Do backpacks reduce bulk (ie, make things easier to carry)? Or do they suggest that players need to declare what CONTAINERS within thier inventory carry what items?
So, like, a workable player inventory should be made up of containers, each with a bulk limit, and then they need to list what items are in each container?
Reminds me of the 90s Ravenloft pc game if that is the case and not in a good way.
How does this stuff work?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the player must carry containers accounting for the amount of loose bulk they wish to carry?
Ugh.
|
With the devs saying people trying to over-read or find an explanation for everything...sometimes the simplest solution is actually what's going on.
Only magic items make stuff easier to carry. A bag of holding is basically what you need if you want to carry stuffs with less weight as an example.
The backpack is just what it reads:
It's a container that can hold 4 bulk worth of items, if you put the backpack on your back its weight becomes negligible instead of light.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In what version of the game have you not needed to carry extra containers around for hauling out loot? This has been around since before AD&D. Buying a bunch of crappy sacks to haul out the treasure has always been part of the game.
And leaving the dungeon encumbered is usually a sign that things went right!
Ya, this is one of those aspects of rules heavy games I just dont enjoy. I was hoping that containers/bulk would be interesting.
"Oh, you have a potato sack, that holds 2 bulk. The backpack holds 4. Sorry, you cant carry that extra 1 bulk worth of stuff while keeping your hands free because you dont have enough containers."
That is terrible. I love PF2. Lots of great stuff. But this kinda bean counting is just bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As written, I can still find use for the backpack.
If I have too much stuff, I store some of it in the backpack. Yes, I am still encumbered. But when battle is imminent or starts, I can shed the backpack and all of its stuff, then fight the fight without penalties.
Pick back up the backpack and all of its goodies after the battle is won.
So an alchemist character that is overburdened because the alchemy kit is 2 bulk only has to spend one interact action and one free action to shed all that extra bulk and do battle without encumbrance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It takes a separate interact action to unhook the backpack before you can spend another interact action to draw an item for it. So you better note which items are on your belt and which on the backpack!
So an alchemist character that is overburdened because the alchemy kit is 2 bulk only has to spend one interact action and one free action to shed all that extra bulk and do battle without encumbrance.
I guess that alchemist doesn't want to use his class abilities then with his required equipment on the floor...
'ok, I'll use Quick Alchemy to make a bomb! let me go back [move 30', 1 action]], pick up my backpack [1 action], pull out the alchemy kit [1 action], use quick alchemy [1 action] and not in your second round after you started you get to actually use your bomb!...
No, just no...
Don’t forget the reactive attack he (might) draws as he goes to get his pack.
Well it's a Manipulate to pick up the pack, one to pull out the kit and one to use quick alchemy: plenty of room for passing around reactions. ;)
AFAIK there are no hard-and-fast rules regarding container use. Some tables will want folks to list inventory by container or body location, others will ignore such minutiae.
Sure, some players may abuse the system by claiming at the last minute that everything was in their belt pouch, or hanging from one of their seventeen bandoliers, and hence ready to hand with the fewest conceivable actions. But it's a balancing act between exhaustive accounting of inventory, weight and size and handwaving it all to limbo.
I think people are over-reading because it is about the only way the bulk system makes sense. Take a ranger. If he has Leather Armor, a longbow, a rapier, adventurer's pack, and a snare kit, they are full even with a 16 strength. And they are not carrying any arrows. Just what I listed is already 8 bulk. That is a fairly basic load and it is too much. Seems something is off with the encumbrance system.With the devs saying people trying to over-read or find an explanation for everything...sometimes the simplest solution is actually what's going on.
Only magic items make stuff easier to carry. A bag of holding is basically what you need if you want to carry stuffs with less weight as an example.
The backpack is just what it reads:
It's a container that can hold 4 bulk worth of items, if you put the backpack on your back its weight becomes negligible instead of light.
Hmmmm? a 16 str ranger can carry all of that even with a full waterskin weighing 1B. 8B 1L (including arrows)
Backpack -
Bedroll L
Chalk(10) -
Flint&Steel -
Rations(2 weeks) L(x2)
Rope L
Snare Kit 2
Soap -
Torch(5) L(x5)
Belt Pouch(2) -
Leather Armour 1
Longbow 2
Arrows(20) L(x2)
Rapier 1
Sheath -
Waterskin 1
If a person wants to play a ranger with a snare kit then maybe a shortsword and or a shortbow is an option. (which then drops the snare build down to 6B 2L or 4B 2L without a snare)
As for bulk and holding onto items, nothing says you cannot old onto things in your hands, containers are used whenever you aren't holding something in your hands.
Weirdly PF2e doesn't have a quiver, that bothers me mildly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In what version of the game have you not needed to carry extra containers around for hauling out loot?
Any version of the game where the volume of common items was not specified.
Player: "My sack can carry four cubic feet of treasure. How many coins can fit into that?"Typical GM: "Who cares?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was hoping that containers acted like mundane bags of holding, in a way. Since bulk is not weight but a measure of how wieldy items are, I was hoping that (within reasonable limits), you could place items in containers to expand your bulk capacity a bit.
