We all know that some people have issues with the races "I hate elves" and the classes "wizards suck" of D&D, but what about the rules or game mechanics themselves?
What do you consider to be the most broken or annoying rule or game mechanic in D&D and why do you feel/think this way about it?
A few people (like Lawgiver) might have an interesting take on this since they play a different edition of the game, so their input is still appreciated (and I can't stop them anyway).
Of course, if there is anyone out there who wants to say that I'm trying to start an argument, I'd say that perhaps you're right. ;-)
|
I am running a player who is playing a grappler. I keep meaning to re-read the grappling rules, but with all the other stuff I do, I don't seem to find the time. He does quite well with it, however. Guess I need to throw in more things like fire elementals and green slime covered golems. Or maybe some ghosts. Pretty hard to grapple a ghost.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Encumbrance.
Wait...are we talking broken as in "most frequently violated" or broken as in "most damaging to game balance" or broken as "doesn't work very well"
Neh. I'll stick with emcumbrance. As anyone who has ever loaded their opponent down with sacks of lead can attest, it is the most broken combat method in the game.
What do you consider to be the most broken or annoying rule or game mechanic in D&D and why do you feel/think this way about it?
Vancian spellcasting. It's just so incredibly lame.
Armour making characters hard to hit instead of absorbing damage. Makes no sense.
Isn't there an alternate ruling that makes armor give DR in like Unearthed Arcana or something?
Armour making characters hard to hit instead of absorbing damage. Makes no sense.Isn't there an alternate ruling that makes armor give DR in like Unearthed Arcana or something?
Yes there is.
As to armor making people harder to hit, I just look at it as they are still hit if the attack roll is close to the armor class number, but the weapon just clangs off the armor or shield instead of causing damage.
Armour making characters hard to hit instead of absorbing damage. Makes no sense.As to armor making people harder to hit, I just look at it as they are still hit if the attack roll is close to the armor class number, but the weapon just clangs off the armor or shield instead of causing damage.
... just as it is meant to be.
The whole diplomacy subsystem, especially the way it effects NPCs but not PCs.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
So many contestants. For today, I would have to say the way blasphemy and the related spells determine effect. No other spell is so easily screwed up by boosting caster level. A 27 HD half-fiend tendriculous calculates to CR 14, and autokills anyone with 17 HD or less when it blasphemies. See also issues with the bead of karma, divine spell power, and other means of jacking up caster level.
Let us not forget the simple stupidity of "Shadowy Illumination".... so what, is it a shadow or illumination? Can I light an area (albeit darkly) with a Darkness spell. Is it for mood lighting on romantic dates?
|
|
Vancian spellcasting. It's just so incredibly lame.
Word.
And the whole 100 gp of ink per spell book page, and one page per spell level, and 100 pages per spell book. Does anyone actually track this? If I made my players abide by these rules, I would never see another Wizard at my table again. Then compare that with multiple spells per scroll and you have - yuck!
I find that some of my players abuse the second hit rule; meaning the second swing is 5 less than the first of hitting and this tends to get ignored.
A spiked chain is a piercing weapon and can therefore be used under water without penalty.
Contributor
|
... just as it is meant to be.Armour making characters hard to hit instead of absorbing damage. Makes no sense.As to armor making people harder to hit, I just look at it as they are still hit if the attack roll is close to the armor class number, but the weapon just clangs off the armor or shield instead of causing damage.
Sure, explain that when the storm giant's club 'just clangs off the armour.' I don't buy it.
Also, to me it removes and interesting aspect from play; right now, if your DEX is high, it is never worth it to take heavy armour. If armour would count as DR, you would have to weigh whether it was better to get hit less often or take the max dex penalty but take less damage per hit. Cool game effect lost due to unrealistic rule.
|
|
Let us not forget the simple stupidity of "Shadowy Illumination".... so what, is it a shadow or illumination? Can I light an area (albeit darkly) with a Darkness spell. Is it for mood lighting on romantic dates?
Yes, that is the way I run it...why else would underdark buggers like Drow have it as an innate ability? Sometimes you want to see in color without getting all blinded and such.
|
Contributor
|
Armour making characters hard to hit instead of absorbing damage. Makes no sense.Isn't there an alternate ruling that makes armor give DR in like Unearthed Arcana or something?
Yep, but it is not really a balance-tested system (like so much of UA), and IMO it's actually a poor compromise between the two concepts of armour (ie, it doesn't really do either well). and as with all rules changes, it requires the DM to go through any pregenerated material they run and change it, which may lead to unforseen balance issues that need to be addressed.
