely castable with multiple wizardry sources? Because BoF will smoke emprah scorps with 2-3 casts, and I don't even have any idea how much VDrains will it take.

[and into]

People keep mentioning this in threads lately, but why is this a goal? I don't see what's wrong with low level spells that maintain utility later in the game.

The problem is how these spells are so broadly useful, and in a way that usually isn't very interesting at a tactical *or* a strategic level. These spells are useful for everybody and by the time you get a good ways beyond the early game (Lair orc etc.) they are easy to pick up, even on most dudes in heavy armor, except maybe the very rare cases where you are already in CPA or GDA at this early stage. Some of these spells are too broadly useful also in the sense that anyone who uses them, wants to use them a lot. In the worst case scenario, this leads to a lack of depth when it comes to spell strategy, repetitive casting of buffs (using regen after all fights in which you lost more than 10% or 15% of your health), and lots of characters that look and play similarly in the mid- and endgame.

(I'm fine with "post-endgame" characters looking very similar, I think that would be too hard to avoid. cf. Hyper grinding in RPGs, eventually every character looks almost the same when they've hit lvl 99/ gone all the way around the character grid / whatever. For DCSS the problem is when a lot of characters start looking and playing similarly in the course of a 3, 4, or 5-rune game.)

This problem is hard to address I think without making spellcasting less of the endless resource it currently is. Probably something like limiting the number of buffs you could have at once (adds strategic considerations—which sets of buffs do I want available, is it worth training for all these things if I can only use 2 at a time?), and also making MP more of a limiting factor. Those who really go for casting can train extra spell casting to negate those limiting factors, others have to make due only using spellcasting when it really is needed/matters. However making MP more of a limiting factor would be a rather radical change that would likely require an overhaul and rebalancing of a lot of stuff in the game to make it work, so I don't expect that to happen.

[DracheReborn]

People keep mentioning this in threads lately, but why is this a goal? I don't see what's wrong with low level spells that maintain utility later in the game.

For me anyway, current Charms feels like slotless items, rather than spells. Take RMsl for example - finding the spell is now almost like finding amulet of air, except the spell is much more common and you don't lose an item slot for its use. (Granted you lose a couple of spell slots, but that's much less valuable than an item slot).

So if low level Charms feel like items, why not make them items? Then you'd at least have a different way of making their use meaningful (because you'd use up a slot for it).

In particular, I really don't see a problem with low-level spells that can stay useful but are spell-power dependent, because it reduces the issue of an incredibly high investment-to-power ratio.

I think this may be ok in some cases, but low level spells that are useless at low spell power seems to be bad design in a different way, and if they were only useful at high spell power then they might as well be high level spells, right? A low level spell that is still useful at low spell power will inevitably feel like an item, as described above.

[Siegurt]

As I said the one that particularly cheeses me off is Lethal infusion, it's *very* useful in the 2nd level spell slot for a necromancer, and like most well designed 2nd level spells it eventually becomes not useful any more.

When Freezing/Flaming brand spells were available to a starting character, they were vaguely useful, as you could upgrade your base weapon type in the early game and ignore brands (in fact it was fairly nice to be able to use whatever brand spell was most appropriate for the things you were fighting up through the lair, once you got into orc, it was pretty much just a nuisance, but by that point you'd likely found a decent weapon with a brand)

The point I'm making is removing brand spells doesn't "decrease the number of low level spells that are useful throughout the game" because they *aren't* useful throughout the game, except as a one-off way to control what sort of brand you get out of brand scrolls (which doesn't seem like a terribly interesting use in any case, but it's hardly a reason to remove them, since it is something that maybe happens once every 10 games if you're really pushing for it) It's not like they continue to be useful throughout every combat late into the game.

The argument I've heard is that they're "boring" or "uninteresting" (Which is highly subjective IMHO) In terms of actual gameplay they far from increase the tedium of bashing through opponents, they actually reduce the amount of bashing you need to do. So if your measurement of how tedious a spell is, is how many keypresses it costs, they're actually a net reduction in 'tediousness'.

