If a character puts on a strength wondrous item, i.e. belt of strength +5, will this cause his encumbrance to rise? It seems some say it does, others, including some software, do not compute it as adding to carrying capacity...
I believe the commonly accepted reading is that for the first 24 hours it does not, but after the first day of wearing the belt, those bonuses will apply until the belt is removed.
Some have argued that would make it hard to take a shower.
Some would argue that its medieval times and we don't have showers yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some would argue that we're gamers and the fact that we even know what showers are as players is in question.
Some would argue that that's what the 'clean' cantrip is for.
If a character puts on a strength wondrous item, i.e. belt of strength +5, will this cause his encumbrance to rise? It seems some say it does, others, including some software, do not compute it as adding to carrying capacity...I believe the commonly accepted reading is that for the first 24 hours it does not, but after the first day of wearing the belt, those bonuses will apply until the belt is removed.
Carrying capacity is a function of strength, just as melee attack bonuses and melee damage bonuses are. Nothing suggests otherwise, as far as I have found.
The only point of wearing the item for 24 hours is to attune yourself for the purpose of feat qualification.
The software is just wrong, it's not like it would be the first time!
You can find this in the Core Rulebook p. 554-555.
Pathfinder changed how stat bonuses and penalties work, compared to previous editions. The temporary ones convey a modifier to checks. Secondary effects, like carrying capacity, are not affected. That's actually why the spell "ant haul" was added in the APG, because "bull's strength" does not have that effect any longer.
This is what Vincent Takeda is referring to. Leaving the belt on permanently may lead to the extended benefits, as it is treated as the temporary bonus for only the first 24 hours, just as leaving the circlets that enhance mental abilities on lead to bonus skills.
You can find this in the Core Rulebook p. 554-555.
Pathfinder changed how stat bonuses and penalties work, compared to previous editions. The temporary ones convey a modifier to checks. Secondary effects, like carrying capacity, are not affected. That's actually why the spell "ant haul" was added in the APG, because "bull's strength" does not have that effect any longer.
This is what Vincent Takeda is referring to. Leaving the belt on permanently may lead to the extended benefits, as it is treated as the temporary bonus for only the first 24 hours, just as leaving the circlets that enhance mental abilities on lead to bonus skills.
Ahh, yes. Thank you for that. Irritatingly bizarre that a bonus to strength doesn't provide increased carrying capacity. Sigh.
Ahh, yes. Thank you for that. Irritatingly bizarre that a bonus to strength doesn't provide increased carrying capacity. Sigh.You can find this in the Core Rulebook p. 554-555.
Pathfinder changed how stat bonuses and penalties work, compared to previous editions. The temporary ones convey a modifier to checks. Secondary effects, like carrying capacity, are not affected. That's actually why the spell "ant haul" was added in the APG, because "bull's strength" does not have that effect any longer.
This is what Vincent Takeda is referring to. Leaving the belt on permanently may lead to the extended benefits, as it is treated as the temporary bonus for only the first 24 hours, just as leaving the circlets that enhance mental abilities on lead to bonus skills.
Actually, if you think about it from the penalty side (as they are the same), it makes sense to me from the "Game Balance" angle. A PC that now has a penalty that also reduces carrying capacity gains yet another "double-whammy" penalty from being over-encumbered. Start with +2 to hit and decent armor, then lose 4 Str.. and suddenly you've not only lost the +2 to hit, but also gained probably another -2 penalty from encumbrance.
In that sense, I see the reasoning behind it.