Spell levels

[greedo]

Currently hybrids have way too easy of a time getting spell levels to cast spells. Most of the time if I'm not learning spells above level 6, I learn a bunch of spells for the heck of it because I've got 30+ spell levels and nothing to do with them. So I propose instead of using

2×Spellcasting + Experience level-1
we should use just
3×Spellcasting

Resulting in only a single extra level at infinite experience, but a dramatically different playstyle outside of extended. Since crawl loves to use unnecessarily complicated formulas, we could probably preserve the pacing better with:

min (3xSpellcasting + 2, 80)

But even primary spellcasters have a glut of spell levels somewhat, so I don't think this is even necessary. This looks like a dramatic change for low int players, but even a modest 8 in spellcasting gives 24 levels, which is probably more than they should get, but is more sane than 26 + 16 = 42



Mana should work the same way for the same reasons (although this can considerably change the balance of the game, so take these numbers with a grain of salt). Instead of

XL + Permanent MP + (XL*Species modifier + 1)/3 +
max(Spellcasting*XL*3/14 + Spellcasting, Invocations*XL/6.5 + Invocations/3, Evocations*XL/6)

It should really just be:

Permanent MP + max(Spellcasting*2 + Spellcasting*XL/13 + 2, Invocations*2, Evocations*1.5)*Species modifier

The stepdown function stops anything crazy from going on, that's what it's for. Again, if you really MUST have more MP as a tab-spammer, the skill levels are there to train any time you want. As an added bonus, you could fairly accurately know how much mp you have without whipping out a pen or calculator! Imagine that.

Edit: heh, hard to get the spellcasting mp formula right and be simple, sorry for all the edits

[Siegurt]

Currently hybrids have way too easy of a time getting spell levels to cast spells. Most of the time if I'm not learning spells above level 6, I learn a bunch of spells for the heck of it because I've got 30+ spell levels and nothing to do with them.

The rest of your logic flows from this premise, however it's not a given. Please explicitly explain why you think this is bad (for the game, not for the player) and what you hope to accomplish with your proposed changes.

[Sandman25]

The question is not for me, but I have just taken a look at last won games and here is what I see.

  Code:


Spells: 8 memorised, 6 levels left

 - Level 18.3 Shields
 - Level 10.9 Charms
 - Level 17.6 Translocations
 O Level 27 Invocations

0 spellcasting.

[greedo]

Currently hybrids have way too easy of a time getting spell levels to cast spells. Most of the time if I'm not learning spells above level 6, I learn a bunch of spells for the heck of it because I've got 30+ spell levels and nothing to do with them.

The rest of your logic flows from this premise, however it's not a given. Please explicitly explain why you think this is bad (for the game, not for the player) and what you hope to accomplish with your proposed changes.

Mostly to better distinguish the races, partly to increase diversification, partly because of the odd belief that skills should have some meaning It's sort of like if weapon speed was not linked weapon skill but XL, and someone proposed it should be linked to weapon skill instead. Well, it's because it makes sense is why.

[Siegurt]

The question is not for me, but I have just taken a look at last won games and here is what I see.

  Code:


Spells: 8 memorised, 6 levels left

 - Level 18.3 Shields
 - Level 10.9 Charms
 - Level 17.6 Translocations
 O Level 27 Invocations

0 spellcasting.

What's your point? I realize you can memorize spells without training spellcasting, my question is "Why is that bad"

[Siegurt]

Currently hybrids have way too easy of a time getting spell levels to cast spells. Most of the time if I'm not learning spells above level 6, I learn a bunch of spells for the heck of it because I've got 30+ spell levels and nothing to do with them.

The rest of your logic flows from this premise, however it's not a given. Please explicitly explain why you think this is bad (for the game, not for the player) and what you hope to accomplish with your proposed changes.

Mostly to better distinguish the races, partly to increase diversification, partly because of the odd belief that skills should have some meaning .

How does "spell levels depend strictly on trained skills, and not on level at all" increase distinctiveness between races and/or diversification? And also do you presuppose that training spellcasting has no meaning at all beyond spell levels?

[Sandman25]

What's your point? I realize you can memorize spells without training spellcasting, my question is "Why is that bad"

It kinds of removes the whole point of spellcasting. If the skill is not needed to cast level 6-7 spell, why does it exist? OP wrote that it is too easy to become a hybrid for melee character and I agree.

[Berder]

It should be easier and more advantageous to be a hybrid to prevent Trog from taking over everything! Hybrids at least have a greater variety of things they can do in a given situation than Troglodytes do.

[greedo]

Trog balance should be it's own thread(... and I 100% agree). Trog is one god out of 20 something, this is a global change.

[Siegurt]

What's your point? I realize you can memorize spells without training spellcasting, my question is "Why is that bad"

It kinds of removes the whole point of spellcasting. If the skill is not needed to cast level 6-7 spell, why does it exist? OP wrote that it is too easy to become a hybrid for melee character and I agree.

Again, that presumes that spellcasting's only use is to provide spell levels, which is incorrect. It's not *needed* to cast a level 6-7 spell, but it makes it a damn sight easier and require less XP.

