I'm fighting with a player over whether or not his character can carry a masterwork backpack and a handy haversack. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to say it's okay to wear both backpacks as once, but we're just going head to head and he's not really respecting my DM call on this. Any outside opinions would help.
To clarify, the masterwork backpack adds a +1 to your strength bonus to carrying capacity, which is why he wants both.
Also, it came up during this argument, how do you actually carry a bag of holding (he has one of these too)? What about the larger ones? Are these people really carrying around trash bag sized sacks and not being penalized?
Thanks again everyone!
One backpack sized container, one sack sized container, and 6 belt pouches is usually where I draw the limit for my players in terms of containers.
Sounds like your player there is just trying to cheese whatever he can out of the rules. I wouldn't allow it, unless he's actually carrying one of them in his hand.
Have your player bring a backpack to your next session, and bring one yourself. Fill them full with newspaper. Have him wear 2 at once and then say, "See?" And if he wears one his chest and one on his back, hand him a 'weapon' and then push him down and say "See?" again. And Ixnay on the pack-in-a-pack, it's cheese.
One back, one backpack. Though the sack carrying has always eluded me, as a player I see the need, in case I need more storage than my pack and pockets allow.
If he still argues, hire some shifty rogues to swipe one of his packs/bags/pouches in the next town they visit.
And stop giving him stuff-holders! Seriously how much is this character lugging around ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having spent way too long carrying heavy backpacks while in the army, trying to do anything active while heavily loaded is both very tiring and seriously impedes your capabilities. And on the rare occasions I had to carry a second one on my front (usually while helping carry a stretcher with the backpack's owner on it!) my ability do anything else was about zero.
Pathfinder basically hand waves away any in-combat issues with wearing a backpack in combat. Though trying to add rules around the issue would get messy.
The idea of wearing two backpacks and still being able to do anything other than walk in a straight line without tripping over and do all the things an adventurer does - which is presumably what your player wants to do - is stretching things.
Let him have his two backpacks, sack, bag of holding etc. Then ambush the party and see what he does. "How are you wielding a shield? Wasn't that the arm with which you were carrying that heavy sack? What, it was strapped to your pack? Ok, move at more than half speed and the sack swings around and gets in the way of your sword arm". If he drops the sack, or backpacks, keep note of where he dropped them and have the baddies grab them, or present a situation where he has to decide whether to stay and protect his gear or run away and live.
You don't have to be mean about it, just present realistic situations and see how he reacts. Will the rest of the party want to stay and risk dying just so Mr Multi-backpacks can protect his gear?
As an aside, how much stuff does he want to carry if he can't fit it in a handy haversack anyway? Sounds like he is a compulsive hoarder. A Scroll of Remove Psychological Disorder wouldn't go astray.
|
I often used to wear two backpacks, since one alone couldn't hold all the crap I needed for classes. I would wear one in the normal style, and the other one I would wear strapped to my front. That way, I could access its contents easily while walking. I'd read books, go through folders, whatever I felt like. It's entirely possible that this player has had similar experience.
However, I've also drawn an actual sword many times that's been properly sheathed and belted. I know the angle of the draw, and a front pack would interfere with it significantly.
Additionally, the straps and bulk would interfere with otherwise simple basic attacks.
While, physically, it is possible to carry two packs, there would definitely be penalties.
I suggest you allow him to wear both packs, but warn him that he'll be taking a -2 encumberence penalty to dexterity, and to all str and dex-based skill checks. That should mirror the actual penalties pretty well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trained hirelings cost 3 sp per day. Untrained cost 1 sp per day. Another mouth to feed but at least he's got someone to carry and watch his stuff.
Note that while the Handy Haversack of the book is fluffed as a backpack, it actually can't be a backpack. Instead, it's an actual haversack. A haversack is basically a big giant man-purse. It's got one long strap that you put over your shoulder and across your chest and back, so that the haversack is at your hip. This makes sense given the ability to get things out of it while in combat. If it was an actual backpack, you would not be able to pull anything from it in combat, unless you wore it on your chest (thus interfering with combat).
If you take this route (which I do in my games), then you have :
One backpack
One purse
Two belt-pouches (one front, one back)
Anything else, you stuff in the backpack. So if you have 8 bags of holding, you put them in your backpack. If you need something from a bag of holding, you stop, take off the backpack, and pull it out.
