Reworking Sandblast

[TeshiAlair]

Currently, it is fiddly to use with the whole switching to stones thing, and it is pretty much the only reason stones still exist since slings can just use sling bullets, which are already decently plentiful.

Suggested change:

Sandblast:
Range: 1
Deals damage to one target and gives them the dusty status. Casting Sandblast on a dusty target does increased damage. Monsters moving removes dusty.

This captures the binary damage feature of Sandblast, which I think is a cool feature that makes it distinct from the other level 1 spells, while giving it a meaningful condition for doing so.

Potential cons:
Overlapping with Searing Ray
Being dangerous to use against common Rockblast targets such as Ogres....that's about the only one actually.

[damiac]

What? Stones exist for the very important reason of being thrown at stuff. It's slings that are pointless...

Your suggested change is a huge nerf to sandblast. Remember EEs level two spell is stoneskin, so they're stuck with sandblast for a fair amount of time.

I do agree it would be really nice to somehow address the fiddly nature of wielding stones, although they do create an interesting early game tension, if your early game happens to have fewer stones than usual.

[1010011010]

Proposal: Sand blast uses stones from inventory when used at max range, any less does not.

[damiac]

That's still a huge nerf, what happens when on D1 I open the door and there's a jackal on the other side? There is simply no way to make them be at max range. Boosting the range of the spell is not the main reason to use stones, it's the extra damage.

I guess the question nobody is asking is this: Is sandblast too powerful when boosted with stones? If it is, well stones are hardly rare, and the spell is too powerful. A little fiddliness with equipping stones really doesn't balance this out in any way.

Or, is sandblast too weak without stones? I think it is, but then, the only times I cast sandblast without a stone equipped are when the monster is trivial, or if I'm out of stones. Running out of stones is extremely rare though, and really only happens when I am careless about the tedious minigame of equipping and removing my equipped stones.

Maybe sandblast should just always be at 'cast with stone in hand' power. It might as well be, in most practical gameplay examples.
If that's seen as too powerful, well, it's already too powerful then, since it's no problem to always use stones against threatening enemies.

Another, more out there option, is to have sandblast work as the 'no stone' version, unless the caster is under the effects of stoneskin, in which case it's at the higher 'stone in hand' version. This gives a progression, so you start at level 1 with the weak version, but at level two you can spend a little MP to get a boost. I think MP is a more limited resource in the early dungeon anyway. Still, this might be too much of a nerf to EE starts.

[and into]

Or: Casting sandblast takes one stone from your inventory and may not be cast without stones. Let EEs begin the game with more stones in their starting inventory.

[damiac]

I guess you could do that, but I really question what you're gaining by limiting sandstorm to the quantity of stones found. Would the game be significantly easier if you just removed the weak version of sandstorm? Like I said before, is 'stone in hand' sandstorm too powerful for a level 1 spell? As an EE, you're kind of stuck with it until you are able to cast the level 3 dual school stone arrow.

If you make sandstorm require a stone to cast, now I have to melee those trivial enemies instead of casting weak sandstorm at them, which is even weaker. That's just a straight nerf to EEs, although at least you've removed the need to fiddle with stones.

[Siegurt]

While it is infrequent, I have had a fair sized number of games as an EE with no floor stones in the first 3 levels, these games rapidly run me out of the stones I start with (Even while being very conservative) and if I manage to scrape by, it's with a decent untrained weapon of some sort.

I'd rather not see that possibility go away entirely, as it presents different challenges when it comes up than games with plentiful stones.

One possibility is to split sandblast into two level 1 spells 'sandblast' and 'rockblast' the former being weaker, but having no stone requirement, and the latter requiring stones in inventory, and using them (and being cast as the current sandblast is with stones wielded)

This preserves the choice and conservation of stones mini game for when it's useful, and removes the interface headaches. (Although for myself, hitting a single key to swap in my stones for more powerful sandblast isn't really a hassle to worry about)

It doesn't (easily) allow for the current possibility of wielding large rocks as an ogre or troll, but that's an edge case I don't think too many people care about anyway.

[and into]

Well, as I see it, if a spell is going to consume items as part of the casting cost, if that's part of its unique characteristic, then it is kind of weird to let you use a much weaker version without the item. It would be like sticks to snakes giving you a really short-lived small python if you cast it without arrows. I just don't see the point; either the spell should be all about consuming an item as a cost, in which case both the spell and the EE background (with XX number of stones at the start) should be balanced around that, or else the whole "can be powered up by using stones" thing should be dispensed with.

