Why would a ranged fighter, presumably with a decent dex, be wearing full plate?True, but a Str 12 fighter in full plate is a pretty extreme example.For a Cleric or a ranged Fighter with 15 points buy? I guess it's a poor character design, but it's not THAT extreme.
Zap, did you know that a full plate only limits your DEX bonus to AC, not your DEX bonus on ranged attack rolls?
So, with 15 points buy, a ranged Fighter WILL be wearing a full plate if he can (if his Strength score is high enough), no matter how much DEX he as.
Zap, did you know that a full plate only limits your DEX bonus to AC, not your DEX bonus on ranged attack rolls?
So, with 15 points buy, a ranged Fighter WILL be wearing a full plate if he can (if his Strength score is high enough), no matter how much DEX he as.
Yeah, I knew that the Max Dex only applied to AC. What I forgot was that Armor AC values had changed in Pathfinder. Unmodified Full Plate now gives a max of +10 AC. In the early game I'm not sure its worth an extra 1,300 GP, 20 lbs and -2 ACP for +1 AC vs a Breastplate (assuming you've got the Dex). Better off just spending the 1000 GP for a +1 on the Breastplate. However with Armor Training coming into play these days, I suppose it's viable.
Can you tell I haven't actually played a fighter/heavy armor user in Pathfinder yet? :)
As a player, I feel it's my responsibility to pay attention to details like that, just so i Don't bugger something up.
as a GM, i doubt i'd give it much mind, it's not like it changes the game to unplayable if people can move an additional 5-10ft a round, if necessary it's handwaved that when you enter combat you drop your really heavy non-combat gear (tent, bedroll, etc), cause you're not going to be using them to fight anyways.
Yep. In 3.X the main PCs that you needed to watch over, for the matter of carrying capacity, were the clerics, because most of them were wearing full plate without always having a great strength score.
Guilty as charged. But in my defense, I played Dwarf Clerics who were no great shakes in the speed department.
We have never tracked weight. As PCs, we have collectively decided that we need every advantage possible against our DM. Up until recently we never confirmed crits either.
That being said, it's not like we're carrying around statues and the like (as an above poster said) and we have a group invintory that we use for random bits of unwanted sellables. We don't bother putting a weight to that and it's assumed that each of us has a part of the load. When we get to town we sell it all and split the gold. It has never really been a big deal for us.
Encumbrance, what's that?
Encumbrance, not quite yet!
Encumbrance, what's that?
I don't want to think about it, we'd be better off without it!:)
Then a 7 str becomes an actual dump stat...be happy that they threw out the OD&D encumbrance rules...
Nope. We pay attention - by which I mean we loosely eyeball it - in terms of size and number of things you're carrying rather then weight, so a haversack or portable hole is still really useful.
Weight in D&D is all kinds of screwed up anyways, with most armors and weapons weighing hilariously more then they should.
PCGen keeps track of it for me meticulously. :)
|
Since I started using Hero Lab, I try to make sure the character is only lightly encumbered (or medium, if they're not wearing light armour.)
When we play though, we tend to handwave it, though we all vaguely try make sure it's reasonable. Party treasure is assumed to be split between handy haversacks/bags of holding in the party. The exception being if we have a particularly large haul, or a really big item (I recall a large statue that we recently 'acquired'.) I think at the end of RotR we were probably well over the weight limit on multiple bags of holding. :)
Basically, I don't think any of us find tracking encumbrance particularly fun. Who wants to spend game time looking/adding up the weight of their gear? I'd probably enforce it if people were playing using Hero Lab, but while most of us use it for character creation, only one player uses a laptop at the table.
.... The exception being if we have a particularly large haul, or a really big item (I recall a large statue that we recently 'acquired'.) .....
Back in 2nd ed. a group of four or us slew our dragon at the bottom of the dungeon and wanted to make of with the loot AND it's head. No dimensionally transcendental bags but there was a large rug, so we piled it onto the rug, took a corner each and slowly shuffled our way back through the dungeon hopeing there weren't too many bad guys left....
Cheers
Mark
I believe there was a rule somewhere that 10 items with negligible weight equaled a pound.That sounds familiar, but I don't recall where it's from, much less whether or not it was applicable to Pathfinder. I'll see if I can track it down. EDIT: I just checked under the carrying capacity/encumbrance rules as well as the weight entry descriptions in the equipment chapter and I can find no mention of a 10 to a lb. rule. This leads me to believe that it does not exist, at least not in Pathfinder.It was more than likely a 3.5 rule then.