I would say let him, with a minus to everything he does because he has to one shoulder them or wear the other up front (-2 or maybe even -4 because he is being so hard headed about it). That would mean you can't do anything else without those bags getting in the way. I would make dropping them a standard action each do to the hastle of getting them untangled from his body.
Aren't all magic items master work anyway? He should get your plus to carrying with the haver sack, maybe that will get him to forget the other backpack and learn to play nice with the GM.
Why are people allowing so few belt pouches? Isn't it possible to fit, like, ten of those things on a belt?
Why are people allowing so few belt pouches? Isn't it possible to fit, like, ten of those things on a belt?
Depends on the belt pouch. If you're talking about one of those things that holds a wallet, then yes, you can fit 10 of those on. If you're talking about a fanny pack type belt pouch, then no, you can't fit 10 of them on.
Considering the listed amount a belt pouch can hold, I believe the intention was a fannypack type pouch, not a wallet sized pouch.
I'm fighting with a player over whether or not his character can carry a masterwork backpack and a handy haversack. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to say it's okay to wear both backpacks as once, but we're just going head to head and he's not really respecting my DM call on this. Any outside opinions would help.
To clarify, the masterwork backpack adds a +1 to your strength bonus to carrying capacity, which is why he wants both.
Also, it came up during this argument, how do you actually carry a bag of holding (he has one of these too)? What about the larger ones? Are these people really carrying around trash bag sized sacks and not being penalized?
Thanks again everyone!
I resurrect the SHOVEL ! ! !
KHAWANG
dig, dig, dig...
Seriously, this is just plain cheese. Unless of course he doesn't try to fight without dropping most of it.
As others have said.
Bag of holding must be held in hand or placed in NON-MAGICAL back pack. I suppose you could tie it to the outside of your pack but I'd give a reasonable chance to lose it during a fight or fall.
Only 1 pack unless giving big penalties (prob -4) to almost any kind of physical check or roll.
Why are people allowing so few belt pouches? Isn't it possible to fit, like, ten of those things on a belt?Depends on the belt pouch. If you're talking about one of those things that holds a wallet, then yes, you can fit 10 of those on. If you're talking about a fanny pack type belt pouch, then no, you can't fit 10 of them on.
Considering the listed amount a belt pouch can hold, I believe the intention was a fannypack type pouch, not a wallet sized pouch.
If you are a big adventurer, and are using relatively small fanny packs, you could probably fit 10 of them around your waste. I recognize how some people would see that as "stretching it a bit" though (pun intended).
Also, there is no listing anywhere in the RAW stating how much a belt pouch (or, really, any other mundane container) can hold.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are people allowing so few belt pouches? Isn't it possible to fit, like, ten of those things on a belt?
It depends on how fat a character is, don't it? If you're playing a stripperiffic sorceress with a 20 inch waist, then not very many.
If you're playing a dwarven cleric with a 52 inch beer gut, then quite a few more...
I'm fighting with a player over whether or not his character can carry a masterwork backpack and a handy haversack. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to say it's okay to wear both backpacks as once, but we're just going head to head and he's not really respecting my DM call on this. Any outside opinions would help.
To clarify, the masterwork backpack adds a +1 to your strength bonus to carrying capacity, which is why he wants both.
Also, it came up during this argument, how do you actually carry a bag of holding (he has one of these too)? What about the larger ones? Are these people really carrying around trash bag sized sacks and not being penalized?
I don't think there's any RAW on this (it's probably best to be in the Advice section), but here's our group's house rules:
- 2 things on your back (weapon + backpack, 2 backpacks, 2 weapons, etc)
- 2 things on your left side belt (weapon + belt pouch, 2 belt pouches, etc)
- 2 things on your right side (as above)
- We give a little leeway to small things elsewhere (like a dagger in the boot sort of thing). If people want to go crazy with this, you they better prepare to be accountants and record everything properly. Their decision.
For us, we believe this to be reasonable towards keeping a mix of carrying capacity, accessibility (hey, retrieving a "stowed item" is only a piddly-ass move action, so people better not be overloaded), and mobility. We have little doubt that other groups might see things differently, but we don't care about other groups.
For bags of holding, most of the characters in our group store 'em in our backpacks, with no expectations of item accessibility.
Since crafting an magical item generally implies that the base item is of some high level of quality could you not simply consider a Handy Haversack to be a masterwork backpack as well?
