My big issue with bulk is needing to figure out the bulk of anything the pcs might want to carry or lift. If they want to lift a random table or statue how much bulk is that? I'm better estimating weight since I've done it my whOle life. Also most monster entries list the creatures weight, which is important if the pcs want to lift one, with muscle or magic. Will they now lis bulk instead?
Presumably, they will offer a conversion (in Starfinder it's 1 Bulk = 5-10 lbs and increases in multiples of 10 lbs, so something 100 lbs would be 10 Bulk. I think it may be different in P2e).
I think that's also the kind of thing you can wing. After all, in 1e I've never looked up what a table weighs if the Barbarian wants to pick it up and throw it. I might guess that the sorcerer is too weak to do the same. If in doubt I'd have them make a Strength check, and you can probably do the same in 2e.
Lift overhead/drag amounts are probably equal to or multiples of your Strength modifier.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My big issue with bulk is needing to figure out the bulk of anything the pcs might want to carry or lift. If they want to lift a random table or statue how much bulk is that? I'm better estimating weight since I've done it my whOle life. Also most monster entries list the creatures weight, which is important if the pcs want to lift one, with muscle or magic. Will they now lis bulk instead?Presumably, they will offer a conversion (in Starfinder it's 1 Bulk = 5-10 lbs and increases in multiples of 10 lbs, so something 100 lbs would be 10 Bulk. I think it may be different in P2e).
I think that's also the kind of thing you can wing. After all, in 1e I've never looked up what a table weighs if the Barbarian wants to pick it up and throw it. I might guess that the sorcerer is too weak to do the same. If in doubt I'd have them make a Strength check, and you can probably do the same in 2e.
Lift overhead/drag amounts are probably equal to or multiples of your Strength modifier.
Sure they'll have conversions, but that's extra math each time. I wouldn't expect to look up the weight of a table, but from real life experience I can use that to estimate things on the fly...in pounds. No one has that estimation skill and experience using bulk though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "winging it" with Bulk is easier than "winging it" with weight, since bulk is inherently kind of a range of weights so I just have to pick what range it falls in. When the PCs decide something like "we're going to carry the dining room table out of the castle" it's a lot easier to guesstimate how big and hard to carry it is than to figure out how much it weighs (which involves figuring out how big it is and then adjusting for density).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "winging it" with Bulk is easier than "winging it" with weight, since bulk is inherently kind of a range of weights so I just have to pick what range it falls in. When the PCs decide something like "we're going to carry the dining room table out of the castle" it's a lot easier to guesstimate how big and hard to carry it is than to figure out how much it weighs (which involves figuring out how big it is and then adjusting for density).
Then you fall into how they are carrying the table, how it weighs, how they hold it, etc etc. Just new issues elsewhere.
Now I do agree this sounds like nitpicking, but I'd like to get the nitpicking out of the way before we actually have the system to play with. A blog on Bulk(Or gear in general) could help explain the details of it.
Also as to why I keep nitpicking, well I have had the pleasure of moving both heavy and bulk things in real life. I'm sure most people have but a few instances stick out in my head and I can't see how the switch from weight to Bulk would help other than maybe easier to track depending on how they run the numbers(Hint, any 1.5 or .5 bulk to me runs into the same problem we have now)
I just feel like "the table is 50 bulk" is not going to start "wait a minute" arguments whereas "the table is 350 lbs" is.
I just feel like "the table is 50 bulk" is not going to start "wait a minute" arguments whereas "the table is 350 lbs" is.
Depends. What else has the party found that is 50 Bulk by itself? Anything in this game/hobby can start a "Wait a minute" argument if left vague enough.
Going at a different angle, what happens to traps that are Weight based? Instantly stepped on and triggers? Bridges that fall when X Bulk is applied?
How much Bulk is a Half Orc vs a Halfing? Do we count carried Bulk too?
Again nitpick now so I don't have to, hopefully, later. And to probably get it out my system.
Going at a different angle, what happens to traps that are Weight based?
