Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Armor, Equipment, and Encumbrance: How do You Play?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

master arminas wrote:

Not necessary. With the exception of the fighter, ACP doesn't go down. And Fighter Armor Training, in my game, doesn't reduce ACP. It only increases Max Dex. So, I seriously doubt that a fighter is going to be breaking any world record long-jumps in full-plate and shield. In my game.

MA

What.

I ... really have no idea how to respond to this. It's bizarre.

All your complaints on how mauled the monk is, and you're nerfing of all things FIGHTERS?

My brain. What. Does not compute.


Pathfinder doesn't have Jump. It is subsumed in Acrobatics, which is Dex-based (not Strength) and is NOT a class skill for Fighter. No shield? Could go either way there. But you are looking at a LOT less of a bonus of than +13 at 10th level. That fighter might have a 14 Dex (being generous) for a +2, +10 if he spends 10 skill points on Acrobatics, and then gets hit with the -5 ACP. +7 on a running jump.

You cannot take 10 on an Acrobatics check either, so at max he is going to be able to have a result of 27, which is 27'. BUT, to do that he has to have a 10' running start and you cannot jump futher than your movement (30' if human). So, he is capped on 20' at rolls of 13+. And might end up with a jump as short as 8' if he rolls a 1.

Now, if he does not have a running start, the DCs double. So on natural 20 on the roll, he will wind up with a total of 27, which is 13.5' of distance.

MA

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
master arminas wrote:
You cannot take 10 on an Acrobatics check either, so at max he is going to be able to have a result of 27, which is 27'. BUT, to do that he has to have a 10' running start and you cannot jump futher than your movement (30' if human). So, he is capped on 20' at rolls of 13+.

He is capped at 30ft.

Quote:
No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round.

Maximum movement for a full-plated human is 40ft a round. (Edit: When moving normally. Thanks RD.) 40 minus the 10 running start is 30.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you're taking the run action, your maximum movement for the round can be quite a lot.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
master arminas wrote:
You cannot take 10 on an Acrobatics check either, so at max he is going to be able to have a result of 27, which is 27'. BUT, to do that he has to have a 10' running start and you cannot jump futher than your movement (30' if human). So, he is capped on 20' at rolls of 13+.

He is capped at 30ft.

Quote:
No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round.
Maximum movement for a full-plated human is 40ft a round. 40 minus the 10 running start is 30.

Partially right. With a single move action, a 10th level, non-fighter-class character wearing full-plate armor has a movement 20'. He can jump up to 10'. A 30' jump for a double move.

A fighter, however, moves at his normal speed in medium (1st level) or heavy armor (7th level). So, he has a move of 30' and can jump up to 20' feet as a move action. Or jump up to 50' as a double move.

EDIT: And yes, RD, he go even farther on a run, IF his jump skill is high enough. He is still limited by what his roll is. Remember that the bonus for moving faster than 30' isn't based on hustling or running, it is your normal speed. So even on a flat-out run, he isn't going to get those bonuses, just his Acrobatics, Dex, and ACP (if any).

MA

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

master arminas wrote:
You cannot take 10 on an Acrobatics check either

Yes, you can. The only skill which prohibits T10 is UMD.


master arminas wrote:

Pathfinder doesn't have Jump. It is subsumed in Acrobatics, which is Dex-based (not Strength) and is NOT a class skill for Fighter. No shield? Could go either way there. But you are looking at a LOT less of a bonus of than +13 at 10th level. That fighter might have a 14 Dex (being generous) for a +2, +10 if he spends 10 skill points on Acrobatics, and then gets hit with the -5 ACP. +7 on a running jump.

You cannot take 10 on an Acrobatics check either, so at max he is going to be able to have a result of 27, which is 27'. BUT, to do that he has to have a 10' running start and you cannot jump futher than your movement (30' if human). So, he is capped on 20' at rolls of 13+. And might end up with a jump as short as 8' if he rolls a 1.

Fair enough. Then it's the rogue in full plate (without proficiency) the one who breaks the world record. More consistent, I guess...

The rogue is probably much better at acrobacy, and might even have skill focus and acrobatic. So there you go, insane world record!

Quote:


Now, if he does not have a running start, the DCs double. So on natural 20 on the roll, he will wind up with a total of 27, which is 13.5' of distance.

MA

Why whould he try to break the world record without a running start? Using a full plate is just fine as added difficulty :)


Jiggy wrote:
master arminas wrote:
You cannot take 10 on an Acrobatics check either
Yes, you can. The only skill which prohibits T10 is UMD.

Thank you Jiggy. I meant to look it and double-check, but I didn't. Here is the Take 10 text:

Quote:
Taking 10 (Page 72, Core Rules Document): When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most case, taking 10 is purely a safety measure--you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particulary high roll wouldn't help.

Now, yes, you can Take 10 on a Jump if you are not in immediate danger or distracted, so he cannot do so in combat. Now, I would consider jumping a 20' chasm that plunges a 100' or more to be immediate danger, and thereby would not allow someone to take 10. Others might.

But, I stand corrected on that you can, in certain circumstances, take 10 on a jump.

MA


Orthos wrote:
master arminas wrote:

Not necessary. With the exception of the fighter, ACP doesn't go down. And Fighter Armor Training, in my game, doesn't reduce ACP. It only increases Max Dex. So, I seriously doubt that a fighter is going to be breaking any world record long-jumps in full-plate and shield. In my game.

MA

What.

I ... really have no idea how to respond to this. It's bizarre.

All your complaints on how mauled the monk is, and you're nerfing of all things FIGHTERS?

My brain. What. Does not compute.

Gotta admit, that crossed my mind too.

I usually like MA's ideas and logic, but this sounds odd.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master arminas wrote:
Now, I would consider jumping a 20' chasm that plunges a 100' or more to be immediate danger, and thereby would not allow someone to take 10. Others might.

That doesn't make any sense to me, but to each his own.


Orthos wrote:
master arminas wrote:

Not necessary. With the exception of the fighter, ACP doesn't go down. And Fighter Armor Training, in my game, doesn't reduce ACP. It only increases Max Dex. So, I seriously doubt that a fighter is going to be breaking any world record long-jumps in full-plate and shield. In my game.

MA

What.

I ... really have no idea how to respond to this. It's bizarre.

All your complaints on how mauled the monk is, and you're nerfing of all things FIGHTERS?

My brain. What. Does not compute.

Lemmy wrote:

Gotta admit, that crossed my mind too.

I usually like MA's ideas and logic, but this sounds odd.

Pathfinder gave the fighter a LOT, gentlemen. A bit too much, in my own humble opinion. No other class can touch the fighter in dealing damage and hitting his target. I don't mind Armor Training allowing the fighter to move faster in medium or heavy armor, or even increasing the Max Dex Bonus, but removing ACP? That is just one of the items where Pathfinder went a wee bit TOO far. It leads to all sorts of oddities like a fighter in full-plate scaling a 300' cliff. Or swimming across a raging river fully-armored with a shield strapped to his arm?

How often does THAT happen in literature? I think back to the movie The 13th Warrior . . . remember the scene when they have taken the killed the Mother and are following the cave down and come to the pool? Well, they stripped off their armor before diving in and trying to swim for it! Would that happen in D&D/Pathfinder? I find it erodes my sense of disbelief when a fighter wearing 50 lbs of plate and chain, another 20 lb shield, and carrying another 30 or so lbs of weapons just plunges right in and says, well, my Armor Training means I only take a -1 on my Swim check.

No. I think the fighter, as written, in the Core Rulebook, can do without that one feature perfectly fine. I understand it is not everyone's cup of tea, and don't worry: I am not pushing any of your to do things my way. Just saying how it is done in my game.

MA


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

As a GM, this is a great example where I invoke rule zero. If your fighter jumps into a lake in full plate he drops liek astone no matter what swim check he rolls.

While I do try and follow all the rules as best I can, in the end some common sense has to come into play.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

People in real life have swam in plate or equally heavy platoon gear. There are YouTube videos of it I hear.


master arminas wrote:

Now, yes, you can Take 10 on a Jump if you are not in immediate danger or distracted, so he cannot do so in combat. Now, I would consider jumping a 20' chasm that plunges a 100' or more to be immediate danger, and thereby would not allow someone to take 10. Others might.

But, I stand corrected on that you can, in certain circumstances, take 10 on a jump.

MA

Sure, he can't take 10 in combat. Just when he goes to compete in the olympic games in his full plate :)

Quote:

How often does THAT happen in literature? I think back to the movie The 13th Warrior . . . remember the scene when they have taken the killed the Mother and are following the cave down and come to the pool? Well, they stripped off their armor before diving in and trying to swim for it! Would that happen in D&D/Pathfinder? I find it erodes my sense of disbelief when a fighter wearing 50 lbs of plate and chain, another 20 lb shield, and carrying another 30 or so lbs of weapons just plunges right in and says, well, my Armor Training means I only take a -1 on my Swim check.

Well, the 13th warrior is based on a novel by Michael Crichton, which is based on some tales about Beowulf. Beowulf once fought a monster for 9 days, underwater. So in literature, fighters (like Beowulf) do this, and much more. It just depends on which kind of literature you read :)

On a side note: Delta Force and Navy Seals have tests where they have to swim with full gear, which is 50 pounds heavy. And they aren't even capable of grappling an hydra or surviving a dragon breath...

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Good for diving, not so good for resurfacing ;-)
That's not diving, that's sinking. :P

I've had a couple of dwarf characters with different solutions to this. The first one (who encountered lakes or rivers, but no oceans or other large bodies of water) simply got a ring of water breathing. The sea-going one went for wooden armour (and also went for anyone who made jokes about him looking like somebody dressed in a barrel ...)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
JohnF wrote:
I've had a couple of dwarf characters with different solutions to this. The first one (who encountered lakes or rivers, but no oceans or other large bodies of water) simply got a ring of water breathing. The sea-going one went for wooden armour (and also went for anyone who made jokes about him looking like somebody dressed in a barrel ...)

Sadly, it was a 1st level campaign, and I missed the intro session. So my first session involved my character being awoken by the ship sinking and having to grab his pack and beelining to the longboat.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
JohnF wrote:
I've had a couple of dwarf characters with different solutions to this. The first one (who encountered lakes or rivers, but no oceans or other large bodies of water) simply got a ring of water breathing. The sea-going one went for wooden armour (and also went for anyone who made jokes about him looking like somebody dressed in a barrel ...)
Sadly, it was a 1st level campaign, and I missed the intro session. So my first session involved my character being awoken by the ship sinking and having to grab his pack and beelining to the longboat.

