| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a situation that came up recently while GMing the Pathfinder Module "Crypt of the Everflame."
A character's strength was reduced to the point where he was in his "heavy load," which imposes a "check penalty." The Core Rulebook says:
Like armor, a character’s load affects his maximum Dexterity
bonus to AC, carries a check penalty (which works like
an armor check penalty)...
(Additional Rules: Carrying Capacity, Page 169)
Now, a character who is not proficient with armor takes double the armors check penalty to their attack rolls. Does this mean that a character who is in their heavy load takes -12 (double the check penalty of -6) to their attack rolls?
Does this sound right, or is there an errata, or thread somewhere that addresses this?
The penalty would not be doubled as a "heavy load" is not something one can be proficient in.
However, the character would not be in a heavy load from Strength damage because Strength damage is a temporary effect and thus does not affect carrying capacity.
The penalty would not be doubled as a "heavy load" is not something one can be proficient in.
However, the character would not be in a heavy load from Strength damage because Strength damage is a temporary effect and thus does not affect carrying capacity.
Is there a rule I can point to that states that temporary penalties don't affect carrying capacity?
So, even though the Core book says that the check penalty from being encumbered "works like an armor check penalty," a character in who is encumbered wouldn't suffer any penalties to their attack rolls for not being able to move effectively?
Is there a rule I can point to that states that temporary penalties don't affect carrying capacity?
"Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense."
No mention of carrying capacity. Keep in mind that Strength damage is not a penalty to strength--in Pathfinder, it is tracked separately and has an effect for every 2 points of damage.
So, even though the Core book says that the check penalty from being encumbered "works like an armor check penalty," a character in who is encumbered wouldn't suffer any penalties to their attack rolls for not being able to move effectively?
Armor Check penalties only apply to people wearing armor in which they are not proficient. Are you suggesting that people need to be proficient in "encumbrance" (i.e. something that doesn't exist) in order to not take the penalty?
|
Eknob, you are misunderstanding the rules a bit.
Here is an excerpt from the Core Rulebook:
Like armor, a character's load affects his maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, carries a check penalty (which works like an armor check penalty), reduces the character's speed, and affects how fast the character can run, as shown on Table: Encumbrance Effects. A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor. Carrying a light load does not encumber a character.
Note the portion in bold. You only need to worry about load for abilities and skills that are restricted by armor. A few examples of abilities affected by armor are the monks Flurry of Blows and the barbarian's Fast Movement.
You would not apply penalty for an attack roll due to medium or heavy encumbrance because making a normal attack is not an ability. Fortunately, most abilities that are affected by encumbrance note this in their description.