I only recall it because I once created a darkwood chest that weighed under 20 lbs so that I could fill it with potions for my masterwork potion belt, and then store the chest in my glove of holding. The rule came into play because it determined how many negligible objects I could store in my darkwood chest.
(A little addendum to my previous post... so I'm replying to myself.)
The above event was back in my D&D 3.0 Forgotten Realms days. Pathfinder at least has specifically stated that you can only wear one glove of storing and it can only store one item. *pout*
In addition to my first post... the other reason my group tends to keep track of weight down to the single coin is because they also tend to strip a dungeon. The phrase "What is not nailed down is mine, and what is nailed down that I can pry up with a crowbar is mine also!" fits my group most of the time.
|
My last regular group basically gave everyone a free Handy Haversack at character creation just to avoid the encumberance issue.
I've also previously played games where the actual weight was ignored, as long as you could come up with a logical storage method for equipment. For example, no shoving a 12 foot ladder into a backpack.
Personally, I've never had a DM that insisted on strict adherence to encumbrance rules, worrying about it only in extreme and obvious cases. As a player, I tend to calculate at character creation, and then monitor it lightly over time unless something really changes it. As long as I'm within a few pounds of the official limit, I don't usually worry about it; as an adventurer my character probably wouldn't worry about a couple extra pounds and the extra hassle of calculating the additional penalties does nothing to add to the encounter and campaign in most circumstances.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What does everyone else do?
I have always tracked it as a player, way back to 1E.
Most people don't track it, but I like the "realism" of it.
HeroLab makes tracking it easy.
I've no idea whether or not my DM's require it, I usually don't ask. I'd probably even track it if the DM said "don't worry about it."
I have always enforce encumbrance rules in games I'm running, everything except the coins. and the only time I do worry about the coin weight is when something extreme happens.
In one of my games everyone except one player was killed, through all kinds of mishaps. The one person tried to make off with everyone's magical treasure and the head of the dragon that he killed. He was so encumbered it took him 3 times as long to get back then it took for the group to get to where the dragon was.
My group's encumberance is generally tracked down to within a couple pounds. We track gold. Generally there is at least 1 big guy who can just carry all the gear (current game its an alchemist with 20 base str, mule straps, and ant haul. He can carry the entire party).
If you don't track that sort of thing, you notice. A str 8 character cannot cary a bag of holding and clothes without being encumbered. Handy Haversacks have strict weight and volume rules and cannot cary much. Even at str 14 you are hard pressed to wear light armor and cary a bag of holding. This can become a major ballancing factor for casters and is something rogues need to look out for.
We use encumbrance in all of our games. In our current campaign, we even have a mule train (represented by hand-painted, mule minis) that we keep track of on expeditions.
We use it but it doesn't come up much. It's assumed we are keeping track of it. We usually go over it when we level up then mark what we can carry for loot. We then add up our loot weight and give that total to the guy handling the treasure. He keeps track of what loot we get, how much it weighs and informs us when we can't carry any more. Rarely have we had that happen but it has few times.
|
|
In between sessions I lore over my players sheets and recalculate weight. I like the realism of it and a I have a lot(a lot) of loot hoarders in the party so I want to keep'em honest. I also have a Monk so I want to keep him in light encumbrance.
I haven't been tracking coins but right now most of my crew is running around with 500 to 1200 coins. I think is getting ridicules. Is it really 1 lb per 50 coins?
I'm not a fan of coinage weight at all. All it does is serve to give the PCs loot that they can't do anything with, or force them to buy a couple extra bags of holding for the inevitable "and 7000 copper pieces" hoards.
Besides, it's already established in the rulebook that gems can be treated more or less as coinage, and gems are pretty near weightless (at least compared to coins -- it's a lot fewer than 50 gold coins per pound, realistically speaking, as gold is quite heavy). A ruby the size of a thumbnail would be worth well over 100g, after all, so even if it weighs an ounce, that's still basically weightless for the value.
Right, but they could just as easily have turned those coins into gems (coins and gems convert at 1:1 both ways).
I strongly recommend just ignoring coin weight if you're playing a standard Pathfinder campaign.
I like tracking coin weight, and I think it makes a ton of sense to do so. Mainly because a lot of coin is often found in the middle of nowhere. It makes no sense for a party to stumble on a pile of copper coins and carry all 7,000 of them 50 miles back to the nearest town or city. Yet there's always someone who wants to try.
Besides, as an American who travels overseas a lot, it reminds me of what it's like to spend a day in London or Paris and end up with a pocketful of 1 pound or 1 euro coins. That stuff really IS heavy.
I like keeping track of coinage. I currently own some of the game coins that Paizo sells as well as several small wooden chests.
