remove stone usage from sandblast...

[yesno]

just get rid of the 'sandblast' version of the spell altogether, and make it always function as when cast with a wielded stone. maybe rename it rocky blast or something.

reasons:
+stones are so plentiful that their use imposes no real limit on the power of the spell anyway. there is effectively no reason to ever cast the spell without a stone, and after casting it constantly until stone arrow becomes useable the player will still probably have 100+ stones in inventory
+the mechanic is awkward and unintuitive, and wielding and unwielding stones is tedious, and rarely makes a tactical difference in early dungeon when the EE probably doesn't have a good melee weapon anyway (i.e. if you can't kill your target with a few rocky blasts then you probably should have just run away).
+the spell becomes useless very early even for a starter spell, once the player has any weapon with boosts, resistances, etc, they will not want to switch from it, and once pack is full it is not worth carrying rocks around just for this spell. if it could be empowered without stones, it would retain occasional utility for finishing off low hp enemies at short range for a bit longer
+this would make it a tiny bit stronger but not really out of line with any other first level starter spells

[Siegurt]

This has been posted several times in the past, you might want to see what other people had to say on the topic

just get rid of the 'sandblast' version of the spell altogether, and make it always function as when cast with a wielded stone. maybe rename it rocky blast or something.

reasons:
+stones are so plentiful that their use imposes no real limit on the power of the spell anyway. there is effectively no reason to ever cast the spell without a stone, and after casting it constantly until stone arrow becomes useable the player will still probably have 100+ stones in inventory

This is actually not true in nearly all games, if you use sandblast on every enemy, and use stones for every enemy, you will run out. If you either melee some in the first few levels, or only use stones on harder enemies, you'll have enough

+the mechanic is awkward and unintuitive, and wielding and unwielding stones is tedious, and rarely makes a tactical difference in early dungeon when the EE probably doesn't have a good melee weapon anyway (i.e. if you can't kill your target with a few rocky blasts then you probably should have just run away).

The difference between a few rocky blasts and a few sand blasts is significant, and can easily make the difference in whether you run away or not. The interface is awkward and annoying though.

+the spell becomes useless very early even for a starter spell, once the player has any weapon with boosts, resistances, etc, they will not want to switch from it, and once pack is full it is not worth carrying rocks around just for this spell. if it could be empowered without stones, it would retain occasional utility for finishing off low hp enemies at short range for a bit longer

Rocky blasts are worthwhile (at least to save you MP) into the lair, assuming you haven't found a good melee weapon with sufficient skill to use it yet. Switching weapons is interface-wise annoying (although much less so if you use your 'a' and 'b' inventory slots and the single quote key to switch) but it's not "underpowered" (If it'd be worthwhile if you could empower your spell without stones, then it's worthwhile empowering them with stones, it's just an annoying interface)

+this would make it a tiny bit stronger but not really out of line with any other first level starter spells

50% stronger all the time with no cap is much stronger than the other first level starter spells.

The problem is that the interface is awkward and annoying, not that the spell doesn't work, or would work better without a limit, or that it would be just as balanced without the additional limitation.

[Turukano]

-> Pereza0: Make Sandblast less of a hassle

[yesno]

This is actually not true in nearly all games, if you use sandblast on every enemy, and use stones for every enemy, you will run out. If you either melee some in the first few levels, or only use stones on harder enemies, you'll have enough

i have to disagree... ee is my favorite background, i've played about 30 earth elementalists in the past few weeks. i'm not very good (i haven't won a game in a long time) but most of my characters at least get through lair... i don't use sandblast on every enemy, because i simply melee attack rats, bats, and newts, but i use the spell with stones on every single goblin, gnoll, kobold, hobgoblin, adder, gecko, etc, and i have never run out in a single game.

The difference between a few rocky blasts and a few sand blasts is significant, and can easily make the difference in whether you run away or not. The interface is awkward and annoying though.

i didn't mean the difference between sandblasts and rocky blasts, i meant the tactical value of swapping to a melee weapon: i.e., if you're out of MP and are still fighting a monster and want to switch to a weapon. you never cast sandblast unempowered at anything except a trivial threat that you could just as easily melee, so what's the point of it existing at all?

