Bulk is bad.


Doomsday Dawn Game Master Feedback

151 to 200 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
You do assign bulk by thinking of the weight and the awkwardness of carrying something, whether because of it's size, composition, or the needs of it being ready to grab and use.

Where have you seen the part about "the needs of it being ready to grab and use"? Can you indicate the exact page number and the exact citation?

Spoiler:
If we can reduce the bulk of item by making them not ready to grab, it reduce the problems of bulk. eg: alchemist don't need their kit to be ready to grab (a designer has already confirmed quick alchemy requires a kit somewhere in your backpack or your bag of holding, but doesn't requires you to actually use that kit), so we should reduce the bulk. Greystone's idea should work: put the loot at the bottom of your backpack, you don't need to grab that unidentified potion or that spellbook so their bulk is reduced.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Eh I think bulk has enough wrong with it without having to get creative at interpreting the rules.

We have to get creative and interpret the rules if we want our character to be able to carry anything else than his murderhobo's kit. Right now, no character can possibly carry 10 books, that's a problem if we want to play a scholar: hence the need for creativity.

Maybe if we separate books into several volumes, they are easier to handle? Maybe this is the reason why à la recherche du temps perdu is composed of 7 volumes: the whole saga weights 7 L instead of 1 B...


Gaterie wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
You do assign bulk by thinking of the weight and the awkwardness of carrying something, whether because of it's size, composition, or the needs of it being ready to grab and use.

Where have you seen the part about "the needs of it being ready to grab and use"? Can you indicate the exact page number and the exact citation?

** spoiler omitted **

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Eh I think bulk has enough wrong with it without having to get creative at interpreting the rules.

We have to get creative and interpret the rules if we want our character to be able to carry anything else than his murderhobo's kit. Right now, no character can possibly carry 10 books, that's a problem if we want to play a scholar: hence the need for creativity.

Maybe if we separate books into several volumes, they are easier to handle? Maybe this is the reason why à la recherche du temps perdu is composed of 7 volumes: the whole saga weights 7 L instead of 1 B...

I think you misunderstood what I was saying but that's fine. whatever. have fun.


Gaterie wrote:
Where have you seen the part about "the needs of it being ready to grab and use"? Can you indicate the exact page number and the exact citation?

Page 307, in the Interact action.

Specifically that it is one Interact action to grab a stored object, with no special exception to that general rule for situations like "it's the first thing I put in this sack, so I should have to take other stuff out first just to get to it" existing in the rules.

That makes it obvious the rules aren't trying to give us tetris-stacked storage spaces, but rather array characters with usable equipment and have them slow down if they array too much for their strength.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't see the citation on page 307 saying you assign bulk by thinking of [...] the needs of it being ready to grab and use.

So I ask again:

thenobledrake wrote:
You do assign bulk by thinking of the weight and the awkwardness of carrying something, whether because of it's size, composition, or the needs of it being ready to grab and use.

Where have you seen the part about "the needs of it being ready to grab and use"? Can you indicate the exact page number and the exact citation?

Why would anyone be slowed down because he can't grab a book he carries? Why do strength make the book easier to grab? I can't understand your logic. Please give the citation, not your own interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If bags and back packs do not do anything, can you carry 1000's of coints, kits, shields, armor rations bedroll, tent, without any of those containers?

Where are they 'put'?


I've cited the rules that lead to my interpretation, which is the best I can do. I won't answer the questions that the rules also don't answer, and my logic should be plain to see.

The rules don't care what order you put items in your pack, nor do they currently cover the intent to store something in a way that minimizes its bulk. Everything you stick in your pack is obviously set up in a ready-to-grab fashion because by the rules it only ever takes 1 interact action to retrieve that item (read: you don't have to move the bag of coins sitting on top of your spell book in order to get your spell book out of your pack, nor move the book to grab the handful of coins at the bottom of your bag).

larsenex wrote:
If bags and back packs do not do anything...

