| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So bulk is getting a tangent in the alchemy blog so I figured I'd try to move it here.
Myself, I don't like it. :P
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like bulk, honestly. Like I said there, my players were hopeless at managing weight, but they can handle bulk just fine, so we're finally actually using encumbrance in Starfinder.
There are some advantages. All kinds of small lightweight objects up to a pound or two can be abstracted as Light (1/10) bulk, so you don't have to look them up, you just know they're Light. Weapons and armor are pretty easily figured out how to guesstimate after just looking at the tables once. Once you have those down, everything else is easily estimated without having to look it up, except for particularly awkward and weirdly shaped objects.
The only things it doesn't really handle well are stuff like pushing and dragging, carrying an unconscious person, etc. Hopefully PF2 will have more guidance on that.
EDIT: I also would hope for light encumbrance in PF2 to be your Strength score in bulk and for heavy to be double that. In Starfinder these limits are half your Strength and your full Strength respectively, which are... kinda low.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer bulk, it's got less cognitive load than encumbrance, is more likely to be used at the table. You know what your bulk is because it's your Strength score. There is no additional table to look at.
Literally, this is the first useful reason for ability scores over modifiers only that I've seen in the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I much prefer it. Less fiddly bookkeeping, less cognitive load as Dudemeister points out, and allows for more flexible, narrative descriptions of things. Much prefer.
As I've said before, I'd like it even more if they went full-on range bands instead of precise weapon and ability ranges and such, but hey, this is a start.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anybody like keeping track of encumbrance? I do it, but I don't like doing it. It seems like a lot of the time tables just forget about encumbrance entirely, and a simplified version thereof (like bulk) is probably preferable to "you can carry 800 swords".
But we're trying to avoid the happy medium between-
"you can't carry that much money- it will slow you down" and "take 100,000 arrows into the dungeon so you don't run out -it's fine."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see bulk as "how hard it is to carry and/or move around with it".
Inventory space (bulk) vs inventory weight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smaller numbers are easier to add. Period. If it gets more people okay with actually tracking encumbrance, I think bulk is a great book to the system.
Does anybody like keeping track of encumbrance? I do it, but I don't like doing it. It seems like a lot of the time tables just forget about encumbrance entirely, and a simplified version thereof (like bulk) is probably preferable to "you can carry 800 swords".
But we're trying to avoid the happy medium between-
"you can't carry that much money- it will slow you down" and "take 100,000 arrows into the dungeon so you don't run out -it's fine."
Something like that came up in a recruitment thread once, the GM ended up asking the player where his PC keep his dozen weapons.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have absolutely no issues with Bulk conceptually. I definitely approve of the simplification in Encumbrance it's designed to enable.
I was not a big fan of how it was handled in Starfinder because there was absolutely no guidance on precisely what it meant or how much most things weighed if they weren't on the equipment list. In particular, there was zero guidance on carrying an unconscious comrade, which is a pretty common situation in some games. Plus the widely varying amounts of Bulk different things had really countered the simplification aspect.
So I'm perfectly willing to go with such a system if done well and hopeful that they've learned their lesson from Starfinder's issues in this regard, but also a bit wary.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not a fan of bulk. Weight works just fine for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my lore-fu is correct, I heard that the listed item weights that date back from since the original 1974 rules were less actual realistic weights of the gears, but more like how unwieldy each item was to carry around.
In other words, more bulk than weight.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally prefer Bulk to Weight, though for me the simplified numbers is just a bonus.
What really matters to me is that I don't consider Bulk to be only a different weight unit. I consider Bulk to be a compound indicator depending on mass, volume and shape and therefore a better system to measure encumbrance.
I have a feeling too much is being read into the word "bulk." What it really means is "a unit of weight that just happens to be about equal to 1 point of STR."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I much prefer it. Less fiddly bookkeeping, less cognitive load as Dudemeister points out, and allows for more flexible, narrative descriptions of things. Much prefer.
As I've said before, I'd like it even more if they went full-on range bands instead of precise weapon and ability ranges and such, but hey, this is a start.
I love range bands. I drool over Traveller 5 and all of its range bands, which I shouldn't mention because everyone hates it (except me).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see bulk as "how hard it is to carry and/or move around with it".
Inventory space (bulk) vs inventory weight.
