I thought I'd already created this thread, but on searching all I could find was this thread by Buzzkill which has an interesting potential solution to the problem I'm about to outline.
Free Action is vital to survival. You have to have it, preferably by 1100' or so. There's too many monsters who can hit to paralyze for lacking it to be viable, not to mention all the monsters that can cast paralysis spells. So unlike the other old "have this resistance by this depth" beliefs, this one is actually still valid. The relatively recent change to paralysis to make it non-cumulative (so you always get a turn between bouts of being paralyzed) has no effect on gameplay past the Floating Eye stage, in my experience -- monsters can do more than enough damage to the player to kill him/her before paralysis wears off anyway, so who cares if it stacks?
This is a problem. Ideally every monster ability in the game should create a choice: do I optimize my gear to protect me from that ability, or do I do without and suffer the consequences? But there's no choice here -- you have FA on your gear, or you risk instant death. That's only interesting in that it forces you to contort your gear choices to include FA somewhere. I grant that this is a non-negligible impact, but I'd like the actual effects of FA to be more tactically interesting. We can weaken gear across the board in recompense.
There's a secondary problem in that FA is not necessarily available when you first need it. I can't count how many characters I've had reach 1200' or so without having found a source of it naturally. And thanks to no-selling, I'm spending little enough time in the town that I can't rely on getting rings of FA from the Black Market either. So I end up in this forced-grinding situation: I can't feasibly avoid all paralyzing monsters, and letting one hit me (or successfully cast a spell; almost all young characters have lousy saving throws) is instant death, so I have to just hang around at a safe depth until I find a source of FA. Which is boring.
Buzzkill's suggested solution is to halve your energy regeneration rate each time you get hit by paralysis -- thus, your first hit would send you from 10 to 5 (half speed), your second to 2 (one-fifth normal speed), your third to 1 -- at this point, you're moving at 1/10th normal speed, which is comparable to existing paralysis durations. But you have those first two hits to possibly escape. This is still harsh enough that you can't afford to hang around when paralyzers are about, but it might not be instant death so long as you aren't hit by multiple paralysis sources in the same round.
As far as melee paralysis is concerned, I think simply setting you to one-half speed would be entirely enough -- at that level you'd want to avoid "paralyzers" as much as possible as fighting them wouldn't really be feasible. However, you might possibly consider it in limited situations, so there'd be more tactical decisions than there are currently. Is the instadeath really even necessary here? That said, I could see harsher measures for paralyzing spells, since the tactical decisions are different for melee vs. ranged.
Thoughts?
Free Action is vital to survival. You have to have it, preferably by 1100' or so. There's too many monsters who can hit to paralyze for lacking it to be viable, not to mention all the monsters that can cast paralysis spells. So unlike the other old "have this resistance by this depth" beliefs, this one is actually still valid. The relatively recent change to paralysis to make it non-cumulative (so you always get a turn between bouts of being paralyzed) has no effect on gameplay past the Floating Eye stage, in my experience -- monsters can do more than enough damage to the player to kill him/her before paralysis wears off anyway, so who cares if it stacks?
This is a problem. Ideally every monster ability in the game should create a choice: do I optimize my gear to protect me from that ability, or do I do without and suffer the consequences? But there's no choice here -- you have FA on your gear, or you risk instant death. That's only interesting in that it forces you to contort your gear choices to include FA somewhere. I grant that this is a non-negligible impact, but I'd like the actual effects of FA to be more tactically interesting. We can weaken gear across the board in recompense.
There's a secondary problem in that FA is not necessarily available when you first need it. I can't count how many characters I've had reach 1200' or so without having found a source of it naturally. And thanks to no-selling, I'm spending little enough time in the town that I can't rely on getting rings of FA from the Black Market either. So I end up in this forced-grinding situation: I can't feasibly avoid all paralyzing monsters, and letting one hit me (or successfully cast a spell; almost all young characters have lousy saving throws) is instant death, so I have to just hang around at a safe depth until I find a source of FA. Which is boring.
Buzzkill's suggested solution is to halve your energy regeneration rate each time you get hit by paralysis -- thus, your first hit would send you from 10 to 5 (half speed), your second to 2 (one-fifth normal speed), your third to 1 -- at this point, you're moving at 1/10th normal speed, which is comparable to existing paralysis durations. But you have those first two hits to possibly escape. This is still harsh enough that you can't afford to hang around when paralyzers are about, but it might not be instant death so long as you aren't hit by multiple paralysis sources in the same round.
As far as melee paralysis is concerned, I think simply setting you to one-half speed would be entirely enough -- at that level you'd want to avoid "paralyzers" as much as possible as fighting them wouldn't really be feasible. However, you might possibly consider it in limited situations, so there'd be more tactical decisions than there are currently. Is the instadeath really even necessary here? That said, I could see harsher measures for paralyzing spells, since the tactical decisions are different for melee vs. ranged.
Thoughts?
Comment