Yeah, I'd asked this before. How do pressure plates work? If it's weight based, are we going for both weight AND bulk? If not, then we NEED a way to acuratly calculate bulk for creatures, vehicles, ect... So far, a 100% variance in weight isn't very accurate: If your trap is set for 100 lbs and you're 8 bulk, you may or may not trip it...
PC weights aren't very predictable. I've seen more traps triggered by 1 Medium or 2 Small sized characters in an area than traps triggered by specific weights.
PC weights aren't very predictable. I've seen more traps triggered by 1 Medium or 2 Small sized characters in an area than traps triggered by specific weights.
While true, I can see it being another nitpick section.
This won't effect me at all, I'll wave Bulk unless things call for it(You really want to carry 30 bulk/300 pounds of stuff when at sea? Sure go for it.) But I see the current vagueness as being an issue with Bulk.
|
Going at a different angle, what happens to traps that are Weight based?Yeah, I'd asked this before. How do pressure plates work? If it's weight based, are we going for both weight AND bulk? If not, then we NEED a way to acuratly calculate bulk for creatures, vehicles, ect... So far, a 100% variance in weight isn't very accurate: If your trap is set for 100 lbs and you're 8 bulk, you may or may not trip it...
You make it based on the size of the creature, which is generally what happens in Adventures anyway.
PC weights aren't very predictable. I've seen more traps triggered by 1 Medium or 2 Small sized characters in an area than traps triggered by specific weights.
Indeed, they may well just deal with such issues by doing it according to creature sizes instead. You'd probably still need to remember a conversion system but it could be managed. Handle non-gear items by guessing the size instead of the Bulk (e.g., a Table is roughly Medium-sized).
Given I can't think of any situation where I've never really needed to know what a table weighed or had someone pick up a monster (although it's plausible) I think this is a manageable issue.
Also and moreover, I suggest making up a few scenarios involving these problems that we can run in the playtest and see how it feels then. Then we can report with practical data.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, they may well just deal with such issues by doing it according to creature sizes instead. You'd probably still need to remember a conversion system but it could be managed. Handle non-gear items by guessing the size instead of the Bulk (e.g., a Table is roughly Medium-sized).
Given I can't think of any situation where I've never really needed to know what a table weighed or had someone pick up a monster (although it's plausible) I think this is a manageable issue.
Also and moreover, I suggest making up a few scenarios involving these problems that we can run in the playtest and see how it feels then. Then we can report with practical data.
Familiar doesn't proc the trap because it's Small/Weight/Bulk doesn't match up but small rock does because it's Stat either matches or the DM allows it.
And while a table doesn't work, Raft? Boat? Bridge? I can think of a number of reasons why I'd need weight(Usually for flying, sinking, or falling) but Bulk?
I feel Bulk can lead to the 100 Pounds of Bricks vs Feathers arguments. Or in this case, 20 Bulk of Bricks vs Feathers. I don't know this sounds like I'm ranting or not making sense but I prefer more.... hard rules if I have to use it. Defined rules? Set in stone? I hand wave Weight because at times it is annoying yes. But at this rate I'll hand wave Bulk because there's ironically, too much room in the rules/expectations
Familiar doesn't proc the trap because it's Small/Weight/Bulk doesn't match up but small rock does because it's Stat either matches or the DM allows it.Indeed, they may well just deal with such issues by doing it according to creature sizes instead. You'd probably still need to remember a conversion system but it could be managed. Handle non-gear items by guessing the size instead of the Bulk (e.g., a Table is roughly Medium-sized).
Given I can't think of any situation where I've never really needed to know what a table weighed or had someone pick up a monster (although it's plausible) I think this is a manageable issue.
Also and moreover, I suggest making up a few scenarios involving these problems that we can run in the playtest and see how it feels then. Then we can report with practical data.
Familiar doesn't proc the trap because it's Small/Weight/Bulk doesn't match up but small rock does because it's Stat either matches or the DM allows it.