This my 'conceptual' issue with it. I wouldn't mind if there was a bulk rule for unwieldy items that modified their weight.
As to the practical reasons, it's counter intuitive for me and takes the same amount of work: I have to look at the tables anyway for cost and effects, so finding the weight/bulk is the same and the math isn't different [you're adding the same amount of items]. At best it's shifting addition to multiplication. It just seems like a sneaky way to slip in metric into the game and for the same reason I don't use metric I don't want to use bulk.
Smaller numbers are easier to add. Period. If it gets more people okay with actually tracking encumbrance, I think bulk is a great book to the system.
I don't know if this will shift things much though: lots of people don't track ammo, food, water, encumbrance because that don't want to track it at all, NOT because it was hard but unwanted. For myself, I always track encumbrance even if the group doesn't: you never know when things could change and it's not a big effort. With bulk, I don't though: I don't even want to look at it so I don't think it's going to be all one sided towards using it more.
I have a feeling too much is being read into the word "bulk." What it really means is "a unit of weight that just happens to be about equal to 1 point of STR."
it could be called wuzzles factor and it would still not work for me anymore than any other imaginary weight: My mind already knows how to figure out weights and it not in wuzzles factors or bulk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love range bands. I drool over Traveller 5 and all of its range bands, which I shouldn't mention because everyone hates it (except me).I much prefer it. Less fiddly bookkeeping, less cognitive load as Dudemeister points out, and allows for more flexible, narrative descriptions of things. Much prefer.
As I've said before, I'd like it even more if they went full-on range bands instead of precise weapon and ability ranges and such, but hey, this is a start.
I'd play it. I've been needing a sci-fi exploration game, so I would at least try it. I introduced range bands to Chronicles of Darkness (formerly World of Darkness), which is nice, though that particular game needs a lot more (and has a lot of behind-the-scenes developer stuff that's really off-topic).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My basic issue with bulk is that it doesn't mean anything. What's 10 bulk, 50 bulk, it practically jibberish. It's another leaky abstraction in a game that naturally fills up with them, making it increasingly difficult to tell a coherent story. Ideally rules and sub systems give you more understanding and grounding in the world, not less.
Combine bulk with 'item level' I feel like I'm half way to playing some new mobile game. Id be a lot more inclined to bulk if there was a clear conversion, but then I'd wonder why there was ever bulk in the first place.
My basic issue with bulk is that it doesn't mean anything. What's 10 bulk, 50 bulk, it practically jibberish. It's another leaky abstraction in a game that naturally fills up with them, making it increasingly difficult to tell a coherent story. Ideally rules and sub systems give you more understanding and grounding in the world, not less.
Combine bulk with 'item level' I feel like I'm half way to playing some new mobile game. Id be a lot more inclined to bulk if there was a clear conversion, but then I'd wonder why there was ever bulk in the first place.
Well a 10 STR light load is 33 lbs. (3.3 lbs. per STR) and an 18 STR light load is 100 lbs. (5.5 lbs. per STR), so we should probably average them to about 4.4 lbs., which means a "bulk" is 2 kg.
Of course, kg is practically gibberish, too. Nobody would understand what you were saying if you said "light encumbrance is STRx2 kg or less." What does that even mean?
I'd play it. I've been needing a sci-fi exploration game, so I would at least try it. I introduced range bands to Chronicles of Darkness (formerly World of Darkness), which is nice, though that particular game needs a lot more (and has a lot of behind-the-scenes developer stuff that's really off-topic).I love range bands. I drool over Traveller 5 and all of its range bands, which I shouldn't mention because everyone hates it (except me).I much prefer it. Less fiddly bookkeeping, less cognitive load as Dudemeister points out, and allows for more flexible, narrative descriptions of things. Much prefer.
As I've said before, I'd like it even more if they went full-on range bands instead of precise weapon and ability ranges and such, but hey, this is a start.
You would be the second person in the entire world to want to play it. :) Live anywhere near Silicon Valley?
|
the math isn't different
Except the math is different, the math involved in calculating bulk uses less significant figures
It just seems like a sneaky way to slip in metric into the game and for the same reason I don't use metric I don't want to use bulk.
What? sneaking in metric? What misconceptions do you have of metric to think that?
My mind already knows how to figure out weights and it not in wuzzles factors or bulk.
