|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So champions can select a mount as their divine bond. And for a small sized PC champion, a medium sized pony should theoretically work. Or a goblin riding a medium sized wolf after level 6 (the wolf is apparently too small to carry the gobbo from levels 3-5).
The problem is that these medium sized creatures don't get an increase to their carrying capacity for having extra legs, the way they did in 1st edition. Thus, they can carry a small sized creature... but not a small sized creature in the heavy armor, shield, and weaponry that a champion is likely to be wearing. The champion is just too heavy for their mount to avoid being encumbered. And what kind of mount would they be with the clumsy condition and slower speed?
Am I reading this correctly, or is there some way around this that I'm missing?
Actually, now that I'm doing the math, even a large sized horse will be straining to carry a medium sized champion in full gear, though at least they can actually pull it off without being encumbered... barely. The encumbrance rules for non-humanoids just seem off to me.
"You might need to know the Bulk of a creature, especially if you need to carry someone off the battlefield. The table that follows lists the typical Bulk of a creature based on its size, but the GM might adjust this number."
This suggests to me that the abstraction is that the whole creature and their gear is included in that table amount. In a similar sense to how wearing armour causes armour to be one bulk lower than it actually is or a backpack is negligible rather than Light when worn.
I doubt that they decided to talk about dragging naked bodies from the battlefield.
That aside though. A riding horse has what. 18 bulk, treats all 1 bulk items as Light and all light as negligible. A warhorse is sitting at 20 bulk same rules.
Full plate, a steel shield, adventurers kit with full water skin, Lance, heavy crossbow, arming sword and more...
Is only 14B 1L out of 18 or 20. And that is assuming you count all your equipment.
Small creatures do have issues if you assume they are limited in the same way.
This said, I would even wager since nothing to do with mounting a mount mentions bulk, that as long as something qualifies as a mount, you can mount it and bulk is irrelevant to the discussion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the horse and medium PC, I was figuring 12-13 bulk in equipment, plus the extra bulk of the person himself, which gets the horse close to encumbered, but not quite. So it works.
I hadn't considered that the person bulk might include their gear. I was adding it to the gear, which is why I had trouble with a 16 strength medium wolf carrying an 18 strength goblin champion + gear that comes close to encumbering the goblin.
But if that bulk is supposed to include carrying their worn gear along with their body, then it would work, though it wouldn't make much sense. How is a goblin carrying 8 bulk worth of stuff only counted as 3 bulk for the purposes of someone else carrying him?
"but the GM might adjust this number."
Covers it imo. Remember, bulk exists because too many people were handwaving encumberance and finding it a pain. So this is a way for it to still have an impact but be less stressful to track.
For a person carrying another character you are dragging them in most cases. Meaning you require both hands and move slower.
Keep in mind bulk is not weight, and if the creature is concious and holding its self up on the back of a creature in riding equipment, there is no way the creature is feeling the same level of difficulty in carrying it as if it were a limp corpse laden in gear.
So you wearing bulky stuff makes it harder for you to move about, but not necessarily the same level of difficulty for others to move you about.
Bulk is an extreme abstraction.
How do you get 12-13 bulk in equiment? That is a huge amount of large weapons. Remember that 1 bulk items are all treated as light for a horse. The 14B 1L I mentioned above included 6B for the person.
I would still wager paizo intends mount restrictions to be size, training/willingness and to not be bulk based though.
For the horse and medium PC, I was figuring 12-13 bulk in equipment, plus the extra bulk of the person himself, which gets the horse close to encumbered, but not quite. So it works.
I hadn't considered that the person bulk might include their gear. I was adding it to the gear, which is why I had trouble with a 16 strength medium wolf carrying an 18 strength goblin champion + gear that comes close to encumbering the goblin.
But if that bulk is supposed to include carrying their worn gear along with their body, then it would work, though it wouldn't make much sense. How is a goblin carrying 8 bulk worth of stuff only counted as 3 bulk for the purposes of someone else carrying him?
I see Bulk as inventory slots basically.
How much stuff can you fix to your body and still move around.
A 5m aluminum ladder is not that heavy, but it is pain in the ass to run around or jump with it.
I you put that weight in lead ingot and put it in a nicely made backpack you would almost not feel it while carrying it around.
So with Goblins 8 bulk worth of Bulk., (LoL)you need not to worry as it is probably secured to his body, you need to only worry about securing the goblin to you body.
So with Goblins 8 bulk worth of Bulk., (LoL)you need not to worry as it is probably secured to his body, you need to only worry about securing the goblin to you body.
