Make Training Shields Work Like Training Everything Else

[Schwer-Muta]

You cannot train Shields unless you're wielding one.

That's dumb. You don't have to wear armor to train armor, you don't have to wield a weapon to train it. There is no good reason that only shields work this way.

[Hurkyl]

You cannot train Shields unless you're wielding one.

That's dumb. You don't have to wear armor to train armor, you don't have to wield a weapon to train it. There is no good reason that only shields work this way.

You can't train short blades unless you're carrying one. You can't train necromancy unless you have a necromantic spell memorized.

[DracheReborn]

You can't train Shields even if you're carrying one though. You actually have to wield it.

As it happens, this matters in my current game. I've found a shield of rF that I want to use eventually. But wielding it kills my spell success rates. So now I've got to wait for a buckler to drop, wield it, and train Shields up sufficiently high so that I could use the nice regular shield with spells. It is kind of stupid.

So, I'd say make shields train like weapons, that is, you can train it as soon as you have one in inventory and your hands aren't cursed or something.

[One-Eyed Jack]

You can't train short blades unless you're carrying one. You can't train necromancy unless you have a necromantic spell memorized.

Can you make a case for why this isn't dumb?

[Hurkyl]

You can't train short blades unless you're carrying one. You can't train necromancy unless you have a necromantic spell memorized.

Can you make a case for why this isn't dumb?

That would be beyond the scope of my comment: I merely intend to refute the notion that shields is especially unusual. (note that carrying the Book of Death isn't enough to allow training necromancy)

[Amnesiac]

um, I think we should remove training weapons without wielding, because THAT what doesn't make sense(still, it's quite annoying how you need to turn on another skill for just removing your shield for a sec...)

[onton]

weapon swapping is quite common, moreso for enhancer staff users and switching skills each time would make me mad.

um, I think we should remove training weapons without wielding, because THAT what doesn't make sense(still, it's quite annoying how you need to turn on another skill for just removing your shield for a sec...)

[Amnesiac]

yeah, but what about making sense let's allow spell schools training without learning spells, then, that would make even more sense (since you can learn theory from a book even before using it and become better this way)

[onton]

yeah, but what about making sense let's allow spell schools training without learning spells, then, that would make even more sense (since you can learn theory from a book even before using it and become better this way)

I think the point is that it is easy to wield a weapon every time you get experience, but it is increadibly tedious and brings victory dancing back. Finding one can be problematic (staffs and long blades) though.

As for the shields, wielding a large shield every time you get some expierence is unrealistic and WILL get you killed. So I think it is ok as it is now.

[epsilon]

I don't see any reason why wielding a shield should be forced for skill training. There were quite a lot of intentional steps in the direction of simplifying training system while allowing more control over it, like the removal of victory dancing, the introduction of manual training, the removal of restrictions for actually wearing corresponding weapon or armor for a trained skill, the permission for training skills that had some pre-requests from zero without any conditions and not so long ago - the removal of spell learning failure chance as long as you have at least 1% of success casting it. In comparison, shields' restriction looks more like a rudiment than an intended feature.

[Klown]

Double SH for all bucklers, shields, large shields.
Usefulllll

[Galefury]

I think shields should be trainable by just carrying one. Also I think the training restrictions should only affect which skills are displayed and everything should be trainable all the time (if you press *), but I doubt that's going to happen.

[Amnesiac]

it is easy to wield a weapon every time you get experience

there could be a workaround, like training weapon skills proportional to the damage done by a corresponding weapon (if you beat a monster for 80% hp with a long sword and switch to a short blade and finish it off, then you get 80% to LB and 20% to SB).

seriously, I don't like all this oversimplification, it's not that kind of a game, at least it wasn't when I started playing it. What next, the removal of permadeath?!(JK) Now that I learned to enjoy the pain you are taking it away from me?

[BlackSheep]

Let's see... keep track, on every monster, the amount of damage dealt by every weapon, or just let people train the weapon skills of weapons they carry?

Really, the OP's idea is simplest. You can train everything else without needing to use it. Shields should work that way too.

[epsilon]

There is automatic mode for flavor purposes, you know.

[and into]

I think it is fine that you need to have the item *available* in order to train it—whether this means "have discovered it" or "is currently carrying it" or whatever. The question is how to define "available" for shields in particular. I don't think it makes sense that one has to be wearing it for the shield skill to be trainable. It has a bad interaction with some of the size limits for shields—which, at least as I understand it, is intended to be a *buff* to large species, not a drawback, as large species already have several drawbacks with stealth and dodging malus, etc. Shields are also the one remaining thing that semi-frequently causes the "You must enable at least one skill for training" interface annoyance. So it seems like enabling shield training while (at least) carrying a shield would be an improvement, and I don't think it makes anything overpowered or unbalanced.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see every skill to be trainable from the get-go. Not out of any spurious attachment to "realism" in a game with magic cats, but because—while I don't think Crawl should hold people's hands or anything—I do think it is reasonable to put a hard limit on just how terribly the game will let you screw up your character building strategy, at least early on. Some very good players would perhaps be able to use a "train anything right off the bat" system to a *very* slight advantage over the current one, while most experienced (good or not) players will continue doing more or less exactly what is now the case, except perhaps in a few edge cases. The majority won't benefit, however; very new players would be simply overwhelmed, and novice/intermediate players, especially those under the influence of misguided skill advice or misleading information about the game (whether secondhand or self-generated) will have far greater scope to screw up their characters before they even get going. ("Well, just got fireball castable, looks like it is time to start training up for Necromutation, for when I get the Necronomicon.")