And the bottom line is, the core rule is still unrealistic.
|
|
and as with all rules changes, it requires the DM to go through any pregenerated material they run and change it, which may lead to unforseen balance issues that need to be addressed.
I run with this variant and the defensive bonus variant, and the need to alter stats ahead of time is definitely the drawback. The first time the players go off script, you're having to make the stat conversions on the fly, which is error prone. I've tinkered with these rules for awhile to try and balance them, but it is a major chore.
The real net effect of using these two variants is that combat lasts ALOT longer. Everyone has a high AC, and DR, so everyone is hard to damage. If you don't mind longer combats, this rule combination seems to work okay and might make combats run slightly more realistically.
And the bottom line is, the core rule is still unrealistic.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't D&D a game?
Where is your reality when it comes to magic?As for the topic: as long as I mastered for our group we didn't really encounter any broken rules. Some were a pain (like grappling), some were confusing, but none did really break the balance.
|
Contributor
|
And the bottom line is, the core rule is still unrealistic.Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't D&D a game?
Where is your reality when it comes to magic?
Right, but magic has no real world measurable equivelant that we can compare to. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be special-powered or special material armour that can do things RW armour can't. I'm saying that the baseline should more intuitively match reality.
Should we completely discard all of our assumptions about reality simply because the game includes magic? No. We draw a line somewhere. When it comes to armour, I wish the line was drawn a little closer to reality than it is. I have reasons for my wish, and the fact that the game include magic is not a reason to not have realistic armour as a baseline.
|
The problem with having armor absorb damage, is that to maintain realism, you have to track damage to armor. Or do you think it is realistic that armor remains pristine no matter how much damage it absorbs?
Anyway, I think grappling is overly tangled, and I am working on a simplified system.
But as for broken, i think turning undead is a monster. It is hard to use, requiring a "to-hit" roll that isn't really, a "damage" roll that again isn't, and the overall effect doesn't scale well with the character level/CR system. Oh well, I am babbling...
|
Contributor
|
The problem with having armor absorb damage, is that to maintain realism, you have to track damage to armor. Or do you think it is realistic that armor remains pristine no matter how much damage it absorbs?
I think that that is a further step on the realism scale that is a playability vs. realism issue; tracking armour damage requires more work than the gain is worth. YMMV. And I do believe that armour holds up against damage often enough that it would not be used in enough cases to justify the rule. I also don't think that having one requires having the other.
Armour as DR as a rule concept doesn't take much more work than armour as AC bonus. In fact, it gets rid of the need for a seperate 'Touch AC.' Adding tracking damage to armour and wepaons is extra work (although the system actually already supports it).
Anyways, I don't mean to make this into such a big debate, or to hijack the thread. This is just a part of the rules that has bugged me in every edition of the game.
Anyway, I think grappling is overly tangled, and I am working on a simplified system.
I'd like the grappling rules to be less confusing, but I actually think they work OK. I think they mostly need to be streamlined a bit and more clearly written.
But as for broken, i think turning undead is a monster. It is hard to use, requiring a "to-hit" roll that isn't really, a "damage" roll that again isn't, and the overall effect doesn't scale well with the character level/CR system. Oh well, I am babbling...
I agree completely... Turn undead kills the the CR system; there are a lot of really tough undead with lower CRs than they should have because they are easy to turn. The Allip is way worse than its CR if you don't have a cleric. So to balance things, most new undead just get turn resistance to the point that Turn Undead becomes a non-option. At which point, why even have it?
I also don't see why, from a flavour standpoint, all clerics have turn or rebuke undead regardless of their deity. I'd rather see a weaker version as a domain power. And maybe include undead as being affected by the third effect of protection from evil.
A spiked chain is a piercing weapon and can therefore be used under water without penalty.
Heh. Things like this are easy to fix: Rule #0. Unlike armor and grappling and other things that require lots of work to fix, this one can be solved by the DM saying 'Don't be stupid.'
Pretty much just spears, daggers, and crossbows work under wanter. Picks, morning stars, and scythes are still swung. Rapiers are about half and half, but in that case I'd just let my player use it instead of making up some house-rule adjustment.
|
|
Strangely enough, I am not really arguing with you, I just want to point out an inherent flaw of the existing alternative to boolean armor (that is hit or miss, vs DR)
I think damage reduction is a better way to go, (Shamelss plug warning) a few years agon I tried writing my own gaming system, and would have probably finished by now if it weren't for Eberron catching 100% of my interest, which can be seen here in its partially complete, needs massivley rewritten form.