I know that it doesn't really make sense, but it is an easy solution to such a minor problem.
To be a magic item the haversack, has to be a masterwork backpack. Sense the rule for a masterwork backpack came much later it is is doubtful that anyone considered the impact on items based off of the masterwork backpack.
To resolve the issue, consider the cost of the handy haversack to be 50 go more and allow it to give the +1 to step for encumbrance.
Does it really matter if one has 12 pounds more of junk! Then just state as a house (common sense) rule you can only carry one backpack with the current encumbrance rules. If you want to carry two you can only take move actions in combat if both have items in it..
Simple sweet get on with the game. If he argues, the simple state you are no longer using the rules for the masterwork backpack.
And think him for making the rules load smaller for the game.
|
Why are people allowing so few belt pouches? Isn't it possible to fit, like, ten of those things on a belt?Depends on the belt pouch. If you're talking about one of those things that holds a wallet, then yes, you can fit 10 of those on. If you're talking about a fanny pack type belt pouch, then no, you can't fit 10 of them on.
Considering the listed amount a belt pouch can hold, I believe the intention was a fannypack type pouch, not a wallet sized pouch.
If you are a big adventurer, and are using relatively small fanny packs, you could probably fit 10 of them around your waste. I recognize how some people would see that as "stretching it a bit" though (pun intended).
Also, there is no listing anywhere in the RAW stating how much a belt pouch (or, really, any other mundane container) can hold.
it also depends on your character, a wizard's waist is a lot smaller than a fighter built like a Mack Truck
To be a magic item the haversack, has to be a masterwork backpack. Sense the rule for a masterwork backpack came much later it is is doubtful that anyone considered the impact on items based off of the masterwork backpack.
Only weapons and armor have to be masterwork. I don't believe it says anywhere in the RAW that wondrous items (and other magical items) have to be of masterwork. In fact, there are quite a few core magic items that look simple, or even like cheap garbage.
Only weapons and armor have to be masterwork. I don't believe it says anywhere in the RAW that wondrous items (and other magical items) have to be of masterwork. In fact, there are quite a few core magic items that look simple, or even like cheap garbage.
Your right, so the answer is charge the character for a "Masterwork Hewards Handy Haversack (2050 go. Or 1025 go to create it. It still amounts to minimal encumberance increase.
I don't know why I thought all magic items were crafted at the highest possible quality, it must be something from another game system.
If you are a big adventurer, and are using relatively small fanny packs, you could probably fit 10 of them around your waste. I recognize how some people would see that as "stretching it a bit" though (pun intended).Also, there is no listing anywhere in the RAW stating how much a belt pouch (or, really, any other mundane container) can hold.
A) Where are you putting your sword, your coin purse, your gloves, your knife, and everything else you would normally put on your belt if you're wrapping yourself up with 10 belt pouches to the point where you look like you're wearing a donut?
B) Theoretically, they have the exact same capacity they did in 3.5. 1/5 cubic ft./10 lb for a medium character. Try putting 100 lbs of junk on your hips (not including the weight of the bags, which are another 5 lbs) and let's see how good you can use them. Or, if you prefer to put feathers in, try wrapping two pillows around your hip (2 cubic feet of them).
Where are you putting your sword, your coin purse, your gloves, your knife, and everything else you would normally put on your belt if you're wrapping yourself up with 10 belt pouches to the point where you look like you're wearing a donut?
Why, elsewhere of course!
Honestly, I find some of your examples amusing, as things such as coins, gloves, and small knives could easily be stored in the belt pouches themselves. Things like swords could be place on one's back, put into a sheath attached to the back of one's shield, or strapped to the exterior side of one's backpack.
Theoretically, they have the exact same capacity they did in 3.5. 1/5 cubic ft./10 lb for a medium character. Try putting 100 lbs of junk on your hips (not including the weight of the bags, which are another 5 lbs) and let's see how good you can use them. Or, if you prefer to put feathers in, try wrapping two pillows around your hip (2 cubic feet of them).
I am a firm believer that Pathfinder's "backwards compatibility" with v3.5 applies only in the loosest sense of the term, and that old rulings simply do not apply (though they can make for good guidelines).
You may not agree, but its something to keep in mind for your future discussions with me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a firm believer that Pathfinder's "backwards compatibility" with v3.5 applies only in the loosest sense of the term, and that old rulings simply do not apply (though they can make for good guidelines).You may not agree, but its something to keep in mind for your future discussions with me.