Bags do something. They provide space in which to carry items you otherwise wouldn't be able to carry.

It's not explicitly mentioned, but seems pretty clear to me, that a character is presumed not to be able to carry more things than can be worn on their body or strapped to their belt or the like without the involvement of containers. Such as not being able to carry more than a few pocket-fulls of coins without some kind of container to put them in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
I've cited the rules that lead to my interpretation, which is the best I can do. I won't answer the questions that the rules also don't answer, and my logic should be plain to see.

OK.

On p 168, the rules says the bulk doesn't represent the needs for your equipment to be ready to grab and use. On p 385, the rules indicate there's no reason an alchemist's potion is bulkier than a pint of oil, and it even says the authors should have changed that but they where too lazy.

Quote:
It's not explicitly mentioned, but seems pretty clear to me, that a character is presumed not to be able to carry more things than can be worn on their body or strapped to their belt or the like without the involvement of containers. Such as not being able to carry more than a few pocket-fulls of coins without some kind of container to put them in.

On p 8, it's stated you're wrong: characters don't need containers to carry bulk.

Anyway, let's assume you're right: my alchemist has 16 Str, he can carry 8 bulk... Except no! there's a super-secret-special clause saying he can carry only 4 Bulk. Now I have to dive into useless items to find some containers for my other 4 bulks. Sounds so much fun. Or maybe he can wear 2 backpack?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obviously everyone wears a backpack, satchel, half filled sack on their belt, three or four belt pouches for their backup shields and pours their elixirs into a waterskin. I'm not sure if you can do that last one.


So, Gaterie... the point of your post was what?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
So, Gaterie... the point of your post was what?

Your interpretations are explicitly contradicted by the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My party loves bulk. Lot's less to keep track of and I actually have them asking what bulk is this new item they picked up instead of groaning when I even mention encumbrance...


Gaterie wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
So, Gaterie... the point of your post was what?

Your interpretations are explicitly contradicted by the rules.

No they are not.

In fact, re-reading the section on carrying items, strict rules-as-written you are generally only allowed to carry items in your hands because page 174 says "A character typically has two hands, allowing her to hold an item in each hand or a single two-handed item using both hands" and items that say you can wear them create special exception to that rule, so my interpretations are supported by the rules, not just by my intuition of what the rules were meaning to convey.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
So, Gaterie... the point of your post was what?

Your interpretations are explicitly contradicted by the rules.

No they are not.

Yes they are. I've even indicated where the rules contradict you.


Gaterie wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
So, Gaterie... the point of your post was what?

Your interpretations are explicitly contradicted by the rules.

No they are not.
Yes they are. I've even indicated where the rules contradict you.

You have indicated page 168 (that's in the section of feats, from Legendary Medic to Magical shorthand), and page 8 (which covers Activities, format of rules elements, and some information about die rolls). You have then blatantly lied about what those pages say.

You are being a troll, and have shown zero places in which the rules contradict my interpretation of how they are intended to operate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
So, Gaterie... the point of your post was what?

Your interpretations are explicitly contradicted by the rules.

No they are not.
Yes they are. I've even indicated where the rules contradict you.
You have indicated page 168 (that's in the section of feats, from Legendary Medic to Magical shorthand), and page 8 (which covers Activities, format of rules elements, and some information about die rolls). You have then blatantly lied about what those pages say.

it's in the Legendary Climber feat, and in the rolling 20 is better section. You should re-read.

I've cited the rules that lead to my interpretation, which is the best I can do. I won't answer the questions that the rules also don't answer, and my logic should be plain to see.

Quote:
You are being a troll, and have shown zero places in which the rules contradict my interpretation of how they are intended to operate.

... Says the guy who's using the interact rule to support his random claims about bulk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules don't say that you can breathe, so every new character created only has a few minutes to live.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
The rules don't say that you can breathe, so every new character created only has a few minutes to live.

