Seeking feedback …

We are considering a system for higher hero level limits, with a simplified skill system. Here’s the idea:

Riposte, Flame Shot, and Bellow skills will be removed as skills and turned into unlocks that any hero can use. (Maybe Bellow would take the form of a horn that you find in the dungeon.)

The elf’s Long Shot would be changed to Multi Shot (you also shoot any monster adjacent to, and the same range as, your target).

Rather than each hero having 4 skill types with 2 levels each, each hero would have 3 skill types with 4 levels each. So the resulting skills would be:

Swordsman: Full Swing (I - IV), Parry (I - IV), Press (I - IV) Huntress: Leap Attack (I - IV), Evade (I- IV), Multi Shot (I - IV) Brawler: Uppercut (I - IV), Hunker (I - IV), Frenzy (I - IV)

The level cap would go from 16 to 24, and we would probably increase XP awards so that progression would be faster. We might need to change the feat equation slightly - maybe cap the bonus at +10.

For more details, or to comment, please go to the forum.

The skills could work something like this:

SWORDSMAN:

Full Swing I: +1 sword; cleave 20%
Full Swing II: +2 sword: cleave 30%
Full Swing III: +3 sword; cleave 40%
Full Swing IV: +4 sword; cleave 50%

Parry I: Melee: guard with higher of sword/shield.
Parry II: Melee: guard with higher of sword/shield; counter at +1
Parry III: Melee: guard with higher of sword/shield; counter at +2
Parry IV: Melee: guard with higher of sword/shield; counter at +3

Press I: +1 to sword if target can’t move
Press II: +2 to sword if target can’t move
Press III: +3 to sword if target can’t move
Press IV: +4 to sword if target can’t move

HUNTRESS:

Leap Attack I: 10% chance of disorientation
Leap Attack II: 30% chance of disorientation
Leap Attack III: 50% chance of disorientation
Leap Attack IV: 70% chance of disorientation

Evade I: Roll 5+ to dodge
Evade II: Roll 5+ to dodge; counter at +2
Evade III: Roll 5+ to dodge; counter at +3
Evade IV: Roll 4+ to dodge: counter at +3

Multi-Shot I: 20% chance each monster with adjacency and range equal to target also be attacked
Multi-Shot II: 40% chance each monster with adjacency and range equal to target also be attacked
Multi-Shot III: 60% chance each monster with adjacency and range equal to target also be attacked
Multi-Shot IV: 80% chance each monster with adjacency and range equal to target also be attacked

BRAWLER:

Uppercut I: If you miss with your sword, 20% of hitting with uppercut
Uppercut II: If you miss with your sword, 30% of hitting with uppercut
Uppercut III: If you miss with your sword, 40% of hitting with uppercut
Uppercut IV: If you miss with your sword, 50% of hitting with uppercut

Hunker I: +1 to defense & 30% resilience
Hunker II: +1 to defense & 30% resilience; +1 to counter-attacks
Hunker III: +1 to defense & 30% resilience; +2 to counter-attacks
Hunker IV: +1 to defense & 30% doubled; +3 to counter-attacks

Frenzy I: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +2 sword
Frenzy II: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +3 sword
Frenzy III: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +4 sword
Frenzy IV: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +5 sword

Level cap going up is a great idea, but taking away skills we already have is annoying, and turning character-specific skills in favor of findable items is a very bad idea indeed.

I use Bellow a lot in rooms with stronger monsters. So if that became an in-dungeon unlock, it would make early game more difficult. Would the fact that any hero can use the Horn of Bellowing make worms friendly to the heroes from that point on? If so, the tradeoff may be worth it. I absolutely HATE random worm appearances. It’s the reason I will take the Dwarf into some rooms even when the Elf/Human are better suited for it.

Riposte and Flame Shot seem to have the most strategic value in the Dragon Lair, so as long as the unlock was in-dungeon (and not in the Lair), it would have little effect on my game play. The fact that any hero can use them would be an overall plus.

Regarding the four levels, since all level IV skills offer more than the current system, there is the potential for stronger heroes, which I’ll gladly accept. :)

The only adjustment I would suggest is to Multi-Shot. Love the idea! But it seems out of place in the realm of chance. It seems like a skill that a hero would either have or not have, like Parry or Frenzy. Plus, it makes all three Huntress skills chance-based, (unlike the Swordsman’s single chance-based skill and the Brawler’s two). In gaming, I do prefer strategy to luck, so I am biased there, but it does seem to make sense here. Find some way to remove the chance element from this skill and I think you have a winner.

It would be easier for us to make Bellow an ability rather than an item, so maybe we’d just do that.

Regarding the Multi Shot “realm of chance” - we could do it differently, where monsters that are adjacent to target and at the same range would always be attacked. But to keep that from being OP, we would need to add a penalty to those attacks, at least at the lower levels.

If we do it that way, it would slow the game down because there’d be more attacks that miss. Also, it might be more exciting to be hoping for an extra full-strength attack rather than knowing you’ll get a weak attack.

But it’s a good issue. So which of the following systems would you prefer?

