Encumbrance penalties:

Started by The Crazy Animal, January 23, 2006, 07:58:25 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions
January 23, 2006, 07:58:25 AM
I was just thinking about this and it doesn?t really make sense to have static encumbrance penalties. I was wondering if there was anyway to make this be either fully dynamic or to have it have a bit more of a curve up to max heavy. Personally, I think this would go right along with reworking combat.

TCA
January 23, 2006, 06:07:22 PM #1
It does, although I assume your only refering to qnd bonuses.
January 23, 2006, 07:23:27 PM #2
The whole kitten kaboodle...

TCA
January 28, 2006, 04:15:16 AM #3
I was thinking today that there should be some magic?s that have encumbrance penalties similar to combat. Take for example a mage, a mage uses arcane gestures so these should be slowed down when they are encumbered. Now a priest on the other hand uses mostly holy words so this would not be affected. I was thinking that this might be a good way to balance out the different magic styles.

TCA
January 28, 2006, 04:27:24 AM #4
Cha...laugh..wtf you talking about wallace.
January 28, 2006, 04:31:15 AM #5
Hehe, I'm talking about how different styles of magic work not really for a function of realism but from a fantasy stance. If one magic style requires quick moves to function properly then it should be burdened by encumbrance.

TCA
January 28, 2006, 03:26:29 PM #6
I see what he's getting at and have to agree.

If you have a mage lugging all the party's stuff, he's not gonna be able to cast spells with some complex gestures quite as easily. Even if he has his load's weight distributed well, it'll still be a pain in the ass. Not the mention the fatigue that must come with carrying your max (or near max) load.
Quote from: DeathCow
Yes clearly I'm making a text porn.  Lesuire Suit Mud.
January 28, 2006, 06:32:39 PM #7
Well..I'll see if thats something that I need to do.  ATM it doesn't seem very important to add.
January 28, 2006, 06:40:00 PM #8
Your right its not very important but I figured I'd mention it.

TCA
January 28, 2006, 10:36:08 PM #9
Ty for that.
June 26, 2006, 05:48:18 PM #10
More than just spells should considered here. i have a witchunter who bashes and is at 64% enc but still gets 5 swings so i just carry around a silverbark canoe. I cant really see him swinging or fighting with any real efficiency with that thing straped to his back. there are some items could have a -acc for just being in your inventory more than just being heavy. Other than the skiffs though i cant think of too many.
June 27, 2006, 04:41:17 AM #11
Quote from: Mukami on June 26, 2006, 05:48:18 PM
More than just spells should considered here. i have a witchunter who bashes and is at 64% enc but still gets 5 swings so i just carry around a silverbark canoe. I cant really see him swinging or fighting with any real efficiency with that thing straped to his back. there are some items could have a -acc for just being in your inventory more than just being heavy. Other than the skiffs though i cant think of too many.

Spells where just an off shoot from the main idea. The main idea was to have enc work with more things dynamically rather then in stages like none/light/medium/heavy in general and not just dealing with spellcasting.

Personally I think skiffs and other huge items like that should have a combat ban on them so you have to drop them before you can start fighting. However In an area that is watery there should the command use skiff or something similar that lets you engage combat while in the skiff. This of course should then be backed up with the chance knocked out of skiff combat effect and the swim command.  :P
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions