Traveler's outfit is about as stylish and encumbers 3 pounds less. Armor you'll want a lamellar cuirass instead: +2 armor instead of +3, but it encumbers at 8 pounds instead of 20 and saves you 10 gp. The combination frees up 15 pounds of encumbrance, enough for a modest satchel of adventuring gear (20 pounds out of 33 at a 10 Str light load). Hire a porter/torchbearer for your first adventure to carry your heavy stuff and polish your boots. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Encumbrance is part of trying to figure out which armor you wear and which weapon you use.
I find that for a lightly armored character, Str 11-12 is much more workable.
You will be able to shift to a Mithral chain shirt (15 lbs) relatively early. A wand of ant haul or a handy haversack is a later purchase.
Even a Str 16 with medium armor, you have to check encumbrance. In that case you can often survive medium encumbrance though, since the armor slows you down.
Darkleaf cloth armor also works well. It has hardness 10, doesn't offend the sensibilities of dragons and the darkleaf cloth material can be used to make all kinds 'nonmetal' armor and other gear, such as your outfit, handy haversacks et al. IIRC it also halves encumbrance weight.
Note that 10 strength is even below average strength for the average non-hero person (which is 10.83 for humans). For a swashbuckler style hero, I'd say put about a 12 in strength - slightly higher than average, but about one in three people will match our outperform you in that department.
Perhaps drop your dexterity to 17 before racial mods, and you have 4 points to spend at whatever you want - such as 12 str, 12 int.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A masterwork backpack weighs 4 lbs, nearly cancelling itself out in the weight department. Its not even a patch job on the core problem of 'light armor and light weapons can't be worn by a competent adventurer.'
Seriously, what chain shirt weighs 25 lbs? Full plate could be as light as 33 lbs if it was of good craftsmanship. You're telling me that something I can wear under my shirt and nowhere else weighs that much? Does no one else think its a bit silly that a character with no below average stats is barely able to carry anything around? People keep saying that average strength isn't enough for a hero, I'm saying that if the armor weight wasn't trumped up to absurd degrees, most people could handle that equipment layout in real life.
Yeah, a lot of the weights for items in Pathfinder do kinda seem like the devs just pulled random numbers out of a hat.
Muscle of the Society trait ups str by 2 for carry and Strength checks.
Muleback Cords up carry by 8 and only cost 1000gp. make them tattoo's or shadow piercings for 1500-2000 and they don't even take up a magic item slot.
Darkwood/Darkleaf/Mithril 1/2 weights or equipment.
The lowly mastercraft backpack may only JUST cover it's own weight when your strength is low but the better your virtual strength gets the more it can carry. With a 10 st, it only lets you carry 3 extra pounds. Just having Muscle of the Society adds an extra 2 lbs it carries. add the Muleback Cords and it's 15 more.
Pretty much a little bit of cash makes even the weakest character fine with equipment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or just go with something like 'so long as you're not toting around your lucky cinderblock collection, we're not going to worry about it'. It's FAR more effort than it's worth tracking that stuff.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to trade-offs. If you don't think you can tote enough gear with a 10 strength, increase it or prune back your gear. Simple as that. And, yes, it is supposed to work that way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Hey big guy, yes you, Mr Half Ork in Heavy Armor. Could you maybe carry this stuff for me? Please? I'll put in a good word with that nice barmaid in the tavern for you in return"
Pathfinder isn't a solo game. Ask your group for help. Especially those with 50+ pounds of free encumbrance.
Or just go with something like 'so long as you're not toting around your lucky cinderblock collection, we're not going to worry about it'. It's FAR more effort than it's worth tracking that stuff.
That IS my preferred method, but even if you do track it, low strength is only mildly challenging during the first few levels at most.
EDIT: Don't forget a pack yak only costs 24gp and has a strength of 27. On a large quadruped that's a LOT of equipment.
Just go naked under your armor!
By rules as written, that encumbrance is correct.
With that said, I tend to go with an abstract system, usually ignoring clothing weight as long as it does not provide bonuses (such as cold weather clothing or armor). I also add encumbrance penalties for times when a PC is carrying lightweight, yet bulky items (such as trying to carry a dozen pillows or something).
One outfit is supposed to be including in your weight and not counted toward your encumbrance.
Where did you get that from? One outfit is free, gp-wise, but I have never read anything that says it doesn't count towards encumbrance.
As for the original problem... 10 or 11 is average strength for a human. Most humans don't have to carry around a lot of extra gear. Students are the worst, with their clothes and a single backpack full of books. Armor and weapons are the things carried around by soldiers. Even in our modern world, where combat is done with rifles, we still make our soldiers train to build strength - precisely so they can carry those rifles and a bunch of Kevlar without getting worn out.
In short, any adventurer that expects to wear any armor without being encumbered should definitely have above average strength.
Even in our modern world, where combat is done with rifles, we still make our soldiers train to build strength - precisely so they can carry those rifles and a bunch of Kevlar without getting worn out.
Combat Rifles are heavier than swords. A lot heavier.
A standard load out for the US military is almost twice as heavy as your average suit of chainmail armor.