[njvack]

I don't think the interface hassle of Sandblast is really at issue here; it's more that the ability to use stones isn't particularly well signposted — it's literally the only spell that works as it does. And I don't think it's reasonable to have people read the description of the spell for something this important.

I'm with and_into that it'd be sane to have sandblast just require a reagent. For balance, maybe either give more stones to EE, or give a little fighting and dodging and maybe a dagger to hint that this is an elementalist that should be planning to hit things in melee.

[damiac]

I don't know... in imaginary no sandblast crawl, would you ever think this was a good proposal?

Some background should start with a crappy damage spell, except if you hold stones in your hand, it's extra powerful, to the point that it's overpowered for a level one spell. I plan to balance that overpoweredness on the rareness of stones.

The biggest problem with this proposal isn't having to hold the stones. It's the idea of a background's starting power level be randomly determined by how many stones generate in early D. Either some EEs are getting an extremely easy start, due to an abundance of stones, or some EEs are getting an extremely tough start, due to the lack of stones. That's sort of like giving fighters and gladiators a 50% chance to start with a scimitar instead of a long sword.

The 'solutions' being proposed just seem to further limit the EE start. Now you're saying I shouldn't have the option of playing it as a blaster at all, because I'll just run out of stones, and have no offensive options at all. Branching into melee early might be a good idea, but I don't see why it should be forced.

Would it really make EE starts too easy if sandblast just always worked like the 'stone in hand' version? If so, they're already too easy most of the time, because with a little tedium, you already have functionally infinite stones in most games.

[Sar]

Have you ever played a Hunter?

[PleasingFungus]

I don't know... in imaginary no sandblast crawl, would you ever think this was a good proposal?

Some background should start with a crappy damage spell, except if you hold stones in your hand, it's extra powerful, to the point that it's overpowered for a level one spell. I plan to balance that overpoweredness on the rareness of stones.

The biggest problem with this proposal isn't having to hold the stones. It's the idea of a background's starting power level be randomly determined by how many stones generate in early D. Either some EEs are getting an extremely easy start, due to an abundance of stones, or some EEs are getting an extremely tough start, due to the lack of stones. That's sort of like giving fighters and gladiators a 50% chance to start with a scimitar instead of a long sword.

The 'solutions' being proposed just seem to further limit the EE start. Now you're saying I shouldn't have the option of playing it as a blaster at all, because I'll just run out of stones, and have no offensive options at all. Branching into melee early might be a good idea, but I don't see why it should be forced.

Would it really make EE starts too easy if sandblast just always worked like the 'stone in hand' version? If so, they're already too easy most of the time, because with a little tedium, you already have functionally infinite stones in most games.

wouldn't it be insanely messed up if your character's power level varied by what random loot you found as you traversed the dungeon - especially early on? that would be a pretty fucked up mechanic to put in a roguelike, in my opinion.

[and into]

To elaborate a bit: Sandblast's weird bimodal character based on what you are wielding would not bother me so much, except that it is a spell that a background starts the game with. So I agree, let's simplify it, but I would prefer the simplified version that retains what is unique about the spell (and thus, what is unique about EEs in the early game).

Edit: Also, I could see how a spell that "accumulates" in the way the OP proposes could be neat, but I don't see it as a good change for sandblast in particular.

[Jeremiah]

Was the number of stones in the early dungeon increased so there would still be a reasonable amount of throwing ammo when darts were removed? Or when daggers and stuff could no longer be thrown? Could be clustering illusion, but I get the impression there are more stones available than there were "back in the old days," so my EE starts rarely have a problem with running out.

[Quazifuji]

To elaborate a bit: Sandblast's weird bimodal character based on what you are wielding would not bother me so much, except that it is a spell that a background starts the game with.

I think the fact that it is a starting spell is also what makes it tricky to balance without the bimodal aspect, though. Since earth elementalists start the game with no weapon and no other offensive spell before stone arrow, no-stone sandblast is their most reliable tool for killing popcorn. Remove the option to cast it with the stones (even if you buff it in the process), and it becomes boring. Remove the option to cast it without stones, and earth elementalists struggle with popcorn in the very early game. If the spell occurred later, then you could easily just remove the no-stone option and make it an offensive spell that gets good damage for its level at the cost of stones, because you'd already have a good popcorn killing option. The problem is, after the first few floors of the dungeon, stones are so plentiful that the cost would become completely trivial, and so it would be just as interesting as if it didn't cost stones.

