Death by poison is bad for the game

[omegonthesane]

After years of playing Crawl, having characters die in lots of horrible ways of varying degrees of fairness, I have become increasingly frustrated with the idea that poison can strip you of your last hitpoint.

It is frequently the case, especially in lower DLs, that you will be poisoned with no possibility of avoiding it. The only thing that being able to die by poison adds is a potential end state in which, through no fault of your own, you are going to die in like 5 turns and cannot prevent this, as you either have not got enough Cure potions or haven't identified any Cure potions whatsoever.

I don't mean that poison in itself is a bad thing - the idea of a game state in which you are going to be about to die in a few turns and need to flee, now, from what was not in itself a fatal attack is an interesting one. I just don't think that the player character should be able to have cleared all opponents in sight, rest to recover, and die from poison inflicted by an enemy he had no ability to run from and which he has already killed.

Heck, even making it so you could only die when your poison state was in the red would be a substantial improvement, as you can't get in the red without doing something wrong, while you can easily get in the yellow without making any mistakes whatsoever.

[dck]

I don't understand the "through no fault of your own" part since you don't just get poisoned while randomly walking around ever since needle traps were removed.
If you willingly fight something that can poison you and misjudge your strength enough that the poison kills you then you deserve to die, if you were fighting something else and then the early adder or ant came into view and poisoned you before dying you probably did several things wrong while fighting the first monster and/or didn't react appropriately to another monster joining the fight.
While I don't like the current state of poison as it is, I think special casing it so that red poison can kill you but yellow one can't is silly and not a good solution.

[crate]

I do think poison itself is a bad thing, but dck is right that you dying to it is almost certainly your fault. It is possible to die to adders through no fault of your own, but that's largely since they're speed 12 (and if you remove their poisoning, a reasonable accompanying change is to increase their damage, so...), not because they poison you.

[omegonthesane]

I don't understand the "through no fault of your own" part since you don't just get poisoned while randomly walking around ever since needle traps were removed.
If you willingly fight something that can poison you and misjudge your strength enough that the poison kills you then you deserve to die,

No you don't. Poison is just too swingy a factor for that to be the case - they might not poison you in the strikes that hit, the poison might not strip enough hitpoints.

if [snip] the early adder or ant came into view and poisoned you before dying you [snip] committed the apparently unforgivable sin of being seen by an early adder/ant.

Fixed that for you.

While I don't like the current state of poison as it is, I think special casing it so that red poison can kill you but yellow one can't is silly and not a good solution.

That was there as a compromise if someone came and defended the idea of death by poison. Ideally I'd see no amount of poison in the universe being able to drop you below 1 HP.

I do think poison itself is a bad thing, but dck is right that you dying to it is almost certainly your fault. It is possible to die to adders through no fault of your own, but that's largely since they're speed 12 (and if you remove their poisoning, a reasonable accompanying change is to increase their damage, so...), not because they poison you.

It isn't entirely a matter of the effect on game difficulty - dying while hitting 5 in a safe zone is frustrating and disempowering in a way that dying while hitting TAB in combat can never be.

It could also be achieved by giving you something like DR 1/poison while on 1 HP only, as you can't take more than 1 damage from poison while in the yellow.

EDIT: Not helping is the fact that my typical experience of the result of running away is that you die anyway.

[crate]

It isn't entirely a matter of the effect on game difficulty - dying while hitting 5 in a safe zone is frustrating and disempowering in a way that dying while hitting TAB in combat can never be.

Yes, this is part of why poison itself is a bad thing. If we assume that crawl should have poison, then I have no qualms about its actual implementation in crawl right now, though I strongly feel that crawl should actually just not have poison in the first place.

