Encumbrance and skills

[Armin]

I can't seem to crack this. The code I posted a couple messages up works for even levels, but not for odd levels, due to rounding of the halves on each end. To address that I need to adjust the bonus depending on evens or odds, but there's some kind of bug that crashes GCA if I try to query the value of the skill score, which I hadn't run into before.

I'll see if I can find a workaround, but it'll take me a while, if I can.

Edit: Okay, I really needed my coffee this morning. The bug is in my brain, not in GCA. However, I still don't see a way to crack this yet, as I still can't get the value I need here.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Armin

Edit: Okay, I really needed my coffee this morning. The bug is in my brain, not in GCA. However, I still don't see a way to crack this yet, as I still can't get the value I need here.

The problem is that you need to poll whether or not the skillscore of the piece of equipment you are targeting is even or odd, and whether or not the bonus/penalty to skillscore you are giving it is even or odd, to discern whether or not your bonus is resulting in a bonus to parryscore. With skillscore 15 and a -1 penalty the result is no penalty to parryscore, but take skillscore 14 and the same -1 penalty to skillscore results in a -1 to parryscore as well because you are passing the magic "even number" threshold. OTOH, a -2 penalty to skillscore always results in a -1 penalty to parryscore, however a -3 penalty gets you back into the even/odd predicament again.

To see how I addressed that issue in a slightly different context I'll just show you the gives() tag from the ~Accuracy modifier from the GURPS Magic data file:

+1 to owner::skillscore,
=-(@int($modetag(charskillscore)/2) - @int(($modetag(charskillscore) - $solver(me::level))/2)) to owner::parryscore$

We'll assume skillscore 21, with a +3 bonus built in, so base skill would have been 18.
This is, essentially:
A) Take skillscore, divide by 2, then get INT value. So skillscore 21/2=10.5. INT is 10.
B) Now take skillscore and subtract the bonus it is receiving from the modifier, then divide by that 2, then get INT. So skillscore 21-3=18. Divide by 2 is 9, INT is 9.
C) Now subtract B from A. 10-9=1. This is the penalty that needs to be applied to offset the +3 skill bonus.

Now we'll go with skillscore 20, +3 bonus:
A) 20/2=10, INT 10
B) 20-3=17/2=8.5 INT 8
C) 10-8=2. So -2 to owner::parryscore is necessary to offset bonus.

I'm not sure how to set something like this up outside of a modifier (or maybe in the weapon itself), because you can't poll just one weapon skillscore and use that as a basis to apply a bonus/penalty to all weapons with the same name (well, you can, but this gets messy if you have two copies of the weapon with different modifiers applied which happen to affect skillscore).

[Armin]

Thank you, Eric. That gives me something else to think on.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Armin

Thank you, Eric. That gives me something else to think on.

Please note I was editing and re-editing that right up until a minute ago. You may want to refresh and re-read my post.
EDIT: actually, just saw two minor errors and corrected them, so I was actually re-editing that post right up until a minute after I first posted this reply.

[Armin]

Thank you, Eric.

So, yes, basically the problem comes down to "I don't know how to get things to work outside of a modifiers." A modifier knows what it's applied to. A general bonus isn't applied to any one thing, and its value is not variable based on the target's values.

I don't think this can be done right now, and I'm not even sure how to approach it for GCA5.

What a giant pain this turned out to be.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Armin

I don't think this can be done right now, and I'm not even sure how to approach it for GCA5.

What a giant pain this turned out to be.

In GCA5 the easiest way to approach it is probably to just modify the weapons themselves to look at char::enclevel and generate the appropriate penalties as well as notations to let the user know that skill and parry are being penalized based on the characters encumbrance level. Perhaps a simple fencingweapon(yes) which tells GCA5 to treat it as a fencing weapon and apply necessary changes.

As for GCA4, we could probably create a set of modifiers which do what is necessary, then used #MergeTags to apply those modifiers automatically to the weapons in question. The problem here is that there is no easy way to state "this is a fencing weapon so gets an Encumbrance penalty," so it must be done for every fencing weapon individually.

[Armin]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

In GCA5 the easiest way to approach it is probably to just modify the weapons themselves to look at char::enclevel and generate the appropriate penalties as well as notations to let the user know that skill and parry are being penalized based on the characters encumbrance level. Perhaps a simple fencingweapon(yes) which tells GCA5 to treat it as a fencing weapon and apply necessary changes.

As for GCA4, we could probably create a set of modifiers which do what is necessary, then used #MergeTags to apply those modifiers automatically to the weapons in question. The problem here is that there is no easy way to state "this is a fencing weapon so gets an Encumbrance penalty," so it must be done for every fencing weapon individually.

Good thoughts, Eric, thanks.

[ericbsmith]

If Armin doesn't get to it I'm going to try to hit this tomorrow to see if I can whip up the necessary modifier and data file changes to automatically apply the modifier. I'm a little too tired right now to have a go at it.

[Rasputin]

If it means anything, the code in post #9 is working for me. The party swashbuckler, with Rapier-18, Enhanced Parry (Rapier) 1, and Combat Reflexes, is lightly encumbered, and his Rapier skill is showing up (in the weapons) as 17, and his parry is 13F, which is what it should be. The party wizard, with Smallsword-12 (it's his power item), is showing up as skill 10, Parry 7F. (He really should his Acid Jet instead, of course.) So thanks.

[ericbsmith]

I'm guessing that you're just lucky, in that their particular level of Encumbrance + Skill Level happens to fall in a place where the penalty is correct. Change either by one level and the calculation may not be correct anymore.