Note that the GM didn't hose you over for it. :)

You and your teammates however, did a pretty good job for me, so I really didn't have to try. :)

Oh, and I wasn't worried about the encumbrance for movement, it was more just making sure you were under limit, which you seem to certainly be. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
mdt wrote:

Note that the GM didn't hose you over for it. :)

You and your teammates however, did a pretty good job for me, so I really didn't have to try. :)

AND HOW!

mdt wrote:
Oh, and I wasn't worried about the encumbrance for movement, it was more just making sure you were under limit, which you seem to certainly be. :)

Checked Bobbi, she's at 150ish of 260. We're solid.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Excellent, wasn't really all that worried, but as long as it came up on the boards, figured I might as well say something.

And at least I think after the last game, we're back on the right track again.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Hero Lab makes it a lot easier. And yeah, we are getting back to the main objectives after a very roundabout path...

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
JohnF wrote:
I've had a couple of dwarf characters with different solutions to this. The first one (who encountered lakes or rivers, but no oceans or other large bodies of water) simply got a ring of water breathing. The sea-going one went for wooden armour (and also went for anyone who made jokes about him looking like somebody dressed in a barrel ...)
Sadly, it was a 1st level campaign, and I missed the intro session. So my first session involved my character being awoken by the ship sinking and having to grab his pack and beelining to the longboat.

I lost yet another dwarf at first level because given the choice of trying to swim across a small river or facing down a pack of wolves he took the martial approach.

I believe that was my first character death (back in the AD&D 1e days). But it was a good day (and a good way) to die.


I track all my weight carried and use animals to carry stuff if I have a weak character. Instead of horses, mules, or donkeys though, I take proffession: goat herder and buy a few goats. I use the proffesion because my weak characters are usually wizards and they all dump charisma.
Profession herder should also let me not only move and push my herd of goats, but also heal (as the skill, but using professsion) them, butcher them, and cook them. ymmv but your GM may also allow you to control a guard dog with it for the herd. (Mine does, but I would'nt).
I then fit the goats with pack saddles. The saddles are cheaper (I think) because goats are small, but goats can't carry as much so it about evens out.
My favorite things about goats are: Small so they fit in caves. There is no fluff saying they don't like caves. They have a +5 climb . They can eat almost anything.
My least favorite thing: They can and will eat alost anythig so you have to watch that they don't eatthe gear or pack saddle on the adjacent goats back.
For john F above, you could have fed your goats to the wolves if you used this tactic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master arminas wrote:
Pathfinder gave the fighter a LOT, gentlemen. A bit too much, in my own humble opinion. No other class can touch the fighter in dealing damage and hitting his target.

Gotta say I disagree with both statements.

1st: Fighter is, IMO, the class who received the least. All PF gave Fighters is bigger numbers, the one thing they didn't need. Even Rogues got more stuff, but the game system also made them unnecessary.
2nd: The difference in accuracy/damage between a fighter and Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin is quite small. Sure, he deals slightly more damage, but not so much more that it compensates its lack of class features.

master arminas wrote:
I don't mind Armor Training allowing the fighter to move faster in medium or heavy armor, or even increasing the Max Dex Bonus, but removing ACP? That is just one of the items where Pathfinder went a wee bit TOO far. It leads to all sorts of oddities like a fighter in full-plate scaling a 300' cliff. Or swimming across a raging river fully-armored with a shield strapped to his arm?

I think you're falling into the "mundane = ordinary" line of thinking. A 10th level fighter is a hero of legends, a warrior who fights dragons, demons, giants and undead abominations on a daily basis. Using armor without any discomfort doesn't sound outside of the realm of possibility in a fantasy world.

master arminas wrote:
How often does THAT happen in literature? I think back to the movie The 13th Warrior . . . remember the scene when they have taken the killed the Mother and are following the cave down and come to the pool? Well, they stripped off their armor before diving in and trying to swim for it! Would that happen in D&D/Pathfinder? I find it erodes my sense of disbelief when a fighter wearing 50 lbs of plate and chain, another 20 lb shield, and carrying another 30 or so lbs of weapons just plunges right in and says, well, my Armor Training means I only take a -1 on my Swim check.

Does a man shooting lightning from his eye also erode your sense of disbelief? Or a gargantuan lizard flying around (and without the use of magic!)? Does the man turning into a dinossaur also breaks your immersion? Does the guy who gets to grow wings and fangs just because he's really, really angry?

No? Then what is the problem with a man swiming in full plate? It sounds more plausible to me than any of the mentioned examples.

Why must Fighters adhere to realism when all other classes get to do cool stuff? Why can people defy reality, but the fighter can't even jump 20ft in full plate? Why does armor even cause such high penalties to any skill other than Stealth?

Have in mind that the reason people rarely swim in full plate in literature is because most stories tell tales about people around 4th~7th level. A few tell us the stories of characters between 8th~11th level. Think of great warrior from literature, like Aragorn or Conan, they are maybe something like 6th~7th level.

master arminas wrote:
No. I think the fighter, as written, in the Core Rulebook, can do without that one feature perfectly fine. I understand it is not everyone's cup of tea, and don't worry: I am not pushing any of...

Yes, they can. They won't suddenly become unplayable just because they suffer ACP. But it's an unnecessary nerf for a class that is already widely considered weak.

