| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
temperature is a better target for abstraction. What more do you need aside from comfortable/uncomfortable/dangerous/damaging?
Seriously though, Celsius is super easy. 28+C*2 right? And the important temperatures are baked into the values. I have no idea why we still use Fahrenheit in the US. Conversion is too easy to be a barrier like some other measures.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That the "pounds are relatable" argument is lost on anybody who doesn't use them.
I've never understood the major issue with pounds. It's not hard to convert. IMO, it's pounds are relatable as is kg or any other unit you use. I've played games in metric and had to convert it to usable units: it wasn't hard or an affront to my "Americano-centrism". I don't go to a German game website to complain that they aren't conforming to the unit it like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After having built my first character using Bulk, my comment is this is: If, through some misfortune, the negative feedback is strong enough to get the devs to revert to pounds, I swear I will houserule Bulk back in my game. The reduced granularity is a major time and headache-saver.
Also, I don't get the OP at all. In our group there is only one STR based character, and no one complained of not being able to equip. Maybe when you carry masses of loot, there could be a problem. But then, it's a good problem to have :-) and besides, the amount of crap a high STR character can carry in PF1 is downright ridiculous, because only weight is counted.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For you.I don't know if Bulk is bad, but it is certainly abstract. I prefer pounds because it's relatable.
-Skeld
Well, yeah, I did say, "I prefer." What was the point of your comment?
-Skeld
That the "pounds are relatable" argument is lost on anybody who doesn't use them. I'm kind of fed up with Americano-centrism of D&D/PF (although I fully understand where it comes from), so any opportunity to ditch a measurement that's completely alien and adopt something abstract is the next best thing short of adopting kilograms and grams.
Now if only Paizo would ditch Fahrenehit and use some abstract temperature bands...
It's not that hard. I'm American and have no issues using any metric units. Unit conversion is easy and straightforward, and if you make a point of using both, it can be automatic. Though I would like to see America adopt metric.
That said, I'm a-ok with my games using meters/kilograms, just so long as they're actual units and not this abstract Bulk silliness. Anything real is easy to estimate or describe, while abstract things like "bulk" and "squares" are more difficult.
"Before you is a mesa, standing tall above the surrounding badlands. It looks to be well over 300 squares tall. You estimate the rock in it must clock in around 6,750,000,000 bulk."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the bulk system turned out consistent results I'd be okay with it. If it also provided its intended function of emulating unwieldiness, I'd be happy with it. It doesn't do those things though.
Maybe I just don't know enough about how bulk works. Here's a few of the questions I can't find and can't guess the answer to.
- -How much bulk can you push, drag or lift?
- -Does the bulk of items count if they are stowed in a container?
- -What is making alchemy items so much more bulky than a flask of oil?
- -Why do things like spell books and 10 foot poles have the same bulk?
- -Is the bulk given for items stored efficiently, or the base bulk for the loose item?
I just wanted to second using the metric system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course the bulk counts if the item is in a container, why is that in question? How would putting a potion, an axe, and a shield in a box and then carrying that box around not still require the strength and care needed to transport those items?
Because a backpack has different bulks depending on how it's being held: negligible (worn) or light (held in hand). And because barding has different bulk depending on who's carrying it (heavy barding is 4 bulk for a Large horse, twice that for a Medium humanoid). Why wouldn't it be in question? On the other hand, 10 lbs (or 4.5 kg, they could go metric, too) is the same whether it's being worn or held, or whether we're talking about a halfling or a human or a horse or a hill giant.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the bulk system turned out consistent results I'd be okay with it. If it also provided its intended function of emulating unwieldiness, I'd be happy with it. It doesn't do those things though.
Maybe I just don't know enough about how bulk works. Here's a few of the questions I can't find and can't guess the answer to.
- -How much bulk can you push, drag or lift?
- -Does the bulk of items count if they are stowed in a container?
- -What is making alchemy items so much more bulky than a flask of oil?
- -Why do things like spell books and 10 foot poles have the same bulk?
- -Is the bulk given for items stored efficiently, or the base bulk for the loose item?
Push, drag (other than for beasts of burder type situations), and lift (which is already mostly covered by maximum bulk) can be handled by assigning a DC to the action - higher strength will make it more likely (and in some cases possible where otherwise it wouldn't be) that the hefty object in question is moved as needed.
