Rations & Bulk ?


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Something I just noticed -

1 full waterskin is 1 bulk

1 weeks of rations if L (bulk) - my understanding is 10 x L (bulk) = 1 B
so... 1 bulk of rations = 70 days of rations ?

Bulk system just fails here LOL

Go back to imperial, at least that made sense !


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's just a misprint. I would imagine they either meant for 1 day to be L or a week to be one bulk.

As written its pretty funny.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically as written... if you have 2 belt pouches.
In pouch 1 ) a full wineskin.
In pouch 2 ) 70 days of rations :)


I mean. This is a world with alchemy and magic.
i have always assumed Rations were like Caloriemate or Lambas bread. One Caloriemate box is pretty fine for 2 days (not great but fine). If you were actually in shape, and rationed well, not terribly crazy to me.
Heck real world caloriemate you can live off (not most comfy but you can/i have) for a very long time. and in the outside of my small pack I had probably around a week of it around there. So, I really don't have issues with the idea of rations being very small. Its not difficult to do at all.

Looking at the past of the real world (which honestly should rarely be done for RPs), the meat fat + berry semi preserved goop in a bag that could be lived off for a while, on long hunting trips(on land or boat) in Alaska.

So.. its not that weird to keep that much food for one person in a pouch.
its rations. You live off of it. You don't eat comfortably or very filling off of it. Its survival/travel food.

It is a bit crazy yeah no doubt. but I don't have a problem with it considering every day alchemy, mundane magic and the like.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Somebody suggested that it was a copy error from Starfinder, where "rations" could conceivably represent a meal pill.
If the bulk of rations listed in the CRB is correct, then they must be some kind of super Lembas.

We can continue to hope for official or even unofficial errata about this and other points, or we can just go ahead and make logical choices for our home games.

I could live with a day's rations (without water) being "L". Ten days rations would then have 1 bulk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not saying that rations being L bulk is correct - but it could be.

Bulk isn't just about weight, or even just weight and "awkwardness" of carrying a particular item - how the item needs to be stored/carried in order to be used as expected also plays a role. That is why some things change their bulk based on what you do with them (example: wearing a backpack versus carrying one)

That factor could make rations which are heavier and probably take up similar physical space easier to carry because you can bundle them up tight and stuff them into your pack and that's no problem because you only need to get access to them a few times each day and are assumed to be not otherwise occupied when doing so, while your waterskin is something you are assumed to carry in a way that is easy to frequently access throughout the day so you can stay hydrated.

...and if rations are things like raisins, nuts, and jerky, a days worth is only a few handfuls (I don't know if that's the case).


thenobledrake wrote:
omitted for space

I like that answer~ I often forget Bulk factors that in as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1. Water consumption in the event of an emergency in the real world is pegged at one gallon per person per day (now, some of that is for hygeine, which a given party may or may not care about)- for modern humans who aren't walking around getting into intensely physical sword fights all the time. So waterskins seem about right.

2. Rations. I'll admit, I quirked an eyebrow at that- I mean, the lembas bread in the Lord of the Rings is kind of a big deal, after all.

But it takes about five pounds of meat to get one pound of dried meat for us in pemmican (which travels and keeps a lot better, lemme tell ya), and that stuff... in the Second Boer War, a ration of 4 ounces pemmican and 4 ounces chocolate and sugar was considered sufficient to sustain a soldier on a 36 hour march with no additional food (per Vilhjalmur Stefansson, for good or ill).

That, coupled with the ease of access points raised by thenobledrake, tends to argue for the abstraction in use.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had just assumed that the makers of Wandermeal had used all the gold I spent on it in 1e to merge with the Baker's Guild and standardize adventuring rations.


Just remember to add water to the dehydrated food BEFORE you eat it...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Just remember to add water to the dehydrated food BEFORE you eat it...

Something I imagine discovered but not understood or learnt from by goblins on a daily basis in Golarion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hiked the Appalachian Trail last year. I ate primarily dehydrated meals, jerky, and super dense compact foods (think Peanut Butter).

I assure you this is a misprint :D


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
graystone wrote:
Just remember to add water to the dehydrated food BEFORE you eat it...
Something I imagine discovered but not understood or learnt from by goblins on a daily basis in Golarion.