Several games I've run, I hand out all the party loot in game coinage and item cards. With no "banks" in game, it can be fun for the players to keep track of their own wealth. Its also interesting to see how creative they can be to protect that wealth. (Bandits and cat-burglers used sparingly add a fun game element.)
Having all the wealth handed to the players in this fashion and having them keep track of weight, often leads them to keeping a "party fund" instead of individual wealth.
I strongly recommend just ignoring coin weight if you're playing a standard Pathfinder campaign.
That's actually the reason why I made this thread in the first place: the PCs had found a rather large cache of gold, and, because gold is effectively weightless in my campaigns, they wanted to take it all, which I expected. Then I realized the absurdity of carrying around that much gold on top of all the other things, and wondered how other people interpreted it. In the end, I just let them get away with it; they're inevitably going to want it all, so going back and forth would just waste gameplay time.
Now, that's not to say I think tracking the weight for gold is inherently flawed, just not my cup of tea. I still keep track of all the weight for characters (I as the DM actually end up doing most of it... damn slackers).
Anyways, its very interesting to hear such varied opinions on the matter... I originally thought most people handwaved it.
I like tracking coin weight, and I think it makes a ton of sense to do so. Mainly because a lot of coin is often found in the middle of nowhere. It makes no sense for a party to stumble on a pile of copper coins and carry all 7,000 of them 50 miles back to the nearest town or city. Yet there's always someone who wants to try.
See, that's what I strongly object to. That's basically the DM saying "neener neener" to the players, which is not cool. You're telling the players, "hey, there's loot here, but you can't do anything with it, hah hah".
See, that's what I strongly object to. That's basically the DM saying "neener neener" to the players, which is not cool. You're telling the players, "hey, there's loot here, but you can't do anything with it, hah hah".
No more so that most other Dragon treasures. At least the majority of those "many thousands of coins" treasures I've ever seen in game are usually dragon treasures. Having vast treasures like that are supposed to be part of the challenge in claiming all that wealth.
In the cause of criminal organizations it also makes sense to have all the treasure together in one place. At least, makes more sense than having each mook carrying around 10 pounds in coinage.
EDIT: Speeds up game-play as well as the players do not feel they NEED to do a strip-search on every enemy corpse.
No more so that most other Dragon treasures. At least the majority of those "many thousands of coins" treasures I've ever seen in game are usually dragon treasures. Having vast treasures like that are supposed to be part of the challenge in claiming all that wealth.
See, that's what I strongly object to. That's basically the DM saying "neener neener" to the players, which is not cool. You're telling the players, "hey, there's loot here, but you can't do anything with it, hah hah".
I disagree. In our last Kingmaker exploration run, which was under two weeks of exploring, we got something like 10,000 total coins. This was at level 6, and could be as early as level 4. We have yet to encounter a true dragon, and none of the coinage has been from the not-true dragon-type-creatures we've encountered.
|
|
See, that's what I strongly object to. That's basically the DM saying "neener neener" to the players, which is not cool. You're telling the players, "hey, there's loot here, but you can't do anything with it, hah hah".
But the PCs could buy a pack animal, a cart + buggy to get around that or hire a retainer to carry stuff. My players are learning that now and most have purchased a horse/camel/riding dog w/ saddle bags and some even bought donkeys with pack saddles.
I agree with Lokie, getting the Dragon's hoard out of it's lair and into a safe place is part of the adventure.
But Zurai, your way is cool too. It's just I also run Exalted a lot with my players and I don't keep a tyrant's grip on things like weight ans stuff like that, so for my Pathfinder games I'm going for a more ultra realistic feel so I think I will be weighting down my payers with the coinage they collect.
But the PCs could buy a pack animal, a cart + buggy to get around that or hire a retainer to carry stuff.
Right, and then the players have to protect them (which is hard, as they generally have hit points, saves, and initiatives of "haha, no") and pay them and feed them and you've multiplied the hassle by several times. If you're dead set on hassling your players for wanting to actually receive the loot you claim to be giving them, go for it, but don't expect them to like it.
I've always used encumbrance by weight but have adjusted the weight factors for many items downwards as quite honestly the weights for items have been off since 1e and haven't got any better over time.
I do keep track of coin weight even though I tend to go with more realistic coin weights (like each coin is 1/10th of an ounce). This encourages PCs to carry less gold and invest it in things like gems, property and magic items.
Since I prefer games with large downtime periods between adventures disposing of a hoard is something the PCs can do during the down time assuming that the treasure site can be safely secured by the PCs.
