A belt pouch can hold 4 L, yes, but it takes a set of ten sling bullets to be 1 L, so you can stuff 40 bullets in your pouch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Torches took a nose dive in size, too - you could stick 40 torches in a belt pouch!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you can put in 4 javelins... or 4 light shields, or 4 star knives, or 4 sawtooth sabres... or an infinite number of shurikens. Or 4 bedrolls, or 200' of silk rope...
Though you can only manage to wedge in 4 slings OR 40 sling bullets. :P
Or you can put in 4 javelins... or 4 light shields, or 4 star knives, or 4 sawtooth sabres... or an infinite number of shurikens. Or 4 bedrolls, or 200' of silk rope...
Though you can only manage to wedge in 4 slings OR 40 sling bullets. :P
I think Slings should be -, aren't they just like some leather strap? Extremely light and wieldy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Slings should be -, aren't they just like some leather strap? Extremely light and wieldy.Or you can put in 4 javelins... or 4 light shields, or 4 star knives, or 4 sawtooth sabres... or an infinite number of shurikens. Or 4 bedrolls, or 200' of silk rope...
Though you can only manage to wedge in 4 slings OR 40 sling bullets. :P
They SHOULD be but aren't. They are as unwieldy to carry and store as a light steel shield, a 3' spear or a pup tent. SO 50' of silk rope is as easy to hold as a sling...
Yes, 4 slings fills up a pouch but 30 arrows in it still has room left over. Boy do I love Bulk. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you can put in 4 javelins... or 4 light shields, or 4 star knives, or 4 sawtooth sabres... or an infinite number of shurikens. Or 4 bedrolls, or 200' of silk rope...
Though you can only manage to wedge in 4 slings OR 40 sling bullets. :P
You're being deliberately obtuse, graystone, or else you just haven't bothered to read the Bulk rules.
Bulk
This measures how heavy and cumbersome the item is to carry. Containers can hold the listed amount of bulk, but some items might not fit due to their dimensions. See page 174 for more information regarding Bulk.
No javelins in a belt pouch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you can put in 4 javelins... or 4 light shields, or 4 star knives, or 4 sawtooth sabres... or an infinite number of shurikens. Or 4 bedrolls, or 200' of silk rope...
Though you can only manage to wedge in 4 slings OR 40 sling bullets. :P
You're being deliberately obtuse, graystone, or else you just haven't bothered to read the Bulk rules.
No javelins in a belt pouch.Bulk
This measures how heavy and cumbersome the item is to carry. Containers can hold the listed amount of bulk, but some items might not fit due to their dimensions. See page 174 for more information regarding Bulk.
Why? Have we been given the dimensions of either item? No. As such, that statement is 100% useless. Secondly, the ENTIRE point of bulk was to take all those factors of unwieldiness and weight and make it easier. If it can't do that...
As such, for the playtest you sure CAN put those spears, or bedrolls or shield or other items in there. A DM fiat statement doesn't change that. Nothing in the actual rules prevents it in a meaningful way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you can put in 4 javelins... or 4 light shields, or 4 star knives, or 4 sawtooth sabres... or an infinite number of shurikens. Or 4 bedrolls, or 200' of silk rope...
Though you can only manage to wedge in 4 slings OR 40 sling bullets. :P
You're being deliberately obtuse, graystone, or else you just haven't bothered to read the Bulk rules.
No javelins in a belt pouch.Bulk
This measures how heavy and cumbersome the item is to carry. Containers can hold the listed amount of bulk, but some items might not fit due to their dimensions. See page 174 for more information regarding Bulk.Why? Have we been given the dimensions of either item? No. As such, that statement is 100% useless. Secondly, the ENTIRE point of bulk was to take all those factors of unwieldiness and weight and make it easier. If it can't do that...
As such, for the playtest you sure CAN put those spears, or bedrolls or shield or other items in there. A DM fiat statement doesn't change that. Nothing in the actual rules prevents it in a meaningful way.
Do you really need a rule to tell you to use common sense? You know darn well a javelin is really long and thin and a belt pouch isn't. Deliberate obtuseness it is.
But fine---I'll go post "the rules never say to use common sense" in my favorite errata thread for the devs to pick up on eventually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with common sense is that it is neither common or entirely sensible. Having a few foreign friends I can tell you it can be very different in different areas, and in a large country it can differ across provinces. Best not to count on it.
