| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Encumbrance is something that has bothered me, both as a GM and a player, for some time now. The encumbrance system is just completely off. It doesn’t even mimic fantasy well. I don’t like how a movement rate / encumbrance is tied specifically to a suit of armor. A suit of Full Plate armor is about 65 lbs on average. That weight is evenly distributed across your entire body with straps & buckles, etc. That’s heavy, sure, but *it’s made to be used in combat,* and fitted for its wearer. Now let’s apply that suit of armor to our heroic 3.5 Ed Fighter with that 18 Str and we have a little common sense problem. According to the rules, a light load for our hero, let’s call him Joe, is 100 lbs. Impressive. Joe is an incredibly strong human being (or dwarf, or whatever). And yet, in his plate armor, Joe’s base movement rate is 20, and his run is just x3 that. At first glance, that looks fine. But what happens when Joe is unarmored, but picks up his armor (in a large sack or something) and carries it over his back? Well, the answer is, according to 3.5 ed rules, is that Joe has no movement restrictions whatsoever. He can walk 30' as a standard move action, and can run x4 that.
That's stunningly counter-intuitive.
So I’ve come up with the following house rules
1) Ignore the Speed Rules listed under Table 7-6: Armor & Shields on page 123 of the PHB (3.5, naturally).
2) Use Table 9-1 (pg. 162): Carrying Capacity for ALL ENCUMBERANCE instead. Just add up the weights and you’re done.
3) If your character’s total weight carried indicates a LIGHT LOAD, then your character suffers no movement penalty whatsoever.
4) A MEDIUM LOAD doesn’t lower your BASE MOVEMENT RATE!
5) INSTEAD, a MEDIUM LOAD lowers your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT to x3!! Unless you’re a dwarf, then you can still RUN with a heavy pack.
6) The rules for HEAVY LOADS remain unchanged. (You suffer both penalties, i.e. your BASE MOVEMENT RATE is reduced to 20, and your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT is only 60.)
Why 3-6? Because carrying a *fairly* heavy weight, like I often did when I was a FedEx Courier, doesn’t slow down the rate you can walk at, only how long you can carry said weight. What you can’t do while carrying, say 45 lbs, is RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!! Wearing a suit of chain mail isn’t going to affect how fast *you can walk!* But, what it does affect is how fast you can run!
Any thoughts?
Honestly, i foresee no balance problems from making that change. Admittedly, it does nothing to help fix any existing balance problems either. So I don't mind tossing a bone to the simulationist players out there at all.
When realism -> fun++ and doesn't impact balance significantly, I see no reason not to do it.
Thank you, and I'm not a simulationist either! I just don't think rules should completely counter common sense or experience.
I don't know what good it's going to do, though, as you are the only person to have replied to this thread.
Sigh . . . ;^}
I'd like to point out one minor detail regarding the original example of wearing full plate versus carrying it. Encumbrance from weight and armor represent two different causes with similar effects. Movement penalties from armor are less about the weight of the armor and more about how it sits and restricts the character's ability to move within the armor, while penalties from weight are more about the load slowing you down directly. So while it might seem odd to you that carrying full plate is less restrictive than wearing it, it makes some level of sense from a realism point of view. Just my two cents, though. Carry on.
But that's just it! Armor, *especially* plate armor, just *does NOT* restrict your movement that much. What good would it be if it did? King Edward (the Longshanks) used to do summersaults on the back of his horse! William Marshall used to give pull-up demonstrations (while wearing his armor, mind you ;^)!
Aside from that, I respectively disagree with your interpretation, in that it is not easier to carry is single, heavy weight than it is to have an equal weight equally distributed about your entire body. In your suit of plate armor, good sir knight, you do not need to alter your posture to carry your harness, and you walk with your head held high. But stow your harness, good sir, and you will not be able to carry it without altering your posture. If you carry it upon your back, you must lean forward, placing more pressure on your lower back. If you carry it in your arms, across your breast, and you must lean backward, placing more pressure on your mid-back, shoulders and neck. If you carry the load over one shoulder, you must lean away from the weight to balance it over your spine, placing pressure on the same-side oblique, and opposite side lower back. Being a stout and hardy knight, you can grasp the weight and hold it with but a single arm! But even you cannot hold aloft nearly five stone in weight single-handed for very long.
On a related, personal note, I used do a lot of day hikes every other Sunday with some buddies of mine, the Hillside Stragglers. Anyway, it was sort of my thing to find a cool-looking stone on every hike & take it home with me & add it my "collection."
