Weight restrictions make no sense?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So I've been working on characters for the past little while but I'll be honest unless you have 14+ strength just carrying your armor and weapons will be enough to push you into medium encumbrance unfortunately the repercussions for that in game terms are particularly high on the characters who can't afford to put extra points into their strength. And when you couple that with the fact that just wearing traveling clothes somehow takes up almost 20% of your carrying capacity and even "light" armor takes up a third or if you want anything with an actual AC bonus for example a chain shirt you end up using 25 lbs for that at Str 10 that means you're just a hairs breath from the 33lb level which dumps you into a medium load and loses you all of the benefits of being one of those light armor people

*sigh* well I shouldn't be griping but it feels extremely weird that I'm seriously considering whether or not technically speaking you actually have to be wearing clothing because it would push me out of my weight class.

Does this bug anyone else?


Get a wagon and horse or a bag of holding?

Lantern Lodge

This is why I have thrown encumbrance rules out the window and just rule that you can carry stuff within reason. Clothing, wealth, and basic mundane equipment (Think the Pathfinder Kit) usually brings most characters into the Med range.

So NO, you can not carry that statue.


Mogart wrote:
Get a wagon and horse or a bag of holding?

A bag of holding weighs a minimum of 15 lbs and the majority of the stuff I'm talking about must be worn aka armor clothes your weapons. Also carrying a bag of holding at 15lbs and a chain shirt and bam you're encumbered unless you drop it and access to all your secondary gear once you start a fight.


I'm waffling on this - the only characters likely to have 10 strength are casters (for whom it's a non-issue, either wanting medium armor, which has non-stacking penalties that are greater, or no armor), finesse fighters, and I suppose gunslingers, if that's your thing.

A finesse character will likely start the game in leather or studded leather, which frees up ten to fifteen pounds. They'll be using a 2 to 3 pound weapon. Upgrading to a chain shirt will certainly be an issue - but if you hang in long enough to pick up a mithral chain shirt, you're actually freeing up 2.5 pounds (since it weighs half as much).

As far as clothes go, I'd work under the assumption that their weight is included in the armor (since chainmail on naked flesh is probably not the least bit comfortable). (To be honest, I've always worked under the house rule 'of course you're wearing clothes, and unless there's something special about them tdon't worry about them')

I think it's actually a good thing that there's some small incentive to stick to the leather armors, if only in the early levels, and the encumbrance levels seem to mimic realism enough for my purposes.

So I think it works out alright - and if it really bugs you that much, the first three points in strength are cheap and give you 5 lbs per point invested.


Get yourself some Muleback Cords

And yes, being unable to carry a huge load is one of the drawbacks of dumping your strength.
You can carry more than light encumberance, but you take penalties for it, its like that in real life too. If you're not working out etc and still want to be realitvely mobile you should not carry around a backpack full of crap.


Sgmendez wrote:
Clothing, wealth, and basic mundane equipment (Think the Pathfinder Kit) usually brings most characters into the Med range.

The basic Pathfinder Kit is a whole lot of stuff to be carrying on your back into combat. I don't think a 7 Str Bard should be trying to engage in swordplay carrying a full backpack without being slowed.

I know a full pack slows me down, and I'm not wearing armour, and my Str is pretty decent.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that the encumbrance rules are quite reasonable and prevent characters from "carrying the store" with them without penalty. In both real life and in character creation, there is always a trade off between what we would like to have and what we can afford. If you want your character to lug more stuff around, put a point or two extra in strength ( or buy a horse or item which will help you carry more ).

Sovereign Court

Well, it is however reasonable. How much can you carry without beginning to slow down. When i pack for a 2 week trip, and i pack light, i still carry one bag of clothes and hygiene products, with an extra pair of shoes, and a backpack with my books and electronic devices...it weighs somewhere in the ballpark of 35 pounds, and trust me, i am slower...and since i think i have average strength (say 10 or 11), i think that it is quite normal.

On the other hand, we use rules for weight only when we play RP heavy games. If we play hack n slash, we throw it out the window.

This article is quite helpful on the subject of abilities and restrictions


ZebulonXenos wrote:

I'm waffling on this - the only characters likely to have 10 strength are casters (for whom it's a non-issue, either wanting medium armor, which has non-stacking penalties that are greater, or no armor), finesse fighters, and I suppose gunslingers, if that's your thing.

A finesse character will likely start the game in leather or studded leather, which frees up ten to fifteen pounds. They'll be using a 2 to 3 pound weapon. Upgrading to a chain shirt will certainly be an issue - but if you hang in long enough to pick up a mithral chain shirt, you're actually freeing up 2.5 pounds (since it weighs half as much).