I'm honestly not sure what point you're making here. If a rock is Small and a familiar is Small they'd have the same effect, per the system I am suggesting. If the GM decides the rock triggers but the familiar doesn't because he's fudging bulk or size on the fly, the same could happen if he's fudging weight on the fly.
(I haven't seen many adventure modules or paths written that provide the weight for nearby small rocks. If you have by all means share.)
And while a table doesn't work, Raft? Boat? Bridge? I can think of a number of reasons why I'd need weight(Usually for flying, sinking, or falling) but Bulk?
Because, per what I am (and others are) suggesting, the adventure would note that the raft/boat/bridge can hold 4 Medium or equivalent creatures (e.g., 8 Small, 2 Large). In fact that's often how the current rules put it rather than provide a max weight. I don't see why that would change.
Otherwise, I expect the rules when printed will make those kind of issues clear, and we can point out the issues during playtesting if they don't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait a minute. Your saying my strength 7 sorcerer with barely anything on him has more bulk than that halfling tank in full plate? So the halfling gets to walk across traps that are weight sensitive but I can't?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are uses for both weight and bulk. Mass/weight are absolutes, and there are effects in the current game that depend heavily upon weight to operate with telekinesis being just one example.
The weight of rocks by size is not easily found in the rules, but it is there (usually with giant descriptions). Mass/weight should very by density, forming the basis from which Bulk is derived.
If I missed it, the Bulk of loot is going to matter. How much bulk is 50 coins? It isn't particularly bulky, but it does weigh a pound in standard gravity.
Spreadsheets and other simple readily available tools, as well as basic arithmetic a pencil and paper, makes tracking encumbrance a minor issue.
Bulk is merely a measure used to keep characters from carrying a dozen larger-than-knife melee weapons on their backs, although it is by no means a perfect panacea.
I'd be fine with having both weight and bulk. I would track both - it's easy enough - thanks to the copious tools available to us. Some things are simply better handled with weight. Bulk handles the rest of it.
It will be interesting to see which approach is used of the three.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because, per what I am (and others are) suggesting, the adventure would note that the raft/boat/bridge can hold 4 Medium or equivalent creatures (e.g., 8 Small, 2 Large). In fact that's often how the current rules put it rather than provide a max weight. I don't see why that would change.
And I feel that 4 Medium creatures + all their Gear + treasure + Possible Attackers + other possible weight issues = Sinkage unless actual limit is imposed.
10 Swords weigh X. 10 Swords is Bulk X. If stacked ontop of each other is that Still Bulk X? Layed out side to side? Put in a neat box or scattered around in a burlap sack?
Again this is probably nitpicking but maybe don't have it so vague and leave me the room to do so in the first place? See this is why I'm waving Bulk in my games.
And actually Mad Comrade kinda gets to the point I'm kinda stumbling towards or at least I feel is in the ballpark of the point I was trying to make. Though with Bulk seemingly to take into account Volume as well, I can see arguments of "I can carry a dozen melee weapons on my back because I packed my weapons X way"
Now that I think about it, it's more a perception issue for me than anything. If anyone played Resident Evil 4, you know you get a suit case to carry all your stuff and can move/rotate stuff around Tetris style to carry everything. But it gets a bit silly that your character can carry all that gear in just a suitcase because you packed it right. Which is something I feel can be argued with Bulk but not weight.
Sorry I just picture Bulk carrying as a Suitcase/backpack. Yeah you can stuff it just right to be able to carry more things but being actually able to carry the extra Weight is another issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait a minute. Your saying my strength 7 sorcerer with barely anything on him has more bulk than that halfling tank in full plate? So the halfling gets to walk across traps that are weight sensitive but I can't?Yes, just like the CMD rules don't care about the actual weight of things just the size. Although they could quite easily say that unless otherwise noted creatures of x size are y bulk.
Honestly, that's just silly. A small golem made out of gold weighing hundreds of pounds doesn't set off a pit trap but a 82 lb fetchling does...
