|
Post by awall on May 8, 2008 12:28:43 GMT -5
While we're at it, should we come by a new implementation of the game one day, should PSDD behavior be changed, and, if yes, which way? Making it non-clashing with other mind-enchantments will weaken PSD weave severely. Making it an enchantment will require it to be possible to PDWP, which means PDWP will not be monster removal anymore... is this any good? Or should it be left as it is - illogical, but more or less balanced? There's a couple reasons I think it should bounce mindspells: 1) I think that monsters are hard enough to use effectively. Proper use of an Ogre can be devastating; however, if you make even a single mistake, it's not terribly difficult for your opponent to neutralize it with some combination of WWP, SD, and WFP. This will become even more pronounced if para goes away, as that's one of monsters' best friends at the moment. 2) As Toyo says, anything larger than an Ogre would never get summoned. 3) Self-targeting PSDD is an important way to protect yourself after being hit with certain disruptions, although this will become less important if para changes. However, it will still be useful against DPP/PSD or when you have PSD/xPS and are maladroit. 4) Making it PDWP-able does not preclude also making it kill monsters. awall casts Charm Monster at Crazy Ogre. BioLogIn casts Remove Enchantment at Crazy Ogre. Crazy Ogre is hit with Remove Enchantment, and starts coming apart at the seams. Crazy Ogre's magical energies are grounded. Crazy Ogre attacks awall for 2 damage. Crazy Ogre dies. Anything wrong with that? Edit: I think it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, however, if PSDD could be made permanent. On a monster, it grants you permanent control of the monster (by blocking all further charms and other mindspells); on a warlock, it grants that warlock permanent mindspell immunity.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 8, 2008 13:47:21 GMT -5
Making PSDD give you permanent control of the monster would be ridiculous; that makes summoning anything bigger than a goblin seem really bad.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on May 8, 2008 13:51:37 GMT -5
exdeath I guess awall talks about how should SPFPSDW+PSDD work.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 8, 2008 14:34:17 GMT -5
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant making it into a permanent enchantment by itself, for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by awall on May 8, 2008 15:57:14 GMT -5
Sorry, wasn't clear. I meant perm + PSDD, as Bio said.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on May 8, 2008 16:08:15 GMT -5
I should think a new implementation wouldn't be necessary - "Charm Monster" does just that - charm a monster. Any enchantments on a Monster would be subject to the double-negative effect of the other enchantments.
The fact that you can't make Charm Monster permanent on a caster still makes sense - they are not a monster, and therefore are unaffected.
However - it would be nice to be able to make Charm Monster permanent on a summoned monster. It would be rare, but at least makes sense in the mechanics of the spell.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 8, 2008 16:24:30 GMT -5
Charm Monster already has a permanent effect. Permanent does not mean unchangeable, and it doesn't in the case of Permanency either.
|
|
|
Post by awall on May 8, 2008 16:27:01 GMT -5
It's not unchangeable in that it can be PDWP'ed or CDPW'ed, but it does permanently override other mindspells.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 8, 2008 16:29:22 GMT -5
The permanent effect would be, as with all other mental spells that are affected by permanency, to repeat the effect each turn. i.e. the monster would be completely protected from all other mind spells. There's no real reason why the spell can't do this, but then again, I don't think I've EVER been in a situation where it would've been good to perm-charm a monster. So I think the point is moot.
|
|
|
Post by awall on May 8, 2008 17:16:31 GMT -5
Pretty much. It's mostly an aesthetic thing about perm working as consistently as possible.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on May 8, 2008 17:53:13 GMT -5
I could see perma-charming a Giant being reasonably useful.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 8, 2008 18:10:06 GMT -5
yes, but if you (or your opponent) have a giant out, how likely is anyone to have perm and PSD?
|
|
|
Post by awall on May 8, 2008 18:10:36 GMT -5
Yes, but if you have Permanency and PSD, there are generally more useful things you could be doing.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on May 8, 2008 18:24:20 GMT -5
Slightly more likely in a melee.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 8, 2008 19:46:22 GMT -5
Funniest simultaneous post in a while, awall.
|
|