Approach A:

Multi-Shot I: Each extra target has a 25% chance of being attacked, with no penalty
Multi-Shot II: Each extra target has a 50% chance of being attacked, with no penalty
Multi-Shot III: Each extra target has a 75% chance of being attacked, with no penalty
Multi-Shot IV: Each extra target has a 100% chance of being attacked, with no penalty

Approach B:

Multi-Shot I: all extra targets are attacked, but at -6
Multi-Shot II: all extra targets are attacked, but at -4
Multi-Shot III: all extra targets are attacked, but at -2
Multi-Shot IV: all extra targets are attacked, with no penalty

The above percentages and bonuses are just placeholders. Pretend that each approach is equally good for the player. We just want to know which approach seems more fun/satisfying.

Each player is different, of course, in terms of their preferred balance of luck-strategy. Some people love slot machines. Others adore chess. I’m in between, leaning toward strat. As such, I like the dependability of Approach B, although I have to agree that “hoping for an extra, full-strength attack” can be fun, especially at lower levels. But it can also be disappointing. There are already enough outcomes to be disappointed about in this game, so it might be better not to add another.

But honestly, since both approaches offer the same ability at Level IV—meaning a player could eventually level up to pure skill (no luck, no penalty)—both are appealing. (If Approach A’s Multi-Shot IV was anything less than 100%, I would prefer Approach B, even if its highest level had an attack penalty.)

Another way to graduate the levels could be in the amount of targets affected. A minus 6 penalty (even as a placeholder) sounds almost unusable. Perhaps Level I could be stronger, but only affect one other target, Level II up to two other targets, etc. Or Level I/II affects only one adjacent target with graduated penalties/chance, Level III/IV affects more (or all) adjacents with varying penalties/chance. It adds complication, but it could help the skill be more fun/usable (i.e. more likely/effective) at lower levels.

Once again, the elf and dwarf become even more useless until the human has found +9 everythings.

PeteMonster - I don’t think one approach involves any more luck than the other. In both cases, there is an X% chance that each extra target gets hit. It’s just that X, which is the chance of attacking times the chance of hitting, is calculated differently. But I agree that Approach A seems to be more luck oriented because there are two luck elements instead of one.

Arcxjo - You are probably right that the skill changes as described above would help the human more than the others. We’ll try to balance it better – these numbers are just a starting point.

On a related note, please see the topic Idea: Skill Quests for a new idea: Trinket Quests

I am not sure if you plan for new king-size-dragons, but the skills are extreme strong. With adrenaline, press, fullswing and +9 sword having an attack of 19. So you have a good chance to enter an insane feat-bonus killing streak even against dragons. The same for the elf. Imagine a multi-shot in 4+ defense mode against a pack of dragons! And when the pack is down you leap the last 2 with a 70% disorientation chance…

Only the brawler does not seem to improve much. A frenzy counter attack with uppercut from hunker is already fine. With a +9 sword on adrenaline you ALLREADY do not really need uppercut. It will improve a few percent to an almost sure hit (hunker+frenzy=+8) - so you will hardly need any uppercut to slay dragons.

Some ideas: Uppercut could be performed BEFORE hit evaluation (bad defense leads automatically to uppercut) and then improves like this:

Uppercut I: If defense roll <=3 hit with uppercut Uppercut II: If defense roll <=3 hit with uppercut + 25% stun chance Uppercut III: If defense roll <=4 hit with uppercut + 25% stun chance Uppercut IV: If defense roll <=4 hit with uppercut + 50% stun chance

Maybe frenzy could also (like multo shot) go into direction of splash damage. So a counter could attack the neighbouring monsters, too. This sounds like REAL frenzy! Or frenzy improves the defense like this:

Frenzy I: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +2 sword Frenzy II: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +2 sword +1 defense Frenzy III: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +3 sword + 1 defense Frenzy IV: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +3 sword + 1 defense per additional monster

Which would more fit into “defense-driven-dwarf” schema.

Otherwise I see a very an unbalanced improvement. Brawler will not benefit from “generalisation” of below, flame shot and riposte (because you will always hit back if you defend with 10+!).

But I LIKE the idea that there is an item in the upper rearmost mine-cave that you can get to make worms friendly. You have then to decide to go there or improve weapons first (and risk attacks). It makes (somehow) a lot of sense.

I think that would this new system allow the players to progress even faster, and this current system of moving up the ladder is to fast, considering what it was in 2016. Skills should be earned. If you mess up the skill rules, it’s like changing the rules in the ongoing game of chess.

Any chance that the elf could have the option of trying EITHER a single long shot (with no penalty) or a multi-shot (with penalties associated with both long shots and secondary targets)?

On another topic, any chance of adding a “video replay” button to review what just happened? Both my last move, and the game’s response. Most of the time that I found myself in need of one, the problem was an internet glitch. Sometimes, I think that I hit a button, but nothing happens (so I do not know whether I missed the button, or the system is delayed). When that occurs, the only safe thing to do is to reload the page, to avoid accidentally putting in an unintended second move. And if I did succeed in hitting the button the first time, then the display abruptly changes to its final state. Other times, the problem was a muscle twitch–and since the click was inadvertent, I cannot always tell what I clicked on. Any help here for people with human nervous systems?

Multi-shot does sound really useful, but I would also miss the elf’s long-shot, particularly against e.g. in hunt, titanic mage 3 spaces away about to fireball you to oblivion. That -3 can make an enormous difference. Some way to perform a single-target longshot would be really useful.

Nice idea beetletoe. If there is only a single target, who in hell would perform a multi-shot? The question is how to make that choice automatically. I do not want to change it each attack. And what happens if the elf shoots back?