As far as clothes go, I'd work under the assumption that their weight is included in the armor (since chainmail on naked flesh is probably not the least bit comfortable). (To be honest, I've always worked under the house rule 'of course you're wearing clothes, and unless there's something special about them tdon't worry about them')

I think it's actually a good thing that there's some small incentive to stick to the leather armors, if only in the early levels, and the encumbrance levels seem to mimic realism enough for my purposes.

So I think it works out alright - and if it really bugs you that much, the first three points in strength are cheap and give you 5 lbs per point invested.

Not playing point buy so getting extra points isn't an option.

While I don't think it's unreasonable to include the weight of clothing in the armor numbers as far as the rules are concerned that isn't true.

Also a 10 strength isn't unusual particularly on characters who don't intent to be benifitting greatly from it aka finesse fighters, gunslinger, caster clerics(possibly), ranged bards(possibly), rogues, or casters. And pretty much none of those should have a high enough dex bonus at low levels to warrant using anything but a Chain Shirt if they can afford it(Also studded leather nets you 5 less pounds for a grand total of 20 which is still going to ruin everything).

Not to mention even the Mithral version weights 10lbs + your 5 lb clothes + your bag of holding and you're roughly at your weight cap I sure hope you don't intend to carry a torch or a ranged weapon option with you.

Now I understand the fluff reasoning behind making the caps be where they are but seriously fluff hasn't ever been a good reasoning for rules.


here's a suggestion. when you get into combat, drop your bag of stuff. I don't think it'd be difficult to talk to your GM into having it even be a free action to shrug off a pack.

from your list of examples, I'm going to poke some holes.

caster clerics? - medium armor, slowed already, doesn't matter.
rogues? damn right you need some strength. its been long proven on the boards that completely finesse rogues are way below subpar.
casters? not wearing armor
finesse fighters? even more reason than rogues. power attack still helpful, at least 13 str should be mandatory, even if you're dex based.

so we're left with uh, gunslingers and caster bards.

well, i guess those guys should get muleback cords, or get to suck up some points into str. such is life.

Liberty's Edge

Personally, I've always just not counted a worn suit of clothing (though if you carry spares, those count), and have never run into trouble, evn when playing Str 10 characters.

The trick is to have the extra stuff in a backpack, which you drop before doing things like fighting (or possibly even before entering the dungeon, depending on what kind of area we are talking about).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The trick is to have the extra stuff in a backpack, which you drop before doing things like fighting (or possibly even before entering the dungeon, depending on what kind of area we are talking about).

Or a handy haversack. 120 pounds of gear that only counts as 5 pounds. With the bonus that whatever item you are trying to retrieve from it is always on top, and taking something from the handy haversack doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.


If you rolled it's a similar bag - give up the 12 you would have assigned to Wisdom (or some other secondary stat) to get a few more pounds to work with. If you rolled badly enough you don't have a decent score to put there, well, whoops. That's what happens when you leave things to the dice.

I'll admit that I'm talking houserules with the clothing, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the book that says you have to wear both clothing and armor. So if the fluff comes up it's very easily handwaved. And I did apparently look at the chart crosseyed, so low level characters are only getting five or ten pounds, not fifteen.

I think the rules are doing their job - they provide an adequate disincentive to completely ignoring Strength, and a number of ways to get around the issues with having average Strength.

And at risk of igniting one of those popular ol' debates, I think it's less the encumbrance table's fault and more that there's a fair bit of weight inflation in the equipment list.

I also endorse the time-honored tradition of throwing your crap on the ground the second everybody gets to feeling shanky as well - though some GMs might rule that as a move action.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

my group has always gone under the houserule that the stuff your wearing only adds like 60% to your weight as having something on your frame is alot easier then carrying. just think of difficulty in carrying a sleeping child who curls onto you vs one who is trying to get away.


I think it is very reasonable. I certainly see why people are limited by it but I think it is important to keep certain choices meaningful and keeps a sense of "reality."

Whenever I have a character that is in this boat I ask the DM if I can have a duffle bag rather than a backpack. I drop my gear at the first sign of trouble so I can move a full speed. I am also notorious for making the stronger characters carry my stuff. "Hey Kronk, can you hold my portable ram, crowbar, smithing kit, alchemist kit, shovel and manacles . . . thanks."