Ah, I think this is your issue, bulk is likely not just weight, it's likely factoring the size of the item as well. Although I do agree with you that would be nice for item weight and sizes to be listed as well.
You would be the second person in the entire world to want to play it. :) Live anywhere near Silicon Valley?I'd play it. I've been needing a sci-fi exploration game, so I would at least try it. I introduced range bands to Chronicles of Darkness (formerly World of Darkness), which is nice, though that particular game needs a lot more (and has a lot of behind-the-scenes developer stuff that's really off-topic).I love range bands. I drool over Traveller 5 and all of its range bands, which I shouldn't mention because everyone hates it (except me).I much prefer it. Less fiddly bookkeeping, less cognitive load as Dudemeister points out, and allows for more flexible, narrative descriptions of things. Much prefer.
As I've said before, I'd like it even more if they went full-on range bands instead of precise weapon and ability ranges and such, but hey, this is a start.
Spokane, Washington, actually. So a little north. I mostly do PBP gaming these days. Feel free to PM me and tell me more about Traveller if you'd like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the ease of use of bulk, otherwise we never use encumbrance
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My basic issue with bulk is that it doesn't mean anything. What's 10 bulk, 50 bulk, it practically jibberish. It's another leaky abstraction in a game that naturally fills up with them, making it increasingly difficult to tell a coherent story. Ideally rules and sub systems give you more understanding and grounding in the world, not less.
Combine bulk with 'item level' I feel like I'm half way to playing some new mobile game. Id be a lot more inclined to bulk if there was a clear conversion, but then I'd wonder why there was ever bulk in the first place.
As opposed to what, though? How does exact measurements of weight help tell stories? In all my years gaming, they certainly never have. Often, it ends up being something like this:
"I picked up <Object>, and now I'm 3 pounds overweight."
"Now you suffer encumbrance penalties!"
"But it's not even 5 pounds."
"Yeah, okay, we'll let this one go."
"I'm only seven pounds overweight, though! That's not even ten...."
Or it's unnecessary bean-counting kind of management and I don't like doing it. There's never been a case once for me in more than 20 years of gaming, where having that, as opposed to something more loose and narrative and flexible, has aided in any kind of storytelling. Coherent stories don't, in my experience, hinge upon trying to track very strict units of measurement.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But do lbs amounts really help story telling that much?
People can imagine how much a 20 pound weight actually weighs: How hard is it to move a 3 bulk item? Can you imagine that right off the top of your head? How much bulk will it take before this boat sinks? How much bulk is that tree? that table? that character?
the math isn't differentExcept the math is different, the math involved in calculating bulk uses less significant figures
But it isn't. adding one 5 times and adding 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is STILL adding 5 times. A glace tells me the first is 5 and the second 15...
What? sneaking in metric? What misconceptions do you have of metric to think that?
Notice things are a factor of ten? that's metric...
Ah, I think this is your issue, bulk is likely not just weight, it's likely factoring the size of the item as well. Although I do agree with you that would be nice for item weight and sizes to be listed as well.
What is the issue is that it's transformed into an imaginary thing. If there was a MODIFIER to actual weight for bulk, I'd be fine with it: the item SEEMS this much heavier because it's hard to handle. I can understand that and it makes sense. I have NO reference point for what a bulk is. How do you imagine what carrying a bulk is? How much more effort is 2 bulk? How much effort is it to move a 50 bulk item? Can I slide it? Who knows?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If measurements aren't important can we get rid of feet as Well? Everything we currently measure in feet could instead be measured in squares. It helps with those who struggle to measure things in increments of 5 and it removes unnecessary bookkeeping that does nothing to help with the games narrative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If measurements aren't important can we get rid of feet as Well? Everything we currently measure in feet could instead be measured in squares. It helps with those who struggle to measure things in increments of 5 and it removes unnecessary bookkeeping that does nothing to help with the games narrative.
Boy... Halfings just got HUGE... and now my familiar can be 5' tall too! And rats are 5' tall and... That is unless you start using fractional squares. Is a rat 1/16th of a square? a halfling 1/2 a square?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If measurements aren't important can we get rid of feet as Well? Everything we currently measure in feet could instead be measured in squares. It helps with those who struggle to measure things in increments of 5 and it removes unnecessary bookkeeping that does nothing to help with the games narrative.
