| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, my natural midwestern accent-less-ness takes exception to that!Excuse me, but as an American you have an accent. I, on the other hand, speak English like a native and therefore without an accent.
Henry Higgins may beg to differ with you. :)
<crossing fingers that *someone* here is old enough to get the reference>
I thought roleplaying games were supposed to be fun, intuitive, and simple.
Nothing Geddes suggested is any of those.
Whether you like it or not, surely it's simple? (As simple as any other fix, anyhow). Seems intuitive to me also, if you're willing to accept that one can reduce 'weight' by efficient packing.
What would your solution be?
Solution: don't use encumbrance. :pAs stated above, that's not an option if you're using HeroLab. It automatically adjusts your speed, skills, etc, for encumbrance. And frankly, if I'm going to "not use" something, it'll be an add-on kit rather than part of the core rules.
I actually like encumbrance, having come up in a group that ignored it to the extent that it made my brain hurt thinking about the halfling rogue carrying 2 sets of full plate, 3 steel shields, 12 different weapons, and 40,000 gp in his backpack.
Can't you edit the weight of an item in herolab?
As I understood it, the issue wasnt with the kits themselves but when you used some of them up (or added something to them, I guess). It seems to me editting the weight would be a relatively simple fix - presuming it doesnt come up that often.
It also has an option to place lements in the "dropped on the floor" container and thus the encombrance is calculated based on only the items you say are on you. I use this to show items left at camp for example.
You can also create your own custom containers and name them whatever you wish. If you create a custom location, nothing placed in that container counts against your character encumbrance. So you could have a "Home" location, a "Lab" location (for wizards, alchemists, etc.), a "Stronghold" location, a "Wagon" location (for all the loot acquired and dragged along), etc. Different items can be placed in each of these locations and none of it will count against the character's encumbrance.
So you don't need to use "Dropped on the Floor" for "Left at Camp". Just create your own "Left at Camp" location and use that - much less confusing. :)
You can also move items to your mounts. So if you have a horse, you can move stuff there. If you do this, then it will count against the encumbrance of the mount and not the character, which is usually the behavior you want to see happen.
Hope this helps...
Hey, my natural midwestern accent-less-ness takes exception to that!Excuse me, but as an American you have an accent. I, on the other hand, speak English like a native and therefore without an accent.Henry Higgins may beg to differ with you. :)
<crossing fingers that *someone* here is old enough to get the reference>
Certainly there are regional accents in England, but if you speak with correct received pronunciation, you are technically speaking without an accent.
You can also create your own custom containers and name them whatever you wish.
True. I should have said that as well.
Great Program by the way. :-)
What was that thing called, where a house rule doesn't fix the underlying problem within the rules? People say it all the time on these and other roleplaying boards, but it escapes me at the moment.
It amazes me to see developers falling into the same trap.
No, it's good to see that game designers are avoiding YOUR trap. That rules are used where they are needed to moderate at a practical scale, not at a level where we are recalculating encumbrance for each cracker someone munches. Quite seriously if this is the level of how you think the game needs to be moderated, I wouldn't buy a book you wrote, I wouldn't play in a campaign you GM, and I would not want you at my table. I might have to put up with you if it was a PFS table, but not beyond the point where you're seriously hampering the fun of everyone else at the table.
Rules and mechanics are things you invoke to keep a game operating at an appropriate cinematic level if the game is about heroic roleplay. Not even the wargamers who are the ancestors of this hobby are as ludicrously finessing mechanics to the level that you constantly do on these boards.
If a game could be played entirely within RAW, we'd dispense with a GM and just put an adding machine at the head of the table. But playing is an organic experience. And that's what makes the game fun, or at least tolerable.j So yes we will house rule, we will house rule at our home games, we will house rule at PFS tables, and we will house rule in the trenches. And we use the rules and the RAW text in the manner they are meant for... to keep the gameplay on an even and fair keel as possible.
Tbh, he has a bit of a point. In PFS, these wouldn't fly well because of that very reason. It is pure RAW from what I understand. In a home game, they're fine. There are valid points all around. But in the context of PFS, this needs to be addressed
Tbh, he has a bit of a point. In PFS, these wouldn't fly well because of that very reason. It is pure RAW from what I understand. In a home game, they're fine. There are valid points all around. But in the context of PFS, this needs to be addressed
I can't recall any PFS scenario that requires you to be diligent about every pound of food you eat or carry.
