Idea: allow staff as starting equipment

[danr]

I think it should be possible to start with a staff without being a priest. This could be an option for monks, for regular casters, or perhaps for reavers.

[szanth]

Eh... I could be wrong, but generally the game seems kind of leaned -against- staves. They aren't really the strongest or second-strongest weapon class (unless you luck out and find a lajatang, and even then) and pretty much seem relegated to magic-users that wanna hit things with the something that's buffing their spells.

[danr]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The trident is the best starting weapon.

Yes, the staff has +6 to hit, but remember that is on top of a base to hit of about 18 that most characters (all get a base of 15 and then there are a few more for dex and starting skills), so that +6 is not that much better than the +3 or +4 that other weapons get.

According to my spreadsheet, AD/T vs Sigmund for most fighter weapon choices is in the range of 1.8 to 2.1. A quarterstaff does 2.3, which is a little better, but consider these other starting weapons:

- An MDFi with a dwarven mace or hand axe does 2.3
- An MDCK with a +2 dwarven mace or hand does 2.9
- A MiGl with a trident does 3.1
- An MfCK with a +2 trident does 3.6

So there are a number of starting weapons in the game that do as much or more damage than a vanilla staff would do.

If starting with Makhleb and a +2 weapon is permissible, starting with a staff and no god should certainly be.

For monks, it would make for an interesting game actually - you start out intending to be a hybrid, but you will start with the melee game rather than the magic game. Once you find a spellbook or (less likely) an elemental staff, that starts to set your priorities.

For casters, it just seems better flavour wise, and would make it just a tiny bit easier to develop the melee game. Why should casters start with short blades? That just makes them dual-school in weapons if they want to get into staves, and casters should not be forced to dual-school their already limited melee game.

And even if staves are that good, and even if they were available to every background, I doubt many characters would go for them because they are very weak for much of the middle game. At the beginning they are only marginally better than some starting weapons, and in the middle, unless you find an early lajatang or luck out with an elemental staff, they are very weak for anyone focused on melee. It would just make training fighting slightly easier for casters.

[szanth]

Training fighting being easier for casters? Sounds like a plus to me.

[danr]

Only a bit easier, and in a flavour-appropriate way.

[Curio]

For monks, it would make for an interesting game actually - you start out intending to be a hybrid, but you will start with the melee game rather than the magic game. Once you find a spellbook or (less likely) an elemental staff, that starts to set your priorities.

For casters, it just seems better flavour wise, and would make it just a tiny bit easier to develop the melee game. Why should casters start with short blades? That just makes them dual-school in weapons if they want to get into staves, and casters should not be forced to dual-school their already limited melee game.

This.
A week ago I caught myself on a thought that there is no class starting with staves except Priests. And monks and spellcasters fit the bill perfectly.
Actually, monks can pull off all-game melee with a staff if lucky/determined enough.

[coyo7e]

I don't really get why staves are such a shitty weapon choice overall barring the few enchancer staves which have been nerfed a bunch of times. Staves have always been the "peasant weapon", one which requires little resources or skill to make and use, yet it provides good offensive and defensive capabilities against non-armored opponents, yet almost every race has a negative aptitude in staves - often for very little discernible reason..

Why don't (non-enchancer, since they seem to still be a balance issue) staves, say, give a small bonus to EV or AC as skill goes up? Nothing drastic but it would be more "realistic" and balance out the whole shield + staff thing to a small extent.. Or just make branded staves and (non-enhancer) staves in general a slightly more likely to drop? I have played many a game where I'll have found a half-dozen or (probably many) more enhancer staves but maybe two quarterstaves by my first rune..

[danr]

Another consideration - the early game is littered with short blades and it's almost guaranteed to find a dagger of venom or a short sword of speed. With staves, you're not likely to find anything special for a long time.

I think if given the choice, many casters would still choose short blades.

I agree about the negative aptitudes - it's almost as though the game doesn't actually want anyone to use staves. I have never ever used one as my main melee school.

[Curio]

I agree about the negative aptitudes - it's almost as though the game doesn't actually want anyone to use staves. I have never ever used one as my main melee school.

