Are you going to fix this?

[chaoskin]

i known you copy form 3.5e to make pathfinder but you have over looked something

Table 7–9: Mounts and Vehicles
Mount/Vehicle Per Hour Per Day
Mount (carrying load)
Light horse/ 6 miles/ 48 miles
Light horse (175–525 lbs.)/ 4 miles/ 32 miles
Heavy horse /5 miles /40 miles
Heavy horse (229–690 lbs.)/ 3-1/2 miles /28 miles

by 3.5e light horse has a 60ft and a heavy has a speed of 50ft so this table would br right but pathfinder horses has a speed of 50ft (light, heavy) so the table need to be fixed. you have 4 printings and you hant seen this. i have a copy of the bestiary errta and the horses has not change.

so are you going to change the table or the horses speed.

i'm the only one the can see this?

[bugleyman]

I hadn't noticed it. But surely you're aware there is a much better way to ask your question? You came across like...well, like an ass.

Next time, try something like:

"Hey guys, I just noticed what looks like a discrepancy between the speed of the heavy horse and Table 7-9 Mounts and Vehicles. Which is correct?"

[Kalyth]

I had never noticed this either. It is something that most DMs and groups hand-wave (Over land travel).

"It takes you a few days on horse back but you finally reach the dungeon."

Additionally there are far more critical errors that I think would need to be address first. Just a quick scan will find several threads discussing phrasing and errors that havent yet been address.

As already mentioned the tone of your post did seem a bit antagonistic in a way, not sure if that was your intent or not.

[Ramarren]

Based on the word structure, I'm guessing that chaoskin is not a native English speaker, so it's probably a good idea to cut him some slack, there may just be some subtleties of expression missing.

That being said, it does become a noticeable issue in Kingmaker, where travel time is important, particularly *after* the kingdom has been created, and it is important to know how long it takes to get from A to B. In researching it, I noticed that the encumbrance assumptions in that same table are incorrect for mounts as well.

For now, I've been handwaving it, giving mounts a more efficient overland speed than their reqular speed implies.

[Ferathnu]

chaoskin wrote:

i known you copy form 3.5e to make pathfinder but you have over looked something

Kinda confused here. I'm looking at Table 9-6 Mounts and Vehicle's in the 3.5e PHB and the charts are identical to the PF 7-9 with the exception of PF allowing more weight.

Table 7–9: Mounts and Vehicles
Mount/Vehicle Per Hour Per Day
Mount (carrying load)
Light horse/ 6 miles/ 48 miles

- Same as 3.5 PHB

Light horse (175–525 lbs.)/ 4 miles/ 32 miles

- 3.5 PHB weights (151-450) with same distances

Heavy horse /5 miles /40 miles

- Same as 3.5 PHB

Heavy horse (229–690 lbs.)/ 3-1/2 miles /28 miles

-3.5 PHB weights (201-600) with same distances

by 3.5e light horse has a 60ft and a heavy has a speed of 50ft so this table would br right but pathfinder horses has a speed of 50ft (light, heavy) so the table need to be fixed. you have 4 printings and you hant seen this. i have a copy of the bestiary errta and the horses has not change.

so are you going to change the table or the horses speed.

i'm the only one the can see this?

The math behind movement speeds makes 6 mph = 52.8 ft/turn unless I totally forgot how to divide. :) 6mph/60= .1 mile per minute. One tenth of a mile is 528 ft or 52.8 ft/turn. Anyone caring to dbl check my math, please do! :)

Just saying, I don't see any negatives for the PF rates vs 3.5. In fact, as stated, the PF horses can carry more. Unless, again, I'm misreading the tables in which case ignore this! :)

[Grick]

chaoskin wrote:

Light horse/ 6 miles/ 48 miles

Heavy horse /5 miles /40 miles

The tactical movement speed doesn't match overland speed either way, so why not just say the bulkier heavy horse doesn't move quite as quickly as the light horse during extended travel?

