storage capacity

[osxmallard]

Is there a way to use the number of pages instead?  Like a bag uses a single page can hold 35 grid squares worth of items.

Can large chests hold say.. 4 pages of items and small chests hold just a single page?

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Currently, small chests hold 10 items, while large chests hold 40. You ox pack also holds 40.

[osxmallard]

Large chests hold 30.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Ohhh. Okay.

[Dorganath]

To quickly address the "one page" for small chests, consider that that can be 35 items, and if those 35 items are stackable, then you could potentially have 350 discrete items (35 stacks of 10) that get recreated when that chest is opened. That suddenly becomes a whole lot of items being created, and it's a much bigger lag hit overall.  
  Now, while yes, it's a little funky that one could only get 10 raw gems into the same container where one could put 10 suits of full plate or 10 greatswords. But take the time to think about that just for a moment.
  If we want to think in terms of "reality" (which seems to be the basis of this request), consider that the very laws of physics would prevent someone from placing 10 suits of full plate armor into a small chest unless they were first flatened to the point of being unusable. By the same token, raise your hand if you truly think a single greatsword could actually fit into a small chest at all. No one? That's because again, the dimensions of the object itself would simply make it thoroughly impossible.
  So....if we want to go hyper-real on this, then we have to start taking into account things like "real" size, in which case we're now on a variable scale of what can and can't go into a chest. 1 suit of plate armor, no greatswords, a whole silly bunch of small items, etc. This just gets too complicated and silly....and really laggier.
  So what we have is a system that, while not necessarily "realistic" is one that really evens out when looking at the big picture.

[Faldred]

Hellblazer - 7/2/2006  9:36 AM
OK they will say that you have a limit of weight you can carry without being encumbered but I have gotten 600 lbs over my limit and still was able to walk!!

Yikes.

I'm not sure how to address the movement penalties in the NWN engine, but I wonder if it would be possible to apply stat or circumstance penalties based on encumberance.  After all, if you're having difficulty moving, you're going to have combat problems too.

As a general idea (exact numbers would have be determined for balance):

ENCUMBERED
----------
No positive DEX bonus to AC allowed
-2 to AB
-2 to DEX-based abilities (including Reflex saves) except Initiative checks
-6 to Initiative checks
-2 to STR-based abilities (including Fortitude saves)
Lose 1 attack/round (minimum 1 attack/round)


HEAVILY ENCUMBERED
------------------
Maximum modified DEX = 6
-4 to AB
-5 to DEX-based abilities (including Reflex saves) except Initiative checks [-3 plus DEX penalty]
-12 to Initiative checks [-10 plus DEX penalty]
-5 to STR-based abilities (including Fortitude saves)
Lose 2 attacks/round (minimum 1 attack/round)


MASSIVELY ENCUMBERED (if there is such a thing)
-----------------------------------------------
Maximum modified DEX = 6
-2 to AC (stacks with -2 DEX penalty)
-4 to AB
-4 to Damage rolls (minimum 0 damage)
-8 to DEX-based abilities (including Reflex saves) except Initiative checks [-6 plus DEX penalty]
-20 to Initiative checks [-18 plus DEX penalty]
-8 to STR-based abilities (including Fortitude saves)
Lose 2 attacks/round (minimum 0 attack/round)
Always considered flat-footed
All melee attacks provoke Attacks of Opportunity


Edit: Clarification on DEX = 6 lines

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

As much as that would get my character killed, I love the idea, Faldred.

It gets the Stephen Tumbs-Up.

[Hellblazer]

that could be an idea but when you ae very encumbered trust me even the slowest creature is faster than you so you have to fight, and I have died many times because of that. so the penalty is there. but like stephen wrote while i was posting its a good one.

[Faldred]

Stephen_Zuckerman - 7/5/2006  2:24 PM

As much as that would get my character killed, I love the idea, Faldred.

It gets the Stephen Tumbs-Up.

Yeah, when I post nasty stuff like this, my guiding principle is "how would this cause my own characters to suffer?"

On the other hand, I'm sure it could be tamed down a bit -- usually, being encumbered is a result of your own stupidity/greed, which should be punished, but the effects of poison, etc., would be significantly increased.

Of course, if monsters could be encumbered too (which I doubt the game engine supports), it would be yet another issue in favor of using poisons...

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Unless we ran every NPC as a PC model, it wouldn't do that under NWN1... And that would cause hideous lag.

[Hellblazer]

Faldred - 7/5/2006  2:30 PM  Yeah, when I post nasty stuff like this, my guiding principle is "how would this cause my own characters to suffer?"  On the other hand, I'm sure it could be tamed down a bit -- usually, being encumbered is a result of your own stupidity/greed, which should be punished, but the effects of poison, etc., would be significantly increased.  Of course, if monsters could be encumbered too (which I doubt the game engine supports), it would be yet another issue in favor of using poisons...

 
  Err ok so I was greedy and stupid to lend my ox and bank chest to a friend so he could store some goods that he gotten for us?  :p Or for the food suplies I had to get for Addison to cook Sonya\\s and I weeding meal?? :p

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

That's why he said "usually" Hellblazer.

[Hellblazer]

hehehe, only having a little bit of fun before i have to go to work and have no fun for 6 hours.