After ignoring encumbrance for 10 years, hulk is good.


Rules Discussion

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Ramanujan wrote:

A) ... I don't understand this point. Why would I care about how many bulk 10 pounds is?

B) The chair is a light wooden collapsable chair that can be folded flat and stacked easily. I could easily carry five by threading one arm through them.

If you can't currently look at an object and estimate it weighs 10 lbs for first edition, how do you look at something and estimate it weighs 10 lbs and is therefore 1 bulk and not light bulk or 2 bulk for second?

Fair enough, your chair is a small stacking chair as I listed in my "unless" section and is probably 1 bulk.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I would put all of the weird corner cases like "look at how many daggers I can carry" to be just like the weird corner cases in PF1 with items with no weight.

Like in PF1 you can absolutely write down "758,913,123,007 slings" on your character sheet, since slings have no weight and no cost. It's just that doing so is not a good faith effort to engage with the rules which are intending to simulate "the amount of stuff a person would actually choose to carry."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:


I find that any reasonable load out of gear seems to "make sense" as being carry-able without noteworthy hindrance

This is my issue with bulk.

They've made it work with your standard first level kit for each class based on what their strength is likely to be (except the alchemist, but that may or may not be an error), so at first glance it seems perfectly reasonable.

It breaks down immediately after that though when you get into "I've picked up a few extra bits and pieces, can I carry them?" territory. Depending on what they are the answer is wildly different.

If I am 1 bulk away from being encumbered, I can't strap a longsword to my hip, but I can carry 2 hand axes, a light mace, a crowbar, a hammer, a spare set of cold weather furs, that pup tent the pup tent merchant from a few posts ago sold me, and still have capacity for 2 more light bulk items.

Again I ask, if you're happy to allow a PC to carry that assorted extra gear that must surely both weigh more, and be more inconvenient, than a longsword, why bother tracking encumbrance?
Just let people carry "a reasonable amount" and be done with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
vagabond_666 wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:


I find that any reasonable load out of gear seems to "make sense" as being carry-able without noteworthy hindrance

This is my issue with bulk.

They've made it work with your standard first level kit for each class based on what their strength is likely to be (except the alchemist, but that may or may not be an error), so at first glance it seems perfectly reasonable.

It breaks down immediately after that though when you get into "I've picked up a few extra bits and pieces, can I carry them?" territory. Depending on what they are the answer is wildly different.

If I am 1 bulk away from being encumbered, I can't strap a longsword to my hip, but I can carry 2 hand axes, a light mace, a crowbar, a hammer, a spare set of cold weather furs, that pup tent the pup tent merchant from a few posts ago sold me, and still have capacity for 2 more light bulk items.

Again I ask, if you're happy to allow a PC to carry that assorted extra gear that must surely both weigh more, and be more inconvenient, than a longsword, why bother tracking encumbrance?
Just let people carry "a reasonable amount" and be done with it.

I can fully understand why those who prefer a simulationist approach don’t like bulk (or the slightly more realistic but still abstract encumbrance system of PF1). The reason this doesn’t bug me is that it doesn’t actually come up, in game.

I don’t find two competing piles of stuff and think “which can I pick up without getting encumbered?” I just pick up stuff I find along the way and eventually find I have to slow down. At that point, I’ll drop something or put up with the encumbrance.

Similarly, hit points and experience points don’t make sense - health and learning just doesn’t work like that in the real world. Nonetheless, realism is less important than speed and ease in answering questions that actually come up at my table.


thenobledrake wrote:

I especially enjoy this example of pointing out how "silly" the bulk encumbrance rules are comparative to purely weight-based encumbrance...

because yes, weight-based encumbrance stops the 50 weeks of rations being a thing you can stuff into a backpack and a belt pouch and run off with - but it enables the "silly" ability to have 3 (plus a bunch more) longbows not just carried, but strung and ready to grab and fire within the span of a single turn.

So all that's actually being illustrated is that abstractions have to be made somewhere.

Well for starters they could have used multiples of L for the equipment instead of just using a binary system, where items are of course either too bulky or too light.

For example why hasn't a bedroll a bulk of 3L?

We are playing a game that is in large parts all about figures and numbers and they don't trust us to do basic math?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would put all of the weird corner cases like "look at how many daggers I can carry" to be just like the weird corner cases in PF1 with items with no weight.