Rocky blasts are worthwhile (at least to save you MP) into the lair, assuming you haven't found a good melee weapon with sufficient skill to use it yet. Switching weapons is interface-wise annoying (although much less so if you use your 'a' and 'b' inventory slots and the single quote key to switch) but it's not "underpowered" (If it'd be worthwhile if you could empower your spell without stones, then it's worthwhile empowering them with stones, it's just an annoying interface)

well, i never said "underpowered" so why'd you put that word in quotes? :\ i don't think it's underpowered. it's a good spell, i like it, and it's powerful because stones are always available to cast it empowered. i think the interface is annoying and that the mechanic doesn't add anything to justify the annoyance. that's why i made this thread. the reason it would be more worthwhile if it could be empowered without stones is because it would be a quick and easy way to finish off low hp enemies, much like flame tongue. it's not that this is so powerful and would give the spell a power boost, which it doesn't need... it's just that it's a hassle to use as it is, and not worth the trouble, which is why i usually ?amnesia it by early lair. the interaction of this mechanic with a/b ' swapping is only an additional annoyance because usually by this point in the game one has two weapons that they would rather have occupy those slots

50% stronger all the time with no cap is much stronger than the other first level starter spells.

i guess the importance of this point depends on whether you accept my contention above that sufficient stones are available to always cast this spell empowered anyway.

The problem is that the interface is awkward and annoying, not that the spell doesn't work, or would work better without a limit, or that it would be just as balanced without the additional limitation.

feels like we agree and you're willfully misinterpreting me? sorry if this is a sore subject, i just play EE's a lot and feel the way this works adds extra hassle to the early game. obviously i like playing EE's anyway so if it's a big deal and won't change, that's fine. thanks for your response.

-> Pereza0: Make Sandblast less of a hassle

i see. maybe i should have posted my proposal in that thread.

[Berder]

A couple games ago my DgEE killed a goblin right at the start and grabbed his weapon (not glowing)... which turned out to be a -2 cursed dagger. As I as unable to wield stones and my weapon was junk, I died to jackals shortly thereafter. So the fact that you must wield stones is sometimes tactically relevant.

[Sandman25]

A couple games ago my DgEE killed a goblin right at the start and grabbed his weapon (not glowing)... which turned out to be a -2 cursed dagger. As I as unable to wield stones and my weapon was junk, I died to jackals shortly thereafter. So the fact that you must wield stones is sometimes tactically relevant.

Also Ashenzari. I am playing FoEE and first altar happened to be Ash. I am feeling underpowered currently with 300+ stones in inventory (I cursed quarterstaff).

[yesno]

what about the conditions that affect like the other 99% of EE games though

[yesno]

A couple games ago my DgEE killed a goblin right at the start and grabbed his weapon (not glowing)... which turned out to be a -2 cursed dagger. As I as unable to wield stones and my weapon was junk, I died to jackals shortly thereafter. So the fact that you must wield stones is sometimes tactically relevant.

Also Ashenzari. I am playing FoEE and first altar happened to be Ash. I am feeling underpowered currently with 300+ stones in inventory (I cursed quarterstaff).

why didn't you just curse something else??

[Sandman25]

why didn't you just curse something else??

How do you think?

[yesno]

why didn't you just curse something else??

How do you think?

i don't know, i never worship ash, i thought you get to choose what to curse though. either way i don't really think a mechanic that is just an annoying interface gimmick 99% of the time becomes interesting if it can also screw your game over in a few fringe cases.

[Sandman25]

i don't know, i never worship ash, i thought you get to choose what to curse though. either way i don't really think a mechanic that is just an annoying interface gimmick 99% of the time becomes interesting if it can also screw your game over in a few fringe cases.

Well, I am not sure it is a good idea to suggest changes for some mechanic if you don't have experience with a god which is affected by that mechanic.
Cursing a weapon is the easiest way to speed up getting Ash piety. Even if I have something else (or even everything else) cursed, still cursing the weapon speeds it up, also getting +4 to weapon skill is really great.