Not much different from the ruling that says "FoB = TWF".

But you have your opinion, and I must respect it, even if I disagree. I just felt like sharing mine.


I don't bother with encumbrance unless it is blatantly obvious that the person is over-encumbered.

A bigger question would be, is it logical that a person wielding a breastplate gets the same movement penalty as one wearing a full plate armor? If any penalty at all?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
If you're taking the run action, your maximum movement for the round can be quite a lot.

Actually, I am not so sure. Jumping is part of another action, as it don't exist as a separate action. So you are limited to the movement you can "use" in that action.

If you are using a standard move and you are a human without special abilities (no monk, no feat/traits adding movement) you have a limit of 30' total for that move.
If you are using a double move you are making 2 movements action, so you can jump 30' + 30', not 60' (that assuming you can make a 30' jump without a running start).

Run is a full round action with special limitations. It don't say anything about mixing actions with it but it say "You can't run across difficult terrain or if you can't see where you're going." The run feat say ". If you make a jump after a running start (see the Acrobatics skill description), you gain a +4 bonus on your Acrobatics check.". Taht don't seem the same thing as "you can make a 11' jump after a 10' running start.

While the rules seem to allow it, I am not completely sure the RAI is to allow you to jump more than 30' at a time (barring magic, special abilities or the like).

I am sure you can make multiple jump check during your move to jump several times, after all it is what 400 metres hurdles runners do, my doubt is about how long that jump can be.

Note that even "low power" magical items or spells, a few level in the monk class or similar things can change the situation drastically.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
I think you're falling into the "mundane = ordinary" line of thinking. A 10th level fighter is a hero of legends, a warrior who fights dragons, demons, giants and undead abominations on a daily basis. Using armor without any discomfort doesn't sound outside of the realm of possibility in a fantasy world.

I read this a lot, but let's make a few real life paragons:

- one of the famous sniping feat of the Vietnam war was a weapon technician (not a sniper) killing 2 Vietcong at 1.200 meters.
The interesting part is that he was testing a sniper rifle he had repaired, firing at a stone at 1.200 meters, and the perplexed Vietcong showed themselves to see what was happening.
So we have this guy firing at a stone at 1.200 meters to see if the weapon work right. To test the weapon he need to place all the shots on the target, so he is not going for a lucky 20, instead he should hit with every dice roll that isn't a 1.
His target AC: base 10, tiny +2, immobile, 0 dex -5, final AC 7
Range: extreme range for the rifle, so -18 to his to hit. Let's say that the sniper scope halve that to -9.
He wasn't a sniper, so no specialization, but let's give him a +2 to the to hit for weapon training and another +2 for dex 14. The sniper rifle is clearly a masterwork weapon.
Final numbers: Target AC 7, To hit modifiers -9+2+2+1= -4, he need a final result of 11 to hit his target, so to miss only with a 1 his BAB would have to be +9.
So our weapon technician has a the BAB of a figther 9.

- How many hit point has this guy?
Roy Benavidez:
* He stepped on a land mine during a patrol and was evacuated to the United States, where doctors at Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) thought he would never walk again. Despite serious injury to his spine, Benavidez walked out of the hospital in July 1966, with his wife at his side.
* Nearly dead from a total of 37 separate bayonet, bullet and shrapnel wounds received on multiple occasions over the course of the six hour fight between the 13 men and an enemy battalion,[1] Benavidez was evacuated once again to Brooke Army Medical Center, where he eventually recovered. [he fought and run while suffering for those wounds].
The Wikipedia page about him is here.
Let's say every one of those wound was 4 hit point, that give him a respectable sum of 149 hp at least (he was still moving after 148 hp of damage).
Fighter, with toughness feat and 18 constitution (there is no space for barbarian in a modern army), full die at first level, 6/hp level later. To get more than 148 hp he should be fourteen level!

So our characters are a bit less superhuman that some people think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing, Diego.

One of the most common complaints about 3.5/Pathfinder is sumarized by the sentence "mundanes can't have nice things".

Look at CR9 creatures: Rift Drakes, Bone Devils, Tyranosaurus, Greater Fire Elementals, Frost Giants. A 10th level fighter is supposedly as strong as these creatures. Are you telling me someone that can defeat any of these creatures in a 1-on-1 fight is not at Hercules-level?

The problem is that the system limits mundanes to "hit hard, repeat". Fighters are limited because people insist in grounding them in reality even when the game has reached wuxia/high-fantasy power level.

So mundanes must suck, unless they carry half a ton of magic items, because breathing fire and turning people to stone is okay, but having a guy that can run half a mile in full plate is absurd!

A 10th level fighter should be a mythological champion, but the system seems to consistently reward casters (especially prepared casters!) and restrict mundanes ever since 3.0.

When designing DnD 3.0, someone decided that "hitting things hard" is enough for a fighter, and they should be useless when attempting anything different.

I highly recommend you read this great article, it's a great read and will explains my point about "power levels" much better than I ever could.

And yeah, the game will not always perfectly match reality. It happens. Level based hit points is not exactly the most realistic mechanic ever...


The spell Legend Lore says people are legendary once they hit level 11.