Me either. I see three solutions to this:
1) Merge with pole-arms.
2) Improve aptitudes for races, add more ego-staves drops, increase drop-chance of a staves in general, add staves as starting weapon variant.
3) Do nothing. Keep being useless skill.

Personally, I think 1st choice is optimal one, because right now, staves are pretty redundant. And that's quite slim weapon school anyway with 3 weapon-types one of which you might never see through whole game.

[jpeg]

I agree about the negative aptitudes - it's almost as though the game doesn't actually want anyone to use staves. I have never ever used one as my main melee school.

Me either. I see three solutions to this:
1) Merge with pole-arms.
2) Improve aptitudes for races, add more ego-staves drops, increase drop-chance of a staves in general, add staves as starting weapon variant.
3) Do nothing. Keep being useless skill.

Erm, correct me if I'm wrong but don't wizarding staves fall into this group as well?

[danr]

Interesting idea - to merge with polearms! Because polearms are also quite weak as a class.

It might be tricky code-wise though because currently staves are treated differently from all other weapons in the source code. They are not actually classified as "OBJ_WEAPON".

However, for skill-training purposes, I don't see why this wouldn't work. That could be due to ignorance though.

[Kate]

I think there was some ancient plan to have double-handed weapons (that is, quarterstaves and lajatangs (and dire flails apparently, huh)) actually give you two attacks but it was never implemented.

[Curio]

Erm, correct me if I'm wrong but don't wizarding staves fall into this group as well?

Yes they are. That makes three - quarterstaff, magic stave and lajatang.

Interesting idea - to merge with polearms! Because polearms are also quite weak as a class.

Why so? Seems fine to me.

...nearly guaranteed to actually find a lajatang...

Huh? RNG treats us differently then - cos i found executioner axes way much more times than lajatang. And skilling up one skill in hope of finding exactly one type of weapon is quite naive.

In perspective of flavor, even wiki agrees that quarterstaff is a polearm. And why should not it be?

In perspective of concept, it eludes me, why such underpowered/underappreciated weapon have it's own Skill-school.
Let's have Whips skill then - it has two weapon types. It's nor mace nor flail. Not even related.
Or split out Blowgun from throwing (doesn't have anything to do with throwing actually) with 1 weapon available.

[galehar]

Huh? RNG treats us differently then - cos i found executioner axes way much more times than lajatang.

They have the same chance of being generated.

[coyo7e]

Interesting idea - to merge with polearms! Because polearms are also quite weak as a class.

It might be tricky code-wise though because currently staves are treated differently from all other weapons in the source code. They are not actually classified as "OBJ_WEAPON".

I found this out the hard way, the last time I actually TRIED to use a staff-wielder.. I found a Qstave of Protection on like D1 or D2 with a Wizard, and was like "oh, rad! I can be a wizard with a staff for once!"

One accidental tap on my Sticks to Snakes macro later.. WTF?

[danr]

Are there maybe more fixed-art lajatangs?

Also - does the chance of a rare weapon being generated increase later in the game?

[galehar]

Are there maybe more fixed-art lajatangs?

There isn't any (nor executioner's axe).

Also - does the chance of a rare weapon being generated increase later in the game?

Yes, chance depends on the dungeon level (see makeitem.cc:899 item_level = dungeon level for normal floor loot).

[dpeg]

If starting with Makhleb and a +2 weapon is permissible, starting with a staff and no god should certainly be.

If I get my say, we remove Makhleb as a starting god.

[danr]

dpeg - back on topic, what would you say to allowing staves as a starting weapon choice for one or more classes?

As I show above, the quarterstaff is not the strongest starting weapon, the trident is.

And of course, a lot more goes into choosing a starting weapon than just how good the individual weapon is - a player choosing a quarterstaff is pretty much writing off shield use and will probably wait a _long_ time before finding a better weapon in their school, because the early game for some reason is littered with branded short blades but not with staves, and because the lajatang is very rare and it will take a long time before an elemental staff does a lot of extra damage. Then of course there is also skill aptitude - most species have pretty poor aptitude for staves.

This would also be fitting now that the falchion has been added as starting choice. Why should there be only one weapon school that one cannot start with? I don't know what the arguments against putting the falchion in were (I'm guessing that long blades would be "unbalanced" and that it was "interesting" to have to start with short blades and cross-train), but if those were finally overcome, then those against quarterstaves could also be.