Of course the bulk counts if the item is in a container, why is that in question? How would putting a potion, an axe, and a shield in a box and then carrying that box around not still require the strength and care needed to transport those items?
As for items which have different weight by a significant degree and yet have the same bulk assigned, that comes down to a combination of how much space the object actually takes up and what kind of care is needed to pack it without damaging it - a spellbook is probably lighter than a 10' pole and easier to stick in your pack, but you can't just toss it wherever you want to with whatever else you want to because pages are exceptionally easy to damage.
The bulk assigned is, as is made clear by containers having different bulk if you are storing the container rather than using it as intended, for transporting the item in a relatively-quick-to-use fashion (since I don't think the rules add extra interact action requirements for which...
Bulk was sold to us as a measurement that included unwieldiness and weight: so harder to carry items have a higher total then easy to carry ones.
So:
push, drag or lift: you can generally drag/pull more than you can lift as the ground is doing some of the work for you.
Stowed items: 20 potions bottles held in my arms shouldn't have the same 'unwieldiness' as 20 carfully stowed and balanced in my backpack but they seemingly have the same bulk...
Alchemy item vs oil: 2 ityems of the same size, shape, weight and 'unwieldiness' have different bulk numners because? Magic/resonence weighs more?
spell books vs 10 foot poles: the pole is clearly much more unwieldy, so the measurement is clearly off when it tells me the two items are as easy to carry: a complete failure to aproximate 'unwieldiness and/or 'bulk'.
Stored vs loose: as above, a dozen eggs held in your have have the same bulk as in a carton... clearly unwieldiness of items has been ignored.
|
But snarky one-liners are the core of my existence...For you.I don't know if Bulk is bad, but it is certainly abstract. I prefer pounds because it's relatable.
-Skeld
Well, yeah, I did say, "I prefer." What was the point of your comment?
-Skeld
That the "pounds are relatable" argument is lost on anybody who doesn't use them. I'm kind of fed up with Americano-centrism of D&D/PF (although I fully understand where it comes from), so any opportunity to ditch a measurement that's completely alien and adopt something abstract is the next best thing short of adopting kilograms and grams.
Now if only Paizo would ditch Fahrenehit and use some abstract temperature bands...
That's a valid point. This works much better when you explain your point of view, rather than just make a snarky one-liner.
-Skeld
Some things will never change, Gorbacz.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Push, drag (other than for beasts of burder type situations), and lift (which is already mostly covered by maximum bulk) can be handled by assigning a DC to the action - higher strength will make it more likely (and in some cases possible where otherwise it wouldn't be) that the hefty object in question is moved as needed.
Of course the bulk counts if the item is in a container, why is that in question? How would putting a potion, an axe, and a shield in a box and then carrying that box around not still require the strength and care needed to transport those items?
As for items which have different weight by a significant degree and yet have the same bulk assigned, that comes down to a combination of how much space the object actually takes up and what kind of care is needed to pack it without damaging it - a spellbook is probably lighter than a 10' pole and easier to stick in your pack, but you can't just toss it wherever you want to with whatever else you want to because pages are exceptionally easy to damage.
The bulk assigned is, as is made clear by containers having different bulk if you are storing the container rather than using it as intended, for transporting the item in a relatively-quick-to-use fashion (since I don't think the rules add extra interact action requirements for which order or arrangement you put items in your pack so that those at the bottom of the pack require more time/effort to retrieve than those at the top) - not any other assessment
Push and drag as strength checks then? Not athletics? Alright, no set DCs or notes or anything to reference for the DM as our only weight measure is useless, but cool. Whether or not you can lift something typically doesn't come down to a dice roll, it's a little odd.
Are there rules for beast of burden type situations? I could never find cart weight rules in PF1, so I wasn't expecting to find them in PF2 and probably didn't look hard enough.
The bulk in a container question has to do with the relative unwieldiness of a dozen potions loose in your pack, or carefully stowed in a purpose built box with each potion alternating positions to keep them as tight as possible. By adding the box, they are slightly heavier, but much easier to move about. The book example works here as well. If I wrap the book in leather it gains negligible weight but I no longer need to worry about the pages. So, is there a bulk difference in items that are not "relatively quick to use" because they are, for example, stowed in a container?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bulk is a weird, unpleasant system because I can hold either 1 Longsword or 10 Shortswords as 1 Bulk.