As for the guy surviving the shrapnel that would be taken care of by the abstract HP mechanic which does not just handle how much damage someone can take, but the fact that you did not take a lethal hit. When you are fighting a dragon I look at it as you only needing one or maybe 2 direct hits to actually kill you. Those time that you are taking damage it means you are able to roll with the force of the blow. If the dragon lands the hit on you that kills you or knocks you out, that was the blow you could not dodge.

As for the encumberance thing. At level 1 I have the players track everything, except coin weight. That is so they can't just dump strength, and it gives them a good idea of what they can carry. Later on I basically only count armor and weapons unless they find a really heavy item.

edit:checking legend lore spell...

edit2:I was correct.

Silver Crusade

We track everything from weight to ammunition. We love finding more stuff than we can realistically carry and then having to find ways to get it where we want it to go. We will go on other quests to find carts or even try and use our skills to create wagons or carts t carry the stuff.

It's all part of the challenge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master arminas wrote:
Orthos wrote:
master arminas wrote:

Not necessary. With the exception of the fighter, ACP doesn't go down. And Fighter Armor Training, in my game, doesn't reduce ACP. It only increases Max Dex. So, I seriously doubt that a fighter is going to be breaking any world record long-jumps in full-plate and shield. In my game.

MA

What.

I ... really have no idea how to respond to this. It's bizarre.

All your complaints on how mauled the monk is, and you're nerfing of all things FIGHTERS?

My brain. What. Does not compute.

Lemmy wrote:

Gotta admit, that crossed my mind too.

I usually like MA's ideas and logic, but this sounds odd.

Pathfinder gave the fighter a LOT, gentlemen. A bit too much, in my own humble opinion. No other class can touch the fighter in dealing damage and hitting his target.

I think you are so very very wrong.

master arminas wrote:


I don't mind Armor Training allowing the fighter to move faster in medium or heavy armor, or even increasing the Max Dex Bonus, but removing ACP? That is just one of the items where Pathfinder went a wee bit TOO far. It leads to all sorts of oddities like a fighter in full-plate scaling a 300' cliff. Or swimming across a raging river fully-armored with a shield strapped to his arm?

Armor Training doesn't affect penalties from shield ACP. As for moving TOO far, I think are giving into hyperboles again. Removing ACP isn't game breaking. Fighters get Armor training 4 at level 15. Look at what spell casters and barbarians, rangers and paladins can do at level 15.

Silver Crusade

Zark wrote:

Look at what spell casters and barbarians, rangers and paladins can do at level 15.

I wouldn't be comparing what classes get level by level. You have to look at the class as a whole. Sure one class may get something cool at 10th level while another didn't but the one that didn't may have other things that make up for it.

In real life Armor Training, while cool, wouldn't be all that but in Pathfinder, being able to add more to their AC from dex matters a hell of a lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:

Armor Training doesn't affect penalties from shield ACP. As for moving TOO far, I think are giving into hyperboles again. Removing ACP isn't game breaking. Fighters get Armor training 4 at level 15. Look at what spell casters and barbarians, rangers and paladins can do at level 15.

I agree. The only thing that happens with AT reducing ACP, is that the fighter can jump, do acrobatic stuff, climb, and swim better with full plate. This breaks some people inmersion, but it's hardly gamebreaking, and to be honest, nerfing it does not help a lot to avoid the break of inmersion.

A 10th level or so fighter can Swim, tumble, or climb with full plate. Without Armor training, they can Swim, tumble, or climb regardless, just 3 points worse. There's really that much difference in suspension of disbelief if the Figher has +7 in Swim, Tumble and climb in full plate instead of +10? Why? I mean.... he's climbing stuff with a FULL PLATE. What's the difference between doing it at -5, or at -2? He has Climb +15 or so. He's going to climb in full plate with or without armor training. The only thing armor training does, is nerfing the class. The willing suspension of disbelief is broken anyway.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
[While the rules seem to allow it, I am not completely sure the RAI is to allow you to jump more than 30' at a time (barring magic, special abilities or the like).

The rules are all but silent on the point.

The one clarification I have seen limited the distance you could cover in a single jump during your turn to the distance you could move in the same time. It did not say that you could not continue the jump on your next turn, and cover additional distance, although a lot of people have chosen to interpret it that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Zark wrote:

Look at what spell casters and barbarians, rangers and paladins can do at level 15.

I wouldn't be comparing what classes get level by level. You have to look at the class as a whole. Sure one class may get something cool at 10th level while another didn't but the one that didn't may have other things that make up for it.

Yes, fighter have other things. Bards, barbarians, paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Wizards and other classes have other things instead of armor training.

At level 15 full casters can cast 6 level spells. With a rod of quicken spell they can cast summon monster 8 as a quicken spell.
Monks, bards, Clerics (with travel domain) and magus can use Dimensional Dervish and can quicken dimension door/abundant step and full attack. Heck even Paladins can get dimension door on their list with Unsanctioned Knowledge. Speaking of Paladins both the paladin and the ranger have 4th level spells and rangers can cast instant enemy and get favored enemy bonus regardless of foe. Or he can just get an enmity fetish and the hunter’s band. Oh, yes and the paladin can heal himself for 7d6 as a swift action XXX times per day and smite evil at least 5 times per day.
A barbarian can pounce twice per encounter or she can "rage cycle" at will if she takes one level oracle or two levels Horizon Walker. Or she can fly.
Spell casters? With Magical Lineage and some rods and Preferred Spell and Spell Perfection Magus, clerics and other casters can do crazy stuff.
Cleric cast SM8 followed by + Harm with Magical Lineage and some rods and Preferred Spell and Spell Perfection and a bunch of meta magic feats are a blast.
I can go on and on. No, -3 or -4 to ACP is no big deal.
shallowsoul wrote:
In real life Armor Training, while cool, wouldn't be all that but in Pathfinder, being able to add more to their AC from dex matters a hell of a lot.