But besided lord of the ring this makes not much sense: https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-fire-two-arrows-at-once-and-why If you do it, I would call the multi-shot a “rapid shot”

The most logical and suitable solution would be a “leap shot”:

Leap Shot I: A random shot in leap direction with penalty -3 when leaping and not striking. Disorient all adjected monsters if it hits (because otherwise elf should never jump like that).
Leap Shot II: Shoot two times in leap direction with penalty -3 when leaping and not striking. Disorient all adjected monsters if it hits.
<- This attacks 2 of 4 possible fields adjected to the LANDING zone.

Leap Shot III: Shoot the last ATTACKER with penalty -3 when leaping and not attacking otherwise.
Leap Shot IV: Shoot the last ATTACKER with penalty -1 when leaping and not attacking otherwise.
(the elf should turn in the air and look to the attacker at the end).

By the way: You should think about not making evade stronger in numbers, but giving a move chance. e.g. a successful close-combat dodge could give you an instant automove in backward direction (if you do not step adjected to another close combat foe). I think this is weaker than 4+, but feels like a natural skill.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. It sounds like we should not make these changes. It would be a lot of work to do something that is risky and that people are lukewarm about.

So we’re leaning towards keeping current skills, but adding a Level III to each skill (i.e. Full Swing III).

But with one possible change: we’re considering replacing Riposte with Shove Attack. See the new forum post about it.

We’re almost done with Bull Rush. It took longer than expected. The other big skill change will be Rapid Fire (replacing Flame Shot, which would become an unlock). But Rapid Fire will be easier to implement.

Here’s is our current thinking for the skills. Please let us know what you think.

SWORDSMAN:

Punt: Same except you can punt into a pit.

Riposte: Counter-attack with roll of 10 (replaces Cleave)

Bull Rush I: Shove target back, follow it, then attack

Bull Rush II: Shove then +1 attack

Bull Rush II: Shove then +2 attack

Parry I: Guard melee attacks with higher of sword/shield.

Parry II: Guard melee attacks with higher of sword/shield and counter at +1

Parry III: Guard melee attacks with higher of sword/shield and counter at +2

Full Swing I: +1 sword; 30% to cleave for 2 damage

Full Swing II: +1 sword; 60% to cleave for 2 damage

Full Swing III: +1 sword; 90% to cleave for 2 damage

Press I: Melee: +1 to sword attack if target cannot move away

Press II: Melee: +2 to sword attack if target cannot move away

Press III: Melee: +3 to sword attack if target cannot move away

HUNTRESS:

Leap: Same

Dodge: Same

Leap Attack I: 30% chance of disorientation

Leap Attack II: 50% chance of disorientation

Leap Attack III: 70% chance of disorientation

Evade I: Roll 5+ to dodge

Evade II: Roll 5+ to dodge; counter at +1

Evade III: Roll 5+ to dodge; counter at +2

Rapid Fire I: Each monster that is adjacent and of equal range to your bow target has 30% of also being attacked.
Rapid Fire II: 60% chance
Rapid Fire III: 90% chance

Long Shot I: Bow distance penalty is -2

Long Shot II: Bow distance penalty is -1

Long Shot III: No bow distance penalty

BRAWLER:

Charge: same

Resilience: 25% (instead of 15%)

Uppercut I: If you miss with your sword, 30% of hitting with uppercut

Uppercut II: If you miss with your sword, 40% of hitting with uppercut

Uppercut III: If you miss with your sword, 50% of hitting with uppercut

Hunker I: +1 to defense
Hunker II: +1 to defense: +1 counterattacks
Hunker III: +1 to defense; +2 counter-attacks

Frenzy I: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +1 sword
Frenzy II: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +2 sword

Frenzy III: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +3 sword

Bellow I - Call the worm

Bellow II - Call grumpy worm (+2 attack)

Bellow III - Call enraged worm (+4 attack)

OK, this looks very wise in many aspects, but I have some serious concerns: In general: The increase by exp is much heavier now. 30% or 90% cleave or rapid-fire chance is a lot. I fear a bit for the well balanced increase by exp. You should not have this lvl 3 skills before being at lets say 40 dragons. Problematic aspects for the characters:
Swordsman:
How is guard meant? In my opinion a better level 3 option would be to have this guarding not only in defense mode, but also after an own attack. Or is this given also at level 1? The cleave will now not appear in counterstrikes, or will it? I would like to see the full-swing bonus also available there (if conditions are met)
Huntress: The rapid fire should have a small penalty for the neighbouring targets. You can start with -1 and we will see if it is still to strong. I mean 3 attacks and from a distance! That seams OP.
Brawler: Hunkering must be better! Where is the resilience doubling? That is very important. You cannot hunker against red dragon fire without that. You could either increase it on 40-50% (as it is) or give an increased defense bonus against ranged attacks. If you haven’t noticed. Some of the best players are switching to elf already. The dwarf heavily depends on his defense. OK, he was OP with one more defense, but any more weakening gives a serious danger to not use him any more. Currently the balance between elf and dwarf is fine, but with rapid shot the elf gets much stronger. What does the dwarf get? (OK, a better uppercut, but that is not comparable in any way)

Thanks, Rellik. I was hoping you’d give your thoughts.

You are probably right that the Full Swing cleave bonus increases to quickly. Maybe 25 - 50 - 75 would be better. And yes, Full Swing should apply to counterattacks.

I’m not sure of your point about Parry. If you got the parry ability normally, then there would be no reason to ever Guard.