The other argument I've heard is that "It's a problem that they're optimal to use in every combat" (I assume this means "until they're obsolete") I'm not sure how that's an argument, it's optimal to hit a creature with your best weapon in every combat, it's optimal to wear your best armour in every combat, it's optimal for a conjurer to use their best conjuration in every non-trivial combat (Note that I'd argue it's suboptimal to cast a branding spell in a combat wherein you wouldn't take any damage whether or not you cast it in the same way)

I'm just at a loss for the actual rationale for their removal other than "Someone didn't like them much" I do agree that flame/frost/poison branding weren't terribly useful for a non-early character to find typically though. I actually think I'd have put them in the respective starting elemental books (as a way to encourage elementalists to use their weapons for good play) and just eliminated the book of war (Which was a starting spellbook with no class to start with it anyway)

[Siegurt]

The problem is how these spells are so broadly useful, and in a way that usually isn't very interesting at a tactical *or* a strategic level. These spells are useful for everybody and by the time you get a good ways beyond the early game (Lair orc etc.) they are easy to pick up, even on most dudes in heavy armor, except maybe the very rare cases where you are already in CPA or GDA at this early stage. Some of these spells are too broadly useful also in the sense that anyone who uses them, wants to use them a lot. In the worst case scenario, this leads to a lack of depth when it comes to spell strategy, repetitive casting of buffs (using regen after all fights in which you lost more than 10% or 15% of your health), and lots of characters that look and play similarly in the mid- and endgame.

The thing is these spells *aren't* broadly useful. They're useful until you find a decent branded weapon, and then not at all. By the time you get beyond orc, you'll have a decently branded weapon in nearly all cases (I'd say I don't leave orc with a branded weapon of some sort about one time in 50)

Someone who has magic dart, or iskedrun's battlesphere uses that a lot, why is that not a problem but these spells are?

[crate]

it's *very* useful in the 2nd level spell slot for a necromancer

if you have ideas for a replacement, I know wheals was asking around

[johlstei]

Fire and ice brand were useful all game if one enchanted up an unbranded weapon and cast the appropriate buff based on what one was fighting. That sounds pretty close to optimal + tedious to me.

[and into]

The argument I've heard is that they're "boring" or "uninteresting" (Which is highly subjective IMHO) In terms of actual gameplay they far from increase the tedium of bashing through opponents, they actually reduce the amount of bashing you need to do. So if your measurement of how tedious a spell is, is how many keypresses it costs, they're actually a net reduction in 'tediousness'.

Carrying around extra weapons to brand was bad.

But beyond that: There is always going to be some combat situations in DCSS that are kind of boring. This is why we have TAB. In my opinion, non-threatening combat is not necessarily boring. You just hold TAB for three seconds and press "o" and it is like telling the game, "Hey that battle was lame, re-roll another encounter." It is only bad if that non-threatening combat happens a lot over a short period of time.

However, it is also bad if *any* instance of non-threatening combat demands my attention in annoying ways (this is why I very rarely play characters that use ranged combat as their primary offense). This is also why things like corpse sacrificing and the like is obnoxious: In meaningful encounters when you need to retreat or something and come back multiple times, you don't care about leaving the corpses to rot. In non-threatening encounters it is just a patience tax (op, op, op, op).

With respect to these brand spells, the cost for activating them is extremely low and the benefit non-negligible. So even in relatively trivial fights you are technically gimping yourself if you don't cast them. So I sometimes feel spells like these ones *make* you pay more attention to things like, "Okay I should cast this spell; okay I need to check to make sure it doesn't go out in the middle of combat; if I switch weapons it goes out and I need to recast."