With all due respect, what you really mean to say is 'I believe in backwards compatibility when it agrees with my stance, but when it leaves my stance looking not so well thought out, then I do not agree with it'.
Frankly, I call BS on you for such a stance. You either follow backwards compatibility, or you don't. But you don't dance the hypocrites dance by agreeing with it when it's convenient and waving it off as beneath your notice when it doesn't.
You may not agree, but it's something to keep in mind for your future discussions with me. And I will call you on it each and every time.
I am a firm believer that Pathfinder's "backwards compatibility" with v3.5 applies only in the loosest sense of the term, and that old rulings simply do not apply (though they can make for good guidelines).You may not agree, but its something to keep in mind for your future discussions with me.
With all due respect, what you really mean to say is 'I believe in backwards compatibility when it agrees with my stance, but when it leaves my stance looking not so well thought out, then I do not agree with it'.
Frankly, I call BS on you for such a stance. You either follow backwards compatibility, or you don't. But you don't dance the hypocrites dance by agreeing with it when it's convenient and waving it off as beneath your notice when it doesn't.
You may not agree, but it's something to keep in mind for your future discussions with me. And I will call you on it each and every time.
Fine, then I don't believe in backwards compatibility.
It was a marketing scheme used by Paizo to get Pathfinder off the ground (and an ingenious one at that). Since the release of the Core book, however, true backwards compatibility has been all but ignored.
Fine, then I don't believe in backwards compatibility.
It was a marketing scheme used by Paizo to get Pathfinder off the ground (and an ingenious one at that). Since the release of the Core book, however, true backwards compatibility has been all but ignored.
If by backwards compatibility someone means "3.5e materials can be used as-is in Pathfinder," then clearly Pathfinder is not backwards compatible.
If by backwards compatibility someone means "3.5e materials, in general, can be used in Pathfinder (and vice-versa) with little difficulty," then I consider Pathfinder to be 100% backwards-compatible.
I have to exert very little effort to use all Pathfinder materials in my 3.5e campaign (though it's not non-zero effort). On the other hand, I've looked, for example, at trying to use 1e/2e materials in my 3.5e campaign, and that is a huge endeavor. 3.5e was not backwards compatible with 1e/2e.
Anyways, this is hugely OT.
The real issue, I think is that there's a player who wants to carry hundreds of pounds of gear and yet is likely ignoring the encumbrance rules. After all, all those bags and backpacks are full of something.
The real issue, I think is that there's a player who wants to carry hundreds of pounds of gear and yet is likely ignoring the encumbrance rules. After all, all those bags and backpacks are full of something.
Yeah, if a guy has 10 belt pouches (which is redonkulous), he's got 5 lbs minimum if those belt pouches are empty. More than likely, he's got about 5 lbs in each one. So he's got 55 lbs just on his waist.
Now add in a MW backpack (up to 200 lbs, let's call it 100 lbs), a Handy Haversack (5lbs), armor (let's call it 35 lbs), melee weapon (5 lbs), ranged weapon (2 lbs), efficient quiver (2 lbs). That's 55 + 100 + 5 + 35 + 4 + 2 + 2 = 203 lbs. That's assuming he's got nothing over half-full. Now, tack on 3 bags of holding (minimum 30 more lbs, but let's assume level II's, that's fair, we've been assuming the mundane things were half used, so let's use medium bags, type II) and that's another 75 lbs. So, 278lbs. For that to be a light load, he needs a 25 Strength (thanks to the MW backpack, otherwise 26). If he doesn't have at least a 17 strength (again, MW reduces it by one from 18), then he's not moving at all.
Why are people allowing so few belt pouches? Isn't it possible to fit, like, ten of those things on a belt?Ravingdork is Rob Lefield CONFIRMED!
lol. I had to look him up. Apparently he is a comic book artist with a penchant for drawing characters with lots of belt pouches, yes?
The real issue, I think is that there's a player who wants to carry hundreds of pounds of gear and yet is likely ignoring the encumbrance rules. After all, all those bags and backpacks are full of something.Yeah, if a guy has 10 belt pouches (which is redonkulous), he's got 5 lbs minimum if those belt pouches are empty. More than likely, he's got about 5 lbs in each one. So he's got 55 lbs just on his waist.