A mithral fullplate already grants a dex bonus of +3, and unless yu are a dex fighter that is usually more than enough.

Founder, Legendary Games & Publisher, Necromancer Games, RPG Superstar Judge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I've played for 35 years. I've done it about every which way possible. I primarily DM (now GM, of course), so I come at the issue from that perspective.

I've ignored it and I've been so detailed with it that your head might explode. For years I was convinced that my (then) current way of doing things was "best" and "right."

Years of playing, however, have led me to this observation, which fits many parts of gaming: the main reason to adopt a particular encumbrance and equipment rule, or so time has shown me, is the preference of the game group.

For instance, I once had a player who had a thief (before they were rogues) who wanted me to detail every type of coin (different countries, different mintings, etc, he got excited just from a copper from a land he had never been to, etc). Talk about micro-managing equipment. But he loved it and so he and I spent some time working the stuff up together (I wouldn't have been inclined to just do it all myself). Now the rest of the party didnt care, but he did. So he and I would have a little private session either before or after and talk about that stuff. We discussed it as a group and were much more detailed with inventory for that group because the majority of the players preferred it that way. I once had a wizard player who ALWAYS took a piece of any monster they killed, thinking it would come in handy for potions or things like that (this was very 1E when I would make up "eye of newt" style potion recipes for potion making). That became a big inventory nightmare. He tracked all the stuff, but basically wanted to have all that stuff with him at all times. We came to a reasonable resolution--he has enough glass vials, etc, to take samples of everything he kills and, within reason, he can have bits of any monsters killed within the last 3 sessions AND anything else he chooses to track but in my discretion certain events (falling damage, fire/lightening bolt, etc) can lead to destruction of some of the carried items.

The bottom line is this is an issue that can be worked out, with parameters, with your game group. In my experience (and your mileage may vary), there is usually ONE guy in the group that has a strong feeling one way or the other--that either really wants to or really doesnt want to do hard core tracking of encumbrance and equipment. There is nothing wrong with discussing it with the group and then letting the person who is into it do it his or her way.

As a result, this is one of the things I talk about with my group when we first get started. There are a number of topics I've covered having learned from experience that different groups vary. You learn, over time, that the preferences of your players may not be your preferences. So its good to talk about these things and find a happy medium. A different example is the level of challenge. I once had a group who loved getting through unscathed. They planned and executed great plans and they loved getting through things with as little damage as possible. Now that is totally contrary to how I normally run things, which is more the epic old school "we barely survived by the skin of our teeth and were all on the brink of death when the fighter critted the bad guy and took him out" kind of adventuring. It was actually that group that led me to have a discussion with my players when they are a group I dont know well.

Back to encumbrance...

My default is this: I dont want to play papers and paychecks. Inventory is for day jobs. Unless there is a reason to do so (see below), just detail your key gear and you are presumed to have amongst yourselves any reasonable common item you need. Heroes always magically seem to have the rope they need.

But I tell them this: if you want some unusual item, then you need to buy it and track it. Or any special, fine or magical items, that you have to track. But do you have door spikes? Sure. Arrows? You have enough to keep shooting. Torches? Yeah. Rope in a pinch? Fine. Can you pack out standard dungeon loot? Yep. Do you have poison? Nope, not unless you track it. Can you carry out the solid gold statue of Orcus? Uh, no. Not without a lot more planning and gear, and no you dont just have a cart because if you did where has it been? Healing potions? Not unless you track it. Special ammo? Not unless you track it. A set of nobles clothes? Probably not (not unless your character has some reason why it is reasonable for him or her to have them without having tracked it). The other thing I do is I always send an email between sessions saying "drop me a line saying what items you want to get so we dont have to spend table time doing the shopping," even if our session breaks are mid-combat (another favorite move of mine), that way at the next reasonable opportunity I can just presume that the PCs got the things they told me they were getting at the next chance to do so. That doesnt mean we never play out going to the various shops, sometimes those are fun, but we usually only spend table time on that when there is a game purpose--selling a sword from the treasure hoard, getting something mysterious identified, etc.

The exception to my normal "you have what is reasonable" approach is when, for some reason, resources are scarce--deep in a dungeon, on another plane, on an island, when shipwrecked, etc. There are times when inventory management IS part of the obstacle. At those times I get much more detailed and (unless a surprise) I generally tell them: "Ok, things may be a bit scarce, so write down everything you have, lets generally check it to make sure its reasonable and portable, then you guys need to track it."

I also tend to track things I think will be key independently of the players. They have, I have noticed over time, a strange pattern of not marking off used items when resource management is crucial. ;) Just an observation.

In the end, I would suggest you as DM/GM not impose a "my way or the highway" view of inventory management. I did that in my early years (damn it, I'm the DM and they are doing MY WAY!) and it never really worked well. Its the hallmark of an inexperienced GM, in my view, to force those things on a group. Talk to your group. Find a mutually acceptable way of doing things. And for goodness sake, find a way to let the "outlier" (aka the guy that wants to do it different than everyone else, like my coin guy) do it their way that still works with the rest of the group.

