Feature Specification: Movement & Encumbrance

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:36 am

Encumbrance
Encumbrance as defined by the APM is detailed below. I'd like to see details that are missing filled in by our resident ACR experts.

For a short explanation of the feature specification format, visit:
http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... hp?t=27229

Functional Requirements

Gold
For each 500gp a PC carries, a sack of gold coins that weighs 5.5 lbs and takes up two inventory slots is automatically generated in inventory. Total amount of gold in inventory will remain summed up in the ‘gold line’. The sack will disappear if after a purchase gold drops again below 500gp. Gold may be exchanged in larger cities for trade bars that weigh 0.5 lbs and still take up two inventory slots, or for trade gems. With this system, gold is pickpocketable and carrying or storing it becomes a logistical concern that adds RP as well as monetary value.

Ammunition
A stack of 10 bolts will weigh 1 lb.
A stack of 10 bullets will weigh 5 lbs.
A stack of 20 arrows will weigh 3 lbs.

Armor
A 30% movement rate penalty will apply to creatures while wearing heavy armor. This is an approximation based on PHB movement rates. Dwarves do not suffer any penalties to movement in heavy armor (special racial ability).

Size
A 30% movement rate penalty will apply to small creatures and Dwarves.

Running
Run will be a modal feat granted to all players. Improved Run will be an optional feat available to all players.

On player login, movement rate will be normalized by applying a 50% movement rate penalty. This will force the default engine run speed to be a walk and the default engine walk speed to be a slow walk. Activating the Run feat will lift this movement rate penalty. If the Improved Run feat has been taken, a 25% movement bonus will additionally be granted (approximation based on PHB movement rates).

NWN Object Dependencies
Coin Pouch Item, Full Plate, Half Plate, Banded Mail, Splint Mail

Local Variables and External Configs
None

Logging and Debugging (global LOG & DEBUG (on/off) constants)
None

Persistence Requirements
None

Event Dependencies
OnHeartbeat, OnAcquireItem, OnPlayerEquipItem, OnPlayerUnEquipItem

Magonushi · Post by **Magonushi** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:06 am

If we use the gold weight again can we please make it possible for the gold bags to be stored in bags of holding and the like? I recall this being a big issue with my old mage who had a strenght of 10.

indio · Post by **indio** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:09 am

Yeah, we need some system in place.

Bags of Holding probably won't be common, so a gem system is probably a more practical solution.

hypervx · Post by **hypervx** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:02 pm

This should be strictly related to decision on gems/tradebars and magic bags policy.

Fionn · Post by **Fionn** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:48 pm

gems, trade bars, pack animals, and persistant storage need to go along with this.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:42 pm

What would the relationship be? Logically, it's related, but functionally I'm not sure there's anything that needs to be noted. As soon as you take away the gold whether in exchange for gems or gear, your "pouch" reduces in weight.

Please elaborate if you think there is more to it that needs to be considered.

hypervx · Post by **hypervx** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:14 pm

Yes, it doesn't seems a technical dependency: maybe more a political one.

Posted just to remember about them.

AlmightyTDawg · Post by **AlmightyTDawg** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:25 pm

Magonushi wrote:If we use the gold weight again can we please make it possible for the gold bags to be stored in bags of holding and the like? I recall this being a big issue with my old mage who had a strenght of 10.

I'm guessing that NWN isn't going to add a terribly robust system for special containers. The idea of base weight, size, and contained weight limitations make for some things we just can't handle under the current system. For example, bags of holding are generally less appreciated when you consider the minimum base weight of one is 15 lbs in awkward sack form. More typical would be the Heward's Handy Haversack kind of solution, with a max contained weight of 80 lbs.

Gems are the more convenient way of doing this, and we'll probably have to fake a reduced-weight-capacity solution to at least come up with a standardized form. I didn't necessarily see tradebars as a problem so long as they were well-implemented, thought they were a nice in-between, but I'm guessing this is one where gems are just the better solution to combat OOC drudgery.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:12 pm

AlmightyTDawg wrote:I'm guessing that NWN isn't going to add a terribly robust system for special containers. The idea of base weight, size, and contained weight limitations make for some things we just can't handle under the current system. For example, bags of holding are generally less appreciated when you consider the minimum base weight of one is 15 lbs in awkward sack form. More typical would be the Heward's Handy Haversack kind of solution, with a max contained weight of 80 lbs.

I think we're at least getting the ability to set item weight, whether or not there is a dependency on stack size or if this will be entirely free of any behind-the-scenes strings remains to be seen. But, there is promise for better weight management with NWN2.

Fionn · Post by **Fionn** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:09 am

The technical relationship is the holistic system. If we have encumberance for gold, arrows, etc, we need to ensure other systems are in place to allow PCs the options they would have in PnP.

A similar topic is movement rate. It would be nice to have a call to set a PC's movement up/down a notch (specifically down). This allows PCs to *walk* without being in stealth/search. It also allows Loadstones :twisted:

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:53 am

Any event dependencies for the current implementation? Is it heartbeat based? Gold does not trigger the item acquired event so....

Fionn · Post by **Fionn** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:00 am

I'm pretty sure it's HB based. We could likely change that over to onClose and onEnter, but that might get buggy.

Creslyn · Post by **Creslyn** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:02 am

Current implementation is hb based.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:41 pm

I've reopened this thread to account for a recent discussion regarding movement speed and armor encumbrance in the rules forum found here:

http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... hp?t=27424

To summarize:

* Apply movement penalty to small sized creatures (according to PHB)
* Apply movement penalty to armor (according to PhB)
* Normalize movement speed on login such that RUN = WALKing speed
* To mitigate balance concerns, create a modal RUN feat that is mutually exclusive with all other modes (like hide) and attack actions, which when invoked, lifts the movement penalty while the Run mode is active. This feat will be granted to all players and allows them to escape from or close the distance on an attacker.

If I don't receive any comments regarding these suggestions, I'll roll them into the requirements above then relock the thread once more.

AlmightyTDawg · Post by **AlmightyTDawg** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:07 pm

ç i p h é r wrote:To summarize:

* Apply movement penalty to small sized creatures (according to PHB)
* Apply movement penalty to armor (according to PhB)
* Normalize movement speed on login such that RUN = WALKing speed
* To mitigate balance concerns, create a modal RUN feat that is mutually exclusive with all other modes (like hide) and attack actions, which when invoked, lifts the movement penalty while the Run mode is active. This feat will be granted to all players and allows them to escape from or close the distance on an attacker.

I'm kind of unclear on the modal run feat. Would it be a separate RUN based on armor and small size? For example, medium/heavy armor still multiplied off of the base 15/20, and heavy plate differentiating run x3 versus x4 versus the run feat of x5?

And if not, if they're all functionally the same thing, what's the point in the movement penalty at the outset? All it seems to do is add inconvenience (halfling/gnome characters perpetually clicking the 'run' modal to catch up) and slow down travel. The only question of the movement penalty realistically is how it affects closing speed/distance and how easily one can run from an encounter.

I still don't mind heavy armor having reduced running speed, as the tradeoff of AC is the whole point. Would be nicer with horses in too, admittedly so that it is possible to adventure in heavier armor. I think this covers shorties running away, which I'm happy with.

And for those of us who've experienced combat on Shadowdale or any other lagged out server, the requirement of getting a modal to activate before you can vamoose isn't necessarily a good design decision. Unless they've notably tweaked the netcode in the new engine, this could be intensely problematic.