Like in PF1 you can absolutely write down "758,913,123,007 slings" on your character sheet, since slings have no weight and no cost. It's just that doing so is not a good faith effort to engage with the rules which are intending to simulate "the amount of stuff a person would actually choose to carry."

Rope is a rip-off in 1e. Just braid slings together. Free, weightless rope.


Paradozen wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would put all of the weird corner cases like "look at how many daggers I can carry" to be just like the weird corner cases in PF1 with items with no weight.

Like in PF1 you can absolutely write down "758,913,123,007 slings" on your character sheet, since slings have no weight and no cost. It's just that doing so is not a good faith effort to engage with the rules which are intending to simulate "the amount of stuff a person would actually choose to carry."

Rope is a rip-off in 1e. Just braid slings together. Free, weightless rope.

Well I made a fortune in PF1 by buying Quarterstaffs and selling them as Firewood. :P


vagabond_666 wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:


I find that any reasonable load out of gear seems to "make sense" as being carry-able without noteworthy hindrance

This is my issue with bulk.

They've made it work with your standard first level kit for each class based on what their strength is likely to be (except the alchemist, but that may or may not be an error), so at first glance it seems perfectly reasonable.

It breaks down immediately after that though when you get into "I've picked up a few extra bits and pieces, can I carry them?" territory. Depending on what they are the answer is wildly different.

If I am 1 bulk away from being encumbered, I can't strap a longsword to my hip, but I can carry 2 hand axes, a light mace, a crowbar, a hammer, a spare set of cold weather furs, that pup tent the pup tent merchant from a few posts ago sold me, and still have capacity for 2 more light bulk items.

Again I ask, if you're happy to allow a PC to carry that assorted extra gear that must surely both weigh more, and be more inconvenient, than a longsword, why bother tracking encumbrance?
Just let people carry "a reasonable amount" and be done with it.

Fortunately ignoring bulk is as easy as ignoring PF1e encumbrance. I expect graystone is in the vast minority of people who tracked encumbrance. After 10 years of the old system not working, I appreciate trying something new. It may be most groups ignore it (including me). But they are no worse off with this system then the old one.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get the argument that weight is more accurate for tracking carrying capacity. Tracking solely weight is just as much of an abstraction. It is much easier to carry X weight as a long rod than X weight as a long flat box. It takes vastly more strength to swing around a 15 lb greatsword than it does to carry a 100 lb backpack. The same object is usually vastly easier to carry with lifting straps than unassisted. Which muscle groups are having to take the weight and how long any lever arms involved are matter just as much as weight. Bulk is clearly an attempt to represent how much easier it is to carry a 100 lb backpack than a 100 lb beach ball. The fact that it's simpler and uses smaller, more easily managed numbers is just gravy.

And that's all assuming GMs can somewhat accurately guess weight for objects where it isn't predefined, which they can't. People are famously bad at estimating this.


Pandora's wrote:
And that's all assuming GMs can somewhat accurately guess weight for objects where it isn't predefined, which they can't. People are famously bad at estimating this.

This is why I'd like a table of examples.

Maybe 2-3 examples of an item by size, bulk range, and DC range to carry, drag, lift, push


Pandora's wrote:
I don't get the argument that weight is more accurate for tracking carrying capacity. Tracking solely weight is just as much of an abstraction.

It is, because most of the encumbrance issues are around the stuff you have in your backpack rather than "can I fight effectively while I'm holding onto an inconvenient beach ball"...

I get that people don't like the minutae of tracking the weight of everything, what I don't get is why they think a system that clearly doesn't do what it's supposed to is an improvement over what they had before, just because the maths involved in a system that doesn't work is easier.


vagabond_666 wrote:
what I don't get is why they think a system that clearly doesn't do what it's supposed to

Can you please link to an authoritative statement as to what bulk was intended to do? Because without knowing what the goal was, how are we meant to judge whether or not it achieved that goal?

If the goal was get people to reconsider using encumbrance then it has succeeded. If the goal was to make strength matter for more than damage then it has succeeded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure that the intent of Bulk was "a system to limit what you can carry which is preferable to encumbrance" which can be measured in a variety of ways (ease of use, the number of people who choose to completely disregard the system, etc.)