Now for Warp Weapon this is ok because using distortion itself is an interesting decision with lots of tactical repercussions, it isn't just a damage boost. For excruciating wounds that's not so much the case but it does make a lot of noise on cast and it requires non-trivial investment, both to cast spell and to make the damage work well. For freezing aura and flame brand it was bad. For lethal infusion it was bad, however I agree with you that the spell had some redeeming qualities as a spell that appeared in a starting book. From a design perspective, having something appear in a starting book completely changes how one thinks about it.

[and into]

it's *very* useful in the 2nd level spell slot for a necromancer

if you have ideas for a replacement, I know wheals was asking around

Would Corpse Rot be too OP? With that spell you might sometimes have a different decision tree than "Am I hungry? No? SKELETON TIME." And corpse rot gives a strictly tactical advantage to corpses. I'm just worried it might be too strong.

[duvessa]

I doubt it would be any stronger than lethal infusion.

"Am I hungry? No? SKELETON TIME."

i dont recommend eating skeletons in the first place

[godzilla]

it's *very* useful in the 2nd level spell slot for a necromancer

if you have ideas for a replacement, I know wheals was asking around

Sublimate, maybe.

Maybe nerfing Vampiric Draining and lowering it to level 2 would work.

[duvessa]

then you would need something to replace vampiric draining

[godzilla]

then you would need something to replace vampiric draining

isn't regeneration already there?

[Siegurt]

it's *very* useful in the 2nd level spell slot for a necromancer

if you have ideas for a replacement, I know wheals was asking around

As a level 2 necromancer spell, this allows a necromancer to use spellcasting skills to be more effective in hand-to-hand combat, anything that looks like "use spellcasting skills to become more effective at hand to hand combat" looks *exactly like* a charm spell and has the same net result, so it's sort of silly to replace a spell with a different one that has a similar effect, nevertheless here's a couple shots at it:

Rotting aura:
Level 2 (Charms/Necromancy)
When cast the necromancer starts to exude rot an decay, any living creature attacking the caster has a chance to take some rot damage. This spell is resisted by the health of the attacker, and very healthy creatures are unlikely to be effected at all.

  Code:

Damage is based on your necromancy skill, 1d(2+(Necromancy/4)) Chance of creature being effected is (d(Necromancy) > Mon HD) this happens on every attack, whether a hit or miss. Duration based on spellpower.


Soul link
Level 2 (Hexes/Necromancy)
Each Living creature in the LOS of the caster which fails to resist, has it's soul linked together, any physical hit on one linked creature deals lesser soul damage to each other linked creature. Increased spellpower decreases the likelihood of creatures resisting, increases the duration of the link, and the proportion of the damage transferred.

Death rattle
Level 2 (Hexes/Necromancy)
Target living creature who fails to resist, gains a fear of undead, it will be unable to move closer to any undead target and will have to make a HD roll to succeed in attacking an undead target

Death Gaze
Level 2 (Conjuration/Necromancy)
Unholy light shoots from the conjurer's eyes, damaging any living creatures in his path who fail a resistance roll, this may leave the caster temporarily blind.

[and into]

Vampiric Draining is already pretty well balanced as a lvl 3 spell, and it is a centerpiece of the necromancer's starting book, so messing with that would be bad. I'd like corpse rot just because it is kind of weird that this level two spell appears rather late usually, when a necromancy-focused dude will usually already have better ways to use even weak corpses (twisted resurrection). So I think corpse rot would see more use and it is a fun spell.

Sublimation of blood is a pretty bad addition because what spells in the book of necromancy demand tons of MP? Necromancer is not a very MP-intensive start, and doesn't become one unless and until you start spamming simulacrum/haunt/bolt of draining which won't happen until later in the game when you've found other books, anyway.

[Sar]

I don't think TR eliminates the need for Corpse Rot - miasma-on-demand is an extremely powerful effect, though it might require some setting up if you aren't following Kiku.

[and into]

I don't think TR eliminates the need for Corpse Rot - miasma-on-demand is an extremely powerful effect, though it might require some setting up if you aren't following Kiku.

True, it doesn't eliminate the usefulness of CR, I just thought it would be fun to have it available early, if the devfolk are looking for a different spell to slot in to the book of necromancy. Or maybe they'll come up with a completely new spell.

