RE: CF: Classes and Races

[dragonm <dragonm@leech.org>]

-----Original Message-----
From: David Andrew Michael Noelle
To: Hwei Sheng TEOH
Cc: 'crossfire mailing list '
Sent: 9/9/99 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: CF: RE: Classes and Races

dragonm wrote:
> 
> Can anybody else think of more major implications of going heavily
> multi-species/multi-racial?
> 

    That depends on where you want to set the balance between ease of
play and realism.  It's not too far off base to have humans of all sorts
wearing one-size-fits-all armour, but having a halfling or half-orc wear the
same generic armour as a barbarian (or ogre, if they're added as a player
race) is a little weird.  Generic weapons are acceptable, since a person
half the size of an average fighter, who somehow manages to have the same
strength, shouldn't have too much more difficulty swinging a longsword twice
his height.
----------------
Hmm, yes, a very good point.  I had forgotten that.  I don't much like the
generic weapons thing though, or at least, not the one implementation I'm
familiar with.  In EverQuest, a halfling could wield a giant scythe just as
effectively as an ogre, and do the same damage with it.  Very unrealistic
and very annoying.  Assuming the halfling is allowed to even attempt to
wield a weapon that out-sized, his/her (speaking of which, while we're at
it, differentiate between sexes?) effectiveness should be radically reduced.
Your version seems to account for that though, so I like it better.  :)
----------------
    I'm a little leery of changing object structures right now, but if
armour had a size field, players could be prevented from wearing armour
too different from their own size (determined by race).  I don't think
armour uses the damage field for anything, so for now armour damage could be
assigned to mean size.  If armour almost fits, but not quite, it might
have some penalties, like slower movement and worse ac.  Magical armour
could compensate for the poor fit, allowing it to be worn by players of a
wider range of sizes, based on its enchantment level.
    For example, normal armour might be wearable by anyone within +/-
20% of its size if it's leather or cloth, 10% if it's metal.  If magical
armour compensates for 20% size difference per +1 bonus, then plate mail +2
designed for a 100cm dwarf would fit a 145cm elf as though it were only
off by 5%.
    A new kind of magical anvil could be created so players could drop
armour there, along with some amount of payment proportional to the
value of the armour (and how far off it is), and have the smith rework that
armour to fit them exactly.
----------------
I don't think we need worry about implementing any of this before 0.96
objects are available.  The multi-species/multi-racial(/multi-sexes?) thing
has far-reaching consequences that probably make it inadvisable to do now.
One major revision at a time.  :)

Your version of handling armor is significantly more complex than previous
implementations.  Big, medium, and small are about as technical as it gets
in other games, and magic armor fits all.  I'm not sure I like the idea of
making the adjustability of the armor a rider on the +bonus.  Recycling
attributes like that leads to troubles down the road.  The question of how
to handle it is open to debate.  My personal opinion is that
big/medium/small is the bare minimum, and more complex mechanisms deserve
consideration.  Other thoughts?

Given the granularity of your proposal, blacksmiths that will adjust armor
to size for a price are appropriate.  They're not, for the simpler case.  If
you're having non-enchanted armor adjusted, I wouldn't even call it a
magical anvil.  You're just paying a blacksmith to make adjustments, like
you pay to have dragon scale armor fabricated now.  If you're having
enchanted armor adjusted, methinks you should have a mage-smith do it, or
you run the risk of dispelling the enchantment.  :)
----------------
    Then again, this might be a little too picky.  A bit much
micromanagement for a hack and slash game.
----------------
It would be, except our declared intent is to get away from the hack and
slash and become more role playing oriented.  We run the risk of a schism
and two Crossfires if a bunch of hack and slash oriented coders decide to
diverge the source from our direction, I suppose, but if this list is
representative of the programmers participating, it doesn't appear to be a
problem.  We may end up running off the hack and slash crowd, but there are
other places for them to go, and they don't HAVE to upgrade.  :)

DM
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]