The difference is that pressure plates already use weight and CMD doesn't, so bringing that up isn't too useful.
There are uses for both weight and bulk.
This is why I hope that if we're STUCK with bulk, that also include weight. That way people can use the method that works for them. That and so you can use weight when it makes sense like a barge where unwieldiness is meaningless and weight is the sole factor it keeping it afloat.
A multiverse measured in bulk and squares, ha, "Well, I am 1.2 squares in height, weigh 19 bulk, and I come from Magnimar, which is about 347,000 squares from here."
Kyle: [steps forward] "Wait. Wait. I think I can explain this whole thing. Marklar, these marklars want to change your marklar. They don't want Marklar or any of these marklars to live here because it's bad for their marklar. They use Marklar to try and force marklars to believe they're marklar. If you let them stay here, they will build marklars and marklars. They will take all your marklars and replace them with Marklar. These marklar have no good marklar to live on Marklar, so they must come here to Marklar. Please, let these marklars stay where they can grow and prosper without any marklars, marklars, eh or marklars."
Replace marklar with bulk and squares... :P
PS: "I can tell by the grid pattern in the world that the monsters are exactly 5 squares away!"
A multiverse measured in bulk and squares, ha, "Well, I am 1.2 squares in height, weigh 19 bulk, and I come from Magnimar, which is about 347,000 squares from here."Kyle: [steps forward] "Wait. Wait. I think I can explain this whole thing. Marklar, these marklars want to change your marklar. They don't want Marklar or any of these marklars to live here because it's bad for their marklar. They use Marklar to try and force marklars to believe they're marklar. If you let them stay here, they will build marklars and marklars. They will take all your marklars and replace them with Marklar. These marklar have no good marklar to live on Marklar, so they must come here to Marklar. Please, let these marklars stay where they can grow and prosper without any marklars, marklars, eh or marklars."
Replace marklar with bulk and squares... :P
PS: "I can tell by the grid pattern in the world that the monsters are exactly 5 squares away!"
"Welcome to Grid World, where the coming of the Hex presages the devastation of the Great Eraser."
Because, per what I am (and others are) suggesting, the adventure would note that the raft/boat/bridge can hold 4 Medium or equivalent creatures (e.g., 8 Small, 2 Large). In fact that's often how the current rules put it rather than provide a max weight. I don't see why that would change.And I feel that 4 Medium creatures + all their Gear + treasure + Possible Attackers + other possible weight issues = Sinkage unless actual limit is imposed.
10 Swords weigh X. 10 Swords is Bulk X. If stacked ontop of each other is that Still Bulk X? Layed out side to side? Put in a neat box or scattered around in a burlap sack?
Again this is probably nitpicking but maybe don't have it so vague and leave me the room to do so in the first place? See this is why I'm waving Bulk in my games.
And actually Mad Comrade kinda gets to the point I'm kinda stumbling towards or at least I feel is in the ballpark of the point I was trying to make. Though with Bulk seemingly to take into account Volume as well, I can see arguments of "I can carry a dozen melee weapons on my back because I packed my weapons X way"
Now that I think about it, it's more a perception issue for me than anything. If anyone played Resident Evil 4, you know you get a suit case to carry all your stuff and can move/rotate stuff around Tetris style to carry everything. But it gets a bit silly that your character can carry all that gear in just a suitcase because you packed it right. Which is something I feel can be argued with Bulk but not weight.
Sorry I just picture Bulk carrying as a Suitcase/backpack. Yeah you can stuff it just right to be able to carry more things but being actually able to carry the extra Weight is another issue.
I think I get where we're more or less heading towards.
If volume = bulk (more or less) and mass/weight remains (more or less) the same, then it makes it easier to adjust weight as necessary and convert volume capacity into bulk capacity.