10 Shortswords would be both HEAVIER and MORE UNWIELDY than a single Longsword.
But either way, my main problem is that the limits are too strict. Literally every one of my players has only the bare necessities. No one in my party has an especially high strength.
My Fighter decided he was going to be a Dex fighter because he wanted to use a whip to trip and disarm people (tripping and disarming in PF2 is great, BTW), so he has an average strength and a high dex.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because a backpack has different bulks depending on how it's being held: negligible (worn) or light (held in hand). And because barding has different bulk depending on who's carrying it (heavy barding is 4 bulk for a Large horse, twice that for a Medium humanoid). Why wouldn't it be in question?Those details have no logical bearing upon the question I was talking about, which was, to phrase it clearly as possible, does the bulk of the items inside a backpack add to the bulk of wearing or carrying that backpack, and the answer is basically "duh."
Even though a full backpack worn would be 4 bulk, and otherwise transported would be 4 bulk and 1 light item. There should be zero question that putting items into a backpack doesn't negate the need to count their bulk.
Strongly disagree there. There should be plenty of questions about the whole concept.
Let's take a look at a dwarf in full plate armor.
The full plate armor has bulk 4. Some (50% or more) of that bulk is due to the armor's weight, and some (the remainder) is due to the armor's shape and volume.
So, the armor is bulk 4 = (armor weight) + (armor shape and volume).
Now, let's look at the dwarf himself. We don't know what the bulk of a dwarf is, but a dwarf has weight and shape and volume, ergo, a dwarf has bulk. Let's call it bulk X. And like the armor, some of that bulk is due to weight and some is due to the dwarf's shape and volume.
So the dwarf is bulk X = (dwarf weight) + (dwarf shape and volume).
So what happens when the dwarf puts the armor on? Obviously, the weight of the dwarf and the weight of the armor get factored in. And obviously, our end result has shape and volume, so we factor that in as well.
But both the dwarf's shape and volume and the armor's shape and volume? Obviously not. Once we factor in the dwarf's shape and volume, having the dwarf wear armor (something which, in this case, has the same shape and volume as the dwarf himself, which was already accounted for) doesn't further add shape and volume.
I.e., if a dwarf is bulk X and full plate armor is bulk 4, a dwarf wearing full plate will not be bulk X + 4. The very act of him wearing that armor means that part of what went into one of the bulks of the two separate components becomes redundant in the final result and cannot be factored in.
Translating this to the backpack, ErichAD is correct to question how a backpack interacts with the bulk of the items inside, and in fact, by virtue of what bulk is even supposed to be, a backpack must operate by reducing the bulk of the items inside and cannot do otherwise.
A backpack is light bulk. It has weight and shape and volume, all of which contribute to a bulk of light. The act of wearing a backpack reduces that bulk to light. That is to say, a worn backpack's weight is negated and its shape and volume is negated.
And since the backpack is a container, it contains things (specifically, up to 4 bulk worth of things, though I do question if that's meant to actually be "4 bulk plus up to 9 light, reduced to 4 bulk" or not). And if those things are being contained by the backpack, then their shape and volume must be within the backpack's shape and volume. As in, the backpack's shape and volume which is reduced to negligible while worn.
In other words, a worn (and full of items) backpack's bulk is the following: the backpack's weight (negated by the act of wearing the backpack) plus the backpack's shape and volume (negated by the act of wearing the backpack) plus the shape and volume of the items within (and being within, their shape and volume must be subject to whatever is happening to the backpack's shape and volume, and therefore is also negated) plus the weight of the items within (which is between 50% and 100% of the items' total bulk).
Cleaning all that up, we get a worn (and full of items) backpack's bulk being between 50% and 100% of the normal bulk of the items.
The answer to ErichAD's question can be a lot of things (especially since we have no real basis for determining where in that 50% to 100% range any given item is supposed to be at), but "duh" isn't one of them.
Duh.
And as far as the relevancy of what I first said, those details set the precedent for how swingy and subjective bulk can be, which by their very existence, invite the question of whether that swinginess applies elsewhere (as indeed, in the case of the backpack, it must).
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're making the case for bulk, not against it.Bulk is a weird, unpleasant system because I can hold either 1 Longsword or 10 Shortswords as 1 Bulk.
10 Shortswords would be both HEAVIER and MORE UNWIELDY than a single Longsword.
But either way, my main problem is that the limits are too strict. Literally every one of my players has only the bare necessities. No one in my party has an especially high strength.
