This edition:
Table 6-9, Footnote 1
clothing for small creatures weighs ¼ of clothing of large creatures.
Table 6–8: Armor for Unusual Creatures
armor for small creatures is ½ of medium creatures
the math for clothing is ignoring one dimension already:
half the height, half the width = ¼ (ignoring half the depth)
the reasoning behind the factor for the armor is probably an artifact of D&D 2 or lost in time of even older editions.
please Paizo, correct the math in the next edition and give armor for small creatures ¼ the weight of medium creatures.
and, yes I noticed the factor for large creatures is only x2 not x4
but at least in that direction it an be argued with thinner material.
cladding a small creature in armor twice as thick as that of a medium creature makes no sense at all.
Having equipment weight multipliers is ok. Having different weight multipliers for different things is not.
Weight multipliers and carrying capacity multipliers should go hand in hand. So, if the weight multiplier is 1/8, so should the carrying capacity. Which would make Small folks unable to carry any object that does not scale. 1/2 is a reasonable multiplier.
And yes, I know of the square-cube law. But that is not applicable to fantasy, or we'd have no giants.
Well we know they are using a Bulk system but it's been indicated that it might be more robust than the one used for Starfinder. (there was mention of a chart that could be ported over to Starfinder to fix some of it's wonkiness)
And yes, I know of the square-cube law. But that is not applicable to fantasy, or we'd have no giants.
that is a rather lazy argument for mundane stuff like gear.
and creatures of any size are easily possible with a higher than 21% oxygen percentage in the air, see our planets history for details.
How about doing away with encumbrance entirely or moving to Starfinder system of bulk instead?
let the DM decide to ignore rules
let the rules make sense, then there is less need to ignore them.