Here are some ideas I can see:

1. Keep sandblast bimodal, but possibly try to make it less clunky.

2. Make sandblast require stones, possibly buffs, but no other changes to EE starting book. It's less clunky, but EE's now have to pickup a weapon extremely quickly. This would almost make EE's play more like hunters for the first few floors than most other book starts like they currently do.

3. Make sandblast require stones, but add a level 2 offensive spell to the EE starting book. EEs don't rely on sandblast as their only offensive spell for quite as long, since they get an alternative offensive option at level 2, but the background becomes more similar to FE or IE.

4. Increase sandblast's level. Possibly make it require stones. Give EE a new level 1 spell (or just swap sandblast and stone arrow). Sandblast maintains its unique identity as a spell that is fueled by a consumable, but EEs are no longer left with the issue from option 2, and we no longer have a clunky bimodal spell as a level 1 option. Might need to switch the fuel to something rarer than stones or make it require multiple stones, however, since a stone is a pretty trivial cost for any character who can cast level 3+ spells - it's only interesting right now because stones are often somewhat limited for the first few floors.

5. Remove the stone requirement. Sandblast is now boring, but at least it's not clunky and EEs still have an offense option that doesn't require stones.

Personally, I think 1, 2, and 4 are the most interesting options. 3 and 5 make EE a less interesting background, in my mind. 2 makes them a very interesting background, but possibly in a very annoying way.

[Wahaha]

I don't agree with the OP that it is fiddly to swap to stones, because the ' key makes it easy. I don't think there is any other problem with sandblast.

[esran]

I like sandblast how it is. I simply alter my playstyle based on the number of stones I find. Changing sandblast to always require stones would much closer link the early power of the EE to the number of stones it finds, and prevent a simple playstyle alteration from ensuring success. The hypothetical EE that simply finds no stones in d1 or d2 would be quite screwed, and that isn't a good thing.

[damiac]

I don't know... in imaginary no sandblast crawl, would you ever think this was a good proposal?

Some background should start with a crappy damage spell, except if you hold stones in your hand, it's extra powerful, to the point that it's overpowered for a level one spell. I plan to balance that overpoweredness on the rareness of stones.

The biggest problem with this proposal isn't having to hold the stones. It's the idea of a background's starting power level be randomly determined by how many stones generate in early D. Either some EEs are getting an extremely easy start, due to an abundance of stones, or some EEs are getting an extremely tough start, due to the lack of stones. That's sort of like giving fighters and gladiators a 50% chance to start with a scimitar instead of a long sword.

The 'solutions' being proposed just seem to further limit the EE start. Now you're saying I shouldn't have the option of playing it as a blaster at all, because I'll just run out of stones, and have no offensive options at all. Branching into melee early might be a good idea, but I don't see why it should be forced.

Would it really make EE starts too easy if sandblast just always worked like the 'stone in hand' version? If so, they're already too easy most of the time, because with a little tedium, you already have functionally infinite stones in most games.

wouldn't it be insanely messed up if your character's power level varied by what random loot you found as you traversed the dungeon - especially early on? that would be a pretty fucked up mechanic to put in a roguelike, in my opinion.

Wouldn't it be messed up if we argued points via logical arguments, rather than sarcastic one liners? That'd be a terrible way to discuss game design, wouldn't it?

This is the only class that stands to get a nerf due to the random dungeon loot, as after they run out of stones they are actually stuck with nothing except a really weak spell. A hunter can run out of arrows, but still has a short sword. Plus the arrows have a good chance of not mulching, which the stones do not. That's not the same as finding a good item and changing your play style to take advantage of it, which is the fun part of your character's power level varying by dungeon loot.

And all that is pretending that there is a meaningful decision to be made in the wield stone/don't wield stone gameplay, rather than a slight annoyance that becomes irrelevant upon the first stack of stones you find. Running out of stones is extremely unlikely if you're not careless with them, and in the rare game when you actually do run out, you're just stuck with an extra weak character. Where are the interesting choices in this stone/no stone gameplay?

[Sar]

A hunter can run out of arrows, but still has a short sword.

An unbranded short sword is not a very good weapon, much like stoneless sandblast is not a very good spell.

[damiac]

Luckily for hunters, running out of arrows is even less likely than an EE running out of stones, as long as they're willing to put up with some weapon switching tedium. And the short sword doesn't run out of MP.

But really, I'm not trying to debate whether EE is a difficult background or not, rather I'm trying to say the stone management minigame is a lot like the arrow management minigame, in that the interesting decisions it creates are largely only theoretical, while the annoyance they create are noticeable in every single game they're used in.

