| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The correction here is that those are issues with how Pathfinder wrote Bulk to be ambigious and probably largely miscommunicated or even ill thought out like in many other cases where old rules text still linger, Not how bulk/slots and similar capacity works as a games concept which is what I understood the discussion as being about.Though I do not understand what you mean with "magical resizing", Its rounding. We both agree that half would've been better than 1/10th but I do believe theres reason for 1/10... mostly alchemist and just holding alot of small items in general.
It's magical resizing when X = 2Y when one character holds them, and X = 20Y when another character holds them. That's not how physical objects work. Longswords somehow magically shrink to take up a fraction of the space they used to while longbows don't because reasons.
That's not about rounding at all, though the bulk rounding rules are not intuitive either.
The most absurd example I've seen is much more contrived, but it's actually on topic for how this thread started: a human is 6 bulk and a halfing is 3 bulk. So if you try to carry them, 1 human = 2 halflings. Reasonable enough.
Get a gargantuan creature to pick them up and 1 human = 60 halflings. I don't know if they're compressing the halflings into a human size box or if they're being carried on a keychain or what, but makes no sense whatsoever.
Also do you need to recalculate the bulk of their gear since most of it will now be L since a bigger creature is carrying it, or does armor take up more bulk if you're carrying a halfling that is carrying the armor vs if you're carrying the halfling and armor separately?
The whole table 6-19 on how objects are worth different amounts of bulk on creatures of different sizes is completely nonsensical if you think about it at all. The Foundry devs just came to the same conclusion when they said "we're not implementing that because it contradicts the other table."
I think a big reason for bulk being a pain point for pf2 is that a big part of the appeal of pf2 is that the players & GM can "trust the system" and do not need to spend table time inventing their own rules or actions that everyone has to agree to.
Bulk is one of those neglected pockets that really doesn't play nice RaW. I'd rephrase that as "bulk is way more specific and limited system than it seems."
And while pf2 is perfectly set up to enable GMs to handle weight-sensitive needs via their own creative problem solving, I think the lack of that "creative need" elsewhere in pf2 is why the limited utility of bulk stands out all the more.
The bulk rules are just not suitable as a "one size fits all" weight/encumbrance system. The same abstraction that enables it to work where it's designed for, is why it doesn't work in all the other contexts one might need.
___________________
There's loads of guidance across pf2 as to how one might handle a "what about bulk" moment.
"Well, because of [__], you would need to carry the Wizard outright, not drag him. We can ignore bulk, but I'll have you make an Athletics check for that. Not too hard for your PC, but if you are going to keep your ax in 1 hand, that'll be at a -4 circ penalty. Hm, doesn't make sense for a Fail to drop him, but it'll reduce your speed."
Like, that kind of creative improv used to be more or less required to play ttrpgs, but it's pretty easy to go through an entire pf2 session without doing that a single time these days.
The lack of *specific* guidance on when bulk rules should be ignored and enforced means that tables have to break the rust off that forgotten skill, which can cause frustration.
___________________
As far as my own specific recommendations.
I try to remember that the bulk system is specifically for fully "carrying" and wielding equipment so that the items can be used by their relevant actions in a moment's notice. It's a system for a PC's equipment and adventuring gear.
(and for item storage inside of containers)
Being able to act upon or move objects around the environment doesn't automatically need to follow the bulk rules, because kind of interaction is not the same thing as strapping a scroll to your bandolier.
Using that "bulk of creatures table" to carry another PC would to me translate in-world as the Barb wrapping and strapping that KOed wizard to their backpack, Death Stranding style. That bulk table genuinely does get used, but usually for scenarios like my Alchemist quickly shoving a fresh corpse into their bag for later dissection/harvesting.
In contrast, the act of grabbing and lift/moving a creature around, such as to flee from a fight, is a different kind of interaction.
Same idea that has Reposition not invoke bulk rules, etc.
I would argue that it is actually not that hard at all.
The logic boils down to three straightforward steps, which any competent programmer can implement with basic conditional checks and simple math:
1) Check the creature's size (Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge, or Gargantuan--this is just a single attribute on the creature object).
2) Check the item's base Bulk (stored as a value like "negligible," "L" for light, 1, 2, etc., along with the size category the item was designed for--usually Medium by default).
3) Apply the appropriate conversion formula based on the mismatch between creature size and item size, then output the effective Bulk for that specific creature.
This isn't some exotic algorithm--it's nested conditionals referencing a small lookup table or multiplier (exactly the kind of modular math you see in game systems all the time). For example:
- A Large creature treats a 1 Bulk (Medium-sized) item as Light bulk, and Light items as negligible.
- A Tiny creature treats negligible items as counting toward Bulk much faster, and scales upward accordingly.
- The conversions scale predictably (roughly doubling or halving per size step in most cases, with special handling for Light and negligible).
The system can (and should) recalculate dynamically any time:
- An item is transferred from one creature to another (different sizes = different effective Bulk).
- A player or GM manually resizes an item (e.g., "this longsword is now sized for a Large creature").
- Any other inventory change occurs.