(50' move over 6 seconds = 500' per minute = 30,000' per hour = 5.81~ mph)

[leo1925]

Ramarren wrote:

Based on the word structure, I'm guessing that chaoskin is not a native English speaker, so it's probably a good idea to cut him some slack, there may just be some subtleties of expression missing.

That being said, it does become a noticeable issue in Kingmaker, where travel time is important, particularly *after* the kingdom has been created, and it is important to know how long it takes to get from A to B. In researching it, I noticed that the encumbrance assumptions in that same table are incorrect for mounts as well.

For now, I've been handwaving it, giving mounts a more efficient overland speed than their reqular speed implies.

I am player in Kingmaker (4th book now), and for the speed with horses we just said that when traveling with horses we have 40 ft. speed, and then we used the Kingmaker tables about travel time in different terrains.

[Robot GoGo Funshine]

Your speech is eloquent, sir! Your phrasing impeccable! Never have I seen such an argument/concern so beautifully stated, what what!

[Arnwyn]

Kalyth wrote:

It is something that most DMs and groups hand-wave (Over land travel).

"It takes you a few days on horse back but you finally reach the dungeon."

I doubt this is true.

[azhrei_fje]

Arnwyn wrote:

I doubt this is true.

-1

I hand wave it in most cases. There's no fun in it. Although it sometimes is important for people with the item crafting feats as they're allowed to apply some down time to their creation efforts even during a day of adventuring and/or traveling.

[TriOmegaZero]

I handwave the journeys for the most part unless I have an encounter that contributes to the story.

The black dragon rising out of the river the party was rowing down to thank them for their help in the last adventure was quite enjoyable.

[cranewings]

azhrei_fje wrote:

Arnwyn wrote:

I doubt this is true.

-1

I hand wave it in most cases. There's no fun in it. Although it sometimes is important for people with the item crafting feats as they're allowed to apply some down time to their creation efforts even during a day of adventuring and/or traveling.

+1

Although I have been thinking about running a Lord of the Rings style campaign where I painstakingly account for every bit of movement the party makes. They have to RP nightly watch, rp where their food comes from...

[Gorbacz]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I handwave the journeys for the most part unless I have an encounter that contributes to the story.

The black dragon rising out of the river the party was rowing down to thank them for their help in the last adventure was quite enjoyable.

I handwave the journeys unless it takes the PCs thru an area where I need to emphasize something that random (or not-so-random) enocunters are good for.

Eg. "this area is wild, dangerous and full of orcs, so you better step up because the actual quest will be brutal" or "there are tengu bandits here, not an usual sight at any rate - investigate, perhaps?".

[Spanky the Leprechaun]

And weather tables...must have weather tables.

Because when it's icy you could slip and fall.

[TriOmegaZero]

cranewings wrote:

Although I have been thinking about running a Lord of the Rings style campaign where I painstakingly account for every bit of movement the party makes. They have to RP nightly watch, rp where their food comes from...

I had a DM that did that any time we left towns. We ended up resting for three days trying to heal from a monster attack, while fending off more random encounters.

We were like, half an hour from a town the entire time.

Come to think of it, I don't know why the DM didn't have one of those random encounters be a townsfolk would could have told us that. Other that the fact that he was a very by-the-book and let-the-dice-rule kind of DM.

[TriOmegaZero]

Gorbacz wrote:

Eg. "this area is wild, dangerous and full of orcs, so you better step up because the actual quest will be brutal" or "there are tengu bandits here, not an usual sight at any rate - investigate, perhaps?".

Agreed, I played up the hillfolk bandits in SCAP pretty often.

[Spanky the Leprechaun]

I don't care. If you're first level and I roll fire giant, you encounter a fire giant.
Anything else is just unrealistic.

[TriOmegaZero]

I roll my Will save to disbelieve.

[cranewings]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

cranewings wrote:

Although I have been thinking about running a Lord of the Rings style campaign where I painstakingly account for every bit of movement the party makes. They have to RP nightly watch, rp where their food comes from...

I had a DM that did that any time we left towns. We ended up resting for three days trying to heal from a monster attack, while fending off more random encounters.

