Speeds and armor

[danielmn]

Interesting veiw....continue!

Doesn't change the fact that the phb states armour slows the PC down. Doesn't say if it is mobility or weight related...so that I guess is open to interpretation. (although, interestingly enough, it does state armour for small creatures is supposed to be half weight...)

[Regalis]

You can use the ability to set movement rate factors. This is how speed is manipulated on overland maps and the resultant speed is then subject to effects like haste and encumbrance.

For NPCs, the easiest approach should be to create a custom 2da file with the appropriate set movement rate modifiers. Hook the default OnSpawn script to check a 2da for the resref of the spawning creature and, if found, apply the movement rate factor found there. After that has been done, there is a function to check for armor rank, which returns NONE, LIGHT, MEDIUM, or HEAVY. Have the NPC check its armor rank and set the movement rate factor, if necessary. That way, you never have to go digging through individual blueprints to see if they've all been properly updated. It's very clean and simple. ALFA isn't exactly a high velocity spawn world, so performance issues should be non-existent other than maybe a few more seconds at server start.

As for PCs, it's a little bit more complicated but not too bad. You can start with an OnEquip and OnUnequip to modify movement rate factors. You'd also need to add a check to area OnEnters because using the Overland Map would potentially overwrite the movement rate factors set for armors.

The last thing to look at would be polymorphing. May need to do some tweaking there.

--

As for mobility vs. speed, it's true they are not the same thing, but they are related. Maybe less so if you only need to go straight on completely flat terrain with no obstacles and nothing to avoid.

If, however, you don't use an artificially manicured surface as your control environment, then the relationship between mobility and speed gets more tightly coupled. When you are avoiding rocks, bushes, monsters or dealing with uneven terrain, mobility suddenly becomes a big component of your average rate of progress, no?

And, again, is our control environment when the armor is in pristine Ye Olde Renn Faire conditions or are we going to apply "Victory at Sea" conditions: In other words, is there a functional motive impact once you've been mauled by bears and had people intent upon killing you whacking you with heavy objects of death dealing? Do your plates get bent or jarred out of alignment? Do the joints hold up?

There are plenty of arguments either way. It really depends upon your preferred frame of reference. A "realistic" system would require a full physics engine.

EDIT:

One last point on the subject, historical battles. More lightly armored foes had far greater mobility, which in terms of these battles means speed, than more heavily armored opponents. This would suggest a high correlation for practical purposes in this type of a fantasy setting. Could be stamina related and not apply to super duper heroes, but then in ALFA the PCs aren't Hector or Achilles.

I still think it's entirely a matter of preference.

[mr duncan]

One last point on the subject, historical battles. More lightly armored foes had far greater mobility, which in terms of these battles means speed, than more heavily armored opponents. This would suggest a high correlation for practical purposes in this type of a fantasy setting. Could be stamina related and not apply to super duper heroes, but then in ALFA the PCs aren't Hector or Achilles.

No, I think fighters with over an 18 STR fit the bill for people like Hector of Troy. If I can stack 100 LBS of gear into my backpack and wear it clumsy on my back and still run with it... it is the apex of backwards to assume that a finely crafted suit that distrubtes the weight evenly will be the thing slowing him down. Zero sense. The cumbersome packs that marines wear weigh more than 50LBS and they are pushed to run and fight with their gear in real combat situations

None of those greeks, nor our modern marines have access to magical STR and the like so the comparisons sort of fall short there though

Even given my arguments I will still welcome the changes for PnP when we get all the other things like spell components and mounts that will stop mixed parties from drifting apart over long overland walks. I will adapt IC and move to lighter armor without complaint, but I am not finding any of these reasons compelling other than 'It is this way in PnP'... which I consider a decent argument for this setting. A sharp warrior is after all about adaptation, this applies IC and OOC


J

[danielmn]

I might adapt the opposite route....

and get a ring of expeditious retreat made, thereby assuring my continued dominance in the tank category, as begginner tanks will be crushed for lack thereof.

Oh wait...

I wasn't supposed to reveal my master plan until someone had done all the work for this, was I?

