Talk:Encumbrance

From NetHackWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Can burdened be merged with this page, please? Ekaterin 14:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know how much a monster (specifically a pet) can carry? --Khearn 19:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

See Credit_cloning#Using_pets -- Qazmlpok 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

polyself

How much can a polymorphed player carry? A table with popular polyforms would be great. (Master mind flayer, minotaur, vampire lord, jabberwock, arch-lich, tengu, silver dragon) --Tjr

Source:Hack.c#line2162. Non-strong monsters that weigh less than human are scaled based on their weight. There's no automatic benefit to being a strong or large monster, but a strong monster will get 18/** strength as well. Nymphs also have 1000 carrying capacity always. Arch liches end up with ~90% capacity, tengu seem to get around 20%, and everyone else you mentioned is strong and thus has no penalty, only the 18/** bonus. -- Qazmlpok 16:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, updated the article. --Tjr 18:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Strength in Encumbrance formula

The encumbrance formula maps your strength to 19 + str / 50.
However, a strength of 18/n is represented internally by str = 18 + n.
This means that a strength of 18/31 is represented by str = 49, which maps to 19 + 49/50 -> 19.
But a strength of 18/32 is represented by str = 50, which maps to 19 + 50/50 -> 20.
So the cutoff point is really 18/31 versus 18/32.
(I checked in wizard mode, and the same inventory with a total weight of 996 made me unburdened with strength 18/32 but burdened with strength 18/31 (constitution 18).

--Erica 08:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for correcting me. --Tjr 09:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind correcting all the other places? strength, damage, ... come to mind. ---Tjr 10:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem! I updated the strength section of attribute; it seems the same strength mapping formula is used to determine range of thrown objects. I also found another difference between 18/** and 25 that the article didn't mention. The damage table was correct, so there's nothing to change here. --Erica 04:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)