Furthermore, in the rare cases where the limited resource actually matters, you're just playing a shitty version of the class you actually wanted to play. What's fun about being a substandard mage, or a substandard short sword fighter?

[njvack]

you're just playing a shitty version of the class you actually wanted to play.

You've been around for a long time. I'm assuming you've played a bunch of crawl. Adapting to the resources you find in the dungeon is a huge part of the game. I'd go so far as to say Crawl is mainly that and positioning.

What do you do if good stuff for the class you wanted to play doesn't spawn, or doesn't spawn early? You play differently. I'd argue that this is something that should happen *more* often, rather than less often.

[damiac]

Well, I play a lot of fighters, gladiators, Conjurers, Fire elementalists, berserkers...

I've yet to start a game where the gladiator's weapon failed to spawn, or where the fighter's shield didn't appear.
I have not played a single game where my conjurer's magic missile wasn't in the starting book
My fire elementalists generate with flame tongue memorized 100% of the time.
My berserkers never, ever run out of berserk.

Now, I've played plenty of games where my fire elementalist didn't find a book with bolt of fire, or where my gladiator didn't find a triple sword, and so I played those characters differently than I would if those things did spawn. This is a good thing.

That's rather different from having my starting weapon not work in 2% of games. Oh, sorry, not enough longsword juice in the early dungeon, so your long sword turns into a dagger. But hey, you can just punch the trivial enemies and you'll never run out of longsword juice, just put up with the tedium of swapping weapons and killing popcorn enemies extra slowly. This isn't about 'good stuff not spawning', this is about your starting weapon being powered by a 'limited' resource, which is actually mostly limited by your tolerance to the tedium of weapon swapping.

[crate]

so is artificer bad?

[damiac]

That's a fair question, but the limitedness of the starting items for an artificer are pretty much guaranteed. In that way artificers wands are sort of like assassin's curare needles, which are an extra powerful thing they start with for extra challenging situations, rather than an ice elementalist's freeze spell, or a gladiator's long sword, which is the way they expect to deal with enemies until they find a better tool. I think sandblast is much more comparable to a starting weapon than a bonus item, and while I understand it's kind of supposed to be both, the difference is that stones are way more common than wands and curare needles, and an assassin without curare is still better off than an earth elementalist without stones.

Artificers do sort of sit right on that line though, since they start with a lot of wand charges, but not enough that you consider them your main form of offense.

I will admit I don't particularly like the artificer start. However there is no tedium built into the background, in the way there is tedium built into rangers and earth elementalists.

[partial]

how about allowing quivered stones to be used for sandblast?

no stones quivered = no extra damage/range

[Sharkman1231]

Finding a cursed weapon really gimps EE's more than other book starts. Something like a +0 short sword is bad because you can't power up sandblast, but still works in melee. A -3 spear can mean the end of your character. With the other book starts, you can still cast your level 1 spell at it's regular power even with a -3 short sword. You can't with EE's. I find it discourages me to pick up weapons at all for a little while at least. I don't know if that's a good thing. I mean, I already know it's not a great idea to pick up and try every weapon you come across, but this discourages trying to use a weapon even more. My ideal solution would be that you get both versions with no wielding. You could split it into two spells in one I guess. Sandblast is on "a", and rockblast is on "A", and the latter costs a stone.

[esran]

Finding a cursed weapon really gimps EE's more than other book starts. Something like a +0 short sword is bad because you can't power up sandblast, but still works in melee. A -3 spear can mean the end of your character. With the other book starts, you can still cast your level 1 spell at it's regular power even with a -3 short sword. You can't with EE's. I find it discourages me to pick up weapons at all for a little while at least. I don't know if that's a good thing. I mean, I already know it's not a great idea to pick up and try every weapon you come across, but this discourages trying to use a weapon even more. My ideal solution would be that you get both versions with no wielding. You could split it into two spells in one I guess. Sandblast is on "a", and rockblast is on "A", and the latter costs a stone.

I don't equip unbranded weapons on an EE. Its one of the meaningful differences between EE and other casters.

[johlstei]

Splitting it into two spells, one that takes stones from your inventory, might be workable. Do they start with only one spell slot?

[tasonir]

Splitting it into two spells, one that takes stones from your inventory, might be workable. Do they start with only one spell slot?

Even if this was a problem, it could easily be the case that if you have one of sand/rock blast, the other doesn't cost a spell level, similar to how fireball/delayed fireball work.

Imho the simplest solution is just to keep the spell as it is, but to not require the stones to be wielded. Quivered is probably easier, although if there's some good interface to toggle using stones from inventory, that is fine too. Quiver already exists and can be changed easily so that would be my suggestion.