Should breath be an action? Maybe characters should be fatigued if they walk and breath during 10 minutes...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really though I'd be able to avoid the absurdity of the bulk system during actual play. But after deciding that I needed to drop my whip so I could pickup 500feet of silk rope, I've realized its just always going to be there.

I'm not following the current argument and don't have much to say about it. Carry on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

I really though I'd be able to avoid the absurdity of the bulk system during actual play. But after deciding that I needed to drop my whip so I could pickup 500feet of silk rope, I've realized its just always going to be there.

I'm not following the current argument and don't have much to say about it. Carry on.

This is a real issue - the bulk of some items doesn't make sense in practice, and should be re-evaluated. The system works overall, but needs some refinement.

In this specific case, I find the problem to be that silk rope has been given light bulk. The weight difference between silk and hemp is not so much as to justify that difference when both need similar storage space.

And that also intersects strangely with the current belt pouch rules which are lacking important details about physical dimensions allowed, so it looks like the game is fine with 200 feet of rope being stuffed into a single pouch so long as the rope is silk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While you could make it work (maybe), the system would become so complex that it would defeat the intent (make Encumbrance tracking easier).
I still posit that even today, tracking bulk is more complicated than tracking weight, what with the strange: ten - bulk becomes L, ten L becomes 1B, but we don't Count them until they reach ten rule.
So in order to usefully track bulk I have to go to two Digits down, which I never did with Pounds.
And now I need to come up with bulk values in my head ON TOP of reasoning with my players how much they can carry realistically.

And that same work is now on Paizo for every Expansion/Scenario/Module ever after. I don't see any benefit to Scenario writers needing to go through the "Bulk guessing game" for every object intended to be handled or carried vs assigning a weight.

Now I do accept the argument that some players may discuss less about "Bulk" than pounds. I just posit that in my group, People would discuss as much and more about made up bulk values. And without any reliable Frame of reference, it will come down to "I am the GM", which is not a nice way to end a discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a bit silly that they gave us - L 1 2 3. I just turned it all into .01 .1 1 2 3 anyway so I could actually add it up. They could bump it up so I wouldn't need the decimals, but 1, 10, 100, 200, 300 probably calls too much attention to the system itself.

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I GM almost exclusively and don't really care how much stuff my players are carrying (unless they start hauling off statues or using each other as mounts). And hadn't seen anyone even really try to use it from 2nd Edition AD&D through PFRPG.

But I've seen new and old players alike figure out and apply bulk unprompted in Starfinder and the playtest. Which is kind of funny because I still don't really care, but it's clearly works far better for their subset of players.

And I can see that. I don't weigh things in my daily life, so pounds are no more a meaningful physical amount than bulk is. And I couldn't guess how many pounds I could comfortably carry, but I can tell you how many bulk a Strength 10 character could carry without being encumbered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bulk works. Its not too punitive or generous. Its easy to track. Dunno, seems fine to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Stop the hyperbole. If you're running into bulk problems get a bag of holding or bump your strength a little.

You fight 3 bandits on the way to the dungeon. They each have a short sword, hide armor, and 2 javelins. That's 15 B of loot.

You now have to turn around and go back to town to go sell your loot because everyone is now at their max load, overencumbered, or can only carry 2 more things before becoming so.

Unless you have a packmule (possibly multiple), someone who doesn't mind losing 10 feet of movement (and a decent str), a dwarf who doesn't mind losing 5 feet of movement (so not wearing medium or heavy armor), or a bunch of str based monks, there is no reasonable way to store loot before getting access to bags of holding. Which is unobtainable until level 3-4 (probably not 3 as weapons and armor will be the priority).

In 3.5E, I played ranger that burried/hide loot caches from defeated foes.

We returned after we have cleared the whole area with pack mules.

If you cannot carry all loot just take the best in weight/price category.

