I've been thinking lately about class differentiation, and specifically about what warriors ought to be able to do that other classes can't. And I've got one. It's a simple rule with minimal interface complication and it makes fighters really badass in a big melee.
It might be overpowered though.
Say you've got this situation:
...g. ..... ..@.. ..g.. .....
If the player moves downward, it's an attack. If the player mashes a different movement key, and they're _not_ a fighter, it's a move to a new position without attacking.
But if a fighter at, say, level 3 or greater, within one space of a hostile mob moves, and their movement makes them wind up still within one space of the same hostile mob, and they also move within 45 degrees of the direction that would have been an attack, then the fighter moves *and* attacks. This rule would add an "implicit" attack to the downward diagonals in the above situation (or a free movement to one of those squares while attacking, if you want to look at it that way).
At, say, level 6 or greater, we drop the rule about being within 45 degrees of the attack direction, so in the position above, our fighter @ could attack the goblin while moving by hitting down, left, right, or either downward diagonal.
And at, say, level 9 or greater, we drop the rule about it having to be the same hostile mob, and our fighter can also step-and-attack the other goblin with an up or right-and-upward diagonal movement.
This would make a huge difference when fighting crowds in open spaces, and allow smart players a really astonishing level of control of the fight, including opportunities to escape. And that's actually the sort of thing that fighters ought to be better at.
There are three interface complications. The first is optional, the second is seldom-needed, and the third is simple.
First, you have to explain the new ability when the player levels a fighter. But the situation is common enough that players would notice and understand it pretty quick anyway, and remember the average player has played dozens of times before so they'll know anyway. You could skip it.
Second, now the fighter class needs a special command for "Move without attacking nearby hostiles" - but I think most players will want to do that only fairly seldom, and depending on your game you may already have one.
Third, some moves will give the fighter an opportunity to attack one of two or more different targets, and you will need a way to let the player designate one of them. But this is fairly simple: the player's hand is already on the direction keys, and all you need to do in response to this prompt is pick the attack direction.
The balance points here are:
First the "free movement" here cannot be used to disengage without giving opponents an opportunity to strike, because of course you only get it when you wind up within one square of a hostile.
Second, any creature that has been step-and-attacked this way still has a "normal" opportunity to disengage by moving away instead of hitting (unless a smart player has moved-while- attacking to put its back to the wall or into a corner, which a smart player would do...).
Third, you still don't get more than one attack per turn and you still don't get more than one movement per turn.
Of course we must contemplate monsters with the same ability, which could make life "interesting" for player characters - but only intelligent monsters, probably only humanoid ones, who have trained in the use of arms. Getting caught in the open by a pack of seasoned warriors is pretty much death anyway for most low-level characters.
> Second, now the fighter class needs a special command for > "Move without attacking nearby hostiles" - but I think most > players will want to do that only fairly seldom, and depending > on your game you may already have one.
> Third, some moves will give the fighter an opportunity to > attack one of two or more different targets, and you will > need a way to let the player designate one of them. But this > is fairly simple: the player's hand is already on the direction > keys, and all you need to do in response to this prompt is > pick the attack direction.
Perhaps the whole thing could be simplified slightly by just giving the player a free movement after an attack. This removes problems 2 and 3 (the player then chooses his next target) and simplifies problem 1 since it's easier to understand even if you don't read the manual. Of course it also makes the skill more powerful - the player could use it to escape from a mob instead of just to position himself for the next attack.
>> Second, now the fighter class needs a special command for >> "Move without attacking nearby hostiles" - but I think most >> players will want to do that only fairly seldom, and depending >> on your game you may already have one.
>> Third, some moves will give the fighter an opportunity to >> attack one of two or more different targets, and you will >> need a way to let the player designate one of them. But this >> is fairly simple: the player's hand is already on the direction >> keys, and all you need to do in response to this prompt is >> pick the attack direction.
> Perhaps the whole thing could be simplified slightly by just giving > the player a free movement after an attack. This removes problems 2 > and 3 (the player then chooses his next target) and simplifies problem > 1 since it's easier to understand even if you don't read the manual. > Of course it also makes the skill more powerful - the player could use > it to escape from a mob instead of just to position himself for the > next attack.