Grand Lodge

Well if you have ever worn armor it is does get heavy rather quickly.Ask any army or marine soldier how much their kit weighs.Or better yet wear some chainmail all day at a renaiassance faire.(Wow that was one of my worse ideas ever)But like previous posters have said there are quite few ways to get around it.Houserule it if you dislike it.In our games we are pretty harsh on weight and quivers and such things.For us because we do a lot of renaissance stuff it breaks immmersion to carry 80 arrows or 12 throw axes etc. To each his own and all that rot,I just think the tables are rerasonably accurate. It can be a lot of bookkeeping but i cheat and make herolabs do it for me.


Weables wrote:

here's a suggestion. when you get into combat, drop your bag of stuff. I don't think it'd be difficult to talk to your GM into having it even be a free action to shrug off a pack.

from your list of examples, I'm going to poke some holes.

caster clerics? - medium armor, slowed already, doesn't matter.
rogues? damn right you need some strength. its been long proven on the boards that completely finesse rogues are way below subpar.
casters? not wearing armor
finesse fighters? even more reason than rogues. power attack still helpful, at least 13 str should be mandatory, even if you're dex based.

so we're left with uh, gunslingers and caster bards.

well, i guess those guys should get muleback cords, or get to suck up some points into str. such is life.

If you allow dervish dance as some (including our group) do, finesse fighters and dex primary rogues suddenly become not completely pos options and your holes seem abruptly plugged. And finesse fighters can use piranha strike or whatever to replace power attack.

Also as I said these are the very freaking basic items you'll be carrying that will net you encumbered status. 1 suit of clothing your armor a primary weapon and a ranged backup and you're encumbered that is all stuff you literally cannot drop at the beginning of combat.

But more importantly there are already enough disincentives to dumping strength most importantly the fact that you don't have to waste two to 4 feats to get the combat abilities that STR gives you to begin with and the fact that you can use superior weapons than light/finesse weapons as well as the benefit to your combat maneuver defense the bonus to several skills and the fact that you can actually make strength checks to kick in doors etc. Str is already so good that the fact that you can run around carrying 6 million pounds of gold is entirely a side issue.

And the fact that just about everyone I've met houserules in some way or handwaves weight management is just an indication that the system is borked.


gnomersy wrote:
And the fact that just about everyone I've met houserules in some way or handwaves weight management is just an indication that the...

Or are they just lazy? Keeping track of encumbrance does require a certain amount of bookkeeping.

/ I find the bookkeeping isn't that bothersome
// I wouldn't houserule away encumbrance


10 str can carry up to 66 lbs at a medium encumberance. Not only does this make sense, but it is fair.

Really, try carrying around 66 lbs of extra weight for a few hours. You will feel encumbered.


Jarl wrote:

10 str can carry up to 66 lbs at a medium encumberance. Not only does this make sense, but it is fair.

Really, try carrying around 66 lbs of extra weight for a few hours. You will feel encumbered.

The way you carry something makes a big difference to. I can put a couple hundred pounds across my shoulders and squat with it, but I can't hold 200 pounds in my hands and walk around with it very well.

I heard somewhere a long time ago that you have to be in pretty good shape to carry 1/4 of your body weight in your hands half a mile. So for a 200 pound guy, that would be walking for about 10 minutes with a fifty pound weight in your hands. I could see that being REALLY hard for a lot of people.

Liberty's Edge

I would just like to point out there's a difference between "it isn't fun" and "it doesn't make sense". Weak people being able to carry little makes perfect sense. It just might not make for a fun game, depending on your play style.


houstonderek wrote:
I would just like to point out there's a difference between "it isn't fun" and "it doesn't make sense". Weak people being able to carry little makes perfect sense. It just might not make for a fun game, depending on your play style.

No one forces you to make a weak character. I think wizards with strength scores less than 10 are kind of stupid myself. I guess during his training at the tower as a child they never made him do any manual labor.

Beyond that though, small people should be able to carry more of their own gear. I weight 260. My fiancee well under half that. I'd venture a guess that her camping gear weighs close to half mine even though we carry almost exactly the same stuff.


I agree, loading makes a huge difference. Holding weight in your hands, say like doing farmers walks, is much more difficult than loading the weight on your core, say for example a 70 lb weight vest or rucksack.

Liberty's Edge

It would be nice if, since 3x/PF has to have a rule for everything, they'd differentiate between raw weight and encumbrance.

And my point wasn't about the weight restrictions as much as, if you don't like it, house rule it and carry on. No biggie. What people do in their home game is their business.

:-)


houstonderek wrote:

It would be nice if, since 3x/PF has to have a rule for everything, they'd differentiate between raw weight and encumbrance.

And my point wasn't about the weight restrictions as much as, if you don't like it, house rule it and carry on. No biggie. What people do in their home game is their business.

