Paralysation 2

[DracheReborn]

Speaking of chaos weapons, sanka's death which prompted the initial post was apparently from being paralysed by a Pan lord with chaos branded melee. So that's another source of para to consider.

Scaling paralysis duration by power seems good, or alternatively para can just be removed from common/random sources like wands and chaos weapons. Though chaos weapons have a long list of other issues

[tompliss]

About the "problem" of "enemy comes into LoS and directly paralize", why not give (wand of) Paralize a range ?

Also, the higher MR means shorter paralize is a good Idea, I think, preventing the hardcap that may exist.

[Lasty]

I like the idea that the duration of paralysis would be in proportion to the degree by which you fail your MR check. Short 1-3 turn paralysis is more interesting than long paralysis to me. Obviously, MR-ignoring sources like Hell effects, giant eyeballs, and chaos can't use this metric, but ideally would have relatively short durations. Alternately, I'd accept that all paralysis is for exactly 3 (or 2 or 4 or whatever) turns, so that you have a better sense of what kind of risk it would entail, and that risk would be low unless you're already in significant danger when you get paralyzed.

That said, I can only remember suffering one notable death to paralysis aside from Grinder, and more often I get paralyzed, survive but in relatively bad shape, and need to escape, which is fairly interesting.

Over all, here's what I'd like to see:
* You can't be paralyzed by an enemy's spell upon the first turn entering LOS to prevent instant deaths.
* Paralysis duration control, possibly based on degree to which you fail MR check.
* Consider replacing paralysis with sleep in some circumstances. It guarantees a successful attack against you for enhanced damage, but then you get to wake up and resume normal action instead of being dogpiled for turn after turn.

Also, I like Galefury's idea of more "partial paralysis" statii that disallow certain classes of actions.

[crate]

About the "problem" of "enemy comes into LoS and directly paralize", why not give (wand of) Paralize a range ?

This doesn't actually fix the problem, which is that occasionally you enter los of a monster close to the monster and then it paralyses you from there.

[njvack]

new zot:5 strategy: put on a ring of teleportation and paralyse yourself every turn until you land on the orb

Disallow chain-paralysis. I think it's already disallowed but maybe not from potions?

[Sprucery]

Hell effect paralysis should be removed. Otherwise things are fine as they are, IMHO. I don't mind if paralysis is removed from random spell sets, but an adequate solution would be just to show right away whether the monster can cast paralysis (i.e. show the actual spell sets in the monster descriptions).

Wands of paralysation are fine. They're part of the roguelike experience (à l a Nethack: the gnome zaps a wand of death). The possibility of generating exciting situations where you just barely escape with your life requires that sometimes you will face unfair conditions and die. But maybe it's just me.

[Sporkman]

Hell effect paralysis should be removed.

Fucking MASSIVELY agree'd.

Wands of paralysation are fine. They're part of the roguelike experience (à l a Nethack: the gnome zaps a wand of death). The possibility of generating exciting situations where you just barely escape with your life requires that sometimes you will face unfair conditions and die. But maybe it's just me.

I thought the old gnome-with-a-wand-o-death situation was something we were supposed to AVOID in DCSS?

[Sprucery]

I thought the old gnome-with-a-wand-o-death situation was something we were supposed to AVOID in DCSS?

Well, I'm not advocating adding wands of death to Crawl But I don't remember a single situation where my character has died due to a wand of paralysis. So if it has happened, it has happened to an early character and not bothered me much. I just don't think that Crawl should be a "solvable" game meaning that every game would be winnable. Some amount of feeling of constant danger should be present at least for the early to mid-game.

(Some players have also managed to streak significant numbers of wins in Nethack, with all its gnomes and wands of death etc. Even I streaked 3 or 4.)

[sanka]

Thinking a little bit and reading the comments: the worst thing in paralysation is that sometimes it's completely unexpected, when you got paralysed by the turn the monster comes into LOS, and when some common enemy somehow happen to have paralysation (wand or random spellset).