The reason to discuss it in advance is this: the argument always comes up in a life or death situation. For instance, the party is caught by surprise and is unexpectedly fighting wererats, the monsters start to mop the party up and its the rogue's action and the rogue player, who is near death and is screwed, says "I would totally have a silver dagger in my boot, I'm a rogue, wererats are urban creatures, I know all about them, and I've got plenty of money, I would totally have bought one! I take it out and stab him!" or words to that effect. The player is grasping for straws because he is facing character death. And now your discussion of why it is or isnt reasonable for him to have that piece of gear if you take a more relaxed approach to the issue becomes a heated argument with hurt feelings and allegations of unfairness. Or the cleric is near death and the fighter says "I would totally have stocked up on more healing potions last time we were in town, I just forgot to ask you about that and we all wanted to get going since we only had a couple hours, I'll mark off the gold, that's fair, so I take out a healing potion and pour it down the cleric's throat!" That's where this gets sticky. If you've talked about it ahead of time, and if you use a system like the one I propose, above, you can confidently say "that's exactly what we talked about, I'm sorry if we didnt spend enough time doing equipment but I asked in an email what you guys wanted to pick up in town and I didnt get anything from you about healing potions." Now, that's not a cure, but it sure helps when tempers flare.

Because lets face it, we equipment is important to PC life and death sometimes. So the mechanics of how you as a GM/party choose to track it can have ramifications of more than just "no, you can't carry that."

My $0.02. Food for thought I hope.

Clark


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

That was a pretty awesome post. :)

I've been playing for almost that long but with pretty much the same group the entire time (somewhat thinned, unfortunately) so questions of assumptions were worked out long ago. Nonetheless, there's lots of well articulated stuff in there. Cheers.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PRD wrote:

Well-Prepared

Somehow, you always seem to have the right tools or supplies close at hand.

Prerequisite: Halfling.

Benefit: Once per day, when confronted with a situation that calls for a particular mundane item of equipment, you may make a Sleight of Hand check with a DC of 10 plus the item’s cost in gold pieces to “happen” to have such an item on your person. For example, having a crowbar would be DC 12, whereas a flask of acid would be DC 20. The item must be something you can easily carry—if you are on foot and have only a backpack, for example, you could not have a large iron cauldron. You cannot have magical items using this feat, nor can you have specific items, such as the key to a particular door. If you are stripped of your equipment or possessions, you lose the benefits of this feat until you have at least a day to resupply and “acquire” new items. You must pay of these items normally.
Special: At the GM’s option, a character can substitute the Survival skill for Sleight of Hand with this feat. Such a choice is permanent.

Probably an extension of this feat would be the perfect solution for a lot of people.

You would have a X gp limit of "formless" equipment on you, a quantity that recharge every time you return to a city, base camp or other appropriate location, you make a skill check appropriate to the kind of item you need, using, as an example: survival to have the right length of rope, healing to have bandages and so on, with the weight of your "equipment pool" depending on its value. Every time you use the pool you add the actual item to what you have and subtract its value from the pool.
Not my way of doing things but it can work perfectly for some group.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As a GM, I want my players to track encumbrance within reason. But if their light load threshold is 55 pounds and they 56 pounds of stuff, I really don't care. I also otherwise trust them to track encumbrance honestly--I don't grab their character sheets and check them or anything like that (plus I'd have to do arithmetic, ew, yuck -- *bats away idea with a rolled up copy of her degree in English*).

As a player, I always track encumbrance honestly whether the GM mentions it or not, it's just a habit I got into a very long time ago. It helps give me a sense of what my character looks like, how they look when they travel, what they can reasonably carry. If I go over my light limit I tell the GM. Sometimes they say "don't worry about it," other times they will say I'm encumbered and I'll note that I drop my backpack before fights until I find another means of transporting my stuff. I've noticed all the players I play with tend to assume encumbrance is an issue and track it until told otherwise.

In one game encumbrance became part of the story line: a low Str character of mine was on a mini quest to find herself a porter who was willing to follow her into the crazy areas she explored (she was an archaeologist by trade so wanted to carry way more tools than she could comfortably carry on her own). One member of the party, a warforged who in her character history had not yet been named, quickly got handed my character's backpack and dubbed "Porter." Rather than a chore it kind of became a fun character quirk.

Now, one thing I will note is that my GMs and myself almost always drop a bag of holding or handy haversack into the party's possession as soon as it is reasonable to do so. So while we take encumbrance into what I feel is reasonable consideration, we also try to be sure it does not become an increasing burden (ha! get it?) on the players to keep track of as they level and get more loot--instead it can be thrown into the bag of holding until they figure out what to do with it.

I think one reason why we do track encumbrance and do so easily is because of the many character generators about. And while most generators have a "turn off encumbrance" option, we still tend to plug in the weight of our gear and calculate it (anything that does the arithmetic for me gets to win)--it's easy enough, so why not?

On another note that is entirely aside things, I do NOT track the weight of the clothes that characters are wearing. The caveat not to do so was removed from Pathfinder core, but there was a post by James Jacobs awhile ago that was suggested that was probably an omission for brevity, not a change in the rules and I choose to go with his interpretation in my home games.

