Re: [Adonthell-devel] Preliminary Proposal - Combat Implement properties

[Kai Sterker]

On Monday 04 February 2002 17:41, you wrote:

> Besides the obvious sorts above, they may also have other modifiers.  In
> keeping with the 'foci' scenario I have seen explained (and like), physical
> implements will have potentially three other modifiers applied to them.
> These modifiers can be acquired through the wearing of ornaments like
> jewelery, perhaps through magic or alchemy infusion,  or some other means.
>
>               /  ---> Modifier 1
> WEAPON --- | --->   Modifier 2
>                     \  ---> Modifier 3
>
> These modifiers could effect hit determination, increase damage or have
> some other 'buff' effects to the character.

Right.

> The system I made way back could easily handle this sort of thing.  I knew
> this would be coming.
>
> (KAI, where has the code disappeared to?  I hope you still have a copy
> somewhere).

It's in the code CVS: src/tools/combat/. I think that was the latest version 
of it.



> Foci Implements:
> -------------------
>
> Foci implements are no different.
>
> If we look at the recent suggestion of using some sort of item as an
> ethereal focal point, it would be very easy to treat magic in the same was
> a melee. We would only need one distinction:
>
> If using multiple foci, the player must weight these.  He must designate
> one foci as the 'primary' force, and others are secondary/tertiary.  This
> will not only allow the player to experiment with different foci weights,
> it will in fact produce very different results.  I think it is important
> weight the foci in this way for two reasons:

Hm, this is a new interpretation :). Are you referring to the 'slots' for 
magic items? They were mainly meant to limit what magic you could use during 
combat.

But the idea of a mixture is interesting too. Although that would mean that 
you needed more than one combination available at a time. So that you could 
cast some attack spell, healing and possibly something defensive. 

> (1)
> Recipes must have some logical representation on screen in the foci recipe
> windows (or whatever).  If I want a spell that is primarily fire-based, but
> has some other side effects (like poisin smoke), I should be able to
> intuitively arrange a FIRE foci as the primary foci, and supplement that
> with a POISON and WIND or CLOUD foci in the secondary/tertiary slots, etc.
>
>
> (2)
> Base implement attributes are important in determining the primary nature
> of the attack (fire, water etc).  The primary foci is is the heavier weight
> when damage is actually calculated, and the victim's resistances and
> wardings are checked.  Damage calculation is heavily dependant on knowing
> attribute weight.
>
> The other foci become the Modifiers of the primary foci.  These need not be
> elements either.  Perhaps a 'mass' secondary foci could damage (or benefit)
> all party members or foes with the primary foci.
>
> In the same way that weapons have multiple attack types, foci can have
> multiple methods of delivery.  I haven't really thoughts these out, but I'm
> sure we'll come up with some.

Well, if we would do that foci mixing (in contrast to one focus being a 
single, well defined spell), that should be okay.

Actually, I like the mixing very much. Sorta reminds me on Ultima, where the 
final spells where made up of different syllabels, with special meaning (I'll 
just give the translations):

negate/dispel, small, death, lower/down, freedom, flame, energy/field, wind, 
make/cause/create, danger/trap/harm, summon/invoke, light, live/healing, 
poison, magic, move/movement, illusion, change, protect/protection, time, 
raise/up, great, know/knowledge, creature, matter/substance, sleep.

The spells themselves where already defined, but it would of course be 
possible to leave that to the player. Although not all combinations would 
lead to any meaningful result. But that would give room for some spectacular, 
yet funny failures :).


> Mortar, Pestle, Vials, bottles etc
> -----------------------------------
>
> Why would alchemy be any different?  In the same way as the others, the
> Alchemist mixed their brews by weighting the ingredients in their potions.
>
> An Alchemist could potentially fight with hise/her stock of potions, no? 
> I'm not sure.  How could we make this different from magic, other than in
> the added work of keeping your stock of potions up when not in battle?
>
> Should Alchemy be a side-skill, usable by most, but mastered by humans.  A
> 'compliment' of one's other combat skills?

Well, as such alchemy is no different from magic. There might be some things 
magic can achieve which alchemy can't and vice versa, but it is the human 
replacement for magic.

It's sorta like all the different potions you get in most RPG's, with the 
addition that you can mix them yourself if you want.

>From the implementation, it could be handled exactly like magic, though.

>
> This scratches the surface of implement properties.  We need to form a list
> of all possible effects and counter-effects.  When this list is complete,
> every foci, piece of armour, and weapon needs to draw on the larger list of
> implement properties to form that item's profile.  Every effect should have
> a counter (except a few very rare instances).
>
> For example, a character's offensive implements may have certain modifiers
> from the list below.  Those modifiers which the implement possesses are
> kept in a structure.  Those that are not present are omitted.
>
> It is important to note that things outside the implement item or
> combination may also modify a character's offensive potential.  We have not
> discussed character traits and defensive implements, and those will also
> factor.

> IMPLEMENT PROPERTIES (Add to the list!):
> ====================================

warm
cold

acid


That's all I can think of right now. Your list seems to be pretty complete 
already :). Maybe there's a few things to pick from the stuff I've listed 
above, if you got nothing against copying.

Kai