| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I just spottet an error in the carrying capacity table (Core Rules Page 171). To make a spreadsheet, I reversed engineered the formula, which turned out to be:
POWER(4,((Str/10)-1))*100
The result ist then rounded to get the maximum carrying capacity. (Light CC ends at 33% and Medium CC ends at 66%)
There are some inconsitencies in the method of rounding, but there are also three entries with different results:
The first two are at strength 1 and 2, but I believe it ist understandable to choose 10 and 20 here instead of just keeping 30 at Strength 1, 2 and 3.
However there is an error at Strength 27 (my lucky number by the way)
The value written in the book is 1040. However, it should have been 1050.
POWER(4,((27/10)-1))*100 = 1055,696... depending on wheter you round down or up, you would get 1050 or 1060. 1055 might be irregular but is still possible. However, you can't round to 1040.
If you then take into account, that the maximum medium CC is 66% of the heavy CC, you get the following results:
1040*66/100= 686.4
1050*66/100= 693
1055*66/100= 696.3
1060*66/100= 699.6
The value printed in the book here is 693, proving that 1050 would be correct and 1040 is - in fact - a typo.
I crosschecked with D&D 3.5 and the same mistake is present there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even know how to respond... I want to make so many snarky comments right now I can't even choose. I've hit snark overload.
I ran the same numbers and you are right. Perhaps they did this intentionally although I doubt it.
- Gauss
Awesome catch. Since it was also in the 3.5 SRD, odds are it was also wrong in 3.0, which suggests a typo when transferring the data from a pre-calculated table into the table in the PHB, that never got picked up in proof reading (one digit in a table at a place in the table which is rarely going to be referenced? Proof readers are awesome, but not THAT awesome!)
So, extreme kudos for identifying an error that has probably been in existence for well over a decade. Looks like we need another printing of the game to correct this. :D
Chemlak, the same error is in the 3.0PHB (I still have my copy).
- Gauss
I still have a couple of copies, myself, but I'm at work right now, and they're in my study at home, so couldn't check. The fact that this has been there for this long, unnoticed until now, is extremely gratifying to me in many ways, since it shows that we can recreate the design from first principles and use that to identify flaws. The scientist/mathematician in me is singing with glee.
The player, on the hand, is just laughing ruefully.
But does it need to be corrected?
The rules don't say that it has to follow some formula.
Well done on finding the fault but not sure why you where looking
That depends on how you see it,
the formula is almost given in the last entry +10 / x4. And in order to be a list that could be used for any n, there has to be a formula to exactly calculate the result.
The fact that there is a "wrong" entry makes calculating Str 30+ technically impossible. It is as if you say 7 + 1 = 9, the whole system of mathmatics would cruble if that was true.
To be honest, yes, who the hell tracks the CC with strength that high? And the mistake is so small that it's not even a 1% deviation.
If you ask me, the table needs a redo, since it wants to give us players relyable information on a rule, however it doesn't. There is simply no way to tell exactly what happens beyond Strength 29.
Maybe some of you have played Magic the Gathering. There is this tale of that tournament player who played a card, "Chaos Orb" in the finals. The card needed to be tossed in the air and would "destroy" any other card it lands on. The player then tore the Chaos Orb Card to pieces and scattered them over his enemie's cards.
By doing so, he went outside the rules... because he started with a valid deck, made a valid action resulting in an invalid deck. Evectively he lost while winning and won while losing, some sort of Schrödingers Cat kind of thing.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that that broken table as it is opens up a gap in the rules.
As an engineer, I follow your train of thought, Toadstool.
Would I change the table in a future reprint? Absolutely.
Would I call for an official erratum in the meantime? Umm... no.
While 1050 is, indeed, mathematically correct, the fact that 1040 is off by less than 1% makes the difference in play pretty much neglegible.
There is a chance that my fomula is incorrect yes, strange then that is is correct for all other entries, isn't it. Instead of a simple formula like mine you would have to use some kind of absurd astronomical stunt to pull that number off. And I think it is far more likely the the guy who typed the table hit the wrong (adjacent) button than him beeing a mathematical genius that for some sadistic reason would make a formula that complex that you would have to conjurne the spirits of Gauss, Euler and Einstein to crack it.
The possibility that there is no fomula is not given, because the final row tells you that there is a formula.
