Spell idea: remote body control

[dd]

The idea is, you could sort of "jump out" of your body and momentarily control another creature as if it were your player character. If the creature is capable of spellcasting, you can use it to cast spells that you know. You get to use your own skills, but attributes depend on the monster.

The downside is that you'd have to leave your own body totally vulnerable, and it'd in effect be paralyzed while you use this spell and would act as such. If your own body gets killed while using this spell, you of course die. If the monster you're controlling gets killed, there could be a slight backlash to your own body, nothing too drastic though as it'd make the spell unusable.

Of course the spell would be resistable by MR, and you couldn't use it on undead or demonic monsters. Maybe not angels either. Some uniques would probably also be immune to it.

I think it'd open interesting strategic possibilities, mainly on how to use it effectively while keeping your own body safe. Also, whether to use items - for example, if you give a wand to your remote slave monster, you'd later have to deal with the same monster blasting you with it unless you use all of the charges. The spell would synergize very nicely with summons.

[dd]

It's so easy to criticize, so hard to create...

Why would it be useless and what does nethack polymorph have to do with anything?

[nicolae]

It's so easy to criticize, so hard to create...

Why would it be useless and what does nethack polymorph have to do with anything?

What would it be good for, that you couldn't replicate via other methods with less risk to yourself?

[pratamawirya]

This sounds like a novel idea, mostly. Why bother possessing other monsters' bodies?

Although I guess it can be fun to mess around in a Hellion's or a Brimstone Fiend's body, hellfire-ing dudes... but MR restriction can really cripple the spell.

[KoboldLord]

It's so easy to criticize, so hard to create...

Why would it be useless and what does nethack polymorph have to do with anything?

Polymorph is a notoriously troublesome mechanic in game design, not just in Nethack but also in every game that includes it but doesn't base the entire game engine on it. You see, polymorph gives the player control of a monster's powerset. For every monster introduced for the rest of the existence of the game, then, the devteam would have to consider what it means when the player gets control of this powerset. Every new monster added is another bit of power creep for the polymorph ability, so over time it will get stronger and stronger without limit no matter how careful the devteam is about shackling the monster creation process.

Crawl does have some polymorph-looking spells in the transmutations school, but these are actually reskinned buffs. The benefits you get from Spider Form, for instance, are completely unrelated to any monster spiders in the game, instead just broadly mimicking spider-themed generalities, so the devteam can add additional spider monsters without having to worry about Spider Form every time. Your proposed spell goes straight for the problematic parts of polymorph, however, even if the flavor is a little bit different. There are already plenty of monsters in the game with an unacceptably problematic spell set. Monsters can spells randomly, but a player can just hammer the best one over and over.

[sardonica]

It's so easy to criticize, so hard to create...

Why would it be useless and what does nethack polymorph have to do with anything?

So go ahead. Create it, balance it for all the hundreds of thousands of permutations of monster level, equipment, spells, and groupings

Then we'll play it and see how it is

I'll reserve judgment till you do that.

[dd]

It's so easy to criticize, so hard to create...

Why would it be useless and what does nethack polymorph have to do with anything?

Polymorph is a notoriously troublesome mechanic in game design, not just in Nethack but also in every game that includes it but doesn't base the entire game engine on it. You see, polymorph gives the player control of a monster's powerset. For every monster introduced for the rest of the existence of the game, then, the devteam would have to consider what it means when the player gets control of this powerset. Every new monster added is another bit of power creep for the polymorph ability, so over time it will get stronger and stronger without limit no matter how careful the devteam is about shackling the monster creation process.

Crawl does have some polymorph-looking spells in the transmutations school, but these are actually reskinned buffs. The benefits you get from Spider Form, for instance, are completely unrelated to any monster spiders in the game, instead just broadly mimicking spider-themed generalities, so the devteam can add additional spider monsters without having to worry about Spider Form every time. Your proposed spell goes straight for the problematic parts of polymorph, however, even if the flavor is a little bit different. There are already plenty of monsters in the game with an unacceptably problematic spell set. Monsters can spells randomly, but a player can just hammer the best one over and over.

But the thing is, this spell isn't a straight polymorph. It would leave your actual body vulnerable so the situations it could be used in would be limited. Using it in an open area with lots of strong monsters around would be foolish.

To further limit it's power, it could have a limited range - you couldn't wander too far away from your own body, or the spell would be broken. Also, the spell could (and probably should) have a time limit. It's just a matter of balancing...

Also, you forget that the player wouldn't get the monsters spells, because as far as I understand it spells are something you "know" or have memorized, so if it's just your mind in another's body you don't necessarily have access to all their knowledge. So monster spellsets wouldn't be a problem here. Like I said in the OP the player would retain their own skills & spells but would use the monster's attributes, HP, MP, MR, resistances etc.

So go ahead. Create it,

I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that unless the person who suggests an idea is able to implement it by themselves it shouldn't be considered...

