Debuffs for Monsters

[danaris]

Just keep in mind that the player is generally not going to take "chancy" actions in any fight that really matters unless the payoff is commensurately significant. If it takes me, on average, 4 turns' worth of attempts to get a status ailment to stick, then the payoff from that needs to be worth more than just 4 turns' worth of bashing the monster's face in. If the value of a debuff is lower (or even if it's simply harder to gauge the value of the debuff), then I'll stick to something more reliable.

Right. That's part of why I want to overhaul the debuffs in the first place: there's rarely an instance where one of them is truly worth taking the time to apply.

Like I said, I'm not sure which way I really want to go at this point, but I do know that if I go the "saving throw" route, a monster making the saving throw isn't going to be nearly as common as it is now. (And, as an aside, giving monsters saving throws akin to the player's gives you another lever to tweak for balance, and another place to potentially apply debuffs.)

Also remember that the player isn't always fighting 1-on-1. Trading a player turn for a monster turn isn't a good trade when there's more than one monster.

Indeed. That's another thing that exasperates me about the existing debuffs, since only Sleep has a multi-effect spell that applies it, and the only other one that can be applied en masse is Slow, from _Slow Monsters.

Making the debuffs easier to apply to groups—either through more "all in LOS"-effect spells or through ball spells applying them—would, I think, be a good thing to do pretty much across the board. When you're fighting multiple monsters, it makes them serve a truly useful purpose—and unlike some changes one could make, it scales pretty cleanly back down to fighting a single monster, and doesn't suddenly become unbalanced in favour of the player.

[Estie]

The thing with debuffs is that they take too long to type. Basically, the only things worth debuffing are uniques. For normal monsters, fights last 1-2 rounds mostly. Longer fights usually should be avoided unless they are of very low risk in which case the debuff again becomes pointless. Decreasing speed by 10 might turn an otherwise risky fight into a harmless one, but speed -2 will never be worth it.

Once upon a time casters used various trickmoves like sleeping the first orc in a hallway and ballspelling the ones behind. I believe those techniques were made harder by increasing monster resistances somehow (anyone know how exactly and when ?), but today killing orcs isnt a very profitable undertaking in the first place.

It might be interesting to consider debuffing weapon procs, like the scroll of confuse monster effect. ToME2 comes to mind with its Melkor prayer.

The point is that applying the debuff doesnt take extra turns; it takes effect by casting a (long lasting) self buff that enchants the wielded weapon to proc or equipping a magic item with the same effect (similar to branding).

[danaris]

The thing with debuffs is that they take too long to type. Basically, the only things worth debuffing are uniques. For normal monsters, fights last 1-2 rounds mostly. Longer fights usually should be avoided unless they are of very low risk in which case the debuff again becomes pointless. Decreasing speed by 10 might turn an otherwise risky fight into a harmless one, but speed -2 will never be worth it.

Once upon a time casters used various trickmoves like sleeping the first orc in a hallway and ballspelling the ones behind. I believe those techniques were made harder by increasing monster resistances somehow (anyone know how exactly and when ?), but today killing orcs isnt a very profitable undertaking in the first place.

This is why I want to make more debuffs multi-target, so that maybe you can afflict a whole pack of hounds with speed -2 (or -5, or whatever), rather than just one.

Would you say that that would significantly improve the calculations?

It might be interesting to consider debuffing weapon procs, like the scroll of confuse monster effect. ToME2 comes to mind with its Melkor prayer.

The point is that applying the debuff doesnt take extra turns; it takes effect by casting a (long lasting) self buff that enchants the wielded weapon to proc or equipping a magic item with the same effect (similar to branding).

I'm definitely considering it. I'm not sure yet, but definitely considering.

[Derakon]

Once upon a time casters used various trickmoves like sleeping the first orc in a hallway and ballspelling the ones behind. I believe those techniques were made harder by increasing monster resistances somehow (anyone know how exactly and when ?), but today killing orcs isnt a very profitable undertaking in the first place.

It's possible that monster saving throws were tweaked; it's also possible that nowadays casters simply avoid dealing with orcs until they don't need to rely on such tricks (or that they bring Wands of Light to the fight, trivializing orc encounters, or that they take advantage of Lightning Bolt, or etc. etc. etc.). The average player's approach to the game has massively shifted in the last 10-15 years as people learn the system better. And, yes, as the system itself has changed. But I think many modern tactics are equally applicable to 2.4 frog-knows as they are to 3.5-dev.

[Estie]

The ony time I have LOS to a multitude of (awake) monsters is after taking a stair, and then I teleport away, not stay exposed by foolishly casting AOE spells. There are powerfull LOS damage spells around like dispel evil which I sometimes use "for fun" if the opportunity arises, but more often just ignore. Removing them completely wouldnt affect game difficulty.
The reason is the same, exposure to LOS of many monsters is not a winning strategy in Angband.
If I dont use a spell type that can kill monsters, I am unlikely to use one that just debuffs.

