Slight change to dazzle status, for clarity

[and into]

Unless it was changed recently, creatures with sense invisible can get the dazzle/blind status (referred to as both in different game messages), however this status will not enable stabs against them. (Creatures with see invisible, by contrast, can be affected by dazzle and can get stabbed while dazzled.)

I don't think there is anything interesting that results from having a subset of enemies be susceptible to dazzle status, but not vulnerable to dazzle-stabbing. I'd therefore propose either to let all dazzled enemies be susceptible to stabbing while dazzled, or else sense invisible creatures are simply immune to dazzle/blindness (and indicate this in the description of the spell dazzling spray). The former would be a slight buff, the latter a slight nerf. Either would get rid of a weird and non-obvious special case that doesn't have much impact on the game, except to add unnecessary complexity to an already rather uncommon status you can inflict on enemies.

(My apologies if this was unintentional, I'll post to Mantis if it is just a bug.)

EDIT: I think "remove sense invisible" and move all enemies to either "see invisible" or "does not see invisible" would also be a sensible change to the game, since it is very unclear what exactly "sense invisible" means and how it impacts the game. So that possibility would be worth discussing, as well.

[duvessa]

How about just getting rid of sense invisible and replacing it with see invisible on the monsters that have it? It doesn't add much, and it's really weird and spoilery - you'd expect "It can sense the presence of invisible creatures" to only make a difference if you're invisible, but no, it actually affects their stealth checks, blind, etc.

[and into]

^ Yeah, in an edit I added that this might be the best route, as the whole weird dazzle/blind interaction can just be viewed as a symptom of the larger problem, namely the existence of "sense invisible" in the first place.

[reaver]

How about just getting rid of sense invisible and replacing it with see invisible on the monsters that have it?

I liked this suggestion.

[Siegurt]

Personally, I'd like it if all "see invisible" creatures could also not be stabbed while blinded (Or just couldn't be blinded at all), it makes dazzling spray a little less overpowered.

[Psiweapon]

Personally, I'd like it if all "see invisible" creatures could also not be stabbed while blinded (Or just couldn't be blinded at all), it makes dazzling spray a little less overpowered.

I'd rather prefer that in order to see invisible they have to actually be able to see. What you are proposing would make stabbing a lot harder, or else just make players rely more on confusion. IMHO Dazzling Spray already takes enough tries to blind tough stuff, the dazzled status is short enough, and is also useful as an escape tool against, say, Frost Giants.

[and into]

See invis is often described as having acute vision in terms of descriptive text, so it wouldn't be "unflavorful" for see invisible enemies to be immune to dazzle. Dazzling spray is really strong for a level 3 spell, much less a dual school one. It could take the hit.

Regardless, enemies that can be dazzled should all have the same level of stab vulnerability. Categorically. How often and how much damage you deal with stabbing is complicated enough already, and it would be difficult and clunky to communicate "this particular type of enemy can be dazzled, but is less vulnerable to stabbing than all the other enemies that can be dazzled," and this is really bad information to keep opaque for (hopefully?) obvious reasons.

Crawl already has a really good way to communicate that an enemy has been affected by confusion or dazzled, which makes them vulnerable to stabbing: parenthetical status descriptors, different movement, highlighting in console and status display in Tiles. I see absolutely no reason to separate stabbing vulnerability from having the disability. And there are several compelling reasons not to allow such separation.

[Psiweapon]

See invis is often described as having acute vision in terms of descriptive text, so it wouldn't be "unflavorful" for see invisible enemies to be immune to dazzle. Dazzling spray is really strong for a level 3 spell, much less a dual school one. It could take the hit.

So, uh, a multiple school spell of any given level is supposed to be weaker than a single school spell of the same level? What? Since when? o___O Really?

And anyways: the exact opposite fluff interpretation is equally valid. See invisible is "supernaturally acute eyesight", at least for player characters. It is not "see through walls" or "see without eyes" or "invulnerable eyes" If something is invisible, and the monster can see, the monster can see the invisible something. If your eyes are overloaded with searing light, it's not like everything has turned suddenly magically invisible, it's just that your eyes have become temporarily useless. If there was a lv2 water/earth spell called "Mudshot" that filled orc high priests faces with mud, they wouldn't be able to see invisible stuff because they wouldn't be able to see visible stuff either because it's covered by the mud. I really don't see, pardon the pun, where does "blindness immunity" come into the picture. If blindness immunity is flavorful, so is its opposite.