[sardonica]

It's so easy to criticize, so hard to create...

Why would it be useless and what does nethack polymorph have to do with anything?

Polymorph is a notoriously troublesome mechanic in game design, not just in Nethack but also in every game that includes it but doesn't base the entire game engine on it. You see, polymorph gives the player control of a monster's powerset. For every monster introduced for the rest of the existence of the game, then, the devteam would have to consider what it means when the player gets control of this powerset. Every new monster added is another bit of power creep for the polymorph ability, so over time it will get stronger and stronger without limit no matter how careful the devteam is about shackling the monster creation process.

Crawl does have some polymorph-looking spells in the transmutations school, but these are actually reskinned buffs. The benefits you get from Spider Form, for instance, are completely unrelated to any monster spiders in the game, instead just broadly mimicking spider-themed generalities, so the devteam can add additional spider monsters without having to worry about Spider Form every time. Your proposed spell goes straight for the problematic parts of polymorph, however, even if the flavor is a little bit different. There are already plenty of monsters in the game with an unacceptably problematic spell set. Monsters can spells randomly, but a player can just hammer the best one over and over.

But the thing is, this spell isn't a straight polymorph. It would leave your actual body vulnerable so the situations it could be used in would be limited. Using it in an open area with lots of strong monsters around would be foolish.

To further limit it's power, it could have a limited range - you couldn't wander too far away from your own body, or the spell would be broken. Also, the spell could (and probably should) have a time limit. It's just a matter of balancing...

Also, you forget that the player wouldn't get the monsters spells, because as far as I understand it spells are something you "know" or have memorized, so if it's just your mind in another's body you don't necessarily have access to all their knowledge. So monster spellsets wouldn't be a problem here. Like I said in the OP the player would retain their own skills & spells but would use the monster's attributes, HP, MP, MR, resistances etc.

So go ahead. Create it,

I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that unless the person who suggests an idea is able to implement it by themselves it shouldn't be considered...

I completely agree with that last bit, in fact I suggest really difficult things here all the time, that are waaaay beyond my skill level to code.

It was just a way to point out that what you're suggesting is waaaay more absurdly complex than you seem to think.

[twelwe]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that unless the person who suggests an idea is able to implement it by themselves it shouldn't be considered...

You're right. However, he isn't suggesting that every person with an idea implement it. he's suggestion you implement your idea, which is a massive overhaul to the current monster system that only someone dedicated would consider attempting. This is far too ambitious and massive of a change to just throw out there expecting someone else to do.

[Deimos]

I don't think we should discount ideas simply because of their complexity; if they fit the design philosophy, look fun, and are well-thought, I think it is worth putting aside how long it would take to code. I say this because you aren't forcing someone's hand; if a dev feels it is worth the time, they will work on it. If they don't, they don't. You aren't expecting anyone else to do anything other then read your suggestion when you throw out a idea like a spell.

I don't honestly feel this idea fits that, though.

[KoboldLord]

But the thing is, this spell isn't a straight polymorph.

Okay, just from this bit here I can tell that you do not understand the crux of my objection.

Adding features is a lot of work. It's potentially dangerous. Every feature can interact with other features, and each of those has a chance to introduce game-breaking bugs, difficulty-ruining exploits, and spoiler-ridden crippling vulnerabilities. The more features there are in the game, the more combinations of features you have to test. Usually you can silo off things that work together, and ignore things that can't normally come up in actual play, but the proposal you're making would bring the whole gigantic class of monster powers that have never needed much testing because the player can't control them, and it brings them into the player toolkit with all the other player powers. Just using the monsters we have already, we'd need ten million full-time playtesters checking just this one thing for hundreds of thousands of years just to check all the monster powers.

To name just one example, most of the Crypt ending would be absolutely crippled by the player ability to take control of a monster ghoul and feed it some choice equipment. Literally that player could tab the ghoul through the entire end vault full of monsters, and then when the well-equipped ghoul breaks loose just kite the thing until it dies, because ghouls are slow. It would be mind-numbingly boring, but safe.

Or how about an orb of fire in Zot? One-shot most Zot threats, and you're basically immune to anything that can survive that first hit. The body vulnerability is not even hypothetically risky, because you've got a freaking orb of fire guarding your body.

Ultimately, the trouble is that you thought of a cool and flavorful idea, but then made next to no effort in considering the implications of the idea on the game as a whole. The horrendous amount of work you're asking for is probably more complicated than all the design work done on the game up until this point, but apparently anybody who points this out is just a meanie who's trash-talking your awesome idea.

[dd]

the proposal you're making would bring the whole gigantic class of monster powers that have never needed much testing because the player can't control them, and it brings them into the player toolkit with all the other player powers. Just using the monsters we have already, we'd need ten million full-time playtesters checking just this one thing for hundreds of thousands of years just to check all the monster powers.