The basic system I used was armor and shields gave coverage. Depending on the to hit roll versus the coverage you might be hit in the shield, or in the armor, or directly to the body through a chink. If you were for example hit in the shield, the full damage of the attack would hit the shield, it would see a certain amount shrugged off by damage reduction, and the shield would be damaged. If sufficient damage was applied, anything over a certain amount would be passed down to the armor, iterated down to the body.
It was complicated to set up, but that is because I got overly into realistc mechanics. I am working on rewriting it a bit more "play-friendly" using some stuff i picked up from d20 experience. (everything I wrote was second edition era)
---
My changes to grapple are going to basically be:
Both (or all)participants in a grapple act on the initiative score of the slowest person. Make one opposed grapple check, multiple participants use aid another rule, and the winner can choose one action off a list. Very similar to what is there, but going to be cleaner.
---
I also can't stand that all deities are so entwined with undead, even those that gain elemental domains still turn undead as well. My group discussed, long ago and far away, letting a cleric pick one creature type from the ranger favored enemy list, and letting the cleric turn those, which could include undead, and then turning the "turn something else" domain abilities into the greater turning ability of the sun domain.
We were going to set up divine enemies for each god like favored weapons.
Of course, then Eberron came along and our homebrew got parked... Drat you Keith Baker... wait no, MORE EBERRON KEITH!!!
---
How was that for thread-jacking
|
|
A spiked chain is a piercing weapon and can therefore be used under water without penalty.Heh. Things like this are easy to fix: Rule #0. Unlike armor and grappling and other things that require lots of work to fix, this one can be solved by the DM saying 'Don't be stupid.'
Pretty much just spears, daggers, and crossbows work under wanter. Picks, morning stars, and scythes are still swung. Rapiers are about half and half, but in that case I'd just let my player use it instead of making up some house-rule adjustment.
Then what about swords, every longsword has a point. Longswords should do piercing and slashing. Every short sword should do piercing and slashing. Things were made the way they are in game for the purpose of game balance, which does not always follow logic. I could also argue that longswords have pommels that could be used to do bludgeoning damage also (maybe not as much as with the blade but why not 1d4?).
Now my longsword covers all 3 types of damage and I don't need to worry about being underwater or DR/P/S/B.FH
Which explains why the longsword was the dominant melee weapon for several centuries :) My biggest problem is with the druid and psionics. The druid just gets too many goodies. Either it is a warrior class, or a spell caster, why does it get both, and a meat shield beside? And psionics just don't mesh well with the rest of the system, and seem to be a "dip" favorite on character optimization threads everywhere. As far as which rules I break in game, I use the "once a class skill, always a class skill" rule, don't use XP, and only allow one PrC at a time. Nothing major, but it makes it easier for me as DM.
Runner up is Spiked Chain. That it can be used against adjacent foes makes every other reach weapon obsolete. Make reach weapons threaten adjacent squares and this problem is fixed. And people will then stop swinging spiked chains all the time.
Winner: POWER ATTACK.
I like the 1 for 1 benefit using a one-handed weapon. The rule breaks down (in my opinion) when you weild it two handed: double the damage. The shield and nearly every one-handed weapon is obsolete in our game.
|
|
A spiked chain is a piercing weapon and can therefore be used under water without penalty.Heh. Things like this are easy to fix: Rule #0. Unlike armor and grappling and other things that require lots of work to fix, this one can be solved by the DM saying 'Don't be stupid.'
Pretty much just spears, daggers, and crossbows work under wanter. Picks, morning stars, and scythes are still swung. Rapiers are about half and half, but in that case I'd just let my player use it instead of making up some house-rule adjustment.
Then what about swords, every longsword has a point. Longswords should do piercing and slashing. Every short sword should do piercing and slashing. Things were made the way they are in game for the purpose of game balance, which does not always follow logic. I could also argue that longswords have pommels that could be used to do bludgeoning damage also (maybe not as much as with the blade but why not 1d4?).
Now my longsword covers all 3 types of damage and I don't need to worry about being underwater or DR/P/S/B.FH
Having swung a longsword around with theatrical intent, I can say that stabbing with a tip heavy weapon is a challenge, but...