And that truly something to be concerned about. If for no other reason than you can never be quite sure that the goblin has sealed its vat of pickled foetus, cabbage and banana skin.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so after killing all the goblins, I shouldn't loot the bodies?
I should put what loot I find onto their bodies and carry those because they're lighter?
Every goblin is a potential bag of holding.
"Okay, Mr. Merchant, I'm here to-"
"What the heck!"
"Oh, yeah, let me step outside and pile these corpses somewhere."
"You realize goblins are socially acceptable now, right? Guards!"
"Um...I found them in the wild?"
Pixie murders increase dramatically as Pathfinder Society distributes dead Pixies to its members who often dress them up like miniature adventurers or kings adorned in treasure.
Bulk's so clunky. As somebody who actually did track encumbrance, I'm quite inclined to ignore Bulk. Too wonky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so after killing all the goblins, I shouldn't loot the bodies?
I should put what loot I find onto their bodies and carry those because they're lighter?
Every goblin is a potential bag of holding.
"Okay, Mr. Merchant, I'm here to-"
"What the heck!"
"Oh, yeah, let me step outside and pile these corpses somewhere."
"You realize goblins are socially acceptable now, right? Guards!"
"Um...I found them in the wild?"Pixie murders increase dramatically as Pathfinder Society distributes dead Pixies to its members who often dress them up like miniature adventurers or kings adorned in treasure.
Bulk's so clunky. As somebody who actually did track encumbrance, I'm quite inclined to ignore Bulk. Too wonky.
Well that is why the line about GMs adjusting the bulk of a creature exists. And putting items on a creature can only happen if they have the space / it can fit.
Reality is, it is a non issue unless you run into people being willfully difficult. And they will cause issues regardless of the system.
But I do understand how people who did track weight would find it to be an inferior system.
Personally it has made my life easier, my players actually track weight and keep on top of it where as with standard imperial units I have to check fairly frequently because nobody seems to be able to track anything when it comes to container limits, despite using a digital table top and it being even easier than with pen and paper.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have trouble accepting the idea a character's gear is less Bulk (or not counted) when carried by another.
Bulk ratings are in part based on ease of carrying, which is to say when properly worn.
When those are carried as item, as they are indirectly when carrying a person who is wearing armor, that ergonomic benefit doesn't apply.
If this could be boiled down to precise points of rules question, it could be good question for Paizo Twitch Stream FAQ thread.
I have trouble accepting the idea a character's gear is less Bulk (or not counted) when carried by another.
Bulk ratings are in part based on ease of carrying, which is to say when properly worn.
When those are carried as item, as they are indirectly when carrying a person who is wearing armor, that ergonomic benefit doesn't apply.
Mechanically I see that as being taken into account with how most of the time you will either be pushed into encumbered territory and or be forced to drag a creature (and dragging drops you down to 5ft per 6s).
I know that as a GM any creature laden with gear would get bulk increases if someone would want to drag them, but I know others are not fans of GM variance/rulings.
If this could be boiled down to precise points of rules question, it could be good question for Paizo Twitch Stream FAQ thread.
Possibly the following
- For the purpose of moving/carrying/dragging a character. Is a character's bulk the sum of the character's equipment and the amount listed on the "bulk of creatures table" (pg.272), or does the figure given represent the character's entire weight to others?
- Do mounts factor in character bulk when determining if a character can ride it and are encumbered or not? If so, does this use the bulk of the character (pg.272) or is it the sum of the bulk of the character and their equipment?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
thing were much more simpler with simple weight and carrying capacity.
And a DM with a bit of common sense to tell you that you cannot walk around like Crazy Ivan
https://images.app.goo.gl/D8Bi97FBfBsyp43E7
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it sounds like there's nothing in the rules that clearly contradicts my original guess when I started this thread. So a small sized PC on a medium mount just isn't a playable build in Pathfinder Society.
Hopefully, someone at Paizo will change that answer some time soon.
thing were much more simpler with simple weight and carrying capacity.
Elements are, most other elements aren't imo. For instance if a creature's weight is simply size+GM adjustment. Then that is objectively easier to figure out on the fly (when it would be needed) than if you were calculating each race's specific size/weight and adjusting for their equipment in a straight weight system.
And if the GM was just arbitrarily giving weights to things then there is no difference in the scenario realistically, just mental metrics used to set the weight/bulk figure.I would say that size shifts are just as easy to calculate for with both.
It becomes more complex if people try to insert verisimilitude into it that the system wasn't designed for though. Square peg circular hole conundrum.