Tbh, he has a bit of a point. In PFS, these wouldn't fly well because of that very reason. It is pure RAW from what I understand. In a home game, they're fine. There are valid points all around. But in the context of PFS, this needs to be addressedI can't recall any PFS scenario that requires you to be diligent about every pound of food you eat or carry.
Do they not track encumbrance on PFS? It can have a dramatic impact on a character's effectiveness, both in and out of combat. Pathfinder tracks things, sometimes down to the ounce (such as potions). That stuff all adds up.
How come no one has answered my question above? Surely someone remembers the term that I was alluding to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No scenarios specifically call out encumbrance because that's covered in the Core Rulebook. There are no PFS encounters that say, "make sure everyone's encumbrance is tracked, to the very pound, including food they eat and potions or scrolls they use over the course of the adventure."
That's right, potions and scrolls have a weight. Are you tracking that as you use them? Why? Tracking that isn't fun, and is a distraction from the point of the game: fighting monsters and having epic adventures.
It's like video games that give equipment specific "square" configurations so you have to play "inventory Tetris" to make everything fit in your backpack. Not fun. Not the point of the game. A distraction.
No scenarios specifically call out encumbrance because that's covered in the Core Rulebook. There are no PFS encounters that say, "make sure everyone's encumbrance is tracked, to the very pound, including food they eat and potions or scrolls they use over the course of the adventure."
That's right, potions and scrolls have a weight. Are you tracking that as you use them? Why? Tracking that isn't fun, and is a distraction from the point of the game: fighting monsters and having epic adventures.
It's like video games that give equipment specific "square" configurations so you have to play "inventory Tetris" to make everything fit in your backpack. Not fun. Not the point of the game. A distraction.
No pressure plate traps triggered by weight, chase scenes that require the PCs to be fleet of foot, or anything like that?
I do track potion weight in my games. Not so much scrolls, since they have no listed weight (paper and similar materials are even specifically called out in the rules as having no weight worth noting).
Chase scenes use the chase rules. :/
Notice how a character's speed effects their chances of success within said chase rules? And how encumbrance can have a severe effect on one's speed, also within the rules?
Thanks for strengthening my point.
|
Notice how a character's speed effects their chances of success within said chase rules? And how encumbrance can have a severe effect on one's speed, also within the rules?
Thanks for strengthening my point.
Every chase scene I've seen ran has ended on the first turn.
And if anyone did pay attention to encumbrance during them, they didn't mention it.
Encumbrance doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing rules concept. If said halfling is obviously carrying too much, common sense says his movement should be reduced. No need to track every tenth of a pound.
No, track every 1/16 of a pound. Listed weight values in the RAW go as far down as 1 oz.
I have played since '86, and I must say we have tracked encumbrance in every single D&D game (and subsequently Pathfinder) I have ever played. Even to the point of waterskins being full vs. empty. It is simply something that I grew into the game with and I cannot imagine not doing it.
Otherwise, what penalty is there for dumping Strength down to nothing for an caster? Which is also the reason I object to this entire 'readjustment' to ability score damage. I think that when someone's Strength drops by 4, he should be be able to carry less. To me that is part of the game.
MA
Creative Director
|
No pressure plate traps triggered by weight, chase scenes that require the PCs to be fleet of foot, or anything like that?
I do track potion weight in my games. Not so much scrolls, since they have no listed weight (paper and similar materials are even specifically called out in the rules as having no weight worth noting).
I've not developed any PFS scenarios, but I can say that pressure plate traps and other things triggered by weight in Pathfinder Adventures pretty much NEVER have specific weight limits as triggers. I suppose it's possible that some slipped in there with specific weights... but for the most part we prefer to use language like:
"This bridge can support 2 Medium creatures at a time," or...
"This pressure plate is triggered by the passage of a Tiny or larger creature."
It's just a LOT easier to keep track of one of the monster size categories than the entire gamut of weights in the game... especially since not every monster in the Bestiary has a weight listed.
No, track every 1/16 of a pound. Listed weight values in the RAW go as far down as 1 oz.
So what would be your preferred solution?
No, track every 1/16 of a pound. Listed weight values in the RAW go as far down as 1 oz.So what would be your preferred solution?
I like Benchak the Nightstalker's idea above. The only problem with it, is no one would ever pay full price or track the right weights for the individual items ever again. They would just get the more efficient kits.