I would actually be okay with that :P
As I said, I don't have any intuitive idea how much lbs or 5 feet is, so to me they might as well not exist. I only need to know relative size of things, I don't really need to know whether tengu height is up to orc chest or stomach
And again, I have never seen anyone roleplaying carrying their equipment, only particularly heavy or unwieldy treasure items to which you don't need to know their exact weight anyway. Like, how the heck you carry heavy water clock to town several days away? That sort of thing.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My basic issue with bulk is that it doesn't mean anything. What's 10 bulk, 50 bulk, it practically jibberish.
That's how I and anyone I know that's not from the US feel about lbs...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My basic issue with bulk is that it doesn't mean anything. What's 10 bulk, 50 bulk, it practically jibberish.That's how I and anyone I know that's not from the US feel about lbs...
The thing is though, I can convert pounds into kgs... Can you do that with bulk? How much does bulk 5 weigh? 10? How to you compare two things that don't have bulk totals? How much bulk is your character? You tell me in kgs and a second in google gets me a converter for a weight I can understand.
So it's really not an equivalent situation. I'd rather the game moved to metric before bulk, and I don't particularly LIKE metric... :P
|
|
From the other thread where it was off topic:
There IS a difference though: if you use another system, there is a conversion that allows you to get a total you CAN understand. So 15 pounds is 6.8 kg, something you CAN visualize/understand while there just isn't a way to do so for 5 bulk.Except that the Imperial measures system is only officially used in the US.
Most new players understand basic math and weights they use in real life though.
Actually, it seems likely there will be at least a rough measure of how much weight one bulk is. In Starfinder it's explicitly between 5 and 10 lbs, which is a bit of a wide range to work with IMO, but narrowing that amount is easy enough for a new game.
If each bulk is roughly 10 lbs (or roughly 5 kg), for example, you can guesstimate how much things weigh pretty readily if you really need to know. And when you don't need that degree if precision you can just ignore it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the other thread where it was off topic:
There IS a difference though: if you use another system, there is a conversion that allows you to get a total you CAN understand. So 15 pounds is 6.8 kg, something you CAN visualize/understand while there just isn't a way to do so for 5 bulk.Except that the Imperial measures system is only officially used in the US.
Most new players understand basic math and weights they use in real life though.Actually, it seems likely there will be at least a rough measure of how much weight one bulk is. In Starfinder it's explicitly between 5 and 10 lbs, which is a bit of a wide range to work with IMO, but narrowing that amount is easy enough for a new game.
If each bulk is roughly 10 lbs (or roughly 5 kg), for example, you can guesstimate how much things weigh pretty readily if you really need to know. And when you don't need that degree if precision you can just ignore it.
My issue is bulk has a 'hidden' factor of unwieldiness added into the mix as it "accounts for both their weight and their unwieldiness." Is a 100 lbs statue REALLY 10 bulk even though it's 6' tall and I'm a halfling? That's most likely why there is such a difference in weight ranges: 10 bulk ranges from 50-100 lbs BECAUSE of the unknown factor of 'handiness'... A 10 pound backpack and a 10 pound ladder most likely have different bulks...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought bulk was about physical size. So something that isn't heavy but takes up a lot of volume would have a high bulk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does "unwieldiness" really need to have exact science way of calculating it though? You aren't going to carry a whole statue by yourself, you need vehicle for that anyway.
I mean, its not like encumbrance was exact science, it never took it account how hard it is to carry certain shape of items as far as I know <_<
|
|
But it isn't. adding one 5 times and adding 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is STILL adding 5 times. A glace tells me the first is 5 and the second 15...the math isn't differentExcept the math is different, the math involved in calculating bulk uses less significant figures
except in your case your using one significant figure. With medium creatures in pathfinder it's usually 3 significant figures, 4 if you're a small character. in PF2.0 using the new mechanic you're going to be dealing with 2 significant figures at the most. You never have to deal with fractions or decimal points, although not an issue for me and I assume yourself there are people out there that hate that system, evident by the number of people ignoring those rules
I might give some examples later when I'm actually at home near some character sheets.What? sneaking in metric? What misconceptions do you have of metric to think that?Notice things are a factor of ten? that's metric...
Metric is factors of 1000 with a few exceptions, but that's just me nitpicking.
