| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Finally started up a campaign of Pathfinder this past weekend (Yay!) and were creating characters. When getting to the part of buying equipment, and then adventuring clothes, it does not state if your worn clothes count towards the limit on your carrying capacity.
From 3.5, if you look under the ‘Clothing’ section in equipment, it does specify they do not. Is this the same in Pathfinder? Right now our DM is counting it as part of the weight limit as it does not clarify and they are pretty heavy. I think the least one is 8 lbs. So it makes a pretty big difference.
Hmm, ok. Not complaining at all (I have a pretty decent strength) but did Paizo give a reason on why they made that deliberate change?
It was assumed you ALWAYS wore clothes in 3.5 therefore the weight did factor in - your weight limits were on top of clothes worn.
In Pathfinder, you are to go about naked. Naked I say.
They do in Pathfinder. That's a deliberate change.I don't doubt you Chris, but where exactly is the old 3.5 rule, and the new Pathfinder rule? I'm curious because the question has come up in home game and knowing where to point for both present rules, and the historical precedent would be handy.
Well, I can tell you the 3.5 rule on clothing not counting towards your carrying capacity is in the very beginning of the ‘Clothing’ section under the ‘Equipment’ part of the book. But for Pathfinder, it is just not present there. But I would also be curious where the rule states the deliberate change, and why. And I also do not doubt Chris, I just am curious why the change was made.
It was assumed you ALWAYS wore clothes in 3.5 therefore the weight did factor in - your weight limits were on top of clothes worn.
In Pathfinder, you are to go about naked. Naked I say.
So we become a bunch of nudists or boy does that armor chafe!
I don't doubt you Chris, but where exactly is the old 3.5 rule, and the new Pathfinder rule? I'm curious because the question has come up in home game and knowing where to point for both present rules, and the historical precedent would be handy.
See the D&D Player's Handbook v.3.5, page 131, under the heading "CLOTHING" in the left hand column (emphasis mine):
CLOTHING
Different characters may want different outfits for various occasions. A beginning character is assumed to have an artisan’s, entertainer’s, explorer’s, monk’s, peasant’s, scholar’s, or traveler’s outfit. This first outfit is free and does not count against the amount of weight a character can carry.
Interestingly enough, this rule is not part of the 3.5 SRD, which may in part be the reason why it doesn't exist in the Pathfinder RPG. The corresponding part in the Core Rulebook reads:
Clothing
All characters begin play with one outfit, valued at 10 gp less. Additional outfits can be purchased normally.
Interesting. I wonder why part of that line would be SRD and the other part not? (The part being SRD is that the first outfit is free).
Edit: Nevermind it is different in saying 10 gp or less, not free.
But either way, I thought almost everything in the core books (PH, MM and DMG) were SRD. I wonder why that specific line would not be.
Interesting. I wonder why part of that line would be SRD and the other part not? (The part being SRD is that the first outfit is free).
Actually, the whole section header is missing from the SRD, as are other section headers in that chapter.
James Jacobs weighed in on this awhile ago.
The upshot is that by RAW the first set does count for encumbrance, but he feels it was an oversight and allows a free set of clothes in his games.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I don't doubt you Chris, but where exactly is the old 3.5 rule, and the new Pathfinder rule? I'm curious because the question has come up in home game and knowing where to point for both present rules, and the historical precedent would be handy.
Others have quoted the 3.5 rule. All I can tell you about the deliberate nature of the change comes from my experience with Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The iconic Merisiel begins with enough equipment that, counting her set of clothing, she's carrying a medium load. She can't actually use Acrobatics until she throws two knives. You can search the Pathfinder Society district of the boards if you like. The official word back was, "Yep. Looks to be the case." As opposed to "Don't count the weight of her clothing."
James Jacobs weighed in on this awhile ago.
The upshot is that by RAW the first set does count for encumbrance, but he feels it was an oversight and allows a free set of clothes in his games.
Ok, thanks. That ruling from James will be enough for our DM.
The upshot is that by RAW the first set does count for encumbrance, but he feels it was an oversight and allows a free set of clothes in his games.
I facepalm every time I read this stuff.
I facepalm every time I read this stuff.
Agreed. "Do as I mean, not as I say" drives me nuts when dealing with rules...
I facepalm every time I read this stuff.Agreed. "Do as I mean, not as I say" drives me nuts when dealing with rules...
The worst part is that he has the ability to either make or at least PROPOSE errata to the game to fix errors. Which is COMPOUNDED by the fact that Pathfinder has a "living" setting which MUST to obey the rules as written.
|
It was likely a move to reduce word count more than anything else. After about level 4 encumbrance of things other than your weapons and armor end up being something of a non issue for players with access to a decent size town or with someone who takes Craft Wondrous Item.
Except for low-strength heavy-armor wearers, and mounts of small creatures (who all seem to suffer from low strength syndrome).
It was likely a move to reduce word count more than anything else. After about level 4 encumbrance of things other than your weapons and armor end up being something of a non issue for players with access to a decent size town or with someone who takes Craft Wondrous Item.
In what way? 8lbs is 8lbs whether you are 1st level or 20th. Especially if you aren't a Str based character and are not increasing it.