[wvincenti]

I have an idea.
Spend our scarce resources as coders & builders on building a dungeon complex like used to be under the NWN1 Waterdeep server. Someplace or places that we can go dungeon crawling without needing a DM looking over our shoulders. I hear rumors that folks actually enjoy such frivolity.

Or are the servers already full of such mischief and I just haven't spent enough time looking yet?

-Bill

[oldgrayrogue]

I have an idea.
Spend our scarce resources as coders & builders on building a dungeon complex like used to be under the NWN1 Waterdeep server. Someplace or places that we can go dungeon crawling without needing a DM looking over our shoulders. I hear rumors that folks actually enjoy such frivolity.

Or are the servers already full of such mischief and I just haven't spent enough time looking yet?

-Bill

+1 I for one see little reason to spend a lot of time, debate and resources on changes that will just get more low level PCs killed quicker because they are ... err slower...

As Dan and D point out, the established high level PCs will find their IC work arounds with little to no impact. This will simply make the game more lethal for lower levels. If you want players starting out to be even more frustrated then implement it.

That said I would love to see the dex bonus for light or no armor wearers fixed if possible, but absent that this seems like a heck of a lot of work for negative gains.

[Veilan]

I was not aware low level characters could afford 1500gp armour these days. Rumour has it that a full plate is a 4th level item, at which time PCs may reasonably make educated IC choices. Right now, there are none.

[danielmn]

I referred to beginner tanks. *shrugs* I guess it depends on how you define that, but yes, 1-7 level maybe in my book. maybe 1-6. a portion of which H armour is available, and the tank prolly won't have the coin to compensate for slow movement if they want to at those particular levels. So from 4-6 and or 7, the slow factor should be a huge detriment, likely see these guys in medium armour instead. Personally, I ever play a fighter again which is likely not anytime after my current PC, as I have three or four concepts non-combat oriented lined up, I'll likely go H armour as soon as it is possible again, I've never minded being nerfed myself, I consider it a challenge, so much so I've often nerfed my own PC's. I see Duncan's response, adapt and downgrade. other responses might be to not wear it at all, grin and bear it, adapt and either move into medium armour, or adapt upward and have H armour made of mithril or an item such as the one in my last post. I think that covers most options, though which one will be the most prevelant, I couldn't foresee. So in all, the amount of work put into this, which may be very little if someone can follow Regalis's logic and experience, if not a lot more work would need to be done, will be put in so that players ultimately choose medium armour, or find an adaptation to support H armour, or just roll with it. Not really sure of the percentage of players this would effect at all as well, I've listed 4-7 or 4-8, number maybe as high as 9 or 10 but I don't think so.

I'm not railing against the change itself, it just seems to me a lot of work for a very small benefit, effecting a small peice of the playerbase, whose population will either likely downgrade, or purchase a loophole. That being stated, if someone wants to go through the trouble I am all for it. If having 4 players shift to medium armour, and another 2-3 players having to use coin to get a loophole balances things, sweet deal.

[mr duncan]

I'm not railing against the change itself, it just seems to me a lot of work for a very small benefit, effecting a small peice of the playerbase, whose population will either likely downgrade, or purchase a loophole. That being stated, if someone wants to go through the trouble I am all for it. If having 4 players shift to medium armour, and another 2-3 players having to use coin to get a loophole balances things, sweet deal.

Spend our scarce resources as coders & builders on building a dungeon complex like used to be under the NWN1 Waterdeep server. Someplace or places that we can go dungeon crawling without needing a DM looking over our shoulders. I hear rumors that folks actually enjoy such frivolity.

Well said


J

[Regalis]

I have an idea.
Spend our scarce resources as coders & builders on building a dungeon complex like used to be under the NWN1 Waterdeep server. Someplace or places that we can go dungeon crawling without needing a DM looking over our shoulders. I hear rumors that folks actually enjoy such frivolity.

You needn't worry. I explained how you could implement this fairly painlessly, but I'm not about to do it.