The challenge for a designer is trying to decide what elements the average user would like to have simulated and what elements would be better approximate
And a DM with a bit of common sense to tell you that you cannot walk around like Crazy Ivan
That is going back to handwavium though, which seems to be one of the bigger complaints people have about bulk, except with even more GM fiat.
Be aware that I am not intending to post this as a "value what I value" statement, I just like discussing elements like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thing were much more simpler with simple weight and carrying capacity.Elements are, most other elements aren't imo. For instance if a creature's weight is simply size+GM adjustment. Then that is objectively easier to figure out on the fly (when it would be needed) than if you were calculating each race's specific size/weight and adjusting for their equipment in a straight weight system.
And if the GM was just arbitrarily giving weights to things then there is no difference in the scenario realistically, just mental metrics used to set the weight/bulk figure.I would say that size shifts are just as easy to calculate for with both.
It becomes more complex if people try to insert verisimilitude into it that the system wasn't designed for though. Square peg circular hole conundrum.
The challenge for a designer is trying to decide what elements the average user would like to have simulated and what elements would be better approximateAnd a DM with a bit of common sense to tell you that you cannot walk around like Crazy IvanThat is going back to handwavium though, which seems to be one of the bigger complaints people have about bulk, except with even more GM fiat.
Be aware that I am not intending to post this as a "value what I value" statement, I just like discussing elements like this.
Well as weight goes, we write up all gear on character sheet and out own weight.
Also if medium creature is lets say 5 Bulk, is every one 5 Bulk?
Last time in 5E i played 20 str half orc fighter. And as str comes from BIG muscles he had 280lb. Is that same Bulk as 100bl 8 str She-Elf Sorceress?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reality is, it is a non issue unless you run into people being willfully difficult. And they will cause issues regardless of the system.LOL, this is the appropriate response to at least 3/4 of the threads on this forum...
I don't really agree that anyone trying to figure out how a particular rule that is written, is supposed to operate, should be listed as being Willfully Difficult.
I prefer to understand how something is supposed to work before I choose to handwave it if by my tables estimation the rule doesn't work for us. If I figure out it is a mess, I may well table it and rule something for the moment in the game so we can continue. But I won't hold it against a user if they want to know how something is supposed to work. (or hold it against them if they want to better understand how it is being home-brewed to work in a local game)
I know they tried to simplify things by basically treating all small and medium creatures basically all treat items and things as they are all the same size. But it creates some distinct issues for things like this.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reality is, it is a non issue unless you run into people being willfully difficult. And they will cause issues regardless of the system.LOL, this is the appropriate response to at least 3/4 of the threads on this forum...I don't really agree that anyone trying to figure out how a particular rule that is written, is supposed to operate, should be listed as being Willfully Difficult.
I prefer to understand how something is supposed to work before I choose to handwave it if by my tables estimation the rule doesn't work for us. If I figure out it is a mess, I may well table it and rule something for the moment in the game so we can continue. But I won't hold it against a user if they want to know how something is supposed to work. (or hold it against them if they want to better understand how it is being home-brewed to work in a local game)
I know they tried to simplify things by basically treating all small and medium creatures basically all treat items and things as they are all the same size. But it creates some distinct issues for things like this.
Exactly. Plus, some of us play PFS, which is RAW only. If the rules say something doesn't work, we can't just hand wave it away in PFS. And as far as I can tell, the rules say that small creatures riding medium mounts don't work in 2e.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Plus, some of us play PFS, which is RAW only. If the rules say something doesn't work, we can't just hand wave it away in PFS. And as far as I can tell, the rules say that small creatures riding medium mounts don't work in 2e.
The Gleeful Grognard already answered your original question about small creatures riding medium mounts-- as he said, the "Bulk of Creatures" table on pg 272 of the CRB gives the typical bulk for various size creatures, and the table is clearly referring to fully armed and armored creatures, since it's introduced with a line about being especially useful "if you need to carry someone off the battlefield".
A Young Wolf has a STR of +2, so it can carry 7 bulk. Per the Bulk of Creatures table, a typical Small creature has a bulk of 3. So a typical Small character can easily ride a Medium mount, with plenty of room left over for barding or saddlebags.
Bulk is not an additive quantity like weight. It's an abstraction-- just like HP or Spell Slots are abstractions. That's why Armor has different Bulk depending on whether you're wearing it or carrying it around. The Bulk of a creature is not the same as the sum of the Bulk of everything it's wearing or carrying. That's simply not how Bulk works.
There's no handwaving required-- the RAW tells you to use Bulk this way, not the way you seem to want to.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also if medium creature is lets say 5 Bulk, is every one 5 Bulk?
