Idea: allow staff as starting equipment

[szanth]

I'm fine with that, assuming the monk had a choice as to if they were going to be using fists or staves.

[danr]

That was my initial concept, that this would be a choice between staves and unarmed combat (both don't work well with a shield, and monks are the only magic-less, god-less melee class that don't have a shield). EDIT: I notice that troll fighters get the additional choice of UC as a starting weapon, so the ability to choose between UC and a weapon is not new.

Currently you can only start with a quarterstaff if you are willing to take a god with it. That is a much more game-defining choice than having it tied to a magic school, as UC is currently tied to transmutations. Those spellcasting levels have many uses and don't bar the character from anything, as a god does.

Quarterstaves are the only skill that one has to take a god with to start (other than invocations, but there it makes sense). Long blades used to be tied to TSO, that is no longer the case. Staves are hardly a better class than long blades, so I don't see why they should be restricted in a similar way.

And if one is going to make staves available, monks are the most natural background for it. It certainly makes more sense than creating a whole new class just for staves.

Frankly I'm a bit baffled by the negative response. It's not like this would break anything. At worst it's pointless, but in that case it would only be because staves are pointless, in which case they just shouldn't be in the game.

[szanth]

Except, I don't think anybody really cares about a stack of five +0 stones. This idea, however, actually has people that want it, because it'll be fun. And ultimately, that's the point, right? Playing the game because it's fun?

[danr]

And if one is going to make staves available, monks are the most natural background for it.

Why do you keep saying this? You insist that monks should have staves, and in preference to other backgrounds getting staves, but you have yet to give a reason for it that isn't "monks have staves, duh." Sort of like starting hunters with caps - it makes sense, sure, but does it really do anything for gameplay?

(Hint: a good reason to try for the preference over fighters would be "monks don't have shields.")

I have made that exact point in a few places. Thanks for making a constructive point though.

Why are you being so combative about an issue about which you claim not to care, and for which you can actually identify a good reason yourself?

Anyhow, I think this thread has run its course as we are no longer talking about this as a general option for many backgrounds, but just for monks, so let's try to keep it to that other thread. We can continue here if people want to talk about staves for fighters or casters or hybrids or whatever.

Come to think of it, chaos knights don't have shields either, they could maybe use staves.

[danr]

Sorry, I write a lot of words but sometimes my point gets lost in all of them. I am trying to give reasons, but my thinking is evolving. I'm not sure when the point about shields came to me.

So, to be clear:
I do not care whether Fi/Gl get the option of staves, but I don't think they would be popular unless the game reallocated shields skill to armour or dodging or something, and did not provide a shield in such cases.
I do care that monks should get them, because they fit thematically, equipment-wise (no shield), and because staves are a good class that should be available without having to take a god.
I do not care whether casters get staves. I don't think it would be bad but I sense it will never happen. Casters can get by with their magic until they find a staff.

Just on that last point - I see no reason that melee characters who want to use staves should have to get by with some other melee school until they can find a quarterstaff.

So, let's continue with the other backgrounds:
- for Fi/Gl, how would you see staves being handled? Would they still get a shield etc.?
- How about Chaos Knights? If MfCK can have a trident, a quarterstaff is not overpowered.

[danr]

I assume you would say the same for Crusaders?

OT:
Reavers - I hope they stay. I just started a Spriggan Fire Reaver and it's really really fun. Grinding up fighting is a very different experience than grinding up spellcasting, and I prefer reavers to conjurers for that reason.

[KoboldLord]

Warpers should lose their starting melee weapon entirely.

What.

How do you propose warpers survive until they do find their first weapon, then? They have no offensive abilities in their starting spellbook, and darts mulch. Forcing them to reload until a weapon generates in their starting room is bad design.

[danr]

I once cleared L1 effortlessly with a mummy wanderer. So I don't see why anything else is needed.