Maybe some of you have played Magic the Gathering. There is this tale of that tournament player who played a card, "Chaos Orb" in the finals. The card needed to be tossed in the air and would "destroy" any other card it lands on. The player then tore the Chaos Orb Card to pieces and scattered them over his enemie's cards.
By doing so, he went outside the rules... because he started with a valid deck, made a valid action resulting in an invalid deck. Evectively he lost while winning and won while losing, some sort of Schrödingers Cat kind of thing.
In the end what he did lead to the card "chaos confetti", that has to be ripped to pieces and scattered over the other's cards.
|
In the end what he did lead to the card "chaos confetti", that has to be ripped to pieces and scattered over the other's cards.Maybe some of you have played Magic the Gathering. There is this tale of that tournament player who played a card, "Chaos Orb" in the finals. The card needed to be tossed in the air and would "destroy" any other card it lands on. The player then tore the Chaos Orb Card to pieces and scattered them over his enemie's cards.
By doing so, he went outside the rules... because he started with a valid deck, made a valid action resulting in an invalid deck. Evectively he lost while winning and won while losing, some sort of Schrödingers Cat kind of thing.
I don't normally like to derail but I can't help chiming in. This not only happened, it was a completely legal tactic that showed up in the official FAQ.
Q: If I rip a Chaos Orb into pieces and throw them all, do they destroy everything they hit?
A: Yes, but they must all be thrown at once and from a height of at least one foot.
A couple of months later a retraction appeared along with an explanation from the WotC staffer. "This has actually been done a couple of times in tournaments so it's going to be banned. When I put this in the FAQ I thought it was funny but I DIDN'T BELIEVE FOR A MINUTE that someone would actually do it."
For context: Chaos Orb was out of print and to that point WotC had never removed a card from the game then reprinted it in a later set. At the time it was the second most expensive card (behind only Black Lotus and very close to the Moxes), running about $100 or so each (or the cost of 3-4 boxes of boosters).
Let's get back on topic. I mentioned Magic just to show how far these things might go.
I have another thought on our subject.
If you take into consideration that this error exists since third edition D&D and how many players played D&D and overlooked it, you can ask the question, if the rule is of use at all.
In effect, to know an exact CC value is only important to see if you can wear an armor with your current strength, or what penalties this entails. I doubt anyone constantly updates his weight.
So if this table needs a makeover, you can ask yourself, if it wouln't be better to get completely rid of it and replace it with a new rule.
The best "weight" system I have ever encountered, was back in HeroQuest (that early 90s boardgame) where the only rule was printet on the harness-item-card "it is so have that you may move only with one die (instead of two)"
Now we could use this tought to create a new weight unit, lets call it a "dog" then do rough estimations how many dogs your pack might weight.
light armor? one dog.
medium armor? two dogs.
heavy armor? three dogs.
your backpack with all that stuff inside? one dog.
Then you just track how many dogs you have to lift and you may lift an number of dogs equal to your Strength modifier without penalies.
Lift one dog too much and it's medium load. Lift two too much and it's heavy load.
However this is just a brainstorming. My question to you is, what would you prefer:
a) correcting the table and keep it. (or keep the old one)
or b) find a more streamlined rule ?
There is a chance that my fomula is incorrect yes, strange then that is is correct for all other entries, isn't it. Instead of a simple formula like mine you would have to use some kind of absurd astronomical stunt to pull that number off. And I think it is far more likely the the guy who typed the table hit the wrong (adjacent) button than him beeing a mathematical genius that for some sadistic reason would make a formula that complex that you would have to conjurne the spirits of Gauss, Euler and Einstein to crack it.
The possibility that there is no fomula is not given, because the final row tells you that there is a formula.
No need to conjure the spirit of Gauss, I am here already. :D
- Gauss
I believe 1040 is the correct number. For every 5 points of strength above 10, the maximum weight doubles. 22 is 520 pounds, and 27 is 1040. Right where it should be. If 1040 is wrong, and it should be 1050, then not only would strength 27 be wrong, but strengths 22, 17, and 12.
And the light load is not 33% of maximum. It is actually 33.3333333% (repeating infinitely), rounding down. Likewise, medium load is 66.666666666666% (repeating infinitely), rounding down.
If you take 66.6666666% of 1040, you get 693.33333264, which rounds down to 693. Exactly what is on the table.
I have confirmed Jeraa's statement.
It looks like they may have used 4^((str/10)-1) for max capacity up until strength 19 and from there used +10str results in *4 encumbrance. This would explain any inconsistencies.
- Gauss