:-)

What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas? Yeah, I can dig that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jarl wrote:

10 str can carry up to 66 lbs at a medium encumberance. Not only does this make sense, but it is fair.

Really, try carrying around 66 lbs of extra weight for a few hours. You will feel encumbered.

I've done so and I sure do then again I'm not really in the best shape and I'm not a hero of legend for starters. But if you really want to start arguing about 10 str how about this, since Pathfinder is set in a pre-tech society the average person has a much higher degree of fitness because they regularly engaged in physical activity therefore a 10 str (average for that time not for ours) is actually relatively more fit compared to what we would consider average right now.

Fun fact you can make up a reason for any rule but at the end of the day the rules should aim for balance and then let fluff be handled by the players because it's easier that way than it is to dictate the rules by fluff and then forcing the players to rewrite them in order to achieve balance.

And furthermore when I said it doesn't make sense I mean from a purely game balance perspective. So this raises the question of why do you think the rule is fair? And if you feel that this rule is really necessary is that because you feel the other benefits of having a good strength score are too low?

Is it because you're already playing characters with inordinately high strength scores because you needed it for combat or is it because you haven't been actually paying attention to your weight limits? Or is it because you make use of a work around such as muleback cords/bags of holding/handy haversacks? Or is it because you "drop your bag" but neglect to keep track of what is actually on you, have you ever done so and then grabbed a potion from ... oh wait nevermind all your crap is in the bag 40 feet away.

My issue with the bag drop solution is that really it isn't enough it also requires that you keep two separate lists of your gear one which stays with you and one which is dropped and because at the end of the day it's just an excuse to ignore the weight rules which you could do by just having weight rules that don't suck to begin with.

RAWRGH man I get crotchety when I'm tired sorry if this sounds rant-y or like I'm trying to attack anybody but when the rules make walking around in my gear suddenly negate class features it gets me a touch annoyed and while I suspect strongly that my DM wouldn't really care I never make that assumption because we haven't been playing together for too long.


houstonderek wrote:

It would be nice if, since 3x/PF has to have a rule for everything, they'd differentiate between raw weight and encumbrance.

And my point wasn't about the weight restrictions as much as, if you don't like it, house rule it and carry on. No biggie. What people do in their home game is their business.

:-)

You ever tried to get a king size foam rubber mattress through a narrow doorway? It weighs about 7 pounds and it isn't easy.


Hope I didn't come off really snarky. Posted from a phone and I tend to be brief. Sorry if so.

I do not wish to argue, but I will try to answer some of your questions. :)

Quote:
And furthermore when I said it doesn't make sense I mean from a purely game balance perspective. So this raises the question of why do you think the rule is fair? And if you feel that this rule is really necessary is that because you feel the other benefits of having a good strength score are too low?

Well, I disagree, purely from a game balance perspective. It is fair, becuase you have to have a trade off between people who prioritize one ability over another. If the benefit of a high stat score is retained even if you dump it, then why have them at all?

Quote:
Is it because you're already playing characters with inordinately high strength scores because you needed it for combat or is it because you haven't been actually paying attention to your weight limits? Or is it because you make use of a work around such as muleback cords/bags of holding/handy haversacks?

I never, ever, make characters with strength scores below 10. I value being physically able to do things too much and lower scores really get to disappointing for me, even on a caster, if I have weak characters. Yes, I make use of muleback cords, masterwork backpacks, handy haversacks and the Ant Haul spell. Can you blame me?

I will leave this post with one of my favorite quotes:

Mark Rippetoe wrote:
Strong people are harder to kill than weak people and more useful in general.

This does of course ignore the abilities of a capable caster, but that's a whole different discussion. :)


Jarl wrote:

Hope I didn't come off really snarky. Posted from a phone and I tend to be brief. Sorry if so.

I do not wish to argue, but I will try to answer some of your questions. :)

Well, I disagree, purely from a game balance perspective. It is fair, becuase you have to have a trade off between people who prioritize one ability over another. If the benefit of a high stat score is retained even if you dump it, then why have them at all?

I never, ever, make characters with strength scores below 10. I value being physically able to do things too much and lower scores really get to disappointing for me, even on a caster, if I have weak characters. Yes, I make use of muleback cords, masterwork backpacks, handy haversacks and the Ant Haul spell. Can you blame me?

I will leave this post with one of my favorite quotes:

Mark Rippetoe wrote:
Strong people are harder to kill than weak people and more useful in general.
This does of course ignore the abilities of a capable caster, but that's a whole different discussion. :)

Not at all, although this being the internet I have to insist that you're wrong and I'm right =P.

