Is fatigue actually detrimental?
Ligg
Member Posts: 187
I know in IWD fatigue lowered your attack roll by 1. You could only score 1 -19 and never get a critical hit. It doesn't seem to do anything in BG 1 or 2. You can fight with fatigue and not appear to have any deficits. And (despite Dynaheir saying 'magic does not rest well in a tired mind') there is no spellcasting failure.
Given the current engine is it possible to mod fatigue so it actually is a noticeable problem?
Given the current engine is it possible to mod fatigue so it actually is a noticeable problem?
1
Comments
Fatigue behaviour:
- characters gain +1 fatigue every 4 in-game hours, aka 1200 real seconds
- character's CON value determine a fixed base bonus/penalty to fatigue
- with vanilla's tables characters start to gain -1 luck penalty at fatigue 7 (see fatigmod.2da), thus after 8400 sec, aka 140 minutes of real time
- from then on, every other 1200 seconds another -1 luck penalty is applied
- fatigue can be increased, but not decreased (sadly), only resting completely reset fatigue
Luck is supposed to cause many things, but many of them are not implemented (e.g. there's no penalty to saving throws, nor to thieving skills - Item/Spell Revisions manually added them). The plain opcode only affects hit and dmg rolls, and influence how much dmg you take (*).
For example, a character with -1 luck from fatigue would suffer -1 penalty to hit and dmg rolls, and suffers +1 "minimum dmg" for each dice of dmg from damage dealing spells (e.g. when hit by a 5d6 fireball normally you take 5-30 dmg, but with a -1 luck penalty it becomes 10-30).
I hope I managed to be clear.
This isn't consistent, either. Sometimes a clothie toon will make it to the FAI without becoming fatigued at all, other times they'll become tired on the coast highway just after talking to Elminster. I've always wondered what triggers it that early in the game.
CON effects on fatigue are somewhat minimal with vanilla's table (hpconbon.2da). For example: CON 16 grants -1 fatigue, CON 18 grants -2, and so on. Vice versa, CON 7 causes +1 fatigue, CON 5 causes +2, and so on.
Short story: a character with CON 18 gets fatigued after 10.800 seconds (instead of the "standard" 8.400), while a character with CON 7 gets fatigued after 7.200 seconds.
That being said, I should add one more note. Traveling between different world map areas may require x hours, and they are counted as "real time" even if for you it's just a second. A travel which claims to take 1 hour should count as 300 seconds toward getting fatigued.
It could very well be RNG leading me towards a confirmation bias of sorts -- every time I noticed a toon getting fatigued early in the game, it always seemed to be a caster class or a thief, never a fighter, paladin, or ranger. So it struck me as odd that different characters traveled the same distance at the same point in the game, and some became fatigued while others didn't.
I did get a character to the final battle in 35 game days but he died.
In Icewind Dale it lowered itself every so and then to become even a -8 or -4 to hit, damage, saving throws and what not but as far as I've seen, not in BG, it just stays on -1.
Don't know about BG2 though, as the only character I've ever seen fatigued is Aerie (does it have something to do with Constitution? I dunno)
I had the same in-game experience you and @Brude are talking about (Aerie and Viconia getting fatigued before everyone else), but with the non-modded game niether Aerie CON 9 nor Viconia CON 8 play any role in this, because fatigue penalty kicks in at CON 7. What probably happens is that pretty much every other NPC (not to mention charname) has much higher CON, with non-warriors almost always having CON 16 and warriors having CON 16+. That means those characters takes 4 or 8 additional hours to become fatigued, thus once you see Aerie or Viconia fatigued you would have to march for other 4-8 hours to see other characters getting fatigued.
@Demivrgvs : Holy mother of god... I need to try that! XD
-IIRC it was supposed to get worse with each consecutive 8 hours after the first 24 (according to manual?)and sometimes it seemed to increase and sometimes it didn't... ;-)
So when you say damage rolls do you mean weapon damage only? Meaning that a level 5 mage with +1 luck would still only do 5-30 damage with a fireball rather than 10-30?
For weapons, do you gain a +1 to damage for each die roll? So if someone with +1 luck is using a bastard sword (2D4) would they do 3-8 damage or 4-8 damage?
Lastly, does a luck modifier actually modify your hit roll? Meaning a positive luck modifier would elminate the possibility of a critical miss, and increase the chances of a critical hit?
Actually, maybe that was Might and Magic 6.
*chuckles, takes a draw on pipe, strokes beard, and is amuzed at own wizardly absent-minded-professorship*
(*) I say "spells" but I should actually say "extension headers". For example if the opponent's weapon delivers xDy dmg via headers on hit (e.g. +1d6 fire dmg from a flaming sword), then such 1d6 is affected by luck, possibly becoming 1-5 (if the target struck has +1 luck bonus) or 2-6 (with -1 luck penalty). 4-8 Interesting...I never tested this and for some strange reason we never looked into it. If I have to guess I'd say it's just a +1 or -1 to hit rolls and criticals aren't affected (there's a separate opcode for them), but now I want to discover it for real. I just need to equip a sword with +20 luck and see what happens. As soon as I find the time to test it I'll let you know the results.
Cool, thanks for taking the time to answer.