Considering that the worst bag of holding gives a net 25 added bulk capacity (and the best gives like 150!), I didnt think it woulda been all that crazy for a backpack to give a measly 4 more or whatever.
A simple rule could be "the pc can wear two different containers and items in those containers do not count against your bulk limit since they are being carried more efficiently than usual". Items not in those containers are assumed to be carried in other crap but not as efficiently. That uses CARROT to get folks to interact with the encumbrance rules instead of STICK and gets people to weigh one containers ability to more easily ready stuff (bandolier) vs another's ability to carry more stuff and expand your bulk. That would be interesting.
They could then make more effective containers or ones that carried more and had built in quick slots. This would make it something folks would be excited about getting for thier character.
Since thats apparently not the case, all containers are is a totally uninteresting minigame of tetrising the stuff you are carrying. I love most of what I have read in PF2 but this...this is boring and punitive.
Frankly, just giving me a weight limit would have been preferable to over done rules which tell me how much stuff I can cram into each bag.
So an alchemist character that is overburdened because the alchemy kit is 2 bulk only has to spend one interact action and one free action to shed all that extra bulk and do battle without encumbrance.I guess that alchemist doesn't want to use his class abilities then with his required equipment on the floor...
'ok, I'll use Quick Alchemy to make a bomb! let me go back [move 30', 1 action]], pick up my backpack [1 action], pull out the alchemy kit [1 action], use quick alchemy [1 action] and not in your second round after you started you get to actually use your bomb!...
No, just no...
Technically they have a bandolier as well and you could have your alchemy kit loaded into the bandolier so you could drop the pack but still have access to your quick alchemy and bombs.
|
|
I was hoping that containers acted like mundane bags of holding, in a way. Since bulk is not weight but a measure of how wieldy items are, I was hoping that (within reasonable limits), you could place items in containers to expand your bulk capacity a bit.
Considering that the worst bag of holding gives a net 25 added bulk capacity (and the best gives like 150!), I didnt think it woulda been all that crazy for a backpack to give a measly 4 more or whatever.
A simple rule could be "the pc can wear two different containers and items in those containers do not count against your bulk limit since they are being carried more efficiently than usual". Items not in those containers are assumed to be carried in other crap but not as efficiently. That uses CARROT to get folks to interact with the encumbrance rules instead of STICK and gets people to weigh one containers ability to more easily ready stuff (bandolier) vs another's ability to carry more stuff and expand your bulk. That would be interesting.
They could then make more effective containers or ones that carried more and had built in quick slots. This would make it something folks would be excited about getting for thier character.
Since thats apparently not the case, all containers are is a totally uninteresting minigame of tetrising the stuff you are carrying. I love most of what I have read in PF2 but this...this is boring and punitive.
Frankly, just giving me a weight limit would have been preferable to over done rules which tell me how much stuff I can cram into each bag.
I'm going to make this an official rule in my game. Notice that every Class kit listed on pg 289 includes things like an Adventurer's pack, a sheath for weapons, and sometimes a bandolier. I'm going to say that any items stored in those containers no longer counts as Bulk that you are carrying, only the container's bulk counts, up to the limit of the container. This rule will also take care of the complaints about the Alchemist's tools weighing 2 Bulk instead of 1 Bulk, because the Bandolier description specifically says that 1 set of tools, such as Alchemist's or Healer's tools, can be stored in it. The way the Class kits are created, I think this was the intent of the rules, but just wasn't specifically pointed out.
Edit: Also, while looking all this up, I noticed that Rations are not listed in the Gear descriptions. It's on the chart, 1 week's rations is L bulk, but it's not in the descriptions. Add another thing to the Errata.
Technically they have a bandolier as well and you could have your alchemy kit loaded into the bandolier so you could drop the pack but still have access to your quick alchemy and bombs.
Yeah, but with everything you use/need in combat makes you encumbered... It really doesn't matter where it's held: Armor, weapons, tools, ect... something important to the alchemist in combat would need to be dropped. :P
The post I replied to was that I could drop my alchemist tools to become unencumbered not that it was in a backpack.
I like the container rules.
I have a few players who are going to LOVE the container rules and will strictly abide by them. I suspect I will too when I’m a player.
I don’t plan on strictly enforcing these rules. Some find the bean counting fun. Some find it really boring. As a backpacker in real life, the process of selecting gear and managing encumbrance vs utility is an engaging process for me.
Everybody will have a backpack because it breaks suspension of disbelief too badly if you have NO means to carry all of your junk around. But I will not be springing surprise backpack audits on the party half way through a dungeon... at most if the party is planning a long or involved expedition I may bring up “how is all of this gear being transported?” And maybe they buy a few pack animals and we’re off again.
|
If it’s not fun, don’t use it. As stated above it’s engaging for some players and some characters (pack rat compulsive gnome with a place for every last crumb)
As far as “RAW means we have to in PFS” how many Society GMs were checking carrying capacity or ammo in 1e? For me it’s been very few and far between although YMMV.