RFC: intrinsic polymorph control

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Hi,

I have an idea to change polymorph (control).

I'd suggest the rings that currently do this are both abolished, and
replaced by the following system:

- You can polymorph by
- eating a chameleon corpse;
- quaffing a potion of polymorph;
- zapping a wand of polymorph at yourself; or
- using any other currently available method excluding the ring.

A polymorph control counter is introduced. This polymorph control
counter indicates the percentage chance that when you next polymorph,
you may control what you'll polymorph into.

This counter starts at a value from 0 to 10, varying per class. Every
time you polymorph (by any means), the counter is increased by one, two
or three, again dependent on class. The maximum value that may be
reached is again dependent on class.

Here are some suggested values:

Arc Bar Cav Hea Kni Mon Pri Ran Rog Sam Tou Val Wiz
Starting value 3 1 0 5 2 4 6 4 8 0 2 0 10
Increase per PM 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 3
Maximum percentage 40 30 30 60 40 90 80 60 90 30 40 30 90

Any ideas, comments, opinions or flames?

Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Boudewijn Waijers" <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote in news:dcaao9
$st7$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl:

> Hi,

Howdy

> I have an idea to change polymorph (control).
>
> I'd suggest the rings that currently do this are both abolished, and
> replaced by the following system:
>
> - You can polymorph by
> - eating a chameleon corpse;
> - quaffing a potion of polymorph;
> - zapping a wand of polymorph at yourself; or
> - using any other currently available method excluding the ring.
>
> A polymorph control counter is introduced. This polymorph control
> counter indicates the percentage chance that when you next polymorph,
> you may control what you'll polymorph into.

This seems reminiscent of the doppelganger race in Slash'Em.

> This counter starts at a value from 0 to 10, varying per class. Every
> time you polymorph (by any means), the counter is increased by one, two
> or three, again dependent on class. The maximum value that may be
> reached is again dependent on class.

Why not have it vary according to someone's constitution than a random
integer? There can be plenty of early polymorph attempts, and sometimes
later ones, that end with the new form was too weak to live.

Why not have polymorph control for an individual who has already observed
or eaten or tamed a certain kind of monster? This would prevent someone
from becoming a red dragon or master lich on DL1.

Make polymorph control into an intrinsic acquired when one eats a
doppelganger. Same chance of acquiring it as getting fire/cold resistance
from eating red/brown mold corpses.

Also I'd like to suggest a new class. Contortionist. Humans and elves can
be contortionists. I can't see dwarves, gnomes or orcs being as supple.
They start out with the intrinsic of free action, at XL7 they gain
polymorph control and at XL18 they acquire petrification resistance
because they are just that limber. Insert joke that they're more
attractive to foocubi. I reckon their difficulty level would be around
the tourist class.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Boudewijn Waijers wrote:

> I have an idea to change polymorph (control).


Hmm.

I like the idea of shaking up the poly control system, but I'm not sure
how.

I quite like the idea of "collecting" forms that you can assume.
Perhpas by eating monsters, or maybe by some other action.

I seem to recall a rather cool 'tattoo' YANI a while back where
tattooing monsters onto your body forced you into that form when you
poly (much like wearing dragon scales force you into the dragon form).

That would be cool.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

dogsc...@eudoramail.com wrote:
> I quite like the idea of "collecting" forms that you can assume.
> Perhpas by eating monsters, or maybe by some other action

In a certain mulitplayer Roguelike (Tomenet) if playing the Mimic class
you can morph at will into monsters after killing a certain number of
them. Also taken into effect is your skill level at mimicry, and of
course the higher level the monster, the more you needed to kill.

Not sure if you actually want to do it this way, and introduce a
Mimicry/polymorph skill that you need to enhance similar to magic and
weaponry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

dogscoff@eudoramail.com wrote:
> I quite like the idea of "collecting" forms that you can assume.
> Perhpas by eating monsters, or maybe by some other action.
>

You could do it the Animorphs way and have it be touching (punching with
gloves off I guess). You could take it even further by making it so that
after a certain number of turns, if you didn't polymorph back, you would
turn into the monster permanantly (also from Animorphs).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 7/28/05 6:06 AM, Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an idea to change polymorph (control).
>
> I'd suggest the rings that currently do this are both abolished, and
> replaced by the following system:

[snip some details]

Just curious about what you think is wrong with the present system. The
certainty of being able to poly without fail, given the right equipment?

> This counter starts at a value from 0 to 10, varying per class. Every
> time you polymorph (by any means), the counter is increased by one, two
> or three, again dependent on class. The maximum value that may be
> reached is again dependent on class.
>
> Here are some suggested values:
>
> Arc Bar Cav Hea Kni Mon Pri Ran Rog Sam Tou Val Wiz
> Starting value 3 1 0 5 2 4 6 4 8 0 2 0 10
> Increase per PM 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 3
> Maximum percentage 40 30 30 60 40 90 80 60 90 30 40 30 90

What is your rationale for basing it on class, and why this particular
distribution? I might suggest basing it on race (which is even more in
need of differentiation than class, IMO) and perhaps giving the highest
possibility to humans, who tend to be inferior in most respects than
most races.