The very short version of this post, tangential ramblings aside, is I track it but not so strictly that it makes things unfun.

Also, late, but thanks so much for creating this thread. Says a lot about the community of customers here willing to at least try to let things go and reorganize for the sake of not derailing another discussion, and I really appreciate it.


I don't know if I always track EVERYTHING to the Nth degree,
but I always feel it's pretty reasonable to count up all the normal stuff the character wants to carry around with them. Very often, especially at low levels and non-uber-STR characters who nonetheless want to wear armors, etc, the amount of stuff they want as 'adventuring gear' WILL very often exceed the limit for light encumbrance. More often than not, it makes sense to split up the gear into 'combat essentials' and 'other stuff', 'other stuff' can be put into a pack that is removable whenever they don't want to be encumbered... That, and/or putting gear in saddlebags for their mount to carry... Although that brings up issues of Mount encumbrance, which for Light Horses is very easy to encounter, again. But basically, splitting up the gear into 'groups' like that makes it easy to know when your character is Light/Medium/Heavy encumbered... along with associating it in your mind with specific 'modes' of carrying each 'group' of gear. Certainly it's rather likely for many characters to be VERY NEAR THE LIMIT of Light Encumbrance... so if they DO need to carry some heavy item (such as an unconscious ally), if you know they are within 5 lbs of the limit, it's easy to realize when they go over it for some reason. Sometimes being Encumbered, and sometimes not feels like it makes the game richer... Feeling like you get bogged down in the numbers during game player DOESN'T make the game richer, but using good pre-planning and 'convenience' tools make it so that doesn't need to happen, IMHO. Stuff like gold and treasure CAN take up alot of weight, so it will make sense for characters to 'offload' it one way or another.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

If everyone at the table is being reasonable and not trying to find weird loopholes, I generally leave it to the players to use common sense and don't call out for weight checks and such.

If someone is trying to game the game and I catch them I ask them to fix it and make the calculate going forward as a consequence until they get the message. If they balk, I forget to tell them when the next game is.

Such rules seem to serve a purpose of keeping everyone on the same page and creating some level of "realism". As Sean said, they are to prevent the party from carrying the 20 sets of armor back to town to sell them with no negative effect.

If they table can self regulate, it isn't an issue and the rules can just be checked if a dispute comes up.

Now if you play with people who try to game the game...well I recommend you find a new table.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I just purchased Hero Lab, and it really helps with the issue of calculating encumbrance. Great program.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Ravingdork wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Now, I would consider jumping a 20' chasm that plunges a 100' or more to be immediate danger, and thereby would not allow someone to take 10. Others might.
That doesn't make any sense to me, but to each his own.

The risk of falling 100 feet isn't dangerous to you?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
The risk of falling 100 feet isn't dangerous to you?

Not immediate, anyway. It's only a danger when taking 10 if your bonus isn't enough to cover the jump.

I mean, if there is a two foot gap over a 1000ft chasm, are you in danger when you take a step over it?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Where's the risk I ask? I'm not being pushed, or tripping. I'm jumping a gap that I can make automatically a thousand times in my backyard.


yeah, but i would class that as 'taking 1' where you are still succesful even if you roll a 1.

Sovereign Court Star Voter 2014

The answer is much simpler than you think.

Players are responsible for tracking their STUFF. This includes being aware of its weight. When the weight becomes too much, they're encumbered.

The GM is responsible for keeping the economy of STUFF flowing. For example I make sure I run a "realistic" enough game that players say, "that's too heavy to haul outta here."

End of story...

P.s. If players are using HeroLab for character sheets, the weight is automatically totalled. As a player in games too, this is what I use to keep things "real". Over the years I've learned that if you keep handing out bags of holding, you enourage a "pack-rat" behavior. As a GM, I ensure after every adventure path the players have a chance to sell those suits of chainmail that they may be holding in bags on their backs. Conversely, I've introduced "tradebars" redeemable at most major cities, so its safe and secure enough to travel with at least some wealth without risk of jingling down alleys and dungeon cooridores.

Hope that helps.
Pax

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

As a player, I've stopped caring about every suit of armor and longsword the enemy wears. Unless it's more than just standard stuff, it gets left. My characters don't need to keep every last bit of loot they come across, as long as they have enough to live on.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

Lemmy wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Pathfinder gave the fighter a LOT, gentlemen. A bit too much, in my own humble opinion. No other class can touch the fighter in dealing damage and hitting his target.
Gotta say I disagree with both statements. *snip*

Yeah pretty much everything he said. And Zark.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
The risk of falling 100 feet isn't dangerous to you?

Not immediate, anyway. It's only a danger when taking 10 if your bonus isn't enough to cover the jump.

I mean, if there is a two foot gap over a 1000ft chasm, are you in danger when you take a step over it?

Are you a gnome?

Now assuming no penalties taking 10 is a 10 foot jump. A 10 foot jump over 100 foot chasm...dangerous.

I would hand wave anything you can step over (your 2 foot chasm) as not being a jump check.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Ravingdork wrote:
Where's the risk I ask? I'm not being pushed, or tripping. I'm jumping a gap that I can make automatically a thousand times in my backyard.

You slip, you land awkwardly and fall back. You mistime your jump.

It's a 100 foot chasm. Use the rope.

51 to 100 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Armor, Equipment, and Encumbrance: How do You Play? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.