Modern virtual tabletops and character managers already handle far more complex interdependent calculations (ability modifiers, spell effects, multiple stacking bonuses, etc.) in real time. This is well within the realm of "basic event-driven programming." You define the item once with its base stats, attach a size tag, and let the code apply the size-conversion rules on the fly. No constant manual tracking required.
I've seen plenty of nested modules and formula references in codebases--this is no different. It's just inventory math with a size axis. Claiming it's "too complicated" for software underestimates how straightforward conditional logic and data-driven design actually are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How hard is it to ...
That math could be automated. But.
The whole point / issue is that bulk as a system is not supposed to be used for that kind of context. It's not that bulk as a system "is broken," it is that pf2 lacks a system to handle other contexts in which tables want weight to be a number with mechanical significance, and they are misled into using bulk due to that table (and it's dang text).IMO, the reason the creature bulk table is useful is for storing creatures in a spacious pouch, etc, and not for battlefield extraction of allies.
If some PC had a "Corpse Muncher" ability, and wanted to keep the bodies of Tiny creatures on their belt for mid-combat snacks, then yes, it would be appropriate to use the bulk rules in that context.
Or if some small monster has flavor text that its body can be used as weapon outright, and the Barb wants to hit foes with its corpse. That kind of context, where "the creature is equipment," is when that bulk table is supposed to be invoked.
Quibbling over how much a dying Ranger's strapped gear does / not add to their bulk is barking up the wrong tree; that's not supposed to be a number you care about at that time.
This idea of "you shouldn't be using bulk" is not something that only exists via implication or between the lines, btw.
It's already unavoidable thanks to the Riding rules.
In that context, the encumbrance of the other creature on their back is abstracted as an action penalty, there is no bulk involved.
_________________________
To be clear, this PoV does require some degree of "no, it is the text that is wrong." style GMing.
The text directly says:
"You might need to know the Bulk of a creature, especially if you need to carry someone."
That is pretty dang heavy RaI that even battlefield GTFO is 'supposed' to use bulk rules.
To reach my PoV, you need to interpret / mutate "carry someone" from an over the shoulder thing, into exclusively looking like that Death Stranding style backpack transport.
I personally justify my approach due to how that one sentence contradicts with how bulk is otherwise presented as a narrow subsystem of the Equipment rules, and because you have those riding rules, plus others, such as guidance on improv skill checks for custom actions, etc.
I've seen plenty of nested modules and formula references in codebases--this is no different. It's just inventory math with a size axis. Claiming it's "too complicated" for software underestimates how straightforward conditional logic and data-driven design actually are.
This is a completely disingenuous argument that takes the actual issue and contorts it into "the Foundry devs didn't implement it because they're incompetent."
They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.
If you actually follow both tables RAW, tiny creatures can carry substantially less equipment even when it's sized for them. As that is explicitly stated as not the intention of the rules, the rules contradict themselves.
So they implemented the part that makes sense. It's laid out pretty clearly in the github issue linked here if you bother to read it.
(This is also the only part of the rules where PF2 mentions size of items mattering at all. Like a tiny maul and a gargantuan maul do the exact same damage and are functionally identical in all ways except when dealing with bulk and price, and the nonsensical outcomes caused by one scale going up by 2x while another is going down by 10x at the same time.)
I generally think of Bulk as a subsystem like Vehicles, Hexploration, or Chases. If it is useful to the story, use it. If not, don't worry too much about it.
Yes, if the players are carrying an absurd amount of gear and items then that is something that you can as a GM either ignore or find a subsystem such as Bulk to limit it with.
And if players are carrying three sacks of 999 coins each and claiming that this results in no Bulk, then that is indeed a different problem. That is not a rules problem. That is not a problem with the Bulk subsystem. That is a problem with the players trying to cheese out every advantage that they can so that they 'win the game' against the GM rather than playing a cooperative game about telling engaging stories. Again, as the GM you can either ignore it, or find some way of fixing the actual problem.
They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.
And to that I say "So what?" There's nothing stopping them from implementing it other than themselves.
Not incompetence; just a lamentable choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally think of Bulk as a subsystem like Vehicles, Hexploration, or Chases. If it is useful to the story, use it. If not, don't worry too much about it.
Well, there is an issue with that: they integrated it into other mechanics. There are spells, items, feats and even ancestries involving bulk and if you're just have waving it a lot of the time, you're also hand waving those investments. Even if you're ignoring it part of the time, you ignoring those investments too. If handles before the game starts, players can mitigate now less useful mechanics, but they could still end up they [say they want to play a centaur].
And if players are carrying three sacks of 999 coins each and claiming that this results in no Bulk, then that is indeed a different problem.
But it 100% IS an issue with the system. Coins get their negligible items, nothing is added to bulk. If you pick up a negligible bulk item and 999 coins, you add no bulk. If I pick up 1 coin and 999 coins, somehow that adds an entire bulk. Then is you pick up 100 more coins, it adds no more bulk [even when the basics of the bulk system is that 10 L = 1 Bulk. I don't think any explanation would get me to think coins isn't an issue with the bulk system: they just don't follow the system that made for other items.
