What Eddie Plays

[TJS]

"Smoothing things out" turns out you be a mistake, usually. The bumps make the game both more challenging and more exciting. Good gameplay requires imperfect balance.

Well I kinda agree, but speed is pretty ridiculous. When you go from 0 to +9 or 10 early the difference is too much IMO.

[Nick]

I like the idea of "you need to be strong enough to swing this weapon effectively, but once you hit that threshold DEX is what limits your attack speed." Conceptually it makes sense, which is always nice. It'd be nice if the f(str, weapon_weight) function were a straightforward formula, but I haven't done the analysis to see how feasible that is.

I agree. In fact, I'd go further in the following ways:

1. Eddie's formula is as complicated as it is (not that it's actually too bad) because it's an attempt to precisely mimic the effect of the blows table and relevant adj_ arrays. I'd rather take a simple formula involving STR, DEX and the principles as Derakon has nicely summed up, and then let the blows progression follow from that.
2. Having looked at the adj_ arrays, I'd like to ditch the lot. They basically are about regulating the power curve of the player relative to their stats, for IMHO dubious gains.

In both these cases, the result of the current code is that the player has no real way of predicting how an extra point in a stat is going to help them. We have smoothed over this over the years with increasing numbers of stat sheets, weapon descriptions explaining what would happen if the player had more DEX, etc. If it's a simple formula, though, we don't need that, and compensation can be made by adjusting the monster list and item drops.

Off the top of my head, here's a suggestion for blows:

• All stats are in the range 1-40
• Standard 2 blows, one for spellcasters
• Reduction by n blows if n*STR < weapon weight, with reducing below 1 meaning you are "barely lifting"
• One extra blow for every 12 DEX, 10 for warriors

This seems to me to approximate the current system in broad structure. What have I missed?

[Pete Mack]

Well I kinda agree, but speed is pretty ridiculous. When you go from 0 to +9 or 10 early the difference is too much IMO.

This used to happen rather often, if you pushed things in 3.0. My "funnest" game recently was a mage that went from +3 to +12 in a big step around level 80, not because of finding speed because of finding enough CON both items and potions. The fun part was sneaking around with bad HP with no ESP.

[Derakon]

here's a suggestion for blows:

• All stats are in the range 1-40
• Standard 2 blows, one for spellcasters
• Reduction by n blows if n*STR < weapon weight, with reducing below 1 meaning you are "barely lifting"
• One extra blow for every 12 DEX, 10 for warriors

I'm not sure I understand the proposal as stated. Could you walk through an example or two to show how different scenarios would play out?

[Nick]

I'm not sure I understand the proposal as stated. Could you walk through an example or two to show how different scenarios would play out?

OK. I should say, I've already seen a flaw with the DEX calc; I'll change that to an extra blow at 20, 25, and 30 DEX, with warriors getting another at 35.

Stats 1-40 means we'll have to adjust slightly - they're currently 3-18/220(=40), so lets just cut 2 off everything. Not like rolling 3d6 any more, but whatever.

• Starting Priest, STR 13, DEX 15, wielding a 12lb Mace. Spellcaster, so 1 blow; STR > weapon weight, so no blow reduction. Trying to wield an 18ib lead-filled mace would mean "just lifting", so a hit penalty.
• Earlyish half-caster, STR 19, DEX 22, wielding a 15lb Broad Sword. Two basic blows, STR > weapon weight so no reduction, and one extra for 20 DEX, so three blows. Try to wield a 20lb Zweihander, and it drops to 2 blows. Can wield anything up to 38lbs with 2 blows but a 40lb Mace of Disruption will cut it to 1. Reaching DEX 25 will give an extra blow.
• Late game warrior, STR 38, DEX 36. 2 basic blows, 4 more for the DEX increments, will get 6 blows with everything but the MoD, and can get 6 with that by maxing strength.

This is rough - you'd have to think about the fractional blows thing for example - but it's an example of a simple system which would still be not too far from what we currently have.

[PowerDiver]

I'd rather take a simple formula involving STR, DEX and the principles as Derakon has nicely summed up, and then let the blows progression follow from that.

[stuff deleted]

This seems to me to approximate the current system in broad structure. What have I missed?

What I think you've missed is that it's impossible to apply rationality to the current set of weapon weights. What you are proposing involves a whole lot of work coming up with new weights to balance the dice in whatever broad solution you attempt. My solution avoided that, and I think when people try it out they won't completely hate it.

E.g. the best sword in the history of our world was possibly the Ulfberht+. I saw a special about a modern swordsmith trying to replicate it. It came in at a mere 2.0 pounds before the hilt was added. There's no way to adapt that to AD&D weapon weights.

One solution is to basically ignore weights. If you are going to do that, perhaps you should ignore str. Then you have a different game. Might be better, might be worse, but would certainly be violently different.

[Estie]

A simple way to get reasonable weights is to divide the Angband values by 10 and add 2 pounds. Obviously, it would be no problem to do the calcualtions with Angband values and display something along the above formula.

[PowerDiver]

A simple way to get reasonable weights is to divide the Angband values by 10 and add 2 pounds. Obviously, it would be no problem to do the calcualtions with Angband values and display something along the above formula.

I don't think that can work. I tried a bit to do linear and failed, and while that doesn't prove anything, I think I am pretty competent at this sort of thing. I went to square roots because I had to, not because of some attempt to model something.