It's a swing in the opposite direction for kits.
EDIT: Knowing how the designers came up with the reduced numbers would be a fine solution to. Then we can better determine the weight differentiation of the individual items.
No, track every 1/16 of a pound. Listed weight values in the RAW go as far down as 1 oz.So what would be your preferred solution?I like Benchak the Nightstalker's idea above. The only problem with it, is no one would ever pay full price or track the right weights for the individual items ever again. They would just get the more efficient kits.
It's a swing in the opposite direction for kits.
Certainly simple, although I'm surprised it's appealing to someone who tracks weight carried to the nearest ounce. I'm still not seeing a problem, to be frank. The discrepancy is just one of many places where the rules dont model reality very well:
.- The 16 year old healthy blacksmith apprentice cant survive a fall which will leave the 80 year old cloistered academic merely bruised.
- Armor should get worse the more it's used in battle
- Weapons should break pretty regularly
- A kit of equipment should start to weigh less as it is consumed
There's a plethora of details not covered by the rules and just some default assumptions, generally skewed to the players' advantage.
It doesnt really matter if the kits become the new default does it?
The discrepancy is just one of many places where the rules dont model reality very well.
Who said anything about modeling reality? I just want the rules to be internally consistent.
It doesn't really matter if the kits become the new default does it?
It doesn't if you don't believe in power creep.
(And yes, I know it's an extremely minor advantage, but please remember that it is called "power creep," not "power sprint.")
I have played since '86, and I must say we have tracked encumbrance in every single D&D game (and subsequently Pathfinder) I have ever played. Even to the point of waterskins being full vs. empty. It is simply something that I grew into the game with and I cannot imagine not doing it.
Otherwise, what penalty is there for dumping Strength down to nothing for an caster? Which is also the reason I object to this entire 'readjustment' to ability score damage. I think that when someone's Strength drops by 4, he should be be able to carry less. To me that is part of the game.
MA
Where as I have played since 1978 and we just brought mules and porters and guards and didn't worry about it unless we found a large number of coins etc. This just seems like a tempest in a tea cup issue. Add weight to the kits or just elect not to use them. Seems simple enough.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Benchak the Nightstalker's idea above. The only problem with it, is no one would ever pay full price or track the right weights for the individual items ever again. They would just get the more efficient kits.No, track every 1/16 of a pound. Listed weight values in the RAW go as far down as 1 oz.So what would be your preferred solution?
And...?
Why is that a problem?
Because it's power creep.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly simple, although I'm surprised it's appealing to someone who tracks weight carried to the nearest ounce. I'm still not seeing a problem, to be frank. The discrepancy is just one of many places where the rules dont model reality very well:
.
- The 16 year old healthy blacksmith apprentice cant survive a fall which will leave the 80 year old cloistered academic merely bruised.
- Armor should get worse the more it's used in battle
- Weapons should break pretty regularly
- A kit of equipment should start to weigh less as it is consumed
There's a plethora of details not covered by the rules and just some default assumptions, generally skewed to the players' advantage.
It doesnt really matter if the kits become the new default does it?
I actually have house-rules for some of these:
1. Falling inflicts Constitution damage, not hit-point damage. 1d4 for the first 10' and +1 per every 10' after. Hit zero Con and you are dead no matter how many hp you have. Players in my game make damn sure they are roped together and pitoned securely or someone has a feather fall prepped. That an having a good acrobatics skill to try and lessen the damage from a fall.
2. I keep track of how much damage someones armor in my game takes. Basically, for every 10 full points of damage dealt to the character, the armor takes 1 hit point of damage, ignoring hardness. At zero hit points, it becomes broken. If it takes twice that amount of damage, it is ruined.
3. Natural '1' is a miss that damages the weapon's hit points, meaning you actually hit something (maybe even your target), but you hit it bad wrong. This damage is done exactly as sunder, just as if you were swinging that weapon: hope you weren't power-attacking two-handed Mr. Raging Barbarian, sir.
4. You bet it does. Had to leave half the rope in your climbing kit behind? The kit loses weight. You have a healing kit? Each time your use it the supplies get lower and WILL run out.
Works for me and my group. Your own mileage may vary.
MA
To be fair, an 80 year old doesn't necessarily have to have a high level.
In PFS they bloody do fly. Because the only case where it makes a bloody difference are those PC's who keep their encumbrance to within 8 ounces of limit. If you're the type of player who...