Now I'm imagining goblins eating cursed rations that suck the moisture out of them when they try to eat them. Horrid Wilting in biscuit form.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Almost certainly a misprint. Or ambiguity in the way bulk is presented.

Torches in packs of ten were mislabeled as L in the playtest and rations were labeled as 1 L each.

In the final game Torches dropped back to L per torch, and rations were increased to packs of 7 but retained their L listing.

This all said, I have a feeling that any item that is purchased with multiples in brackets is actually that bulk per item. Rather than that bulk for the total amount of items listed.

e.g. Sack (5) = 5L, rather than 1L

(possibly supporting this, ammunition isn't labeled as arrows(10) but instead 10 arrows.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I once had players in my starfinder game decide to throw a month's supply of rations they found off a cliff, then they threw a barrel of fuel they found with a detonator attached after it to incinerate the rations, all because they hated how much bulk they took up.

Maybe paizo reduced it to L just to make it less annoying for players.

Also, I find blaming the issue on the bulk system (as the op does in their post) to be really strange - the solution to "this item is too easy to carry" is just to increase its bulk, not abandon the whole system.

Its a weird bit of player psychology (one of my starfinder players complained a lot about not being able to carry enough weapons, and he blamed it on bulk until I pointed out that's simply an artifact of how much carry capacity the game gives him, not how it is measured, and that imperial can have the exact same problem)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Also, I find blaming the issue on the bulk system (as the op does in their post) to be really strange - the solution to "this item is too easy to carry" is just to increase its bulk, not abandon the whole system.

If they are like me, there are countless places were bulk seems an issue: just because they picked this one instance to highlight, don't assume it's their ONLY issue with the system.


graystone wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Also, I find blaming the issue on the bulk system (as the op does in their post) to be really strange - the solution to "this item is too easy to carry" is just to increase its bulk, not abandon the whole system.
If they are like me, there are countless places were bulk seems an issue: just because they picked this one instance to highlight, don't assume it's their ONLY issue with the system.

To quote myself; I find blaming the issue on bulk

Emphasis, on the issue.

I made no claims about any other issues that they may have.


Pretty sure it's not a misprint folks.

Bulk, like Encumbrance, is an imperfect system, requiring a human to intercede when the system fails to adequately represent a situation.

There is no perfect system - only ones that lend themselves to more "usability" by virtue of minimizing compromises between opposing forces such as "realism" vs "gamism".

As a DM, if you want to turn up the "realism" notch regarding rations - perhaps because a Theme of your game is Dangerous Wilderness Survival - feel free to houserule Rations as "L per day" or "B per week".

For those who "hate" Bulk there is nothing I can say to make you "un-hate" it. Sorry!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
graystone wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Also, I find blaming the issue on the bulk system (as the op does in their post) to be really strange - the solution to "this item is too easy to carry" is just to increase its bulk, not abandon the whole system.
If they are like me, there are countless places were bulk seems an issue: just because they picked this one instance to highlight, don't assume it's their ONLY issue with the system.

To quote myself; I find blaming the issue on bulk

Emphasis, on the issue.

I made no claims about any other issues that they may have.

I was replying to "not abandon the whole system" mainly: not knowing what other issues they have with the system, it's quite hard say to someone it's easier to try to fix it than drop it as it might NOT be as easy as 'just increasing bulk' to fix the issues they have with the system.


graystone wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
graystone wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Also, I find blaming the issue on the bulk system (as the op does in their post) to be really strange - the solution to "this item is too easy to carry" is just to increase its bulk, not abandon the whole system.
If they are like me, there are countless places were bulk seems an issue: just because they picked this one instance to highlight, don't assume it's their ONLY issue with the system.

To quote myself; I find blaming the issue on bulk

Emphasis, on the issue.

I made no claims about any other issues that they may have.

I was replying to "not abandon the whole system" mainly: not knowing what other issues they have with the system, it's quite hard say to someone it's easier to try to fix it than drop it as it might NOT be as easy as 'just increasing bulk' to fix the issues they have with the system.

Aaaaah, thank you for clarifying


5 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
For those who "hate" Bulk there is nothing I can say to make you "un-hate" it. Sorry!

Can I dislike it or is there only hate or love?

And what I dislike is that there is only 1 and 0, respectively 1 and L, which is the 10th part of 1. Why can't some items have reasonable "in-between" values like 3L or 5L?