There's no way it'd take that long. For one thing, in a few hundred years we'd have AI:s to do the playtesting for us. And they'd use quantum processors which would be able to test every possible game scenario at once.

To name just one example, most of the Crypt ending would be absolutely crippled by the player ability to take control of a monster ghoul and feed it some choice equipment. Literally that player could tab the ghoul through the entire end vault full of monsters, and then when the well-equipped ghoul breaks loose just kite the thing until it dies, because ghouls are slow. It would be mind-numbingly boring, but safe.

Well obviously there'd be restrictions. It'd make sense to specify that undead can't be controlled like this - use the excuse that "taking control of undead would cause a backlash that would eat your brain" or some such. Other monster types could also be ruled out - all mindless monsters, insects, demons, elementals etc. So that'd already narrow down the set of monsters that would be needed to consider.

Or how about an orb of fire in Zot? One-shot most Zot threats, and you're basically immune to anything that can survive that first hit. The body vulnerability is not even hypothetically risky, because you've got a freaking orb of fire guarding your body.

Same here. Considering the monster in question is a sentient blob of fire it'd make sense you couldn't transmit your mind into it's body. Pretty much anything without a nervous system could be ruled out this way. MR limitations could rule out some monsters.

Ultimately, the trouble is that you thought of a cool and flavorful idea, but then made next to no effort in considering the implications of the idea on the game as a whole. The horrendous amount of work you're asking for is probably more complicated than all the design work done on the game up until this point, but apparently anybody who points this out is just a meanie who's trash-talking your awesome idea.

Well, I don't really know where you're getting that from, as I certainly haven't called anyone a meanie or anything else. I also don't think it's too onerous to ask for an explanation when someone basically says "your idea sucks because nethack polymorph". I'm not married to the idea, nor am I demanding anyone to implement it on the spot, I just posted here because I had an idea and suddenly a bunch of people seem to be acting like I've offended the honour of their grandmothers or something...

[Grimm]

dd, idea vetting in the Tavern is pretty rough, especially from the boys in blue, for a reason. Crawl has been very carefully designed to deliver a specific type of gaming experience. Any additions to the game must enhance or at least not alter this experience, and must not distort or detract from it. The Tavern is a place for nipping the worst proposals right in the bud.

I encourage you not to take this personally - the aim of these types of threads should be not to win arguments but to make sure Crawl stays excellent. Many people have had pet ideas brutally pruned in service of this goal. Please re-read the guidelines for proposing new ideas.

[bobross419]

dd, idea vetting in the Tavern is pretty rough, especially from the boys in blue, for a reason. Crawl has been very carefully designed to deliver a specific type of gaming experience. Any additions to the game must enhance or at least not alter this experience, and must not distort or detract from it. The Tavern is a place for nipping the worst proposals right in the bud.

I encourage you not to take this personally - the aim of these types of threads should be not to win arguments but to make sure Crawl stays excellent. Many people have had pet ideas brutally pruned in service of this goal. Please re-read the guidelines for proposing new ideas.

Quite frankly I think its more the tone, lack of supporting information, and overall crap that makes up certain posts. KL's post as an example is great... Both or all three of them.. They go into detail about why something might be a bad idea. Other posts are just kind of like the special kid with Tourettes shouting random things that are only there to fill a nonexistent void. Same applies to a good chunk of the "advice" that gets thrown around. Not enough people understand that without giving a "Why" they aren't being constructive whatsoever.

[sardonica]

Quite frankly I think its more the tone, lack of supporting information, and overall crap that makes up certain posts. KL's post as an example is great... Both or all three of them.. They go into detail about why something might be a bad idea. Other posts are just kind of like the special kid with Tourettes shouting random things that are only there to fill a nonexistent void. Same applies to a good chunk of the "advice" that gets thrown around. Not enough people understand that without giving a "Why" they aren't being constructive whatsoever.

This isn't wikipedia, or children's school. Saying "No one would implement this in a million years because it's too complex" seems to be enough, for such a far-out idea.

Also, I really do thing OP is taking the piss:

There's no way it'd take that long. For one thing, in a few hundred years we'd have AI:s to do the playtesting for us. And they'd use quantum processors which would be able to test every possible game scenario at once.

[TwilightPhoenix]

Since the OP doesn't care to tell us "Why" this feature should be added...

If a reason is never given, it can be safe to assume that it's usually "I think it'll be fun", "Rule of Cool", "Because it's realistic", "Because it'll make the game easier", or along those lines.

[dd]

Since the OP doesn't care to tell us "Why" this feature should be added...

At this point, the reason is basically "to piss you off". If that's ok with you.

[pratamawirya]

At this point, the reason is basically "to piss you off". If that's ok with you.

I'm sure that is, since every Crawl player at some point has experienced the feeling of Crawl pissing them off.

[mageykun]

I'm calling this one. Cause of death: rule 8, a lack of feet, and an all around poor attitude on both sides.

Locked.