For Rapid Fire, are you considering that the secondary targets need to be both adjacent and at the same range as the primary target? Also, our intent was to not allow Rapid Fire on counterattacks. But not sure about that - I’d rather it be consistent with Full Swing for counterattacks, but Rapid Fire when Evading could be OP.

You are probably right that Hunker needs to be better. Hunker can easily become OP, but I could see Hunker III as +2 defense, +1 counter. Do you think that’s a better starting point? Also, did you notice that the base Resilience is raised from 15 to 25%?

OK, at first in principal and then from behind: Heroes are thought to get stronger in total, right (at least when increasing from lvl 16 on)? Or do we just use it to balance?
And secondly, the gameplay:
For me the human is THE cleaving-feat-attacker-style-1-after-1-fighter
Huntress the jump-around-keep-distance-avoider
Brawler the, well hunker-in-the-middle-of-trouble-bud-spencer one like this: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/20b697a7d949333eb1203bcb0ac9441a6811627c01014f1fadeaf01bfc112c37.png
And I like these differences a lot.
Now from behind:
I noticed the base resilience increase, but was still sceptical, because it got lower. The main reason why I sometimes switch to the elf for defense is when all dragons are doing “fire attacks”, but that depends on the potions, shield and kind of dragons.
That said:
I have no problem with a very high resilience of the dwarf, because he will not shoot back. His main problem is a bad room layout with dragons that need a lot of time to come closer, because the first line is blocking and refuses to die. It would strengthen him to get resilience without making him OP like the increase in defense. So I would suggest, to double the resilience from 25% to 50% on hunker lvl 3, but I have no simulator (yet). That is just a feeling (and I know defense and mithril come additionally).
Rapid fire: I would say the dodge consumes time and there is no need for rapid-counter-attack.
I am unsure about the possibility of hitting 3, but: Typically I keep dragons all away from me with the elf. that means they build a pack in a distance of three or 4. If I think about it, maybe you are right, because I cannot switch the target every time (to hit more), because if I do so, I loose the focus. But still. I think, if I have the chance to hit 3, it is even worth a jump, haste or second frame scroll to the right position. What I mean is: If you give me the possibility to hit 3 I will go for that and do not underestimate my creativity to achieve it. But if I often can attack 3, elf is OP. But this is very theoretically without having played it. On the other hand, the bow-attack-chance decreases very fast from e.g. attack with 9 (over fire feels like hiting everything) to 7 (without fire feels like hiting nothing). So a small penalty may balance from OP to “nice skill”. AND: You can adjust it later by +-1 very easy. But the need to introduce a penalty of -2 after having introduced the skill without penalty might rise frustrations.
Guarding and Parry (something I would REALLY like to see):
The Parry lvl 3 would just give you the defense by the sword in close combat. It takes away the condition “if guarding”. You would still have to guard to strike back and to get the defense bonus of 2. But if you think of a real 1 vs. 1 fight: You might increase your “defense” with a good sword in close combat. Thats the whole point of that skill. I would even go that far, that you should add the full swing bonus to the defense in that case. That means human can be “almost OP” in 1 vs. 1 close combats, brawler almost OP in “surroundings” and elf “almost OP” in far distance-jumps. That makes the game so tactical: To achieve these situations - and all 3 have a great (very different) fighting style.
The human will not be OP, because lairs are dense and the dragon fire burns hot enough on human skin.
Maybe that way:
Parry I: (If guarding) Defend melee attacks with higher value of sword/shield.
Parry II: (If guarding) The full swing bonus is applied in the “defense round”.
Parry III: Removes the condition “if guarding”.
By the way: Riposte could also trigger when guarding. Meaning the human strikes back two times in that case. I like rare obvious luck events a lot.

Hello,

I think all those skills changes are too drastic and would change gameplay by a lot. I am not sure if this change is good or bad yet. Very often I feel that you guys try to change what people are already happy with in the game, with no good reason. Personally, I like how each skill works and I don’t feel the game is unbalanced. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but, maybe you guys should focus on adding new content and not changing content that people are already happy with. I feel that changing the whole skills set is unnecessary. Cheers, and keep up the great work!

REGARDING HUNKER:

So then this?

Base Resilience: 25% Hunker I: +1 defense, resilience doubled Hunker II: same but with +1 counterattacks Hunker III: same but with +2 counterattacks

REGARDING RAPID FIRE:

We can adjust the power using the percentage chance of attacking (i.e. 25-50-75 instead of 30-60-90) just as easily as with attack penalties. The question is which approach feels better when playing. I have been preferring the percentage over the penalty because a) you don’t have to figure out what a “-1” or “-2” hit percentage is (without penalties, if you want to know the chance of hitting a secondary target, you can hover over it to see the hit percentage, then multiply that by the chance of attacking a secondary target) and b) it avoids slowing down the game with lots of penalized attacks. On the other hand, the attack penalty feels more realistic, and you are not the first person to suggest it. So I’m on the fence on this one.

REGARDING PARRY:

The Parry suggestion is interesting. I think full swing should always be allowable on counterattacks, so how about this:

Parry I: When guarding, defend melee attacks with higher of sword/shield.

Parry II: Same, but counterattack at +2 Parry III: Same, but can always defend melee attacks with sword, even if not guarding.