If you're the poor POG who's lugging the comm pack or the support weapon your load out is going to be heavier than any suit of plate mail I've ever heard about.
Apart from that, I fully agree with your premise that soldiers tend to be stronger than average people. As noted above, there's a good reason for that.
That being said, what really sets soldiers apart is their endurance. Using the Forced March rules as a metric, I'd peg the average US Infantryman or Marine's Con score at a 16+
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who's interested in military history and wants to see and compare what soldiers have taken into battle over the centuries, here's some awesome pictures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason said he would fix itOne outfit is supposed to be including in your weight and not counted toward your encumbrance.Where did you get that from?
6 years ago! Geeze man, if someone says that they'll fix something soon and six years later it still hasn't happened, you can count it as not going to happen. That particular ruling is no longer true.
|
Or just go with something like 'so long as you're not toting around your lucky cinderblock collection, we're not going to worry about it'. It's FAR more effort than it's worth tracking that stuff.That IS my preferred method, but even if you do track it, low strength is only mildly challenging during the first few levels at most.
EDIT: Don't forget a pack yak only costs 24gp and has a strength of 27. On a large quadruped that's a LOT of equipment.
Hell, take that yak and throw a muleback cord on it. Suddenly you've got an animal that can carry nearly 4.5 metric tons of gear.
Option 1: Sleeves of Many Garments. 200gp and the wrist slot, but you can then wear the least clothes and the sleeves turn them into whatever you want.
Option 2: Talk GM into houseruling that basic clothes don't count in encumbrance.
Option 3: Boost Strength. How many comely lasses and/or strapping lads can you carry drinks for if your gear encumbers you?
Masterwork Backpacks are cheap and handy.
Just go naked under your armor!
Adventurers are supposed to be commandos anyway.
Literally the first part on min max is min. Minimum. Low as I can go before negative modifiers isn't the minimum for a score that only affects my encumbrance and cmb.
Min-Max refers to Minimum Loss, Maximum Gain - not dropping a score to the lowest so as to pump another higher.
That being said, your ability scores at 1st level with that character (before racials) is 15, 14, 14, 13, 10, 10; I would hardly put that in the territory of any sort of power gaming.
However, the advice to bring the Strength up by a point, purchase a masterwork backpack, and drop your pack to achieve a light encumbrance in combat are all options I heartily endorse.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Jason said he would fix itOne outfit is supposed to be including in your weight and not counted toward your encumbrance.Where did you get that from?
FAQd
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
FAQdJason said he would fix itOne outfit is supposed to be including in your weight and not counted toward your encumbrance.Where did you get that from?
sorry I just learned that FAQd posts should be posed as direct questions so anyone else who would want the intent of encumberance of " one suit of clothing" as stated in Jason's post should FAQ *this* post
Does the regular suit of clothing count towards the PC's encumberance or their own weight?
Thats what you get for having 10 STR.
You can get leather armor, which thematically is more accurate for agile character, but you dont want to lose that +1 AC do you?
Thats what you get for having 10 STR.
You can get leather armor, which thematically is more accurate for agile character, but you dont want to lose that +1 AC do you?
How are armors more or less 'thematic' looking JUST at my stats? I'm not seeing how one light armor is more appropriate than another one.
If you go down that route, wouldn't being unarmored be the best thematically? I KNOW that's what you'd do since you're saying theme is more important than little things like mechanics and survival... :P
Or just go with something like 'so long as you're not toting around your lucky cinderblock collection, we're not going to worry about it'. It's FAR more effort than it's worth tracking that stuff.
Yeah, you can do that.
But I personally think that encumbrance is a balancing factor for some character builds. DEX is a way more useful stat than STR - I've seen far more melee types built around just one stat when it's DEX than when it's STR. Going SAD STR leaves REF saves, Initiative, AC, ranged attacks, and some good skills screwed. Going SAD DEX leaves nothing screwed except damage (only at low levels) and a much smaller set of skills. And encumbrance.
Dropping encumbrance out of that list by hand-waiving it tips the balance even more in favor of DEX by eliminating one consideration when min-maxing our ability scores.
In other words, it might be a bad idea.
(But I do LOVE the idea of a lucky cinder block collection!)
Seriously, what chain shirt weighs 25 lbs? Full plate could be as light as 33 lbs if it was of good craftsmanship. You're telling me that something I can wear under my shirt and nowhere else weighs that much? Does no one else think its a bit silly that a character with no below average stats is barely able to carry anything around? People keep saying that average strength isn't enough for a hero, I'm saying that if the armor weight wasn't trumped up to absurd degrees, most people could handle that equipment layout in real life.
Well here's a "chain shirt" from Kult of Athena which is fairly accurate (for the level of accurate D&D and Pathfinder go for). It weighs in at 20lbs if you've got a chest diameter of 44", so only 5 lbs under weight. If you add on the kind of padding you'd need to wear underneath it you're adding 5-6 lbs. So, that actually covers it quite nicely.