Take a portable hole as the go-to storage item. Weight is never the issue, only the bulk of its contents. With precious metals and other items of high-density, the volume is what matters. Establishing the bulk capacity to [number] decisively answers that question.
handy haversacks and the series of bags of holding should be fairly easy. Apply KISS to remove the legacy vulnerabilities from interior stowage as well as addressing how magical extradimensional storage devices accomodate all manner of weird bulky items (they glomp it - making for a rude surprise when the bag of devouring proceeds to actually eat whatever is put inside of it).
A handy haversack has 3 compartments: 2 small compartments each of which can store 20 pounds' weight taking up no more than 2 bulk whilst the center compartment can store 80 pounds' weight taking up no more than 8 bulk. In and of itself it weighs 5 pounds for a Small/Medium creature (if PF2e extends not differentiating weight/bulk along with not differentiating weapon damage) and counts as 1 bulk of encumbrance.
The bags of holding should be a similar conversion. Divide volume by 10 = bulk capacity, leaving weight capacity unchanged.
A dragon's horde is heavy and often bulky depending on its particular treasures, usually leaning far more towards the heavy side of the equation.
Applying reasonable bulk limitations to wagons and carts (where both volume and weight matter) whilst ignoring bulk for ships (or effectively so ... even the smaller cargo-rated ships in the game carry many tons of stuff of all manner of bulkiness) seems to be the last necessary bit of stuff re: weight and bulk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hahaha, where this really breaks down is when you have one square with 4 Tiny creatures, and an adjacent square also with 4 Tiny creatures, none of the Tiny creatures in a square can attack the other Tiny creatures in the adjacent square.
PS: "I can tell by the grid pattern in the world that the monsters are exactly 5 squares away!"
Never seen house cats fight? They get into each other's squares all the time. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only if they can occupy the same square as a swarm!Never seen house cats fight? They get into each other's squares all the time. ;)Hahaha, where this really breaks down is when you have one square with 4 Tiny creatures, and an adjacent square also with 4 Tiny creatures, none of the Tiny creatures in a square can attack the other Tiny creatures in the adjacent square.
PS: "I can tell by the grid pattern in the world that the monsters are exactly 5 squares away!"
LoL
Eight house cats is at least a troop ... of commoner-killing murder machines. ;)
Take a portable hole as the go-to storage item. Weight is never the issue, only the bulk of its contents. With precious metals and other items of high-density, the volume is what matters. Establishing the bulk capacity to [number] decisively answers that question.
Indeed, my group, around the time that "fight a dragon in its lair" is part of the expected adventure, our group *always* buys a portable hole and one shovel per character. So there's always a discussion about "can we fit 75,604 cp, 8,773 sp, 6,111 gp, and 165 pp in the hole if we leave the shovels behind?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take a portable hole as the go-to storage item. Weight is never the issue, only the bulk of its contents. With precious metals and other items of high-density, the volume is what matters. Establishing the bulk capacity to [number] decisively answers that question.Indeed, my group, around the time that "fight a dragon in its lair" is part of the expected adventure, our group *always* buys a portable hole and one shovel per character. So there's always a discussion about "can we fit 75,604 cp, 8,773 sp, 6,111 gp, and 165 pp in the hole if we leave the shovels behind?"
If you can afford a portable hole, hopefully someone has access to fabricate and a modest Int bonus. Use fabricate, taking 10 on the Craft check, and *pouf* those piles of coins into trade bars for maximum volume efficiency.
Going on memory, a 'standard' gold trade bar (or ingot) fits 40 per cubic foot (1 bulk) weighing 25 pounds (1,250 gp) each. A silver trade bar fits 20 per cubic foot, weighing 100 pounds per each bar (500 gp of silver/5,000 sp). Copper bars are probably the same as silver at 20 bars per cubic foot at 100 pounds' weight each (50 gp/5,000 cp of copper each).
Still going on memory, a portable hole will hold 282 cubic feet in volume (more or less). 28 bulk if 10 cu. ft. = 1 Bulk. 20 ingots x 28 Bulk = 560 ingots of copper or silver. Twice as many ingots worth of gold. 1,400,000 gp in gold bars will reasonably fit into a portable hole if the aforementioned cu. ft. volume-to-bulk conversion holds true.