One thing that appeals to me about the current state of the game is that, with bad starting weapons, the Caverns and Mines are both dangerous places. The challenge is to escape from them with weapons, scrolls, and potions that are just sufficient to win dragon-quality weapons in the Ruins. Often, this involves deciding which fights to avoid in the early going, and potentially sacrificing valuable scrolls to avoid the chance of early damage.

However, it sounds as if the changes that are being considered would make higher-level characters far too strong for the lower-level monsters. The existing character-based skills are ALREADY too strong for dragons, when the number of dragons is small. So, what can you do to make it possible to fight larger numbers of more-powerful dragons in the end-game, without making the characters so powerful that the early parts of the game are a waste of time?

I believe that this argues for making the advanced skills into items that you can win or steal (e.g., mithril), usually won from dragons or occasionally in the rooms chock full of huge versions of lesser monsters (giving the player more of an incentive not to bypass such rooms). To preserve the distinctions between Elf, Dwarf, and Human, most such items could be species-specific (for example, temporarily giving Parry III skills to a character that already had Parry II skills) or weapon-specific. To prevent such items from making the early game too easy, increase the probability of finding them deep in the Lair, rather than near the entrance.

Additionally, it is not obvious to me why Red dragons are never found in a Lair that is otherwise full of White ones. (I assume that the current programming could accommodate such a change.) Increase the chances of finding valuable items in rooms full of Red dragons.

A couple of additional thoughts in closing: why is it that Mages (even Dragon Mages) never seem to be able to conjure up additional Dragons, but only lesser monsters? And how come teleportation scrolls aren’t a thing?

As I see it, one big problem that needs to be addressed is that too many advanced players randomly receive poor weapons in the pre-dragon levels (e.g., +7 +7 +7 or only slightly better than that) and correctly judge (given the number of dragons they face) that the rest of their game is going to be hopeless.

Adding mithril-like objects and/or additional altars deep in the Lair (but without a guarantee that such bonus items exist) makes the poor outcome less certain. As the total number of dragon rooms rises, the odds of getting such a bonus also (automatically) gets better.

To suggest an analogy, in the current game, you can survive having mostly poor weapons when you leave the Caverns; but you often cannot survive in the end-game after all possible sources of weapon improvements have been exhausted. To prevent early quitting, you simply have to make the end-game more like the early game, in terms of the likelihood of finding improved weaponry in yet-unvisited rooms.

Other topic: one possible change that I have seen discussed here is to make the late Career mode more like the Campaign. We hates this idea. Problem with Campaign-like rules is that, in any given game, due to RNG, it is very possible to play as well as I know how to, and still lose. And by “playing well” I mean that in retrospect, I cannot see an objective reason that I should have rejected the moves that I actually made. (e.g., I would have done better to have explored the OTHER fork in the Lair sooner, but how could I have known?) As things stand now, due to RNG, some games are simply unwinnable–and other games are wins that, objectively, should have been losses, were it not for unreasonably good luck. Problem is, in Campaign mode (and to an extent in late rounds of Tournament mode) the impact of such random wins and losses is already uncomfortably large. Why would anyone want to see the effects of such randomness be even more impactful?

beetletoe made a very good point. Another idea to solve the problem of overpowered heroes are “dragonic” skills. Cleave and Resilience are two skills that are more for dragons than for most normal monsters. Maybe the rapid fire should be limited to dragons. (rapid dragon fire?) or big targets (more than 1 one maximum health point).

It is absolutely right, that it is better to have no penalty in rapid fire, but decrease the chance to something like 60%. (e.g. 20,40,60) to incerease transparency.
For the problem of “bad drops” we had suggestions in the october thread (more altars, “always-improve-drops”) etc.
Where I disagree is that campaign mode is pointless. Key in Campaign mode is (st)ability and not using luck. There is hardly any “unwinnable” dungeon. I won 39 blue dragons some days ago with 8,7,7 drop and bad scrolls and potions. However, I admit that bad luck is possible (I just missed roughly EVERY first shot on a dragon with +8 bow). But it is only relevant against the red dragons: The “bad luck” can then be compensated by the greater ease. This is why I would like to see them first in campaign.

Maybe what beetletoe said is partly true, if we agree that bad luck is part of the impossibilty. I had such a unbelievable bad luck on 40 blues, that I almost lost although “playing perfect”. It started with two +1 weapon drops and I went on TWO HOURS through pure suffering. It was such a pain, that I even was not happy after winning. It was that kind of victory that is too horrible to enjoy. The only good thing that happened in that dungeon was that I shot (after my messy 1,1 drops) the 10,8-spider giant that guarded a +2 shield (yeah!) from the sneak in the first try.
The exact opposite happened then on 40 red dragons, so I think I just saved up my luck for them…

Back to the idea of Parry III giving the sword defense bonus to all defense rolls, not just when parrying …

While I think most skills don’t unbalance the early game, the above version of Parry III would be huge advantage early game because finding a good sword would be like getting a good shield as well.

To make parrying more in line with the swordsman’s one-on-one focus, how about this:

Parry I: When guarding, defend with best of sword/shield vs. melee.
Parry II: +2 to first counterattack
Parry III: +4 to first counterattack

This way we give a higher counterattack bonus, but it can only be used once per parry, so it’s not as helpful when parrying lots of melee attacks. The +4 counterattack bonus might be overkill in most cases, but it would be helpful against dragons, which is what we want from the level III skills.

I do 80% of the fighting in the cavern with the elf. If it is not crowded this is the way to go, because it is always possible to kill 2 close combat monsters (no matter how strong) with chicken-style fighting (jump away and shoot). With a good bow, you can clean the room.