So I come up with the following nerf to monster paralysis:
A monster should spend a "preparing" action before paralysation, which is visible. "The lich conjures a paralysation globe!" After that he can try to paralyse you as many time as he wishes, but you will know that he can. "The lich gestures! A ray from the paralysation globe hits you! You resist.". Or something like that, I hope someone can come up with better flavour.

[savageorange]

Thinking a little bit and reading the comments: the worst thing in paralysation is that sometimes it's completely unexpected, when you got paralysed by the turn the monster comes into LOS, and when some common enemy somehow happen to have paralysation (wand or random spellset).

So I come up with the following nerf to monster paralysis:
A monster should spend a "preparing" action before paralysation, which is visible. "The lich conjures a paralysation globe!" After that he can try to paralyse you as many time as he wishes, but you will know that he can. "The lich gestures! A ray from the paralysation globe hits you! You resist.". Or something like that, I hope someone can come up with better flavour.

I'd like to like this idea, but I have to ask: Who is intelligent enough to be able to cast this spell, yet stupid enough to actually cast it?
I mean, paralyzing someone with something they can see coming.. If it works it works, but wouldn't it work much better to conjure that globe out of LOS, and strike your enemy unaware? Unless you're a grandstanding idiot (that could work for some uniques, I guess) or your enemy has piles of stealth.

I want paralysis to be fixed. I'd also like to be able to maintain suspension of belief at least somewhat.

Maybe could be fixed by using a distinct but ambiguous-in-nature effect, similar to some of the current 'cantrips'.

[Sar]

Not that I necessarily like (or dislike) that proposal, but the argument "why monsters just don't..." doesn't really work in this context. Why don't orc priests smite you every turn? It's the most potent attack in their arsenal by far. Why don't enemy summoners run around with their summons and stop to recast them? Why don't enemy centaurs kite you? Are they stupid? Or would it be unfun?

[Leafsnail]

It's true that paralysis doesn't end many runs unfairly - that's because it's rare. But being rare doesn't make it ok. I can't really see any justification for the wand of paralysis - should I always be preparing to be paralysed whenever there's an item using monster in view? Or should I just hope that I don't get unlucky?

I agree that paralysis could be an interesting feature, and I think eyeballs showcase that best: they make a clear and unique threat that you have to respond to. I just don't think that any other sources of paralysis live up to that standard (particularly the wand and the hell effect).

Paraglobe could be ok, or new enies which are designed around paralysis could work.

[Amnesiac]

How many turns does it take for an eyeball to paralyse you?

Personally, I like the idea of disallowing chain paralysis and the idea of scaling length of paralysis with HD/power.

[crate]

Personally I would probably suggest that wand of paralysation is just unusable for monsters exactly the way that wand of fireball is. (You did know that monsters cannot use wand of fireball, right?)

Chain paralysis is already blocked; you get paralysis immunity for a short time after you get paralysed (rip red wasp instakills).

I think the best paralysis monster in Crawl is the ogre mage, not giant eyeball.

[sanka]

I did not know that monsters can't use wand of fireball. This sounds really... suprising? strange? I can't find the right word.

Anyway, I'm really curious, why do you think that Ogre Mage is better (for paralysation) than Giant Eyeball?

[crate]

Mainly because ogre mage is speed 10. Eyeballs are so slow they're basically harmless unless you do something really dumb.

[duvessa]

Also you can't completely nullify ogre magi by carrying a wand.

[Implojin]

Something really dumb, like killing TRJ without first meticulously clearing the rest of the floor for eyeballs.

It's pretty obnoxious that Slime:6 is set up for this to happen, and in my opinion giant eyeball paralysis should be restricted to not work through translucent rock.

Spoiler: show

[crate]

Yeah I guess eyeballs in slime:6 are pretty bad, I didn't think of that. I don't like how you're encouraged to enslave them to paralyse TRJ either.

[dpeg]

crate: You're right that the eyeball is generally not a threatening monster but it serves two purposes. First, it teaches paralysis on its own (no other danger or damage included) and second, it can become potent in the right circumstances. This can make eyeballs interesting all along the way.