I like encumbrance by weight because it keeps people honest. Even with bags of holding and haversacks the sheer amount of gear that a party generally carries can be impressive. That should be reflected in their combat effectiveness.
I like tracking coin weight, and I think it makes a ton of sense to do so. Mainly because a lot of coin is often found in the middle of nowhere. It makes no sense for a party to stumble on a pile of copper coins and carry all 7,000 of them 50 miles back to the nearest town or city. Yet there's always someone who wants to try.See, that's what I strongly object to. That's basically the DM saying "neener neener" to the players, which is not cool. You're telling the players, "hey, there's loot here, but you can't do anything with it, hah hah".
Between ant haul, floating disk, a party strong man or two, bags of holding, handy haversacks, masterwork backpacks, and muleback cords, I just don't see this as really ever being a problem. There are so many ways to deal with hoard weight it's not even funny.
The party that is unable to walk away with the dragon's hoard is either (1) too low level to be earning such a reward, or (2) all physically frail non-casters (which in my experience, don't really exist).
We really pay very little attention to encumbrance rules in our games. The primary reason for this is that our characters tend to invest in items such as bags of holding that nullify the need for such concerns (not to mention mounts and pack animals).
When we first create characters in Hero Lab, we leave item weight and encumbrance turned on, but we turn off coin encumbrance. Most players who find themselves overburdened make appropriate equipment buys or cull their list of possessions to get back to an acceptable level of weight that doesn't impede their movement.
My campaign world is very steampunk/magitech, so a more modern system of banking is utilized in most locales, which means that my players can deposit their cash and simply carry notes of credit (the capital city in the most technologically advanced nation even uses magically-powered "debit cards" to track personal finances). The only time coinage presents a weight issue is when PCs have to worry about transporting large treasure hordes - and again, bags of holding usually eliminate this concern except in the most extreme cases.
As a player, I also tend to build characters that don't need to carry much on them to be effective; my current PC, a witch, has virtually eliminated the need for the party to carry mundane equipment and rations by investing in a set of marvelous pigments and a bunch of canvas, all kept in a bag of holding and supported by a Craft (painting) bonus of +15!
In short, tracking encumbrance, while adding a degree of realism, is a pain in the rear. We'd rather find in-game solutions that work around that problem than ignore the rules altogether, but it amounts to about the same thing in the end.
|
As a DM, I don't use weight unless someone's doing something really egregious (Like carrying an object that's probably a heavy load all on its own). The problem is, tracking the weight of every single fiddly little item is too much work unless you're using excel spreadsheets to track inventory or something -- even then, you have to look up the weight of items when handing out treasure.
As a player, I try to make it a nonissue by purchasing a handy haversack at the first opportunity -- I seriously doubt my carried gear exceeds its capacity -- if it does, I'm probably rich enough to buy a second one. I will sometimes track weight when making a low-level, low-str character, but don't worry about it beyond making sure they can carry their starting gear. I've never had a GM who was a stickler for the weight rules -- again, it's only come up when a particularly heavy object is picked up (usually another character).
Between ant haul, floating disk, a party strong man or two, bags of holding, handy haversacks, masterwork backpacks, and muleback cords, I just don't see this as really ever being a problem. There are so many ways to deal with hoard weight it's not even funny.
The party that is unable to walk away with the dragon's hoard is either (1) too low level to be earning such a reward, or (2) all physically frail non-casters (which in my experience, don't really exist).
Totally agree - like to track weight and encumberance in my games, and there's a load [if you pardon the pun] of ways - both mundane and arcane to keep it manageable.
I reckon strategies and solutions to those kind of problems can be as creative and necessary as planning a tomb exploration or running a kingdom for a party...
Spells such as Ant Haul, Transmute Metal to Wood & Treasure Stitching are major boons...
It makes no sense for a party to stumble on a pile of copper coins and carry all 7,000 of them 50 miles back to the nearest town or city.See, that's what I strongly object to. That's basically the DM saying "neener neener" to the players, which is not cool. You're telling the players, "hey, there's loot here, but you can't do anything with it, hah hah".
To each its style of play I guess.
Personally, I like the additional complications that a huge loot represents (when you factor in its weight that is). It adds another level of planning, choice and consequences that is not unlike many other aspects of the game.
In my 2E games, our group often bought gems and jewelry to make our monies more practical to carry (loosing anywhere from 1% to 10% in the change). Or we'd bury a stash somewhere, or leave it in one of the character's manor once we got high level...
That being said, my new(ish) group isn't a big fan of tracking the weight of money, nor to differentiate what is gold, silver, gem or whatever; everything is mashed-up in one big $ total. As we are together to have fun, I'm not making a big fuss about it but I have to admit that I prefer a more meticulous approach to wealth and its "challenges".
