What is the point of paraFDF?

[awall]

I've been wondering this for a while now...

Back when I first started, I appreciated the offensive limitations of paralysis. No matter what gesture you paralyzed them on, they'd often get at least some form of response. Paralyzing somebody's F hand tended to result in mutual paralysis situations when they wound up with FFF as well. Making F paralyze to C just seemed to make it even better offensively. I didn't realize until later how powerful paraFF was as a defensive spell, and now I much prefer FC to FF.

I have yet to have a similar epiphany regarding paraFDF. Sure, this also eliminates paralysis as a defensive spell (at the cost of making it into almost as powerful an attack as it is in paraFC), but it has the side effect of making it much less disruptive to the caster's spellflow. Even in paraFC, paralysis is a very powerful spell, which is balanced by the fact that FFF has bad entrance options and even worse exit options. Making it FDF makes this spell even better. You can now get in off of Blindness, Time Stop, and Cause Heavy Wounds, and out onto Lightning Bolt, Blindness, or Cure. Even if you don't go out to one of those spells, the D gives you much nicer exit options than F does.

So... what's the deal with this variant? What problem does it address, and is it really intended to make paralysis weaker?

[Slartucker]

You're right. ParaFDF sucks.

FDF was implemented, I believe, mainly because it was really easy to do so, as it only required duplicating a spell and changing gestures.

Somebody came up with it as an idea to make paralysis more balanced, and for all the reasons you mention, it does exactly the opposite. People who claim regular para is too powerful and overused seem to like it, but the fact is that FDF is far more powerful and much, much harder to avoid using.

[justix]

I just discovered the forum here. I must say that some stuff is interesting, and I'll give my opinion on paraFDF that I think is a ridiculous option.

As any good warlock will notice, the spells have been conceived with some rules about the "rhythm" at which they can be cast. I will not go into all the details about that (I never did) but at least, when you look at the spells you will notice that sequences like DD FD FW WD have the purpose to be ending sequences (WDDc and DFFDD are special cases and as such have some importance too).

Anyway, when some spell ending with those short sequences were done so to avoid a consecutive casting on same hand once they are completed. That means we have to anticipate with the other hand when we cast those to have protection or offense at the right time.

Now, paraFDF breaks that carefully thought principle, allowing things like WPFDF to be nearly as disrupting/defensive on last turn as a WPSDF but also with a large damage benefit.
With the same idea SPPFDF is an horror that allows to have 2 useful things to do during the time stop, as if having already one planned on the other hand wouldn't be good enough.

To my mind, and for those reasons, ParaFDF is a toy that I would avoid as much as possible.
But to be constructive, and because I need to write the idea somewhere too, I will propose a new spell, to ease the breaking of the parachain for the one using it.

As we know, and always from a rhythmic point of view, breaking the parachain means having nothing to cast on that hand for at least 2 turns, and that disadvantage is what makes players keep their chains, especially since the chain tends to create dangerous PSDx patterns on the opponent side.

Now, with that in mind, I invented a spell that could offer a faster escape from parachain, with readability (could not be confused with fireball or summon troll) and with I think a good rhythmic principle.
The spell would be FFWS against a player and FFWD against a monster (note it is of course not FWS / FWD to not be an option after a summon, always for rhythmic reasons)

The spell would be called "peaceful mind" or something like that, and would have the following effects :
- for a player (FFWS), it would prevent any damage spell (plus stab) or summon for the next 2 turns (the spell, if cast, would fail)
- for a monster (FFWD), it would prevent the monster (peaceful) to attack for 2 turns (the turn on which it is targeted by the FFWD and the next one)
- the spell would be a mind spell, and as such would cancel with other mind spells like maladroit, charm, etc...

I think that idea could have some interest, though it is far from necessary to make warlock enjoyable. I think the game is already balanced but at least that idea should not break the game balance, while offering an option for those not good enough to know how and when to break a parachain when they start it.

Now that it is written, next step is to write to Ravenblack so that he can read it... I wonder if I will really do that...


Justix

[awall]

FFWS/FFWD is an interesting idea, and I agree that it wouldn't disrupt the balance of starting/ending patterns of spells. However, I'm not really a fan of anything that makes paralysis any easier to get out of. The way it is now, it's important to think long and hard before starting up a para chain. Doing so at the right time can hold your opponent down while you prepare FoD or have your monster wail on him for a bit or whatnot, but doing so at the wrong time can cause you to come out behind. Paralysis seems to just emphasize the difference in initiative already in place on the board + both warlocks' other hands. The issue I have with FFWS/FFWD is it allows one to go into paralysis for a turn or two even when they're behind, and follow up with this spell to block the threat their opponent is cooking up on their other hand, which makes the decision of whether or not to start up a para chain much less weighty.

Also: Does FFWS prevent damage spells the turn it's cast and then the next, or is it the two turns after it's cast? If the former, this makes it possible to paralyze somebody's FoD into a Fireball and then block the Fireball all with one hand, which I think shouldn't be possible.