Because simple math is too difficult?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Because the stated goal was simplification. L is only 1/10B if you have more than 9L. 9L or less = 0B.

Those who hate the bulk rules can continue to ignore encumbrance, just like they did before. The rest of us can total bulk values at a glance and be done with it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Those who hate the bulk rules can continue to ignore encumbrance, just like they did before. The rest of us can total bulk values at a glance and be done with it.

What about those of us who dislike (or even hate) the bulk rules but who followed the full encumbrance rules before?


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
What about those of us who dislike (or even hate) the bulk rules but who followed the full encumbrance rules before?

You could import the encumbrance rules and weights from PF1 into PF2?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Because the stated goal was simplification. L is only 1/10B if you have more than 9L. 9L or less = 0B.

Pfft Americans...what's more simple than summation? ;) ;) ;)

/friendly banter

And you could still use the 1B = 10L (round down) rule while assigning meaningful bulk to items and stuff. Tens steps in between without further differentiation simply is too much.


Ubertron_X wrote:
rainzax wrote:
For those who "hate" Bulk there is nothing I can say to make you "un-hate" it. Sorry!

Can I dislike it or is there only hate or love?

And what I dislike is that there is only 1 and 0, respectively 1 and L, which is the 10th part of 1. Why can't some items have reasonable "in-between" values like 3L or 5L?

Because simple math is too difficult?

That takes it away from being math at a glance and makes scale conversions more complex. So yeah it is antithetical to the goals of bulk and would result in the system being widely ignored again.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:


What about those of us who dislike (or even hate) the bulk rules but who followed the full encumbrance rules before?

Minority of a minority from what it seems.

I fall into a camp of preferring standard encumberance tracking over bulk generallt, but only if it were just me as a player. As a GM I loath having to force it on players and check over things because only 1/4 people I run for will actually track encumberance / container capacity without constant prompting. Even with digital tools to help.

I also hate encumberance meaning so little everyone is always at light and it is easily avoided as a mechanic. (One reason why I am fine with the alchemist in pf2e requiring lighter gear or to boost strength a little, the flavour is better imo)

But yeah, as a gm bulk has worked for my groups so far. The old encumberance system ended up being a lot of monitoring for me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
That takes it away from being math at a glance and makes scale conversions more complex. So yeah it is antithetical to the goals of bulk and would result in the system being widely ignored again.

Again, what is the difference in adding 1+1+1+1+1+1+1 or adding 3+1+1+2+5+1?

Both is math at a glance, at least if you ever advanced from counting with your fingers...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
That takes it away from being math at a glance and makes scale conversions more complex.

We aren't talking quadratic equations here: it's addition. I have a feeling more people have a harder time adding a long list of 1's than they do of numbers that changes as it's easier to lose track: 'was that 15 or 16 1's?... let me count again'

Secondly if any number over 1 is too hard, who these days are away from some digital device that has a calculator in it? Phone, tablet, computer, smart watch, ect?

Thirdly, if people can handle BULK with higher than 1 numbers how can anyone say that the same with L items would be too hard 'at a glance'? Does a game grind to a halt as people start pulling of their socks to count when they find a longspear that's 2 bulk?

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Minority of a minority from what it seems.

Add me to that number. I always kept track in PF1. With bulk, I actively avoid games using it.


Ubertron_X wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
That takes it away from being math at a glance and makes scale conversions more complex. So yeah it is antithetical to the goals of bulk and would result in the system being widely ignored again.

Again, what is the difference in adding 1+1+1+1+1+1+1 or adding 3+1+1+2+5+1?

Both is math at a glance, at least if you ever advanced from counting with your fingers...

For some people, seeing how many lines say "L" (literally just counting) is easier than doing the simple math of most of those just being "L" but some of them counting multiple times.

Maybe that's not the case for you, but there's no reason to be insulting about it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
For some people, seeing how many lines say "L" (literally just counting) is easier than doing the simple math of most of those just being "L" but some of them counting multiple times.

While I acknowledge that pattern recognition really is a thing with us humans would anybody really write down 3 individual lines if your character is carrying 3 torches?

Or would it be more like:

Torches #3 -------> 3L


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

This all said, I have a feeling that any item that is purchased with multiples in brackets is actually that bulk per item. Rather than that bulk for the total amount of items listed.

e.g. Sack (5) = 5L, rather than 1L

(possibly supporting this, ammunition isn't labeled as arrows(10) but instead 10 arrows.)