Now add in a MW backpack (up to 200 lbs, let's call it 100 lbs), a Handy Haversack (5lbs), armor (let's call it 35 lbs), melee weapon (5 lbs), ranged weapon (2 lbs), efficient quiver (2 lbs). That's 55 + 100 + 5 + 35 + 4 + 2 + 2 = 203 lbs. That's assuming he's got nothing over half-full. Now, tack on 3 bags of holding (minimum 30 more lbs, but let's assume level II's, that's fair, we've been assuming the mundane things were half used, so let's use medium bags, type II) and that's another 75 lbs. So, 278lbs. For that to be a light load, he needs a 25 Strength (thanks to the MW backpack, otherwise 26). If he doesn't have at least a 17 strength (again, MW reduces it by one from 18), then he's not moving at all.
Provided the character is taking the encumbrance penalties into account, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. I imagine he would look kinda silly with all that stuff, but nevertheless quite capable anyways, very much like EVERY PATHFINDER ICONIC EVER DRAWN.
Soooo.... How much gear is your player trying to carry? May I suggest a mule? Or that maybe a few of the others in the party lend a hand? It's encumbrance, and it's in the rules, but how much is one character carrying? Even a large-ish dog (Saint B or a German Shep, eg) can carry some stuff. Beyond these options, your player is being plain silly, or you need to use a houserule where local volunteers bucket-brigade the ancient dragon's horde down the mountain. As has been posted previous, it's a pretty awkward picture being painted.
|
|
Of course, I can see the other side of this too. Player is actively trying to get additional bonuses to his ability to carry stuff, probably so he can get around encumbrance issues on his character.
Maybe the easiest thing to do would be just to rule that the handy haverstack also counts as a masterwork backpack, and that the bonuses don't stack.
I mean, I can see how a player would be frustrated if his carrying capacity says 220 pounds, and the gm is arbitrarily penalizing him beyond normal encumbrance rules for trying to carry 210 pounds worth of stuff. Or how he sees it, anyhow.
:/
I simply wouldn't allow it. One backpack, one handy haversack (because I agree it isn't a backpack, but more of a satchel probably carried on the side for easy and quick access), one sack, one belt pouch, and one scroll/map case. Any additional bags (magical included) would be carried in the backpack up to its carrying capacity (this isn't to say he could put all he can in the bag of holding and then place it in the backpack for a lower encumberance - but that is for another post). For once you have filled those items to their carrying capacity, your character is almost guaranteed to be at least in the medium encumberance level, which effects all dex and str ability checks and movement. If you have an average str score, then you are most likely in a higher encumberance, and if over heavy, not moving. Have your friend input his "stuff" into Hero Lab demo and see how heavy he is, the program will tell you his weight and encumberance.
How many containers can we logically fit on a guy before he runs out of room?
Let's see:
- One backpack on the back
- Two bandoleers across the chest holding anything from dozens of knives to potions to poison to bombs
- Two satchels one on each side
- Four fanny-pack sized belt pouches on belt (one or more of which may be a spell component pouch)
- Four sword scabbards or large weapon loops (one on each hip and two on the back)
- Two quivers on hips and/or back
- Dozens of smaller compartments (poison pill ring, boot sheath, arm-mounted spring weapon, etc.)
- Half-dozen or so hooks and straps on backpack exterior for miscellaneous items
Does that seem like a fair possibility? A person carrying so much would probably look a little goofy, but that's par for the course in Pathfinder (see the iconics)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say let him. Particularly if none of the other players care. Unless you think he is just munchkin-y min-maxing.
Those are the kind of silly fights that don't need to happen. This is a game. Don't worry about some required slavish devotion to "reality." These are fantasy heroes.
If you are really thinking about disallowing it, though, do it reasonably. And dont make your mind up before you hear from him. Here is how:
Tell him you are concerned about the two bags. Tell him you want to talk to him about it. Tell him to think about the reasons why he thinks you should allow it and that you will talk to him before the next game session. DONT just ambush him with the issue and come up with things on the spot. People need time to think and wont feel its fair if you confront him and make him justify it. Then when you meet with him, share your concerns first (if you do his first then yours it will seem that you've already made up your mind, plus this way he can address your concerns). Then hear his position. And consider it fairly. It doesnt help to come to the discussion having made up your mind that you wont allow it. Be open minded. Then say you will think about it, but in the end its your job to make a call on it and you have to make a decision that is not only fair for the game but also fair between the players--all the other players need to feel that one player isnt getting unfair advantage. Then actually think about it. Dont decide right on the spot. Think about it. Then call him or tell him next session.