Just look at how often people post in advice looking for recommendations on skill training or checking to see that they've been reasonable in their experience allocation so far. Even in the more restricted / directed system people still worry about this a lot, it would be terrible for inexperienced players if literally every skill could be trainable from character creation.

[Amnesiac]

I don't think it makes sense that one has to be wearing it for the shield skill to be trainable.

I think it makes at least some sense

Some very good players would perhaps be able to use a "train anything right off the bat" system to a *very* slight advantage

there can't be any advantage in training for what you don't currently have access to

[jejorda2]

it is easy to wield a weapon every time you get experience

there could be a workaround, like training weapon skills proportional to the damage done by a corresponding weapon (if you beat a monster for 80% hp with a long sword and switch to a short blade and finish it off, then you get 80% to LB and 20% to SB).

This describes the victory dancing system that the galehar righteously slew. "Degenerate gameplay" is another way to describe it: it means you use weapons you want to learn instead of using the what works best. The current system is better.

[Amnesiac]

This describes the victory dancing system that the galehar righteously slew

um, no, it doesn't, as you can't effectively train a weapon skill without using the corresonding weapon this way. also, victory dancing is when you kill something, then spend exp gained in the "shadow fight", as far as I know

[and into]

I don't think it makes sense that one has to be wearing it for the shield skill to be trainable.

I think it makes at least some sense

Well, from a game play point of view it makes sense. But alright, let's go down the rabbit hole a bit here.

From a "realism" point of view, determining whether the current training system makes sense or not would first require us to ask, "What real-world analogues are 'experience points' and 'skill levels' intended to represent?"

If one is going to worry about this "realism" angle, why not simply view experience points as an accounting system, rather than taking it literally?

Is it "realistic" that a long sword deals 10 damage, for instance? Well, no, it isn't like long swords in the real world have a unified "damage stat" or anything. It *is* realistic that a long blade kills stuff when you jab it with the pointy end, and it also makes sense (given a fantasy setting in which ogres exist!) that an ogre is harder to slay than a jackal. Damage and HP points, then, are an accounting system that provides mechanisms and laws governing how these sensible things happen. But damage and HP are, in themselves, not all that sensible, and no more or less "realistic" than experience points. Yet I never hear anyone complain about the lack of realism in having a health bar or having base damage stats on weapons.

Same with experience. Rather than take it literally, why not say that the skill menu is where you set what you want your character to train in his or her "down time" (what, you really think your character is doing *nothing* during all those turns you rest?) and the experience one gains simply gives the game an accounting system, a mechanism for determining how much meaningful "training" you've had the time to do. Sure you don't actually gain the level while you are resting, but so what, the game plays with temporality a little bit for convenience. Just pretend that "victory dancing" has been automated and is no longer portrayed in the game display. Your character really *does* pick up that shield and goes off to find a bat to spar with for an hour.... I swear. So maybe you kill everything with a dagger, but the majority of the time your character spends in the dungeon is spent furiously training shields. The game just doesn't display this because it is not very interesting. (What, you trust the screen? You think it is a perfect, unmediated look into the game world? Haven't you ever heard of an unreliable narrator?)

"But I don't see it happen!" Well, sure, but you also don't get displays about chewing your food after you've entered the command to eat, nor do you... well, presumably your character has to go to the bathroom from time to time. If we are worried about immersion, I think it is safe to assume that these sorts of events occur without fanfare during those turns you are "resting," in some discreet corner of the dungeon, and the game mercifully spares us a description and the force prompt, "Wipe butt? (Y/N)"

Some very good players would perhaps be able to use a "train anything right off the bat" system to a *very* slight advantage

there can't be any advantage in training for what you don't currently have access to

In general that's completely true and it is why prioritizing for skills based on what is useful now, is so important. The extremely good, savant-like Crawlers, however, may perhaps understand the extremely specific, minor exceptions to this rule so well that they could exploit a "train whatever, whenever" system to a slight advantage compared to the current one. But, as I said, it probably wouldn't change even their game play very much, I imagine. Decent players (like myself) would continue doing exactly as we are now, outside of perhaps a few strange edge cases that don't really matter. However, less experienced players would likely find it a lot more frustrating. And in any case it is this last point that makes the "free training" system a bad idea, anyway. That's all I'm saying. A completely free training system would be aggravating for new players and (essentially) no different for everyone else, so it would be a step in the wrong direction.