[crate]

I didn't say that eyeballs are a bad monster (except in Slime:6 where I think they are a bad monster), but I think that ogre mage paralysis is better. Monsters that just punish you for doing bad things are ok.

[savageorange]

Not that I necessarily like (or dislike) that proposal, but the argument "why monsters just don't..." doesn't really work in this context. Why don't orc priests smite you every turn? It's the most potent attack in their arsenal by far. Why don't enemy summoners run around with their summons and stop to recast them? Why don't enemy centaurs kite you? Are they stupid? Or would it be unfun?

These things are not actually hard to explain:

* Smiting takes resources (piety). It's only not the case for monsters for simplicity reasons.
* They actually are stupid. (well, I've always modelled summoners.. of both the monster and player variety, as stupid.)
* That's not a centaur-specific problem, it's a pretty-much-every-monster problem. And yeah, it is ridiculous. Some variety, like Brogue, would contribute towards making this explainable as particular species having particular general dispositions.

I guess what I'm pointing at here is that it would make specific monsters more stupid, rather than being the result of a general policy applying to all monsters. And those specific monsters would be those that you would least expect to be more stupid.

[Arrhythmia]

Not that I necessarily like (or dislike) that proposal, but the argument "why monsters just don't..." doesn't really work in this context. Why don't orc priests smite you every turn? It's the most potent attack in their arsenal by far. Why don't enemy summoners run around with their summons and stop to recast them? Why don't enemy centaurs kite you? Are they stupid? Or would it be unfun?

These things are not actually hard to explain:

* Smiting takes resources (piety). It's only not the case for monsters for simplicity reasons.
* They actually are stupid. (well, I've always modelled summoners.. of both the monster and player variety, as stupid.)
* That's not a centaur-specific problem, it's a pretty-much-every-monster problem. And yeah, it is ridiculous. Some variety, like Brogue, would contribute towards making this explainable as particular species having particular general dispositions.

I guess what I'm pointing at here is that it would make specific monsters more stupid, rather than being the result of a general policy applying to all monsters. And those specific monsters would be those that you would least expect to be more stupid.

The orb of zot makes enemies very stupid. You are getting it so that people will stop being stupid.

I sincerely hope I have saved your suspension of disbelief in a game about house cats causing tornadoes.

[savageorange]

You've certainly amused me, and as a rationalist, I actually like that premise.

But suspension of disbelief is about consistency, not realism. House cats can cause tornadoes if they want! As long as it's consistent with the rules of the particular universe. That's why specific stupidity is more problematic than general stupidity.

[Siegurt]

Hm, anecdotaly, I just experienced a what i would consider an "Unfair" paralysis death.

Was killing TRJ, had him in the hallway was efficiently beating him down, all that was in LOS were some Jellies. Got down to 140 hps, and did the finishing blow to him. The finishing blow caused the walls to become transparent and I was paralyzed by an Eye that I couldn't see until hitting TRJ with the finishing blow on the same turn I killed him then went from 140->-10 while paralyzed.

Yuck. "You kill the royal jelly, you take 150 hps of damage as a result of it dying"

[Sar]

I've always modelled summoners.. of both the monster and player variety, as stupid

fr: all enemies with para also summon

[Implojin]

fr: all enemies with para also summon

pls no, DracoOmega might hear you and then it will turn out like that time people voted for Noxico

[koboldina]

Replying to crate from the thread this got split off to, since it's probably more appropriate here.

Petrification is not paralysis.

Paralysis is a good effect. If you actually think there's nothing you can do to mitigate paralysis other than get MR, you are wrong. Positioning is very important for paralysis (except for bad paralysis-using enemies like Grinder). The effect you are confusing it with--something that is preventable only with MR, has an immediate effect, and does not depend on positioning--is banishment.

Positioning only matters for some paralysis effects, but in general yes this is true. My point isn't that MR is the only way to avoid the forms of paralysis that check MR - my point is that MR is the only *consistent* way to avoid them. There are many situations where positioning can't help you. As an example, if I'm walking around lair and I turn a corner and there's Rupert wielding an executioner's axe, there's a chance he will cast paralyze on me, then berserk, then proceed to murder me with nothing I can do about it. Is that fun? Is that interactive?