  Code:

 + Level 10.9(15.1) Staves

[yesno]

lol you people are being ridiculous. i don't think it was a bad idea to suggest a commonsense change to a mechanic that is apparently so annoying that it has gotten a new thread like every month for the past few months, i think i'll just go back to enjoying the game and not engaging in this kind of nonsense though

[Sandman25]

Sorry, sounds fair indeed. I cannot say I enjoy switching from/to stones but it brings some interesting decision early game IMHO. My experience is different from yours, I've run out of stones many times.

Edit. Also I died several times while trying to preserve stones.

[Siegurt]

The difference between a few rocky blasts and a few sand blasts is significant, and can easily make the difference in whether you run away or not. The interface is awkward and annoying though.

i didn't mean the difference between sandblasts and rocky blasts, i meant the tactical value of swapping to a melee weapon: i.e., if you're out of MP and are still fighting a monster and want to switch to a weapon. you never cast sandblast unempowered at anything except a trivial threat that you could just as easily melee, so what's the point of it existing at all?

There's a number of situations in the early game where an unempowered sandblast does more damage (and does it more reliably) than a low-level crappy weapon, yet it's not worth expending a stone on, because you can kill it quite sufficiently without one, and you'd rather save your stones for a harder fight (I'm really talking about D1-D2 where you might not have anything better than a club, and you may or may not have found any stones beyond your starting set yet) I'd rather cast unempowered sandblasts on a un-weaponed goblin and save my stones for a hobgoblin or weapon-using critter.

Rocky blasts are worthwhile (at least to save you MP) into the lair, assuming you haven't found a good melee weapon with sufficient skill to use it yet. Switching weapons is interface-wise annoying (although much less so if you use your 'a' and 'b' inventory slots and the single quote key to switch) but it's not "underpowered" (If it'd be worthwhile if you could empower your spell without stones, then it's worthwhile empowering them with stones, it's just an annoying interface)

well, i never said "underpowered" so why'd you put that word in quotes? :\ i don't think it's underpowered. it's a good spell, i like it, and it's powerful because stones are always available to cast it empowered. i think the interface is annoying and that the mechanic doesn't add anything to justify the annoyance. that's why i made this thread. the reason it would be more worthwhile if it could be empowered without stones is because it would be a quick and easy way to finish off low hp enemies, much like flame tongue. it's not that this is so powerful and would give the spell a power boost, which it doesn't need... it's just that it's a hassle to use as it is, and not worth the trouble, which is why i usually ?amnesia it by early lair. the interaction of this mechanic with a/b ' swapping is only an additional annoyance because usually by this point in the game one has two weapons that they would rather have occupy those slots

Sorry, I assumed when you said "not worth it to switch weapons" I was assuming you were comparing power level of hitting things with a weapon vs casting a powered sandblast (Like it's not worth it because you'd do just as well hitting it with your weapon). I find, personally, that a rocky sandblast is worth doing (in terms of damage per in game time spent) well into the lair, which is what I was referring to. If you meant instead "It's not worth the tedium of switching weapons to do so" It seems that this is an *interface* problem rather than a *power* problem (since I find it's well worth doing on a power scale, tedium aside) Which we might agree on and I'm just misunderstanding how you're phrasing it.

50% stronger all the time with no cap is much stronger than the other first level starter spells.

i guess the importance of this point depends on whether you accept my contention above that sufficient stones are available to always cast this spell empowered anyway.

Obviously I don't, (If the spell was always cast as if it was empowered, then there'd be no drawback to casting it on every early creature, so you would, so it would obviously change the status quo significantly) Having to manage "this is a wimpy critter that's not worth wasting a stone on" (whether you then handle it by meleeing it or casting an unempowered sandblast is really a matter of taste at that point) is a significant part of playing an early EE well.

Obviously if you play even mildly conservatively, you'll reach a point where your stone supply outpaces your need for stones, and it's only important prior to reaching this point in your game.