[Amnesiac]

ok, you convinced me

[BlackSheep]

FR: Can we wipe our butts on dead uniques?

[brendan]

Let's see... keep track, on every monster, the amount of damage dealt by every weapon, or just let people train the weapon skills of weapons they carry?

Really, the OP's idea is simplest. You can train everything else without needing to use it. Shields should work that way too.

I don't think this goes far enough. Why not just allow unrestricted training?

[XuaXua]

Just memorize a shield spell and never use it.

[BlackSheep]

Let's see... keep track, on every monster, the amount of damage dealt by every weapon, or just let people train the weapon skills of weapons they carry?

Really, the OP's idea is simplest. You can train everything else without needing to use it. Shields should work that way too.

I don't think this goes far enough. Why not just allow unrestricted training?

Well, we could. It would allow a bunch of code to be dropped. I would say that it might confuse new players, but they'll likely use auto mode anyway.

[Leafsnail]

They'd have to switch to manual mode and press the button to display all skills and then decide to start training a skill they don't need. Considering there are much easier ways to get your character killed I don't think that's much of a concern.

[and into]

I don't think "taking up less code" should be a design criterion.

How things currently operate, you can train any skill for which you have access to the corresponding item/spell/ability. Exactly what "access" means differs slightly from skill to skill, but overall this is a very reasonable and elegant way to handle the training system, in my opinion. It communicates good information to new players—only the things that are conceivably useful to you can be trained. Sure, some skills are higher priority than others, and figuring out which skills to train when is something that only comes with experience, but everything you can train right off the bat will be things that can help you in some measure. And as new things become available in the game, new skills become available for training, which helps clarify what skill affects which in-game affects.

Having players be able to train any skill from the beginning doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the game, it only adds the potential to mislead or overwhelm less experienced players with a bunch of pseudo-choices in terms of where they could allocate experience. (I.e., pseudo-choices because they are things you would be able to do, but absolutely 100% no-brainer should *not* do.)

Yes, inexperienced players are almost certainly going to die from not knowing how to recognize and handle threats early on, but early experiences with Crawl shouldn't be made *more* frustrating than they need to be. A lot of players tend to worry a lot (perhaps more than they should, but nonetheless) about experience allocation, and while the *code* for a free-training system may be simpler, the actual experience of the skill system in-game would be even more obtuse and complicated for new players.

So, as it stands, I agree with the OP that the only thing that doesn't always work well with the current system is shield skill. I think what Schwer-Muta meant, and what the thread *should* have been named, is, "Make shields trainable like weapons, rather than armor," i.e., "access" to shields should be defined for skill training purposes as "carrying with you" rather than "have equiped currently."

This makes a lot of sense in terms of improving game play (whether "realistic" or not). You can train armor starting with even very light armor, which does not majorly impede spellcasting, and leather armor is absolutely ubiquitous. But this is not the case with bucklers / shields, and there is also the problem that some large species can't wear bucklers, so spell casting with them and trying to wear shields can be an exercise in frustration. Training a few levels in shields *before* equipping it would be a reasonable course of action, but having to wear it and lower your spell success rate over that period makes them obnoxious to use. Shields aren't overpowered, and even if they were, having it be awkward to train them is the wrong way to balance them, anyway.

I don't see any reason to overhaul the skill training system or introduce any radical changes, as the current system works very well for basically everything except (sometimes) shields, so I'd say, just fix the thing that's actually sometimes a problem, and leave well enough alone everything that is working.

[Arrhythmia]

I don't think "taking up less code" should be a design criterion.

If it takes up less code, then it is simpler to read, understand, and change. Letting the code grow without careful tending can mean that later on changes are difficult, or even impossible to make. For example, development on Binding of Isaac (2011) was ended because the code-base became unmanageable. Labyrinthine code like this is ultimately antithetical to Crawl's open source ideals.

[and into]

I don't think "taking up less code" should be a design criterion.

If it takes up less code, then it is simpler to read, understand, and change. Letting the code grow without careful tending can mean that later on changes are difficult, or even impossible to make. For example, development on Binding of Isaac (2011) was ended because the code-base became unmanageable. Labyrinthine code like this is ultimately antithetical to Crawl's open source ideals.

Ideally code should be as elegant and clear as possible. That's something to strive for in *how* one codes, but it is not a criterion of Crawl's game design or any sort of basis for an argument about how skills should train in game. A relatively simple and intuitive experience in game might require a rather extensive and involved set of code and a bunch of random numbers being generated "under the hood." That's fine. Also, code can be relatively short and still incomprehensible (poorly or inelegantly written, no comments to clarify what's going on, etc.), it isn't as though length is the only (or even the most decisive) factor in legibility.

So yes of course what you say is true, Crawl should try to keep its code as clear as possible, but it is rather beside the point I was making.