FWIW I'm pretty sure you're wrong on the banishment point - positioning matters for it, i.e. line of effect is required. If a deep elf sorcerer casts banish on you, and you have a butterfly in the way, the butterfly gets banished. I also have no problem with banishment in general, especially since the "experience lets you escape the Abyss" change, because you still get more choices after you've been banished. More chances to survive. The only like banishment results in a lame death is if you run into Erolcha too early. Paralysis, otoh, can easily become a "sit there and watch yourself die" situation.

Petrification is not paralysis.
Also giant eyeballs do not generate randomly, so all paralysis outside of summon eyeballs (which, since the eyeballs are summons and slow gives you about 3 turns before you can possibly be paralysed) is line-of-fire, which gives you a couple more ways to deal with it.

True, sort of. Giant eyeballs do not spawn randomly but they do spawn in certain vaults. The one I'm thinking of is a particular depth floor where there are like 2-4 of them in a room filled with teleporters, and it's very possible to come down some stairs, walk out a door, get paralyzed, and die to a combo pack of eyeball + trolls. For what it's worth, I do know that positioning can deal with a lot of (most?) paralysis problems (outside of giant eyes), but I'm talking about the situations where you don't get a chance to practice good positioning - like my Rupert scenario above. Are you suggesting never to turn any corners?

Petrification is not paralysis.
I would agree with making paralysis not nuke player EV/SH but this is more of a GDD topic at this point so this post is all I am going to say on paralysis in this thread. If you wish to continue, perhaps use the part of this thread remaining in GDD.

Well, I think it already doesn't nuke SH, but even so this might be a step in the right direction with regards to making it not nuke EV. I'm reminded of the 3.5 D&D status effect "dazed" which simply means you can't take any actions, but none of your defenses are impacted.

[crate]

I meant that banishment that affects you is exactly the same regardless of your positioning relative to enemies. It is blocked by line-of-fire, but that's not always something you can use. As I said, that is emphatically not true for paralysis; you can't get melee'd from farther away than one (or two, for polearms) spaces, which is a sizable portion of the damage you take while paralysed, and many spells are also not full-los range. (This is of course why Grinder is such a bad enemy to give paralysis to; enemy blink undoes much of the pre-emptive positioning you do to deal with paralysis.)

I acknowledged in the post I linked that enemy-is-close-to-you-and-immediately-paralyses (from corners and such) is not good gameplay, but I don't personally see a good way to eliminate this. I think it is a small cost to pay for the benefits provided by enemy paralysis. I know some other people don't agree, and I'm not willing to argue that right now.

I'm not personally aware of any vaults that have giant eyeballs but wow please don't use giant eyeballs in vaults people....

--

Adjusting the strength of the paralysis status is ok (it's not good that it absolutely murders EV characters but characters with high AC can often ignore it), but I think having a penalizing status that you can only deal with before it affects you is interesting, since there really isn't another status effect (other than banishment, which is less interesting as I've explained) where you have to work to avoid it (as opposed to just letting it hit you and then adjusting).

[HardboiledGargoyle]

crate it is very strange and surprising to read your assessment of how paralysis affects defenses, it is like saying "paralysis is gud, do not mess with it, BUT I would not oppose removing the feature that makes paralysis really stand out." Paralysis is like the twin to new corrosion. If a short-lived status made the target Stationary and lowered EV to zero, it would have much the same effect and problems as paralysis. Netting is more similar to paralysis in gameplay than petrification, in taking away your defenses and your freedom of movement. What does paralysis even accomplish if it can't nuke your EV? Take that away and I don't know what you have left. If it is to make you skip turns then it is like a very strong slow. If you want to play with player positioning there's blink allies encircling or you could give the player invulnerability while paralyzed or make them skip time like the Chei ability but involuntarily.

paralysis can have a 1 turn channel like "Grinder's eyeballs pop out of their sockets!", and even ignore MR, that would be no big deal...