That's a bit like saying "Fighting shouldn't exist, because weapon skills already make attacking with weapons better, so we should limit the size of weapon you can use based on your fighting skill" That presupposes that the only reason to train fighting is to make attacking with weapons better, the premise in my example is flawed so the conclusion is too.

I'm not *certain* the premise is flawed in this case, only that I've seen no evidence that it's true that "the whole point of spellcasting is to get spell levels" nor am I convinced that "you shouldn't be able to memorize spells without training spellcasting" is actually true. And it's certainly not true that it's more efficient to get level 6-7 spells online without training any spellcasting (even if we're talking about a single-school spell, and only about success and power, at 1/4 efficiency there's some amount of spellcasting that it's optimal to train XP wise) Possible yes, optimal no.

[greedo]

What's your point? I realize you can memorize spells without training spellcasting, my question is "Why is that bad"

It kinds of removes the whole point of spellcasting. If the skill is not needed to cast level 6-7 spell, why does it exist? OP wrote that it is too easy to become a hybrid for melee character and I agree.

Again, that presumes that spellcasting's only use is to provide spell levels, which is incorrect. It's not *needed* to cast a level 6-7 spell, but it makes it a damn sight easier and require less XP.

That's a bit like saying "Fighting shouldn't exist, because weapon skills already make attacking with weapons better, so we should limit the size of weapon you can use based on your fighting skill" That presupposes that the only reason to train fighting is to make attacking with weapons better, the premise in my example is flawed so the conclusion is too.

I'm not *certain* the premise is flawed in this case, only that I've seen no evidence that it's true that "the whole point of spellcasting is to get spell levels" nor am I convinced that "you shouldn't be able to memorize spells without training spellcasting" is actually true. And it's certainly not true that it's more efficient to get level 6-7 spells online without training any spellcasting (even if we're talking about a single-school spell, and only about success and power, at 1/4 efficiency there's some amount of spellcasting that it's optimal to train XP wise) Possible yes, optimal no.

I think you're overdramatizing the effects of this change. You can get haste with 2 spellcasting, which is, I'm estimating, 1/1000 the experience required to go from 25 axes to 26 axes.

I'm just saying it's absolutely rediculous that very poor aptitude spellcasters can have a very wide array of spellcasting ability.

[Siegurt]

I think you're overdramatizing the effects of this change. You can get haste with 2 spellcasting, which is, I'm estimating, 1/1000 the experience required to go from 25 axes to 26 axes.

I'm just saying it's absolutely rediculous that very poor aptitude spellcasters can have a very wide array of spellcasting ability.

I haven't talked about the effects of the change at all, I neither am opposed to nor am I in favor of your proposed solution, because you haven't presented a case that yet satisfies me that there is a problem that needs solved.

*why* is it ridiculous that poor aptitude spellcasters can have a wide array of spellcasting abilities? What makes the game worse that this is the case? I'm not saying it is or is not factually a problem, only that I don't see one, and you haven't presented an argument that makes me think otherwise.

The only thing I've seen so far is what appears to me to be "I don't like it because it doesn't fit with my preconceived notion of how things should be" I'm asking you to evaluate your motivations critically and present a well thought out and convincing argument.

[greedo]

Well I just want to make sure we're dicussing the same thing. This isn't about access to high level spells, it's access to multiple very high level spells. Kind of a big difference. As for the rest, I think we've both made our points and it's just up to opinion now.

[Sprucery]

Like Siegurt, I can't really see the problem here.

Who would cast Haste and only train Spellcasting to 2? Or cast multiple very high level spells without training Spellcasting at all?

Edit: maybe it seems wrong to some people that you can memorize and cast spells without training a skill called Spellcasting at all? You can use weapons without training the corresponding skill...

[Siegurt]

Well I just want to make sure we're dicussing the same thing. This isn't about access to high level spells, it's access to multiple very high level spells. Kind of a big difference. As for the rest, I think we've both made our points and it's just up to opinion now.

No, my point was that you hadn't stated the basis for your premise well enough for me to have an opinion on yet, and I was requesting you clarify what it was so I could form an opinion of it and possibly discuss it, once I knew what it was.

I can't form an opinion on your proposed solution until you describe why the thing you see as a problem, is in fact a problem.

You claimed that your reasons for wanting this are to increase diversity and racial differentiation, but have failed to describe how it would do so.
I don't claim that your proposal doesn't accomplish these things, only that I don't see how it does (it isn't obvious on the face of it), and that you haven't described it yet.

I am reserving my opinion of the proposal itself until I have an understanding of what I am forming an opinion of.

For example in the quoted post you said "This isn't about access to high level spells, it's access to multiple very high level spells. Kind of a big difference." And I am not certain how this relates to the op, are you supposing that people get midlife high level spells online and castable without training any spellcasting? I mean it is possible to do so technically, but already suboptimal, it certainly isn't something that I am concerned that people are somehow 'abusing'

However that is pure speculation on my part, I am not acutally sure that is what you meant at all. At this point, I am just trying to ascertain what you think is broken and why you think it is a problem.

