Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Crawl-ref-discuss] Vampires
|
From: <ia...@gm...> - 2007-11-23 08:36:48
|
>
> <dpeg>
> There is some more data by now: I played a series of VpAs, all of Makhleb
> (the healing). These are playable in fact. You should not dawdle (like you
> shouldn't with a Spriggan) but with my last try I hit Very Full at turn
> 3820 or so and rarely left it. Currently, this Vampire (XL 13) looks into
> a quite promising game (all of Lair, Snake and more dungeon should be
> tackable).
> It should be noted that the appearance of huge monsters (centaurs, ogres)
> really helps. Also, this Vampire _will_ have problems once entering
> branches with little or no good corpses. (See below.) And spellcasting
> still is a problem. Let me just point out that the current implementation
> is not _that_ unplayable.
I was deliberately avoiding Makhleb during testing, since I figured that
might be the one way to avoid the current hunger death spiral. I also
tended to (try to) use spells and even my successful runs found good
equipment that burned food, like the rod of destruction.
David's aforementioned vampire also found a great sword of freezing on D:8;
this might have *something* to do with his success :). Once you get into
the part of the game with large monsters (yaks, sheep, centaurs, ogres,
etc.), if you can kill them successfully and without taking too much damage,
you can maintain very full easily; the problem is getting there. Foodless
and effectively foodless branches (Snake and Hive, for instance) will still
be a problem, as David noted.
<dpeg>
>
> The main problem appears to be the lowered regeneration rate when
> > hungry (regeneration halved) and especially when starving
> > (regeneration zero!)
>
> I would keep this mechanic by all means (including the 0 regeneration).
> However, they should not pass out from starving. As I said before, we
> should completely relabel the hunger statuses (this will make it much more
>
> clearer how Vampires tick). Here are two suggestions (eat vs drink):
>
> Status (e) Status (q) Regen Neg
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Very Hungry Bloodless none +++
> Hungry Very Thirsty slow ++[+]
> Thirsty normal +[+](+)
> Full fast [+](+)
> Very Full Full of Blood very fast (+)
> or Alive
>
> (You gain the [+] at XL 13 and the (+) at XL 26.)
> (By the way, another way to differentiate the various states is by
> colouration of skin (complexion): Very Pale, Pale etc.)
I have reservations about both the XL dependence and 0-regeneration, but
this seems reasonable for a first draft. What about see invisible, poison
resistance, and in touch with the powers of death?
<jpeg>
> Stats
> -----
> Vampires currently get the following base stats:
> Strength: 5
> Intelligence: 6
> Dexterity: 5
> the sum of which is way below average (even exempting Demonspawn and
> Demigod we get an average of 18.5), though higher than for Mummies and
> Ghouls (both 13). (But Keep in mind that stats are in a later step
> randomly increased by a total of 8.)
>
> Ianuki is right that mythologically vampires are regarded as ancient,
> wise and extremely strong creatures. Intelligence (wisdom) is probably
> the most flavourful of these three for vampires, but at the same time
> vampires are supposed to rely on Stabbing -> Dex. I don't have a
> problem with having vampires have higher than average stats and thus
> suggest raising Int by 2 and Dex by 1.
>From a gameplay perspective, ghouls and mummies get a lot of intrinsics
(poison and cold resistance, full life protection, torment resistance, no
hunger and necromancy enhancers for mummies), and their low stats help to
compensate for these advantages, among other things. Under the current
ideas being discussed, vampires don't benefit as much from these things, so
it shouldn't per se be a problem for them to have stats in the normal range.
Also, from a flavor perspective, ghouls and mummies are sometimes portrayed
as slow and rather stupid, as befits walking corpses, but few to no
post-Dracula/Carmilla depictions of vampires hew to that stereotype.