'findel
I guess if a DM wanted to track weight but didn't want to worry about it too much he could always institute a house rule saying Weight is tracked at STR+2 So that 8 STR wizard would have a 10STR for carrying purposes.
Or you could just throw out the 8# of clothing rule...that's a LOT of weight.
Now I can say carrying 150+# of extra gear is heavy...when I was in the navy I would take 12 tie-down chains at once to go tie down the jets for the week-end. I was working out all the time, and I doubt many other people in the line-shack could have done that much weight. That was about 200# (18#/chain I think). I could not even have run with that weight on me.
Zurai, I have to disagree with you. In my games, it makes the PCs actually have to think about what they are keeping. The 100,000 copper piece treasure just isn't worth the effort usually. They will sell the info to some shmuck for 100 gp. In kingmaker, the players came accross a 10000 in copper, but ended up looking at it and saying "give it to the kobolds."
As for gems, they present their own issue. If you only have 100 dollar bills, its hard to buy a candy bar. Many stores wont take your stuff because they cannot give you change or get rid of it, or you are completely overpaying someone and reducing your overall wealth. Not every city
My group came accross a huge hoard in annother game, but our carrying capacities determined how much we could take with us, and we had to leave some of it behind later in our travels to deal with other things. We know we will never be able to get back there since we have too many other pressing matters.
Weight is a ballancing resource that needs to be managed.
But the PCs could buy a pack animal, a cart + buggy to get around that or hire a retainer to carry stuff.Right, and then the players have to protect them (which is hard, as they generally have hit points, saves, and initiatives of "haha, no") and pay them and feed them and you've multiplied the hassle by several times. If you're dead set on hassling your players for wanting to actually receive the loot you claim to be giving them, go for it, but don't expect them to like it.
Ah, but my players do like it. It appeals to their meticulous natures I guess.
Heh... we have had a couple of sessions in which the first 3 hours of a six hour session is spent with them planning a trip, as a group, and with no prompting on my part. I kind of explain the situation and then step back. I'm called on during that time only to help locate material in various books or make rulings on the less clear material.
Afterwards they travel to the location, complete the dungeon crawl, and then act on the pre-made plan to get the treasure out and get back home safe.
I like tracking coin weight, and I think it makes a ton of sense to do so. Mainly because a lot of coin is often found in the middle of nowhere. It makes no sense for a party to stumble on a pile of copper coins and carry all 7,000 of them 50 miles back to the nearest town or city. Yet there's always someone who wants to try.See, that's what I strongly object to. That's basically the DM saying "neener neener" to the players, which is not cool. You're telling the players, "hey, there's loot here, but you can't do anything with it, hah hah".
I'm actually making the comment as a player. As a DM, curiously enough, I've never actually run a 3.x or Pathfinder campaign so coinage weight has never been an issue for me. I don't think it's just a "neener neener" to the players. I think it makes the discovery of loot more interesting.
For example, in one campaign I was playing in, there was a pool of water that was toxic. All along the bottom of the pool were coins of all kinds: Copper, Silver, Gold and Platinum. The PCs could go in as much as they want and try to bring up as many coins as they could but every time they took damage. My character wasn't particularly interested in wealth so it didn't affect me at all, but the halfling barbarian/ rogue kept going in and grabbing as many coins as he could get. He ended up more than half dead with about 10x as much copper as gold and had to decide whether it was worth bringing back with him since he could barely carry it. After fighting so hard for it, he was more inclined to drag it back but it was a tough decision.
That enhanced the roleplaying for me and the other players and it wouldn't have been possible if we weren't tracking the weight of the coins.
My biggest problem is really weight. Armor and weapons, for example, tend to be laughably heavier then they really should be, and the penalties or what constitutes a light load was developed in the Clown Universe.
...and the penalties or what constitutes a light load was developed in the Clown Universe.
As in laughably high or laughably low?
My biggest problem is really weight. Armor and weapons, for example, tend to be laughably heavier then they really should be, and the penalties or what constitutes a light load was developed in the Clown Universe.
Eh, I've heard contradicting reports on the matter. If you count the weight of the sword (or similar weapon) as well as the sheathe (or baldric, container, holder, etc.) that contains it, then the weight values are actually pretty accurate (or so I've heard it told).
The weights are generally too heavy on weapons. Even with the possible rationalization of baldrics and scabbards (which really don't weigh that much) a good amount of weaponry doesn't even have sheathes.
Armor weights are fairly accurate based upon some limited research.
Miscellaneous gear is probably where the most discrepancies come into play.