Deep Elven Monks

[Strongpoint]

I really like new staff wielding monks, but they are viable only for minotaurs and kenkus, other races have to bad aptitudes.

I propose to give deep elves +3 aptitude in staves and compensate it by lowering short blades to -1, long blades to -2 and axes to -3.

What will this change?
1) Many spellcasters use short blades... spriggans, kobolds, halflings... it's boring. Let's make it suboptimal for the best casters
2) Deep elves would become natural magical staff users, a slight buff, but I really doubt that powerful deep elf mages bash dangerous enemies with the staff now
3) We'll get melee combo, that likely hybridize to caster - DEMO. Even with +3 aptitude DEMO would be a hard start, but we'll get at least one viable non-caster deep elf
4) It may lead to a new monster, elven monk, more guaranteed quaterstaves is a good thing.

[mageykun]

...I would just like to say I am somewhat baffled by the absurd amount of love staves have been getting lately. Anyways.

Deep Elves aren't about mele. They're our glass cannon mages. +3 to staves is better than what they get for conjurations, summoning, and all the elemental schools! Besides, right now staves are already tied with short swords for the DE's best weapon attribute, meaning it is a viable choice. Granted, 0 isn't great by other races' standards, but it's fine for a race that's not about the bashing.

[szanth]

Bluh. I dunno about Deep Elves. DE's are, generally, too fragile to get up in someone's face and beat them with a stick. HE's, maybe, but I'd moreso consider Kenku a better option; I know they already have a "not crappy" aptitude for it, but it seems like it'd make more sense to me to get something more like +3.

[szanth]

...I would just like to say I am somewhat baffled by the absurd amount of love staves have been getting lately. Anyways.

Deep Elves aren't about mele. They're our glass cannon mages. +3 to staves is better than what they get for conjurations, summoning, and all the elemental schools! Besides, right now staves are already tied with short swords for the DE's best weapon attribute, meaning it is a viable choice. Granted, 0 isn't great by other races' standards, but it's fine for a race that's not about the bashing.

I think it's just the time where people all notice at the same time a lack of staff support in the game and see a potential for something more.

[KoboldLord]

I propose to give deep elves +3 aptitude in staves and compensate it by lowering short blades to -1, long blades to -2 and axes to -3.

Lopsided weapon aptitudes such as this and merfolk polearms should be removed. A weapon skill that has a dramatically better aptitude than the alternative straightjackets you into using that sort of weapon, removing a potential choice from reasonable player control. More importantly, a race's de facto melee power is determined in large part by their best weapon aptitude, since that is what nearly every player will use. Substantially lower aptitudes might as well not exist.

You definitely cannot balance a buff to deep elves' staves aptitude by nerfing weapon skills that they never used before anyway.

[szanth]

Granted, I agree with KL on the DE thing. Though lesser aptitudes might as well not exist? There's where we differ. Let's say you've -been- training with staves, making great use of your +3 aptitude, then you find an awesome weapon in a class that would crosstrain (maces or something, I forget what crosstrains into what); you get +4 to the aptitude of that type, and you're well on your way to making use of awesome weapon you found.

I assume that was the point of crosstraining to begin with.

[danr]

I'm starting to be less concerned bad aptitudes. As long as you have a few good ones in your build you're okay. My Spriggan reaver XL14 has 7 levels in fighting despite a negative aptitude and spending a lot of time blasting. He's doing very well despite relying on three weak aptitudes - fighting, conjurations and fire magic.

In fact it can be good to start with skills in your weak aptitudes as the other ones are easier to catch up. Also keep in mind that other racial perks can offset aptitudes - with spriggans, there's the slow metabolism and high speed.

That said, I do think there could be more races with improved staves aptitudes. Ogres, Vampires and High Elves come to mind.

[Curio]

That said, I do think there could be more races with improved staves aptitudes. Ogres, Vampires and High Elves come to mind.

Ogres? Har to imagine an Ogre with tiny stick - they are clumsy with dex-weapon.
Vampires? Meh. Flavor-wise seems weird to me but maybe will do.
High Elves perfect for this.

And also Merfolks. It eludes me, how they can be proficient with bladed sticks(+4), but loose all that proficiency if they have only pole(-2)??

[Kate]

I don't see that there's any particular need to have a race with a high staves apt just for the sake of it. Most races have a -1 or better apt with staves, which is perfectly fine if you find a good staff (which just means a lajatang of speed, really, but that's a separate issue).

[szanth]

It's not just for the sake of it, it's for the equal representation of weapons so the player has more choices. Would you be fine with knocking down axes to -1 for everyone except dwarves who'd get 0? No, cause that'd suck for axes and people who like axes.