Alternatively, you could give warriors a free attack after movement.
For timing reasons, in order to avoid the need for a "decline free action" command, the free action would need to be given on the player's next turn.
Ray wrote: > [...] the fighter moves *and* attacks. [...]
It is possible to hack this by giving a free move after an attack (with certain constraints) or a free attack after a move, but you always hit exceptional cases. One problem is that this is meant to be atomic: You are attacking while moving. If I get a free move after my attack, I shouldn't know the result of the attack until I have moved or passed. It always takes two keystrokes to resolve a round of combat.
If I get a free attack after I move then combat can be resolved with one keystroke, but if I want to move again instead I have to pass first -- otherwise monsters would get two turns at once. This is not, however, distinct from the need for a move-without-attacking command, and might be an intuitive expression of that concept.
The ability to menace a space (or three) might work here. If I attack a monster and move straight away (which is forbidden under your rules), it could be a defensive maneuver that will give me a free, automatic attack if that monster closes the distance that same turn. Alternatively, it could be written to make the monster roll to occupy that space.
I don't like the idea of granting extensions with experience. It would suffice if attack accuracy were lower the wider the angle, and if experience made those blows more likely to land.
The interface issues, at any rate, are tractable. Claims about balance demand an implementation.
In article <4af6f92a$0$1621$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, b...@sonic.net says...
> I've been thinking lately about class differentiation, and specifically > about what warriors ought to be able to do that other classes can't. > And I've got one. It's a simple rule with minimal interface complication > and it makes fighters really badass in a big melee.
> It might be overpowered though.
I think it's a nice concept, and not particularly overpowered, in a context where other classes can probably shoot fireballs from their fingertips. After all, it could be a high-level ability.
I think it's reasonably comprehensible and it also both saves keystrokes and features limitations compared to the sggested alternative of giving fighters a hit followed by an extra move.
>Second, now the fighter class needs a special command for >"Move without attacking nearby hostiles" - but I think most >players will want to do that only fairly seldom,
That might depend on the number of "passive defence" monsters like NetHack's blue jellies. -- David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train. Today is Teleute, November. Tomorrow will be Oneiros, November.
David Damerell wrote: > Quoting Ray <b...@sonic.net>: >>Second, now the fighter class needs a special command for >>"Move without attacking nearby hostiles" - but I think most >>players will want to do that only fairly seldom,
> That might depend on the number of "passive defence" monsters like > NetHack's blue jellies.
Exactly. That would be the sort of thing that "move without attacking" is there to deal with.
> Quoting Ray <b...@sonic.net>: >>Second, now the fighter class needs a special command for >>"Move without attacking nearby hostiles" - but I think most >>players will want to do that only fairly seldom,
> That might depend on the number of "passive defence" monsters like > NetHack's blue jellies.
Joshua Day wrote: > Ray wrote: >> [...] the fighter moves *and* attacks. [...]
> It is possible to hack this by giving a free move after an attack (with > certain constraints) or a free attack after a move, but you always hit > exceptional cases. One problem is that this is meant to be atomic: You > are attacking while moving. If I get a free move after my attack, I > shouldn't know the result of the attack until I have moved or passed. > It always takes two keystrokes to resolve a round of combat.
This is implemented in Martin's Dungeon Bash experimental. If you approach monster you get a free attack. No prompt is displayed but unless you bump into a monster this turn is lost. A message "you stumble" is given and turn ends.
Bear: This is actually a pretty nice proposal, I'd like to see how it works in practice! Both your original method and the one of having a free move after an attack seem to have their advantages.
On 9 Nov, 00:08, Joshua Day <josh....@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I get a free move after my attack, I > shouldn't know the result of the attack until I have moved or passed.
I don't really see the problem here :)
> If I get a free attack after I move then combat can be resolved with one > keystroke, but if I want to move again instead I have to pass first -- > otherwise monsters would get two turns at once.
Maybe attack+move is a better fit. You can forgo the free move by standing still (numpad 5), or attack again, in which case you'd be implying that for your next turn you also want to attack the same target. This would be useful to reduce the number of keypresses when steamrolling weak enemies; for all other cases you can either take the free move or attack and stand still.