Saying weight doesn't apply to CMD so therefore it shouldn't apply to weight based traps is a non sequitur. Weight has little to do with being disarmed.
Well thats why I said unless otherwise noted. Its fine to have a standard rule for Small is 7B while sometimes a monster entry for your golemn can note that it is 20B.
But yeah both would be fine by me.
Lots of monsters don't list weights as it is now so I'd expect this to continue and that's where we run into an issue. For instance, I can estimate a fairly close estimate for a small gold golem: 1206 lb for a cubic foot [google-san knows all] and at least 2 for small so 2412 lbs as a base. However, bulk is anywhere from 241 to 482 bulk with NO outside help to narrow that down. Once again if it's a 3000 lb trigger, that's 400-600 bulk and now we have no idea if it doesn't trigger because the golem is underweight, the trap is set too high or if it does go off.
Now you can do the same thing with the average PC, divide that by 10. A 120 lb PC and a 300lb trigger in pathfinder is easy to tell what happens. Bulk means they may or may not go off at the whim of whoever is guessing at the bulk totals.
Maybe pressure plates and pit traps are just a tired old trope that needs to be retired?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In addition are all spells going to be rewritten to specify bulk instead of weight?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always just specify pressure plates and collapsing bridges in terms of "when more than 2 medium sized characters are on the bridge at the same time" or something like that.
I prefer game logic that is more narrativist than simulationist. Our heroes are going to avoid collapsing the bridge because they are careful and cross one at a time, not because the paladin in full plate just sneaks in under the number.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that we don't need the granularity of weight for carrying capacity purposes (I understand opinions may differ).
In that case, if the only justification for tracking weight is for the purposes of pressure plates and carrying other people, then I think it's a very weak one. Either of these things happens maybe, say, once every 5-10 game sessions on average? Deciding that a trap will trigger under the weight of 1 Medium or 2 Small characters is perfectly fine (the Small Gold Golem being, shall we say, an extreme corner case where the DM is welcome to apply common sense). For carrying others, the rules could very well decide a Small character's bulk equals 10, Medium equals 20, or something like that. This is a rough approximation, but good enough for the purpose. It's not like the PF1 weight system is lacking in equally rough approximations, anyway.
I prefer game logic that is more narrativist than simulationist.
Fair enough. Each to their own. It's not how I prefer to do it (in my opinion Pathfinder is a very poor game for that approach. On the other hand there are plenty of games that embrace that approach as part of their core concept and so they excel at it. Not that my group plays those games). Hopefully PF2e will allow you to do it your way and allows me to do it my way just as much as PF1e does (or more).
Maybe pressure plates and pit traps are just a tired old trope that needs to be retired?
*shrug* lifting gates , raft capacities [and other vehicles that have a weight limit without relevant limitation in area] and climbing ropes all have to go too. We're tossing out a lot...
I always just specify pressure plates and collapsing bridges in terms of "when more than 2 medium sized characters are on the bridge at the same time" or something like that.
You can do that I guess but when the weight can vary several thousand pounds it turns the dail to 100% narrativist and 0% simulationist as it tosses out all logic. Even 'normal' PC's you see one medium at 85 lbs including clothes and one at 180 + 75 for armor + 45 for a tower shield + gear for 300+ lbs... Literally you can have 3 of the first not add up to the other combined: far more narrativist than I could take as a norm.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised to see that Bulk has been more effective at getting people to pay attention to capacity at others' tables, because it's been the exact opposite at mine. We're not particularly precise about weight, but we do generally track it in Pathfinder - but with the bulk system in SF (combined with an increased reliance on gear) we've taken to ignoring it, because it's a pain.