Maybe instead of trying to get you to useAh, I think this is your issue, bulk is likely not just weight, it's likely factoring the size of the item as well. Although I do agree with you that would be nice for item weight and sizes to be listed as well.What is the issue is that it's transformed into an imaginary thing. If there was a MODIFIER to actual weight for bulk
But as people keep telling you, bulk isn't likely to just be weight alone, as others have mentioned it's probably factoring in size and how easy it is to carry as well.
I have NO reference point for what a bulk is. How do you imagine what carrying a bulk is? How much more effort is 2 bulk? How much effort is it to move a 50 bulk item? Can I slide it? Who knows?
Fair point that we don't have a reference point to what bulk is yet]. I don't think there's going to be a straight conversion from weight to bulk or vise versa due to the different variables that go into determining bulk. I suspect we'll get an idea on how hard it is to move/carry bulk by examples provided in the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought bulk was about physical size. So something that isn't heavy but takes up a lot of volume would have a high bulk.
Starfinder: it "accounts for both their weight and their unwieldiness."
Does "unwieldiness" really need to have exact science way of calculating it though? You aren't going to carry a whole statue by yourself, you need vehicle for that anyway.
A 100 lb statute requires a vehicle to move? Not in my estimation.
I mean, its not like encumbrance was exact science, it never took it account how hard it is to carry certain shape of items as far as I know <_<
It DOES if you want people to have a common understanding of it. It's so when you say 'it's 10 bulk', the player can imagine that in their head. You can have someone being off by 100% of YOUR estimation because of that unknown factor.
IMO, bulk could work as a modifier to unwieldy items by having it's actual weight count as higher for carry: that retains the actual weight for when that's needed and allows you to show it's harder move around. They did this slightly with the masterwork backpack by having your str count as 1 higher for carry [i assume because of better weight distribution [less unwieldiness].
|
|
Well thats good demonstration of what I meant when I said I have no clue how much lbs is :p
Anyway, as I said, I have never seen player roleplay about weight or put much interest in exact weights of items outside of carrying something absurd or other characters. So yeah still not seeing issue there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To everyone ranting and raving about pounds: I'm Australian. We don't use pounds. It is precise enough to say 2 lbs = 1 kg. Is it exactly perfect? Of course not. But if you're willing to accept bulk then you're already willing to use an abstraction so just treat pounds as an abstraction that has a loose correlation to kilograms.
I think the metric people here are really overstating the difficulty in converting pounds to kilograms.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pounds to kilograms is really easy. Cubic feet to cubic meters, much less so. A bag of holding type 1 can carry 250 pounds (so roughly 125 kilos if you just want to visualize it), and 30 cubic feet, which I don't know what means.
I like bulk more. Wearing a 10 lb padded armor should worry you less than carrying a 10 lb Lance. It is easier to carry 100 pounds of iron than 100 pounds of cork.
Bulk flat out beats weight as a measure of encumbrance, imo
Well thats good demonstration of what I meant when I said I have no clue how much lbs is :p
Oh, I understand. Once the kgs come out, if I don't convert it I tend to be wildly off. ;)
Anyway, as I said, I have never seen player roleplay about weight or put much interest in exact weights of items outside of carrying something absurd or other characters. So yeah still not seeing issue there.
I've seen it quite a bit. 'can I move that statue', 'can I pull up that 5'x5' stone slab', 'will this fit in the bag of holding', 'can we get this dragon corpse up the stairs', 'can I lift the gate'. I've seen people want to take home furniture, stacks of books, monster bodies, ect all the time.
Bulk flat out beats weight as a measure of encumbrance, imo
Even if I agreed, there are times when you need weight and don't care about encumbrance. For instance, if a pressure plate is set for 100 lbs, why the heck does it CARE about bulk? If a barge can carry 500 lbs of goods, is unwieldiness an issue?
Oh and 30 cubic feet is roughly .8 cubic meters.
30 cubic feet, which I don't know what means.
Here's the thing though: 10 bulk means about as much to me as 30 cubic feet. If we're going to go with an abstraction (which for you and I, is what cubic feet actually is) why not go with one that has a more fantasy feel than "bulk" and means something to some portion of the playerbase?
