Level 0 spells

[Berder]

Motivation:

When you start a new RPG you have never played before and are presented with character selection, if you choose a mage presumably it's because you want to roleplay as an actual mage. If you wanted to hit things with a stick you would have chosen fighter. Crawl is failing these new players by not letting them roleplay the way they'd like.

The idea behind the following level 0 spells is to let mages be flavored as mages, zapping things with their magic instead of having to pick up and train a weapon. The level 0 spells are melee attacks. Damage and attack speed are based on int and a spell school, instead of on str/dex and a weapon school. To use a level 0 spell you have memorized, you cast it while empty handed, and it then becomes your wielded weapon. Then you just tab or walk into enemies and it will hit them like a melee attack. It does not cost MP. The idea is it will deal damage that's a bit less than melee weapons or unarmed damage.

For reference, from learndb, unarmed base damage is 3 + UC skill (+2 per claws level (so +6 Tr, +2 Gh), +X for forms); delay 10 - UC/5.4; +2 to hit (+4 Tr/Gh/Fe). Each of the level 0 spells deals damage like unarmed, with int*0.8 in place of both dex and str. The delay is 10 - (spell school) / 5.4. The spells vary in their damage types and in the base damage.

Flame Strike: level 0 Fire

• Base damage: 3 + 0.8 * Fire Magic
• After damage is calculated, half becomes fire damage and half is unbranded
• Appears in Book of Flames

Frost Strike: Level 0 Ice

• Base damage: 3 + 0.8 * Ice Magic
• After damage is calculated, half becomes ice damage and half is unbranded
• Appears in Book of Frost

Spark Strike: Level 0 Air

• Base damage: 3 + 0.8 * Air Magic
• After damage is calculated, half becomes elec damage and half is unbranded
• Appears in Book of Air

Crushing Strike: Level 0 Earth

• Base damage: 3 + Earth Magic
• 100% unbranded damage
• 50% chance of getting reduced by AC twice
• Appears in Book of Geomancy

Draining Strike: Level 0 Necromancy

• Base damage: 3 + 0.8 * Necromancy
• After damage is calculated, half becomes draining damage and half is unbranded
• Appears in Book of Necromancy

Aether Strike: level 0 Conjurations

• Base damage: 3 + 0.7 * Conjurations
• 100% unbranded damage
• Appears in Book of Conjurations

Venom Strike: level 0 Poison Magic

• Base damage: 3 + 0.7 * Poison Magic
• 100% unbranded damage
• Has a chance to deal additional poison damage, as if it were a weapon of venom. This chance is Poison Magic / 10.
• This strike is stronger than the others, but is balanced by few players wanting to train Poison Magic to high levels.
• Appears in Young Poisoner's Handbook and Book of Minor Magic

Might/Berserk/slaying have no effect on the damage of these spells. Brilliance acts like Might. Spell enhancers add 0.2 * (Spell School) base damage for each enhancer.

[Sar]

So to make mages feel more mage-y you give them... a melee attack.

You casterpersons are weird.

[ydeve]

This gives a weaponless mage another option other than run away. Running away just makes weaponless mages tedious to play, without actually adding any difficulty. Giving them the weak mele attack would reduce some of the tedium (killing monsters that were almost dead anyway) without breaking the game. (They have to get into mele range, and they're squishy, so it would only work on fights that are won anyway but would be delayed for a long time because of lack of mp)

[duvessa]

But...they already have a weak melee attack

[Igxfl]

The critical factor here is spell/weapon, not melee/ranged.

Basic attack spells are a great idea, imho. It's not as good as a weapon, but it keeps everything from being a de facto weapon background. It seems like a minor design problem that almost all characters should pick up and train a melee weapon in the same way.

[Sar]

It doesn't do that though, it just gives every caster a weak melee weapon on turn 1. This reduces variety, not increases it!

[Hurkyl]

Maybe this would be more generally palatable with more magic-flavored weaponry rather than a pure magic spell; e.g. a baton of flame that has a proc like the staff of fire, but does lesser damage with a higher activation rate, and is also based on a weaker weapon type.