The PROCESS of how you decided is often as important if not more important than your decision. A process that is fair and open minded legitimizes your decision and makes it more easily accepted.
DMs often forget that players are smart and may have really good reasons for what they want to do. It's not your game to rule dictatorially, it is a shared game for everyone's fun. But in the end some decisions need to be made by the DM. However, minor ones like this, defer to the player. The game is not getting broken by what the PC is wanting to do.
Just some thoughts. I guess I do have a bit of experience presiding over decision making and how to do so fairly, so hopefully this helps. :)
How many containers can we logically fit on a guy before he runs out of room?
Let's see:
- One backpack on the back
- Two bandoleers across the chest holding anything from dozens of knives to potions to poison to bombs
- Two satchels one on each side
- Four fanny-pack sized belt pouches on belt (one or more of which may be a spell component pouch)
- Four sword scabbards or large weapon loops (one on each hip and two on the back)
- Two quivers on hips and/or back
- Dozens of smaller compartments (poison pill ring, boot sheath, arm-mounted spring weapon, etc.)
- Half-dozen or so hooks and straps on backpack exterior for miscellaneous itemsDoes that seem like a fair possibility? A person carrying so much would probably look a little goofy, but that's par for the course in Pathfinder (see the iconics)
1) One backpack, Check
2) No rules for bandoliers in the system, but I have no issues with one (or a vest that has a double brace of knives/potions)3) Again, awkward, but doable.
4) Extremely awkward, especially combined with 3
5) Doable
6) Not Doable, not if you have the weapon loops/scabbards, they use the same space
7) Doable, but not really containers either
8) Covered under the backpack and what it can hold, it's assumed you're tieing things like rope and bedrolls to the outside of the backpack, that's part of the weight restriction of the backpack.
Actually,
The iconics carry a lot of stuff, but nothing like what you've described above. I've never seen an iconic with four beltpouches, a backpack, two haversacks, two quivers, four weapons, and two bandoliers. I don't think I've seen one with half of that. Especially the female iconics, who tend to have minimal cloth... er, equipment.
Is this really that game breaking? +1 strength for his carrying capacity? If he wants to have a backpack and a manpurse I see no reason to start an argument over it.
Better hope they never find out they can stick Bags of Holding inside their Handy Haversacks, then all kinds of silliness will ensue.
|
I'm fighting with a player over whether or not his character can carry a masterwork backpack and a handy haversack. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to say it's okay to wear both backpacks as once, but we're just going head to head and he's not really respecting my DM call on this. Any outside opinions would help.
To clarify, the masterwork backpack adds a +1 to your strength bonus to carrying capacity, which is why he wants both.
Also, it came up during this argument, how do you actually carry a bag of holding (he has one of these too)? What about the larger ones? Are these people really carrying around trash bag sized sacks and not being penalized?
Thanks again everyone!
One backpack sized container, one sack sized container, and 6 belt pouches is usually where I draw the limit for my players in terms of containers.
Sounds like your player there is just trying to cheese whatever he can out of the rules. I wouldn't allow it, unless he's actually carrying one of them in his hand.
Same limit we use as well. Beyond that and you are holding bags in your hand or something. No one in our group has had a problem with that.
8) Covered under the backpack and what it can hold, it's assumed you're tieing things like rope and bedrolls to the outside of the backpack, that's part of the weight restriction of the backpack.
Covered under backpack and what it can hold? Funny, that section doesn't seem to exist. Where is this "covered" exactly, again?
Also, I see no weight restrictions ANYWHERE within the RAW for most any container in the game.
So what exactly is it, then, that you are talking about here? As far as I can tell, the backpack limitations "rule" only exists as GM adjudication.
|
To clarify, the masterwork backpack adds a +1 to your strength bonus to carrying capacity, which is why he wants both.
I may be wrong, but reading this I get the impression that he want to use a empty masterwork backpack to get the +1 modifier for his carrying capacity ant the haversack fo it magical storage capacity.