[danaris]

The ony time I have LOS to a multitude of (awake) monsters is after taking a stair, and then I teleport away, not stay exposed by foolishly casting AOE spells. There are powerfull LOS damage spells around like dispel evil which I sometimes use "for fun" if the opportunity arises, but more often just ignore. Removing them completely wouldnt affect game difficulty.
The reason is the same, exposure to LOS of many monsters is not a winning strategy in Angband.
If I dont use a spell type that can kill monsters, I am unlikely to use one that just debuffs.

Then it sounds like you go to a very great deal of trouble to play in one particular way—peeling off individual monsters so you can 1v1 them, whether with spells or weapons.

If that is your play style and you're not interested in any other play styles, then this particular archetype may not appeal to you in the first place. However, I would recommend my Rogue to you, once it's finished, as its focus is on stealth and, ideally, killing monsters before they have a chance to get going.

Personally, I try to avoid being in LOS of too many monsters at any given time, but that doesn't mean I always succeed perfectly at it. There are plenty of times when my characters end up facing a pack of hounds that came out of a tunnel while I was crossing a room, or a summoner and his newly-summoned minions, when I would be very happy to have some multi-effect debuffs to throw at them.

[Djabanete]

Confusion and Slow are both very powerful effects, powerful enough that it's difficult to balance them. If you fight Morgoth while he's confused, then winning is too easy. If it's impossible to confuse him, then the effect is useless for that fight. You can set it up so that a monster has a chance to resist, but as chances to resist become higher and higher, the payoff of the debuff needs to be stronger and stronger for the effect to be worthwhile, with the result that you have a 5%-to-succeed devastating weapon that is frustrating and risky to use.

I would adopt the method described earlier in this thread, where a debuff will either always work on a particular monster or always not work. At the end of each monster turn, the monster has a chance to lift the debuff. So you can sleep Morgoth, but he might wake up at the end of the turn or the end of next turn. If you're faster than him, maybe you just bought a turn to drink a Potion of Healing.

Basically, if a monster is not immune to a debuff, you should be able to buy yourself a small number of turns of that monster having the debuff. That small number could be about 10 for an orc unique, 2 or 3 for a deep non-unique, and 1 for Sauron or Morgoth... if there are any debuffs they're not immune to, which is open for discussion.

Just to mention my experiences and methods, when I play Poschengband I often use Wands of Sleep Monster on the first orc in a corridor so I can run away; Wands of Slow Monster on certain tough individual monsters that I have to escape from; and Scrolls of Confuse Monster to soften up orc uniques. That's literally it --- no application I can think of after depth 20 at most. I think it's similar to Vanilla unless a lot has changed in that area.

[half]

I think Djabanete is right. Increase the chances of success and lower the durations. It is the duration that makes slow and confuse so good. Saving throws to break the effect could work for this, as could fixed durations whose length depends on the monster.

Also be prepared to overshoot. I don't remember any versions or variants where debuffs were too strong. It is fine to overshoot a little and then tone it back.

Note that debuffs are particularly good in unique fights, which is why previous versions have made uniques immune. A different approach is to just let a debuff class excell at killing uniques compared to other classes, but not be as good at something else (e.g. Crowd control or teleporting).

[EpicMan]

Here is how I think debuffs need to work in order to be viable:
To make this viable, it would have to be pretty deterministic - you should be able to afflict all the monsters, or none, or at least all monsters up to level X ones. Also, the duration needs to be either fixed, or at least the same per casting (so all monsters hit by the debuff are affected for the same time), and the player would need to be warned when a monster was going to be free of the debuff on their next move.

On the other hand, debuffs that cripple a monster (confusion, fear, charm) need to be limited so as not to trivialize combat, so they would either need to be weakened or have limited access (devices or scrolls only, no infinitely-available spells).

Idea for a specific debuff:
What if a class had a spell that disabled breathing and/or spells for X turns? That would allow the player to safely be in LOS with monsters (i.e. not neccessarily have to fight them 1:1) for several turns before having to escape, allowing a different style of gameplay from the current "stay out of LOS of groups or die" scheme.

[AnonymousHero]

Then it sounds like you go to a very great deal of trouble to play in one particular way—peeling off individual monsters so you can 1v1 them, whether with spells or weapons.

If that is your play style and you're not interested in any other play styles, then this particular archetype may not appeal to you in the first place. However, I would recommend my Rogue to you, once it's finished, as its focus is on stealth and, ideally, killing monsters before they have a chance to get going.

I didn't read into Estie's message that he/she's disinterested in other play-styles. It's just that -- if you really want to win Angband -- then you cannot stay in LoS of many monsters at any one time. Two-three Black Reavers can really ruin your day if get unlucky rolls. (If you have ESP would can determine more reliably if you can survive in view of the monsters currently in LoS, but again you're probably better off just being extremely cautious.)