My Fighter decided he was going to be a Dex fighter because he wanted to use a whip to trip and disarm people (tripping and disarming in PF2 is great, BTW), so he has an average strength and a high dex.
No, no he's really not. 10 shortswords = 1 longsword is not a case for bulk. It's a great example of how inane and absurd bulk is. How would you even carry 10 shortswords without a crate, specialized harness, sword rack, or using both hands? You can hold a longsword in one hand, and somehow it's equally bulky as 10 shortswords?
That stretches suspension of disbelief way too far.
You're basically saying, "My players have no strength guys and they're feeling the pain of having everyone ignore/dump strength."
That's the point of bulk.
In pf1 strength wasn't important. It was largely unneeded.
No, it's not. If the limits were too generous in 1e, they could have simply lowered the limits. Since nobody can get 30 STR now, you wouldn't have one guy able to carry everything anyway. That's not an argument for bulk at all, it's an argument for revisiting the carrying capacity table.
Rather, why does 9 shortswords have effectively no weight compared to 1 longsword? That's an entirely valid question and bulk has no answer because it's contrived nonsense.
I mean, look at some of the characters on the cover of the 1e CRB. You see people with heavy armor, multiple weapons, and other stuff. With bulk, half of them would be encumbered as they're pictured, which is super heroic and tons of fun. That's before picking anything up in a dungeon.
At this rate we're going to be playing Dragons Crown, where you have an NPC companion whose primary job is carrying a giant sack to hold the stuff you find.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monsignor Sackington is a proud and equal member of our team! He raised Touchy Heally from like she was his own and has carried more loot than you'll ever fail to identify!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I concur, it's a bad system. I'm not sure what imagined problem this is intended to solve. Swapping tracking one set of numbers for a less precise, less granular one achieves nothing of merit, adds no value to the system. It smacks of change for change's sake.
I feel like Bulk is better than weight simply because it attempts to also measure "how awkward is this to carry around" in a way that weight itself doesn't do.
Like a bowling ball made of solid osmium and a 10' long dining room table weigh about the same, but one of those two things is going to be a lot easier to carry back to town to sell.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bulk to me really sounds like a unit of size/volume than anything else. but they are using bulk as a unit of generic weight.
I would prefer them stick to a weight system for encumbrance and use bulk as for how bulky an item is to fit into a container. Give bulk a determination of about 4in/10cm cube. So an average pouch would hold 1/2 bulk, large pouch would hold 1 bulk, backpack would hold about 8 bulk in center pack with about 2 on outside with smaller pockets.
Yes I know this would add more complexity to the game. But some complexity in a game is not necessarily a bad thing.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Bulk is better than weight simply because it attempts to also measure "how awkward is this to carry around" in a way that weight itself doesn't do.
9 shortswords is less awkward to carry around than 1 longsword?
There's some seriously messed up cases here where it isn't tracking with common sense at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's take a look at a dwarf in full plate armor. <snip for space>You've just said "I disagree" and then made a big explanation of how you do agree with what I said.
Again, the original question (not the one you asked or misinterpreted as being asked, the one I was actually answering when you started engaging with me): "Does an item being put into a container mean not having to track the bulk of that item?"
And the answer is a very clear: "Nope. As we an see from items like back packs, any item that changes the bulk you treat it as has an explicit mention of what that change is."
And while I agree with you that it doesn't make logical sense that the bulk of a dwarf in normal clothing and the bulk of a dwarf wearing armor be the full combined bulk value assigned to both - I don't think the solution is to create a general rule by which the bulk of an item is conditionally altered because that is incredibly fiddly to track and a pain to remember. Instead, I'd go with embracing the complete lack of a space on the sheet to right down height and weight (details that would be needed to determine the bulk rating of a character) and have anything that should be able to lift or character some number of characters be able to lift and carry them regardless of the particulars of their equipment (i.e. I'd not stop to check bulk of carried gear and character before deciding that a giant can pick up a character and try to run off with them, but a goblin can't manage the same feat without magical aid of some sort).
Okay, I'm going to need you to "unsnip for space" and point out where in my big explanation I'm agreeing with you. Because as I understand the conversation, you're saying the answer to how backpacks interact with the bulk of the items within is obvious, that the answer is "no change", and that doesn't require any thought put into it.