The problem is that the interface is awkward and annoying, not that the spell doesn't work, or would work better without a limit, or that it would be just as balanced without the additional limitation.

feels like we agree and you're willfully misinterpreting me? sorry if this is a sore subject, i just play EE's a lot and feel the way this works adds extra hassle to the early game. obviously i like playing EE's anyway so if it's a big deal and won't change, that's fine. thanks for your response.

-> Pereza0: Make Sandblast less of a hassle

i see. maybe i should have posted my proposal in that thread.

The problem is that this would be a very large buff for EE's *for a very short period of the game where it's most important* (That is to say during the period of the game, before you've stumbled across either a halfway decent weapon or a large enough cache of stones)

In some games that period of time is like half of D1 and in some games it's up to D3-D4 nevertheless, that's the period of time in which reliable, significant additional damage is a big deal.

So the question is how to solve the interface annoyance without giving EE's a significant early game survival bonus.

[yesno]

Obviously I don't, (If the spell was always cast as if it was empowered, then there'd be no drawback to casting it on every early creature, so you would, so it would obviously change the status quo significantly) Having to manage "this is a wimpy critter that's not worth wasting a stone on" (whether you then handle it by meleeing it or casting an unempowered sandblast is really a matter of taste at that point) is a significant part of playing an early EE well.

Sorry, I assumed when you said "not worth it to switch weapons" I was assuming you were comparing power level of hitting things with a weapon vs casting a powered sandblast (Like it's not worth it because you'd do just as well hitting it with your weapon). I find, personally, that a rocky sandblast is worth doing (in terms of damage per in game time spent) well into the lair, which is what I was referring to. If you meant instead "It's not worth the tedium of switching weapons to do so" It seems that this is an *interface* problem rather than a *power* problem (since I find it's well worth doing on a power scale, tedium aside) Which we might agree on and I'm just misunderstanding how you're phrasing it.

i don't disagree that these tactical considerations exist, and i guess some people find them engaging, but i think they aren't interesting enough to justify the interface tedium that accompanies them, especially during the part of the game when the spell retains utility but becomes very cumbersome (which lasts much longer than early dungeon). most of these can be killed in melee with an early dagger or club. the formula is: tab rats/bats/roaches/etc, sandblast unarmed goblins/kobolds [i tend to use rocks on them anyway], rock blast adders/gnolls/everything else... and it ensures about 100% of the time that the EE has enough stones for anything that could possibly be a threat in the first couple of dungeon levels, after which point they will end up with more than they can use. maybe i have lost perspective after playing this background so much because surely there was a time when i had to learn this by trial and error, and possibly it was interesting then... but all the same i'm just not sure i think being able to overkill rats and roaches without worrying about stone supply would be a major change to the status quo. i think you're also just underestimating how reliably stones spawn in d1 and d2.

we agree that it's an interface and not a power issue. the power is fine (in fact i think it's really powerful, maybe too powerful, because it's hard to actually run out of stones unless you're wasting them on vermin). what i'm saying is that something that remains mechanically useful through lair shouldn't be hamstrung by interface and inventory issues that are only sort of relevant on d1 and 2. i usually end up forgetting the spell around lair, not because i think its effect is inadequate, but because i've dropped my stones to make room for something else in my inventory, and because by that time i usually have something (like a stabbing weapon or a launcher) that i'd like to set to 'a' or 'b' instead of stones. empowered sandblast is really strong, i don't even exclude adders at xl1 or 2 with an EE start... the power scaling could be altered so that there's just one version, of power between the two existing versions, and EE's would still be fine... i just want to be able to use the spell without collecting rocks.

[duvessa]

So the question is how to solve the interface annoyance without giving EE's a significant early game survival bonus.

You could reduce the damage of sandblast to compensate.

[Berder]

Really I think this issue is trivial and it's not really a hassle to switch to wielded stones. Already, with any character in the early game I am constantly switching between different weapons. I switch between melee weapon vs. bow/sling vs blowgun, and often there are different kinds of melee weapons I use in different circumstances. Wielded stones are just one more weapon to switch between and does not constitute any particular hassle.