[dck]

Can you not disect people's posts when answering to them and reply like a normal person?
If you fight an ant or adder at full health and die regardless it's normally because you didn't judge the threat at hand properly, sure they are fast (which I don't understand in the case of adders) but they're also animals and weak to most tools you may have at the point they show up (including simple stones for adders) and also can't open doors.
If you were fighting something else and then the adder or ant came into view you likely fucked up while engaging the first monster by for example doing something like walking up to him when he noticed you and shouted or fought too close to unexplored terrain. If you were in so bad shape when you finished fighting the monster an adder could stroll by and kill you then you probably shouldn't have been fighting the first monster to begin with.

I don't think damage-dealing poison is a good thing in crawl and I would like it be more interesting but actually dying to it tends to be something the player brings upon himself.

[Klown]

#poisonreform

[Bloax]

Dying to an aimbotting kobold with poisoned darts that came into sight halfway into your LOS in D:1-2 is a perfectly unavoidable death, unless the poison god smiles upon you and makes it go away very quickly.
Because hey, you can walk towards it to stop its bombardment of poison - and die to it. You can also run away and get poisoned even more - and die to that. You can also quit the game.

[dck]

Blowgun Ko are a hell of a lot more dangerous than poison darts Ko and you can normally survive one hit with average HP races once you've reached D: 2.

[ontoclasm]

EDIT: Not helping is the fact that my typical experience of the result of running away is that you die anyway.

I found your problem. Run away sooner (and/or more effectively). Being able to see dangerous situations developing when there's still time to beat a hasty retreat is probably the single most important skill in Crawl.

The second most important is probably knowing how to escape from dangerous situations you recognized a few turns too late.

[omegonthesane]

EDIT: Not helping is the fact that my typical experience of the result of running away is that you die anyway.

I found your problem. Run away sooner (and/or more effectively). Being able to see dangerous situations developing when there's still time to beat a hasty retreat is probably the single most important skill in Crawl.

The second most important is probably knowing how to escape from dangerous situations you recognized a few turns too late.

This doesn't address the primary complaint - namely, that the ability to have cleared all enemies in sight, or else successfully fled to a place with no enemies in it, and yet still be effectively dead is a net downside to the game, regardless of how incompetent you have to be to get there.

Spoiler: show

Spoilered for irrelevance to main topic.

This may also partly be bad habits. I tend to be playing either berserkers or blaster mages, neither of which is known for being easily defeated in a fight that isn't obviously suicide - so, if I bite off more than I can easily chew, it means "let's get dangerous" rather than "oh shit, oh shit, OH SHIT!". The last bunch of runs, by contrast, was me repeatedly failing to make a HEWr with a falchion reach D:10.

[Bloax]

I can tell from experience that if you have no curing potions and there's a poisonous enemy along with a bunch of other stuff, you should dispatch of the poisoner (preferably in a corridor) and immediately run away.
Because then the poison is less likely to kill you than if you had taken all the hits you'd have to if you had killed all the other enemies instead of running.

[Igxfl]

I try not to fight adders until I level up a little. They're fast, but you can slam doors in their faces or use stairs. Short of that, throw things.

The delayed death by poison situation may be annoying, but it's still less dangerous than an early unique or the dreaded D:1 gnoll.

[daggaz]

Dont have cure identified/on hand? Not at full health?

Avoid fighting poisoners if at all possible. If you can see you will have to fight them, damage them as much as possible by any means possible before they get into melee. If you are forced to melee more than one monster (which is almost always avoidable, either thru careful exploration or careful retreat/escape), then target the poisoner first, even if 'stronger' monsters are also hitting you. If a kobold is targetting you with poisoned range, then get out of LoS ASAP, or destroy him fast with a ranged attack.

Get cure identified, ASAP. If you have to quaff blindly, quaff large stacks first, high chances of cure or heal.

Personally I like having constant mortal risk in crawl. I actually like the early game the most, and will often quit characters after lair/orc if I dont find the drops or the play interesting or challenging. Poison is one of the things that can keep you on your toes in Crawls early game. If anything, this game needs more threats, not less and less. So long as they are mitigatable by intelligent play, which poison is.