For those strongly advocating for abstractions over imperial measurements: What about squares vs feet? Humans can have a speed of 5 squares, elves can have a speed of 6 squares and dwarves can have a speed of 4 squares. After all, feet means absolutely nothing. So if we want abstraction in one segment of the game, why not abstract everything else?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 100 pound statue made of iron and a hundred pound statue made out of Paper Mache are both going to be difficult to cary around, but for very different reasons. 1 strong person is probably going to have an easier time with the iron statue than the paper one. The bulk of an Iron statue should be lower than the bulk of a paper statue. How much do the physics of moving things without damaging them need to translated into game mechanics is a very nuanced question.
Inventing a new measuring system is fine with me as long as it is properly contextualized in the rule book. if they are going to dedicate a page plus to showing us how large and larger monsters work they can do the same with bulk.
In my mind this is an argument for a DMG book where information like this would make sense, in a chapter about creating and moving along narrative in a mechanically derived world. But probably called "Narrative Pacing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
30 cubic feet, which I don't know what means.Here's the thing though: 10 bulk means about as much to me as 30 cubic feet. If we're going to go with an abstraction (which for you and I, is what cubic feet actually is) why not go with one that has a more fantasy feel than "bulk" and means something to some portion of the player base?
it is true it is an abstraction. The difference is, if a bag of holding can have 10 bulk, and a Lance is 3 bulk, I know a bag of holding can hold 3 lances and some spare stuff. If a bag of holding can carry 30 cubic feet, I still don't know how many lances can it carry, because I have no clue of how many cubic feet a Lance measures. And it is not only a problem with imperial measurements, because I also have no clue how many lances can be fit on, say, 1 cubic meter
For those strongly advocating for abstractions over imperial measurements: What about squares vs feet? Humans can have a speed of 5 squares, elves can have a speed of 6 squares and dwarves can have a speed of 4 squares. After all, feet means absolutely nothing. So if we want abstraction in one segment of the game, why not abstract everything else?
I don't use grids to measure. I use flat maps, (with 3d objects) and a stick. So I don't care about this at all. Buy in any case, there is a clear difference: everything that is measured in distances, say so in the game. It doesn't matter if the monster is 5 feet away, and I can move 5 feet, or if it is "1 step away" and I can move 1 step. However, that is not true for volume. A bag of holding holds 30 cubic feet, but I don't know how many cubic feet is a folded rope. So I have no clue of how many different folded ropes I can carry in my bag of holding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, volume isn't THAT hard. For instance, 1 cubic meter = 35.31 cubic feet(*); 1 cubic foot = 0.0283 cubic meters = 28.3 liters.
(*)I initially did this using the railroading approximation of 1 meter = 3' 3+3/8" -- this is close enough that it only resulted in an error in the last digit (35.33 instead of the 35.31 that Google's online units converter gives).
Google's online units converter is a big help with things like this. Except that Google's online units converter is unlikely to have Bulk any time soon, leaving us with no easy way to convert it into units with which we are familiar. So I'd rather stick with units used reasonably commonly on Earth -- even if they aren't the right ones for my region, at least I can do something with them. Now, if Pathfinder units like squares are defined in terms of measurements of our world, I can deal with that -- but how is Bulk defined?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer a weight based system to bulk. Bulk just seams too arbitrary, where as pounds/Kg are defined things. I think bulk would be perfect for an alternative rule in a "pathfinder streamlined" book/mode . But for the core game I prefer the more simulation like weight as the main rule system.
Thinking about if bulk is intended to be a mix of weight and difficulty to wield/hold how does the game represent things like folding ladders does the bulk change depending on if the ladder if folded? While we're looking in to potential problems how do I know if a immovable rod can support me, the obvious answers is to base it on bulk but that runs the problem of the rod potentially be able hold be while holding a lead weight with convenient carry handles but not when I'm hold a series of light yet awkward objects.
Fair enough about the lance.
1 cubic foot = 0.0283 cubic meters = 28.3 liters.
1 cubic foot = 30 liters. That's actually quite helpful. Thanks.
For me bulk works great when you're potentially working in an environment with zero gravity. But a real measurement works better for an area where gravity is going to be stable and consistent 99% of the time. For the cubic feet? Eh. We handwaive it to be honest. We don't let long pointy things in handy haversacks and we're careful about what goes into a bag of holding. Beyond that we hand waive it.