I'm preparing to DM my first Pathfinder game and one of the major issues I've always had as a player keeps popping up in my brain, so I'd like to put it to the community to see how different groups deal with encumbrance.
The issue revolves around the practicalities of encumbrance vs. the idea of encumbrance. On the one hand, players are allowed to carry x/y/z pounds, in accordance with their strength, and this can be dealt with in a very straight forward manner according to the rules. However, I've always had a problem with the idea that a PC can lug around multiple sets of armor, an arsenal of weapons, and all the other assorted things that may come up in an adventure, such as materials, clothes, food, crafting tools, etc...
So my question is, do any groups use a more restrictive or 'realistic' system to deal with encumbrance and items in place of the straight up weight/strength system?
Thanks.
Remember Weight covers more than actual weight. Look at a Longsword the weight is increased to account for extra encumbreance of space (no one makes a longsword that weights so much unless it is not a real combat but a show off sword).
They tried to add realism in a easier way than actually list how big it would take up.
I've haven't run into a DM that is a stickler for encumbrance. I would say that if a DM was going to be strict, it would not last long do to the fact that you can buy a handy haversack for 1,500gp or so whcih allows you to carry 80 pounds and it still only weighs 5 pounds. Plus you throw in unseen servants, floating disk spell, a barbarian that has like a 20 str, and an efficient quiver and now carrying capacity or encumbrance basically becomes a moot point.
All in all, just keep track of what your players are doing. If you have a rogue trying to carry 5 longswords, 3 spears, a lock box, and all his gear without assistance then... uh, no.
I'm preparing to DM my first Pathfinder game and one of the major issues I've always had as a player keeps popping up in my brain, so I'd like to put it to the community to see how different groups deal with encumbrance.
The issue revolves around the practicalities of encumbrance vs. the idea of encumbrance. On the one hand, players are allowed to carry x/y/z pounds, in accordance with their strength, and this can be dealt with in a very straight forward manner according to the rules. However, I've always had a problem with the idea that a PC can lug around multiple sets of armor, an arsenal of weapons, and all the other assorted things that may come up in an adventure, such as materials, clothes, food, crafting tools, etc...
So my question is, do any groups use a more restrictive or 'realistic' system to deal with encumbrance and items in place of the straight up weight/strength system?
Thanks.
The idea with carrying around the armor seems to be more of a space issue than a weight issue. Just have them make multiple trips or get a pack animal until magical items come into play.
I exclude encb. to a certain point. My players are not usually trying to tote alchemist's labs, or grand pianos.
I exclude encb. to a certain point. My players are not usually trying to tote alchemist's labs, or grand pianos.
Yes, I sticking to the rules and adding a little common sense when things seem weird, in my experience, never results in player/DM issues.
My characters often buy pack mules because of this very reason. My first mule actually lived through a lot or trouble.
How much time do you want to spend tracking this kind of thing? The RAW is an abstraction, but quick and easy. You could find something more realistic and complicated, but what would it add to the game?
When I make a character I do the math, and figure out how much free weight I have for loot. Generally my group handwaves the small stuff. We assume that the loot is distributed among the party, only doing the math if there is a lot of loot, or we need to know where something specific is. We also loot with common sense. Yes you could get some a few gold for those 10 suits of leather armor you just pulled off the cultists. but they are not worth dragging back though the swamp, so they get left behind.
As a player I track encumbrance carefully, because one of the things I like about rpgs is making lots of tactical decisions. I recognize that most players don't enjoy it like I do, so when I DM I look the other way. Of course if PCs try to carry multiple suits of armor or six back up weapons or 400 arrows...
At low levels you better believe its important.
Another thread on this board has preset equipment packs. The full one requires a 17 str or better to not be medium encumbrance, the light one requires a 14 str. Doesn't seem like much till you realize that means before weapons and armor a barbarian ranger and monk are loosing class abilities, the rogue's max dex is now +3.
As to more realistic while one edition of Rolemaster had a portage skill so that may be worth looking into, it seems that you are talking about a mass/volume multi-stage variable set of equations. Most people playing even if they are engineers or professional number crunchers don't want to engage in that level of number crunching in their diversions.
At low levels you better believe its important.
Another thread on this board has preset equipment packs. The full one requires a 17 str or better to not be medium encumbrance, the light one requires a 14 str. Doesn't seem like much till you realize that means before weapons and armor a barbarian ranger and monk are loosing class abilities, the rogue's max dex is now +3.
As to more realistic while one edition of Rolemaster had a portage skill so that may be worth looking into, it seems that you are talking about a mass/volume multi-stage variable set of equations. Most people playing even if they are engineers or professional number crunchers don't want to engage in that level of number crunching in their diversions.
Except Dwarfs, they are never encumbered by weight.
Except Dwarfs, they are never encumbered by weight.
The dwarfs' speed is not affected by encumbrance but they still suffer the Armor Check Penalties.
not at all, except in extended dungeons (which are rare in my campaigns). Then I make all characters state their equipment, as to avoid: "oh, no problem, i just take my 5th 1000 feet long rope out of my pocket and we're all good".
I had the same Micro management desirer, but sadly it doesn't really work out unless you are ready to rewrite the rule book. It's hard enough to keep track of party resources as a GM. Just stick with the basic core rules.
However I run a bronze age campaign with low coinage. When the Pc's wrapped their last story arc, they received roughly 1/2 a character levels wealth in barrels of salt and trade goods to move and sell. ( it was like 12 tons of salt , Tee-hee )
However I run a bronze age campaign with low coinage. When the Pc's wrapped their last story arc, they received roughly 1/2 a character levels wealth in barrels of salt and trade goods to move and sell. ( it was like 12 tons of salt , Tee-hee )
I love that! I mean its sucks to see a sizable chunk going to hiring wagon teams to transport it to markets but hey them's the breaks. Kind of like the dragon who collects coppers because he wants a great big pile of coins to go rooting around in. Have fun moving a horde where 50% of the total value is coppers.
Realistically, you don't see sprinters carrying so much as a fanny pack or wearing boots because every ounce counts. That's the sort of nit picking VERY few people like to do. Making the rules more realistic or MORE of a pain in the rear than they are will not add to anyone's enjoyment at the table. At most you'll encourage people to spend all their cash on bags of holding, JUST to avoid the problem that much sooner. As soon as you have a bag of holding or a haversack encumbrance effectively becomes a non issue.