[crate]

well if you really want you can have it kill your AC and your EV both, that's ok too

it's not like nets or slow because you can't take actions at all

[HardboiledGargoyle]

OK well, you seem to be approaching paralysis as some kind of black box: whatever paralysis does, it makes the player take such and such measures, and I like what I end up doing to avoid get smacked by this big black box, therefore the black box is good. To put it one way, we're talking around paralysis and not about paralysis. Why is there reluctance to discuss the basics of paralysis?

[ydeve]

crate it is very strange and surprising to read your assessment of how paralysis affects defenses, it is like saying "paralysis is gud, do not mess with it, BUT I would not oppose removing the feature that makes paralysis really stand out." Paralysis is like the twin to new corrosion. If a short-lived status made the target Stationary and lowered EV to zero, it would have much the same effect and problems as paralysis. Netting is more similar to paralysis in gameplay than petrification, in taking away your defenses and your freedom of movement. What does paralysis even accomplish if it can't nuke your EV? Take that away and I don't know what you have left. If it is to make you skip turns then it is like a very strong slow. If you want to play with player positioning there's blink allies encircling or you could give the player invulnerability while paralyzed or make them skip time like the Chei ability but involuntarily.

This is simply not true. If paralysis was similar to corrosion, it would slightly lower your EV and offense, still let you move around and take other actions, and not be worrisome unless it stacks.

Netting is also not like paralysis, since you still have lots of options when you get netted. It prevents you from moving but allows you to take other actions.

Slow is not like paralysis, since you can still act. Enemies just get to take more actions than before.

The defining feature of paralysis is that you can't do anything afterwards, not that it tanks your EV. Tanking EV is bad flavor, not the feature of the status.

[ydeve]

OK well, you seem to be approaching paralysis as some kind of black box: whatever paralysis does, it makes the player take such and such measures, and I like what I end up doing to avoid get smacked by this big black box, therefore the black box is good. To put it one way, we're talking around paralysis and not about paralysis. Why is there reluctance to discuss the basics of paralysis?

He is discussing the basics of paralysis, but you aren't getting what they are. Here are the basics:

What it does:
Makes you unable to do anything for a period of time.

How it influences gameplay:
Makes the player preemptively act to avoid it or ensure when they get hit they spend less turns being melee'd by enemies.


Is this clear now?

[HardboiledGargoyle]

I can't say it's satisfactory; your summary shrugs and slaps on labels like "you can't do anything", when this can be really disassembled to basic component parts. And it looks at a thin slice of a scenario where paralysis may occur, not the mechanics of paralysis. Let's not conflate an effect with its consequences.

Corrosion. The mechanics are different; Corr builds up rather than tanking all at once, but takes a long time to go away. Just another thing that distinguishes AC and EV.

While netted you have recourse to summons and translocations and healing, which you might not have, or which exact a long-term cost (obtaining those things is a little like obtaining MR gear, or getting summons to fight paralyzers) and otherwise, the best course of action is often to struggle against the net, which is like skipping turns.

slow. If a Superslow status tripled/quadrupled the delay of all your actions for a few turns, it would have a lot in common with crate-paralysis.

Anyway, crate-paralysis is quite an undesirable status effect, but knowing that you might be forced to effectively press "." several times is a lot less scary than PARALYSIS. It becomes a different category of threat, averting lots of deaths, and I think that's getting brushed off lightly. It's like changing LCS to double stone arrow. By the way, what LCS and paralysis have in common is a huge potential damage spike, and that these spikes can come in rapid succession, which does not impress me from a design point of view, making crate's defense of paralysis have little effect on me, and I can't think of many cases where current-paralysis isn't functionally analogous to a superpowered Disintegrate on a breath timer when you get around to actually trying to kill the paralyzer.

[crate]

if you are thinking only of situations with just a single enemy, then paralysis is indeed similar to damage spells, but of course the best-designed paralysis enemy (ogre mage) always comes in a band anyway

[dynast]

Paralysis, aswell as malmutate, is one of the few game mechanics that the player has to try and prevent from happening, rather than bandaging it afterwards, its no wonder players hate it.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

You say ogre bands but looking at the most memorable sources of paralysis - Rupert, Erolcha, liches, sphinx bands - they seem designed to let the casters get a lot of free hits in. Heck, it’s just like player use of paralysis. Maybe I’m conflating intention with effect, but if intention and effect don’t match, then obviously there is a problem. We seem to be discussing different paralyses: a hypothetical, vacuous theory of a paralysis that punishes standard combat tactics, and paralysis as it’s actually implemented - largely just a spell that wrecks you.