If polymorph-ability were based on class, I guess I understand some of
your rationales. Most wombat classes are low, spellcasters are higher,
reflecting (I presume) orientation toward magic (polymorph being one
type). I'm not sure why Rogues should be so high--they might *want* to
conceal their identities, but I'm not sure why that should translate
into an *ability* to do so. I'm also not sure I like making the Wizard
endgame even easier than it is.

I'm also not sure that this wouldn't simply stifle polyself-based
tactics altogether. Best-case scenario: a Wizard is going to take 26
polymorphs to attain (nearly) dependable poly control. That's a lot of
polymorphing, especially without having a ring to make it costless. To
balance, maybe eating a chameleon corpse would confer polymorphitis,
rather than a one-time poly.

--
Kevin Wayne

"Art is a tremendous means by which painfully guarded individuals bare
their souls." --Steve Hindalong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:50:53 GMT
BManx2000 <bmanx2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>touching (punching with
>gloves off I guess).

I guess you don't become a cockatrice then...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:39:22 GMT
Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> wrote:

>giving the highest
>possibility to humans, who tend to be inferior in most respects than
>most races.

Go humans! (and if you choose to be a xorn, double that chance, because I like xorns.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Kevin Wayne wrote:

> Just curious about what you think is wrong with the present system.
> The certainty of being able to poly without fail, given the right
> equipment?

Indeed. I think there should always be a risk in polymorphing yourself,
even with the best of characters.

>> A B C H K M P Ra Ro S T V W
>> Starting value 3 1 0 5 2 4 6 4 8 0 2 0 10
>> Increase per PM 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 3
>> Maximum percentage 40 30 30 60 40 90 80 60 90 30 40 30 90

> What is your rationale for basing it on class, and why this particular
> distribution? I might suggest basing it on race (which is even more in
> need of differentiation than class, IMO) and perhaps giving the
> highest possibility to humans, who tend to be inferior in most
> respects than most races.

Humans have already the enormous advantage that they may play any class,
and their stats can all become 18 (or 18/00 for strength).

My idea was first sparked by the rogue quest. I thought that rogues
should have a better chance of being able to control their polymorph
when they eat one of the chameleon corpses on the quest.

Of course, given common myth, wizards should also be able to polymorph
themselves quite controlled, and since monks use no weapons, I thought
they should also be adept to polymorphing themselves into things that
don't use weapons either.

> If polymorph-ability were based on class, I guess I understand some of
> your rationales. Most wombat classes are low, spellcasters are higher,
> reflecting (I presume) orientation toward magic (polymorph being one
> type). I'm not sure why Rogues should be so high--they might *want* to
> conceal their identities, but I'm not sure why that should translate
> into an *ability* to do so.

See above. It's to make their quest somewhat more easy, if you prepare
in advance by raising your polymorph control counter. This would be a
matter of taste, of course, since it involves lots of uncontrolled
polymorphs earlier, which would be quite dangerous.

> I'm also not sure I like making the Wizard
> endgame even easier than it is.

What's so different about the wizard endgame? Not the, contrary to the
current system, one can never be sure a polymorph will be controlled.
The (unspoken) idea was that when a polymorph ends up uncontrolled, you
will randomly polymorph. Not a gamble you'd want to take in the endgame.

> I'm also not sure that this wouldn't simply stifle polyself-based
> tactics altogether. Best-case scenario: a Wizard is going to take 26
> polymorphs to attain (nearly) dependable poly control. That's a lot of
> polymorphing, especially without having a ring to make it costless. To
> balance, maybe eating a chameleon corpse would confer polymorphitis,
> rather than a one-time poly.

Well, the numbers may of course be tweaked, you could for example change
the 1-2-3 row into 2-4-6's. Then it would take a wizard only 13
polymorphs to reach maximum skill.

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>
> I have an idea to change polymorph (control).
>
> I'd suggest the rings that currently do this are both abolished, and
> replaced by the following system:
>
> - You can polymorph by
> - eating a chameleon corpse;
> - quaffing a potion of polymorph;
> - zapping a wand of polymorph at yourself; or
> - using any other currently available method excluding the ring.
>
> A polymorph control counter is introduced. This polymorph control
> counter indicates the percentage chance that when you next polymorph,
> you may control what you'll polymorph into.

Bare-handed combat and riding both use the skil system.
Sounds like polyself could be treated the same and reuse
much of the same code. So many polyself's and "You feel
more confidence in your skills".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

noah bedford wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:50:53 GMT
> BManx2000 <bmanx2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>touching (punching with
>>gloves off I guess).
>
> I guess you don't become a cockatrice then...

Unless you do it while already petrification-resistant (like a yellow
dragon) or made of stone (like a stone golem).

Raisse, petrified by a cockatrice

--
irina@valdyas.org LegoHack: http://www.valdyas.org/irina/nethack/
Status of Raisse (piously neutral): Level 8 HP 63(67) AC -3, fast.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:08:26 GMT
Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Of course, monks can also poly into things that *do* use weapons, or use
>weapons in their natural form, for that matter.