I am right?It that is his idea:
1) in real life you can carry 2 backpack you you can't don them properly, so he would no be getting the benefit of the masterwork backpack. The second backpack end being the equivalent of a carrying bag (I have done that several times, generally going to conventions).
2) the masterwork backpack bonus apply only if the backpack is don appropriately and it is actually used to transport the extra gear. If it is carried around from one strap its bonus don't apply.
So, if he is carrying the masterwork backpack holding it in his hand by the straps he will not get the masterwork backpack benefit.
If he has donned the masterwork backpack and he is carrying the handy haversack by it strap he don't benefit from the capacity to recover items from it with a move action.
If he has donned both backpack the masterwork backpack bonus will not work as he can't don it appropriately.
|
|
Note that while the Handy Haversack of the book is fluffed as a backpack, it actually can't be a backpack. Instead, it's an actual haversack. A haversack is basically a big giant man-purse. It's got one long strap that you put over your shoulder and across your chest and back, so that the haversack is at your hip. This makes sense given the ability to get things out of it while in combat. If it was an actual backpack, you would not be able to pull anything from it in combat, unless you wore it on your chest (thus interfering with combat).
The handy haversack description:
"It has two side pouches, each of which appears large enough to hold about a quart of material. In fact, each is like a bag of holding and can actually hold material of as much as 2 cubic feet in volume or 20 pounds in weight. The large central portion of the pack can contain up to 8 cubic feet or 80 pounds of material. Even when so filled, the backpack always weighs only 5 pounds."make it really clear that it is a backpack, not a haversack.
The description is part of the item specific rules so it is not fluff.
Note that while the Handy Haversack of the book is fluffed as a backpack, it actually can't be a backpack. Instead, it's an actual haversack. A haversack is basically a big giant man-purse. It's got one long strap that you put over your shoulder and across your chest and back, so that the haversack is at your hip. This makes sense given the ability to get things out of it while in combat. If it was an actual backpack, you would not be able to pull anything from it in combat, unless you wore it on your chest (thus interfering with combat).
The handy haversack description:
"It has two side pouches, each of which appears large enough to hold about a quart of material. In fact, each is like a bag of holding and can actually hold material of as much as 2 cubic feet in volume or 20 pounds in weight. The large central portion of the pack can contain up to 8 cubic feet or 80 pounds of material. Even when so filled, the backpack always weighs only 5 pounds."
make it really clear that it is a backpack, not a haversack.
The description is part of the item specific rules so it is not fluff.
I love how you quote what I said, then quote the book, then ignore the fact that I said it fluffs it as a backpack. Yes, the fluff of the thing calls it a backpack. It can't be a backpack. If it was, you could not use it to retrieve potions in combat, because, you know, it's on your back. If you prefer to keep it a backpack, that's fine, then it's a backpack, and you can't have another backpack at the same time, and you can't use it in combat to retrieve that potion you need. You know,because it's on your back.
Given that the major usefulness of the item is being able to retrieve a potion from it without searching, which is useful in combat only, then it's a useless item as a backpack, because, you know, it's on your back, where you can't get to it during combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
8) Covered under the backpack and what it can hold, it's assumed you're tieing things like rope and bedrolls to the outside of the backpack, that's part of the weight restriction of the backpack.Covered under backpack and what it can hold? Funny, that section doesn't seem to exist. Where is this "covered" exactly, again?
Also, I see no weight restrictions ANYWHERE within the RAW for most any container in the game.
So what exactly is it, then, that you are talking about here? As far as I can tell, the backpack limitations "rule" only exists as GM adjudication.
No, the way you run PF, you have no rules for containers.
Because I run it the way it was advertised, as backwards compatible with 3.5, you know, the rules bits you ignore, I have full rules for every container in the game. Since none of them changed from 3.5 to PF, they are perfectly valid rules, designed into the system.
Please don't get on high horse and preach about the one true way that you use, others use the rules as intended, have the rules for containers, and find nothing confusing in all this. If you choose tho throw out part of the rules, that is your choice, but don't preach it as the one true way please. Thank you.
|
|
I love how you quote what I said, then quote the book, then ignore the fact that I said it fluffs it as a backpack. Yes, the fluff of the thing calls it a backpack. It can't be a backpack. If it was, you could not use it to retrieve potions in combat, because, you know, it's on your back. If you prefer to keep it a backpack, that's fine, then it's a backpack, and you can't have another backpack at the same time, and you can't use it in combat to retrieve that potion you need. You know,because it's on your back.Given that the major usefulness of the item is being able to retrieve a potion from it without searching, which is useful in combat only, then it's a useless item as a backpack, because, you know, it's on your back, where you can't get to it during combat.
