Mount Attacks

[Atraos]

Hey

I am not sure on the mechanical make up of mounts so therefore I ask this question rather blind.

What specifies a mounts attacks?
Obviously horses kick....
I have noticed that Worgs also kicked, would it not be more in character for these to bite or claw?

Just a thought

thanks

[Raona]

You are correct, most worgs have a bite as their attack, but there are some set as race horse that have two kicks as their attack. Does anyone know of a reason that beastie (m15501) can't be set as race wolf, with the mountable flag, and work as a suitable mount? Ah, wait, I think I answered my own question. It looks like if you change the race to wolf, they become unmountable, even if flagged mountable. Is that a hard code bug worth addressing? There's something funny in that, because m101283 is race gelatin, yet can be mounted. Perhaps it is something in the wolf race file?

[Lathlain]

I seem to recall mountable wolves being too small for medium-sized races to mount, the last time I dabbled with such things. I haven't looked into it in any great detail over the last few years, but I suspect that's the hurdle the builder ran into with these worgs.

[Raona]

Aha! I think Lathlain has it! (As usual!)

Wolves are medium, spiders are small, and neither is mountable even if flagged as such, unless the PC in question is smaller than usual. So, that explains it! Is the fix to make spiders and worgs intended to be mountable larger, overriding the race file default?

(Spider that potentially needs work: m101281)

[Raona]

Ok, got the skinny on this from upstairs: Race files overrule both size and attacks, so if you want a slug, spider, or worg that is mountable by a medium-size PC, it needs to be coded as a race of large size. There may be a more appropriate choice than horse for some of these, but in general that's been the fix, to code them as horses and thus give them two kick attacks. Not so crazy with a worg, but a bit stranger with a slug.

Let's start a list of odd mounts, and see if we can improve any. I have, at present:
(15501) A large black and grey striped worg snarls viciously.
(3142) A giant slug is here.
(101281) A giant spider stands here.

Optimal fix for worg and spider is a beastie with a bite attack, of large size. Slug should be a large beast with no attacks, methinks, unless it can slime someone!

If you know of an odd mount, please reply here with its exact name (or its vnum as well, if you have it). Thanks!

[Brar]

Sir, I object!!!

Just keep in mind that creature size are (should be?) based on a formula depending on their hit Dice (level).
No way a medium worg can carry an orc, and a worg will become large with so many hit dice.
Some monsters are just not reaching large size, but can still be mounted by smaller races.

On the same idea, I think there is a race flag defining if a race is mountable or not, we could perhaps try to make a list of what we think should be mountable to ease the work of our lovely race files keepers up there

So perhaps it should be actually better to change the races flag and hit dice according to the tables, to give them the correct size and would eliminate the problem of "cheating" with area code, ensuing easier updates, fix, balancing, ect

Just a thought...

[Lathlain]

When building an area, it falls to the builder to define which of the mobiles are mountable or not. I'm not aware of a race file definition (though that doesn't mean there isn't one!), but it's very easy to flag a mobile as mountable who otherwise wouldn't be. Yep, we could build a mountable troll if we were so inclined! But by the same token, we wouldn't want all trolls to be mountable, so keeping the 'mountable' flag to an area file level helps us keep control of this.

Race files used to be pretty standard - wherein a level 10 simple orc would have the same stats and details as a level 50 simple orc. In recent days, we've started to incorporate formulae to automatically calculate a mob's stats based on its level, etc - so a higher level critter would typically have higher stats, or even a larger size, as you suggest. The problem with this is that 90% of the MUD's mounts are below 15 (for balance reasons), and creatures such as worgs and giant slugs are no different - so unless we make the race files set worgs/slugs as 'large' at level 14-15, or we elevate all other mounts to level 35+ to compensate, that may not work.

I personally think the best solution to this would be a hard-code work-around, such as making the 'mountable' flag force the mobile to be size large, or adding a size field to the simple mob structure that isn't over-ridden by the race file (though these are probably easier said than done ).

[Brar]

Well, I'm all for letting the builder choose it, but I'm against creature another size than what it should be.
You won't see a wolf carrying a human, not properly anyway because of size issue, however a dire wolf would do the trick.
There is a standard confusion between Wargs from LOTR and Worgs from DnD, even more since the (crappy) movies.

Code: Select all

Worgs:
A typical worg has gray or black fur, grows to 5 feet long and stands 3 feet tall at the shoulder. It weighs 300 pounds.

Code: Select all

Wargs:Wargs measured about five feet at the shoulder, and could be up to ten feet in length from snout to the tail

In DnD, if you try to stay with a little consistency, Worgs are goblins' mount, not orcs'. Orcs tends to mounts dire creature and larger monsters (for obvious size reason) or the occasional "more powerful" worgs of the lot.

Also comparing DnD and LOTR, Orcs are medium(almost large) and bulky in DnD while they are slim and tending to small in LOTR (they are made from elves).