@ Siegurt: Rotting aura could work. The others seem like they would be pretty specialized and potentially awkward in their use, though maybe I'm just not getting how you are imagining these effects would work.

[Siegurt]

How I'm imagining they'd work:
Soul link: A fire once, try to effect everything in LOS hex (Like mass confusion) it works on what it works on, those things get a "linked" status, everything that's "Linked" does some percentage damage to everything else that's "Linked" when hit. (Probably starting at 10% and at max spellpower getting up to around 40%) Each thing in LOS resists as a straight up enchantment resistance, it's level 2 so spellpower would probably cap at 50 (Meaning it'd be useless against high MR creatures)

Death rattle: targeted single creature hex, resistable with MR, that creature would then gain the listed effects (it would gain the 'rattled' status), this would in effect let you use your skeletons to force positioning on your enemies and make them better blockers, again low spellpower means nearly useless against high-MR targets.

Death gaze: This is just a low level beam spell, with a chance of short-term blinding you, that doesn't do damage to undead (allowing you to fire through your skeletons.

[Tenaya]

(Really I'm just sad I can't guarantee myself a freezing weapon when I find brand weapon.)

This bothers me, too. I want some degree of not-god-related control over my weapon brands.

I am a big fan of reducing tedium, but I do not see how this change accomplishes that. Now instead of two options for how to deal specific elemental damage (i.e. carry around multiple weapons, and memorize branding spells) I will be required to carry multiple weapons that might be less than ideal. I'll need to swap out my polearm for Erica's scimitar for my hydra fights, and I do not know if I have ever found in my years of playing a non-randart bardiche of freezing.

[Tenaya]

Fire and ice brand were useful all game if one enchanted up an unbranded weapon and cast the appropriate buff based on what one was fighting. That sounds pretty close to optimal + tedious to me.

Maybe, but less tedious than carrying a scimitar of flame, a trident of venom, a halberd of freezing, and a glaive of chopping. Ergonomically, it was easier for me to just cast the spell on my single enchanted bardiche.

[johlstei]

I know weight limits might go away, but that's a decent argument for increasing the weight of high-end weapons if nothing else. I guess you could similarly increase the level of the brand spells instead - they'd be less of a problem if they were level 6 for sure. Carrying all those weapons does cost inventory slots which you cause you to forego other things. On a primarily melee character with an okay spellcasting aptitude, I think an inventory slot is a higher cost than 2 spell levels, but maybe I'm misguided in that.

[damiac]

This seems like the result of a couple people loudly agreeing with each other. I also disagree about the optimal status of using a non-branded weapon all game and using brands on it when necessary, and, even if that is optimal, what's the problem? Like Siegurt said, is zaf-tabtabtab worse than tabtabtabtabtab?

Is the plan to make hybridizing a character worthless? I don't understand why low level spells shouldn't be useful all game. So it's either shoot for lvl 6 spells by zot or don't bother with spells at all?

[and into]

So it's either shoot for lvl 6 spells by zot or don't bother with spells at all?

Those aren't the only two options. And neither path in that false dichotomy represents how it was before the low level brand spells were removed, nor how it is now.

[duvessa]

Low-level spells being useless in zot sounds very good to me. Do you object to throw flame and call imp being useless in zot? What about 0 skill melee attacks, should those be useful in zot?

[XuaXua]

If I am to understand correctly, what kind of sucks about the removal of this and the requirement of 2 brand scrolls to get a chance for fire / frost is not only does the sword get re-branded from vanilla vorpalization, you actually lose the vorpalization advantage against monsters which are proof against the brand (frost-branded weapo vs. rC++ monsters). At worst, the weapon should be treated as Vorpal-branded (or half-Vorpal-branded) in that case.

[Lasty]

FWIW, I think Soul Link could be a pretty cool spell. It probably wouldn't do all that much in the starting Necro book, but it would be a reasonable effect to have in the game.