I can see how smaller numbers makes the math less daunting, and I do like having it be tied directly to your Strength score without needing a table, but I find that the system a) overly compresses item weights and b) is even more fiddly. What is L bulk? It seems to encompass everything from a 5 ounce comm unit to a 5 pound pistol, so how much you can carry really just depends on what kinds of items you're carrying. And if the system supposed to simulate, well, bulkiness - it doesn't do that either. That little personal comm unit has the same bulk as a bolt of cloth. At any rate, you end up with one or two items with numeric bulk and a few dozen L bulk items, and then every time you get a new L bulk item you have to go through and tally up whether it's enough to add another bulk. (Or alternately, you give up on L entirely and just use decimals, which is reasonable but why on earth isn't that baseline?)
Everyone has varying strengths and weaknesses when it comes to different types of thinking, and I'm not interested in excluding people simply because they're not mathematically inclined - but we also live in an age where it is practically guaranteed that at least one person at your table has some sort of calculator on their person. So I'm not entirely sure where all this fear of large numbers is coming from.
I'm not entirely opposed to Bulk, but it works much better as an alternate ruleset presented in an appendix. It's much easier to convert pounds to bulk than vice versa, and as others have stated, the advantage of going by real-world weights is it allows players to actually somewhat visualize a thing. If I find a magical artifact, and you tell me it is 3 bulk, I'm pretty sure it's really big, but I couldn't really gauge it. If you tell me it is 100 pounds, I have a clearer idea. (And for those of us living with a better system of measurement, it's a quick hop to google to type in "lb to kg conversion" - there is no equivalent "bulk to kg conversion" search.)
WRT the whole problem of having to consult tables - I think that can be fixed without something as overly simplified as bulk. Simply get rid of the weird exponential carrying capacity we have now, and make it a flat multiplier. I'd probably set it so 5x your Str is your light load, 10x is your medium load, and 15x is your heavy load. Yes, that increases the carrying capacity a fair bit for lower Str characters, but it gets rid of the ridiculousness of higher scores while actually penalizing Str dumps (by this system, there's a 10lb difference between the light load maximum of Str 10 and 8 characters, as opposed to the 7lb difference in 1e). No more tables, masterwork backpacks have the same value for everybody, and intermediate Strength scores become a bit more worthwhile.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was the only person in our play group who bothered tracking weight in Pathfinder 1.0 (with spreadsheets no less) for our party. Everyone agreed that it should be tracked, but nobody wanted to do it. Contrast that to Starfinder where everyone effortlessly tracks their own bulk.
Provided Pathfinder 2.0 handles some of the corner cases (such as carrying unconscious allies/foes, or handling volume of shapeable spells) I am all for replacing the endurance system for a bulk system.
I was the only person in our play group who bothered tracking weight in Pathfinder 1.0 (with spreadsheets no less) for our party. Everyone agreed that it should be tracked, but nobody wanted to do it. Contrast that to Starfinder where everyone effortlessly tracks their own bulk.
Provided Pathfinder 2.0 handles some of the corner cases (such as carrying unconscious allies/foes, or handling volume of shapeable spells) I am all for replacing the endurance system for a bulk system.
I think it'll speed things up in my group, saves us time wasted on working out how much something weighs, and for minor items it should be immediately obvious to my players how much bulk something uses up even without me needing to go look it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind bulk, but I also don't see it as an improvement over tracking weight. Sure, encumbrance is really a matter of weight, space, and how those loads are distributed and you have to deal with that abstractly -- DM judgement. But there are times when you need to know what something weighs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there are times when you need to know what something weighs.
Like what?
I'm having difficulty thinking of a situation where that level of specificity would really be required.
Take a pressure plate-activated trap, for example. Before it might say anything over 20 pounds activates the trap. Now, under the bulk system, it could say "anything of 2+ bulk" or "triggered by any Small or larger corporeal creature."
Those rare corner cases that do arise, such as how the pressure plate interacts with lightweight corporeal gaseous creatures, can easily be covered in the trap text or adjudicated by the GM. In short, the specificity of specific weight amounts is rarely required for the game's narrative to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like being pedantic about "the pressure plate triggers on 100 lbs, but my halfling rogue and all his gear is only 99 so I'm fine" is kind of the opposite of what I want the game to be.