See I disagree about what the real benefit of the Str stat is. As I said before the Str stat has at least half a dozen better uses and those are the primary reasons someone chooses to increase it now people might not consider dumping the stat in order to have an unaffected carrying capacity but like you I never take a stat below 10 unless it's for an rp purpose(maybe an 8cha for hideous burns on his face to reflect being offputting or something).

Also remember this conversation was about 10 strength it's not like I'm dumping it down to 7 then expecting to punch a tarrasque to death in one blow, and the fact is that the people who would most likely have lower strength are the ones who benefit most for dex who are the ones who get penalized for carrying things by losing their dex bonus ... does that make sense? (I mean the actual statement but if you understand it, it remains a sort of catch 22 to making use of dex)

I don't blame you for making use of other ways to get around a low strength score (fun fact technically speaking nothing in the rules says that a masterwork backpack takes up a slot and since technically it doesn't you could carry 8 of them for a +8 bonus to carrying strength =P)

But at the same time I feel like it's a somewhat irrelevant way to give the finger to players who don't want to make high str characters since Str has just as much game impact as dex even if you ignored the weight limit section and in fact if you're playing with base rules strength easily beats dex as a primary ability which is why you see "sneaky,swift,fleetfooted" rogues with 17's in their strength and 14's in their dex cleaving torso's using daggers for some reason as was pointed out earlier in this thread.

As for the quote it neglects to take into account that a skilled knife fighter might not cleave your torso in half but that wouldn't stop him from leaving you dead in an alley in a pool of your own blood.


gnomercy, you have the best screen name I've seen.


Fair enough. Honestly your request is not unreasonable. I can definitely see a valid argument for giving a small increase in a characters ability to carry their gear, so long as it remains at a conservative level and pc's retain a definite benefit for choosing a high strength value.

Removing clothing and perhaps a few other items you wear on a daily basis from encumberance would be reasonable and would likely give a 20'ish lb leeway.


Encumbrance rules exist to make low strength/high dex builds have to make tough choices. Considering how popular such builds are here on these boards, I image that many here frown at this.

I think it makes sense, and I feel that the encumbrance is a necessary part of RAW. It makes medium and heavy armors more acceptable since a character may as well wear them and get the extra AC if they are going to be weighed down anyways. Most groups I've seen that play with encumbrance favor medium armor (breastplate or hide if metal armor is a no-go) and typically stick to medium loads for most characters. In groups that don't track encumbrance, Dex builds dominate and dance around in light armor despite the fact that their load is likely in the medium range were it tracked.


Jarl wrote:

Fair enough. Honestly your request is not unreasonable. I can definitely see a valid argument for giving a small increase in a characters ability to carry their gear, so long as it remains at a conservative level and pc's retain a definite benefit for choosing a high strength value.

Removing clothing and perhaps a few other items you wear on a daily basis from encumberance would be reasonable and would likely give a 20'ish lb leeway.

Clothing has weight. It's not magically weightless. This will eventually add up with everything else carried. If you plan to go all acrobatic/climby/swimmy then dress lightly.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I use the weight rules. There is nothing wrong with them beyond the fact that they take a trivial amount of time to figure out weights and dumping strength has consequences.

There are so many easy, inexpensive ways to manage weight it isn't even funny. Haversacks, muleback cords, ant haul, floating disc, mounts, pack mules/ pack dogs. Pick the combination of solutions and spend the gold.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HappyDaze wrote:
Clothing has weight. It's not magically weightless. This will eventually add up with everything else carried. If you plan to go all acrobatic/climby/swimmy then dress lightly.

My characters are all naked, they consider the chafing from wearing armor with no clothing to be character building.

Grand Lodge

Firstly RP aside (we have some who don't see a 7 stat as something to be role played) there has to be some sort of trade off and balance. If I dump int I get less skills and my int based skills suck, dump wis and my will save bites and I have craptastic perception, if I dump con my hit points suck and do on. Dumping str to max Dex (the most useful stat as it gives a bonus to AC, to hit, initiative, and some useful skills) has to come with a downside.

I'm not saying your play style is badwrongfun but the rules seem to based on balance. If you find it to be an issue? Encourage your DM to start with a higher point buy and use the extra points (assuming you don't roll) and don't min-max on that final 5 points.

I play a bit of PFS and I find that until you can hit low-mid levels and can afford mithril armours, 12 str and a masterwork pack goes a fair way to helping finesse builds.