[Cybermg]

How do you propose warpers survive until they do find their first weapon, then? They have no offensive abilities in their starting spellbook, and darts mulch. Forcing them to reload until a weapon generates in their starting room is bad design.

They'll lose their weapon skill with their weapon, which means they get more XP for other skills. And we're talking about a background that starts with 20 +1 darts, 5 +0 darts of dispersal, a scroll of blinking, and capacity to cast Blink at XL2 - they're not exactly short on escape options.

I just started a wizard mode human warper, changed my 3 Long Blades to 3 Unarmed Combat, dropped my falchion on turn 1, and had at it. I beat D:1 effortlessly, without even using a weapon or darts.

However, I don't think they should get high unarmed combat skill either. So I started again, dropped my falchion on turn 1, didn't change any skills, and had at it. I further decided that I would only use D:1 trash items: unbranded clubs, unbranded daggers, unbranded knives, and starting equipment. First weapon I wielded was a cursed club. I cleared D:1 without incident, I only used two dispersal darts, and never used a single potion or scroll.

I gave this a try a few times (without unarmed skill), and I agree. I only ended up dying one time when a teleport trap in the starting vault put me right between like two hobgoblins, a goblin, and a kobold. Otherwise, it was very easy to fling darts at things (with dispersal always an option) and find a weapon. The 20 darts alone were also more than enough to clear D:1, even without using a weapon. If you wanted to make it easier (for some reason), you could also start them with 2 instead of 1 throwing skill.

[KoboldLord]

Tell you what. You two can get back to me on how successful you are clearing orc packs, ogres, and/or uniques on D3 after you waste your limited supply of consumable darts on routine D1 monsters, and have to bootstrap whatever weapon skill you settle on from scratch. If optimal play with 0-aptitude character can't get you reliably past the early game, there is a problem.

If guaranteed access to a particular utility spellbook is so good that you'd seriously consider taking a character that starts with no reusable offensive abilities to get it, then that spellbook should probably be expunged from the game entirely, because it's too good.

[szanth]

Keep in mind that, for some reason, he's only talking about completing D1 easily. Like it's usually supposed to be so challenging, you know? The other day I kicked a pebble pretty easily, my shoes must be overpowered. I should probably stick to just wearing socks to make it fair.

[danr]

Okay, this is a little off topic...

So - crusaders - yes for staves, reavers - no?

[Cybermg]

Tell you what. You two can get back to me on how successful you are clearing orc packs, ogres, and/or uniques on D3 after you waste your limited supply of consumable darts on routine D1 monsters, and have to bootstrap whatever weapon skill you settle on from scratch. If optimal play with 0-aptitude character can't get you reliably past the early game, there is a problem.

If guaranteed access to a particular utility spellbook is so good that you'd seriously consider taking a character that starts with no reusable offensive abilities to get it, then that spellbook should probably be expunged from the game entirely, because it's too good.

One or two skill difference in the small weapon you pick up on D:1 isn't that big of a deal, and mulching 10 +1 darts to survive doesn't matter because you're probably going to find another 40 more by the time you see anything threatening. Depending on what you find in the dungeon around D:2 or D:3, things can be a little tricky (though I managed to get a mummy to D:4 before quitting), but you can always tune the difficulty by making the darts +2 or adding some more throwing skill.

I'm not supporting this build because I think spatial translocations is so great, just that relying on darts early on and running around escaping from things is a pretty distinct and exciting way to play.

[Kate]

I'm not sure where this myth that every class starts with the same amount of XP distributed between their skills comes from.

Each class just has an arbitrary number of skill levels (based on Human aptitudes). For example, fighters get 3 fighting, 2 weapon skill, 3 armour (or 3 dodging if they're a restricted slot race with a robe), 2 shields. That's then adjusted for aptitudes.

[szanth]

... Then strongly consider quitting. You can clear D1 throwing trash you find with any background, any race.

[szanth]

If you die on D1, it's not because it was challenging, it's because there was a donk with a wand of blah that killed you in one hit, or you came across a group of gnolls and you're a naga and maybe slower than them, I don't know.