> <jpeg>
>
Aptitudes
---------
> First, the current aptitudes:
> Arm Ddg Sth Stb Shd T&D Inv Evo Exp
> Vampire 140 110 50 100 140 110 140 140 150
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fgt SBl LBl Axs M&F Pla Stv U C Thr Slg Bws Crb Drt
> Vampire 110 100 110 110 140 110 140 90 140 140 140 140 140
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Spc Coj Enc Sum Nec Trl Trm Div Fir Ice Air Ear Poi
> Vampire 130 160 140 100 100 140 120 140 140 140 140 140 140
>
> This is what we currently have: vampires are bad at everything except
> Stealth, fighting (Unarmed combat, Stabbing), Summoning, Necromancy
>
> For all except Stealth even their good aptitudes are actually only
> average or worse. With that in mind I propose lowering the aptitudes
> of at least the following:
> Dodging (90), T&D (100), Short Blades (90), Long Blades (100), Staves
> (110), Unarmed Combat (80), and both Sum and Nec (80).
Again, the comparison to mummies and ghouls is instructive. Mummies get
terrible aptitudes to balance out their intrinsics, because the only
significant intrinsic disadvantages they have are the usual undead
complement and fire vulnerability. In contrast, ghouls have aptitudes that
are fairly typical for a melee-oriented race, because they rot and don't
have the extra mummy advantages. For vampires, I think they should have
aptitudes closer to the ghoul level, because their undead powers are
variable and certainly not as strong as those of mummies.
Maces and staves have a high penalty because, I think, they're blunt weapons
at the basic level: maces/hammers/great maces and quarterstaves. (I don't
know how, if it should, the presence of the piercing maces and lajatangs
should affect this.)
Also, an idea: since no races in 0.3 (I heard a change for Mf discussed?)
have good Dodging and Shields, give vampires decent shields aptitude?
<jpeg>
> > Vampires, at the moment, can't self-transmigrate: i.e., they can't
> > use Blade Hands, Stoneskin, Spiderform, etc. Given their batform
> > ability and Dracula's abilities, this seems rather wrong, and I
> > think that a good way to distinguish them from other undead is to
> > give them this ability. I'd also bring the aptitude down to
> > something better.
>
> While bat form could be considered as some form of transmigration,
> none of the other existing transmigrations really fit the vampire, so
> that I'm rather against making exempting vampires from the restriction
> on transmigrations. Besides, it would probably blur the flavour of the
> bat form.
I'd view that as a better reason to extend transmigrations than prevent
vampires from using them :). The inability to use self-transmigrations is
not much of a balancing factor: self-transmigrations are basically
specialized spells for unarmed fighters at the moment, with the only
exceptions Stoneskin and Passwall (I think; but almost no one uses it, so
it's a minor point). Thus, it cuts down on the diversity of styles
available to vampires without offering any advantages that I can see.
For a sample spell along the lines of a more vampirish transmigration:
Mist Form
Transmigrations/Air 6
Gives virtual immunity to physical damage (including earth conjurations?),
but removes equipment and lowers AC so that any hits that *do* land (like
orbs/bolts of energy and fire/ice attacks) do large damage; also, should
give one or two levels each of fire and ice vulnerability (mist freezes and
vaporizes).
I also don't really agree that the current transmigrations aren't in flavor
for vampires, anyways: spiderform fits with the theme of "meaner creatures"
that's well-established in vampire fiction from Stoker on, and Dracula's
name is derived from "dragon."
Anyway, I still think that living vampires should be able to transmigrate.
A related question: how should mutations affect vampires? The current
system just has them rot as ghouls and mummies, but I think that mutations
add something to the game. (In addition, I'd note that since they rot
instead of mutating and curing rot is easy for them, ghouls can haste
several times in a row without incurring serious long-term damage, and have
little to fear from mutating attacks in general; this is one big factor that
makes their endgame so strong, since they don't even *need* res mutation
under most circumstances.) The possibility most consistent with lichform
and the current structure is that "living" vampires would mutate and "dead"
vampires rot, with vampires retaining both rot and mutations as they switch
back and forth. I'd like to offer a new mechanic for them, though, and
possibly one for lichform characters: vampires can mutate no matter their
hunger state, but when they go "dead," their mutations deactivate.
> Stoker uses "necromancy" in its antiquated meaning of "divination
> > via the dead," as well as the modern sense that Crawl uses. I'm not
> > sure whether or not that's a good argument for vampires to have
> > decent divinations.