This one time, I found a large, yellow stone with a quartz or feldspar steak through it. I wanted it, and my fellow Hillside Stragglers laughed me for wanting it. "It was too heavy," they said. Insulted, I set out to prove them wrong. I'm a big, strapping man, it was less weight than I curl with, and we were nearly done with the hike - only three miles left to go! "No problem," I said.
Well . . . it got to be *a problem* - in double-quick, too! I hefted that damned rock in every conceiveable way: either hand, both hands, held high, held low, like a football, behind my back, under my buttocks, on top of my fool head, until I couldn't take it anymore! Damnit! I'm an old man! In the end, I was only able to lug that thing about 2 miles!
The moral: awkward weights are, er . . . well awkward. ;^D
My good friend, Dave, the Hillside Stragglers resident outdoorsman (for a geek, mind you), took pity on me, and carried it the remaining mile. What a dude! "You're welcome," he said; "and I'll never do that again, by the way" he added.
That stone, which is still in my front yard, weighs a mere 22 lbs.
Sounds like a good change to me, I don't see why not.
I'd like to say, from SCA experience wearing everything from chainmail to full plate, that short of expanded crap like Dwarven Mountain Plate, I agree with the OP. Full plate gives you plenty of flexibility, you can walk or even jog with only minimal effort beyond the norm. Running...thats a bit more awkward, but mostly because of the armor having a tendency to dig into sensitive spots at the peak of the movement, which is then multiplied by the frequent repetition of said movement. Short version = armor chafes, and it chafes faster when you exert yourself, aka running or combat.
ON A RELATED BUT DIFFERENT NOTE
I've always wondered why armor, especially the heavier ones, didn't impose the armor check penalty on listen and spot checks? I mean, the fighter needs a bone thrown, and giving him one more ding isn't helping, but realistically, your wearing the metal version of a bag with holes cut out on your head. How in the name of somebody important are you supposed to maintain the same level of both visual and audial acuity that you do when the METAL PAPER BAG isn't on your head?
Peripheral vision (spot checks) is almost completely compromised by a good (hard to stab you through) helm. There usually aren't even ANY holes for the ears, the most advanced helms had small grates like a noodle strainer. Cut some holes in a bucket, put it on your head, put noodle strainers over your ears, and after you get out of the psych ward, you'll agree that you suffered penalties to spot and listen.
Glad to have your agreement & input.
Black Bard,
Yeah, I've known several of you SCA nuts, and have watched you guys "train." Nothing appears to limit your ability throw rap blows with blinding speed - except the desire not to take another kidney shot yourself . . . ;^b
Let's keep this thread in the fore! I've been wanting this rule to change for 25 years!
This is an *awesome* idea! Other gamers ought to post how much they agree with it! ;^)
I am no specialist for this, but I always wondered why an armor should reduce the wearers movement or max. DEX AT ALL?
I see it like this: If he is strong enough, the armor should be like an additional skin.
The only think armor could impose is a penalty to things all DEX checks, because most are bulky and don't make things like tumble or legerdemain any easier (so maybe an additional AC-Penalty).
Therefore I would just use (a slightly modified) encumbrance table and just use the (quite high) weight of the armor (like any other gear).
I am no specialist for this, but I always wondered why an armor should reduce the wearers movement or max. DEX AT ALL?
I see it like this: If he is strong enough, the armor should be like an additional skin.
The only think armor could impose is a penalty to things all DEX checks, because most are bulky and don't make things like tumble or legerdemain any easier (so maybe an additional AC-Penalty).
Therefore I would just use (a slightly modified) encumbrance table and just use the (quite high) weight of the armor (like any other gear).
I completely agree with you. I think max dex should be changed to a AC dex minus if you surpass the current dex limitations.
What do you think of this? Maybe not a rules change but definatlly feat worthy.
Light armor takes a -1 to the bonus; medium takes a -2, and heavy takes a minus -3.
Example:
Light: A fighter has padded armor, they have currently a Dex modifier bonus of 12! With this rule in effect they will have an 11 dex bonus total.
Medium: A fighter has on breastplate armor, and currently has a Dex modifier bonus of 11. With this rule in effect they have a 9 bonus total.
Heavy: A fighter has on full plate armor, and currently has a Dex modifier bonus of 10. With this rule in effect they have a 7 bonus total.
What do you think?