I allow exactly this use of any weapon as an improvised weapon, -4 to hit, and 1d4 1d6 or 1d8 damage (light, one-handed, or two handed)
|
Contributor
|
The basic system I used was armor and shields gave coverage. Depending on the to hit roll versus the coverage you might be hit in the shield, or in the armor, or directly to the body through a chink. If you were for example hit in the shield, the full damage of the attack would hit the shield, it would see a certain amount shrugged off by damage reduction, and the shield would be damaged. If sufficient damage was applied, anything over a certain amount would be passed down to the armor, iterated down to the body.
I've been slowly working on a similar system; I like the idea that a breastplate gives equal DR to Full Plate, but is easier to bypass.
My changes to grapple are going to basically be:
Both (or all)participants in a grapple act on the initiative score of the slowest person. Make one opposed grapple check, multiple participants use aid another rule, and the winner can choose one action off a list. Very similar to what is there, but going to be cleaner.
Much simpler. I like the idea. I see two potential problems, though. 1) I forsee problems with adjusting the initiative as people enter and leave grapples. 2) It nerfs multi-attacking grapplers like Monks. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of PoV, but one of my players would be unhappy!
I also can't stand that all deities are so entwined with undead, even those that gain elemental domains still turn undead as well. My group discussed, long ago and far away, letting a cleric pick one creature type from the ranger favored enemy list, and letting the cleric turn those, which could include undead, and then turning the "turn something else" domain abilities into the greater turning ability of the sun domain....
That's also a good idea, but I'd still want to change the effects of Turning so that it isn't basically "Save or Die." I would also tie the favored enemy to the domain or religion as appropriate to the setting.
|
|
The basic system I used was armor and shields gave coverage. Depending on the to hit roll versus the coverage you might be hit in the shield, or in the armor, or directly to the body through a chink. If you were for example hit in the shield, the full damage of the attack would hit the shield, it would see a certain amount shrugged off by damage reduction, and the shield would be damaged. If sufficient damage was applied, anything over a certain amount would be passed down to the armor, iterated down to the body.I've been slowly working on a similar system; I like the idea that a breastplate gives equal DR to Full Plate, but is easier to bypass.
Easy way to do this is any attack that beats the touch AC hits, if it doesn't beat the full AC it hits the armor, and gets the armor's DR. OF course if you do this you are back into plate being way better than dex...
Much simpler. I like the idea. I see two potential problems, though. 1) I forsee problems with adjusting the initiative as people enter and leave grapples. 2) It nerfs multi-attacking grapplers like Monks. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of PoV, but one of my players would be unhappy!My changes to grapple are going to basically be:
Both (or all)participants in a grapple act on the initiative score of the slowest person. Make one opposed grapple check, multiple participants use aid another rule, and the winner can choose one action off a list. Very similar to what is there, but going to be cleaner.
My intent for multiple attackers was they could either choose more than 1 action if they won the round, or they could give up extra possible actions for a bonus on their grapple check.
As for initiative, part of the escape action is rolling a new initiative
I also can't stand that all deities are so entwined with undead, even those that gain elemental domains still turn undead as well. My group discussed, long ago and far away, letting a cleric pick one creature type from the ranger favored enemy list, and letting the cleric turn those, which could include undead, and then turning the "turn something else" domain abilities into the greater turning ability of the sun domain....That's also a good idea, but I'd still want to change the effects of Turning so that it isn't basically "Save or Die." I would also tie the favored enemy to the domain or religion as appropriate to the setting.
Yeah, religious enemy would have been guided by religion choice, maybe with 2 or 3 options per god. "Save or die" ??? right now isn't it "oooh you're scary, I run away" or "ooooh you're so scary, I fall down dead"
Have to say I think most of these are minor beefs and/or promise to make the game overly complicated--with the possible exception of streamlining grappling and making turn undead work more like the rest of the d20 system (i.e. no charts to follow which is soooo 1e, give each turner a level-based bonus with a charisma modifier and additional modifiers based on feats, then each undead has a turning value which is based on hit dice plus turn resistance). And some of the small sillinesses can be dealt with by the DM applying common sense (like problems with diplomacy and spiked chains underwater) and invoking rule #1.