I can imagine a ninja character activating the temporary ability to have 3 or 4 free moves, it could actually make for a great spell or potion :)
Joshua Day wrote: > Ray wrote: >> [...] the fighter moves *and* attacks. [...] > It is possible to hack this by giving a free move after an attack (with > certain constraints) or a free attack after a move, but you always hit > exceptional cases.
That's the thing. I absolutely don't want a fighter to think of moving and attacking as separate actions, even if one is "free" in terms of time.
> One problem is that this is meant to be atomic: You > are attacking while moving. If I get a free move after my attack, I > shouldn't know the result of the attack until I have moved or passed.
That's the point, and the intent, rather than a problem. So there is no "pass" - that's thinking of it as a separate action again.
> It always takes two keystrokes to resolve a round of combat.
Why? A fighter moves & attacks in one round, with one command. For a fighter, attacking under these circumstances is implied by the movement command, the same way attacking is implied by the movement commands in "bump combat" for all classes.
It's the round of NON-combat movement that might take an extra keystroke if there's a hostile mob around; the player would have to press "." or something for "non-attacking move" before he hits the direction key. Bear
>> Quoting Ray <b...@sonic.net>: >>> Second, now the fighter class needs a special command for >>> "Move without attacking nearby hostiles" - but I think most >>> players will want to do that only fairly seldom, >> That might depend on the number of "passive defence" monsters like >> NetHack's blue jellies.
> Exactly. That would be the sort of thing that "move without > attacking" is there to deal with.
This one can be switchable. Like tactics in adom, but with only two states. Odds are high that you will want to make several non-extra-attacking turns, before switching to default behavior.
> It's the round of NON-combat movement that might take an extra > keystroke if there's a hostile mob around; the player would have > to press "." or something for "non-attacking move" before he hits > the direction key.
How about a "Safe Walk" modifier key like in POWDER? Only, in this case, it would have a twofold purpose, preventing both unintended "bump combat" as well as an unintended "move-attack". It could of course be a switch, like Konstantin Stupnik suggested - i.e. wandering mode / combat mode.
> Third, some moves will give the fighter an opportunity to > attack one of two or more different targets, and you will > need a way to let the player designate one of them. But this > is fairly simple: the player's hand is already on the direction > keys, and all you need to do in response to this prompt is > pick the attack direction.
Occasionally (but not always) prompting a player for an additional direction seems pretty lame to me. I'd almost rather see the game "do the right thing", and just pick one. Another possibility would be to interpret two successive cardinal-direction moves as a diagonal move. For example:
.... .M.. .@M. ....
Pressing "k l" would attack the upper of the two monsters while moving diagonally, but pressing "l k" would attack the lower. Pressing "j l" would attack nothing. I mean for these chains to be interpreted as single motions, so it would be necessary to wait for the second keypress, if any (obviously the delay could be customizable so players could select snappy response or more forgiving timing). You could also include the normal diagonal movement keys, which would allow movement without attacking without a modifier or toggle. "Approach and stab" could perhaps be accomplished by approaching then pressing the attack key (which would function as timed input, not a second turn).
Paul Donnelly wrote: > Ray <b...@sonic.net> writes:
> Sounds good except for: >> Third, some moves will give the fighter an opportunity to >> attack one of two or more different targets, and you will >> need a way to let the player designate one of them. > Occasionally (but not always) prompting a player for an additional > direction seems pretty lame to me. I'd almost rather see the game "do > the right thing", and just pick one.
True, and I'm inclined to agree. There are a lot of possible ways to resolve it, including:
*Whichever's on the side of the character's dextrous hand, assuming the character is facing in the direction of movement (different for right-handed vs. left-handed characters).
*Whichever has most recently attacked the character.
*Whichever the character has most recently attacked.
> True, and I'm inclined to agree. There are a lot of possible > ways to resolve it, including:
> *Whichever's on the side of the character's dextrous hand, > assuming the character is facing in the direction of > movement (different for right-handed vs. left-handed > characters).
> *Whichever has most recently attacked the character.
> *Whichever the character has most recently attacked.