I remain committed to creating useful tools to help facilitate the creation of adventure areas, to utilize server resources more efficiently, and I may have even found a way around the 2 gig limit altogether but I don't have proof of concept on that yet.

--

Players always focus on where they get nerfed.

The main affect of the change has nothing to do with PCs and everything to do with speeding up certain NPCs. It makes ALFA a much more hardcore server.

Dire Wolves will close the gap with finger wagglers and archers 50% faster. They will run you down if they see you and you aren't right next to an AT. That impacts more than 4 low level tanks.

So the argument as it stands is kind of a straw man.

Also, trying to compare modern armor in modern environments to antiquity doesn't work, and comparing antiquity to high fantasy doesn't work. Even comparing low magic, slow advancement ALFA to the canonical Forgotten Realms doesn't work--because it's neither. Trying to compare real people and attributes to SRD d20 doesn't work. We aren't born with fixed physical attributes. All arguments from both sides are fairly absurd. You can argue it from any direction and be no more or less wrong than anyone else because it's apples, oranges, pineapples and kumquats. It's a matter of preference.

Which is all ALFA really is, for all of the gibberish about standards, ALFA lacks a consistent framework and vision. ALFA doesn't consistently prioritize being "hardcore." It doesn't consistently prioritize being faithful to PNP. It's just a collection of ad hoc rulings and decisions, and the real deciding factor will always be what people are willing to actually take the time to implement. The rest is for the Ivory Tower.

A more productive approach would probably be to approach the server from a game design perspective and focus on creating the best end user experience consistent with certain ideals. For all of its bureaucracy and rules and the vast amount of code written into the ACR--half of which exists to spy on the players, near as I could tell with a cursory glance--ALFA could be a lot stronger at doing this.

There are two approaches to coming up with standards:

1) You can have the rules lawyer who likes to conceptually think about standards. The guy who likes to philosophize about standards. The guy who thinks that John Locke and not Ed Greenwood came up with the Forgotten Realms, and makes it some sort of abstract thought exercise. The guy who, when he sees a discussion, recalls, "I believe that the errata for 2.5 Unearthed Arcana, back in 1997, said that this was half right, 20% of the time."

2) You can leave standards in the hands of people with the best knowledge of the game engine and toolset. The people who will best understand what is possible and most thoroughly understand all of the implications of a decision. Rather than philosophy, the emphasis is on a crazy little thing called "End User Experience," and who understands the world of difference between that and the ramparts of the ivory tower.

It's the natural evolution of these projects. Lawyers and wannabe lawyers will gravitate towards wanting to try to build some "realistic" administrative structure for the project. You'll end up with many unnecessary miles of red tape, and a tremendous waste of labor. Rules Lawyers, not to be confused with aforementioned lawyers, are going to want to be in charge of standards. The problem with rule lawyers is they overlook the fact that the rules exist to serve the players and dungeon masters and not the other way around.

Well, I'm bored, but compartmentalizing things isn't always a great approach. Everyone loses site of the big picture and zeroes in on indulging their particular fetish... meh. You take all of these steps supposed to add more "order" to the system, but in reality, it's entropic. You waste tons of energy and shift the focus of the project off of how things truly impact the experience in the game. It's all completely inevitable, given time and democracy, because it's human nature.

90% of these discussions always center upon PnP rules or roleplaying philosophies or realism comparisons, and very little time is devoted to the full scope of the functional impact of decisions in game and all of the pertinent ramifications. Who cares whether it's fun or if it totally breaks the experience, as long as it's realistic or per the rules. I mean, we all know what's really most important to all of us: Well fortified democracy.

Take this silliness where it belongs: The Standards Forum.

[oldgrayrogue]

I was not aware low level characters could afford 1500gp armour these days. Rumour has it that a full plate is a 4th level item, at which time PCs may reasonably make educated IC choices. Right now, there are none.