On topic. Yes, I would like better to have weight in kg/lb and not some "bult" imaginary value.


thenobledrake wrote:
And that also intersects strangely with the current belt pouch rules which are lacking important details about physical dimensions allowed, so it looks like the game is fine with 200 feet of rope being stuffed into a single pouch so long as the rope is silk.

The system is fine with a ladder or a chest stored in your backpack. I guess it's even possible to store a ladder in a chest stored in your backpack - or a ladder in a sack in a belt pouch, or a ladder in a chest in a sack in a belt pouch.

I don't think anyone really cares about what the bulk rule says - be it among the designers or among the people using bulk.


Gaterie wrote:
I don't think anyone really cares about what the bulk rule says - be it among the designers or among the people using bulk.

Uh... the very thread you have posted this statement in seems to be evidence suggesting that your statement is incorrect. At least, unless you meant "I don't think anyone really cares about what the bulk rule says" as in "I don't think anyone else (meaning other than this drake) really cares about facts because they can just believe the rules say whatever they want to believe they say"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The system places specific restrictions on putting objects too large for the dimensions of an object inside that object. It doesn't attempt to check combined volume of objects, but it does restrict you from placing a ladder into a chest. Other objects with less certain dimensions are also a bit complicated, but a ladder has a specific inflexible length.

Bulk has plenty of inconsistencies that make it rather silly, there's no need to invent new ones.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ladders used weight in PF1e. There was nothing that said you couldn't tuck your ladder into your boots like a hidden dagger in PF1e.

There are some fair criticisms at the bulk system, and I understand some people do not like the level of abstraction it utilizes. But let's not get ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, sorry. I though bulk was representing both weight and the size of the item.

Obviously, it doesn't. It's only an abstract weight, in an abstract unit system, using 3 digits and random values.

Spoiler:
I propose the following definition for 1 bulk: the heaviest item carried by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit in Danzig during winter 1708/09.


Bulk is meant to provide a measurement of both weight and volume, but these two units are not fungible at all, and so bulk ends up being a poor representation of both. I would say bring back weight and make bulk represent volume only.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don’t think it’s meant to be a measurement. Certainly not at the individual item level. It’s an abstract system that means as you hold lots of stuff you get encumbered.

We find it works fine at that “global” level. It’s poor at consistently answering questions about carrying ladders and armfuls of swords but that kind of thing doesn’t really matter at our table. We just want the wizard to slow down if they carry lots and the barbarian to not really care about how much equipment they have.

It seems to me that whether you like bulk or not depends on what you want to use it for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's poor at consistently answering any questions of comparative value. That's a pretty serious flaw for a system of values.


Steve Geddes wrote:
It seems to me that whether you like bulk or not depends on what you want to use it for.

I want a simple encumbrance system. Not an accountancy system where i have to take into account 1/100 bulk because carrying more arrows than my character can count is badwrongfun.

Obviously Bulk can't deliver this. I'm still struggling to understand what it actually delivers.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I don’t think it’s meant to be a measurement. Certainly not at the individual item level. It’s an abstract system that means as you hold lots of stuff you get encumbered.

We find it works fine at that “global” level. It’s poor at consistently answering questions about carrying ladders and armfuls of swords but that kind of thing doesn’t really matter at our table. We just want the wizard to slow down if they carry lots and the barbarian to not really care about how much equipment they have.

It seems to me that whether you like bulk or not depends on what you want to use it for.

It works terribly at a global level. The only thing it works well for is people who find it easier to grab a low, single digit number for items, instead of ball-parking a weight in pounds.

When a system allows me to carry either 10 short swords or 1 longsword in the same unit of measurement, it doesn't work. This is a text version of the Diablo item grid, but more nonsensical.

For my purposes it's far too restrictive and inconsistent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
It's poor at consistently answering any questions of comparative value. That's a pretty serious flaw for a system of values.