[Djabanete]

How about reversing monster debuffs and making them player buffs. At some sweet spot of balancing --- maybe with short duration, significant cost, and sturdy effect --- the following buffs could be useful for 1v1 fights. The reason to use the implementation described below is that casting a buff and leaving it on is easier than trying to cast a debuff on a particular monster again and again. Also, this implementation makes powerful monsters behave sub-optimally only some of the time, which is a more balanced and usable behavior than "all the time" or "none of the time".

Negation (priest aura): Until duration ends, whenever a monster within LOS casts a spell, it has a chance to fail based on its level and your level. Monsters of level less than <number> will always fail, and even Morgoth will fail <a percentage less than 100%> of the time.

Holding (priest/paladin aura): Until duration ends, whenever a monster within LOS is about to have a turn, it has a chance to receive no turn based on its level and your level. Monsters of level less than <number> will always fail to act, and even Morgoth will fail <a percentage less than 100%> of the time.

Confusion (rogue/mage aura): Until duration ends, whenever a monster within LOS is about to have a turn, it has a chance to move or attack in a random direction based on its level and your level. Monsters of level less than <number> will always act confused, and even Morgoth will act confusion <a percentage less than 100%> of the time.

Sleep (rogue/mage aura): Until duration ends, whenever the player finishes a turn, every monster in LOS has a chance to fall asleep instead based on its level and your level. Monsters of level less than <number> will always fall asleep, and even Morgoth will fall asleep <a percentage less than 100%> of the time.

Entangle (ranger aura): Until duration ends, whenever a monster in LOS would try to move (and not attack, breathe, or cast a spell), that monster has a chance to do nothing instead based on its level and your level. Monsters of level less than <number> will always fail to do anything if they were going to move, and even Morgoth will fail to do anything <a percentage less than 100%> of the time.

Related spell idea, not quite a mass debuff:
Retribution (paladin aura): Until duration ends, whenever a monster in LOS breathes or casts a spell, it takes a heap of fire and lightning damage. (Although you might not see the damage happening if you end up outside LOS, as in a teleport spell or a nexus breath.)

Only half joking:
Pesticide: Until duration ends, whenever a monster in LOS breeds, create a Stinking Cloud centered on the monster.

Etc. (Apologies to anyone who quotes this post, because I just made a bunch of edits.)

[Nick]

Maybe there should be debuffs which target a specific type of monster rather than applying more or less effectively to all of them. There are already a number of attack types which work only on a subset of monsters - notably Stone To Mud and (weak) light, but also things like Dispel Undead.

For example, off the top of my head, a spell that specifically prevented summoning or breathing might be interesting.

[danaris]

Maybe there should be debuffs which target a specific type of monster rather than applying more or less effectively to all of them. There are already a number of attack types which work only on a subset of monsters - notably Stone To Mud and (weak) light, but also things like Dispel Undead.

For example, off the top of my head, a spell that specifically prevented summoning or breathing might be interesting.

Well, one of the types of spell I've been thinking about for a lot longer than I've been actively planning to write a variant is a Dimensional Anchor, which I think has 3 types:

1) Anchor the player: Prevents monsters from teleporting you away, or teleporting you to them.
2) Anchor a monster: Prevents the monster from teleporting away.
3) Anchor an area: Prevents all summoning and/or teleportation within that area.

Preventing breathing—or doing some other interesting things with it, like having some kind of shield that prevents a single breath, then goes on cooldown for 100 turns or something, so that you don't have to worry about being breathed on by something you don't even know about yet—is another really good thing to be able to do. (Though that other example is getting beyond debuffs, which I'd prefer to leave for a little later )

[danaris]

I didn't read into Estie's message that he/she's disinterested in other play-styles. It's just that -- if you really want to win Angband -- then you cannot stay in LoS of many monsters at any one time. Two-three Black Reavers can really ruin your day if get unlucky rolls. (If you have ESP would can determine more reliably if you can survive in view of the monsters currently in LoS, but again you're probably better off just being extremely cautious.)

Right. Those late-game scenarios are definitely much more dicey to deal with than early-to-midgame issues like a pack of hounds or a warband of orcs. I'm not entirely sure what to do about them yet, but I would like to at least soften that sort of danger somewhat—make it so that just walking past a room with two Black Reavers and a Ringwraith in it isn't insta-death, at least for some character builds.

One possibility that I've been turning over in my head is creating more possibilities for friendly fire—and if that happens, the possibility of the monster that got hit actually turning on the monster that hit it. That would go some way toward decreasing the otherwise absolute calculus that the more monsters there are nearby, the worse the danger to you.

[danaris]

How about reversing monster debuffs and making them player buffs.

Oh, I have plans for player buffs, including auras similar to some of the stuff you're mentioning. I just want to hold that discussion for a separate thread, and keep this one focused on debuffs specifically

As a general principle of my design work, however, I think I'd like to have one or two archetypes that rely heavily on a large number of buffs, some of which get quite powerful, while continuing to give at least some reasonable buffs to all character archetypes in some form or other (even if only from devices, as some of them have access to them now). I'm currently thinking of various types of buffs, inspired by everything from the previously-mentioned Legend P&P RPG system to League of Legends.