My big explanation is about how, once you do think about what bulk represents and the ramifications of both how backpacks can negate their own bulk and what it means for an item to be inside a container, the answer isn't obvious, isn't "no change", and only works without any thought put into it if you actively avoid considering the ramifications of anything about how the concept "functions".
And yes, I do see the backpack specifically listing how differences in holding it vary its own bulk. I'm seeing nothing in the description IN EITHER DIRECTION about how the backpack affects what's inside it. I am, however, able to grok (even if I care not to) what bulk is supposed to represent and how a backpack's negation of its own bulk invites such consideration to take place, and how, once such consideration has occurred, the answer must be and cannot not be "it subtracts".
Unless you're saying we're supposed to consider the ramifications of how the backpack works but not further consider the ramifications any further than that hyperspecific point. In which case, I'm just going to paraphrase the DM of the Rings: "That's a highly specific level of consideration."
As far as how to handle bulk and how it breaks down, just put how much of any given item's bulk is derived from it's weight next to it in parentheses. So a spellbook might be bulk 1 (50%), while a dagger's bulk might be L (100%). Meaning a worn backpack with a spellbook and dagger would be bulk 6L, since we now can plot out exactly how much bulk is derived from weight (and therefore isn't affected by being inside a worn backpack) and how much is from space and volume (and therefore doesn't count in that circumstance). Took me longer to write than to conceive.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
AD&D's encumbrance values (measured in coin-equivalents) were some odd, not really defined combination of weight and unwieldiness. Sound familiar?
D&D 3.0 was supposed to be using just weight for encumbrance, but not all the values were fully revised from AD&D. The change was popular anyway.
Going back to AD&D seems like a step back to a less popular system.
I think a simpler solution would be to write the bulk out for each item as if it is stowed loose in a bag or strapped to your body, and then give appropriate storage devices a worn bulk and how many hands it would occupy if carried, negating the bulk of any stored object. Currently there a few items that seem appropriately stored by default, such as arrows and daggers, and others that are not, like potions and spell books. This variance messes with the numbers a fair bit.
I'd still like to see the weight, but this would make bulk functional enough that people could dispense with weight if they wanted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep trying to figure that the bulk of an object is about one per half kg or pound, then either doubled or halved if the object is easy or hard to carry. But then that guess has very little to do with any of the examples available in the playtest beyond the description of bulk itself, and what the hizzleheck does "easy to carry" mean? If I tie a rope onto something to make a handle, does that cut its bulk in half? Is a shield more bulk tied to a belt than it is strapped to an arm?
It would be nice if I could write off my awkwardness with the system as it just being new and different, but it's been an ongoing problem since Starfinder. My brain just doesn't mesh well with this floppy thing, and I think that it might be causing me to double the abstract units of mental load it takes in my head. It might be easier for me to wrap myself around something more riged, and defined. Something that stands on its own, without the need to look at examples to know what kind of load is on my characters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Bulk is better than weight simply because it attempts to also measure "how awkward is this to carry around" in a way that weight itself doesn't do.
I'd prefer they wouldn't try unless they were serious in actually trying to represent in a consistent and logical way. It's clearly not coming even close to what it promised in measuring awkwardness/unwieldiness as pint of oil has a - bulk while weighing a pound, an elixir is L which seems to be the combination of a vial [- bulk] and 1 ounce of liquid and a belt pouch can hold up to 4 items of light Bulk but more of the light items than not wouldn't logically fit in one [40 torches? 4 bed rolls? 4 pup tents? 2 saddlebags? 4 lutes? 4 crowbars? 4 hooded lanterns? 40 arrows ? 4 blowguns? 4 suits of padded armor?]. It's not a few issues and errors but but the majority of the material is off in some way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing nothing in the description IN EITHER DIRECTION about how the backpack affects what's inside it.You really can't determine what is being said by the absence of both "do this" and "don't do this" language?
So you can't say, with certainty and without having to really thing about it, whether a longsword according to the rules of the game enables the wielder to 'throw' the sort but still keep grip of it, thus flying across a room sword-first, either, right?
To be less snarky about it: Rules only say "you don't do this thing" when the writers are being redundant, which is uneccessary to do, as Rules are written only to say what it is that "you do this" is. Which means that not saying one way or the other whether a container affects the bulk of items put inside it is EXACTLY THE SAME as saying "there is no effect upon the bulk of items put inside", but saves space on the page.