It would be very easy to try it for a bit - make it an option in trunk, and if suddenly EVERYONE is choosing staves, and casters are suddenly winning way more games, then it can easily be taken out again.

My guess though is that it would not be a seismic shift.

I just think it makes sense that most plausible, basic melee styles should be open to the starting player, just as it is possible to start in any magic school.

EDIT: It just occurs to me - I wonder if part of the reason is that quarterstaves are "double" handed, and there was a plan at one point to make "double" weapons attack twice as fast? That would certainly be overpowered as a starting weapon but it's not happening I don't think.

[danr]

Okay, for non-casters then - monks, fighters etc.

For casters, what if there was a smaller version of the quarterstaff, a staff that was 5' instead of 8' or whatever a quarterstaff is? It would be 1.5 handed and do damage of 4 or 5.

It could be a "rod", "baton", "staff" or something like that.

[szanth]

danr, a quarterstaff with no Fighting or Staves skill is enough to clear D:1 with. This isn't that bad for non-casters, but for casting backgrounds I think it is completely unacceptable; fighters need to be better at fighting than casters, because they're worse at nearly everything else.

You won't see much of an increase in games won by casters because casters already have an easy D:1, save for poor species choice.

I guess I see your point, but if casters are pretty much a gimme for surviving D1 regardless (aside from the aforementioned poor species choice) then why does it matter how they do it? Soon as they come across an iguana on D2 or Sigmund or even a snake that poisoned them, they'll go right back to spellcasting, or they'll try and will find that they should've spend the beginning of the game training their spells instead of quarterstaves, and now they've got a weakened spell game and a weak melee game, whereas the fighter will just have a strong melee game throughout. This equals them being better fighters very quickly, even though, in theory, spellcasters might be able to clear D1 with the staff. I don't see the problem here.

[szanth]

Okay, for non-casters then - monks, fighters etc.

For casters, what if there was a smaller version of the quarterstaff, a staff that was 5' instead of 8' or whatever a quarterstaff is? It would be 1.5 handed and do damage of 4 or 5.

It could be a "rod", "baton", "staff" or something like that.

Well not 'rod', that's already its own thing. But baton might work. Or you could have a 1-handed staff weapon and call it tonfa.

[danr]

I was thinking since rods can already be used in melee (I think they do 5 damage?), the plain rod would be to a rod of destruction what the quarterstaff is to the staff of earth or whatever.

It would just have to use staves skill instead of M&F skill.

[szanth]

The rest of my post went on to describe how they're -not- as good as a fighter beyond D1. And even -in- D1, they aren't as good, it's just that the challenge is lesser than what is required of both builds. The fighter is still the better fighter.

[Stormlock]

What about a 'Cane' as a one handed weak staff weapon for mages? I like the mental image of an old spellcaster out of mana bashing rodents with his cane.

[ryak]

What about a 'Cane' as a one handed weak staff weapon for mages? I like the mental image of an old spellcaster out of mana bashing rodents with his cane.

Thats a fantastic idea. Staves have the fewest variants that drop out of any school, i believe, and there's also a lot of room for flavor there.

[danr]

There is a point.

Flavour:
Why do casters who start with a weapon get a short blade? Wizards use staves and wands. Yes, Gandalf had a sword in a few scenes of LOTR, I know.

Gameplay:
Clubs do not train staves. As a caster it is pretty arduous to train up melee skills anyway, and the game virtually guarantees that if anything, casters will train short blades because they either start with a dagger or because the early dungeon is littered with short blades for some reason. So you are almost forced to train a few levels of short blades, and given how careful casters have to be to train melee skills, there's a big disincentive to starting over with staves.

I believe firmly that the game should not make it difficult to go with the most flavour-appropriate play style for your background.

Heck, even if casters just started with some skill in staves but no actual staff that would help.

A lot of players do not use staves very often, or at all.

Finally, why should staves, out of all the weapon AND magic schools, be the only school that one cannot start with? Because stick technology is beyond the knowledge of all backgrounds? I do get that a conjurer with a staff might be overpowered, I just think it should be made easier to get into staves without a detour into short blades.