The dwarf on the other hand is so good in defense, that he is also fine with a 4 shield. He can just defend-only then and might use some uppercuts to bring all down.

The human has a good attack, but when he misses, he gets almost automatically wounded. This problem persists from the caverns to the lair and is one of the two main reasons to not play with the human (archers are another). With a good shield the dwarf is better and without, use the elf, because the human is likely to take damage. A sword-based defense could avoid this. The whole counterattack, no matter how high, is problematic it is rarely triggered. That is the whole problem with parry. You can give me an infinite attack and I would still not guard-parry, because it has such a high risk to recieve damage. If there is only one enemy and you have a 80% chance to bring it down, it makes no sense to parry, because (usually) the chance that it makes a difference in defense round is at max 20% and typically much smaller. If there are two or more monsters this is very different, but the human should not be the worse dwarf. What about increasing the defense against the first melee attack instead of the counterattack? You could do: Parry II :+2 to first counterattack
Parry III:+2 to first melee defense

Okay, how about this:

Parry I: Use best of sword/shield
Parry II: +1 to first two melee defenses
Parry III: +2 to first two melee defenses

But we decided to release Bull Rush first before making all these other changes. So let’s talk about it again once you’ve played with Bull Rush.

I think that would be very nice with a small twist: the plus is on the sword defense only (but the better thing is used). Meaning either shield or sword +3 at max. Then it sounds like Parry.

After some time to think about it, I think that makes it even worse. 3 defense on top of guarding? That is much stronger in the caverns than just being strong with a good sword (with having parry sword defense after attacks).
To solve that problem I suggest some “Parry the strong” ability. That gives at least some chance to avoid damage, especially when getting the guard bonus on top of that.

Parry I: Parry meele with best of sword/shield when guarding
Parry II: Use parry also against the first attacker if not guarding.
Parry III: Parry meele at least with the attackers attack value

Parry III in such a way gives at least 50% chance to avoid the damage, no matter how oversized that beast is. It would be a cool feature to be able to parry the reaper with 50%. I think this is a fair strengthening against e.g. ettins without easening the start to baby level. It makes the human also a bit more independent of equip (SWORD!!!) and what I like most: There is something heroic about this skill (if you ask me).

Here’s our latest proposal. It involves several new ideas.

SWORDSMAN

Abilities:

Bull Rush - Shove and attack
Lunge - If you hit with sword, 50% chance to also hit monster directly behind it

Skills:

Full Swing I: If target is only adjacent monster, +1 sword
Full Swing II: 30% to cleave
Full Swing III: 60% to cleave

Parry I: 20% chance to parry the first melee attack each round
Parry II I: 40%
Parry III: 60%

Rage I: Each time you roll a 1, 2 or 3 and are hit, gain +2 to next sword attack
Rage II: Each time you roll a 1, 2 or 3 and miss with sword, gain +2 to next sword attack
Rage III: Above bonuses are +3 instead of +2

Press I: +1 to sword attack if target cannot move away

Press II: +2
Press III: +3

During Feats: Swordsman can bull rush any size monster (but not >1 hp into pits)

HUNTRESS:

Abilities:

Leap: Leap 2 spaces
Dodge: Dodge & counterattack any attack with defense roll of 6+

Skills:

Leap Attack I: Attack what you leap over, with 20% chance of disorientation
Leap Attack II: 40%
Leap Attack III: 60%

Move Silently I: 30% less likely to be spotted sneaking (not pilfering)

Move Silently II: 50%
Move Silently III: 70%

Long Shot I: Bow distance penalty is -2
Long Shot II: Bow distance penalty is -1
Long Shot III: No bow distance penalty

Rapid Fire I: Each monster that is adjacent and of equal range to your bow target has 20% of also being attacked.
 (Not on counterattacks or feats.)
Rapid Fire II: 40%
Rapid Fire III: 60%

During Feats: Huntress can leap 3.

BRAWLER:

Abilities:

Charge: Advance and +3 sword attack
Resilience: 25% resistance to fireballs, breath, or slime

Skills:

Hunker I: When Guarding: +1 defense, 30% chance of an uppercut if a counterattack misses.

Hunker II: 60% uppercut
Hunker III: Resilience doubled

Identify I - Determine a rack’s weapon bonus from 2 away
Identify II - from 3 away

Identify III - from 4 away

Bellow I - Call the worm

Bellow II - Call grumpy worm (+2 attack)

Bellow III - Call enraged worm (+4 attack)

Fortify I: If not attacked when hunkering, next round gain +2 attack
Fortify II: +2 defense

Fortify II: +3 attack and +3 defense

During feats: Brawler has 50% of cleaving when charging

OTHER CHANGES:

• Flame Shot is replaced by Flaming Arrow unlock.

• Killing Dragons triggers a feat (rolling 11 does not). Killing ruins bosses triggers a feat.

• Revert to prior stealth system, removing the facing rules. It’s too hard to remember, it’s hard on small screens where facing is difficult to see, and makes the Move Silently skill less special.