It was likely a move to reduce word count more than anything else. After about level 4 encumbrance of things other than your weapons and armor end up being something of a non issue for players with access to a decent size town or with someone who takes Craft Wondrous Item.In what way? 8lbs is 8lbs whether you are 1st level or 20th. Especially if you aren't a Str based character and are not increasing it.
Nope. 120 pounds is 5 pounds once you can afford a handy haversack without pawning your magic weapon.
It was likely a move to reduce word count more than anything else. After about level 4 encumbrance of things other than your weapons and armor end up being something of a non issue for players with access to a decent size town or with someone who takes Craft Wondrous Item.In what way? 8lbs is 8lbs whether you are 1st level or 20th. Especially if you aren't a Str based character and are not increasing it.Nope. 120 pounds is 5 pounds once you can afford a handy haversack without pawning your magic weapon.
I don't see how you can stow the items you are wearing in your handy haversack.
I don't see how you can stow the items you are wearing in your handy haversack.
and other than your weapons and armor what would they be wearing?
Even a character with a 6 strength can hold 20 pounds no problem. If they're wearing more than that chances are pretty good that its armor. Armor and encumbrance penalties don't stack, you just take the worse one.
and other than your weapons and armor what would they be wearing?
Why and how are you storing armor in your haversack?
And? Wizards and Sorcerers don't (normally) wear armor.
"Worn clothes count towards carrying capacity?"
I'd say yes... especially after a very heavy, completely drenching rain. ;)
and other than your weapons and armor what would they be wearing?Why and how are you storing armor in your haversack?
I'm pretty sure he's talking about wearing the armor, not carrying it with him.
|
and other than your weapons and armor what would they be wearing?Why and how are you storing armor in your haversack?
And? Wizards and Sorcerers don't (normally) wear armor.
It isn't about storing your armor in your sack. It is about storing everything ELSE that has any weight in your pack leaving you with at maximum wearing full plate, potions, and 3 weapons at about 75 lbs of encumbrance which can easily be bourne by anyone with 12 strength or more. Which it would be absurd to suggest since any character with less than 15 strength wouldn't likely even be able to wear full plate proficiently.
It is about the 20-500 lbs of misc gear and goods you would be carrying that matters as far as encumbrance goes.
Unless of course you build some ridiculous munchkin build with 2-3 strength dumped down and using the aging rules to build up massive mental stats.
It isn't about storing your armor in your sack. It is about storing everything ELSE that has any weight in your pack leaving you with at maximum wearing full plate, potions, and 3 weapons at about 75 lbs of encumbrance which can easily be bourne by anyone with 12 strength or more. Which it would be absurd to suggest since any character with less than 15 strength wouldn't likely even be able to wear full plate proficiently.It is about the 20-500 lbs of misc gear and goods you would be carrying that matters as far as encumbrance goes.
Unless of course you build some ridiculous munchkin build with 2-3 strength dumped down and using the aging rules to build up massive mental stats.
But what about those who want to carry their Water Clock?
:D
I'm pretty sure he's talking about wearing the armor, not carrying it with him.
and other than your weapons and armor what would they be wearing?Why and how are you storing armor in your haversack?
Right, read it wrong.
I throw all my miscellaneous/situational stuff in my bag of holding/handy haversack all the time! The only stuff I ever carry is the container itself, armor/shield/weapons, wondrous items that need to be worn to be effective, and magical items/tools that I'll need "right away" such as potions or possibly a rod, wand, or staff.
If you do that, even a low strength character can carry a ridiculous amount of weight. Still, it helps to track it all.
I've joined no less than 7 groups who didn't track carrying capacity unless it "looked as though" someone was carrying an absurd amount of gear. I double checked the 28 or so characters in said groups and EVERY SINGLE ONE was heavily encumbered without the players/GM realizing it. Adventuring gear can add up REALLY fast for most anyone.
Most of those groups now track encumbrance.
|
|
I play off of the following:
The first 10 lbs (for a medium sized character, 3 lbs for a small) do not count against encumbrance.
Generally this covers clothing up to the explorers outfit, or any combo of small junk + lighter clothing.
As for tracking it, as a GM, I worry about it at the following times:
* Someone wants to move, carry something more then 1/4 their characters weight
* Level up
* Shopping Sprees
* the character is carrying a suspicious amount of gear. (what do you mean you need a second sheet for gear?)
This seems to limit the bookkeeping and manages to keep people in check for what they are lugging around.
I've always kept track of weight. There are too many game stats that are affected if you are over light encumbrance. I usually go to the trouble of typing all my players character sheets into a PDF character sheet, and when I do, I put all their equipment on, total up the weight, and let them know if they are in trouble weight wise.
PS: I do that because I hate when people miss a game and we don't have their character sheet, so I want to have a copy, even if it's a bit out of date. I try to update it whenever they level up.
I just stumbled across the modified necero's character sheet, and found it very handy for stats/saves etc including items and encumberance.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/character-sheets
I love being able to enter stuff in a PDF and save a copy, and I really like the easy encumberance calculation and skill rank tracking.
I know what you mean about weight adding up, I had 970 gold left to spend after my main weapon and lightweight armor, and really had to make hard decisions for my 12 str character.