See how many of your differing-common-sense foreign friends think a javelin might fit in a belt pouch.
The problem with common sense is that it is neither common or entirely sensible. Having a few foreign friends I can tell you it can be very different in different areas, and in a large country it can differ across provinces. Best not to count on it.Literally at the top of my Clarifications and Houserules document:
• I will accept mechanically rigid solutions and creative solutions. Players will be informed of any changes to what is considered mechanically rigid, but should be aware that repeated use will make a solution less creative.
• Common sense is too vaguely defined to be mechanically rigid and is most certainly not creative.So I guess I would accept the javelins in the belt pouch.
Did you let dead creatures take actions in PF1? Because the dead condition famously doesn't say they can't, only common sense does.
A quick Google search tells me that javelins are at least 2 meters long, so unless the word Javelin means something completely different in PF2 I think it's safe to say a belt pouch won't be holding that. Unless we're meant to assume that it is different since it isn't strictly defined, in which case I would like to point out that PF2 also doesn't define numbers and therefore the whole game is broken.
The Dead condition also doesn't remove the dying condition, which applies the unconscious condition, which prevents actions.Did you let dead creatures take actions in PF1? Because the dead condition famously doesn't say they can't, only common sense does.The problem with common sense is that it is neither common or entirely sensible. Having a few foreign friends I can tell you it can be very different in different areas, and in a large country it can differ across provinces. Best not to count on it.Literally at the top of my Clarifications and Houserules document:
• I will accept mechanically rigid solutions and creative solutions. Players will be informed of any changes to what is considered mechanically rigid, but should be aware that repeated use will make a solution less creative.
• Common sense is too vaguely defined to be mechanically rigid and is most certainly not creative.So I guess I would accept the javelins in the belt pouch.
So if I go from conscious to dead in one stroke without passing through dying (which is quite possible), then I can still take actions at your table? Cool! I'll start by pulling javelins out of my belt pouch and throwing them at the guy who killed me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if I go from conscious to dead in one stroke without passing through dying (which is quite possible), then I can still take actions at your table? Cool! I'll start by pulling javelins out of my belt pouch and throwing them at the guy who killed me.The Dead condition also doesn't remove the dying condition, which applies the unconscious condition, which prevents actions.Did you let dead creatures take actions in PF1? Because the dead condition famously doesn't say they can't, only common sense does.The problem with common sense is that it is neither common or entirely sensible. Having a few foreign friends I can tell you it can be very different in different areas, and in a large country it can differ across provinces. Best not to count on it.Literally at the top of my Clarifications and Houserules document:
• I will accept mechanically rigid solutions and creative solutions. Players will be informed of any changes to what is considered mechanically rigid, but should be aware that repeated use will make a solution less creative.
• Common sense is too vaguely defined to be mechanically rigid and is most certainly not creative.So I guess I would accept the javelins in the belt pouch.
Chickens don't need heads, why not?
The dying condition defines you as unconscious, and unconscious sets a bound.
Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.
If I'm at less than -Con I can't be unconscious and therefore can't be dying. I'm just dead. Oh, or I could just be killed w/o HP damage, as mentioned here twice:
Dead: The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
Good catch, Sideromancer! That takes care of the "Con 0" and "death effect" cases. However, I can still go from positive to massively negative HP in one blow, in which case I am not dying at any point, just dead.
Obligatory on-topic reference: Perhaps because someone threw a whole belt pouch full of javelins at me.
A quick Google search tells me that javelins are at least 2 meters long, so unless the word Javelin means something completely different in PF2 I think it's safe to say a belt pouch won't be holding that.
It's odd how so many anti-Bulk people love to cite the fact that with weight (as opposed to Bulk) they can just use Google to find what they don't know, but whose leet Google skillz apparently don't extend to figuring out size.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A quick Google search tells me that javelins are at least 2 meters long
For modern ones yes. For older ones used in combat, you're looking at 2-3 feet to 6-7 feet for heavy ones. The thing is we have neither a defined size for either item as BULK is meant to fill in both. I have NO idea what size the new pathfinder javelin is.