My point is that angband weights have nothing to do with anything. I believe that the ratios between the angband weights of different weapons have no resemblance to the ratios between actual weights of real weapons. If you use a system that is reasonable, you will presumably have to rework unreasonable weights to make things work. If you just use some formula like I did to morph the weights, you might consider leaving them alone and use a formula akin to mine for the whole process.

There would be a big gain to squelch if there were only 3 or 4 different weights, say small medium and large e.g. Then bigger dice on a medium weapon are just better, with no weight tradeoff. I never tried this, because I think it would feel so different, but it might be an improvement. This, again, would be a *lot* of work to do properly.

[Nick]

So a small amount of research indicates that most swords were 4 pounds or less, with a few up to about 7 pounds. Maces were similar, and polearms sometimes a little heavier (but mostly those were used on horseback).

I would suggest, allowing a little inflation for fantasy,

• 1/2 a pound for a dagger
• Other weapons in 1/2 pound increments up to 8 pounds
• MoD 10 pounds, and artifacts up to a 10 pound hard limit
• Grond some silly weight like 20 pounds

and then make 2 STR (on the 1-40 scale) needed for every 1/2 pound of weapon weight. I think the linearity issue can be fixed by adjusting dice, and maybe to-dam values.

This will require change to every weapon type and artifact in the game, and will affect burden as well. As far as planning goes it probably really fits in 4.3 as outlined; maybe it should come forward to 4.2 when classes are up for change, but on the other hand it might be better not to do so much change in one .1 version increment.

[Estie]

I don't think that can work. I tried a bit to do linear and failed, and while that doesn't prove anything, I think I am pretty competent at this sort of thing. I went to square roots because I had to, not because of some attempt to model something.

My point is that angband weights have nothing to do with anything. I believe that the ratios between the angband weights of different weapons have no resemblance to the ratios between actual weights of real weapons. If you use a system that is reasonable, you will presumably have to rework unreasonable weights to make things work. If you just use some formula like I did to morph the weights, you might consider leaving them alone and use a formula akin to mine for the whole process.

There would be a big gain to squelch if there were only 3 or 4 different weights, say small medium and large e.g. Then bigger dice on a medium weapon are just better, with no weight tradeoff. I never tried this, because I think it would feel so different, but it might be an improvement. This, again, would be a *lot* of work to do properly.

Oh I wasnt saying that an easy linear formula would be good enough for blows calculations. I just pointed out how to let the displayed weight look more realistic.

The only reason to even use those silly values is because the current blows formula gives desired results. But since noone calculates their amount of blows from the weight anyway, might as well use a secret number (the old weight, or squareroot thereof, or whatever) for the calculation and display only a more realistic, but fictional "weight". As long as more weight means fewer blows, there should be no problem.

Of course, the inventory weight does have to use the new numbers.

[Estie]

Nicks suggestion above sounds realistic; but since daggers have been trouble before, and historic daggers can be anything from a steel mikado stick to a shortsword, you can let your formula start with shortswords and then call the extrapolated value downwards that fits the formula the weight of the dagger.

[Carnivean]

E.g. the best sword in the history of our world was possibly the Ulfberht+. I saw a special about a modern swordsmith trying to replicate it.

It's a great sword, but not the most damaging. A claymore at around 1.5 to 2 times the weight would deliver a meatier blow. Or a pandat (another 2 handed sword).

In addition our character will have a significant strength advantage over any human known. He's fighting giants after all. A stupidly heavy weapon for a historical figure to wield in combat would be a feather to the god-like figure we end up with. A viking sword of 4 feet is ideal for reality, but wouldn't do much damage to a dragon's scales and wouldn't reach anything vital.

[PowerDiver]

It's a great sword, but not the most damaging. A claymore at around 1.5 to 2 times the weight would deliver a meatier blow. Or a pandat (another 2 handed sword).

Absolutely, if you are just going for one blow. Would the lighter weight allow for more blows in a given fight a la angband? I haven't a clue. Your opinion is undoubtedly more informed than mine on that. My fighting knowledge ends with the observation that it is hard to hold a shield with one arm and a sword with two hands, simultaneously.

The advantages lay in flexibility, durability, retaining sharpness, etc. The quality of the steel, not the size of the sword. Something I'd never really considered before I watched the special was the importance of being able to pull your sword back after it got stuck when it penetrated an opponent's shield. Apparently you need a sharp flexible sword to do that well.

[Estie]

I have also seen the special about the Ulfberht+, most fascinating. Iirc, the theory was that the vikings got the high quality steel from the middle east, where the smelting technique was more advanced, along the Volga trade route that they had established during that period. Basically, they had access to a little Damasc steel in an area and age where such was unheard of.

But the best part of the story is imo the forgeries. Sure enough, some scrupulous businessmen branded run of the mill swords with the Ulfberht+ trademark. They got the spelling wrong, which wasnt much of a problem when most wielders were illiterate and int potions didnt exist yet.

The half troll warrior drinks a potion of intelligence. Suddenly, his sword seems strange. He looks at it again - the letters read: made in Westersness.
The half troll warrior drops a cursed imitation of a sword of Westernesse (+0,+0) (+0).

[Pete Mack]

Nitpick: I believe Wootz steel came from India. It wasn't so much a matter of smelting as suitable Vanadium fraction.