Like the person designing the pressure plate wants to set the tolerance so that birds and mice won't set it off but all intruders from 22 lb grippli in robes to 200 lb Nagaji in full plate will.
If the bridge is going to crumble under the weight of the party I'd prefer the game logic be something like "If they don't cross one at a time or aren't careful" not "if the folks on the bridge exceed a certain weight."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there are times when you need to know what something weighs.Like what?
I'm having difficulty thinking of a situation where that level of specificity would really be required.
This really depends on information we currently lack.
Under the current rules we absolutely need to know how much something weighs. telekinesis, teleport cargo, determining how laden various species of swallows are, how many wagons one needs to acquire (with accompanying draft animals, handlers, provisions, stowage containers et al) to relocate the vast wealth of Erebor to your characters' kip...
Bulk is fine for day-to-day things, but for cargo and the like, weight is more often the factor. We simply don't know how this is going to be handled in Nouveau Pathfinder.
Has it been announced that Bulk is the official encumbrance rule? If so, I missed it.
...
Has it been announced that Bulk is the official encumbrance rule? If so, I missed it.
Take a look at the Alchemy Preview Blog
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bulk is fine for day-to-day things, but for cargo and the like, weight is more often the factor. We simply don't know how this is going to be handled in Nouveau Pathfinder.
Isn't "how much space something takes up" much more relevant when we're talking about cargo and the like? Like eventually you could get so much goose down that it physically would not fit in the hold of your ship, while an equivalent weight of each of timber, rugs, *and* gold bars would fit fine.
Given that bulk takes into account "how much space it takes up" not just "how much it weighs" is why I prefer bulk to encumbrance, specifically when it comes to "loading stuff on a wagon, into a ship/pack/extradimensional space of finite volume, etc."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there are times when you need to know what something weighs.Like what?
I'm having difficulty thinking of a situation where that level of specificity would really be required.
When characters want to move something, it isn't always a function of encumbrance. And when characters want to move something unanticipated, its convenient to look something up in real-world terms and its also convenient if the game's equipment list is where you might first turn to look it up.
Mechanically speaking, encumbrance is a number that you add up and compare to various thresholds. The unit of measurement doesn't make any difference so bulks works, but is no better or worse than weight. (Or "mass" in a space game.)
But there's more to real-world encumbrance than weight. If you also want to measure encumbrance via a measure of space then you might use "bulk" to represent size, in addition to weight. But too measurements is probably considered too complex or unnecessary, and I would agree unless you happen to be using automation (like Hero Lab) to make your character, in which case its easy.
So anyways, if we're going to just use one number to track encumbrance, my preference is weight because I can do other things with that number, including solve real-world-like math problems created by my PCs during the course of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't "how much space something takes up" much more relevant when we're talking about cargo and the like?
In fact, in shipping, the term "tonnage" is actually a measure of volume and they use it for planning a load of cargo. They also look to a ship's displacement, which is a function of weight, and they look at displacement across the length of the ship, which is a function of balance and distribution.
How much weight is too much for a ship? It depends. If water coming over the rails or the ship cannot recover from roll, then that's clearly too much. If the ship cannot make headway, then that's too much. If the weight made the draught of the ship too deep, it cannot get out of the shallows, then that's too much. Will the ship be too sluggish to make progress headed upwind, founder in a storm, or be unable to carry off a tack. You'll have to go try it to find out.
In actuality, encumbrance for a person walking around involves many factors: Weight, Space, Balance, Distribution. But that's too much for Pathfinder players. So the Devs understandably want to settle on one measure of encumbrance. And that's cool, so they invented "bulk."
Summary: Space matters a lot for loading a ship, but weight (and the distribution of weight) determines its performance.
I can respect and use "bulk", but there are times when I (and I assume other GMs) will want a real-world value. Do I have to create a conversion formula, or will they give me one?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't have to dumb down encumbrance at our table.