[Senban]

Don't forget the halbard to go with that D1 Gnoll.
I love poison, preferably in the form of finding a nice big stack of curare needles, but yeah adders are among the worst of the things you'll meet on D2 and they don't sleep on the job all the time like that lazy Sigmund chap. That said being poisoned upsets me a lot less than being confused does, normally you can kill whatever poisoned you in time to at least play potion roulette (It was a potion of poison/you are even more poisoned/you die... etc).
Throwing weapons help to keep the threat of adders manegable. Sometimes you will just open a door and get an adder in your face right away, but the same thing happens with Ogres too and when it does you'll probably get splattered WAY faster.
The idea of poison that can't kill you seems really badly wrong to me, at that point you might as well give all the baddies foam swords and call the game a LARP simulator. Dungeon Crawl is meant to be a brutally hard game, and at the end of the day if poison really bothers you there are now three species who are immune to it plus naga who are resistent and Vampires who can be immune or resistant if you manage their blood levels right. And Venom Mages who get Cure Poison at level 2.

[duvessa]

although I hate poison, adders are one of my favourite enemies

[AzuredreamsXT]

Don't forget the halbard to go with that D1 Gnoll.
I love poison, preferably in the form of finding a nice big stack of curare needles, but yeah adders are among the worst of the things you'll meet on D2 and they don't sleep on the job all the time like that lazy Sigmund chap. That said being poisoned upsets me a lot less than being confused does, normally you can kill whatever poisoned you in time to at least play potion roulette (It was a potion of poison/you are even more poisoned/you die... etc).
Throwing weapons help to keep the threat of adders manegable. Sometimes you will just open a door and get an adder in your face right away, but the same thing happens with Ogres too and when it does you'll probably get splattered WAY faster.
The idea of poison that can't kill you seems really badly wrong to me, at that point you might as well give all the baddies foam swords and call the game a LARP simulator. Dungeon Crawl is meant to be a brutally hard game, and at the end of the day if poison really bothers you there are now three species who are immune to it plus naga who are resistent and Vampires who can be immune or resistant if you manage their blood levels right. And Venom Mages who get Cure Poison at level 2.

Great points, fully agreed

[tasonir]

Agreed as well. Cure poison is a really overlooked spell by newer players, it's very useful for any character who finds it. If you're caster-y enough, you don't even need any skill in poison to use it, but 1-2 ranks never hurts. Finding it outside of being a venom mage can be a bit annoying/be past the point that adders are a problem, but it never hurts. My ogre hunter found it around lair time, and tabbed through an entire ant colony, getting up to red poison, and while it took 3-4 casts to fully cure myself, it's much better than resting. I think I cast it once or twice during the fight as well, as I wasn't taking much physical damage, only poison. (I have surprisingly good defenses for an ogre at that point due to a protection weapon and protection ring).

[Siegurt]

I'm not really sure how common of a problem this is.

I scanned my logs and i have 13 'succombed to an adder's poison' death out of 1196 morgues on my computer, this doesn't seem like a common enough death to get that worked up about.

They work out to:
2 on D:1
7 on D:2
2 on D:3
1 on D:4
1 in Sewer

In case the complaint is about depth.

I'm sure at least *half* of those deaths were very avoidable, and half of the remainder were probably avoidable with little better pre-planning (or perhaps just better exploration tactics) on my part.

[Siegurt]

Hm, looking back over it, it seems more like the complaint is "Out of combat deaths suck" rather than "Poison is cheap"

What if poison was implemented such that you never took poison damage out of combat, but you took an extra d(poisonlevel) damage every time you were hit with poison, that way it would still have the same "stacking poison is deadly" but it would happen in combat rather than out. And if you felt confident you wouldn't be facing more poisonous critters you wouldn't have to 5 it off before fighting more (but fighting poisonous stuff with red poison level would be VERY nasty)

[diviton]

I think poison is fine and you've all gone soft.

[Siegurt]

Yeah, I don't think poison is a particularly *deadly* portion of the game, nor is it overly cheap or especially likely to kill you. I actually think making it a tactical effect (Where stacked poison increases the damage you take in combat, as I suggested) makes poison slightly more powerful, but also more tactical and less boring.