Last time in 5E i played 20 str half orc fighter. And as str comes from BIG muscles he had 280lb. Is that same Bulk as 100bl 8 str She-Elf Sorceress?
No. The CRB is explicit: "The table that follows lists the typical Bulk of a creature based on its size, but the GM might adjust this number." That's RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would seem counter-intuitive. A fully armed and armored small creature has a total bulk of just 3? Even if that gnome is wearing plate (bulk 4) has a longsword (bulk 1), artisan's tools (bulk 2) and an adventurers pack (bulk 1 or 2)? So why is it harder for that gnome to carry all his stuff than it is for a halfling to come along and pick up the gnome, equipment and all? That just doesn't follow for me.Exactly. Plus, some of us play PFS, which is RAW only. If the rules say something doesn't work, we can't just hand wave it away in PFS. And as far as I can tell, the rules say that small creatures riding medium mounts don't work in 2e.The Gleeful Grognard already answered your original question about small creatures riding medium mounts-- as he said, the "Bulk of Creatures" table on pg 272 of the CRB gives the typical bulk for various size creatures, and the table is clearly referring to fully armed and armored creatures, since it's introduced with a line about being especially useful "if you need to carry someone off the battlefield".
A Young Wolf has a STR of +2, so it can carry 7 bulk. Per the Bulk of Creatures table, a typical Small creature has a bulk of 3. So a typical Small character can easily ride a Medium mount, with plenty of room left over for barding or saddlebags.
Bulk is not an additive quantity like weight. It's an abstraction-- just like HP or Spell Slots are abstractions. That's why Armor has different Bulk depending on whether you're wearing it or carrying it around. The Bulk of a creature is not the same as the sum of the Bulk of everything it's wearing or carrying. That's simply not how Bulk works.
There's no handwaving required-- the RAW tells you to use Bulk this way, not the way you seem to want to.
Because it keeps the game moving and allows you to hoist someone when you need too, mostly.
The in-narrative justification is that bulk is meant to represent how unwieldy carrying things are. When you carry an object it is going to take up room in your bag, or your grip, or what have you. When someone carries you, all that stuff just kind of stays attached.
|
|
That would seem counter-intuitive. A fully armed and armored small creature has a total bulk of just 3? Even if that gnome is wearing plate (bulk 4) has a longsword (bulk 1), artisan's tools (bulk 2) and an adventurers pack (bulk 1 or 2)? So why is it harder for that gnome to carry all his stuff than it is for a halfling to come along and pick up the gnome, equipment and all? That just doesn't follow for me.
It's a lot harder to carry a bunch of loose sticks than the same sticks tied together in a bundle. Think of a kitted-out character as big bundle of gear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would seem counter-intuitive. A fully armed and armored small creature has a total bulk of just 3? Even if that gnome is wearing plate (bulk 4) has a longsword (bulk 1), artisan's tools (bulk 2) and an adventurers pack (bulk 1 or 2)? So why is it harder for that gnome to carry all his stuff than it is for a halfling to come along and pick up the gnome, equipment and all? That just doesn't follow for me.It's a lot harder to carry a bunch of loose sticks than the same sticks tied together in a bundle. Think of a kitted-out character as big bundle of gear.
That's a much better explanation than my own.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Plus, some of us play PFS, which is RAW only. If the rules say something doesn't work, we can't just hand wave it away in PFS. And as far as I can tell, the rules say that small creatures riding medium mounts don't work in 2e.The Gleeful Grognard already answered your original question about small creatures riding medium mounts-- as he said, the "Bulk of Creatures" table on pg 272 of the CRB gives the typical bulk for various size creatures, and the table is clearly referring to fully armed and armored creatures, since it's introduced with a line about being especially useful "if you need to carry someone off the battlefield".
Except it's not clear that it includes the bulk of their gear. That's just the bulk of their body. Maybe. That's the ruling we need from Paizo.
And until we get that ruling, anyone playing a small character on a medium mount in PFS is going to get screwed at some of their tables by GMs who don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. That's why I won't risk it. I'll save that build idea for when I'm 100% sure it'll work at every table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Plus, some of us play PFS, which is RAW only. If the rules say something doesn't work, we can't just hand wave it away in PFS. And as far as I can tell, the rules say that small creatures riding medium mounts don't work in 2e.The Gleeful Grognard already answered your original question about small creatures riding medium mounts-- as he said, the "Bulk of Creatures" table on pg 272 of the CRB gives the typical bulk for various size creatures, and the table is clearly referring to fully armed and armored creatures, since it's introduced with a line about being especially useful "if you need to carry someone off the battlefield".