As far as armor making it harder to hit or reducing damage, realistically different kinds of armor could do either or both. Plate armor, for example, was beveled so that piercing and slashing weapons hitting at a normal angle of attack would glance off and be completely ineffective--basically, you'd need to get lucky (or skillful) and hit just the right spot on the breastplate or you would "miss." The force from a blow with a bludgeoning weapon is likewise dispersed across the entire piece of armor by a breastplate, and thus ineffective, although a blow to a smaller section of the armor like a joint or helmet might have some effect. So for most of the heavier armor types, armor as AC is at least somewhat realistic. If you do get lucky and punch your lance through the guy's breastplate, the breastplate doesn't absorb much of the impact. Of course chain and scale mail function more like DR than AC--they soften the impact of the blow but rarely deflect it entirely. You could do it either way, but the more people have DR, the more calculations have to be done on the fly in combat, and the slower the game gets. It's simpler to have AC, touch AC, etc. all calculated ahead of time.
As for darkness, I think the spell is worded strangely. If interpreted literally, the spell can radiate shadowy light where no light exists. I think the wording was changed to unbreak the 3.0e spell, which effectively out-powered the third level blindness by blinding everyone in a 20 foot radius. I think the intent was that this spell limits ambient light in its area of effect so that no matter what light source you use (unless it's powered by a higher level spell), the area affected by darkness never has better than shadowy illumination. That's how I interpret it in my game.
There are numerous rules in the supplements (especially spells, PrC special abilities, etc.) that are a bit hosed up, or provide loopholes to break the game. I use supplementary material with caution and reserve the right to nerf or ban things as necessary. Can't comment on psionics. Never really been interested in playing with them myself, but I've heard of the tactic of going "supernova," which sounds broken.
Vancian spellcasting is a bit wierd, but it's so completely entrenched in D&D that it would be kind of hard to get rid of and still call it D&D. The methods of magic use that stray too far from it tend to threaten game balance--psionics (I suspect) being a case in point. I assume campaigns with psionics rarely feature non-psionic PCs, and that you have to really monkey with the CR system or use mostly psionic monsters to make the game challenging. Not to knock it, just to say that it's a significant departure from the balance envisioned in the core rulebooks.
A lot of people complain about wizards being underpowered. A well-played wizard is not--but it's the most difficult class by far to play in the game. It is also true that a DM can make it more difficult for wizard PCs simply by not allowing time for spellbook work and item creation and not putting in enough spellbook-enhancing treasure while strictly enforcing RAW spellbook management. Druids seem overpowered, but I don't think they are. You only get a certain number of actions per round, and without quickened spells you can't cast and attack in the same round. Druids, like bards, are jacks of all trades--they are handy if your party is missing one of the standard roles (tank/healer/arcane caster), but are suboptimal in each--they are best as a fifth party member who can boost the party's capabilities where they are needed. (Similar arguments could be made about clerics, who likewise have much spellpower of great potency and not inconsiderable melee prowess--but again, they can only do one thing at a time and usually spend a lot of their spells and actions patching up the tanks so that they can't do that much nifty stuff in combat. If they're lucky, they get off one buff and one offensive spell).
Turning is supposed to be an all or nothing deal. There are many all or nothing deals in the game, though turning is one of the few accessible to lower level characters. Putting undead to flight for ten rounds is supposed to defeat them in most cases. If you don't want them turned, throw in an evil cleric who can bolster or dispel turning. The idea is that the cleric is superpowerful against the BBEG's undead mooks, has some chance to take out a roughly equivalent challenge undead in one or two rounds, but isn't likely to be able to turn the undead BBEG, who should have turn resistance enough to outstrip the cleric's level by 5 or more effective HD, and/or should be fighting in unhallowed terrain. The supplemental divine feats in CW and CD make undead turning power useful for a lot of other things, and would be potentially unbalancing, except (as I recently discovered to my chagrin with an undead turning min-maxed machine I created for a Ravenloft campaign) it's still a standard action to activate those feats. They are good, but not excessively so.
In a game this complex, there are always going to be some clunky parts, and I wouldn't say 3.5 is beyond tweaking. On the whole, though, it works pretty well once you master the rules and the capabilities of the characters and monsters you're playing. And I think some people overlook the value of having a standard set of rules that everyone plays by to use as a baseline and a point of reference.
Regarding encumbrance, one of the player's in my game would agree because of the following example that occured in the group's STAP game. Someone wearing a breastplate and carrying a heavy shield takes a -12 penalty on Swim checks. However, if you put the armor in your backpack and place the shield on your back, the -12 penalty disappears, especially if you're reasonably strong (ie. Strength 15+).
I don't see that as being broken, Strap a large disc to one arm and try to swim, then strap it to your back, there is a big difference. Don't forget that the breastplate is more than just a metal torso cover, it includes greaves, a helmet, and a padded undercoat. The last of which can absorb water and make moving your arms and legs more difficult.