Actually, I think calling it fluff is wrong. The entry is specific that the handy haversack is a backpack. Second word of the entry. If that's fluff, then I'm going to read the hat part of hat of disguise as *fluff*, and put on my new shoes of disguise.
Also, my belt of strength is a pair of bracers now.
All the properties you're associating to it are from its magical properties, which occur along with the part that says it's a backpack. "Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does."
Or is that part "fluff" too?
All the properties you're associating to it are from its magical properties, which occur along with the part that says it's a backpack. "Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does."
Or is that part "fluff" too?
*shrug*
Ok, I can live with that. It's now a useless item, but it's a backpack. Being able to retrieve anything is useless since it's on your back and you can't reach it. So, I guess it's only utility in combat is that a friend can access something from it for you as a move action. A bit useless honestly, but I can live with it if it is a backpack.
What I don't see is any way to treat it as a back pack and still access things in it. Wearing it on your chest is not really an option, since, as you say, it's a backpack, not a bellypouch.
|
|
Note that while the Handy Haversack of the book is fluffed as a backpack, it actually can't be a backpack. Instead, it's an actual haversack. A haversack is basically a big giant man-purse. It's got one long strap that you put over your shoulder and across your chest and back, so that the haversack is at your hip. This makes sense given the ability to get things out of it while in combat. If it was an actual backpack, you would not be able to pull anything from it in combat, unless you wore it on your chest (thus interfering with combat).
The handy haversack description:
"It has two side pouches, each of which appears large enough to hold about a quart of material. In fact, each is like a bag of holding and can actually hold material of as much as 2 cubic feet in volume or 20 pounds in weight. The large central portion of the pack can contain up to 8 cubic feet or 80 pounds of material. Even when so filled, the backpack always weighs only 5 pounds."
make it really clear that it is a backpack, not a haversack.
The description is part of the item specific rules so it is not fluff.I love how you quote what I said, then quote the book, then ignore the fact that I said it fluffs it as a backpack. Yes, the fluff of the thing calls it a backpack. It can't be a backpack. If it was, you could not use it to retrieve potions in combat, because, you know, it's on your back. If you prefer to keep it a backpack, that's fine, then it's a backpack, and you can't have another backpack at the same time, and you can't use it in combat to retrieve that potion you need. You know,because it's on your back.
Given that the major usefulness of the item is being able to retrieve a potion from it without searching, which is useful in combat only, then it's a useless item as a backpack, because, you know, it's on your back, where you can't get to it during combat.
So your side bag has 2 extra punches?
The item description, with his multiple section, don't apply well to a actual haversack.The item description list the capacity to recover the content with a move action without provoking an attack of opportunity as one of its major magical powers. Not as a function of its form.
Essentially it it thrust the content in your hand as soon as you pass it over the haversack and think about what you want.
I can as easily bend a hand over my back and get something that is thrust into my hand as i can put it on my hip to retrieve something that is thrust in my hand.
Rummaging into a bag suspended by a strap to my shoulder to retrieve something in it is as distracting as retrieving something inside a side pouch of my real backpack. If something is inside my backpack under other items I will have a hard time recovering it without magic in any circumstance, but recovering it in a actual haversack, again if the item I want is under other items, will be only a little better.
If you discount the magic part, sure, it will not work. But then it would lose one of its major powers.
All the properties you're associating to it are from its magical properties, which occur along with the part that says it's a backpack. "Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does."
Or is that part "fluff" too?
*shrug*
Ok, I can live with that. It's now a useless item, but it's a backpack. Being able to retrieve anything is useless since it's on your back and you can't reach it. So, I guess it's only utility in combat is that a friend can access something from it for you as a move action. A bit useless honestly, but I can live with it if it is a backpack.
What I don't see is any way to treat it as a back pack and still access things in it. Wearing it on your chest is not really an option, since, as you say, it's a backpack, not a bellypouch.
My arm has a elbow. I can easily bend it over my shoulder or the small of my back.
I'm not understanding why a haversack can't have 2 smaller pouches. I've owned a number of them over the years and they generally have one main pocket and one or two smaller pocket.