[omegonthesane]

The idea of poison that can't kill you seems really badly wrong to me, at that point you might as well give all the baddies foam swords and call the game a LARP simulator. Dungeon Crawl is meant to be a brutally hard game, and at the end of the day if poison really bothers you there are now three species who are immune to it plus naga who are resistent and Vampires who can be immune or resistant if you manage their blood levels right. And Venom Mages who get Cure Poison at level 2.

You do not get to argue realism when it comes to game design. Ever. If something is good for the game, then defend it on how it makes the game a better tactical experience, NEVER on how closely it emulates reality. Realism arguments are the fall back of someone trying to force bad things into a game.

Being able to die out of combat is bad for the game. Full fucking stop. It doesn't matter how hard you have to fuck up to do it, if you got out of combat you should not be in mortal danger until an enemy finds you. The most prominent example of noncombat death is poison; therefore, poison as it is currently implemented being able to kill you is bad for the game. I have seen no counterarguments to this core principle, and plenty of bad-faith attempts to sidetrack the discussion onto whether or not it is avoidable - because that doesn't matter, it's bad for the game.

[crate]

therefore, poison as it is currently implemented being able to kill you is bad for the game

If this is true, then

I don't mean that poison in itself is a bad thing

why did you say that originally?

Also this topic is in the wrong forum. If you post in the advice forum, the assumption is, and should be, that you want advice. You apparently do not want advice, you instead want to talk about game design. So this belongs in GDD, except there was already a recent topic about poison so really this has all already been said.

[omegonthesane]

therefore, poison as it is currently implemented being able to kill you is bad for the game

If this is true, then

I don't mean that poison in itself is a bad thing

why did you say that originally?

If I said "poison in itself" was a bad thing, that would imply that I wanted all poison effects stripped from the game for all eternity going forward. You are ignoring the key phrase "as it is currently implemented" - specifically, its ability to cause non-combat deaths is bad, and as far as I am concerned nothing else about the mechanic stands out as in need of improvement.

Also this topic is in the wrong forum. If you post in the advice forum, the assumption is, and should be, that you want advice. You apparently do not want advice, you instead want to talk about game design. So this belongs in GDD, except there was already a recent topic about poison so really this has all already been said.

Brain failure on my part - I somehow got the idea that the design forums were somehow restricted. My bad.

[siprus]

I'd suggest we add 1 more tier of poison, which is not capable of killing you. Once poison damage is roughly just bit more than your average hp gain, poison should become incapable of killing. Generally dying to poison is only annoying when you just barely die to it (especially in early game)

[Senban]

You do not get to argue realism when it comes to game design. Ever.

1) You ain't the boss of me.
2) My point was about the feel of the game, rather than realism or unrealism. I'm playing this game because I like the feeling of being up against remorseless enemies in a harsh, unforgiving environment where I might well succumb to poison, starvation or other misfortunes.

If something is good for the game, then defend it on how it makes the game a better tactical experience, NEVER on how closely it emulates reality. Realism arguments are the fall back of someone trying to force bad things into a game.

There seems to be some static between what I'm typing and what you're reading. I would point out though that, while the tactical aspect of the game should definately be the most important aspect, to strip the game of all of it's other dimensions would be very short sighted.

Being able to die out of combat is bad for the game. Full fucking stop.

Have you tried Street Fighter II? That doesn't have poison in it.
Like I said before, in my opinion, it is absolutely vital to the game that it does contain mortal dangers which cannot be defeated by violence, it gives the game a richness of experience which it would otherwise lack.

It doesn't matter how hard you have to fuck up to do it, if you got out of combat you should not be in mortal danger until an enemy finds you. The most prominent example of noncombat death is poison; therefore, poison as it is currently implemented being able to kill you is bad for the game. I have seen no counterarguments to this core principle, and plenty of bad-faith attempts to sidetrack the discussion onto whether or not it is avoidable - because that doesn't matter, it's bad for the game.