Bulk isn't perfect, but it's going to get used at some tables that ignored encumbrance, and that's good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
vagabond_666 wrote:
It breaks down immediately after that though when you get into "I've picked up a few extra bits and pieces, can I carry them?" territory.

I don't think it breaks down any faster or more spectacularly than purely weight-based encumbrance rules do.

vagabond_666 wrote:

Again I ask, if you're happy to allow a PC to carry that assorted extra gear that must surely both weigh more, and be more inconvenient, than a longsword, why bother tracking encumbrance?

Just let people carry "a reasonable amount" and be done with it.

First, I have to say that I think you're making an inaccurate assumption about what I'm happy about. I am happy that players have to make a choice about where to put their character's strength score based on what they plan on carrying, and that "should I carry this extra stuff we found?" isn't a foregone conclusion, and that using the encumbrance rules actually has a significant chance of a player choosing to have their character be encumbered. And somehow, the math needed on the players' end to track their encumbrance with the bulk system doesn't irritate them.

Many of those things were not true in the past when I attempted to use the weight-based encumbrance of the time.

And last, but not least, you know what an easy way for a player and I to agree what is "a reasonable amount of equipment" and what isn't? It's called Bulk.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
vagabond_666 wrote:
what I don't get is why they think a system that clearly doesn't do what it's supposed to

Can you please link to an authoritative statement as to what bulk was intended to do? Because without knowing what the goal was, how are we meant to judge whether or not it achieved that goal?

If the goal was get people to reconsider using encumbrance then it has succeeded. If the goal was to make strength matter for more than damage then it has succeeded.

Bulk is clearly intended to provide an approximation of how much equipment characters of differing strength can carry, while bearing some resemblance to the real world.

I welcome any Paizo employee to come and tell me that I am wrong and it is simply a means of providing an incentive to take a higher strength score and that any resemblance between the size and weight of items and their amount of bulk is purely coincidental despite all the text in the rulebook that describes it thusly.


vagabond_666 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
vagabond_666 wrote:
what I don't get is why they think a system that clearly doesn't do what it's supposed to

Can you please link to an authoritative statement as to what bulk was intended to do? Because without knowing what the goal was, how are we meant to judge whether or not it achieved that goal?

If the goal was get people to reconsider using encumbrance then it has succeeded. If the goal was to make strength matter for more than damage then it has succeeded.

Bulk is clearly intended to provide an approximation of how much equipment characters of differing strength can carry, while bearing some resemblance to the real world.

I welcome any Paizo employee to come and tell me that I am wrong and it is simply a means of providing an incentive to take a higher strength score and that any resemblance between the size and weight of items and their amount of bulk is purely coincidental despite all the text in the rulebook that describes it thusly.

They already had a system in place that achieved that and its existed for decades. What was the goal bulk was meant to achieve when they already had a system that worked perfectly for the goal you stated?


John Lynch 106 wrote:
vagabond_666 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
vagabond_666 wrote:
what I don't get is why they think a system that clearly doesn't do what it's supposed to

Can you please link to an authoritative statement as to what bulk was intended to do? Because without knowing what the goal was, how are we meant to judge whether or not it achieved that goal?

If the goal was get people to reconsider using encumbrance then it has succeeded. If the goal was to make strength matter for more than damage then it has succeeded.

Bulk is clearly intended to provide an approximation of how much equipment characters of differing strength can carry, while bearing some resemblance to the real world.

I welcome any Paizo employee to come and tell me that I am wrong and it is simply a means of providing an incentive to take a higher strength score and that any resemblance between the size and weight of items and their amount of bulk is purely coincidental despite all the text in the rulebook that describes it thusly.

They already had a system in place that achieved that and its existed for decades. What was the goal bulk was meant to achieve when they already had a system that worked perfectly for the goal you stated?

Because the old system was too much bookkeeping, and no one used it. The new system is simpler in that your bulk value can be calculated entirely by counting, with no need for long addition or addition tables.


Strill wrote:
Because the old system was too much bookkeeping, and no one used it. The new system is simpler in that your bulk value can be calculated entirely by counting, with no need for long addition or addition tables.