I consider levels 1-4 low level. I believe under wealth standards a level 2 PC could, theoretically afford it. Certainly a level 3. My current level 2 has about 900ish gold, mostly from non-combat statics (although as monk he doesn't spend a lot on gear), so yeah it affects low level PCs. I am also all for player choices, but as Dan aptly described all I think this will do is move a few people to choose not to use heavy armor. It doesn't create any positive choices or beneficial options as far as I can see. We are not playing PnP. There are many terrain and other aspects of PnP movement that do not necessarily translate into a computer game partially controlled by AI.

And I agree with Regalis, sometimes I think we miss the forest for the trees.

[danielmn]

Dire Wolves will close the gap with finger wagglers and archers 50% faster. They will run you down if they see you and you aren't right next to an AT. That impacts more than 4 low level tanks.

So the argument as it stands is kind of a straw man.

That is, of coarse IF the creatures are gone through and speeds are corrected, or if your fix applies that. then yes, as I have stressed several times, it will have a drastic impact on low levels in general, as noted here...

H. Correcting the speeds of monsters/npc's in toolset to more acureatly portray correct movement of spawns (all monsters need be checked, not just those wearing H armour), thereby greater representing movement within the monsters themselves. (this could pose problems as previously mentioned. increasing to canon the speeds of spawns I think would lead to more low level deaths, armour or no armour. There are monsters that are capable of outrunning even the fastest of us. For instance the Winter Wolf moves at a 50ft base speed, far beyond the base speed of any PC. Now, if we are simply aiming to nerf heavy armour wearers, the change is not needed, which is what I am gathering is wanted/needed, so H can be abandoned. IF this change is made, running should not be an option for any PC from these monsters, because they can run too. Your base is 30, theirs is 50, you run 2-4X that, so can they. So the converse of the statement, "My pc should be able to outrun your pc because mine is wearing light and yours is wearing Heavy" is "My PC may be wearing heavy armour and yours may be wearing light, but neither of us can outrun a winter wolf, worg, frost giant, werewolf in wolf form ect. This change in effect will make any low levels meeting one of these beasts a splat fest, since low levels RELY on the option of running away from combat...quite the conundrum.)

And after all that work is done.....It will effect around a total of 4-8 PC's IG at the moment, though probably affecting more down the road... I personally know of 4 that I am positive wear H armour, and there is a possibility of 2 more that I am not sure on, one could wear H or M, the other is not IG all that much. However, the swap also will likely discourage H armour wearers for future PC's, not sure on that though. Mind you, as long as this is the best way to go about it, I'm all for seeing someone implement it. Further discussion of a PC's strength score, and at what str is the movement negated, if at all, probably needs to be had.

As well as a few other places by me. The whole arguement for that, IF you're just nerfing fighters for balance sake, then changing land speeds might or might not be necessary, if landspeeds of spawns are change, then yes, it will affect many more than just four PC's, it all depends upon implementation. From what I've seen this has nothing to do with being hardcore, or bringing us closer to phb, and everything to do with bringing "balance" into the game. How much "balance" will actually be brought, I can't say for sure, but hey, give it a whirl and see what happens! But yes, my focus was on the few that the heavy armour penalty would actually effect, and not the outlyiers that other changes, which might or might not be necessarry, might effect. This is why I seperated H from the rest of my own list, in that I think it will have a drastic impact if implemented...

[Brokenbone]

Remember how "Dash" is banned?

Implement it as a free bonus feat on all medium armor or lower, on equip. Ta da, more tactically agile dudes.

Of course, they're all still perpetually flat footed and uncanny dodge-less, but hey. Monks and barbs may get doubly advantaged, but see the "hey" above.

...



EDIT/PS - heavy types can ICly wear goddamn normal clothing (or leathers) on 100 mile treks too, and only "suit up" at reasonable times, i.e., near danger. So they can keep up with other light armor types

[danielmn]

Oh no, can't allow Dash, as that would make kiting possible...even though with creature AI atm it really isn't possible... (believe me, already asked about dash, I was told it was a no go, nothing is ever that easy)

[Brokenbone]

LOL



Are lightly armored guys faster than heavily armored ones? You'd think!

Making light armored guys speedy is exploity!

Making heavy armored guys slow is a penalty!

<3 ALFA