The avoidance arguments are not being made in bad-faith at all, what they are pointing out is that threat mangement is a vital component of the game and that - in the early game particularly - poison is an important pillar of the risk-management dimension of the game. In all honesty I think you have seen plenty of counterarguments, you just haven't understood them.
Another thing that you might have missed is the synergy between the poison aspect of the game and the scrolls and potions aspect of the game, nerfing poison damage would take a lot of pressure off this side of the game too which would also be a bad gameplay desicion, in my opinion.

I still can't figure out how non-casters should best deal with Jellies. Maybe instead of posting long, sweary demands that other people do hard unpaid work to remove an aspect of the game that other people find enjoyably challenging we should just swap gameplay tips?

[Senban]

I think poison is fine and you've all gone soft.

What I'm saying in a nutshell.

[omegonthesane]

You do not get to argue realism when it comes to game design. Ever.

1) You ain't the boss of me.
2) My point was about the feel of the game, rather than realism or unrealism. I'm playing this game because I like the feeling of being up against remorseless enemies in a harsh, unforgiving environment where I might well succumb to poison, starvation or other misfortunes.

Unforgiving is "you fuck up, you die". All too often, poison is "you don't fuck up, at all, and you die anyway, in a manner that is literally completely out of your control." That isn't unforgiving, it's cruel. When a snake appears at the edge of your vision and notices you, you don't get to run, you can't 100% count on stones, standing and fighting is the optimal solution and all too often it gets you fatally poisoned.

I left out death by starvation in the noncombat death rant because with the current inputs I don't consider it a realistic danger. I have lost characters to poisons outside of combat hundreds, possibly thousands of times; I have lost exactly one character to starvation, a catastrophically unlucky DSFE way back when you needed a sharp object to dissect.

Being able to die out of combat is bad for the game. Full fucking stop.

Have you tried Street Fighter II? That doesn't have poison in it.
Like I said before, in my opinion, it is absolutely vital to the game that it does contain mortal dangers which cannot be defeated by violence, it gives the game a richness of experience which it would otherwise lack.

That's not what you said - you said you wanted the game environment to be harsh and unforgiving. In any case, poison is literally the only such immediate mortal danger that cannot be fought - for most characters starvation can be fought by violently killing something, chopping it up and eating the chunks, while mutation and rot simply make the immediate dangers more dangerous rather than being fatal on their own.

Also, thinly veiled personal insults are not appreciated anywhere under the sun, I'd literally be less offended if you called me a retard and told me to go suck a barrel of cocks because at least then you'd be admitting it was a personal insult.

It doesn't matter how hard you have to fuck up to do it, if you got out of combat you should not be in mortal danger until an enemy finds you. The most prominent example of noncombat death is poison; therefore, poison as it is currently implemented being able to kill you is bad for the game. I have seen no counterarguments to this core principle, and plenty of bad-faith attempts to sidetrack the discussion onto whether or not it is avoidable - because that doesn't matter, it's bad for the game.

The avoidance arguments are not being made in bad-faith at all, what they are pointing out is that threat mangement is a vital component of the game and that - in the early game particularly - poison is an important pillar of the risk-management dimension of the game. In all honesty I think you have seen plenty of counterarguments, you just haven't understood them.
Another thing that you might have missed is the synergy between the poison aspect of the game and the scrolls and potions aspect of the game, nerfing poison damage would take a lot of pressure off this side of the game too which would also be a bad gameplay desicion, in my opinion.

Risk management would be "can I flee fast enough, is it worth potion roulette". If a snake comes around the corner - or worse, a kobold with poison darts - no risk management is involved; you can stand and fight and die, you can charge and die, you can run and die, and whether or not you die is decided practically entirely by whether or not the RNG determining the poison likes you.

In any case, after reading through crate's link I'm leaning more towards deterministic poison, for which work is already in progress - if I know I'm going to die in N turns, I can react accordingly.