Except it's not clear that it includes the bulk of their gear. That's just the bulk of their body. Maybe. That's the ruling we need from Paizo.
And until we get that ruling, anyone playing a small character on a medium mount in PFS is going to get screwed at some of their tables by GMs who don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. That's why I won't risk it. I'll save that build idea for when I'm 100% sure it'll work at every table.
What part of "carry someone off the battlefield" is not clear? Who is naked on the battlefield...?
Ask yourself, what's more likely: that Paizo's whole team of professional designers, writers, and editors are a bunch of incompetent fools who created a system that makes no sense... or that you made a mistake in your reading?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a big difference between a monk who might have nothing but clothes and a champion who is in full plate and has several weapons. One could just as easily ask did that professional team of designers really mean that both of those characters are equally easy to carry or did you make a mistake in assuming that also included all of the stuff they were wearing? You should also remember that the bulk of a character's equipment is a known quantity, so there is no reason to assume you would not add that to the bulk of the creature. It is definitely not a clear answer either way.
Also consider this scenario. Adam the halfling loads up on all the loot in the dungeon. He is encumbered and moves slowly. His halfling wizard buddy Bob has nothing but a robe and a staff. Does it make sense that Bob can pick up Adam with all his stuff and move at full speed fine?
The table on pg 272 lists the "typical" bulk of a creature, then qualifies it with "but the GM might adjust this number". Both of your examples are obvious cases where the GM should apply an adjustment for atypical circumstances.
You're grasping for a hard-and-fast, one-size-fits-all rule, but that's not how this game works. The whole PF2 system is built around the twin ideas that
1)it's pointless to try to predict and make rules for every possible corner case or combination of circumstances, but
2)most GMs and players are reasonable and can be trusted to apply the rules in a way that makes sense in the context of their narrative.
"but the GM might adjust this number."
Covers it imo. Remember, bulk exists because too many people were handwaving encumberance and finding it a pain. So this is a way for it to still have an impact but be less stressful to track.
For a person carrying another character you are dragging them in most cases. Meaning you require both hands and move slower.Keep in mind bulk is not weight, and if the creature is concious and holding its self up on the back of a creature in riding equipment, there is no way the creature is feeling the same level of difficulty in carrying it as if it were a limp corpse laden in gear.
So you wearing bulky stuff makes it harder for you to move about, but not necessarily the same level of difficulty for others to move you about.
Bulk is an extreme abstraction.
How do you get 12-13 bulk in equiment? That is a huge amount of large weapons. Remember that 1 bulk items are all treated as light for a horse. The 14B 1L I mentioned above included 6B for the person.
I would still wager paizo intends mount restrictions to be size, training/willingness and to not be bulk based though.
An average limp, unconscious medium person only weighs 30-60 pounds. It's very important to keep this in mind at character creation so you don't make your character heavier than they should be.
Most likely closer to 30. Unconscious people are hard carry, so it would have to be the lower end of the weight range per bulk.
The strongest man in Golarion can never carry more than 190 pounds (19 bulk), and then only if it's optimally shaped for carrying. It's likely that most large furniture is built in place and never moved, since a more average human probably would struggle to budge it.
If Bulk is a part of the game, then it's a part of the physics of the game, and we must consider its ramifications.
Much like how the lack of any mechanical effect due to age suggests that the elderly of Golarion are neither feeble nor wise, but instead just as strong and brash as they were in their youth.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What part of "carry someone off the battlefield" is not clear? Who is naked on the battlefield...?
Here's the exact quote from the book:
You might need to know the Bulk of a creature, especially if you need to carry someone off the battlefield. The table that follows lists the typical Bulk of a creature based on its size, but the GM might adjust this number.
It doesn't say that's the bulk of a creature and its gear. Just the bulk of the creature. The chart that follows has small creatures listed as 3 bulk. How can someone wearing 4 bulk full plate, a 1 bulk heavy shield, sheathed weapons that might add another 1 or 2 bulk, and a 2 bulk adventurer's kit in their backpack be only 3 bulk?
As for who's naked on the battlefield, how about an ogre in a loincloth (once it drops its club), or a dragon, or any wild animal, or any of various other monsters that don't typically wear armor or carry much gear?
Ask yourself, what's more likely: that Paizo's whole team of professional designers, writers, and editors are a bunch of incompetent fools who created a system that makes no sense... or that you made a mistake in your reading?
You haven't been playing Pathfinder long, have you? I'm not saying that Paizo's staff are incompetent. But mistakes happen. Sometimes major ones. Nobody's perfect.