I'm not sure what the age of the product is meant to illustrate. You mentioned not knowing a modern RPG that uses weight [and 5.5 JUST updated], so I mentioned one.Revisions don't change the core edition, Just as I don't consider DCC to be new despite its latest 2021 printing, or the revised Gurps basic set to be a different system. I also did mention a modern system that had abstract but precise weight in Crucible.
Without a common understanding of what a "modern" game is, I have no way to determine what might be on or not in your eyes. Since I haven't the slightest idea what Crucible is, it wasn't overly helpful in narrowing what cut-off date you think a game stops being modern. A quick look just brings up the video game Crucible which doesn't seem applicable.
EDIT: by modern, do you mean a rules lite system?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.And to that I say "So what?" There's nothing stopping them from implementing it other than themselves.
Not incompetence; just a lamentable choice.
"The rules contradict themselves so we're not implementing the contradiction" is a pretty good reason to stop.
I can't tell if you're serious and just don't understand the problem or if you're being deliberately obtuse.
Without a common understanding of what a "modern" game is, I have no way to determine what might be on or not in your eyes. Since I haven't the slightest idea what Crucible is, it wasn't overly helpful in narrowing what cut-off date you think a game stops being modern. A quick look just brings up the video game Crucible which doesn't seem applicable.
EDIT: by modern, do you mean a rules lite system?
Not at all, Rules lite has always existed and thrived on the nordic and european scenes. if anything "rules-medium" is becoming the new trend since the pandemic forced everyone to adopt the digital in some capacity. Its more that the design principles visibly change over time, even OSR games have moved on from many of the 80s design principles despite being inspired by that time.
If you want a cutoff point, Then I have a hard time believing anyone would consider 3.5e,4e or pathfinder 1st edition as modern so after 2010s.
And since then we have had 5e, Critical Role, The OSR explosion, The indie and crowdfunding golden age, the pandemic forcing even the largest publishers into the online domain which then led into hybrid play. All of these have visibly affected how games are currently designed. So I would put the cutoff in the late 2010s, but even then theres games from earlier than 2015 that I would consider modern simply because they were ahead of their time.
as for Crucible, It's still in development by the FoundryVTT team. But it highlights the digital thats becoming increasingly common and how that allows for deeper rules without the tedium.
... all this and I still don't know what you define a 'modern' RPG as. :P
They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.And to that I say "So what?" There's nothing stopping them from implementing it other than themselves.
Not incompetence; just a lamentable choice.
"The rules contradict themselves so we're not implementing the contradiction" is a pretty good reason to stop.
I can't tell if you're serious and just don't understand the problem or if you're being deliberately obtuse.
I just don't see it as a problem. Contradiction or no, it could be implemented as is without impacting gameplay negatively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see it as a problem. Contradiction or no, it could be implemented as is without impacting gameplay negatively.They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.And to that I say "So what?" There's nothing stopping them from implementing it other than themselves.
Not incompetence; just a lamentable choice.
"The rules contradict themselves so we're not implementing the contradiction" is a pretty good reason to stop.
I can't tell if you're serious and just don't understand the problem or if you're being deliberately obtuse.
I think their comment said it all. They concluded that having tiny and large creatures not carrying about the same amount of appropriately sized gear as a Medium creature to affect gameplay in a negative way and would be against the stated intent of the statement "Because the way that a creature treats Bulk and the Bulk of gear sized for it scale the same way, Tiny or Large (or larger) creatures can usually wear and carry about the same amount of gear as a Medium creature."
Sorites Paradox...the one that asks when does a heap of grain cease being a heap as you remove one grain at a time...is not a paradox on Golarion. They likely have quite rigorous vocabulary re: heaps & weights, etc. because residents know exactly when removing one coin alters a pile of coins. They likely would've made 10 coins weight one L because of the simplicity given that's how physics operates. That's a knock against Bulk, not against Golarions that make use of that difference or PCs' player puppeteers. Any encumbrance system will have demarcations like this, as nobody wants a system so granular that there's a spectrum of encumbrance states. But I think Bulk swung too far the other direction. Unlike with weight, I can hardly use my intuition to adjudicate using Bulk. It's simpler to ignore Bulk entirely re: moving a statue, etc., especially with fantasy creatures & superhuman PCs.
In PF1 I had a pig familiar, if only because it could carry the staff that'd push my feeble old PC in plate armor over the encumbrance limit. And he'd often need to drop other gear. Piggy had its own backpack too (and became the mascot of the team in the eyes of the city). So yeah, weight encouraged workarounds too, but Bulk exacerbates that if anything.
The problem, in my mind is simply that how hard it is to carry something depends a lot on how it is being carried. If I put a child in a sack (referencing fables like Krampus) it is a lot harder to carry than if I give them a piggy back ride. A human body carried with fireman's carry might have a low bulk for its weight and size, but when you load it in a cart it is no different per weight than a bundle of bows or sack of potatoes.
I'm fine with keeping the load system for equipment but there needs to be something else for dragging or cargo transport at minimum.