I still can't figure out how non-casters should best deal with Jellies. Maybe instead of posting long, sweary demands that other people do hard unpaid work to remove an aspect of the game that other people find enjoyably challenging we should just swap gameplay tips?

1) Order of magnitude. Jellies affect your stuff; poison ends your game. Jellies can always be reacted to; poison all too often is simply a random chance of death which cannot be influenced.
2) Your position is not founded on any kind of logic and your passive-aggressive expression of your position makes me seethe in a way a proper screaming match would not.
3) Pick up a spare or artefact weapon and hit them. Or if you're an archer, suck up the ammunition loss, because once jellies are showing you should probably be doing enough damage to net out.

[Senban]

My argument isn't meant to be a logical one, I'm stating my opinon on a subject of personal taste.
Swearing at people whose identity you don't know is also considered bad form in some parts too. When we're talking about a game that has wizards and magic swords in it you might take sensitive ears in to acount- it's cool though, as it happens I'm not easily offended, and really this is a issue for the mods not for me .
I don't think there's anything aggressive in my first post in the thread, I only became passive-aggressive in response to your aggressive-aggressive post. Hopefully I'm not too much of a dick to people the rest of the time. Anyway we've both stated our opinions, I'm out. Let's not get off on the wrong foot though.

[Klown]

Just had 2 unavoidable poison deaths(faster enemies, no cures/ways to escape the fights/stairs).

Playing Gargoyles for a while now...poison gets pwned.

[pickled_heretic]

I think it's less about poison and more about retarded deaths in the first two levels where the player simply does not have any options or tools at his disposal.

[BlackSheep]

If that's what it's more about then I'd rather talk about D:1 jackal packs than poison.

[Sprucery]

If that's what it's more about then I'd rather talk about D:1 gnoll packs than poison.

FTFY

[crate]

Gnolls aren't faster than you, unless you're a naga.

[Siegurt]

Unforgiving is "you fuck up, you die". All too often, poison is "you don't fuck up, at all, and you die anyway, in a manner that is literally completely out of your control." That isn't unforgiving, it's cruel. When a snake appears at the edge of your vision and notices you, you don't get to run, you can't 100% count on stones, standing and fighting is the optimal solution and all too often it gets you fatally poisoned.

I left out death by starvation in the noncombat death rant because with the current inputs I don't consider it a realistic danger. I have lost characters to poisons outside of combat hundreds, possibly thousands of times; I have lost exactly one character to starvation, a catastrophically unlucky DSFE way back when you needed a sharp object to dissect.

If you have lost characters out of combat hundreds, possibly thousands of times, then you are probably not properly dealing with poison or poisonous creatures (or possibly combat in general) and are therefore not dying "in a manner that is literally completely out of your control"

My personal rate of out-of-combat deaths to poison is pretty low (Less than 4% of all deaths) and the ones that were "Cruel" or "Unfair" and "where I did nothing wrong" were way less than half of that. That isn't luck, that's playing the game better, and I'm not even an excellent player. I suppose I don't know, perhaps you have played tens or hundreds of thousands of games of crawl, but I would think after a thousand deaths to poison you would've figured out a better way to deal with it.

Also since Snakes don't teleport next to you the instant you see them, you certainly can retreat and fight in a more optimal location than the one you encountered them in (or in many cases, get to a staircase and escape without fighting them at all.) It's never optimal to "stand and fight" (i.e. wait until it gets up next to you and then bash it to death) If you're walking away from a creature, even one that's faster than you, you do have a fair number of turns until it gets next to you and can attack, I actually find blowgun-wielding kobolds to be a larger problem than snakes, simply because they can hit me at range (They're about as dangerous as centaurs without the faster-than-you movement, and should be handled similarly).

Finally your premise that "All out of combat death is bad game design" is certainly an opinion (which you are certainly entitled to), however it's not fact, and it's not something that everyone will automatically agree with you about.

[Klown]

Gnolls aren't faster than you, unless you're a naga.