[Tenaya]

If I am to understand correctly, what kind of sucks about the removal of this and the requirement of 2 brand scrolls to get a chance for fire / frost is not only does the sword get re-branded from vanilla vorpalization, you actually lose the vorpalization advantage against monsters which are proof against the brand (frost-branded weapo vs. rC++ monsters). At worst, the weapon should be treated as Vorpal-branded (or half-Vorpal-branded) in that case.

I think it would be foolish to waste a Branding scroll on a vorpalized weapon unless you had a backup weapon and scroll. What if you turned your acceptable vorpal weapon into venom just in time for the endgame?

So it's either shoot for lvl 6 spells by zot or don't bother with spells at all?

Those aren't the only two options. And neither path in that false dichotomy represents how it was before the low level brand spells were removed, nor how it is now.

I believe that, without resorting to hyperbole, there is a valid case to be made for the strategic loss of early and midgame hybridization. With the loss of the weapon branding spells, there is a lack of support style spellcasting. It seems like the loss of an entire build style. We also lose the transition from early charm spells (i.e. branding) to the more powerful ones (e.g. haste).

With respect to these brand spells, the cost for activating them is extremely low and the benefit non-negligible. So even in relatively trivial fights you are technically gimping yourself if you don't cast them. So I sometimes feel spells like these ones *make* you pay more attention to things like, "Okay I should cast this spell; okay I need to check to make sure it doesn't go out in the middle of combat; if I switch weapons it goes out and I need to recast."

I do not see how this argument could not also be made for casting magic darts or throwing rocks ahead of trivial fights. The cost of a few magic darts or rocks is extremely low and non-negligible for trivial fights.

I understand the reason for the change; I just don't understand the calculus of its removal consideration. For the benefit of a loss of minor tedium, we lose control of our endgame weapon (or maybe this is considered a benefit), we gain inventory tedium, lose an early/mid game character build, and lose some opportunity with respect to some species having some strategic melee options.

[and into]

With respect to these brand spells, the cost for activating them is extremely low and the benefit non-negligible. So even in relatively trivial fights you are technically gimping yourself if you don't cast them. So I sometimes feel spells like these ones *make* you pay more attention to things like, "Okay I should cast this spell; okay I need to check to make sure it doesn't go out in the middle of combat; if I switch weapons it goes out and I need to recast."

I do not see how this argument could not also be made for casting magic darts or throwing rocks ahead of trivial fights. The cost of a few magic darts or rocks is extremely low and non-negligible for trivial fights.

The cost is trivial, but so is the benefit. Casting magic dart or throwing rocks can be used to draw selected enemy's attention, and that's a great use for them even late game. But casting multiple magic darts against an approaching enemy in late game is basically just wasting turns, ditto with throwing rocks. The freezing/flaming/draining brand spells were level 2 buff spells that required trivial strategic and tactical cost (like throwing rocks), but also provide a large boost that scales up with the power of your weapon, making them more relevant late game than early game, despite the low cost and low level. That's very different from magic dart, obviously.

I understand the reason for the change; I just don't understand the calculus of its removal consideration. For the benefit of a loss of minor tedium, we lose control of our endgame weapon (or maybe this is considered a benefit), we gain inventory tedium, lose an early/mid game character build, and lose some opportunity with respect to some species having some strategic melee options.

Yes, I think it is a benefit if your endgame weapon choice is actually a decision, rather than, "Oh hey I found this level 2 spell, I can just use the best ego-less non-artefact weapon." Yes, weapon choice isn't the most exciting thing, even with the removal of these spells. But undoubtedly the existence of these spells made characters more similar and made weapon choice less significant: If you found this spell you can just make any weapon effectively that freezing <foo> you've been waiting for, and the cost to your patience was the only meaningful cost.

As for "strategic melee options"... An option that has a completely trivial cost (very low cost to get a level two charms spell online) presents no interesting choice, and is thus not a benefit to have in the game.