There should at the very least be a choice between an "unarmed monk" and a "quarterstaff monk". That would be a class that would be very natural to go hybrid later, but there is not the issue of having staff + spellcasting to make D:1 trivial.

So: what about at least letting monks have access to the highly obscure stick technology?

[szanth]

@minmay

I completely disagree; the first few floors don't matter at all. Floors 1-4 are throwaways as far as I'm concerned. The game is a whole lot bigger than that, and it doesn't really get interesting until you get beyond it. Staves aren't superpowers. A mage against a viable threat would be pretty stupid to think that a few magic darts (considering by that point magic dart isn't fully powered yet) plus a good whack with a staff would be all that's needed to take out an ogre or iguana or even a scorpion. Especially that early on, mages really shouldn't very comfortable when the enemy is able to hit them for two turns in a row, and holding a long stick to beat the enemy with while they get poisoned or mauled by any number of enemies they shouldn't get physical with doesn't change that.

That said, I don't especially care if mages start with staves. I still disagree that a mage finding a staff on D1 evolves them into some kind of superpowered and untouchable reaver, but generally I just want staves to have a more prescient role in Crawl. If it's a huge no-no to have that be in the form of mages using them, okay, fine. Though having more varied types of staff is a good thing in my mind, and to think any less powerful staff is automatically a club is a little silly, I think. There's a lot of variables to play with and create an interesting and viable staff weapon for any class background, so let's not dismiss the idea so quickly.

[Curio]

There is a point.
Finally, why should staves, out of all the weapon AND magic schools, be the only school that one cannot start with? Because stick technology is beyond the knowledge of all backgrounds?

There should at the very least be a choice between an "unarmed monk" and a "quarterstaff monk". That would be a class that would be very natural to go hybrid later, but there is not the issue of having staff + spellcasting to make D:1 trivial.

So: what about at least letting monks have access to the highly obscure stick technology?

Do want.
Also
Looky here

[danr]

Yes, thank you, your post was part of what got me going on this, but it's also the frustration of trying to get into staves.

I think it's worthwhile putting the picture in here showing the monk / staff flavour:


In terms of doable baby-steps, I think I'll confine my suggestion to the monk class. Monks could use it because otherwise they are pretty pointless next to transmuters.

[szanth]

Sadly, I agree with danr. Not that agreeing with danr is sad, but that monks are obsolete compared to their magic-supported counterparts. Not to say that you can't win with a monk, because someone will surely come along and suggest that I'm saying exactly that, but it's just that a transmuter is the exact same thing... except better.

[szanth]

I completely disagree; the first few floors don't matter at all. Floors 1-4 are throwaways as far as I'm concerned.

If you think the first few floors of the game don't matter at all, why do you want to change them by adding staves?

Because part of the reason those floors are throwaways is that if you die, you're early enough in the game where it's pretty easy to just start over again and stare the RNG directly in the face. It doesn't take very long to get through them, and you don't have to start thinking outside the "little monster, big monster" box that seeing a bunch of similarly-powered popcorn (kobolds and goblins, small snakes and such) and grouping them together mentally (being safe to do so), as well as the few real threats you face occasionally (sigmund, snakes, ogres, scorpions, etc - anything that can kill you within two hits or poison you), will do.

So you might as well make the process as enjoyable as possible.

[zasvid]

I completely disagree; the first few floors don't matter at all. Floors 1-4 are throwaways as far as I'm concerned.

If you think the first few floors of the game don't matter at all, why do you want to change them by adding staves?

So you might as well make the process as enjoyable as possible.

Plus, you're not guaranteed to find a staff there (though it is likely, as someone put a secret room full of quarterstaves as a frequent feature of D:1) and it would be nice to get started on them for when the game starts to matter.

[danr]

It just helps you get through the relatively boring early game more often so that you can spend more time playing in the more interesting middle game.

Anyhow, I hope a dev picks up on this monk idea.

[szanth]

So you might as well make the process as enjoyable as possible.

What makes you think this will make the process more enjoyable for the average player? Does starting casters with staves add any tactical or strategic decisions? As far as I can tell, it just makes the game easier for them.