So even though bulk calls out carried and held specifically, we aught to infer that stowed and worn are also covered. That's your interpretation?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like Im not extremely passionate about this one but I will say that its weird that bulk is trying to do something that us as players and dm did for years without the book telling us how. If someone wanted to carry 30 lances we made them figure out a way to do it or like a magic item because carrying that many around would be cumbersome even if they had the str to lift them. Basically it was left to the players and DM to sort out and weight just helped to figure out how much you could bench or carry. Maybe if their was a good way to have them work in concert.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing nothing in the description IN EITHER DIRECTION about how the backpack affects what's inside it.You really can't determine what is being said by the absence of both "do this" and "don't do this" language?
So you can't say, with certainty and without having to really thing about it, whether a longsword according to the rules of the game enables the wielder to 'throw' the sort but still keep grip of it, thus flying across a room sword-first, either, right?
To be less snarky about it: Rules only say "you don't do this thing" when the writers are being redundant, which is uneccessary to do, as Rules are written only to say what it is that "you do this" is. Which means that not saying one way or the other whether a container affects the bulk of items put inside it is EXACTLY THE SAME as saying "there is no effect upon the bulk of items put inside", but saves space on the page.
No, the language of the backpack itself includes neither "do this" or "don't do this", so by itself, isolated and read in a vacuum, it can only be in reference to itself and not also applied to what's within. And if the language of the backpack existed in the rulebook and the rulebook also didn't spell out what bulk is meant to represent, then that would indeed be where the buck stopped.
It's when I'm reading how a backpack functions AND take everything else about what bulk is meant to represent that "how a backpack functions" must include, even if not explicitly stated, "it subtracts" regarding what's within. You're asking me to apply critical thinking towards this, but only to a certain arbitrary point and then, for the love of God, don't critically think about it further, and I'm just not going to do that. "Highly specific level of consideration", remember?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like Im not extremely passionate about this one but I will say that its weird that bulk is trying to do something that us as players and dm did for years without the book telling us how. If someone wanted to carry 30 lances we made them figure out a way to do it or like a magic item because carrying that many around would be cumbersome even if they had the str to lift them. Basically it was left to the players and DM to sort out and weight just helped to figure out how much you could bench or carry. Maybe if their was a good way to have them work in concert.
Agreed. Weights were always specific and the "shape and volume" aspect was always taken as "creatively dealt with" by the player character in question. Descriptions of how long/wide/etc certain objects were and how much capacity common containers were supposed to have could have been applied with more regularity/the same regularity as weight, but bulk really strikes me as a "solution" looking for a problem*.
*And in the meantime, it's lack of granularity means I'm wondering how anyone on Golarion besides Varian Jeggare (since he has that magic stagecoach) gets any adventuring done. Has anyone told Wayne Reynolds that he needs to scale back all the odds and ends of all the characters? 'Cause "adventurers with certain expectations towards ease of carrying common loads of equipment" is what's being advertised, and I have no faith that that's what'd being sold (besides Monks).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
diamonds gems etc. small and valuable yo.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People with high strength and/or mounts?
Seriously - My Paladin, for all of his faults, has an 18 Strength, he can carry 9 bulk before becoming encumbered.
If full plate wasn't mechanically awful, that'd be almost half of it right there.
At level 1 he has a Breast Plate, a Longsword, a Heavy Steel Shield, and a Shortbow
2 Bulk +1 Bulk, +1 Bulk, +1 Bulk, then has 2.6 Bulk in other items.
7.6 Bulk and he's pretty much kitted out.
So if you come across a couple of 2h weapons and a suit of armor that all ping as magic with the magic sonar, you can either stop for a few hours to identify them, or... be encumbered? This isn't some weird edge case that never happens. At higher level you find significant quantities of loot, unless they've also dialed that way back.
An adventurer doesn't need to loot every bit of armor he comes across. The really valuable items are going to likely be L bulk anyway. Coins are like 1000/1 in terms of bulk?
Coins do not tend to be among the most valuable things you find. Your supposely super strong Paladin can't find and carry back 3 staves without becoming encumbered. But good news, he can carry 23 shortswords just fine?
Seriously a 10 Strength is a totally average guy. Very few people who adventure probably have a 10 strength. Certainly most of the people in Golarion develop greater than a 10 strength just from working fields and such.