Then the goal isn't solely to provide an approximation of how much equipment characters of differing strength can carry, while bearing some resemblance to the real world.

I'd be interested if Vagabond666 can give us any further insight into what he thinks the complete goal of bulk is.


The reason why I presume they didn't use 3L or other things like that is that it'd come back to the same problem as PF1 - that it'd be an utter nightmare to count or remember.

Sovereign Court

Any encumbrance system is, as a design question, a multi-criteria optimization problem. You want it to have a good realism/immersion score, and you want to have a good convenience/abstraction score. Too inconvenient, it won't be used. Too unrealistic, it won't be accepted. You have to select a trade-off between these two criteria that's acceptable.

Since it's basically a Pareto front, what we'd love is an option that dominates the other systems on all criteria. But usually, what you get is alternatives that don't strictly dominate each other. PF1 weight is a bit more realistic and detailed, PF2 bulk sacrifices some of that to be more convenient.

However, it can be argued that PF1 weight violates a feasibility constraint in that it's convenience was so low, that too many people didn't use the system.

PF2 bulk isn't as realistic as PF1 weight, but it's convenience is much higher, and so it may be the better option by virtue of meeting all feasibility constraints. Even if it doesn't actually strictly dominates the PF1 version on all criteria.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vagabond_666 wrote:

It is, because most of the encumbrance issues are around the stuff you have in your backpack rather than "can I fight effectively while I'm holding onto an inconvenient beach ball"...

I get that people don't like the minutae of tracking the weight of everything, what I don't get is why they think a system that clearly doesn't do what it's supposed to is an improvement over what they had before, just because the maths involved in a system that doesn't work is easier.

That's not even remotely true. In this same thread, there's been discussion about characters who hit their light encumbrance limit with just their worn armor and weapons strapped around their body. There's also been discussion of carrying loads in your arms.

Even if that were true, you've still got a crazy unrealistic abstraction for your backpack capacity because volume is completely ignored. Items don't have listed volume, so you literally cannot track it. Because bulk can represent something light but large and unwieldy, it at least acknowledges this other axis.

You need to face the fact that your favored abstraction is also riddled with holes because it is a terribly simplistic abstraction. Just because you don't like the new abstraction as much doesn't mean it doesn't do what it's supposed to do and doesn't have areas it outperforms your favored abstraction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's other convenience issues. For example, P1E was the game where one could have the encumbrance capacity necessary to carry multiple weapons, but the game otherwise rewarded limiting yourself to one (Weapon Focus et al, the way magic enhancements are permanent and can't be switched out). Conversely, P2E otherwise seems to all but beg players to broaden their horizons and use more than one specific weapon (you cannot hyper-specialize in one weapon (at most, one category), and magic enhancements are designed to be rotated around). I think we can also look at the Monk and his various stances here. The Monk has one kind of primary attack (his unarmed strike) with a specific list of weapon traits, but he is meant to be easily able to switch to other versions of unarmed strike with other lists of weapon traits. Almost as though the P2E designers wanted players to be able to enjoy the whole list of weapon traits they put so much effort into designing and more often than once per character. But put Bulk into the mix and you are heavily punished for wanting to do what the game and the designers otherwise seem to also want you to do (that is, use more than one weapon).

Another kind of convenience: the game has dungeon-delving at its core roots. Going in, fighting monsters, and taking their loot. If the novels or the comics come back, I want to see Seoni or Valeros or Lem go into a dungeon with multiple hired hands or donkeys to carry the loot out. That is what has been suggested as the workaround that we're supposed to use to have Bulk but still be able to take loot out of a dungeon, so I want to see exemplar characters in this universe and of this game have to jump through the same logistic hoops as we the players. Otherwise, it means the iconic characters get to ignore Bulk (whereas in P1E, they could do all of these things, without obligatory beasts of burden/hired hands, and still be using weight).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
PF2 bulk isn't as realistic as PF1 weight...

Both systems are roughly equal in the "realistic" category.

If for no other reasons that because both systems claim than an entire suit of rigid plate armor can be put into a standard-sized backpack, and both systems allow for a character to have 9 short swords hanging from their belt with no issue.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Strill wrote:
Because the old system was too much bookkeeping, and no one used it. The new system is simpler in that your bulk value can be calculated entirely by counting, with no need for long addition or addition tables.