0gre wrote:
HappyDaze wrote:
Clothing has weight. It's not magically weightless. This will eventually add up with everything else carried. If you plan to go all acrobatic/climby/swimmy then dress lightly.
My characters are all naked, they consider the chafing from wearing armor with no clothing to be character building.

Depending on your environment (natural or social), this can have nasty repercussions of its own.

Shadow Lodge

HappyDaze wrote:
0gre wrote:
HappyDaze wrote:
Clothing has weight. It's not magically weightless. This will eventually add up with everything else carried. If you plan to go all acrobatic/climby/swimmy then dress lightly.
My characters are all naked, they consider the chafing from wearing armor with no clothing to be character building.
Depending on your environment (natural or social), this can have nasty repercussions of its own.

Well sure, endure elements or in a pinch, they might even resort to cold weather clothing out of necessity. Some GMs might apply a circumstance penalty in social situations... but I would suggest in some cases a bonus would be appropriate.


Helaman wrote:

Firstly RP aside (we have some who don't see a 7 stat as something to be role played) there has to be some sort of trade off and balance. If I dump int I get less skills and my int based skills suck, dump wis and my will save bites and I have craptastic perception, if I dump con my hit points suck and do on. Dumping str to max Dex (the most useful stat as it gives a bonus to AC, to hit, initiative, and some useful skills) has to come with a downside.

I'm not saying your play style is badwrongfun but the rules seem to based on balance. If you find it to be an issue? Encourage your DM to start with a higher point buy and use the extra points (assuming you don't roll) and don't min-max on that final 5 points.

I play a bit of PFS and I find that until you can hit low-mid levels and can afford mithril armours, 12 str and a masterwork pack goes a fair way to helping finesse builds.

We roll in my group so buying the cheap points isn't an option also a 10 is hardly min maxing.

I'm already using the masterwork pack and mithral armor as well as weapons in order to cut down weight. However that weight still comes out to a minimum of 40 or so and at an effective strength of 11 that's a medium load.

Now admittedly I could grab an 11 from my charisma or the 14 in my wisdom and toss them into strength but given that I have two piss poor saves as a rogue and absurd attribute dependence the detriment would be greater than just accepting the fact that my character never wears clothes because the rules don't say you have to and it doesn't say there are any penalties for not wearing them.

You can say that dex is the best skill and I agree it has many benefits but when you max out strength and dump your dex you don't end up suffering strength penalties because that's a stupid idea. Not to mention strength is useful on it's own right because it gives you bonuses to hit, to damage, to several useful skills, as well as to break things, and a bonus to your combat maneuver offense and defense.

@Ogre
Magical solutions are great when you have access to a vast supply of magical crap however some games you don't.

But to be honest I have no idea how people deal with the volume conditions of the haversack. I really want to use it, in fact I'd vastly prefer using it because it would push me down into a light load and net me the bonus the haversack has with regards to drawing items.

But I also don't want to constantly harass my DM about whether I can fit items A, B, C, and D in there and nothing in the book lets you know how much volume items take up.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gnomersy wrote:

So I've been working on characters for the past little while but I'll be honest unless you have 14+ strength just carrying your armor and weapons will be enough to push you into medium encumbrance unfortunately the repercussions for that in game terms are particularly high on the characters who can't afford to put extra points into their strength. And when you couple that with the fact that just wearing traveling clothes somehow takes up almost 20% of your carrying capacity and even "light" armor takes up a third or if you want anything with an actual AC bonus for example a chain shirt you end up using 25 lbs for that at Str 10 that means you're just a hairs breath from the 33lb level which dumps you into a medium load and loses you all of the benefits of being one of those light armor people

*sigh* well I shouldn't be griping but it feels extremely weird that I'm seriously considering whether or not technically speaking you actually have to be wearing clothing because it would push me out of my weight class.

Does this bug anyone else?

You're seriously complainging that because you have a mediocre strength tht you cant freight as well as a pack mule?

No it doesn't bug me at all. This is the balancer against all those dex cheese monkeys who bump up their dex by sending their strength into the toilet.

So yes it means if you're going to melee and not develop your strength to a proper level, there's a cost for that decision.


gnomersy wrote:

So I've been working on characters for the past little while but I'll be honest unless you have 14+ strength just carrying your armor and weapons will be enough to push you into medium encumbrance unfortunately the repercussions for that in game terms are particularly high on the characters who can't afford to put extra points into their strength. And when you couple that with the fact that just wearing traveling clothes somehow takes up almost 20% of your carrying capacity and even "light" armor takes up a third or if you want anything with an actual AC bonus for example a chain shirt you end up using 25 lbs for that at Str 10 that means you're just a hairs breath from the 33lb level which dumps you into a medium load and loses you all of the benefits of being one of those light armor people

*sigh* well I shouldn't be griping but it feels extremely weird that I'm seriously considering whether or not technically speaking you actually have to be wearing clothing because it would push me out of my weight class.