(why baton? because staff, wand, and rod are all used)

[duvessa]

"almost all characters should train a melee weapon" is completely wrong, though yes, almost all characters should pick one up since there is no downside to doing so!

[ayayaya]

By the way, we already have the spell Airstrike in the game. Rename "Air Strike" to "Spark Strike" or something.

[dowan]

"almost all characters should train a melee weapon" is completely wrong, though yes, almost all characters should pick one up since there is no downside to doing so!

What characters do you think shouldn't train a melee weapon?

[ayayaya]

What characters do you think shouldn't train a melee weapon?

Monks.

[duvessa]

"almost all characters should train a melee weapon" is completely wrong, though yes, almost all characters should pick one up since there is no downside to doing so!

What characters do you think shouldn't train a melee weapon?

characters that are better at killing monsters using things that aren't melee weapons, such as throwing, launchers, conjurations

[ydeve]

"almost all characters should train a melee weapon" is completely wrong, though yes, almost all characters should pick one up since there is no downside to doing so!

What characters do you think shouldn't train a melee weapon?

characters that are better at killing monsters using things that aren't melee weapons, such as throwing, launchers, conjurations

And what this proposal is trying to fix is the tediousness associated with relying on conjurations for damage.

Ranged attacks use up ammo, and you could conceivably run out, yes. But if you're relying on ranged for damage, you are going to have a large supply of ammo, possibly from god gifts, common drops (arrows/bolts) etc. So you aren't going to run out of ammo and get stranded in the middle of a fight.

Conjurations have a different problem. Yes, being able to cast powerful spells only so many times in a row is a good thing, but it gets extremely annoying to run out of MP when there are only a few less threatening enemies left. You have to retreat a level, mash 5 a few times, and them come back and hunt the enemies down again. This happens pretty much every time you have a meaningful fight. It's tedious, slows down gameplay, and doesn't add anything meaningful to the game. And this is the reason conjuror-type mages (at least the ones I've played) pretty much all pick up weapons at some point, not necessarily as a main mode of attack, but just to reduce the tediousness involved in cleaning up after the fight.

Having a lvl 0 magic spell to clean up this nonsense would be nice. It would have to be balanced do be weaker than weapons and not feasable as a main offence, but that shouldn't be too hard. And it would make conjurors less tedious to play.

Edit: If you're worried about these spells possibly stepping on the toes of lvl 1 spells like freeze, they could be changed a bit. They don't actually have to do branded damage, and we really don't need so many of them. Merge them all into one spell with a neutral flavor, Psystrike or something, and have the damage scale off the level of your highest "offensive" spell school.

[duvessa]

I don't understand how this is an improvement over using a melee weapon at 0 skill.

[Sar]

IMO it's an opposite of improvement as it removes the fun randomness of finding a suitable skill 0 weapon.

[ydeve]

Because using a skill 0 weapon becomes useless mid-lair. And training the weapon skill doesn't actually increase survivability (thus sub-optimal) as it's only used to mop up in situations where you could just run away to regen MP.

[Sar]

Because using a skill 0 weapon becomes useless mid-lair.

this depends on a weapon

training the weapon skill doesn't actually increase survivability (thus sub-optimal)

well you already are playing a caster, another little bit of suboptimality won't break your run

[Igxfl]

From a great post in the Crown of Eternal Torment thread:

The hardcore players (not just the devs) are in a kind of loop where they found a few playstyles that win, and became comfortable with them. Eventually, the game gets stale, and needs to be updated. Some things are immediately identified as boring, like pillar dancing and stash management, while other things are identified as annoying (too many monsters to count). The top players are obviously going to play to win, so the proposed solution is to change the game to make boring play suboptimal. You can deal out punishments directly for "Problematic" behaviors, either with game mechanics or monsters that make you change tactics. Players won't like them, and call them "Unfair" or "Annoying," and rightfully so most of the time. Unfortunately, this creates a head-space where all meaningful changes are regarded with suspicion, making it impossible to have a serious discussion about them. I've certainly felt that proposing serious ideas was a waste of time, because they're just going to bounce around uselessly. Maybe they get tepid support, more likely they just get mocked.