If you're the type of player who doesn't follow the rules and track encumbrance, conveniently forgetting to tell the GM of the PFS game that you should be taking penalties, then you're a cheater.
I don't understand why you're demonizing me because I have an expectation that people are going to follow the rules of the game.
Except... there is no problem with people following the kit rules. You just don't like them.
They are internally inconsistent, thereby making yet another gray area within the rules. I ask: Why couldn't we have just avoided said gray area in the first place by leaving the weight/values as they were?
Saying "ignore it" and burying your head in the sand doesn't solve anything. It may be a small problem, but it is still a problem.
If you think this is power creep, then never being encumbered by any amount of holly must keep you up at night ;)
Add weight to the kits or just elect not to use them. Seems simple enough.Or just accept that not every single backpack/hammer/piton/rubber ducky weighs the same and move on.
Amen Brother Tri.
1. Falling inflicts Constitution damage, not hit-point damage. 1d4 for the first 10' and +1 per every 10' after.How do you account for the few people that have fallen tens of thousands of feet and survived?
I don't. That happens seldom enough in RL that is nearly qualifies as a miracle in my opinion. Now, since I use luck points as well (from D20 Modern), then one of my players could very well spend an action point on a fall, saving his hide in an emergency. Or basically, "God smiles upon you and you are now on the ground with a Con of 1 and you hurt like hell."
MA
I have played since '86, and I must say we have tracked encumbrance in every single D&D game (and subsequently Pathfinder) I have ever played. Even to the point of waterskins being full vs. empty. It is simply something that I grew into the game with and I cannot imagine not doing it.
Otherwise, what penalty is there for dumping Strength down to nothing for an caster? Which is also the reason I object to this entire 'readjustment' to ability score damage. I think that when someone's Strength drops by 4, he should be be able to carry less. To me that is part of the game.
MA
Ability score damage does not affect carrying capacity so no need to readjust carrying capacity.
Ability score damage does not affect carrying capacity so no need to readjust carrying capacity.I have played since '86, and I must say we have tracked encumbrance in every single D&D game (and subsequently Pathfinder) I have ever played. Even to the point of waterskins being full vs. empty. It is simply something that I grew into the game with and I cannot imagine not doing it.
Otherwise, what penalty is there for dumping Strength down to nothing for an caster? Which is also the reason I object to this entire 'readjustment' to ability score damage. I think that when someone's Strength drops by 4, he should be be able to carry less. To me that is part of the game.
MA
In Pathfinder, yes. In 3.x D&D, you bet it did. THAT difference between the two is the 'readjustment' I was referring to, Zark. And in my game, if you lose 4 points of Strength to a Shadow or some such, you are going to lose quite a bit of carrying capacity.
MA
Then the problem is your houserules, not Pathfinder.
Then the problem is your houserules, not Pathfinder.
WHAT?
MA
The discrepancy is just one of many places where the rules dont model reality very well.Who said anything about modeling reality? I just want the rules to be internally consistent.
Eh? In PF-land, buying a particular kit weighs and costs a different amount than if you buy the constituent parts individually. Clever packing, economy of scale - the details arent spelled out. Perfectly consistent, just not realistic.
.In other consistent but not-real news: a place can be evil and an expert, octogenarian librarian is tougher than a fit, young blacksmith apprentice. PF-land doesnt make sense because sensible adventurers are not the target demographic.
To be fair, an 80 year old doesn't necessarily have to have a high level.
Of course - but a high level librarian in his eighties shouldnt be able to survive a fall which will kill a fit, young blacksmith's apprentice. I wasnt claiming that all eighty year olds are high level - merely providing some (in a plethora of easily constructible) examples of situations where the rules do a poor job of representing what would actually happen.
.Buying a pre-packed backpack is (apparently) cheaper and lighter than buying the stuff and packing the backpack yourself. It's silly, but if your verisimilitudi-meter quivers at that, PF may not be aiming to please you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Encumbrance doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing rules concept. If said halfling is obviously carrying too much, common sense says his movement should be reduced. No need to track every tenth of a pound.No, track every 1/16 of a pound. Listed weight values in the RAW go as far down as 1 oz.
I reckon if you're going to go that far, you shouldn't deduct the weight of food eaten until, say, 6-8 hours afterward. Depending on Constitution/Fortitude/spiciness.