Does this bug anyone else?

WEIGHT restrictions bother me quite a bit, as it isn't weight (strictly speaking) that slows people down or impedes their abilities, but ENCUMBRANCE. In older additions of the game, things had "encumbrance values" that were listed as "weight" in an attempt to even out this sort of situation. An example of this was that a long sword had a "weight" (which was actually an encumbrance value) of 7, whereas a 10 foot pole (which is just a long spear shaft) was 10. The long sword is clearly heavier than 7 pounds (given that most medieval long swords weighed in the 15 pound range, but the 10 foot pole probably weighed less than 10 pounds. Why the higher value for the 10 foot pole? Imagine if you had to carry a 10 foot piece of wood around everywhere. Would you make it into the elevator at work? How about into your apartment? And how would you have to carry it? And how would that affect your movement rate having to adjust it and shoehorn it into places?

Armor developed as weapons developed. Heavier armors like field plate armors from medieval times were actually easier to walk around in and carry than older plate mails and chain mails because they were designed so that the weight was carried differently. It made getting into and out of the armor more difficult, and it WAS heavier, so things that involved sheer strength (such as climbing into a saddle, or standing up from prone) were more difficult, but moving around and swinging a weapon and simply walking around were actually easier.

I use a house system for encumbrance based on the older games that makes more sense. WEIGHT restrictions are simply that - the maximum weight that a character can carry based on their strength. My system allows characters to carry certain gear in certain ways (such as in a pack) and only count a portion of the weight toward their encumbrance (which is what I use to affect movement and combat, not weight.) They still have to count all the weight against their maximum, though. The system is also designed such that the closer they get to their maximums, the more weight they have to count toward encumbrance, meaning that weight eventually counts more as maximums are reached. It involves a little bookkeeping, but I made a spreadsheet that takes most of the guesswork out of it for the players. All they have to do it put in the weights and how/where they are carrying that item (via dropdown) and it automatically calculates the encumbrance.


gnomersy wrote:

So I've been working on characters for the past little while but I'll be honest unless you have 14+ strength just carrying your armor and weapons will be enough to push you into medium encumbrance unfortunately the repercussions for that in game terms are particularly high on the characters who can't afford to put extra points into their strength. And when you couple that with the fact that just wearing traveling clothes somehow takes up almost 20% of your carrying capacity and even "light" armor takes up a third or if you want anything with an actual AC bonus for example a chain shirt you end up using 25 lbs for that at Str 10 that means you're just a hairs breath from the 33lb level which dumps you into a medium load and loses you all of the benefits of being one of those light armor people

*sigh* well I shouldn't be griping but it feels extremely weird that I'm seriously considering whether or not technically speaking you actually have to be wearing clothing because it would push me out of my weight class.

Does this bug anyone else?

Furthermore, LazarX is correct. Weight AND encumbrance affect the ability to make fine movements and free swinging combat maneuvers. My system takes this into account, though, by incorporating penalties to dexterity the more weight a person carries. It is far easier to swing a sword with all one's strength when carrying a heavy load (and the weight might even make it a harder blow,) than to gracefully pirouette into a slash and lunge maneuver with even a fraction of that, even if it is carried well.

A weaker person with a high dexterity suffers twice from encumbrance penalties in my system (suffering combat modifiers AND dexterity penalties.) This is the tradeoff that a character makes for dumping their strength in favor of dexterity. My system almost completely negates a "dexterity" fighter's chances of being successful in anything heavier than leather armor, which is the way it should be (in my opinion.) If they want to to take advantage of those heavier armors, they should be strong enough to...


Good suggestion here is to simply pack a backpack, a iron bar and then try to run a few miles. Have fun.
(Did a 35km combat marsh during my time in the army (35kg/70 punds backpack + 5kg/10lbs assault rifle).
With the backpack i couldn#t fight anything, so first thing we learnes was how to get rid of the backpack fast!

While my LARP Time (yes I know the weapons aren't steel), I really encountered what "medival weight" means, e.g. a Chainmail is hell if you want to run/fight.

For me the weight restrictions are fine.


For the record I have many times had to deal with the fact that my pack was 60 feet away and had to adust my actions. But that is the price I paid for having low str and chosing a high dex build.