[KoboldLord]

Aptitudes are meaningful only in relation to other aptitudes within the race, and compared to aptitudes of other races. If nobody has higher than a 0 aptitude with staves, then a 0 aptitude is good. If half the races had a +4 aptitude with staves, a lowly +2 aptitude would be bad aptitude. Similarly, the lowest minotaur weapon aptitude should be higher than the highest deep elf weapon aptitude, because these two races are as far apart on the spectrum as it is possible to get.

[szanth]

The power of a weapon class is partially determined by species' aptitudes for it. I'd be fine with giving everyone a poor Axes aptitude if axes themselves were buffed to compensate.

Similarly, if staves get a bunch of high aptitudes they'll need to be nerfed. And giving a species a weapon aptitude higher than their other weapon aptitudes means fewer choices, not more.

You're saying staves are so powerful that the low aptitudes are there to compensate their overpoweredness?

A quarterstaff or lajatang is pretty powerful in its own right, but so is... any other kind of weapon. So I don't see where you're coming from on this one. According to danr's spreadsheet, they're outclassed. Powerful, sure, but certainly not -the most- powerful, and not powerful enough to warrant nobody being especially effective with them.

[szanth]

Aptitudes are meaningful only in relation to other aptitudes within the race, and compared to aptitudes of other races. If nobody has higher than a 0 aptitude with staves, then a 0 aptitude is good. If half the races had a +4 aptitude with staves, a lowly +2 aptitude would be bad aptitude. Similarly, the lowest minotaur weapon aptitude should be higher than the highest deep elf weapon aptitude, because these two races are as far apart on the spectrum as it is possible to get.

I don't see how that's true at all. If you're looking at two weapons and your race has a +3 with one and a 0 with the other, you aren't gonna sit there looking at the 0 going "Yeah that's a good aptitude and I'm going to use this weapon".

Nobody, absolutely nobody is asking for "half the races" to have a +4. I don't think anyone even asked for +4. Just one or two races with a +3 would be nice. It would be fair.

[KoboldLord]

I don't see how that's true at all. If you're looking at two weapons and your race has a +3 with one and a 0 with the other, you aren't gonna sit there looking at the 0 going "Yeah that's a good aptitude and I'm going to use this weapon".

Nobody, absolutely nobody is asking for "half the races" to have a +4. I don't think anyone even asked for +4. Just one or two races with a +3 would be nice. It would be fair.

Depends on what that 0 aptitude is for, really, and what it gets you over the +3. At the moment, the weapon types are all basically the same. Changing this status quo is a stated immediate design goal for the devteam.

If nobody gets more than 0 aptitude with staves, and magic staves are good weapons anyway, then 0 is a good aptitude.

[Stormlock]

I'm not sure how much weapon aptitudes matter at all anyways honestly. What you find has a much bigger impact on what you use than what you start with or what aptitudes you get. I'm not going to pass up a +9, +6 flail with ++rC, +rf, +MR, ++ Stealth, +4 Str, Speed just because my aptitude is low or I already leveled up axes to 12. About the only things relevant are : Can I stab with it? Can I hold it? Can I use my shield with it? Other than those three things, it's a matter of finding the best weapon that fits with your other gear and stats, not the weapon that best fits your skill growth for that weapon class.

[KoboldLord]

Unless you're playing a pure caster or unarmed, you can definitely make a better weapon than a +6 flail. Even if it has some resistances added on. Around the end of the game, you start running into monsters with ridiculous physical damage resistance, and at that point you're better off with even a lowly +7 broadaxe of chopping than that flail. Your ability to make monsters stop moving is vitally important to your success, usually much more so than you ability to take an extra punch or three to the face.

Aptitudes are very important when you're first trying to get the skill going, and they seem to taper off in relevance after that point. Once you've got your basics covered, you can grind for high-level specials at your relative leisure.

[Stormlock]

You know what I mean. You're not going to overlook a randart demon sword with awesome stats and slicing in favour of a freezing broadaxe with the same +X, +X just because you're better with axes than long blades.

[szanth]

I do that, actually. Because skill level is a huge part of damage and accuracy, and I'm at a pretty significant handicap against powerful monsters if I don't have the skill.

[danr]

I would like to know what the reason is for the generally low aptitudes overall for staves. These are my guesses:

- Staves are seen as being more powerful than other weapon types due to the potential damage of elemental staves, so they are "nerfed" to offset that.
- Staves are not a popular choice and until now have not been available to almost any backgrounds, so they are an easy target to nerf in the name of balance.
- Staves are just seen as being awkward or hard to use, and the low aptitudes are driven by realism.
- Others?

My hunch is that there's no explicit reason for it, it just kind of happened. However, I think this discussion will be much more fruitful if we knew the official rationale (if there is one) because then it can be responded to.