My point being, D1 is not a reasonable gauge as to the effectiveness of a build. That's like playing D&D and getting to level 2 and saying "Yeah I'm way overpowered, that was far too easy". It's just the first level, man.

[danr]

I'm starting to see an unhelpful trend in these forums. Someone will start a thread about a game design idea, and then often someone will chime in with a radical alternative.
E.g.:
OP: " What if Crusaders started with one more level in spellcasting, or more Int?"
Then eventually there are replies like this:
"- Let's get rid of reavers"
"Let's get rid of spellcasting skill"
"The early dungeon should be made harder if anything"
"Reavers should have a new god who does X Y Z"
"I wish Ogre reavers were easier"
"You sir are a poopoo head"

With discussion like this, the only certainty is that NONE of these ideas will ever happen.

So: if you have an alternate proposal, start a new thread for it.


I get the sense that the devs have their won vision for this game, as they should. This means though that large radical changes are not likely to happen on the basis of fan suggestions unless they are amazingly good and crystal clear and obvious and there is very strong collective interest from the fans

[GermanJoey]

This is an, uh, weird discussion, at least in how emotional its gotten.

It seem to me that adding more starting weapons is treating the symptom of the problem, rather than directly addressing the actual problem.Y'all are getting worked up because you consider the choice in starting weapon very important for a character's long term strategy, right? Well, to a certain extent, that's true, its optimal play in terms that it requires the least XP expenditure to have a competent melee attack. However, to me, sticking with your starting weapon-class in ignorance of all others shouldn't be ideal - a roguelike is supposed to be about using whatever you find in the dungeon to help you survive and fight your way to the bottom. Ignoring anything that's not a war axe or broad axe just because you started with a hand axe and a buckler means ignoring something like 95% of the other weapons generated in the dungeon.

There needs to be, IMHO, something to make weapon skills more like spell skills. You'd never see a spell-caster ignoring a book with Abjuration or Blink just because he started with a book of Conjurations!

[danr]

I think dpeg at least is not keen on adding staves to Fi/Gl because it would require special handling of shields. They have to do the work, so it's their call.

I'd be interested in seeing CK and perhaps Cr get them as well. Between those, monks and priests, staves would be available to a very broad cross section of backgrounds (starting with a god, with spells, and with nothing else - those are three basic and significant starting variations).

[GermanJoey]

It seem to me that adding more starting weapons is treating the symptom of the problem, rather than directly addressing the actual problem.Y'all are getting worked up because you consider the choice in starting weapon very important for a character's long term strategy, right? Well, to a certain extent, that's true, its optimal play in terms that it requires the least XP expenditure to have a competent melee attack. However, to me, sticking with your starting weapon-class in ignorance of all others shouldn't be ideal - a roguelike is supposed to be about using whatever you find in the dungeon to help you survive and fight your way to the bottom. Ignoring anything that's not a war axe or broad axe just because you started with a hand axe and a buckler means ignoring something like 95% of the other weapons generated in the dungeon.

It's never been optimal to do that. If you start with a mace, find a double sword on D:5, and don't switch, you're not playing optimally. The motivation for giving fighters staves is simply that they should have the option to start with any weapon school; it's the same reason 0.8 fighters can start with long blades whereas previously only paladins could.

Yes, but have you ever started with a mace and then switched when you found a War Axe on D:5? Or even a War Axe of Chopping? What about a quarterstaff of speed? What about switching to a +2 Broad Axe you found on Lair:1 when you're using a morningstar and have 8 levels invested in M&F by that point? Or a double-sword in Elf 1 when you have a vorpal spiked flail and 12 skill levels in M&F? It is really rare for a player to switch from their starting weapon-school outside of short blades -> long blades, finding a really amazing weapon really early, or finding some kind of WTF weapon later on, like a demon trident of speed off a hell knight. You never see players switching schools simply for a solid upgrade.