So, yes if a worg is set to be able to carry an orc, then it should be large and have the corresponding stats, hit dice included.

Now, the balance problem comes from combat I suppose, perhaps it would be good to add a "mounted_attack" to races that defines and limits the attacks that races get when mounted, and perhaps have a mount flag and a warmount flag like that exist in actual DnD.

Just random thought again

[Raona]

To put this problem more clearly for the wider audience:

Right now, most non-horse mounts are coded as Race Horse (in addition to being flagged mountable), in order to make them ride-able by medium size PCs (which is most of us). They often have names suggesting unusual size, like "giant slug" and "giant riding spider." The problem with setting them as Race Horse is that this automatically gives them two kick attacks, which may not be appropriate. The problem with setting them as the correct race is that this often leaves them too small to be of use (a small spider can't be ridden by much of anyone) unless they are made very high level, which makes them far more useful as a combat companion than as a mount, which isn't the objective.

I'm not suggesting that creatures be super-sized across the board so that all mounts are ride-able by all riders - but often we do want low-level creatures to serve as large mounts. Setting them as horses is one way to do this, it's not an outlandish issue - but there may be better workarounds. I don't think this merits a full-on hard code fix, though.

[Brar]

Now, I think it is more of a race chosing problem.
Real life Spider and monstrous spider from DnD are not the same.

Large monstrous spider are not very powerful in DnD, they are 4HD, which is 4x2,5= Level 10 in FK ...

So once the (monstrous) spider race file is correct, any level 10 spider will be large, which means enough to carry a medium character. Being level 10 for a mount is not that big for me.

We're speaking of monstrous spider here, they are vermin which are small in size at level 1, nothing to compare to our real spider, that's why they are "type vermin" and not "type animal".

For slugs, I don't have the real stats here as it's one from the Greyhawk campaign and not standard D20 but if I remember correctly, a large slug is between 5 and 8 HD, which is between Level 12 and 20.

See, the races that are meant to be mountable already have according stats on paper normally, there may be a few exception but I'm not sure it is worth taking it to hard code while it can be corrected once and for all with a race file review which are already coded, and well too bad for the one dreaming of mounting something that is not compatible with their size... there is always things that can do the trick, we live in a world of magic after all

[Selveem]

Is it possible to perhaps add templates to the game? Dire, Celestial, etc.? Wouldn't that help a lot?

[Lathlain]

When you say 'templates', do you mean a flag that marks a creature as dire or celestial? What would the obvious differences be, if so, besides the ability to mount them a size larger?

There is definitely, as Brar says, an opening for adding additional giant races to the existing list - such as giant slug, or giant spider - which would put us in a much better situation for mounts. The main issue there is in making sure we get as many races as possible (contrary to popular belief, giant turtles don't necessarily come to mind when building a race list!). How many giant races are we looking at there, though? If we're going to end up bloating the existing race list by an extra 100 combinations just to create a few additional mounts though, I think a more elegant solution may be in order.

How about a 'giant' flag, which increases the size of a mobile by one, perhaps?

[Duranamir]

I like the idea of the flag rather than large numbers of new races, the mobiles already exist, it is just there mountability that is the issue.

Duranamir

[Brar]

Well, Dire and Celestial are template that completly change the creature, resistance, natural armor, special abilities, size, ect...

And changing the size of a creature is more tan simply making it mountable, it changes his stats, armor, hit, natural attack damage, ect...

And last, the races already exist .... what we need to do (and is in the process of being done if I'm not mistaking) is to update the race file, a few more may be in order, but I think most of them are already there, only ned to adapt the stats to the new formula system.

I think adding a flag is making a solution for the problem instead of its source.

Brar

[Eltsac]

Well I would let Brar tell about that races stats and all...
But if dire animals tend to be really different than normal animals (with attacks, stats, ...), I would tend to add a few races with the most common dire animals.

Those will be of course usable as mounts, but can also be integrated in areas as mobs, giving more choice to builders for NPC races.

El

[Selveem]

That's the great thing about templates. Or, if you want them built as "flags" in FK.. I dunno if that's possible.

For instance, here is an example; this is the Celestial Template.

Brar is absolutely correct in that adding templates wholly change the creature (or, rather, does so in a large way). If you think about Vampires, they're a template that goes over the base race. They get the bonuses and penalties of their new template, as well. But, that would be what I would consider correct. If you're trying to make a 'werewolf' you'd not leave it with the normal base creature's stats, right? Their hit dice would increase and they would receive the bonuses and penalties now afforded them due to their affliction.

[Raona]

The race files are pretty complicated as things already stand.

Perhaps a "generic" race could be set up, one with no default attacks or set size, such that these can be set on a case-by-case basis? At quick glance it looks like all existing races have one form or attack or another, which makes finding a suitable match for a giant slug, at least, a challenge. (Slimes have just a corrode, but are small.)

My takeaway here is that we do need to do something on the race file end of things, somehow, if we want this fixed. At our current level of backlog, I don't think it is worth the effort.