They still get the penalty it SLASHEM.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:42:04 -0500
noah bedford <noahbedford@gmail.com> wrote:

>it
^^
In.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 7/29/05 4:25 AM, Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
> Kevin Wayne wrote:
>
>> Humans tend to be inferior in most respects than most
>> races.
>
> Humans have already the enormous advantage that they may play any class,

That's a meaningless "advantage", given that a characters class is fixed
within the scope of any single game. Since the *player* may already play
any class, it reduces to "A player may choose to play any class as a
human." No in-game advantage there.

> and their stats can all become 18 (or 18/00 for strength).

The stats for other races are limited in some respects and enhanced in
some respects. For ease of reference in this discussion, here's the table:

Player Race STR INT WIS DEX CON CHA
~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
dwarf 18/** 16 16 20 20 16
elf 18 20 20 18 16 18
gnome 18/50 19 18 18 18 18
human 18/** 18 18 18 18 18
orc 18/50 16 16 18 18 16

The only race I see as being clearly inferior is the orc. (As it should
be.) Some limitations are almost meaningless (e.g., CHA) and some can be
overcome by GoP or HoB.

Plus every other race receives infravision, as well as other benefits:

elf - XL 4 : Sleep resistance

gnome - Can use uncursed touchstones as blessed.

orc - XL 1 : Poison resistance
Exempt from penalties for cannibalism and eating domestic animals.

All in all, I still hold that humans have fewer advantages than other
classes (although I have a predilection for playing them anyway; I
identify with the character better).

> My idea was first sparked by the rogue quest. I thought that rogues
> should have a better chance of being able to control their polymorph
> when they eat one of the chameleon corpses on the quest.

Is the rogue quest unreasonably hard? (Haven't done it yet.)
>
> Of course, given common myth, wizards should also be able to polymorph
> themselves quite controlled, and since monks use no weapons, I thought
> they should also be adept to polymorphing themselves into things that
> don't use weapons either.

Of course, monks can also poly into things that *do* use weapons, or use
weapons in their natural form, for that matter.

>> I'm also not sure I like making the Wizard endgame even easier than
>> it is.
>
> What's so different about the wizard endgame? Not the, contrary to the
> current system, one can never be sure a polymorph will be controlled.
> The (unspoken) idea was that when a polymorph ends up uncontrolled, you
> will randomly polymorph. Not a gamble you'd want to take in the endgame.

I was using "endgame" pretty loosely. Wizards are thought by good
players to be one of the easier classes; certainly this is not true of
the early game. I was thinking of the advantages in spellcasting. And I
do like the thought of polymorph always containing an element of risk.

--
Kevin Wayne

"Art is a tremendous means by which painfully guarded individuals bare
their souls." --Steve Hindalong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Kevin Wayne wrote:
> On 7/29/05 4:25 AM, Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>
>> My idea was first sparked by the rogue quest. I thought that rogues
>> should have a better chance of being able to control their polymorph
>> when they eat one of the chameleon corpses on the quest.
>
> Is the rogue quest unreasonably hard? (Haven't done it yet.)

You may land in an area where you won't reach the quest nemesis, and
the level is undiggable. Polymorphing into a xorn is one possibility
to solve the problem.

Janis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Kevin Wayne wrote:
>
> The stats for other races are limited in some respects and enhanced in
> some respects. For ease of reference in this discussion, here's the table:
>
> Player Race STR INT WIS DEX CON CHA
> ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
> dwarf 18/** 16 16 20 20 16
> elf 18 20 20 18 16 18
> gnome 18/50 19 18 18 18 18
> human 18/** 18 18 18 18 18
> orc 18/50 16 16 18 18 16

It's the first time that I see a neatly compiled table of these values.

The data makes me wonder why orcs and gnomes have a relative high CHA,
why dwarfs have a high DEX, and, though getting very old, have a low WIS.

Janis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 7/29/05 9:11 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> Kevin Wayne wrote:
>
>>The stats for other races are limited in some respects and enhanced in
>>some respects. For ease of reference in this discussion, here's the table:
>>
>>Player Race STR INT WIS DEX CON CHA
>>~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
>>dwarf 18/** 16 16 20 20 16
>>elf 18 20 20 18 16 18
>>gnome 18/50 19 18 18 18 18
>>human 18/** 18 18 18 18 18
>>orc 18/50 16 16 18 18 16
>
>
> It's the first time that I see a neatly compiled table of these values.

The table is from STAT-343.txt on Dylan's site.

--
Kevin Wayne

"Art is a tremendous means by which painfully guarded individuals bare
their souls." --Steve Hindalong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Kevin Wayne wrote:
> On 7/29/05 9:11 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>
>> It's the first time that I see a neatly compiled table of these values.
>
> The table is from STAT-343.txt on Dylan's site.

Aha, thank's for the info.

I should have a closer look at all these spoilers. (Currently I dig up
all the data I need from the source, which is a bit less comfortable.)

Janis