If anything should be done, give starting earth elementalists two spells that are both level 1, stoneblast and sandblast. Stoneblast uses stones from your inventory, sandblast does not. That way you don't have to wield anything to get a different effect. Stoneblast could cost 0 spell levels if you already know sandblast, like how fireball and delayed fireball work.

But please do not nerf sandblast entirely. Keep magic strong or else EE would have to become YASMC (yet another stupid melee class). Sandblast is a powerful spell that is useful straight up to lair:8 for killing blink frogs and black mambas, and it should stay that way.

[yesno]

If anything should be done, give starting earth elementalists two spells that are both level 1, stoneblast and sandblast

that's even worse

But please do not nerf sandblast entirely

just adjust the power scaling so you can still use it thru midgame??

Keep magic strong or else EE would have to become YASMC (yet another stupid melee class).

stone arrow?? lrd???

[Sandman25]

If anything should be done, give starting earth elementalists two spells that are both level 1, stoneblast and sandblast

that's even worse

Why?

[Berder]

stone arrow?? lrd???

While those do exist, full power sandblast is much more effective than stone arrow against high-ev targets like blink frogs and black mambas, especially when you consider the MP efficiency. LRD has its own downsides, namely hunger, noise, and the need for a wall in the right place. Make no mistake: if sandblast is gimped, a magic-focused EE will have a much harder time in lair.

[yesno]

just adjust the power scaling so you can still use it thru midgame??

[yesno]

If anything should be done, give starting earth elementalists two spells that are both level 1, stoneblast and sandblast

that's even worse

Why?

why is it so important that the ee has two spells when they could be one spell

[Sandman25]

why is it so important that the ee has two spells when they could be one spell

I can ask the same - "why is it so important that the ee has one spell when they could preserve current balance and completely solve all interface problems"?

[yesno]

one spell is simpler, you shouldn't have to pick up and keep stones in your inventory just to use a basic attack spell, there's nothing very interesting about EE having a variable power spell anyway, and a single spell can scale up to its current strength without damaging early game balance, if that is a concern

[adozu]

couldn't it just work if you have stones quivered instead of wielded?

[yesno]

couldn't it just work if you have stones quivered instead of wielded?

that's still pretty fiddly, especially once the EE starts to use a launcher. if it's very important to maintain the stones mechanic in order to prevent the EE from using sandblast on every monster in d1 and 2, the way IEs use freeze or VMs sting, then i think berder's two spell suggestion would be a better compromise to improve the interface (no, i don't actually think it's worse than the current situation, but it's still awkward and clutters the spell list), or else make stones eVokable by characters who have memorized sandblast (awkward because you cast spells with z, not V)

[ion_frigate]

I see two solutions to the interface issue. One I know has been suggested before, the other may be new:

* Make rocky and sandy blasts two separate spells, which overlap in slots like Fireball/Delayed Fireball. The stones can either fire from inventory (slight balance change - I don't know how significant people consider the Ashenzari thing), or they rocky blast spell can just require you to wield stones to work at all.
* Make rocky blasts an ability, granted either by wielding stones or by having them in your inventory (as above) and having Sandblast memorized. I don't know how it is for tiles players but for console this isn't a horrible interface burden - you're just pressing a instead of z. This also has the advantage that it's not unprecedented - Delayed Fireball also uses an ability as a part of a spell.

If stones are still required to be wielded, there's little balance change (the second has the slight issue of spell hunger vs. ability hunger, but that should seriously be negligible). The interface is made easier in either case: even if you still have to wield stones, you no longer have to unwield them in order to attack popcorn (technically you gain like 5aut by not having to unwield the stones, but if the monster's trivial enough that you' want to kill it with a sandy blast, you don't care about that).

[Hurkyl]

one spell is simpler, you shouldn't have to pick up and keep stones in your inventory just to use a basic attack spell, there's nothing very interesting about EE having a variable power spell anyway, and a single spell can scale up to its current strength without damaging early game balance, if that is a concern

Ah, by "that's even worse", it sounded like you meant that the thing Berder suggested was worse than the thing Berder was comparing it to -- but instead that you thought the thing Berder suggested was worse than your proposal in the OP.