[duvessa]

Because using a skill 0 weapon becomes useless mid-lair.

Why would these level 0 spells be less useless? The proposal says "The idea is it will deal damage that's a bit less than melee weapons or unarmed damage."

[ydeve]

Because they're accuracy/power comes from your int and magic skills, not from your untrained melee skills

[Igxfl]

It should be blindingly, falling-anvil obvious that the proposed spells used by a magic-oriented character would be more effective than skill 0 weapon tabbing.

For example, at 10 skill in whatever magic school, the spell would deal 13 damage at .8 delay.
To compete at melee skill 0, you'd need something like a +4 demon whip (15 dam, 1.1 delay).

This is because 0 skill melee is not very good.

[duvessa]

well i assume his formulas were just examples, and he didn't actually mean to blatantly contradict the "deal less damage than melee weapons" part

[Igxfl]

Because using a skill 0 weapon becomes useless mid-lair.

Why would these level 0 spells be less useless? The proposal says "The idea is it will deal damage that's a bit less than melee weapons or unarmed damage."

well i assume his formulas were just examples, and he didn't actually mean to blatantly contradict the "deal less damage than melee weapons" part

I was comparing a 0 skill weapon to a 10 skill spell. It's not an even comparison.
Even clawless, formless, skill 10 UC does more damage than a skill 10 spell attack.

But sure, the OP's formula might be too much damage. Perhaps there's a midpoint between too much damage and useless?
It would reduce popcorn tedium for a lot of characters and probably expand the range of viable playstyles a bit.

[bel]

I simply don't get it. Every RPG I've played (not many I admit), if you run of MP as a mage-type, you need to either have allies, or you need to escape. I have never heard of a lvl 0 spell.

I am also not at all convinced that making mages run away at 0 MP is simply tedious and not dangerous. Probably the majority of my deaths occur that way. Another way to look at it is that "fighters" have only HP: if it runs out they die. Mages have HP and MP, if MP runs out, they still survive.

[yesno]

I simply don't get it. Every RPG I've played (not many I admit), if you run of MP as a mage-type, you need to either have allies, or you need to escape. I have never heard of a lvl 0 spell.

lvl 0 spells are a d&d tradition, they are called "cantrips", and you can find them in some d&d-based crpgs like temple of elemental evil or the neverwinter nights series. they're usually marginally less useful than just handing your wizard a sling or crossbow.

personally when i feel like "role playing" a wizard i figure my wizard is thinking "oh god i'm a fat stupid nerd who never learned how to fight! i am so fucked!!!" and run away from everything i can't kill with starter spells

[Sandman25]

I don't understand how this is an improvement over using a melee weapon at 0 skill.

It should be more powerful than attacking with +0 dagger pretty early.
I assume this would trigger changes to automagic mechanic: tab could cast a new spell if there is no mana to cast automagic_slot spell (automagic_slot would need to list 2 spells instead of just 1).

[ontoclasm]

Luckily this change is easy to implement:

1. Pick up a melee weapon and equip it
2. Make-believe that all the lines that read "You slice the hobgoblin!" instead read "You rake the hobgoblin with pure magical force, using the power of your intellect instead of sullying your perfect hands with blood or dirt because, naturally, as a caster, you would never stoop to something so base as melee combat! You burn the hobgoblin!"

[Sandman25]

1. Pick up a melee weapon and equip it

It is important to use a weapon with 1.0 attack delay and there is only one melee weapon with base 1.0 attack delay - dagger. It's awful weapon unless branded.

[onget]

Force of kite or death due to lack of MP in the caster of the early game is very common, it is boring.

If you missed all spells in the battle of the first enemy, you will kite or death.