When Starfinder first came out, the entire spaceship combat system just plain didn't work at high levels, because they got the math wrong, so an errata was necessary. When coming out with a 640 page rulebook for a whole new version of Pathfinder, something like doing the math on a small creature riding a medium mount to make sure the encumbrance works is a relatively trivial detail that I could certainly see them overlooking.
The table on pg 272 lists the "typical" bulk of a creature, then qualifies it with "but the GM might adjust this number". Both of your examples are obvious cases where the GM should apply an adjustment for atypical circumstances.
You're grasping for a hard-and-fast, one-size-fits-all rule, but that's not how this game works. The whole PF2 system is built around the twin ideas that
1)it's pointless to try to predict and make rules for every possible corner case or combination of circumstances, but
2)most GMs and players are reasonable and can be trusted to apply the rules in a way that makes sense in the context of their narrative.
Except that "GM discretion" has always been a code word in Pathfinder for "this doesn't apply to Pathfinder Society". In PFS, the table GM is just a judge for that particular session. Whenever a Pathfinder book says "Your GM might allow this", the GM for the entire campaign is the one who has to make those calls, and for PFS, that campaign GM is the Paizo employee who manages the entire organized play campaign.
"but the GM might adjust this number."
Covers it imo. Remember, bulk exists because too many people were handwaving encumberance and finding it a pain. So this is a way for it to still have an impact but be less stressful to track.
For a person carrying another character you are dragging them in most cases. Meaning you require both hands and move slower.Keep in mind bulk is not weight, and if the creature is concious and holding its self up on the back of a creature in riding equipment, there is no way the creature is feeling the same level of difficulty in carrying it as if it were a limp corpse laden in gear.
So you wearing bulky stuff makes it harder for you to move about, but not necessarily the same level of difficulty for others to move you about.
Bulk is an extreme abstraction.
How do you get 12-13 bulk in equiment? That is a huge amount of large weapons. Remember that 1 bulk items are all treated as light for a horse. The 14B 1L I mentioned above included 6B for the person.
I would still wager paizo intends mount restrictions to be size, training/willingness and to not be bulk based though.
An average limp, unconscious medium person only weighs 30-60 pounds. It's very important to keep this in mind at character creation so you don't make your character heavier than they should be.
Most likely closer to 30. Unconscious people are hard carry, so it would have to be the lower end of the weight range per bulk.
The strongest man in Golarion can never carry more than 190 pounds (19 bulk), and then only if it's optimally shaped for carrying. It's likely that most large furniture is built in place and never moved, since a more average human probably would struggle to budge it.
If Bulk is a part of the game, then it's a part of the physics of the game, and we must consider its ramifications.
Much like how the lack of any mechanical effect due to age suggests that the elderly of Golarion are neither feeble nor wise, but instead...
To that last point, I don't think that's true at all. I think Paizo just got rid of the mechanical penalties because it was an unpopular holdover from earlier editions. A lot of people I know who play have always ignored those rules.
And I think the elderly still are.. well, less strong and robust as they were, when they were younger. It's just that they don't penalize the player characters for choosing to be hold, but the CRB even says "There aren’t any mechanical adjustments to your character for being particularly old, but you might want to take it into account when considering your starting ability scores and future advancement."
NPCs are probably still going to be less equipped for adventuring and things if they're elderly, just not player characters because they didn't want to have those penalties anymore.
Sometimes things in the game are made the way they are to make it less complicated for us as players, but in-world it's not actually how it works. Bulk is one such thing - a weapon might be 1 or 2 bulk, but when you're talking to a shopkeep or whatever, you would say "this is a 5 lbs. weapon". The actual numerical weight might be important to the story, but it's not systemically.
It's simply that the actual weight of things is not important in the sense of how we track our encumbrance, so they abstract it with bulk. I'd also think it's less bulk on certain mounts because they have more ways to distribute the weight than humanoids do, so it's less cumbersome for them, hence the lesser bulk.
I see it a little like the scale of what you're talking about matters - like how in Starfinder, a starship weapon might deal 1d8 damage, but if you were to shoot it at a human standing on a planet, it would completely destroy them with one shot. Similarly, what is 5 bulk to a human is not going to be 5 bulk to a dragon.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An average limp, unconscious medium person only weighs 30-60 pounds. It's very important to keep this in mind at character creation so you don't make your character heavier than they should be.
Most likely closer to 30. Unconscious people are hard carry, so it would have to be the lower end of the weight range per bulk.
The strongest man in Golarion can never carry more than 190 pounds (19 bulk), and then only if it's optimally shaped for carrying. It's likely that most large furniture is built in place and never moved, since a more average human probably would struggle to budge it.