> Bear
Or have a target system, which would be needed anyway if you have ranged combat. You could use any of the above rules to decide the default target, but the player could switch at any time. This also implies that the target is marked somehow (ie, background color), which is important IMO. It would give the player the most control with the least amount of keystrokes.
Jotaf <jota...@hotmail.com> writes: > On 11 Nov, 20:54, Ray <b...@sonic.net> wrote: >> True, and I'm inclined to agree. There are a lot of possible >> ways to resolve it, including:
>> *Whichever's on the side of the character's dextrous hand, >> assuming the character is facing in the direction of >> movement (different for right-handed vs. left-handed >> characters).
>> *Whichever has most recently attacked the character.
>> *Whichever the character has most recently attacked.
>> Bear
> Or have a target system, which would be needed anyway if you have > ranged combat. You could use any of the above rules to decide the > default target, but the player could switch at any time. This also > implies that the target is marked somehow (ie, background color), > which is important IMO. It would give the player the most control with > the least amount of keystrokes.
Do you mean like having a designated current target at all times? Not a bad idea, especially if it switches automatically unless you've indicated a preference.
> >> Third, some moves will give the fighter an opportunity to > >> attack one of two or more different targets, and you will > >> need a way to let the player designate one of them.
> > Occasionally (but not always) prompting a player for an additional > > direction seems pretty lame to me. I'd almost rather see the game "do > > the right thing", and just pick one.
> True, and I'm inclined to agree. There are a lot of possible > ways to resolve it, including:
> *Whichever's on the side of the character's dextrous hand, > assuming the character is facing in the direction of > movement (different for right-handed vs. left-handed > characters).
> *Whichever has most recently attacked the character.
> *Whichever the character has most recently attacked.
Michal Bielinski <dungeon_kee...@tlen.pl> wrote: >This is implemented in Martin's Dungeon Bash experimental. If you approach >monster you get a free attack. No prompt is displayed but unless you bump >into a monster this turn is lost. A message "you stumble" is given and >turn ends.
It's broader than "approach"; you can use this facility to "dance" around a monster if space and the monster's HP permit. -- \_\/_/ turbulence is certainty turbulence is friction between you and me \ / every time we try to impose order we create chaos \/ -- Killing Joke, "Mathematics of Chaos"
On 12 Nov, 15:45, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> Or, simply, attack them all.
> - Gerry Quinn
Hm, no matter how tempting the other methods can be, this has the advantages of being simple and potentially adding strategy. Moving through the middle of two or more enemies would be preferred, to multiply damage. It's counter-intuitive since usually in that situation the player should be at a disadvantage; but it could work nicely as a skill for veterans only. Or just divide the damage equally among the enemies, then the damage dealt would always be the same.
> Joshua Day wrote: >> Ray wrote: >>> [...] the fighter moves *and* attacks. [...]
>> It is possible to hack this by giving a free move after an attack (with >> certain constraints) or a free attack after a move, but you always hit >> exceptional cases.
> That's the thing. I absolutely don't want a fighter to think of > moving and attacking as separate actions, even if one is "free" in > terms of time.
Some table-top strategy games solve this problem by always making the combat mutual -- that is, each time one of the parties attacks, the other has an opportunity to counter-attack. Actually, depending on the initiative, the counter-attack may even come first. This not only speeds up combat (which is important in tabletop games) and removes the special case of "last step before combat", but also allows to continue combat while one of the parties is moving -- it's just slower. You can even make an extra step and make the combat implied whenever you are standing next to a hostile monster -- mangband does something similar to cope with lags. Then both fighters can move during combat. Of course it makes fleeing considerably harder if combat doesn't cost extra turn.
> Joshua Day wrote: >> It is possible to hack this by giving a free move after an attack (with >> certain constraints) or a free attack after a move, but you always hit >> exceptional cases.
> That's the thing. I absolutely don't want a fighter to think of > moving and attacking as separate actions, even if one is "free" in > terms of time.
The two-button variants I was dissecting are clearly unnecessary in the face of suggestions like Gerry's (that every eligible monster be attacked) and yours (that it might be settled by handedness). Two-button variants are preferable to variants that prompt occasionally, but that's faint praise in the face of variants that never prompt and never multiply the appearance of turns.
|