A very interesting example for this is Nagas - they have 0 aptitude for all weapons, but -1 for staves. Why did they get staves dropped to -1? That's obviously an intentional design decision and I'd like to first understand where that's coming from before going on at great length about it.

Anyhow, the only change I'd suggest at this point would be perhaps boosting HE staves from 0 to +1, just because they are a very natural race to combine spellcasting and melee, and staves combine melee and spellcasting in a unique way. However, 0 is definitely a "playable" aptitude.

As is though, Minotaurs and Kenkus pretty much cover the two main playstyles for quarterstaff monks. Minotaurs are non-magical, but tough, good at fighting and have natural UC (horns) to make them the UFC champion of the game, while Kenku also have natural UC and natural martial arty-ness (they can fly for crissake and have beak and talons), but are more fragile but have a much better chance of getting into spellcasting to be the magic-using quarterstaff monk.

So those two cover the main playstyles I see for staff monks - UFC champion brick, and magic staff / melee staff synergy. HE would fit in there too though - no natural UC attacks, but a bit hardier than Kenku. Not as tough as minotaurs, but better at magic.

But they can do that with 0 aptitude in staves too - the important thing is that they now have the option to start with staves. In fact I'd see them as the most natural staff monk in some ways.

[jackalKnight]

DEs are way too glass cannon-y to ever be viable as melee. Maybe you should request for HE to have higher staff apts instead? I think they'd be slightly less squishy.

[coyo7e]

Deep elves should have their staves aptitude lowered to at least -1. It's pretty much already a no-brainer to use staves as a deep elf.

Merfolk should have other weapon (and maybe UC) aptitudes increased rather than Polearms decreased, as that aptitude is a defining feature of the species. Certainly merfolk need a nerf, but nerfs shouldn't target the very things that make a species unique. I suggest decreasing one or more of Fighting, Spellcasting, and Dodging.

Funny, I always thought that the whole "abuseany water" and "solid melee apts" and good ice magic, were Merfolks' strengths. On top of the whole never-touch-any-weapon-but-trident, thing.

And also Merfolks. It eludes me, how they can be proficient with bladed sticks(+4), but loose all that proficiency if they have only pole(-2)??

Traditionally in RPGs, tridents are considered an underwater weapon (gigging spears are a good IRL example, they're highly effective and quick underwater and the multiple tines make it easier to adjust for the defraction of being underwater) which is quick underwater and thus apropos for an arguably 'underwater' race. Staves can't be swung quickly underwater, unlike spears and tridents which aren't swung but rather poked.

Overall, it's probably an overly strong callback to greek mythology, because the trident was Poseidon's signature artifact.

[MrMisterMonkey]

I would like to know what the reason is for the generally low aptitudes overall for staves. These are my guesses:

- Staves are seen as being more powerful than other weapon types due to the potential damage of elemental staves, so they are "nerfed" to offset that.

Evocations helps much more with that, and you really only need 12 skill to get an elemental staff to its minimum delay (you don't need any more because evocations/elemental skill does the big damage dealing).

- Staves are not a popular choice and until now have not been available to almost any backgrounds, so they are an easy target to nerf in the name of balance.

This doesn't make any sense. Were they ever nerfed? What was unbalanced? What balance did that create or restore? What do you mean by an easy target? Confer my previous point to how staff aptitudes are mostly irrelevant to magic staves (so nerfing staff apts wouldn't balance them).

- Staves are just seen as being awkward or hard to use, and the low aptitudes are driven by realism.

Stone Soup prefers gameplay over realism, so this is a pretty bad reason.

My hunch is that there's no explicit reason for it, it just kind of happened. However, I think this discussion will be much more fruitful if we knew the official rationale (if there is one) because then it can be responded to.

It's probably just an artefact from old versions (guessing pre-ss here -- I don't know but if realism was the most important thing back then, it might make sense as a reason -- it could have just been crazy arbitrary too).

Anyhow, the only change I'd suggest at this point would be perhaps boosting HE staves from 0 to +1, just because they are a very natural race to combine spellcasting and melee, and staves combine melee and spellcasting in a unique way. However, 0 is definitely a "playable" aptitude.

Have to nitpick here: evocations is really the most important thing here (and evocations even helps with damage even after the 14 evocations skill you need to get the effect to trigger all the time). This isn't to say more staves apt isn't thematically proper or it would hurt the game or anything, but if you really want them to be good at using elemental staves you should focus on evocations.

As is though, Minotaurs and Kenkus pretty much cover the two main playstyles for quarterstaff monks. Minotaurs are non-magical, but tough, good at fighting and have natural UC (horns) to make them the UFC champion of the game, while Kenku also have natural UC and natural martial arty-ness (they can fly for crissake and have beak and talons), but are more fragile but have a much better chance of getting into spellcasting to be the magic-using quarterstaff monk.