But you have to fight them or
run away to stairs, if you don't get cut off. Then fight sigmund on D:2.
then run away again.
Grinder!

[cerebovssquire]

Gnolls aren't faster than you, unless you're a naga.

But you have to fight them or
run away to stairs, if you don't get cut off. Then fight sigmund on D:2.
then run away again.
Grinder!

1) Gnoll packs are significantly rarer than jackal packs
2) The probability of not being able to escape D:2 alive if you fled from a gnoll pack is considerable, but still not very high, whereas some characters (mainly some backgrounds that start with a book and no weapon) simply have no way of dealing with the rather common jackal packs on D:1.

[nago]

Teorically, D:1 gnolls' pack don't exist since long time:

fbec838 | elliptic | 2011-06-02 22:03:23 -0400

Eliminate D:1 gnoll packs.
A single gnoll is bad enough.

I don't think it has been ever reverted - at least in all my "recent" games I always got at most two, separate, alone gnoll on D:1 - and most of background can deal with one of them at time (at least after they've reached xl2). The few really cannot should be have an easier time to escape from a single speed 10 monster than a pack of speed 14, as already said.

[damiac]

The real problem being talked about here seems to be D1 adders and blowgun Kobolds. And I've opened the first door and found an adder on the other side. I guess I could close the door, and take the doorway out of the dungeon, but my only real option is to gamble.

It sucks to be a XL1 character with yellow poison and 10 hps. Maybe you'll live, maybe you'll die, just keep pressing 5 to find out!

[daggaz]

Lol. I still remember my very first 'caster' type character. A DeFe. I started in a large room with a pack of jackals. They promptly tore me to shreds and ate the marrow from my bones as I lay gasping uselessly for air.

Played a few more melee characters after that one.

[damiac]

The problem we seem to be talking about is very early poison, D1 or D2.
Would it be possible to give XL1 and 2 characters some extra HPS, and then take away those HPS from XL3, so an XL3 character stays the same, but XL1 and 2 characters are a little tougher?

Right now, starting a conjurer, you get like 10 hps and 4 mp. You could use up that 4 mp on one creature, then die to a second one. It's not uncommon to run into 2 monsters outside the starting door. I know in a lot of those cases I could run around a pillar or something and try to get my MP back, but having to kite creatures out of the starting gate is a little lame.

[Igxfl]

Conjurers probably aren't one of the backgrounds that need to worry most about these issues.
If you pick up the first dagger you see and pull back monsters before fighting them, you don't even need to kite for MP regen that often.

[Siegurt]

Start every character at level 2!

[omegonthesane]

If you have lost characters out of combat hundreds, possibly thousands of times, then you are probably not properly dealing with poison or poisonous creatures (or possibly combat in general) and are therefore not dying "in a manner that is literally completely out of your control"

My personal rate of out-of-combat deaths to poison is pretty low (Less than 4% of all deaths) and the ones that were "Cruel" or "Unfair" and "where I did nothing wrong" were way less than half of that. That isn't luck, that's playing the game better, and I'm not even an excellent player. I suppose I don't know, perhaps you have played tens or hundreds of thousands of games of crawl, but I would think after a thousand deaths to poison you would've figured out a better way to deal with it.

Also since Snakes don't teleport next to you the instant you see them, you certainly can retreat and fight in a more optimal location than the one you encountered them in (or in many cases, get to a staircase and escape without fighting them at all.) It's never optimal to "stand and fight" (i.e. wait until it gets up next to you and then bash it to death) If you're walking away from a creature, even one that's faster than you, you do have a fair number of turns until it gets next to you and can attack, I actually find blowgun-wielding kobolds to be a larger problem than snakes, simply because they can hit me at range (They're about as dangerous as centaurs without the faster-than-you movement, and should be handled similarly).

I know all the tricks. Fight in a corridor, pelt them with mystery meat, run until you find the stairs, etc. All too often, they simply aren't enough. If a snake is on the other side of the door, your next action is going to end in it biting you. Recall also the snake on D:1 above.