On an unrealted question, what kind of backpack is that character wearing that it can fit a whole suit of armor in it?
|
|
In a game this complex, there are always going to be some clunky parts, and I wouldn't say 3.5 is beyond tweaking. On the whole, though, it works pretty well once you master the rules and the capabilities of the characters and monsters you're playing. And I think some people overlook the value of having a standard set of rules that everyone plays by to use as a baseline and a point of reference.
I agree with the basic premise here. We play with many variants, but few non-core books, but then our group is small and flexible. Playing in your FLGS, or in a more open forum is a completely different experience that practically requires no house rules.
I'm constantly amazed at how often players and DMs ignore rules of basic mechanics so obvious that they aren't (and don't need to be) explicitly stated in the PHB. I've had people try to fit furniture in bags of holding (2 ft by 4 ft bag, geometry tells you the opening can fit a flat object less than 2 ft wide or a spherical/cylindrical object with a diameter less than about 1 ft 3 inches (circumference (4 ft)=3.14 x diameter). You might get a gnome-sized breastplate into the bag of holding, but not a human-sized one. As DM, I'd certainly be adding a circumstance penalty to your swim check due to the water-resistance if you're trying to swim with a breastplate on your back. In fact, it's probably easier to swim while wearing the breastplate.
This is what rule #1 is for, not for imposing a bunch of complicated house rules, but for adjudicating situations that are fairly obvious but not actually covered specifically in the rules.
The thing that I think is the most broken about 3.5 is the whole 'favored classes' system. It just doesn't make sense that if you want to play a dwarven wizard / rogue, you get docked XP. Our group doesn't even use the rule.
I think that is meant to reflect a cultural behavior, if you spend the first 100 years of your life growing up in a culture where most people don't pratice the skills needed for wizardry or thievery you just aren't as adept at it.
That and its a way to give slight bump to playing human.
Beside the penalty only applies if your two classes are more than 1 level apart. I've always used it, and it has never come up.
I'm constantly amazed at how often players and DMs ignore rules of basic mechanics so obvious that they aren't (and don't need to be) explicitly stated in the PHB. I've had people try to fit furniture in bags of holding (2 ft by 4 ft bag...You might get a gnome-sized breastplate into the bag of holding, but not a human-sized one.
Well I have to disagree here, I just tried it (yes I have a bag with a 4' circumfrence opening, a mail sack used by the US post office). an I can easily fit my body through the opening (though probably not if I was wearing bulky armor or backpack). A breast plate could fit with some minor tweaking and twitching.
When in doubt, take a 4' piece of string and tie it in a circle, if the players can fit the object through the loop, it can fit in the bag. I would however note that the Bag of holding states that "If the bag is overloaded...the bag ruptures and is ruined"
So players who don't keep track of the weight or cubic footage they've placed in there can easily rupture the bag.
I periodically run checks on what is in the party's handy haversack.
I do agree that common sense should prevail at times...
Technically the rules never state (that I can find) that an unconscious character falls prone.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I do agree that common sense should prevail at times...
Technically the rules never state (that I can find) that an unconscious character falls prone.
Heh, very good point. However, as I've discovered during marathon gaming sessions, it *IS* possible for someone to be unconscious without falling prone....
The level adjustment for alternative Pc races. Sometimes they are very objective. This is one are that is inconsistant in the myrad of supplemntal books.
Encubrance is one I am always argueing over with players. Know your character can't carry 5 heavy croosbows, with 2 sets of armor, and the unconcsious prisoner because he has a strength of 18.
Midrealm DM-
Out of interest, just where does it say how much a backpack can hold?
Good question, I can't seem to find that anywhere..
Dragon Magazine once published an article "How Many Coins in a Coffer" which discussed container capacities and I may have taken it from that.
What I use is:
Sack 2' x 4' = 150 lbs capacity
Backpack 1' x 2' = 40 lbs capacity
Bag 6" x 12" = 5 lb capacity
Pouch 3" x 6" = 0.5 lb capacity
At any rate, by weight a breastplate could be caried in a pack. But by volume I think not.
|
|
At any rate, by weight a breastplate could be caried in a pack. But by volume I think not.
However, get a big enough pack, and anything's possible.
For example, my hiking pack is large enough, I would think, to carry a Medium breastplate (not much else, though). My point is that if the PC had a 2600 cubic cm pack, they would be able to carry it.