Yet Another Golem/Automaton Species Proposal

[tedric]

All the recent analysis of Pakellas, the "evoker god", has got me thinking about golem- and automata-type species. Basically, I really like Pak's MP limitations and evokable interactions, but don't feel like those abilities are particularly "god-like" compared to most of the rest of the pantheon. They're things I'd expect to find (probably in more limited form) on a species.

I've seen a bunch of past species proposals flavored around artificial beings, and they mostly take the concept in boring, predictable, degenerate directions like "eats magical items instead of food" (obligatory: remove food) or "has tons of resistances and extra armor but is slow/large/aptitude-poor/etc." But I think Pak has already hit on a mechanic that creates interesting gameplay and has an artificial/mechanical flavor built right into it.

This is not a complete exact-numbers proposal (hence starting this in CYC), but just dream with me here for a minute about what it would be like to turn Pak into a species:

• Golems are normal size, eat normal food (flavored as burning it in the micro-furnace that powers your artificial body, or whatever, who cares, remove food again), have full equipment slots, and move at speed 10. They have no special resistances (OK, maybe rN+? But they're not "undead" and they can be tormented, drained, etc. because they're, like, a real soul bonded to an artificial body or whatever, who cares).

• Golems have relatively flat aptitudes, and gain levels slowly.

• Golems regenerate HP just like any other species (flavored as magical self-repairing metal or whatever, who cares).

• Golems do not regenerate MP naturally. Small amounts are regenerated on some kills, but less than Pak currently gives -- half as much or half as often, or whatever the right ratio is. Potions of magic work as normal; channeling doesn't (flavored as your metal skin blocking the absorption of ambient energy or whatever, who cares).

• Golems have the following species-specific abilities (which may need hunger costs):
  
  
  • Quick Charge - Basically just like Pak's first ability, it drains 2/3 of your MP and translates it into wand/rod charges based on the device's max charge, your MP/maxMP ratio, and your XL (instead of Evo skill).
  • Drain Wand - Reduces a wand charge to zero, converting a portion of those charges to MP based on your maxMP, the device's charge/maxCharge ratio, and some metric for wand tier (the intention being that you get better returns for draining rare/powerful wands, but you'll always get less MP out of a wand than what it would cost to add that many charges via Quick Charge).
  • Device Surge - Basically just like Pak's second ability, it spends up to XL/3 MP (max 9) to add up to 3 evocations enhancers to your next use of a device.
    
    (No Supercharge here, but I think the ability to transfer charges from low-tier wands to high-tier wands or rods kind of makes up for that. I guess it could be added as a one-time ability on reaching a certain XL, maybe?)

My thinking is that by limiting MP-on-kills a bit more than Pak does now but also adding Drain Wand, the species would admit a variety of playstyles. Players should feel that it's reasonable to limit casting to the occasional support spell and rely more on evocables, just as we seem to be doing with Pak now; AND that it's also reasonable to play a caster background if you're willing to reduce most wands to (weak) potions of magic that you'll often want to drain-and-drop immediately. (You shouldn't even need the wand in inventory; the ability could prompt for any wands you're standing over before opening a menu, as with eating food off the floor.)

Concerns:

• If MP-on-kills isn't balanced right, we end up jacking up the inventory management game by encouraging players to carry all kinds of low-tier wands around in case they need an MP boost.
• Not sure how this would play with Veh. In theory, if MP-on-kills is balanced right, it shouldn't be too different from playing a blaster-caster of Veh with natural MP regen. But we also open the door to evokables-based characters choosing Veh just for the additional passive MP-on-kills, which could be good or bad depending on how it affects the overall balance.

[Bart]

Let me start with the most important part: naming. I do not understand why you would like golem/automaton flavour. Mountain dwarf fits much better. No HP regen = deep dwarf, so obviously no MP regen = mountain dwarf!

Continuing with less critical items, no mana regen mostly limits choices, not makes them more interesting (we already have trog and GDA for people disliking spells). To make all mountain dwarves even more similar, you provide them with abilities to charge/empower evokers that incentivize training the same skill on every character. It also seems to me that the rest of the proposal tries to patch no mana regen with questionable solution - drain wand will lead to excessive inventory clutter, because each wand essentially becomes a (weak!) potion of magic.

I'm afraid I don't see mountain dwarves returning yet; as proposed above, they wouldn't fill any niche nor provide very unique, interesting experience.

[tedric]

Flavor and naming is really the last thing I care about at this point. I'm interested in whether "MP limitation and device interaction" mechanics might work better as a species than as a god.

I don't see why limited choices == less interesting choices. A lot of my favorite Crawl moments happen when I have to adapt to a situation with limited means at my disposal; it's where the most creative thinking happens.

I also don't see the problem with skills that most/all characters want to train at least some levels in. How many characters don't train any Fighting? How many never train Dodging/Armour? Spellcasting? Grabbing a few levels of Evo is already a good idea on many, many characters of all species. Part of the reason I suggested flat aptitudes for this one is so that we don't pigeonhole players into always choosing heavily evo-based play. Also remember that they'd be limited by floor drops just like anyone else. They'd be incentivized toward using evocations a bit more than other species would, but no more than fast species have an extra incentive to use ranged weapons and certainly less than Ogres are incentivized to always, always, always train M&F. You could even give a lower Evo aptitude if this is really a problem! After all, the point isn't to make "species that is great with evokers", the point is to make "species that has interesting limitations/interactions around MP".

Inventory clutter is definitely a worry. But I find that my characters are usually ready to start dropping low-tier wands (flame/frost, etc.) by the time inventory management becomes an issue. I imagine that this species would often be below full MP, so you'd often want to drain-and-drop a wand as soon as you find it if you value a spell or other wand more.

A more challenging problem is how to limit carrying lots of low-tier wands as "charging packs" for the better wands. If you have sufficient melee skill that you're able to reliably kill your way to full MP without using many spells/wand charges, then it would be worth dumping your mana bar into extra wands to store for later -- even at the lossy conversion I proposed above. Of course the actual numbers would determine if that's a thing that most players decide is worth the effort, but it's a "Hypothetical Optimal Player" problem for sure. So maybe that part of it has to go. [EDIT] Or would having a wand be destroyed upon using Drain Charge be enough? [/EDIT]

[Bart]

Really, think about the name. If it's called Mountain Dwarf, people will want it in the game!

I don't see why limited choices == less interesting choices

I'm implying that penalizing might implicitly remove a choice. A penalty/disadvantage is interesting if you really have to adapt to it, e.g. slow movement. A penalty also makes sense if it balances an otherwise strong feature. Penalty on something that is not required to win simply makes people not use it. That's what already happens to skills with unbalanced apts.

How many characters don't train any Fighting? How many never train Dodging/Armour? Spellcasting?

If you ask me, I find it a bad thing - there should be no universally good skills. The examples of Mf+Polearms or Og+M&F are actually examples of a design we do not need anymore - unbalanced to the point where you do not ask yourself "Will it make my character better?", but rather: "Am I hipster enough to do it?".

After all, the point isn't to make "species that is great with evokers", the point is to make "species that has interesting limitations/interactions around MP".

We already have VS, which does that in a very good way - not limiting the choices and having meaningful impact on the gameplay no matter what build you choose.