These two statements contradict each other. If most of the people in Golarian get greater than 10 STR just from working the fields, than 10 can't be the average. Mechanically, you can't even make a Human with less than 10 now, but the idea that everyone needs it so they can carry basic equipment and maybe a piece of loot is just going to push everyone towards having identical stats.
Bulk is one of these cases where they took something that wasn't a significant problem and "fixed" it in a way that made it worse.
... Mechanically, you can't even make a Human with less than 10 now, ...
Not true.
OPTIONAL: VOLUNTARY FLAWS
Sometimes, it’s fun to play a character with a major flaw even if you’re not playing an ancestry that automatically starts with one.
If you want to reduce any ability scores for your character below what they would normally start at, that’s fine—playing a brutish barbarian with an Intelligence score of 6 or a sickly wizard with a Constitution score of 4 could allow for some fun roleplaying opportunities—but you don’t get any benefit from taking on these voluntary flaws. Beware of making your scores so low that your character can’t keep up with the party!
Yes, it is an optional rule, but so is rolling for abilities.
the bulk of an object is about one per half kg or pound
A day later, I realized that I should have written five kilograms or ten pounds.
Eh, whatever. It's just like, uh... an abstraction or something.| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The really valuable items are going to likely be L bulk anyway.That’s an assumption you are having.
It's really easy: you pile all the items together and make each pile + wrapping 4.9 pounds: as such, each bundle is L [more than a few ounces but less than 5 pounds]. That means that you can now carry 44.1 pounds and it's NO BULK!!! [round down any L amount under 10] In a 5 man party, that means you can carry 220.5 pounds without in impacting anyone's bulk/carry total. ;)
This makes the MOST important adventuring tool the Merchant’s scale as you then know when to stop filling up each sack at JUST under a bulk. If the game is going to force Bulk on me, I'm going to cheese it's ambiguity and impreciseness for all it's worth. :P
EDIT: this also solves the alchemists problem. They just have to break up the alchemists kit into it's individual pieces and repackage them into just under B bundles and I don't think it's in total weigh a single bulk.
This is another big conceptual issue with bulk: It's actually an increase in bulk if you consolidate and package items. By packaging things differently, you could go from multiple bulk to no bulk.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone, that's deliberately refusing to use the Bulk guidelines in order to try and paint them as malfunctioning.
NO. That's using the guidelines to the letter. it is a FACT that if you take a kit and break it down into it's individual parts, it's counts as less bulk.
Your 4.9 pound piles are almost certainly going to trigger the "Particularly awkward or unwieldy items might have different Bulk values." portion of the text.
You CLEARLY missed where I mentioned each 4.9 pound pile included a sack, making them not awkward and unwieldy. In fact, the sack make it SO easy to carry, you can tuck each sack into your belt to carry it.
And since a whole bunch of nearly 5 pound packages of strange sizes are intuitively more difficult to carry than a single case which consolidates all those things into one larger container, you are more than likely looking at increasing the bulk of an item like alchemist's tools by trying to part it out differently.
It doesn't compute. A bulk 2 kit can weigh 10 pounds Break that kit into 8 piles of 1.25 pounds. Even if tossing them in a sack TRIPLES the number for bulk, they are each a L item. So a 2 bulk kit can make 8 L items that are 0 bulk which shows that bulk is insanely imprecise and counterintuitive. It's a system where consolidating items makes them weigh more than it's individual parts combined..
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone, that's deliberately refusing to use the Bulk guidelines in order to try and paint them as malfunctioning.
Your 4.9 pound piles are almost certainly going to trigger the "Particularly awkward or unwieldy items might have different Bulk values." portion of the text.
If the bulk system requires the DM to overrule standard bulk values because they flat out don't make sense as soon as a player creatively packs things within the rules, that is a malfunction.
That's what this text is effectively saying.
The weight rules had their own idiosyncrasies, but they could be applied consistently.
And since a whole bunch of nearly 5 pound packages of strange sizes are intuitively more difficult to carry than a single case which consolidates all those things into one larger container, you are more than likely looking at increasing the bulk of an item like alchemist's tools by trying to part it out differently.
I mean, these are the same rules that say 9 shortswords are easier to carry than 1 longsword. So no, the rules don't support the idea that smaller packages are intuitively more difficult to carry than a single larger item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh I think bulk has enough wrong with it without having to get creative at interpreting the rules.