I am no specialist for this, but I always wondered why an armor should reduce the wearers movement or max. DEX AT ALL?
I see it like this: If he is strong enough, the armor should be like an additional skin.
The only think armor could impose is a penalty to things all DEX checks, because most are bulky and don't make things like tumble or legerdemain any easier (so maybe an additional AC-Penalty).
Therefore I would just use (a slightly modified) encumbrance table and just use the (quite high) weight of the armor (like any other gear).
I completely agree with you. I think max dex should be changed to a AC dex minus if you surpass the current dex limitations.
What do you think of this? Maybe not a rules change but definatlly feat worthy.
Light armor takes no minus to the bonus; medium takes a -1, and heavy takes a minus -2.
Example:
Light: A fighter has padded armor, they have currently a Dex modifier bonus of 12! With this rule in effect they will have an 12 dex bonus total.
Medium: A fighter has on breastplate armor, and currently has a Dex modifier bonus of 11. With this rule in effect they have a 10 bonus total. A fighter with a dex modifier bonu of 4 would still get a bonus of 3.
Heavy: A fighter has on full plate armor, and currently has a Dex modifier bonus of 10. With this rule in effect they have a 8 bonus total.
What do you think?
Well I must admit you lost me after your first sentence. Sorry.
My point was to give armors just 3 stats: AC-bonus, AC-penalty, weight.
Than you will use the encumbrance table to look up your movement reduction (if or how ever).
Encumbrane will reduce your movement AND will impose a (encumbrance-) penalty to all DEX-based skill and ability checks (no more messing around with max DEX nonsense).
IMPORTANT: The AC-penalty will act LIKE and IN ADDITION to the encumbrance penalty!
So a strong fighter who is only lightly encumbered with his... plate mail, will ONLY suffer the AC-penalty (= a penalty to all DEX-skill/ability checks) from his armor.
Meaning, he is strong enough to not be hindered by his armor.
If the fighter would be weak and therefore heavy encumbered he would suffer the reduced movement rate AND an ADDITIONAL penalty to his DEX skill/ability checks.
ONLY CONSIDERATION:
imposing the same penalty to attack rolls?
The correct url is http://shtar.pbwiki.com/Armor
Egad, I think imposing a -7 Dex on someone for wearing plate armor is an excellent mechanic - **only** to discourage players from wearing armor of *any kind.*
I don't really have a problem with the armor check penalties, as is, in general. If I were to gripe, I'd point out that chainmail is more cumbersome & less manueverable than plate armor - on top of providing inferior protection, but that has never bothered me.
What's bothered me the most, for decades now, is that it was thought that armor was so cumbersome is to slow your basic walking speed - independently of any other gear you might be carrying, *and* that you had to consult two seperate tables to total check penalties. Counterintuitive, pointlessly anti-simulationist and needlessly complex are adjectives that come to mind. I seek a *simpler* and more realistic solution, and I think I've come up with a pretty good one. The check penalities can be overcome with high-stats, more ranks, a skill enhancer, MW armor, and lighter materials such Mithril. That being said I'd like to see some feats that improve a character's ability to use his armor . . . er, "more better" (;^) than those who are less skilled.
Here are some examples:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/ruIuiKxNerFBCOi5fK8.html
The only problem I have with the arcane penalties, is that there is practically no way of creating a competent mage-knight or "gish" character. I'd like to see a small feat-tree dedicated to armored casting, for the traditionalist elven fighter/mage types, etc.
- FM
Chalk up another vote in favor of your system from a SCAdian. (I was going to post a more detailed reply, but it would have been pretty much the same as the Black Bard's.)
Chalk up another vote in favor of your system from a SCAdian. (I was going to post a more detailed reply, but it would have been pretty much the same as the Black Bard's.)
Woo hoo! SCA is joining the movement!
Chalk up another vote in favor of your system from a SCAdian. (I was going to post a more detailed reply, but it would have been pretty much the same as the Black Bard's.)Woo hoo! SCA is joining the movement!
The Once and Future Seneschal agrees. I wouldn't object strenuously to a Listen/Spot penalty equal to the armor penalty as well. Although, technically, leather armor (cuir bouille) is way, way louder than a decent set of metal armor if you're not flailing around a lot. Squeaky, you know.
The Once and Future Seneschal agrees.
And a Senescal, to boot! Knights! Squires! Prepare for battle! No longer shall you be limping around like turtles in your armor!