But all this is grasping at straws.

Let me put the problem upside down. The problem is not with dazzling spray, the problem is with monster sInv. With what you are proposing, monster sInv trumps both invisibility AND dazzled, which more or less means that as soon as you have a reliable source of invisibility, you might as well forget dazzling spray and get some straight conjurations (or swiftness to run for your hide) instead of a weird hex/conjurations dual school spell, because with dazzling spray you will only be affecting the same set of monsters as with invisibility, except for a shorter time, inside a much more restricted area, in much smaller numbers. Oh, with a little bit of damage sprinkled on top. Which is kinda irrelevant if you're stabbing anyway, for anything that you actually need to stab. This doesn't feel like nerfing, this feels like dumbing down to the point of might as well remove the spell from the game and instead put Fulminant Prism, Metabolic Englaciation or just whatever disabling or hampering spell in the enchanter starting book.

I'd rather have Dazzling Spray be made level 4 or 5, or be removed than be made... redundant

Invisibility is a tool for reliably getting rid of or escaping from monsters with sInv, and Dazzling Spray is a tool for not-so-reliably getting rid of or escaping from most monsters, sInv or not. Dazzle apparently has a harder time connecting with higher HD monsters, but it can be used. And against Sense Invisible you were fucked anyways with any of the two effects, unless you managed to get further away than 4 tiles... but that's already been removed.

Awake Frost Giant: can't hibernate because cold/HD/MR + can't confuse because MR + can't invistab because sInv + can't dazzle because sInv = MC Battleaxe performing "U CAN'T STAB THIS"!!! naaa-nana-na, na-na, nana, nana, nana - CAN'T STAB THIS!

Regardless, enemies that can be dazzled should all have the same level of stab vulnerability. Categorically. How often and how much damage you deal with stabbing is complicated enough already, and it would be difficult and clunky to communicate "this particular type of enemy can be dazzled, but is less vulnerable to stabbing than all the other enemies that can be dazzled," and this is really bad information to keep opaque for (hopefully?) obvious reasons...

This doesn't equate with "sInv monsters can't be dazzled" in any way or manner.

EDIT: Battleaxe. MC Battleaxe.

[and into]

See invis is often described as having acute vision in terms of descriptive text, so it wouldn't be "unflavorful" for see invisible enemies to be immune to dazzle. Dazzling spray is really strong for a level 3 spell, much less a dual school one. It could take the hit.

So, uh, a multiple school spell of any given level is supposed to be weaker than a single school spell of the same level? What? Since when? o___O Really?

Ah I didn't state that very clearly or elegantly. I had in mind for comparison mephitic cloud, which is three schools and (while very, very good for a level 3 spell) is actually less powerful than dazzling spray in most situations in my experience.

And anyways: the exact opposite fluff interpretation is equally valid.

Agreed. Just saying it would not be any more or less unflavorful. You could go either way. I will say that some enemies with see invis seem to have that property on the basis of telepathy or something (e.g., giant orange brain) and are nonetheless susceptible to dazzle from dazzling spray (yes, GOBs can be dazzled by dazzling spray). It is up for debate how awkward and/or counter-intuitive this is.

Let me put the problem upside down. The problem is not with dazzling spray, the problem is with monster sInv. With what you are proposing, monster sInv trumps both invisibility AND dazzled, which more or less means that as soon as you have a reliable source of invisibility, you might as well forget dazzling spray and get some straight conjurations

A level 6 spell making a level 3 spell redundant is okay. It doesn't need to be that way, of course, but it is alright if that is the case. Indeed if anything I'd argue it is a bigger problem if a level 3 spell remains useful until Zot (this is absolutely true of dazzling spray btw). As you point out, though, there are multiple ways to deal with that problem.