The paralyzer itself is a big source of damage you receive during paralysis. If the paralyzer had to take no actions for the duration of the paralysis, it would be much weaker and quite a different spell. In an ogre band, the mage tends to hang around the back hasting allies, and between the time that the first ogre gets close to you and the mage gets in melee range, the mage is unlikely to have line of fire. There are other situations like in orc where you’re fighting orcs on one side and a sorcerer walks in from the other direction or from just around a corner, but these are apparently the very situations you decry as cheap and unfortunate.

Sure, you should avoid line of fire with orc sorcerers because they have paralysis, but you should also avoid line of fire with orc sorcerers because they have bolt of fire (and up to like 7 bolts of fire in a row if they paralyze you), and if that means using other monsters as meatshields then so be it. Maybe I just avoid exposing myself to such monsters automatically, and don’t really notice the effect you claim they have; as you say, the player can handle most paralyzers fine, and there is, I admit, a much bigger set of actions that are dumb and can get you paralyzed and killed during the paralysis. I’m not sure they’re worthy of consideration, just like pure o-tab-o-tab deaths are not worthy of consideration.

I honestly don’t see paralysis as especially different from LCS and juggernaut-level melee: devastating when inflicted at close range, and the monsters that have it have means of closing the distance, like blinking, speed, and paralysis. Just like those other things, you’re guaranteed a free action once paralysis is over, and you can get re-paralyzed or re-speared or re-jugged afterwards. I actually prefer paralysis from god wrath and hell effects: it forces you to play cautiously in case it happens, but once it happens, you at least know it’s not going to happen again for a while; this is not true for the paralysis spell. But you hate paralysis from hell effects! I find smite-targeted effects like eyeball paralysis and flay more interesting; giant eyeballs were just too slow and paralyzed for too long, but they’re pretty cool.

[crate]

and a sorcerer walks in from the other direction or from just around a corner, but these are apparently the very situations you decry as cheap and unfortunate.

only if the sorcerer paralyses you before you ever get a chance to act after having seen it

and this situation you bring up is actually one of the reasons why preventing the bad paralysis situations is tricky; it's not clear to me that the exact situation you describe here is necessarily a thing that needs preventing.

it's more of "autoexplore into a sphinx and die without getting a single action" that is unfortunate, though for what it's worth vaults are much bigger autoexplore-traps than paralysis is, and fewer players are clamoring for vault removal (I would do so other than the fact it will never happen)

[ydeve]

I honestly don’t see paralysis as especially different from LCS and juggernaut-level melee: devastating when inflicted at close range, and the monsters that have it have means of closing the distance, like blinking, speed, and paralysis. Just like those other things, you’re guaranteed a free action once paralysis is over, and you can get re-paralyzed or re-speared or re-jugged afterwards.

Um, maybe the difference that paralysis damage depends on how many *other* monsters can swarm you before your paralysis wears off? That you can reduce paralysis damage by keeping distance from *other* monsters?
LCS and juggernauts depend on your distance to just the one monster, not the rest of the swarm.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

That you can reduce paralysis damage by keeping distance from *other* monsters?

The text you're quoting me on concludes the preceding 3 paragraphs; did you read them? Anyway, in this specific sentence you're looking at the situation where the player is to become paralyzed, and keeps distance from other monsters, and really does reduce paralysis damage. I said before, this is a thin slice of gameplay, not the whole picture. OK, let's suppose that has happened.

If, after the paralysis, the paralyzer cannot paralyze the player anymore due to line of fire, then paralysis would not have been dangerous in the first place, since it would have just placed the player in a spot safe from paralysis, while the player took "reduced" damage.