You're still trying to make Bulk==weight. That's not how Bulk works, as has been pointed out many many times ITT. It's an abstraction. There's not a 1:1 correspondence between Bulk and weight. If you don't like that system that's cool, homebrew an alternative Weight system for your own games. The rest of us (including PFS players) will use the Bulk rules as written and be just fine.
If Bulk is a part of the game, then it's a part of the physics of the game, and we must consider its ramifications.
Much like how the lack of any mechanical effect due to age suggests that the elderly of Golarion are neither feeble nor wise, but instead just as strong and brash as they were in their youth.
As the devs have made very clear, Pathfinder is not intended to be a physics simulator. The rules are written to allow players to tell exciting stories about heroic adventurers. Maybe that's not your jam, but there's only frustration to be had by trying to force your vision of a comprehensive Newtonian physics engine onto a system that was designed for something completely different.
That would seem counter-intuitive. A fully armed and armored small creature has a total bulk of just 3? Even if that gnome is wearing plate (bulk 4) has a longsword (bulk 1), artisan's tools (bulk 2) and an adventurers pack (bulk 1 or 2)? So why is it harder for that gnome to carry all his stuff than it is for a halfling to come along and pick up the gnome, equipment and all? That just doesn't follow for me.It's a lot harder to carry a bunch of loose sticks than the same sticks tied together in a bundle. Think of a kitted-out character as big bundle of gear.
The only thing is that this doesn't apply for anything else: holding 10 loose shortswords in your arms and carrying 10 carefully packed shortswords in your backpack are the same bulk. This implies that bulk ignores unwieldiness and/or ease of carrying past it's basic design. This also means that something about creatures inherently makes them easy to carry: everyone must come with easy to grip handles...
The in-narrative justification is that bulk is meant to represent how unwieldy carrying things are. When you carry an object it is going to take up room in your bag, or your grip, or what have you. When someone carries you, all that stuff just kind of stays attached.
This leads you to a situation where it's much easier to pack down a halfling with as much equipment [say 20 bulk in backpacks, pouches, sacks, ect] and then put said halfling in a backpack and carry them because the halfling is only 3 bulk and backpacks can hold 4... Small creatures have become better than bags of holding!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing is that this doesn't apply for anything else: holding 10 loose shortswords in your arms and carrying 10 carefully packed shortswords in your backpack are the same bulk. This implies that bulk ignores unwieldiness and/or ease of carrying past it's basic design. This also means that something about creatures inherently makes them easy to carry: everyone must come with easy to grip handles...
Your example is true but the suggestion that it is the only place that bulk works that way is incorrect. Bulk is quite fluid in a lot of areas, including items like backpacks only having a bulk value while carrying them and otherwise having no bulk. Or how all armour goes up in bulk when not worn.
The rules encourage the GM to adjust for players attempting silly things like carrying 10,000 rations as well.
This leads you to a situation where it's much easier to pack down a halfling with as much equipment [say 20 bulk in backpacks, pouches, sacks, ect] and then put said halfling in a backpack and carry them because the halfling is only 3 bulk and backpacks can hold 4... Small creatures have become better than bags of holding!
I know it is your bugbear, but the book does encourage the GM to adjust for situations like this and directly mentions the GMs ability to do so in the creature weight section. Yes it is arbitration for sure, but that is a design intent in this case.
Your example is true but the suggestion that it is the only place that bulk works that way is incorrect.
Who said it was consistent? IMO it's super inconsistent. Bulk works in different ways depending on seemingly random factors...
Secondly, you notice I replied to a specific assertion: "It's a lot harder to carry a bunch of loose sticks than the same sticks tied together in a bundle." This is 100% false in the game as how you pack things has 0% affect on it's Bulk. This ALWAYS works this way. If you have a place were something is less bulk depending on how it's collected/packed/ect. please let me know. Worn vs unworn isn't the same thing: it's packed vs unpacked.
The rules encourage the GM to adjust for players attempting silly things like carrying 10,000 rations as well.