>
> Now that's an idea. We could indeed lower Divinations to at least
> "decent" (120), though it's not going to be their selling point.
>
> > Besides the powers mentioned above, another power that Dracula has
> > is mesmerism and mind control, both over animals and humans. I
> > suggest this is a good reason to offer vampires decent aptitude with
> > Enchantments; also, this combines well with their Stealth/Stabbing
> > focus.
>
> Like divinations, this could be a backseat possibility for vampires:
> not something they excel in but also not something they're really bad
> in.
>
> To summarize, following all my above suggestions would make the
> aptitudes look like this:
>
Arm Ddg Sth Stb Shd T&D Inv Evo Exp
> Vampire 140 90 50 100 140 100 140 140 150
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fgt SBl LBl Axs M&F Pla Stv U C Thr Slg Bws Crb Drt
> Vampire 110 90 100 110 140 110 110 80 140 140 140 140 140
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Spc Coj Enc Sum Nec Trl Trm Div Fir Ice Air Ear Poi
> Vampire 130 160 120 80 80 140 120 120 140 120 110 140 140
>
> Does this look more playable?
I'm going to push on this point: I don't much like these aptitudes.
Instead, I'll offer this set:
Arm Ddg Sth Stb Shd T&D Inv Evo Exp
Vampire 140 90 50 90 110 100 160 100 150
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fgt SBl LBl Axs M&F Pla Stv U C Thr Slg Bws Crb Drt
Vampire 110 100 110 110 140 110 140 90 140 140 140 140 140
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Spc Coj Enc Sum Nec Trl Trm Div Fir Ice Air Ear Poi
Vampire 100 100 90 100 90 140 90 120 140 100 100 120 120
Points to note, compared to the current vampire aptitudes:
* Slightly better Dodging and Stabbing, for the assassin-vampire.
* Better Shields, as above.
* Better Evocations (is there any reason for them to be worse than average?)
and worse Invocations, since many fictional vampire portrayals have them
disdainful of religion, originating probably in the notion of a form of
earthly immortality.
* I left the combat aptitudes alone.
* I dropped the Spellcasting aptitude, because at the moment vampires are
worse at it than *ghouls*, and significantly worse than mummies.
* I decreased Conjurations, Enchantments, Summoning (slightly), Necromancy
(slightly), Transmigrations, Divinations (slightly), Air, Ice, Earth
(slightly; Dracula had an earth connection in the form of his requirement
for the soil of Transylvania), and Poison (slightly; I don't see why it
should be so high) in accordance with my aforesaid ideas.
In terms of defining a unique role for vampires, I think it's important to
note that ghouls are *already* a stealthy undead race with good melee stats
and unarmed aptitude; and that mummies are equally bad at both magic and
fighting. I think the best way to distinguish vampires is to give them a
more casterish focus, without crippling them in melee. If this is too
strong, I'd suggest pushing up the combat aptitudes first, to keep the
This set of aptitudes is also fairly distinguished from other races: the
closest comparison is sludge elf, and I can see pushing sludge elves and
vampires apart.
> Resistances
> > -----------
>
> > A similar effect could be achieved for some of the other resistances.
> > Vampires currently start out with
> > you.mutation[MUT_SLOW_METABOLISM] = 1;
> > you.mutation[MUT_TORMENT_RESISTANCE] = 1;
> > you.mutation[MUT_POISON_RESISTANCE] = 1;
> >
> > Mummy and Ghoul in addition get one level of cold resistance, and
> > Mummies are also susceptible to fire. I suggest that vampires gain one
> > level of cold resistance and one level of fire susceptibility when
> > they reaching the Hungry state. (Maybe add a second level of cold
> > resistance for starving vampires).
>
> I would not play so much with elemental abilities. Heck, I would even
> suggest to remove the poison resistance. If we add that potions of blood
> heal vampires, then I would definitely link poison resistance to blood
> level: granted for Thirsty and below, decreasing chances for (very) full.
> The same could be applied for cold resistance, if we go for consistency
> with the other undead races (as we probably should).
>
> And I suggest that Bloodless (and below) Vampires get the full Torment
> resistance; when they contain blood it becomes a chance only.