A feat for slaying a dragon is genius and also the chosen “supernatural” bonus abilities.
Swordsman:
Parry is simple and great. A question to rage: Does it add up? Will it stay, when you miss the next strike again? I always thought that the human could need some “better focus” (like +2 instead of +1). But couldn’t we just have a riposte, when being hit in close combat? Maybe with a penalty on the first two levels.
Huntress:
Is the dodge 5+ gone or is it her “default guarding”? Otherwise I would never again guard with the elf in the dragon lair.
Brawler:
Identify is more or less useless (or you need a LOT more racks in the lair). If you like him to have an “equip”-skill, why not increasing the loot?
I don’t see any frenzy. That changes the gameplay A LOT. I currently try him to be surrounded. How should I play him now? Jump back and fortify? Don’t misunderstand me: Fortify is great for a tactical game, but I also like the bath in the crowd. Can’t we have the cake AND eat it? The brawler is the only one without “more than one” damage now. So a frenzy that damages neighbours could be the right thing. You can also keep identify if you like, if you make “Identify II” the ability, resilience a skill and give hunker 3 some “frenzy” bonus.

Thanks, Rellik …

RAGE
Rage would add up. You would lose it when you attack or leave the room. (Not sure whether a bow attack should use up your rage.)

RIPOSTE
Maybe when you succeed in parrying, you should also get a riposte? (Rather than using up a skill/ability for Riposte.)

EVADE
Yes, in this proposal Evade is gone. When you say that you would not guard in the lair with the elf, do you see that as a good thing or a bad thing? Our thought was that guarding with the elf is not so fun/interesting (especially after adding Rapid Fire), and so we don’t want to encourage it.

IDENTIFY
Racks in the lair instead of chests is interesting. Would it be better for the lair chests to instead be racks, or maybe a mix of both? Is identify really useless in the dungeon?

FRENZY
We still want the dwarf to want to be surrounded. We tried to build Frenzy into Hunker by incorporating Uppercut into Hunker. So instead of Hunker getting the Frenzy bonus, it gets the Uppercut. We do lose the frenzy bonus when charging into a crowd, but that was always a little confusing because it’s not clear whether the frenzy should apply to your starting or finishing position. I guess losing the frenzy bonus from a hasted attack is the bigger issue. What do you think, can the goal of Frenzy be incorporated into the Hunker rule itself?

Another approach would be to get rid of Hunker (guarding is guarding), and replace it with Frenzy: If 3+ adjacent monsters, +1 defense and a chance of uppercuts. [I mostly don’t like this because I don’t want to lose word hunker!]

Oh, and what do you think of Lunge?

Okay, how about this:

SWORDSMAN

Abilities:

Bull Rush - Shove and attack
Lunge - If you hit with sword, 50% chance to also hit monster directly behind it
Punt - 50% chance to punt small monsters after they attack you (hit or miss)

Skills:

Full Swing I: If target is only adjacent monster, +1 sword
Full Swing II: 30% to cleave
Full Swing III: 60% to cleave

Parry I: 20% chance to parry and riposte the first melee attack each round
Parry II I: 40%
Parry III: 60%

Rage I: Each time you roll a 1, 2 or 3 and are hit, gain +2 to next sword attack
Rage II: Each time you roll a 1, 2 or 3 and miss with sword, gain +2 to next sword attack
Rage III: Above bonuses are +3 instead of +2

Press I: +1 to sword attack if target cannot move away
Press II: +2
Press III: +3

During Feats: Swordsman can bull rush any size monster (but not >1 hp into pits)

HUNTRESS:

Abilities:

Leap: Leap 2 spaces
Dodge: Dodge & counterattack any attack with defense roll of 6+
Flame Shot: +2 when shooting over an adjacent flame

Skills:

Leap Attack I: Attack what you leap over, with 20% chance of disorientation
Leap Attack II: 40%
Leap Attack III: 60%

Move Silently I: 30% less likely to be spotted sneaking (not pilfering)
Move Silently II: 50%
Move Silently III: 70%

Long Shot I: Bow distance penalty is -2
Long Shot II: Bow distance penalty is -1
Long Shot III: No bow distance penalty

Rapid Fire I: Each monster that is adjacent and of equal range to your bow target has 20% of also being attacked.
Rapid Fire II: 40%
Rapid Fire III: 60%

During Feats: Huntress can leap 3.

BRAWLER:

Abilities:

Charge: Advance and +3 sword attack
Resilience: 25% resistance to fireballs, breath, or slime
Uppercut: 30% to hit with uppercut if sword misses

Skills:

Hunker I: When Guarding: +1 defense
Hunker II: Resilience doubled
Hunker III: Resilience tripled

Frenzy I: If 3+ adjacent monsters: uppercut doubled (60%)
Frenzy II: +1 defense
Frenzy III: +1 sword

Bellow I - Call the worm
Bellow II - Call grumpy worm (+2 attack)
Bellow III - Call enraged worm (+4 attack)

Fortify I: If not attacked when hunkering, next round gain +2 attack
Fortify II: +2 defense
Fortify II: +3 attack and +3 defense

During feats: Brawler has 50% of cleaving when charging

OTHER CHANGES:

• Killing Dragons triggers a feat (rolling 11 does not). Killing ruins bosses triggers a feat.

• Revert to prior stealth system, removing the facing rules. It’s too hard to remember, it’s hard on small screens where facing is difficult to see, and makes the Move Silently skill less special.

• Maybe give the swordsman a d10 on the bow - especially curious what you think of this one.