[greedo]

Like Siegurt, I can't really see the problem here.

Who would cast Haste and only train Spellcasting to 2? Or cast multiple very high level spells without training Spellcasting at all?

Edit: maybe it seems wrong to some people that you can memorize and cast spells without training a skill called Spellcasting at all? You can use weapons without training the corresponding skill...

Exactly my point about haste, this has no effect at all on people casting one or two high level spells, and essentially no effect on people casting spells lower than level 6. As for seeming wrong, not really, that's not what this is about. I'd also think giving everyone 3 free spells levels and using Spellcasting*2.9 would also be cool, but it makes basically no difference and unnecessarily complicates it.

[Siegurt]

This has no effect at all on people casting one or two high level spells, and essentially no effect on people casting spells lower than level 6. As for seeming wrong, not really, that's not what this is about.

But what *is* it all about? Telling us what it isn't about and leaving us to speculate what it is really about doesn't really work.

[greedo]

I've said it about 3 times already, and I'm not interested in 6 page essay wars on a forum.

[Sandman25]

Also as a side effect new players will not do the mistake of ignoring spellcasting while training Haste and CBlink. Isn't it enough?

[Berder]

The problem is it would reduce spell levels overall for everybody, including dedicated mages. If you're an xl20 mage you're unlikely to have 19.5 levels of spellcasting, which you'd need to have parity under this system, and when you first hit xl27 you aren't going to have 26.5 levels of spellcasting. Mages are the ones who would be impacted most because they're the ones who most often run into a shortage of spell levels currently.

In other words if you want to reduce spell levels for non-mages your system should include some balance so that mages get more spell levels. For example, make it spellcasting*4 spell levels, or spellcasting*5.

[greedo]

That is true, like I said in the OP we could do some alternative formula, and set a max at whatever the current max is (80 right?). Was just trying to keep it simpler. However, I'm of the opinion the there's plenty of spell levels to do whatever you want for someone with ~16 spellcasting. Perhaps it's unfair for conjurers though, since they typically need multiple high level spells to deal with resistance

[Berder]

However, I'm of the opinion the there's plenty of spell levels to do whatever you want for someone with ~16 spellcasting.

Not true, even under the current system I often train spellcasting higher than that in order to get spell levels.

[greedo]

However, I'm of the opinion the there's plenty of spell levels to do whatever you want for someone with ~16 spellcasting.

Not true, even under the current system I often train spellcasting higher than that in order to get spell levels.

Er.. okay not "whatever" you want, just probably more than one should have, in my opinion. This would mean 48 spell levels which sounds like plenty for panic buttons, offense, and defense. Either way, I would not be super opposed to spellcasting*3.5, just a weird number is all.

[Sandman25]

Is it bad if casters would start looking more distinct from each other? It isn't like melee characters have weapons with every possible brand.

[Berder]

Is it bad if casters would start looking more distinct from each other? It isn't like melee characters have weapons with every possible brand.

That's because one melee weapon of any brand and a decent base type is all you need to kill everything. Whereas magic is generally resisted by things so you need many types.

It's not like mages converge to the same spell set, anyway. There's far more variation from mage to mage than there is from melee user to melee user. Some mages are necromancers, some get freezing cloud, some summon things, some hex things, some blast with elemental magic. The only real convergence is that they need a source of unbranded damage.

The real problem is that anything that nerfs mages pushes everybody into melee even more - and by comparison, melee characters have very little real variation between each other, so that's a loss for the depth of the game.

[Siegurt]

I've said it about 3 times already, and I'm not interested in 6 page essay wars on a forum.

No, you haven't. I just re-read the thread so far to make sure I hadn't missed something, i'm not looking for a 6 page dissertation, just a single sentence which answer the question "Why is it a bad thing that people who don't train much spellcasting have a large number of spell levels?"
That's it, no biggie, no judgement, just a simple answer to "Why do you think would the game be improved by making this change?"

In the OP you state that people do have lots of spell levels without training spellcasting, then propose a way to fix that. I'm asking "Why do you think that's a problem that needs to be fixed"

You do later say "To increase racial distinctiveness /increase diversity" however it's unclear to me how reducing the number of spell levels for people who don't train much spellcasting would accomplish this, there doesn't seem to me to be a direct correlation between "people who choose not to train spellcasting but still have a bunch of high level spells at the end of the game" and race, nor does lack of spell levels strike me as a obviously distinguishing feature of a particular build. If that's what you meant by "3 times" then I guess I'm asking you to clarify that statement.

In the same post you say "Well, it's because it makes sense is why." which may be all there is to it, however "Because it makes more sense to you" isn't really a game design reason to do something, that's why I specifically asked "how do you think would the game be improved by this change" not "why would you like this change to be made"

If that's you're only reason for wanting this, then that's fine, however it's unclear that that's the case.

[mps]

Going the wrong direction. Magic sucks down too much xp as it stands. If anything, removing spellcasting and adjusting fail rate formulas, etc. to compensate is the way forward.

[Lasty]

greedo: the mp formula has been changed in trunk to be a (mostly) linear scale with no cap. It still includes both skill and XL.