Who's the average player? I'm not sure there is an 'average'. Personally, though, I think it will be fun for casters or various other classes if they can start with the weapon type they want for the same reason they allow some classes to choose from a list which weapon they want.

[TwilightPhoenix]

I was about to make this topic myself. Yes, I know it's been up for a few hours, but it wasn't here when I was last on.

Anyway, I've love to see staves as a starting option. Sometimes, I just want to make a new character and just beat things with a solid piece of oak without worrying about finding one or dealing with a god I might not want. I would suggest adding them for Fighter (heavy-armored staff user), Monk (light armored and thematic), Revear, and Crusader (hybrid-casters kicking butt with a staff sounds about right).

Also, staves would use a little more variety. Escrima sticks, bo staves, tree branches, batons, canes, poles, chinese gun staves (no they don't shoot), and walking sticks all come to mind.

[Cybermg]

What about a 'Cane' as a one handed weak staff weapon for mages? I like the mental image of an old spellcaster out of mana bashing rodents with his cane.

This, plus adding lots of staff specific egos to the school would make staves a whole lot more interesting and appealing as a weapon class. Starting with a cane (which itself would be very weak) would make transitioning into the school easier, and I could see the midgame consist of finding quarterstaves with appropriate egos, with the eventual hope of finding a lajatang or switching to an elemental staff.

I think it'd be great to have (the double-handed staves at least) increase EV/SH as skill increases, to further increase the utility of these weapons and offset the fact that you can't practically wear a shield. Staves would be a distinct choice over single-hander + shields because the defensive boost provided would be less than a shield, and the same skill would boost both shield ability and effectiveness with the weapon. If you wanted to distinguish this new staff functionality even more, you could have it only block against melee attacks (since it doesn't really make sense to block arrows or crossbow bolts with a staff), although I'm not sure how you'd show this stat in the interface. Maybe it'd just be understood that your staves skill directly represents this new stat (adding something to the qstaff/lajatang description to explain this).

[galehar]

It just helps you get through the relatively boring early game more often so that you can spend more time playing in the more interesting middle game.

It's funny because someone made a thread about the middle game being too long and boring. So I guess we all enjoy different things. Personally, I enjoy the early game. If you play it mindlessly just because it is easy to start over, of course you'll find it difficult and uninteresting. But if you're committed to your character from turn 1, and do everything you can to survive, it's a completely different experience.

[dpeg]

dpeg - back on topic, what would you say to allowing staves as a starting weapon choice for one or more classes?

As was explained by minmay, staves are not an option for casters. (History snippet: casters used to start with short swords, but we removed them for all magical backgrounds but the stabbing-affiliated ones. Starting equipment is about getting you through the first few levels. Casters should make do with their spell and book.)
In general, I am an opponent to options during the starting screens. The process of firing a new game and actually entering the dungeon should be as fast as possible. Too many prompts are needless distractions (to me).
However, I can see staves becoming an option for monks and gladiators. I believe that staves should be left of from fighters.

In general: if you think some idea is worthwhile, take it to the wiki. Content kept to the forum will settle dust and be forgotten in a few weeks.

[danr]

I do appreciate the point about starting options. With monks however there are currently no options at all, and even with this they would be one of the less complicated startups - just a single choice between two options.

In this case it is definitely worth adding the option because staves are the only skill that one can't start in (unless you want to commit to a priesthood, and I'm starting to agree that more starting gods should go). Every other skill has classes that are specialized in it, even evocations.

You could even make the case (and this would boost simplicity of options) that monks should just get staves by default, either in place of or in addition to unarmed combat. The first option could be justified by the fact that transmuters are (blade)hands down the way to go for unarmed combat, the second option by the fact that monks are a fairly weak class and having both combat skills would not overpower them - in fact, don't some other melee classes start with some unarmed combat in addition to a weapon school? Yes, at least gladiators do.

If gladiators could choose staves, then when they do they should not be given a buckler, but I don't think staves really fit with gladiators flavourwise.

Another thought: I know wanderers are supposed to have all random stuff, but staves could be made standard issue for them - after all, the one thing you DO need for wandering is a big walking stick.

But, you are right, it's probably time to take this idea to the dev wiki.