From behind:
THAT’s a dream of a dwarf!
Huntress:
I am almost neutral to that guarding thing. My only concern is, that sometimes I need to guard to get dragons on the right positions for the next step. This will be hard to do without the 5+ bonus. The question is if that is the price to pay for rapid fire. It shouldn’t be that easy to get the dragons on the perfect positions, but it is already very costly.
Maybe one could make move silently II an ability and dodge more interesting against far-moving dragons and less useful in melee. What this could lead to is a Han-shoots-first skill.
Anticipate I: Dodge with 6+ (and counterstrike melee when guarding)
Anticipate II: Counterstrike any attack when guarding
Anticipate III: Counterstrike attacking range enemies precedingly when guarding

Of course, if she hits, the enemy attack is surpressed.
For me, guarding with elf would then be an aggressive “watch for attacks” with “rapid fire”-is-ready. I hope her name is Hannah, then it would make sense.
That skill would be strong, but rapid fire is also strong and you “loose” it when guarding. One could further weaken the skill, if it can only trigger when you have not been attacked in melee before. But I like the idea of this different kind of “defense” and think it would fit into the huntress skillset.
Human:
Very good! Riposte on parry sounds really cool. Even punt makes sense now. Lunge is difficult to judge. At first I had a theoretical concern with that 50%. What if you don’t have a normal hit chance of 50%? Can I hit a slime? The tactial side is more complicated. I have to think about that. I know what you want to achieve and I like that a lot, but I am unsure about the probabilities in different room layouts. Keep it would be my current guess.

OK, I watched one of my videos and know I now know where my “inconsistency feeling” is coming from about lunge:
If you want to fight single dragons AND use press, there is often not this straight line. It is possible, e.g. when standing in the corner, but typically press is used “with and angle”. For press AND lunge AND single enemies, I would need a blocked field on the left and on the right but not in between to have my second dragon exactly there.
That being said, I still don’t know if that is a good thing or not. The main question is, if it is better to strengthen the combination of skills or if skills should complement each other.
An alternative to lunge could be, that it is not possible to (far-)attack the human from behind (all 3 fields) a monster that is “under press”. That would be a strong combination with press. If your focus is more on an additional help without press (complement) then lunge is a good possible choice.
Maybe it is even a good “combiner”-skill. Of course I would now more often have a look on the jump scrolls or feats (after dragon slaying) to push dragons (also possible now) in the right direction, so that lunge can work. So this also sounds interesting, the more I think about it.

Rellik -

For the huntress, what if we say that Rapid Fire can be triggered on counterattacks? The new guarding would not be quite as good as the current evading (because you’d need to roll 6+ to dodge instead of 5+ and because you would not bow attack non-dodge misses), but it would be better in that when you do dodge and bow counterattack, you’d get the rapid fire. (Your Anticipate idea is interesting, but I think it would be too confusing to “counterattack” before the monster attacks.)

Regarding lunge, I was not thinking of it as a combiner skill, but instead useful on its own in certain situations. No, you would not be able to hit a slime with lunge.

As combiner lunge is a good one. In X-COM and similar games this “shoots first guarding” exists. However, I understand the problem here, because we have much less tiles.
Rapid fire on counterattacks is somehow insane, because it is possible to take the breath from dragons that had not their turn yet. And it is SO RANDOM. It is just coinflipping to either “die” or survive the round without a scratch. I would prefer a more robust concept of guarding.

One idea for that: “move silently III” gives a chance to enter stealth mode when guarding on a 90% sneak field and all attacks are avoided or dodged or “not happening”. Additionally, you could “randomly” shove the hero one or two fields (the worst thing that can happen is, that the user goes back and is spotted, which produces exactly the initial situation again). This would make it more realistic, because it is impossible to “vanish” while standing still. I ike the idea, that the elf “dodges” all attacks and vanishs (maybe only for huge enemies (that are not bullrushable)).
Another option would be to vanish when guarding and hit by “explosions” (same as resilience, but it does not avoid damage, but makes the elf vanish). If this can abort further attacks this is also an interesting defense.

Okay, then maybe we should just keep the current dodge and evade skills:

HUNTRESS:

Abilities:

Leap: Leap 2 spaces
Dodge: Dodge any attack with defense roll of 6+
Move Silently: 50% less likely to be spotted sneaking (not pilfering)

Skills:

Leap Attack I: Attack what you leap over, with 20% chance of disorientation
Leap Attack II: 40%
Leap Attack III: 60%

Evade I: If guarding, roll 5+ to dodge, counter with bow or sword.
Evade II: Counterattacks are +1.
Evade III: Counterattacks are +2

Long Shot I: Bow distance penalty is -2
Long Shot II: Bow distance penalty is -1
Long Shot III: No bow distance penalty

Rapid Fire I: Each monster that is adjacent and of equal range to your bow target has 20% of also being attacked.
Rapid Fire II: 40%
Rapid Fire III: 60%

During Feats: Huntress can leap 3.

(Flaming Arrow would be an unlock that anyone can use, for a +2 bonus when shooting over an adjacent flame.)

The Horn of Bellowing sounds like a good idea. I.hate it when the elf is by a pit, safe from all the monsters, and then a purple worm appears and tries to eat her. However, the horn should be heavily guarded. Perhaps you must enter a worm nest to get it?

Beetletoe, I think that the summon spell works based on the level of the caster. I have noticed that a gas spire cinjurer can summon a wide variety of monsters, while a kobold can only summon beetles or other kobolds. It seems that a mage can only summon monsters equal to or less than their level. Therefore, no mages are capable of summoning dragons.