This kind of gets at what I mean, I don’t think it is a system of values (Ls don’t add incrementally, there’s no fractional items, etcetera). I think it’s simply an algorithm for determining PC penalties. Each item is ascribed a value, but the categories are broad - two items in the same category might be quite different in the real world as the decision of L or 1 can be close (and has far reaching consequences).

Most PCs at our table will be encumbered or unencumbered under each system. That’s the only question we ask, so the two systems are equally good at answering it. We don’t ever compare the differences between carrying armfuls of swords and cases of wine (or similar issues that people are experiencing - we don’t divide up a 1 bulk item amongst multiple people).

This seems to me to be a discussion between people with fundamentally different goals/desires for an encumbrance system - it seems like there are (at least) two quite different uses of encumbrance, so it’s not surprising objections/strengths of one group are irrelevant (or impossible to see) to the other.


Demonskunk wrote:
It works terribly at a global level.

I think that comes down to whether you run things in such a way that "I'm carrying 10 short swords" type of scenarios come up, or you run things in such a way that they don't.

Because I'm finding the same thing that Steve is, it works just fine at doing what it is meant to do (limit how much stuff characters can carry while not having to deal with much math, and keep the limit low enough that characters can't easily carry everything they need while both neglecting strength and not suffering encumbrance penalties).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Demonskunk wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I don’t think it’s meant to be a measurement. Certainly not at the individual item level. It’s an abstract system that means as you hold lots of stuff you get encumbered.

We find it works fine at that “global” level. It’s poor at consistently answering questions about carrying ladders and armfuls of swords but that kind of thing doesn’t really matter at our table. We just want the wizard to slow down if they carry lots and the barbarian to not really care about how much equipment they have.

It seems to me that whether you like bulk or not depends on what you want to use it for.

It works terribly at a global level. The only thing it works well for is people who find it easier to grab a low, single digit number for items, instead of ball-parking a weight in pounds.

When a system allows me to carry either 10 short swords or 1 longsword in the same unit of measurement, it doesn't work. This is a text version of the Diablo item grid, but more nonsensical.

For my purposes it's far too restrictive and inconsistent.

My use of “global” was probably poorly chosen. “Coarse” would perhaps have been better. I meant we find it works fine for answering questions like “what’s your speed?”

We don’t look at encumbrance in any other context, so the peculiarities of dividing up bundles of short swords wouldn’t come up.


I have to admit, there's really no way I'm going to understand tolerance of a system that is arbitrary in its relationship to the game world, as well as being inconsistent internally. All it really ends up doing is changing the answers to questions regarding what level my players will buy a cart and mule, and how many potions they'll be carrying; changing both those answers in a way that can't be explained in narrative.

But it sounds like you don't need much in the way of rules for inventory management. What is it that bulk is doing that weight didn't?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
What is it that bulk is doing that weight didn't?

For my group, making the players feel like tracking encumbrance rather than house-ruling it out of the game (or by other means acting to ignore it).


What is bulk doing to elicit that response though?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
But it sounds like you don't need much in the way of rules for inventory management. What is it that bulk is doing that weight didn't?

I don’t really know. Personally, I don’t use encumbrance rules as a DM, I just say “don’t carry too much, pay attention to your strength in deciding what that means”.

The DMs in my group that want to track encumbrance prefer bulk. They are also definitely faster in coming up with bulk ratings than weights, so I’m glad they do. My main reason for eschewing encumbrance systems over the years has been the lost time discussing how much a one foot tall, gold idol weighs, or a pile of gems, or whether we can carry a bunch of tapestries.

My guess is that, due to its abstract nature, people are happy to accept a number different from their own intuitions (or feel more comfortable guessing, if they are asked a question as DM). It makes the game go quicker for us and given it generally gives roughly the same answers as weight (to the question of how fast a PC moves) there’s no real loss - the precision of weight doesn’t affect gameplay at all, as far as I can see.

151 to 200 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Playtest Feedback / Doomsday Dawn Game Master Feedback / Bulk is bad. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.