Sure, it limits "vast" numbers of - bulk items from not counting as L bulk... Good for that? So 1 less than vast and you're good? Cool... That helps me prepare for my next game.
the book does encourage the GM to adjust for situations like this and directly mentions the GMs ability to do so in the creature weight section. Yes it is arbitration for sure, but that is a design intent in this case
It does the same thing for ANY rule in the book, so I'm not sure how it's a 'fix' for anything. The DM has the ability to alter or change any rule they want: that doesn't mean that base rules shouldn't make sense because of that. I don't think pointing out that carrying a fully equipped small character is the same as carrying 3 whips in wrong: it brings into focus just how vague the bulk system is and shows that it's more bulk efficient to equip a small creature and carry it than carry the equipment itself. Sure the DM can change that but when the bulk from when I pick up a paralyzed PC suddenly increases when the PC packed to save weight because it's for bulk savings I'm calling BS. If they are 3 bulk when they have to be taken to town, they are 3 bulk when they are taking a nap in my backpack holding out gear...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
thenobledrake: #1 There is a difference between using an abstraction and using one in a consistent way. While I dislike the abstraction, what really bugs me is the inconsistent and seemingly random way it's used. It an abstraction that on one hand tries to encompass unwieldiness while on the other hand it tries to simplify and IMO they work at odds before you throw in numbers used for 'balance' like much lower than actual numbers for 'dead weight' KO'd creatures.
#2 the context of bulk is to carry things... OK, done. I shouldn't NEED to know the reason behind why I'm carrying something and neither should the DM. Either I can or can't carry something: it shouldn't change depending on the situation. If my horse can carry 5 KO'd people off the battlefield but can't do the same with 5 non-KO'd people, that's a failure of the system and not a contextual issue. It'd be like saying my HP's or saves fluctuate depending on context on my actions...
"that's just how the rules operate": IMO, they work poorly. I don't think it's too much to ask that things work consistently: both from an item vs item perspective but a situation vs situation one... It was just so much easier to add pounds than worry about what context I'm trying to lift something. :P
The abstractions of Bulk are applied consistently. Every value given is given assuming a specific context, works within that context, and breaks down quickly and obviously when tried to be stretched outside of that context.
You can't say it's "applied consistently" then in the same breathe say it "assuming a specific context". If it needs context, it's not consistent by definition as consistent doesn't need it: it just IS. I don't need to know the context to tell if something is 6' long: it just IS 6' long and it doesn't change. A creatures doesn't shrink because it's been KO'd and needs to be taken off the field of battle and it doesn't grow handles for ease of travel: what's the context for weight/bulk suddenly doing the same thing that's seem silly with other things?
The only context that should be needed for weight/bulk is gravity and I can't recall a D&D game in 30 years that had me re-figure weights because of that. It'd be nice if packing actually MEANT something but unwieldiness doesn't seem to care how much effort you put in to making something easier to carry... Saying unwieldiness is a factor and then having 10 shortswords have the same bulk packed as held loose in your hands isn't bulk "applied consistently" as it ignores mitigating factors it purports to include: in a context based system I should be carry more in a carefully packed backpack than held in my arms but that isn't the case.
treat the rules as if context doesn't factor
I do this because because the context changes from person to person: what is a vast number of - items changes from person to person, so there is no set value. When I go from one Dm to another, the context shifts. Same with bodies and bulk: some may add up the equipment, some might ignore it, ect: with no consistency it's left up in the air. When things had weights, I didn't have to guess at the context and hope it matched the DMs.
PS: I think I've said what I wanted to say. I doubt that anything you could say will change my mind on bulk so to prevent a back and forth that goes nowhere I'm moving along unless something actually new is said.
That would seem counter-intuitive. A fully armed and armored small creature has a total bulk of just 3? Even if that gnome is wearing plate (bulk 4) has a longsword (bulk 1), artisan's tools (bulk 2) and an adventurers pack (bulk 1 or 2)? So why is it harder for that gnome to carry all his stuff than it is for a halfling to come along and pick up the gnome, equipment and all? That just doesn't follow for me.It's a lot harder to carry a bunch of loose sticks than the same sticks tied together in a bundle. Think of a kitted-out character as big bundle of gear.
This I think is pretty much the way to view it. The wolf does not care how many swords you have and they are not bulky to the wolf because it is not trying to manipulate/carry them. It is carrying you and you are carrying the weapons. Your character is in effect a large carrying bag as far as the mount is concerned. It is one of the weird things about bulk it is not exactly weight it is weight + how awkward something is to carry. So when you are mounted you are the awkward thing the animal is carrying not all the stuff that is on you. Now if you were encumbered when you were mounting that should have an impact on the mount because you are overloaded but the rule of thumb carrying people bulk rules seem to assume fully geared up person in a battlefield situation so presumably your arms/armor as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate bulk as much as everyone else, but a PF1 pony can only carry 100 pounds at light encumbrance. Small fullplate is 25, medium military saddle is 30, halfling is 30, lance is 10, small heavy metal shield is 7. That puts us at medium without a backpack or backup weapon.