We were like, half an hour from a town the entire time.

Come to think of it, I don't know why the DM didn't have one of those random encounters be a townsfolk would could have told us that. Other that the fact that he was a very by-the-book and let-the-dice-rule kind of DM.

I've always been interested in how people decide their random encounters work. Most of my overland travel tables are over half normal animals, with a chance of seeing something without hunting for it 1 in 6 per 24 hours. If something pops up, I roll for the hour as well.

Oh, and if I roll a 1, I roll again for that day.

To make up for it, the encounter table is totally divorced from the idea that the characters should be facing certain CR creatures. I've had Trolls and Giants demand toll from low level PCs three or four times sense I've been running pathfinder: though once they went back and killed the guy when they were stronger, and another time they started making money selling him stuff.

[cranewings]

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I don't care. If you're first level and I roll fire giant, you encounter a fire giant.

Anything else is just unrealistic.

Other than the fact that realism isn't realistic, I agree.

[TriOmegaZero]

cranewings wrote:

I've always been interested in how people decide their random encounters work. Most of my overland travel tables are over half normal animals, with a chance of seeing something without hunting for it 1 in 6 per 24 hours. If something pops up, I roll for the hour as well.

I think he rolled for each shift. Which was usually every two hours.

It got to the point that an orc warband showed up, looked at the pile of orc corpses from the previous two shifts, and suggested we let them take the loot from the dead bodies in exchange for leaving us alone.

[cranewings]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

cranewings wrote:

I've always been interested in how people decide their random encounters work. Most of my overland travel tables are over half normal animals, with a chance of seeing something without hunting for it 1 in 6 per 24 hours. If something pops up, I roll for the hour as well.

I think he rolled for each shift. Which was usually every two hours.

It got to the point that an orc warband showed up, looked at the pile of orc corpses from the previous two shifts, and suggested we let them take the loot from the dead bodies in exchange for leaving us alone.

Nice.

[Abraham spalding]

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I don't care. If you're first level and I roll fire giant, you encounter a fire giant.

Anything else is just unrealistic.

Because a fire giant just roaming around in the flat hills is so much more realistic and believable because that's what your dice just happen to tell you.

[cranewings]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I don't care. If you're first level and I roll fire giant, you encounter a fire giant.

Anything else is just unrealistic.

Because a fire giant just roaming around in the flat hills is so much more realistic and believable because that's what your dice just happen to tell you.

Hey, I just wrote up a realistic table for fantasy earth:

Roll d10,000 (4d10)

1-9000 - Roll on the Animal Table
9001-9999 - Roll on the Goblinoid Table
10,000 - Roll on the Standard Pathfinder Table

[Abraham spalding]

cranewings wrote:

Hey, I just wrote up a realistic table for fantasy earth:

Roll d10,000 (4d10)

1-9000 - Roll on the Animal Table
9001-9999 - Roll on the Goblinoid Table
10,000 - Roll on the Standard Pathfinder Table

Hehehe I likely...

[cyrusduane]

The OP is not a native English speaker, so his choice of written words may not carry the connotations we gather

[BenignFacist]

.
..
...
....
.....

Does he/she/it/misc have a flag?

*shakes fist*

[chaoskin]

my point is the book (or books) need to be fix change the horses speed or the table thats what im trying to get a crass

the table or the horse's speed

Ramarren wrote:

Based on the word structure, I'm guessing that chaoskin is not a native English speaker, so it's probably a good idea to cut him some slack, there may just be some subtleties of expression missing.

thank you a lot Ramarren and yes i do have bad spelling that why i dont use forms a lot im not a fan of them sorry

[LazarX]

It's a common misconception that horses allow greater overall travel because of speed. That's not true, outside of pony express mounts which are stripped down cargo wise, what horses allowed for the most part was greater travel without personal fatigue. A group that might make 15 miles per day normally gets to make 20-25 on horse depending on various aspects such as road conditions and weather. Making a horse run for extended periods at combat speeds generally winds you up with a dead horse.