Finally your premise that "All out of combat death is bad game design" is certainly an opinion (which you are certainly entitled to), however it's not fact, and it's not something that everyone will automatically agree with you about.

Game states in which the outcome is determined primarily by factors outside player control are bad. They rob the game of its meaning. It's like if there was a board position after which you had to roll a 6 to not lose every turn of chess - the game would be diminished, because the dice rolling would completely override any actual player skill.

It's a logical conclusion, not an unfounded opinion. If you want to dispute it, then dispute it on grounds of logic or earn my contempt.

Start every character at level 2!

That's obviously meant as sarcasm, but it would indeed solve the problem in many cases. Removing D:1 jackal packs would work better, however, since they are a deeply special case of an opponent that no level 1 character (save perhaps a troll berserker in heat) can reasonably be expected to defeat.

[savageorange]

D:1 jackal packs are not something that you are required to defeat, unless you start with them immediately surrounding you. But (if you are not an overly squishy caster), you can do so, simply by drawing them off one or two at a time. To me, such a statement reflects either a) hyperbole or b) poor play style.

[Senban]

It's a logical conclusion, not an unfounded opinion. If you want to dispute it, then dispute it on grounds of logic or earn my contempt.

Your premises include the arbitrary value "bad", therefore your opinion remains perfectly valid and you are completely entitled to both hold and state it.

[omegonthesane]

D:1 jackal packs are not something that you are required to defeat, unless you start with them immediately surrounding you. But (if you are not an overly squishy caster), you can do so, simply by drawing them off one or two at a time. To me, such a statement reflects either a) hyperbole or b) poor play style.

Do you only play Warpers, Abyssal Knights, Centaurs, Felids, and Spriggans?

No other character, in the entire game, can hope to draw off even one jackal without being surrounded by all the others on D:1. In fact, Warpers can't even do it either, without burning their starting scroll of Blinking.

It's a logical conclusion, not an unfounded opinion. If you want to dispute it, then dispute it on grounds of logic or earn my contempt.

Your premises include the arbitrary value "bad", therefore your opinion remains perfectly valid and you are completely entitled to both hold and state it.

Do I really need to explain why having chance completely override player skill is counterproductive to the purpose of a game which is explicitly meant to reward skilful play?

[variouselite]

Do you only play Warpers, Abyssal Knights, Centaurs, Felids, and Spriggans?

No other character, in the entire game, can hope to draw off even one jackal without being surrounded by all the others on D:1. In fact, Warpers can't even do it either, without burning their starting scroll of Blinking.

Youre just diminishing any credibility you had at this point, the above quoted comment is just ridiculous. Yes, it can be difficult, yes, its maybe even common for you to get screwed in said situation. But no, it is certainly not impossible to separate a jackal pack with a lvl1 char on d1. Its called tactical (re)positioning, and its an essential skill if you want to survive in DCSS.

And theres nothing wrong with poison, yes it can be frustrating, yes it can feel "unfair", but this is a game where everything is actively trying to kill you, not hold your hand and sing songs.

[omegonthesane]

Do you only play Warpers, Abyssal Knights, Centaurs, Felids, and Spriggans?

No other character, in the entire game, can hope to draw off even one jackal without being surrounded by all the others on D:1. In fact, Warpers can't even do it either, without burning their starting scroll of Blinking.

Youre just diminishing any credibility you had at this point, the above quoted comment is just ridiculous. Yes, it can be difficult, yes, its maybe even common for you to get screwed in said situation. But no, it is certainly not impossible to separate a jackal pack with a lvl1 char on d1. Its called tactical (re)positioning, and its an essential skill if you want to survive in DCSS.

And theres nothing wrong with poison, yes it can be frustrating, yes it can feel "unfair", but this is a game where everything is actively trying to kill you, not hold your hand and sing songs.

Vids or didn't happen. The closest I have ever come to managing that ON D:1, in literally years of play, is to herd the pack into a corridor so I only have to fight them all in sequence instead of all at once.