For instance, if they go to the low end, we're into upper dagger ranges. Can a dagger fit in a pouch?
Do you really need a rule to tell you to use common sense?
We're talking pathfinder common sense. Where square cube law is thrown out so gargantuan bugs and dragons can fly and you can cannon ball 50,000' onto solid rock, brush yourself off and try again.
Now add to that that things now are measured in an undefined system of undefined dimension, weight and other unknowable factors. I have only a vague idea of weight ranges and no way to estimate the other factors. If the game is going to 'dumb down' the measurements, this is what happens.
Let me ask you this. If the game comes out with a custom item and only gives bulk type measurements, how do you rule if it fits in that pouch? Say a Gimblement is made that is a d4 simple weapon that's Light: how many fit in that pouch? If you can't tell that, your saying a javelin can't fit looks pretty suspect.
A quick Google search tells me that javelins are at least 2 meters longFor modern ones yes. For older ones used in combat, you're looking at 2-3 feet to 6-7 feet for heavy ones. The thing is we have neither a defined size for either item as BULK is meant to fill in both. I have NO idea what size the new pathfinder javelin is.
For instance, if they go to the low end, we're into upper dagger ranges. Can a dagger fit in a pouch?
Do you really need a rule to tell you to use common sense?We're talking pathfinder common sense. Where square cube law is thrown out so gargantuan bugs and dragons can fly and you can cannon ball 50,000' onto solid rock, brush yourself off and try again.
Now add to that that things now are measured in an undefined system of undefined dimension, weight and other unknowable factors. I have only a vague idea of weight ranges and no way to estimate the other factors. If the game is going to 'dumb down' the measurements, this is what happens.
Let me ask you this. If the game comes out with a custom item and only gives bulk type measurements, how do you rule if it fits in that pouch? Say a Gimblement is made that is a d4 simple weapon that's Light: how many fit in that pouch? If you can't tell that, your saying a javelin can't fit looks pretty suspect.
How does my inability to look up a nonexistent item on google make my ability to look up real things suspect?
I think we've all forgotten that the dimensions of the belt pouch have not been defined, and as such, are up to the players. Mine is a sphere 2 meters in diameter, easily capable of storing four javelins or light shields.
How does my inability to look up a nonexistent item on google make my ability to look up real things suspect?
Well to start you didn't look up the javelin as you agreed with LuniasM that they default to 2 meters... So you didn't google them. Just clicking the generic wiki page will show you javelins that aren't 2 meters.
Secondly, we have TWO items that aren't defined by ANYTHING other than bulk: belt pouches and javelins.
Now if you ACTUALLY google the items and see that they have a range of sizes, you can see it isn't as clear cut as you try to make it seem. You can't tell me what actually CAN fit in the pouches in the equipment list and that's the issue. If you start saying 'but THAT isn't going to fit', then what does? Our ONLY indicator is bulk...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've all forgotten that the dimensions of the belt pouch have not been defined, and as such, are up to the players.
IMO, it should be defined by the game: if not, it's a debate on any item. Let's take a smaller item. Does a knife fit in? A dagger? A bolt? If the pouch is 9"x6"x4" all of these can be over those. The javelin is just the item that illustrates point best, but just about any item that is listed as Light is questionable.
The players isn't crazy to think their shield fits in the pouch when the game tells them that 4 should fit in it.
A quick Google search tells me that javelins are at least 2 meters longFor modern ones yes. For older ones used in combat, you're looking at 2-3 feet to 6-7 feet for heavy ones. The thing is we have neither a defined size for either item as BULK is meant to fill in both. I have NO idea what size the new pathfinder javelin is.
For instance, if they go to the low end, we're into upper dagger ranges. Can a dagger fit in a pouch?
Bulk does not claim to clearly define an item's size.
The Bulk value of an item reflects how difficult an item is to handle, representing both weight and the size of the item.
Bulk is a rough representation of how easily an item is carried, which is determined by its weight and size - it is neither an exact representation of weight or size alone. That's why the Bo Staff has the same bulk as a set of cookware despite being pretty lightweight.
Also, I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that PF1 never clearly defined the size of the majority of its items either. If we're really deriding PF2's Bulk for not wasting page space defining the dimensions of every single item in the game then PF1's Weight system deserves just as much derision.