I believe that’s what it says at the top of the first page of the adventuring gear section (so it wouldn’t apply to ammunition anyway, since that’s on the weapons page before this section). Price is for the whole set, bulk is per item.

But, uh, what’s the unit for rations? A day? A meal?
A week’s rations isn’t a set number of units.


Ubertron_X wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
For some people, seeing how many lines say "L" (literally just counting) is easier than doing the simple math of most of those just being "L" but some of them counting multiple times.

While I acknowledge that pattern recognition really is a thing with us humans would anybody really write down 3 individual lines if your character is carrying 3 torches?

Or would it be more like:

Torches #3 -------> 3L

It would be "Torches x3 ------> L", but the point stands they would have to count that particular line multiple times.

They still wouldn't have a line that reads "<item> x3 -----> 3L" that they'd not only have to count multiple times, but be counting by 3s when doing so, which the proposed change to varying degrees of L bulk would introduce.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

Because the stated goal was simplification. L is only 1/10B if you have more than 9L. 9L or less = 0B.

Those who hate the bulk rules can continue to ignore encumbrance, just like they did before. The rest of us can total bulk values at a glance and be done with it.

Algorithm to compute bulk in the new version:

nL = 0
nArrow = 0
totalBulk = 0

foreach (item in equipment)
if (Bulk(item) >= 1) then
totalBulk = totalBulk + Bulk(item)
else if (Bulk(item) == L)
nL=nL+1
else if (item = arrow or bolt or shuriken or ...) then
nArrow = nArrow+1
endif
endForeach

nL = nL + ceil(nArrow/10)
totalBulk = totalBulk + floor(n/10) + floor(gp/1000)

IMPORTANT NOTE: nL is a local variable; each time you get a new L item, you have to re-run the whole algorithm to compute your whole bulk again. (remember, you shouldn't write "4.8 B" on your sheet because per the rules as well as several posters, 8L is 0B so you shouldn't account for it).

--
Algorithm to compute weight in old version:

totalWeight = 0

foreach (item in equipment)
totalWeight = + Weight(item)
endForeach

totalWeight + floor(gp/100) (for weight in kg)

--
The old algorithm is simpler. The new versions would be simpler if it didn't comport a lot of fiddly parts. Counting the number of "L" symbol is an easy operation when there are 0-3 such symbols; it isn't when there are 5-35 such symbols - especially when 5 of those symbols are hidden in the line "48 arrows" and 5 other symbols are hidden on the line "rations for 1 month" (1).

The new system is a pure failure because its only purpose was to simplify accounting and it doesn't achieve this task.

(1) accourding to some posters, you aren't even allowed to write "48 arrows (5L)" on your sheet because this would put several L on the same line and it's harder to add 5 than counting the number of lines with a "L" symbol. So you should write:
10 arrows (L)
10 arrows (L)
10 arrows (L)
10 arrows (L)
8 arrows (L)
And, somehow, instantly see there are 5 symbols.

In the end your sheet should look like:
10 arrows (L)
10 arrows (L)
10 arrows (L)
10 arrows (L)
8 arrows (L)
shortbow (1)
rations (1 week) (L)
rations (1 week) (L)
rations (1 week) (L)
rations (1 week) (L)
rations (2 days) (L)
waterskin (L)
dagger (L)
dagger (hidden in my left boot) (L)
shortsword (L)
Lesser acid flask (L)
Lesser acid flask (L)
chain skirt (1)
grappling hook (L)
rope (L)
rope (L)
rope (L)
rope (L)
rope (L)
Bedroll (L)
Bedroll (L)
Bedroll (L)
Bedroll (L)
pup tent (L)
pup tent (L)
pup tent (L)
pup tent (L)
5 soap (-)
crowbar (L)
disguise kit (L)
hooded lantern (L)
oil (5 pint) (-)
magnifying glass (-)
5 poor manacle (-)
merchant's scale (L)
mirror (-)
Thieves’ tools (L)
Thieves’ tools (L)
Thieves’ tools (L)
Thieves’ tools (L)
5 locks (-)
5 chalk (-)
ink and paper (-)

Obviously encumbrance is far easier to compute than before.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

It would be "Torches x3 ------> L", but the point stands they would have to count that particular line multiple times.