Not going to lie, finding the weights of a suit of "full plate" is damn hard but the breastplate that my friend owns and jousts in comes in at about 15 lbs and he's something of a tight a** when it comes to historical accuracy for his kit. With everything else that's listed as being part of a suit of full plate I think 50 lbs is either accurate or low balling it a bit.
As for wearing it under your shirt you can't. You just straight up cannot wear real mail armor under anything except a cloak or tabard. It's only possible with stuff like mithral because mithral isn't real. Yes you can get those chain mesh shirts but you can't make that stuff by hand without modern methods. Or magic, which brings us back to the whole not real thing. Honestly if you want something to complain about as far as weights in Pathfinder are concerned look at the weapons, those are crazy.
|
Keep in mind you're talking about a light load here.
Not all the gear that the character can carry.
All the gear that the character can carry without slowing down.
You put 30-40 lbs in a backpack and you can bet the average person will be jogging a little less heartily.
The weight estimates for some items are a bit off and ideally the system would count worn weight as less encumbering than weight in a pack (since the former is usually better distributed) but it's about as good as it can get without being prohibitively complicated. Even as-is many hand-wave it.
Min-Max refers to Minimum Loss, Maximum Gain - not dropping a score to the lowest so as to pump another higher.
That being said, your ability scores at 1st level with that character (before racials) is 15, 14, 14, 13, 10, 10; I would hardly put that in the territory of any sort of power gaming.
If min-maxing can refer to that stat array, when the 10s are placed in stats that a character uses less frequently, hasn't the term lost its meaning? Certainly it shouldn't be pejorative in that case. No one wants to play characters that are all 13s and 14s, and no one expects fighters to run around with higher mental than physical stats.
If min-maxing can refer to that stat array, when the 10s are placed in stats that a character uses less frequently, hasn't the term lost its meaning? Certainly it shouldn't be pejorative in that case. No one wants to play characters that are all 13s and 14s, and no one expects fighters to run around with higher mental than physical stats.
No, the term doesn't lose its meaning at all. Min-maxing doesn't necessarily produce an absolute set of outcomes - rather, it's a variety of strategies. You can maximize your maximum benefits, you can maximize your minimum benefits, you can minimize your maximum vulnerabilities, and so on. Is a PC min-maxing by setting his lesser needed stats at 10 while pumping his primary stats as high as he can? Yes, he darn well is. He's maximizing his maximum benefits by boosting his primary stats while also minimizing his maximum vulnerabilities by not buying his secondary stats into negative modifiers.
Whether or not it should be used pejoratively is up to the individual. This may be a milder form of min-maxing than others, but it still fits the meaning.
By that definition show me any character that isn't min-maxed. Because by that logic I can surely point my fingers at something that you min-ed...
By that definition show me any character that isn't min-maxed. Because by that logic I can surely point my fingers at something that you min-ed...
Does that surprise you?
|
You put 30-40 lbs in a backpack and you can bet the average person will be jogging a little less heartily.
The weight estimates for some items are a bit off and ideally the system would count worn weight as less encumbering than weight in a pack (since the former is usually better distributed) but it's about as good as it can get without being prohibitively complicated. Even as-is many hand-wave it.
Yes - that. For realism - armor/clothes should count less for encumbrance than what you're holding/hauling.
Back in college I wore a 40lb weight vest around campus - and it didn't really slow me down that much. (somewhat tiring after a full day - but that was the point) The backpack full of textbooks felt at least as heavy when I was hauling it though I knew that not to be true - because the vest was made to be relatively ergonomic. (It was also made so that it looked rather like kevlar - leading the cops to be called a couple times...)
Of course - is it worth the extra paperwork for the extra bit of realism? Probably not. I just split the difference and don't count clothing towards your weight. :P
Well my gaming group's rule is the armor you are wearing doesn't count for encumberence if you have the proficienty in it. Since that character would be so used to it. Ex: For fighter a plate armor is a second skin. To a wizard it's murder. Now dragging that second and third suit of Dwarven Stoneplate will certainly count.
|
|
By that definition show me any character that isn't min-maxed. Because by that logic I can surely point my fingers at something that you min-ed...Does that surprise you?
No, and that's the problem.
If our definition is so broad any character is min-maxed, then saying that a particular character is min-maxed is about as informative as saying that a particular person is a "food-eater." That is, not at all.
Which doesn't mean that you can't refer to an amount or type of min-maxing (crippling overspecialization, heavy stat dumping, etc) but just telling someone that they've min-maxed is only meaningful if min-maxing is something that not everyone does.
By that definition show me any character that isn't min-maxed. Because by that logic I can surely point my fingers at something that you min-ed...Does that surprise you?No, and that's the problem.
If our definition is so broad any character is min-maxed, then saying that a particular character is min-maxed is about as informative as saying that a particular person is a "food-eater." That is, not at all.
Which doesn't mean that you can't refer to an amount or type of min-maxing (crippling overspecialization, heavy stat dumping, etc) but just telling someone that they've min-maxed is only meaningful if min-maxing is something that not everyone does.
The term is not really a problem. Just spewing a label like "min-maxer" is the problem because it doesn't really inform anybody what's being minimized and what's being maximized. Ultimately, the same holds true for "optimized". Optimized for what?