[Sar]

It is important to use a weapon with 1.0 attack delay

It's absolutely not important as long as you don't melee things you have no business meleeing in the first place.

[Sandman25]

It is important to use a weapon with 1.0 attack delay

It's absolutely not important as long as you don't melee things you have no business meleeing in the first place.

If I can be killed by almost dead goblin in 3 attacks, should I retreat?

[Sar]

yes

[Sandman25]

yes

I believe it is a mistake. This situation is typical in early game and you are more likely to be noticed by another monster while retreating than to die to that goblin. So I would attack the goblin once with 10 aut melee and then depending on outcome either would continue meleeing or would retreat (unless I have freeze of course).

[Sar]

Haha, you know I thought of "having Freeze" as a special case to. That's a good spell. Anyway, I thought the situation was "low on HP, no MP". In which case, well, melee accuracy is infamously bad and +0 weapon with zero relevant skills doesn't help matters!

Though I might've just tab it, depending on the mood. But when people talk about zero skill melee they usually don't talk about using it when a single goblin without a special weapon is a threat. They're talking about using it later to kill those goblins who are already non-threats. In which case, 1.0 or 1.1 or even 1.6 does not matter and I would take an 1.4 qt staff over an 1.0 dagger any day.

[Sandman25]

Haha, you know I thought of "having Freeze" as a special case to. That's a good spell. Anyway, I thought the situation was "low on HP, no MP". In which case, well, melee accuracy is infamously bad and +0 weapon with zero relevant skills doesn't help matters!

Though I might've just tab it, depending on the mood. But when people talk about zero skill melee they usually don't talk about using it when a single goblin without a special weapon is a threat. They're talking about using it later to kill those goblins who are already non-threats. In which case, 1.0 or 1.1 or even 1.6 does not matter and I would take an 1.4 qt staff over an 1.0 dagger any day.

Unarmed goblin can deal 4 damage, having 12 HP is not "low on HP" for many book combos. Attacking with 1.1 can bring you down to 4 HP so you can die to a single energy randomization. Attacking with 1.0 can bring you down to 8 HP so you are extremely unlikely to die to energy randomization while retreating (I assume you know how energy randomization works).

[Sar]

Well, I addressed that in the second part of my post. When you have 12 HP and are a caster you probably do not want to melee hobgoblins with any weapons!

[Sandman25]

Well, I addressed that in the second part of my post. When you have 12 HP and are a caster you probably do not want to melee hobgoblins with any weapons!

Well, I addressed your point in my reply: if you are going to retreat from such goblins, you are more likely to die to other monsters (probably to another goblin).
DEWz has 10 HP, by the way. Also we forgot about Cj/Wz with magic dart.

Though it seems like I am wrong, I have just checked and found that DEFE has 66% chance to hit goblin (EV 12) with Flame Tongue, melee weapon is an extremely bad idea in this case (especially since the spell dealt 10 damage in my test).

  Code:

Press: ? - help, Shift-Dir - straight line, f - goblin
Aim: a goblin, wielding a dagger (chance 66%)
The flame tongue hits the goblin.(damage 10)
You kill the goblin!

Edit. Flame Tongue is 1d10 for starting DEFE (spell power 11) so it is on average 1d6 in 1 turn vs goblin, no unbranded weapon can do that I think.

[Sar]

So, we agree?

[Sandman25]

So, we agree?

Well, I would not call it agreement. You were right and I was wrong

[Berder]

well i assume his formulas were just examples, and he didn't actually mean to blatantly contradict the "deal less damage than melee weapons" part

To clarify: the formulas are based on doing a bit less damage than the equivalent skill of Unarmed Combat would do. Flame Strike with 15 skill of Fire Magic, against an enemy that's not fire resistant, would do damage comparable to 12 skill of Unarmed Combat.

The goal is: the level 0 spells should be strong enough to use throughout the game against many sorts of enemies, so that mages would have a reason to rely on them and not be compelled to get and train a melee weapon. But the level 0 spells should be weak enough that a dedicated melee character at the same XL would be doing more melee damage, since that's their niche.