If, after the paralysis, the paralyzer has more opportunity to paralyze the player, then *other* monsters are already very close to the player. Basically, the "keep distance from other monsters pre-emptively" tactic has failed, since the player is within close distance of other monsters and can get paralyzed.

In either case, the player may as well have pressed "." several times and waited until monsters got close, instead of keeping distance.

Um, maybe the difference

is not meaningful?

[crate]

um yes, paralysis is forcing the player to press "."

you might note that this is not actually an action the player usually wants to take

[HardboiledGargoyle]

instead of keeping distance, not 'instead getting paralyzed'; i'm not talking about paralysis forces. I was responding to ydeve who was saying that keeping distance from other monsters is a good response to seeing a paralyzer, in case you get paralyzed. I looked at the effectiveness of that response, and showed that keeping distance is as good as hanging around and letting monsters get close to you*.

* - assuming that paralysis does proc.

[ydeve]

Wrong, because hanging around waiting for monsters to get close to you in the presence of a paralyzer means pretending to be paralyzed when you're not. So that when you actually do get paralyzed you get hit hard by the monsters you've let come close.

Hardboiled, if I'm understanding you right, you think that the heart of the paralysis mechanic is not that the player can't do anything?

[duvessa]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually think anything like that, and he's just pretending to be obtuse in order to "troll" you.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

I mean that if you follow your tactic and maintain distance from *other* monsters, and get paralyzed, what happens AFTER? You just got paralyzed; during the paralysis, the monsters you've been keeping at bay have just closed the distance, and are now close to you. At this point, you have a free action, and then you can get paralyzed, AGAIN. Maybe resistance to repeated paralysis can protect you for a couple more turns, at most, but it may also not do that. So that when you actually do get paralyzed (again) you get hit hard by the monsters that [the paralyzer has] let come close. You treat the first paralysis like the only one that is important; focusing on that slice of gameplay, as I've mentioned. But with the tactics that you lay bare, "good" play makes it so paralyze has to succeed twice to wreck you, "bad" play makes it so paralyze has to succeed once.

I think I understand you; are you confused about anything I'm saying? Do you disagree that letting players keep their EV would be a big nerf to paralysis?

[ydeve]

I think that stripping players of their EV is tangential to the purpose of paralysis. I think it was a flavor consideration that is unbalanced towards builds and should go. (Obviously removing it is a nerf to paralysis, but if you think that's a problem, you could always tweak other numbers to compensate).

I think that in your arguments you are downplaying the actual purpose of paralysis and focusing on the tangentials.

I think your argument about needing to be hit by paralysis twice is silly. Having to be hit twice in a row to feel any effects is quite good. You only have to be hit once by LCS or a Juggernaut to feel pain. It looks like you're saying that with good play paralysis gets reduced down to early-game-ogre threat level, since you now have time to hit a panic button and get out of there. Most of the complaints about paralysis are from players who die the first time.

[KoboldLord]

I actually prefer paralysis from god wrath and hell effects: it forces you to play cautiously in case it happens, but once it happens, you at least know it’s not going to happen again for a while; this is not true for the paralysis spell. But you hate paralysis from hell effects!

I lost a well-geared robust facet demonspawn to hell effect paralysis. I was at full hit points and fully buffed up, facing exactly one monster, and then I was dead without having the opportunity to take an action. It was not a good death.

Whenever I lose a character to the monster paralysis spell, I invariably recognize some way in which it was my fault.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

I know KoboldLord I read your thread; I think EV reduction was a factor in killing you:

  Code:

Message History

* * * LOW HITPOINT WARNING * * *
The burst of hellfire engulfs the sun demon.
The sun demon completely resists.
The burst of hellfire engulfs the sun demon.
The sun demon completely resists. The sun demon hits you!
You are engulfed in flames.
Your icy envelope dissipates!
* * * LOW HITPOINT WARNING * * *
The sun demon hits you. You are engulfed in flames!
Your icy envelope dissipates!
* * * LOW HITPOINT WARNING * * *
The sun demon hits you but does no damage.
The sun demon completely misses you.
The sun demon is struck by your spines.
The sun demon dodges your spines.
The sun demon hits you but does no damage.
Helpless, you fail to dodge the sun demon's attack.
The sun demon hits you! You are engulfed in flames.
Your icy envelope dissipates!
You die...