Awake Frost Giant: can't hibernate because cold/HD/MR + can't confuse because MR + can't invistab because sInv + can't dazzle because sInv = MC Hammer performing "U CAN'T STAB THIS"!!! naaa-nana-na, na-na, nana, nana, nana - CAN'T STAB THIS!

Again, I don't see it as a problem that you cannot deal with a monster in Depths or late Vaults using solely spells in your starting book....

Regardless, enemies that can be dazzled should all have the same level of stab vulnerability. Categorically. How often and how much damage you deal with stabbing is complicated enough already, and it would be difficult and clunky to communicate "this particular type of enemy can be dazzled, but is less vulnerable to stabbing than all the other enemies that can be dazzled," and this is really bad information to keep opaque for (hopefully?) obvious reasons...

This doesn't equate with "sInv monsters can't be dazzled" in any way or manner.

Indeed. I was simply reiterating in that paragraph that, whichever way devs go here regarding Siegurt's proposal, it would be very bad to create (well, re-create, now) a class of enemies that can be dazzled, but which do not get the same level of stab vulnerability as all the other enemies that can be dazzled.

[Psiweapon]

more schools worse spell

Ah I didn't state that very clearly or elegantly. I had in mind for comparison mephitic cloud, which is three schools and (while very, very good for a level 3 spell) is actually less powerful than dazzling spray in most situations in my experience.

Agreed!

And anyways: the exact opposite fluff interpretation is equally valid.

Agreed. Just saying it would not be any more or less unflavorful. You could go either way. I will say that some enemies with see invis seem to have that property on the basis of telepathy or something (e.g., giant orange brain) and are nonetheless susceptible to dazzle from dazzling spray (yes, GOBs can be dazzled by dazzling spray). It is up for debate how awkward and/or counter-intuitive this is.

Yeah, that's weird as fuck.

invis making dazzling spray redundant

A level 6 spell making a level 3 spell redundant is okay. It doesn't need to be that way, of course, but it is alright if that is the case. Indeed if anything I'd argue it is a bigger problem if a level 3 spell remains useful until Zot (this is absolutely true of dazzling spray btw). As you point out, though, there are multiple ways to deal with that problem.

In ascending order of being okay in relation to making a lvl 3 spell redundant:
A 2mp evocation, a wand, a potion, a spell, a capstone invocation and a consumable evocation.

I'd argue that bolt of fire (lv6? I'm not familiar with the spell) is useful until zot, the problem is not Dazzling Spray usefulness, but it's usefulness/investment required.

MC Battleaxe [fixed in edit]

Again, I don't see it as a problem that you cannot deal with a monster in Depths or late Vaults using solely spells in your starting book....

What I was worried about was a monster becoming impossible to stab once awake, but I can't really counter this argument. Also, out of depth spawns.

In any case all I'm reading are arguments for kicking Dazzling Spray upstairs a couple of levels. It could be the battlesphere or fulminant prism of the enchanter starting book. Battlesphere is a relatively new conjuration too and it needed a level adjustment.

consistency in vulnerability to stabs

This doesn't equate with "sInv monsters can't be dazzled" in any way or manner.

Indeed. I was simply reiterating in that paragraph that, whichever way devs go here regarding Siegurt's proposal, it would be very bad to create (well, re-create, now) a class of enemies that can be dazzled, but which do not get the same level of stab vulnerability as all the other enemies that can be dazzled.

Another solution could have been making them just as vulnerable to stabs but still capable of reliably tracking and attacking you, a defense-only debuff instead of an offense, movement and defense debuff. But hey, this point is already moot.

In any event: Consistency is good.

[Hurkyl]

Awake Frost Giant: can't hibernate because cold/HD/MR + can't confuse because MR + can't invistab because sInv + can't dazzle because sInv = MC Battleaxe performing "U CAN'T STAB THIS"!!! naaa-nana-na, na-na, nana, nana, nana - CAN'T STAB THIS!

It's a bit of an aside, but you can confuse a frost giant in a few tries with good spell power.

[epsilon]

Somehow, I keep getting the idea, that Crawl players hate flavour and everything related to it.