I'd generally agree, but with a caveat: partial resistances (via a random
chance) are weird, and found nowhere else in Crawl. It might work for
poison, because poison "hits" more times so the variance damps out faster,
but for the others, how necessary is it? Cold resistance and torment
resistance have partial states already (cold inherently with the level
structure, and torment through negative energy resistance.) As a simpler
mechanic, I'd suggest instead just offering different kinds of resistances
via hunger state: torment at very hungry, cold at hungry, and poison at
Full.
The slow metabolism does not mean much at the moment: it depends on how
> you translate blood into nutrition. At the moment, it works out okay.
> More on feeding below.
Since vampires have a nutrition system that's separate from that of the
other races, the only relevance slow metabolism has is balancing the
relative costs of being alive and other sources of hunger
> Special effects
> > ---------------
> >
>
> > Vampires already are more stealthy when hungry and indirectly faster
> > (bat form). If it hasn't been done yet vampires should be able to cast
> > spells even when starving (probably with a lowered success rate).
>
> Please let us go away from the starving. It is possible to play a
> character without regeneration. (Although at the moment you'd need casting
> and/or Makhleb.) It is not playable with the starving effects.
> Another thing: is it in any way sensible that casting drains blood? I
> mean, it does look a bit silly. (What I am asking for is a rationale of
> why Vampire spellcasting drains their blood level. Throwing this out seems
> impossible and should not be done.)
If vampires are to cast spells, early-game corpses need to provide more
nutrition: I just don't see how this is workable, otherwise.
I don't see the particular need for a rationale beyond what the effects
spellcasting has on other races: just as other races apparently need food to
power spells, vampires need blood (and the nutrition in it) to power theirs.
>> 6) Perhaps Vampires should be able to 'D'istill potions of blood from
> >> corpses. This would allow them to create their own reservoir of potions
> >> of blood, and use their satiation as a means. We could link this to a
> >> certain XL.
> >
> > Fulsome distillation has an incredibly low chance (1/30 of all clean
> > chunktype corpses) of creating potions of blood. What you suggest here
> > is presumably a vampire-only ability. I'm rather against this, but
> > maybe it's necessary.
>
> I do not mean fulsome destillation but a Vampire-only ability at XL 6 or
> so. Could be linked to Trm skill if you like it.
>
> This would have several advantages: currently, there are potentially two
> uses for a fresh corpse (eating, and saccing -- however, I almost never
> sacced edible corpses to Makhleb). With the change, you could also choose
> to try to 'D'istill a potion of blood from the corpse. This may not work,
> but if it works, you can use that potion later. Actually, there should be
> a number of potions as the result, depending on the size of the corpse.
> (While I am at it, the current potion of blood only gives a ridiculously
> small amount of nutrition.)
The more I think about it, the more this seems like an essential ability:
there's just no way for vampires to survive in corpseless branches without
it. Like other racial abilities, it should be based only on XL, and not
train any skills.
Like David says, the current potion of blood needs to offer much more
nutrition.
>> 7) Vampires should try to harder to bite in melee when hungry.
> >
> > Definitely. There's a low to-hit bonus at the moment for biting
> > attacks; that should be increased for hungry and a bit more for
> > starving. Also, unarmed (biting) attacks could become more likely when
> > the vampire is hungry.
>
> The latter was what I was thinking of. The more thirsty the Vampire is,
> the more of his attacks will try to be by biting. (This is thematic, but
> may actually turn out bad, if we want to encourage that the player decides
> on the satiation state.)
>
I'm not sure how to handle this under a model where satiation is more of a
choice.
> > Agree on the former points, but I'm confused on the latter. Do you
> > mean that they shouldn't be able to turn into bats when not hungry (or
> > full)? I'm not so sure about that, seeing how bat form is so cool. I'd
> > compromise on bat form being unavailable when full (a state too alive
> > for bat form).
>
> Having just used bat form to successfully escape the Abyss (which could
> have been problematic in Vampire form), I step back from that proposal.
> Bat form should be there for all satiation states.
> (The Abyss becomes almost trivial this way, even for young Vampires.)
I agree that bat form should be available all the time.
Iainuki
|
