[priest] Question about armor limitations

[Dragget]

"The weight of your armor encumbers your movement"

This message appears when I equip a shield currently. I am not over the total weight limit (inventory window shows a positive value for weight remaining and I am not slowed) so there seems to be some restriction for priest in total weight of armor equipped, independent of carrying capacity in general. Is this limit modified at all by stats and/or character level, or is it a hard-coded limit? In any event, is there some way to find out what the limit is, aside from experimentally adding and removing gear to narrow down the range somewhat? The equipment list doesn't give a total weight like the inventory list does, so I have to total up the items in that window myself. Also, I experimented a bit and determined that weapon and ammunition weight does not affect this number, so there is that, at least.

[Pete Mack]

It has to do with the total weight of armor equipped. You lose 1mp for every pound over the limit. The limited is lowest for mage, then priest, ranger, rogue, paladin (I think.) It's not a big deal for characters with lots of mana, but it can be crippling for low level characters.

[Nick]

You can see the values for this in lib\gamedata\class.txt - priest, for example, has

magic:1:350:2:9

and the 350 means for every pound of armor over 35 you lose 1 SP.

Could be better documented

[mrfy]

Looking in the file it looks like the values are the following:

Mage 30 lbs
Priest 35
Rogue 35
Ranger 40
Paladin 40

I was wondering what the limits were. Thanks!

[Derakon]

Rogue 35
Ranger 40

Well this is backwards.

[mrfy]

Well this is backwards.

Did it change? The values I posted are from the last 4.0.5 release version.

I can also verify that's the case with my current Ranger character, he has 47.7 lb armor right now and is getting a -7 hit to SP.

[Derakon]

Yeah, I'm commenting that it's conceptually wrong, not that it's a bug or changed or something. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Rogues are the "heavy" arcane casters, analogous to a paladin; rangers are more lightweight.

[mrfy]

Yeah, I'm commenting that it's conceptually wrong, not that it's a bug or changed or something. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Rogues are the "heavy" arcane casters, analogous to a paladin; rangers are more lightweight.

Agreed. The only reason my current ranger is overweight on armor is that he found a set of Balance Dragon Scale Mail on level 36. A 7 SP penalty was low enough for me to accept, if it was 12 SP, I'd probably reconsider. Rangers should be wearing light armor.

[Carnivean]

Yeah, I'm commenting that it's conceptually wrong, not that it's a bug or changed or something. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Rogues are the "heavy" arcane casters, analogous to a paladin; rangers are more lightweight.

My conception of this is the opposite. Rogues are stealthy characters, who avoid force, therefore need to be lighter. Rangers are forest paladins, fighters who prefer a bow and get some magic.

Angband play styles have altered your view to the point where the trope that the classes are based on have gone.

[Derakon]

My conception of this is the opposite. Rogues are stealthy characters, who avoid force, therefore need to be lighter. Rangers are forest paladins, fighters who prefer a bow and get some magic.

Angband play styles have altered your view to the point where the trope that the classes are based on have gone.

I mean, technically you're right in that rangers are usually more physically-oriented than rogues in other settings. But the fact remains that in Angband, rogues are much more physically-oriented than rangers, being substantially better melee fighters and with a larger hit die and better physical stats. Armor weight limits don't match the rest of the character archetypes; it'd be a lot easier to bring the weight limits into line than it would be to rework the archetypes.

[Nick]

I mean, technically you're right in that rangers are usually more physically-oriented than rogues in other settings. But the fact remains that in Angband, rogues are much more physically-oriented than rangers, being substantially better melee fighters and with a larger hit die and better physical stats. Armor weight limits don't match the rest of the character archetypes; it'd be a lot easier to bring the weight limits into line than it would be to rework the archetypes.

Challenge accepted

[Derakon]

Challenge accepted

If you're going to make rangers be both amazing archers and good at melee, then they'd better lose all their magic.

[PowerDiver]

If you're going to make rangers be both amazing archers and good at melee, then they'd better lose all their magic.

It's simple enough to remove the class and give the extra shot(s) to warriors. If you keep the slots tight, the warrior has to choose between multiple swap weapons and multiple ammo types, so can't be simultaneously excellent at both before finding an endgame-level weapon. This is yet another example that anyone talking about changing gameplay should give my mods a serious workout.

[Nick]

If you're going to make rangers be both amazing archers and good at melee, then they'd better lose all their magic.

Not a bad idea, although all I really meant was that there would be changes.

And yes, Eddie, I really should play with your mods.

[Estie]

It's simple enough to remove the class and give the extra shot(s) to warriors. If you keep the slots tight, the warrior has to choose between multiple swap weapons and multiple ammo types, so can't be simultaneously excellent at both before finding an endgame-level weapon. This is yet another example that anyone talking about changing gameplay should give my mods a serious workout.

Why has everyone with good ideas for vanilla made their game completely different from vanilla. I tried Quickband, expecting short vanilla, and got a completely different feel right from the start, with monster movement totally different. In your game, you removed XP among other things. I wont even start about Sil, but thats ok since it never pretended to be vanilla.

I am sorry, but from what I read, your game doesnt sound enticing to me and I wont give it a serious workout, but I will keep talking about game changes and not feel inadequate for not having played your game.