More nitpicking: minotaurs are better off going unarmed, anyway, as UC with nothing wielded does pretty ridiculous damage.
This isn't to say auxes do ridiculous damage, though; you're probably best off turning UC off if you're using a weapon. Not that there's anything bad with starting with staves, but as I see it, there's not much of anywhere to reliably go for a staff monk other than cross-training and evocations (for the enhancer staves). Staves starts shouldn't be designed around this, though, because that would be really weird.
(this is part of why I'd like more weapon/UC synergy)

DEs are way too glass cannon-y to ever be viable as melee. Maybe you should request for HE to have higher staff apts instead? I think they'd be slightly less squishy.

Melee (and particularly hybrid) deep elves are pretty cool and you should try them.

[Strongpoint]

I really don't believe that quarterstaves are that good, that they don't deserve high aptitudes for at least one race as polearms

seriously - quarterstaff damage 7, accuracy 6, delay 120... simple spear damage 7 accuracy 4 delay 110, and spear can be used with a shield much more easily. Does that +2 to accuracy important enough?

Lajatang is worse than demon trident in any stat, except damage

Speed brand? well you still need to be lucky to get that (or worship Oka, Trog) Does it really outweighs aptitudes and no shield ?

And I just understood how overpowered merfolks are...

[szanth]

Well, the two races suggested by danr seem fitting; minotaur and kenku. Is there any reason they shouldn't?

[szanth]

So I have to ask, why is a wizard staff considered so much more powerful than a [something] of pain? The damage maxes out at 1d27 for both, doesn't it?

[danr]

Well, the two races suggested by danr seem fitting; minotaur and kenku. Is there any reason they shouldn't?

Just to be clear: I was not suggesting buffs for these species. I was just saying that these two species as the ones with better than 0 staves aptitudes already cover the ground pretty well.

I'd suggest that if you want a DE with better staves aptitude, just go for the Kenku. They have the same HP, are still pretty good casters, but have significantly better melee aptitudes. Any buff to DE melee abilities would have to be accompanied by some nerfs to their magic game, which would just make them more like Kenkus.

I suggested vampires and ogres because neither of these is currently overpowered. It would synergize with Ogre's spellcasting aptitude somewhat and after all it is really just a big stick. And to me, a vampire with a staff (vampire mage) just sort of fits, but that could just be me. But as I said, I think Kenku and Minotaur can't really be improved on anyway for staff monks, one for the plan to go into magic, and one for the plan to just go straight melee, though from trying a few so far they both feel a bit like challenge classes.

MrMonkey - we all know now that evocations is important for using wizard staves. But weapon delay is also a critical factor, and training it to 12 is not trivial esp. when you are splitting XP off into spellcasting, an elemental school and evocations as well. Training it to 12 with a -2 aptitude as opposed to a +2 aptitude will leave you with a few fewer skill levels in other important skills, so staves aptitude does matter for wizard staves.

Hm - what about Centaurs - I could see centaurs being natural with staves too somehow. Centaurs also are armour restricted so starting with a robe fits, and have the ability to run away, and some natural unarmed attacks. But if they already make good monks, then their staves aptitude does not need buffing.

[danr]

By the way, MrMonkey, all the nitpicking about my suggested reasons, as much as it warmed my heart, was unnecessary. I was not making these arguments, I was just listing all the conceivable reasons I could think of, and I wasn't taking a position on whether those reasons were good or not.

I was just hoping to elicit a response from someone who actually had some concrete and useful knowledge that would actually help move the discussion along.

Minmay, thanks for the response about the naga aptitude, that helped me understand the principles of game design involved here a bit better. Balancing involves looking at all the relevant skills, and so Nagas, despite having -1 in staves, should still be seen as being good candidates to use staves.

[MrMisterMonkey]

The point to the first nitpick was that while staves apt is important, evocations apt is more important, and you seem to be focusing only on staves.
Want to make ogres good at using magical staves? Maybe you should improve their -2 evocations aptitude.
This goes less so for vampires with their -1 evocations but is still the same deal.

The point of the second was you seem to be focusing too much on auxiliary unarmed attacks, when they really don't matter enough to bother training UC. I noted this just in case you were going on the complete wrong track with everything, in hope that you'd correct any misjudgment you based on it.

[danr]

My L1 MiMo seemed to be headbutting a lot of stuff in addition to the staff. I don't know how important it is, I'm just looking for any synergires I can find, and UC skill and natural UC attacks are a synergy that a character is better with than without. Every little advantage helps.

I'd be fine with any boost to ogres. Evocations would sort of match their magicyness.