Grand Lodge

Also the price for the dice roll system... which is unfortunate. Some guys like that system but I've come to love the point buy - you don't get one guy with godlike stats and you don't get another with crap stats... and you can choose your weakness. In your case the dice god imposed it on you to such a degree its hurting your play. Had you had a 15-20 pt build this may not have been the case.


Helaman wrote:
Also the price for the dice roll system... which is unfortunate. Some guys like that system but I've come to love the point buy - you don't get one guy with godlike stats and you don't get another with crap stats... and you can choose your weakness. In your case the dice god imposed it on you to such a degree its hurting your play. Had you had a 15-20 pt build this may not have been the case.

Not really I mean point buy is good and I like the theory because it's standardized and makes character creation easier, but my stats are already far beyond the allowance for the average point buy(although it's consistent with what our DM expects us to have).

I had 2 14s a 16 and a 15 at start along with the 10s but since I'm aiming for a finesse rogue+fighter-> duelist as the party's secondary front liner I have a terrible case of MAD (Need int for duelist AC late game and to counter the lost skill points from taking fighter levels need Dex for increased to hit and AC, need con because of the smaller rogue hit die and because rogues have a terrible fort and will save which is why my 14s are stuck in those stats.

Now I could dump wis and accept I will fail any will saves I suffer to up my carrying capacity but since we tend to play a bit over powered and so do the mobs the chances are good that I'd have a pretty terrible time of it then again I decided to blow one of my 3 allotted +1 items on a handy haversack, and just assume that my character is a ninja when it comes to packing and just used the weight limit as my guide, because for some reason a bag of holding weight 3x as much(Why did they do that by the way?)


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
gnomersy wrote:

I had 2 14s a 16 and a 15 at start along with the 10s but since I'm aiming for a finesse rogue+fighter-> duelist as the party's secondary front liner I have a terrible case of MAD (Need int for duelist AC late game and to counter the lost skill points from taking fighter levels need Dex for increased to hit and AC, need con because of the smaller rogue hit die and because rogues have a terrible fort and will save which is why my 14s are stuck in those stats.

Now I could dump wis and accept I will fail any will saves I suffer to up my carrying capacity but since we tend to play a bit over powered and so do the mobs the chances are good that I'd have a pretty terrible time of it then again I decided to blow one of my 3 allotted +1 items on a handy haversack, and just assume that my character is a ninja when it comes to packing and just used the weight limit as my guide, because for some reason a bag of holding weight 3x as much(Why did they do that by the way?)

1) I fail to see how a +0 (10 Wis) vs. a +2 will cause you to "fail any will saves." At worst, you have a 10% greater chance of failure (that's one more failure for every ten saves); or you could use a feat for Iron Will (defense) and delay some feats a level or two instead of putting them all in offense. A 14 Str would also qualify you for Power Attack, which would help your damage output, even with a finesse/Dex build.

2) A handy haversack is useful for just about any character (the move action to retrieve an item that doesn't provoke an AoO). As far as the weight compared to a bag of holding, it probably has to do with the fact that a bag of holding can contain a lot more stuff (250 lbs/30 cubic ft vs. a total of 120 lbs/12 cubic feet).


Dragonchess Player wrote:


1) I fail to see how a +0 (10 Wis) vs. a +2 will cause you to "fail any will saves." At worst, you have a 10% greater chance of failure (that's one more failure for every ten saves); or you could use a feat for Iron Will (defense) and delay some feats a level or two instead of putting them all in offense. A 14 Str would also qualify you for Power Attack, which would help your damage output, even with a finesse/Dex build.

2) A handy haversack is useful for just about any character (the move action to retrieve an item that doesn't provoke an AoO). As far as the weight compared to a bag of holding, it probably has to do with the fact that a bag of holding can contain a lot more stuff (250 lbs/30 cubic ft vs. a total of 120 lbs/12 cubic feet).

As for the damage output yes it would increase but it would eat up more of my feats, might gain me the ire of my DM for min maxing my output to be higher than the Fighter's, and more importantly that +2 could also be considered to be 50% of my bonus to my will save. Sure I can shift around feats to make it work but it isn't worth it when I can just buy the haversack.

As for #2
Oh please it's a hole which is connected to an extra dimensional space there's no real reason that it should weigh more than an ordinary bag at all. The handy haversack stays true to that while the bag of holding is apparently made out of rocks instead.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
Oh please it's a hole which is connected to an extra dimensional space there's no real reason that it should weigh more than an ordinary bag at all.

There's no real reason it should be bigger on the inside than the outside either.

Ultimately, it's a game device and it is the way it is.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Weight restrictions make no sense? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.