I don't think stripping of EV is tangential (that's what I've been saying all along, so you're just saying that I'm wrong); for some cases, it is equivalent to doubling or tripling or quadrupling the length of paralysis, due to having to tank all the hits you'd otherwise dodge. Surely 8-28 turn paralysis would be significantly worse than 2-7 turn paralysis. Similarly, crate's suggestion of virtually making paralysis convert all attacks into hellfire would also have quite an impact.

Any turn that you cannot (or choose not to) move out of a paralyzer's line of fire is a turn where you need to act like you are going to get immediately paralyzed, if paralysis could kill you and your top priority is survival. You need to act almost exactly like if you have just begun petrifying (although occasionally you don't get the chance - a flaw with paralysis in crate's eyes). Logically, if you don't - you can be paralyzed and dead after your next action. Is this what you mean by early-game-ogre threat level?

I suspect you misunderstood the part about having to be hit twice. You presented a way to handle monsters that paralyze, as if it solves them, which it doesn't. What are you going to do, maintain range until they die of boredom? You can't, they'll paralyze you, which annuls the whole argument that paralysis is fundamentally different if it is from the edge of LOS (and thus interesting).

Non-spell sources of paralysis, on the other hand, are solved by getting paralyzed by them safely. Hell effects are not stochastic, so if a hell effect hasn't happened for a while, you need to act as if you can be paralyzed at any moment. The end of a hell effect is your opportunity to act. Why wouldn't you hit 5 at full HP near Asmodeus's porch? Biggest problem was that paralysis was such a rare hell effect that taking precautionary measures seemed silly. If 1 in 5 hell effects was paralysis, it would have been good, but rather tedious to sustain for 28 floors.

I agree and understand that you can typically deal with paralyzers, but I think current-paralysis is more infuriating than interesting and not worth the hype it's getting, and I like the game of avoiding LoF and keeping distance as much as the next guy but I'm trying to look at the big picture including what happens after paralysis, not only before and during.

[KoboldLord]

Non-spell sources of paralysis, on the other hand, are solved by getting paralyzed by them safely. Hell effects are not stochastic, so if a hell effect hasn't happened for a while, you need to act as if you can be paralyzed at any moment. The end of a hell effect is your opportunity to act. Why wouldn't you hit 5 at full HP near Asmodeus's porch? Biggest problem was that paralysis was such a rare hell effect that taking precautionary measures seemed silly. If 1 in 5 hell effects was paralysis, it would have been good, but rather tedious to sustain for 28 floors.

That certainly is an idea. I can stand on Asmodeus' porch, and wait for a hell effect to summon a brimstone fiend or a hellion so instead of fighting Asmodeus solo I get to fight him with a fiend or a hellion and some extra chaff at the same time. Plus, hell effects get a roll something like every 40 turns, so if it takes any time to chew through that big sack of hp and his chaff then I get a random chance to be paralyzed partway through the process anyway, even if I did exactly as you say.

Additionally, it is not reasonable to expect players to reliably be able to get within two tiles of every fight but still trigger it on their own terms. That was a special benefit from picking Ashenzari, not something that most characters can take for granted.

If I die to ogre mage or orc sorcerer paralysis, it usually means I was playing carelessly with line of effect while already in melee the other monsters in that spellcaster's band. This is absolutely avoidable, perhaps barring a rare corner case involving stairs. If the ogre mage or orc sorcerer is alone and decides to paralyze me, I'm usually better off than if that monster had just tried to cast a direct damage spell. If I can, I'll kill the mage while line of effect is still blocked. Otherwise, I'll break up the pack as is the standard practice because paralysis without any support behind it isn't anywhere near as dangerous.

I can somewhat sympathize with dislike for the monster spell paralysis, because it is one of the most frustrating ways in the game to die, even if I don't personally believe it is a serious problem. Hell effect paralysis is not possible to justify as a positive game feature.