Then the goal isn't solely to provide an approximation of how much equipment characters of differing strength can carry, while bearing some resemblance to the real world.

I'd be interested if Vagabond666 can give us any further insight into what he thinks the complete goal of bulk is.

As was stated by someone else, it was to also incorporate how unweildly some items are, which I have responded to with

a) that isn't as relevant as just weight in in-game situations to have bothered doing
and
b) bulk fails woefully at it because of the enormous leap from L to 1 bulk

it was also, as the poster above suggests, to simplify the math, which it achieves at the cost of every other aspect of it's purpose

which is why I cannot fathom why anyone thinks it is a good system, and encumberance shouldn't just have been abandoned instead.


thenobledrake wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
PF2 bulk isn't as realistic as PF1 weight...

Both systems are roughly equal in the "realistic" category.

If for no other reasons that because both systems claim than an entire suit of rigid plate armor can be put into a standard-sized backpack, and both systems allow for a character to have 9 short swords hanging from their belt with no issue.

PF1 has it's issues, but in relative terms it is way more realistic, since at least in PF1 those 9 shortswords are the equivalent to 4.5 longswords

and not the 0.9 of a longsword that they equal in PF2


vagabond_666 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Strill wrote:
Because the old system was too much bookkeeping, and no one used it. The new system is simpler in that your bulk value can be calculated entirely by counting, with no need for long addition or addition tables.

Then the goal isn't solely to provide an approximation of how much equipment characters of differing strength can carry, while bearing some resemblance to the real world.

I'd be interested if Vagabond666 can give us any further insight into what he thinks the complete goal of bulk is.

As was stated by someone else, it was to also incorporate how unweildly some items are, which I have responded to with

a) that isn't as relevant as just weight in in-game situations to have bothered doing
and
b) bulk fails woefully at it because of the enormous leap from L to 1 bulk

it was also, as the poster above suggests, to simplify the math, which it achieves at the cost of every other aspect of it's purpose

which is why I cannot fathom why anyone thinks it is a good system, and encumberance shouldn't just have been abandoned instead.

But why include encumbrance at all? We barely have any rules on starving or dehydrating. We definitely have no rules on bathing and proper hygiene. So why bother including rules at all for encumbrance? What's the goal encumbrance is meant to achieve in the first place?


Pandora's wrote:


You need to face the fact that your favored abstraction is also riddled with holes because it is a terribly simplistic abstraction. Just because you don't like the new abstraction as much doesn't mean it doesn't do what it's supposed to do and doesn't have areas it outperforms your favored abstraction.

I don't particularly like PF1's encumberance, and given that magic items more or less remove it's use from about 3rd level at the latest, I'd only really ever use it in a low level survival focused game.

It's simply that PF2's bulk system has nothing going for it beyond "quick maffs" and is so riddled with issues like "10 shortswords = 1 longsword" that it clearly and obviously does not work, and so I just cannot fathom why anyone thinks it is an improvement, and that if PF1's system was too involved to bother with, that they shouldn't have just ditched encumberance completely, if this system was the best alternative they could come up with.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
why include encumbrance at all?

An excellent question.


vagabond_666 wrote:
Pandora's wrote:


You need to face the fact that your favored abstraction is also riddled with holes because it is a terribly simplistic abstraction. Just because you don't like the new abstraction as much doesn't mean it doesn't do what it's supposed to do and doesn't have areas it outperforms your favored abstraction.

It's simply that PF2's bulk system has nothing going for it beyond "quick maffs" and is so riddled with issues like "10 shortswords = 1 longsword" that it clearly and obviously does not work, and so I just cannot fathom why anyone thinks it is an improvement, and that if PF1's system was too involved to bother with, that they shouldn't have just ditched encumberance completely, if this system was the best alternative they could come up with.

Because "Quick maffs" was the primary reason why no one used Encumbrance before.


vagabond_666 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
why include encumbrance at all?
An excellent question.

Well if you don’t know the answer I would suggest you don’t actually know what the design goals are and therefore cannot know whether or not it achieves those goals.

You are, of course, free to disagree.


Strill wrote:
Because "Quick maffs" was the primary reason why no one used Encumbrance before.