[njvack]

I love flavour. But Sense Invisible? Well, some doglike monsters had it, so maybe it was like a sense of smell thing? But they can smell you well enough that you're effectively visible when you're near them..? That's not how dogs work. So maybe it's magic? But dogs are usually pretty nonmagical. And jackals didn't have it (I don't actually know why) even though jackals smell just as well as regular old hounds so um? What I'm saying is the flavour here was kind of strange.

I'm with you that Crawl has lost a lot of flavour lately, but generally, the flavour lost has been stuff that caused lots of mechanical complexity and often wasn't very internally consistent. I'm quite convinced that flavour can be re-added in such a way that it's interesting, mechanically reasonable, and serves to make Crawl's lore more logically consistent.

I'd definitely love it if there were a re-seasoning in a version or three, but having played my first game in a year or two recently, I shed absolutely zero tears for the mechanical complexity of encumbrance, item destruction, food, nausea, or monster item use. Or Sense Invis. Crawl just plays better now than it did a year ago, even if some flavour has been lost.

[epsilon]

I just don't get the idea, how could someone consider the fact, that monster who "senses" invisible isn't affected by blinding and is better at detecting stealth, as being non-obvious. My thoughts were "Oh, that's a hound. It's probably great at detecting things. Oh, it can sense invisible. Makes sense". If something can "see" invisible, and I'm introduced to a spell, that makes stuff blind, my thought would be "Oh, though usually they can see invisible, they can't, if they are blind. Makes sense again". So I really don't get, how the idea of "If something can sense invisible without relying on sight, it won't be able to do so when blind! Wat." could come to one's mind.
In my opinion, it's the point of view of players what is spoilery here. They don't treat spell like something that makes stuff blind. They only treat is as something that makes stuff stabable, and they tend to become confused, when it isn't works despite being perfectly fine.

PS Sense of smell, hearing, intuition. Also, 'cuz we're playing a fantasy game - sense of a killing intent, presense, bananas. Even spider-senses.

[and into]

First, monsters who sensed invisible were affected by the status, they just had a special immunity to the stab-vulnerability that usually came with the status. Second, the status was referred to in game most commonly as *dazzled*, though it was also referred to (less commonly) as "blind." The word dazzle connotes more than just being unable to see (it is etymologically related to the word "daze," which implies a state of confusion or stupor, of being unable to sense things properly).

What happens on your Terminal window is obviously not trying to provide a simulation of real-life, actual hounds and wolves being blinded by a magical spell cast by an arobase. Even if it were, though, I think it would be pretty unrealistic for an animal to immediately adapt to the shock of being blinded. I'm pretty sure if you flashbanged a hound IRL it would have a difficult time knowing where you are, for at least a little while. (As opposed to a hound that, say, slowly adapted to a degenerative optic disease that compromised its vision.)

So, beyond all the other reasons, I am happy that the realism and good flavor of DCSS is being improved by letting the spell called dazzling spray, which claims in its description to dazzle any living enemy, actually dazzle hounds, wolves, etc., and not do some weird half-way dazzle status.

[PleasingFungus]

So, beyond all the other reasons, I am happy that the realism and good flavor of DCSS is being improved by letting the spell called dazzling spray, which claims in its description to dazzle any living enemy, actually dazzle hounds, wolves, etc., and not do some weird half-way dazzle status.

mm



(Key difference: they no longer get the 'blinded' status at all, rather than only being partially affected by it.)

[njvack]

Super minor (and realistically gameplay irrelevant) but jackals should probably get this status too.

[Siegurt]

Hm, does that mean sInv should prevent dazzling from confusing me when I encounter a player ghost with it?

[and into]

In my defense, I don't speak German.

(Really though that post was pretty cranky, in addition to my somehow messing up how the game was changed based on the suggestions I made in this very thread. Sorry 'bout that.)

[Psiweapon]

(Key difference: they no longer get the 'blinded' status at all, rather than only being partially affected by it.)

So now, dazzling spray is effectively useless against anything with sInvis? Argh.

[crate]

um, no, it's useless against the things it was useless against before (minus any things PF may have missed), except the game tells you this now instead of hiding it from you

[Psiweapon]

Okay, okay. Phew.