Re: [Crawl-ref-discuss] Vampires

[David P. <pl...@mi...>]

> David's aforementioned vampire also found a great sword of freezing on D:8;
> this might have *something* to do with his success :).

No no, success was completely independent of that sword :)

>> 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?

On the XL dependence of negative resistance: I thought this would reflect 
the "getting more in touch with the powers of death"? Isn't this similar 
for Mummies? (I never play Mummies, so I honestly don't know.)

I suggest the following: Vampires are always seeing the invisible. They 
should be be completely poison resistant at Bloodless and become less so 
depending of how alive they are.

Ah, now I see that "in touch with the powers of death" means a Necromancy 
boost, right?

> <jpeg>
>> Stats
>> -----
>> Vampires currently get the following base stats:
>>    Strength: 5
>>    Intelligence: 6
>>    Dexterity: 5
>> 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.
>
> 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.

Yes. I think weak, very dextrous or intelligent would fit.


> Aptitudes
>
> 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.

Yes.

> 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?

Fine by me. Given that they will be weak usually, Dodging should be the 
way to go. Do shields take strength into account somewhere?

> [transmigrations]

>>> 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.

>> david: 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.

> 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.

Okay, I am not adamant on this one. Bat form is the best anyway :)


> 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. 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.

I absolutely love this idea. [In my opinion, we should stick to the basic 
idea that Vampires interpolate between living and undead and work from 
that.] This could mean that: a) you are ignoring bad mutations by going 
(and staying) undead (I am sure this is feasible - we will need to balance 
things out here, in both directions.) b) unexpected mutations may change 
the view on your Vampire drastically (e.g. turn from living to undead 
vampire in order to ignore a particularly nasty set of mutations, or the 
other way around).


[clash of aptitude sets: jpeg vs iainuki]


>>                 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
>
> 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.

I would be inclined to go with the second set (I don't care so much for 
the middle row), as that would make both preferred playing styles (As vs 
Su or other caster better). However, I am definitely against Conj 100. The 
original 160 is fine in my opinion. (In general, aptitudes are overrated 
in my opinion, but the 160 -> 100 change is large enough even for me :) I 
don't want Vampire casters to become just another conjurer clone. They are 
very good at Nec and Sum - we should not blur these strengths. Both these 
schools are very viable.

> 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

*test missing*


>> Resistances
>>> -----------
>>
>> 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.

Good reasoning. I second it. (By the way, I believe that we have great 
leeway in changing the basic rules - the more drastic the change, the more 
intuitive (thematic) it should be.)


>> Special 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.

Not necessarily: higher Int and no starving effects will help.

> 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.

Yes, but undead Vampires can (just as Mummies) cast, too! In essence, I 
presume, it is like this: as long as the Vampire has any blood left, this 
will be spent by just 'living' including casting. When the Vampire is 
undead, it can still be casting, no matter what.

David:
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

Okay.

>>> 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.

Me neither. Probably best to ignore this for a start.

Thanks for the feedback to both Johanna and Iainuki. Since these threads 
get confusing, I will prepare a nice new Vampire v2 mail in a moment.

David