Which, as I've stated before, I get completely. What I cannot fathom is, given it fails at every other aspect of being an encumberance system so badly, why anyone thinks it is better than just dumping encumberance completely?


John Lynch 106 wrote:
vagabond_666 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
why include encumbrance at all?
An excellent question.

Well if you don’t know the answer I would suggest you don’t actually know what the design goals are and therefore cannot know whether or not it achieves those goals.

You are, of course, free to disagree.

I have given you the reasons I believe the bulk system exists. They are inferred from the text in the CRB, dev blog posts and comments about the bulk system, and some general common sense.

You have provided zero evidence that they are incorrect, nor suggested that I am missing any. For want of any further credible argument on your part you have retreated into "only the devs can possibly comment on this".

You are a troll, and I will not respond to any further posts from you.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
vagabond_666 wrote:
Strill wrote:
Because "Quick maffs" was the primary reason why no one used Encumbrance before.
Which, as I've stated before, I get completely. What I cannot fathom is, given it fails at every other aspect of being an encumberance system so badly, why anyone thinks it is better than just dumping encumberance completely?

For me, realism isn't a goal of an encumbrance system - it has to give me an answer to very specific questions, not evaluate whether ten short swords or one long sword weigh someone down equally (such questions never come up in our games, so it doesn't matter how well a specific encumbrance system answers them).

All I care about is that a character moves about and begins to slow down or face similar penalties once they start carrying "a lot" of stuff and that there's some overall limit to how much anyone can carry.

I'm not going to baulk at an answer just because if a character unable to move dropped the longsword and picked up nine shortswords they'd be fine - fact is, I'm facing whatever loot I'm facing and this gives me a quick way to answer "Can I carry it? Does it slow me down?"

The problems people are identifying with bulk are all real issues with regard to how well it simulates reality - but it's not going to come up at our table, so there won't even be a break in verisimilitude. We don't stand there deciding whether to take nine shortswords or a longsword, so we won't even consider the fact that bulk gives us an "unrealistic" answer - let alone that it's less realistic than the also unrealistic encumbrance answer.

The PC in plate armor carrying a ton of stuff moves slower and is clumsier than the lightly armored PC with barely any loot. That's as far as I examine the system, so "realism" is irrelevant provided that coarse level of simulationism is hit.


vagabond_666 wrote:
I have given you the reasons I believe the bulk system exists.
You admitted you don’t actually know why it exists
vagabond_666 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
why include encumbrance at all?
An excellent question.
vagabond_666 wrote:
nor suggested that I am missing any.
You already indicated that you are going to reject any other possible goals so I didn’t see any point in raising other possible goals. And given this is what you have resorted to:
vagabond_666 wrote:
You are a troll

I don’t think I was too far off the mark.

vagabond_666 wrote:
For want of any further credible argument on your part you have retreated into "only the devs can possibly comment on this".

Ultimately only the devs can say for sure, yes.

I’m willing to discuss with anyone else why I would include bulk via PM. In an effort to avoid taking what was a positive thread further into the muck I won’t be responding further in this thread.

Disagreeing with someone should never be grounds for calling someone a troll.


vagabond_666 wrote:

PF1 has it's issues, but in relative terms it is way more realistic, since at least in PF1 those 9 shortswords are the equivalent to 4.5 longswords

and not the 0.9 of a longsword that they equal in PF2

You have effectively just said "ghosts are way more realistic than skeletons"


thenobledrake wrote:
vagabond_666 wrote:

PF1 has it's issues, but in relative terms it is way more realistic, since at least in PF1 those 9 shortswords are the equivalent to 4.5 longswords

and not the 0.9 of a longsword that they equal in PF2
You have effectively just said "ghosts are way more realistic than skeletons"

Nonsense.

A) both are systems attempting to model real world phenomena, therefore one can be more realistic than another (to be more realistic is not to be an 1:1 exact match, but to be closer to being that). I am willing to accept a longsword is twice as heavy as shortsword, I am not willing to accept that it is either 10 times as heavy, or alternately 10 times as unwieldy.

B) Skeletons are more realistic than ghosts. Everyone has a skeleton. Ghosts don't exist.

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / After ignoring encumbrance for 10 years, hulk is good. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.