[byrel]

So... just make all magic skills crosstrain with UC! Transmuters will be happy...

[bcadren]

characters that are better at killing monsters using things that aren't melee weapons, such as throwing, launchers, conjurations

Going to disagree (again). I mean when you have 15 magic skill; it costs less experience to get 10 weapon skill than one more level of magic skill (assuming even apts). Maybe you shouldn't train melee immediately; but should get some by late lair or so...

[dowan]

"almost all characters should train a melee weapon" is completely wrong, though yes, almost all characters should pick one up since there is no downside to doing so!

What characters do you think shouldn't train a melee weapon?

characters that are better at killing monsters using things that aren't melee weapons, such as throwing, launchers, conjurations

So you would advise a player playing a hunter, AM, or conjurer to not train any melee skill? (assuming they didn't find some really awesome melee weapon early on of course)

[Berder]

I simply don't get it. Every RPG I've played (not many I admit), if you run of MP as a mage-type, you need to either have allies, or you need to escape. I have never heard of a lvl 0 spell.

lvl 0 spells are a d&d tradition, they are called "cantrips", and you can find them in some d&d-based crpgs like temple of elemental evil or the neverwinter nights series. they're usually marginally less useful than just handing your wizard a sling or crossbow.

I've also played a lot of RPGs where your mage has a basic attack that costs nothing (or in some cases 1 MP) and is strong enough to use in every fight.

Here's an alternate suggestion to the level 0 spells: make the level 1 damage spells scale up in a manner that makes them deal damage similar to a melee attack with a similar skill level.

[yesno]

perhaps even the wondrous powers of magic are sometimes hemmed in by cruel necessity

[duvessa]

So you would advise a player playing a hunter, AM, or conjurer to not train any melee skill? (assuming they didn't find some really awesome melee weapon early on of course)

I think that this is usually optimal for winning, yes. Training melee skill can be convenient though because it makes it faster to melee harmless chaff (which you have to do on missile characters because of the pointless ammo mechanic) and the interface for ranged attacks and spells is much worse than the one for melee attacks (for conjurers).
I don't think the MP mechanic really does much after the first few dungeon levels.

Here's an alternate suggestion to the level 0 spells: make the level 1 damage spells scale up in a manner that makes them deal damage similar to a melee attack with a similar skill level.

"Make 7 skills useless so I can roleplay better" is probably not going to get much traction with the devs

[dowan]

UC doesn't make all the melee weapon skills useless, I don't see how scaling level 1 spells differently, in an effort to make them kinda like a weaker version of UC, makes anything else useless.
EDIT: Oh, I missed this

I don't think the MP mechanic really does much after the first few dungeon levels.

Alright, nice trolling, you got me...

[KittenInMyCerealz]

Edit: mod removed a comment that insulted this thread and also a class of people, then locked the post.

basically you want mages to have as strong melee as fighter dudes, without them having to invest any additional exp to said melee, with the added bonus of their melee being partly elemental damage and on the top of that they get spells as well.
seems reasonable.

0 skill UC could scale somewhat by your level though.

[dowan]

Partly elemental damage is almost always a bad thing, it's certainly not a bonus. At least until physical resistance exists (AC reduces elemental damage and physical damage)
The melee is intended to be weaker than a melee dude's (he actually gave figures, roughly level 15 fire magic would give similar results to level 12 uc).
Yes, they get spells like everyone else.

[duvessa]

UC doesn't make all the melee weapon skills useless, I don't see how scaling level 1 spells differently, in an effort to make them kinda like a weaker version of UC, makes anything else useless.

Here's an alternate suggestion to the level 0 spells: make the level 1 damage spells scale up in a manner that makes them deal damage similar to a melee attack with a similar skill level.

EDIT: Oh, I missed this

I don't think the MP mechanic really does much after the first few dungeon levels.

Alright, nice trolling, you got me...

I'm not trolling. Is my claim really that outlandish?