[crate]

fwiw it's actually easier interface-wise to have to wield stones than to have to quiver them imo

[MrRokkomies]

how about allowing quivered stones to be used for sandblast?

no stones quivered = no extra damage/range

This.

[tasonir]

fwiw it's actually easier interface-wise to have to wield stones than to have to quiver them imo

Because you have to press shift + letter instead of letter? Yes, ' is a handy shortcut as well, but wielding has other downsides: it takes turns, quivering is instant. It interferes with melee, as you can't also wield a weapon. You can lose the ability to do it, when you have a cursed weapon. Three strikes, you're out!

I suppose quivering might interfere with using a bow, but I don't know many EE's on d:2 which have bows, want to use bows, etc. By the time you pick up a bow you probably switched to stone arrow already.

Sure, there's no ' for quivered items, but the interface is not -bad- for quivered items.

[Quazifuji]

There's also the fact that if you're also throwing stones occasionally to lure out enemies, having to explicitly unquiver your stones if you want to cast an unaugmented sandblast is annoying.

[tasonir]

Having to unwield your stones to melee attack a monster is the same problem, though. Unless you want to create a third slot, the "reagent" slot, set with its own set command, you have to add a second use to an existing (quiver or wield) command. This has side effects in both cases. Quiver is less used, can be switched instantly (game time), and in my opinion is better than wield. Wield does have a quick switch shortcut, as an advantage, but I'd personally say the drawbacks I mentioned above outweigh this.

[crate]

Because you have to press shift + letter instead of letter? Yes, ' is a handy shortcut as well, but wielding has other downsides: it takes turns, quivering is instant. It interferes with melee, as you can't also wield a weapon. You can lose the ability to do it, when you have a cursed weapon. Three strikes, you're out!

None of these are an interface problem. I specifically mentioned interface for a reason. Using ( or ) to cycle through ammunition is not as good as pressing ' to cycle between weapons; using Q + letter is also one more keypress than w + letter, if you prefer that method instead.

[and into]

I think using quivered stones would be even more awkward, actually, which is why I think just taking a stone from your inventory and requiring that you have stones in your inventory in order to cast sandblast (and perhaps increasing the number of stones you start with as EE) would be best.

[1010011010]

I don't want to drop my stones every time I want to sandblast something small.

[jejorda2]

What if we turned it into a positioning problem (like bouncing bolts) instead of an inventory problem?

If you are adjacent to a stone or rock wall, you take material from its surface for a strong attack. If not, you use dust from the ground.

I recognize that the reverse probably makes a more interesting decision, but the theme is easier this way. Deconstruction, in the same book, already uses enemy proximity to walls.

Maybe count the range from the wall space instead of your space?
So, since there are three adjacent wall spaces, and the game just picks whichever is closer to the enemy, the number indicates how much range would be required to hit the target:

  Code:

###########            321#123
43211@11234            321#123
43222222234            321@123
43333333334            3222223
44444444444           


[and into]

I don't want to drop my stones every time I want to sandblast something small.

Literally no one in this thread has suggested any change to the game that would require you to drop stones in order to sandblast something small. (My suggestion was that you cannot cast it at all, if you have no stones in your inventory. If you have any stones in your inventory, casting sandblast consumes one and does its "full strength" blast. At least in my experience, casting sandblast while not wielding stones is almost useless, anyway. Including a little "You have XXX stones left" flavor message upon successfully casting the spell would be helpful too, in this case.)

Jejorda's idea sounds promising, but I'd suggest keeping it bimodal in that case: If there is at least one rock wall (perhaps applies to stone walls as well?) in the eight squares adjacent to you, you get a strong sandblast. If not, it is weak.

[tasonir]

Because you have to press shift + letter instead of letter? Yes, ' is a handy shortcut as well, but wielding has other downsides: it takes turns, quivering is instant. It interferes with melee, as you can't also wield a weapon. You can lose the ability to do it, when you have a cursed weapon. Three strikes, you're out!

None of these are an interface problem. I specifically mentioned interface for a reason. Using ( or ) to cycle through ammunition is not as good as pressing ' to cycle between weapons; using Q + letter is also one more keypress than w + letter, if you prefer that method instead.

Aye, my quoted post above was in response to Quazifuji. The quiver is less used, especially on d1-4, where sandblast is used, than your wielded weapon. So it would interfere less with what you're doing on those floors, in my opinion. I have already admitted it's an extra keypress, due to shift, because I don't typically use ( ), but maybe I should try that sometime. I've always just set it with Q + letter.