They still wouldn't have a line that reads "<item> x3 -----> 3L" that they'd not only have to count multiple times, but be counting by 3s when doing so, which the proposed change to varying degrees of L bulk would introduce.

That seems more complicated that JUST writing down the bulk totals instead of having to do math [for the times] and then math again [for the bulk total]. I know for myself, if I have 3 torches, I'd list the bulk as 3L: if i saw something that listed "Torches x3 ------> L" to me that'd read those 3 torches together are 1L.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

It would be "Torches x3 ------> L", but the point stands they would have to count that particular line multiple times.

They still wouldn't have a line that reads "<item> x3 -----> 3L" that they'd not only have to count multiple times, but be counting by 3s when doing so, which the proposed change to varying degrees of L bulk would introduce.

Wow...

While I will not dispute your statement it never occured to me that there actually could be players who note down their gear so "unnaturally wrong" only to be able to count lines, even multiple times, to get to the final result...who would have thought.

Well I guess thats part of being human, what is alien for one is totally natural for others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
...waterskin (L)...

And as a bonus on top, the waterskin is only L if it is empty. ;)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
...waterskin (L)...
And as a bonus on top, the waterskin is only L if it is empty. ;)

IMO, that's the biggest 'sleight of hand' done in the Bulk system: you look at the bulk totals of the pregens and some don't LOOK too bad until you think 'who goes out with an empty waterskin?' Once you correctly change that 1L to 1B, the numbers look a LOT less good. IMO, the waterskin should list the bulk as 1B and then make a note that if emptied it counts as L. The way it is now, it's just begging for intentional and unintentional miscounting of bulk totals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
What about those of us who dislike (or even hate) the bulk rules but who followed the full encumbrance rules before?
You could import the encumbrance rules and weights from PF1 into PF2?

True! Without actually checking, I think most PF2 gear so far was already in Ultimate Equipment, so we'd have data. And AFAIK ability scores are supposedly on the same scale, so we could still use the old Carry Capacity table.

Let's see, if we replace phrases like "target: one item of up to L weight" and "...up to 1 B weight" with "target: one item of up to 5 lbs" and "...up to 10 lbs," do all the spells/mechanics DTRT? (Weight figures from page 272.)

And of course this can only be applied outside PFS and only if the GM likes it. So I don't think it really makes the Bulk system much better to have in the actual rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
...waterskin (L)...
And as a bonus on top, the waterskin is only L if it is empty. ;)

I know, but it does seems to bother the pregens... :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
orphias wrote:

Something I just noticed -

1 full waterskin is 1 bulk

1 weeks of rations if L (bulk) - my understanding is 10 x L (bulk) = 1 B
so... 1 bulk of rations = 70 days of rations ?

Bulk system just fails here LOL

Go back to imperial, at least that made sense !

If you count calories you burn about 3600 a day as and adventurer. At least.

That is 400 grams of fat. Pure fat. little less than 1 lb.

If you go with 1/3 fat, 1/3 carbs, 1/3 protein and add little Extra for some remaining water/fibers and packaging you get to around 1kg of food per day. Or little more than 2 lb food per day.

So it's 1kg(2 lb) of food per day when on adventuring and 0,5kg(1 lb) of food per day when full resting and doing nothing in town. Or secure camp.

I would say that 3 days of adventuring food is Worth 1 Bulk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Igor Horvat wrote:
orphias wrote:

Something I just noticed -

1 full waterskin is 1 bulk

1 weeks of rations if L (bulk) - my understanding is 10 x L (bulk) = 1 B
so... 1 bulk of rations = 70 days of rations ?

Bulk system just fails here LOL

Go back to imperial, at least that made sense !

If you count calories you burn about 3600 a day as and adventurer. At least.

That is 400 grams of fat. Pure fat. little less than 1 lb.

If you go with 1/3 fat, 1/3 carbs, 1/3 protein and add little Extra for some remaining water/fibers and packaging you get to around 1kg of food per day. Or little more than 2 lb food per day.

So it's 1kg(2 lb) of food per day when on adventuring and 0,5kg(1 lb) of food per day when full resting and doing nothing in town. Or secure camp.

I would say that 3 days of adventuring food is Worth 1 Bulk.

Considering survival rations would be less complete then proper modern rations with a good delivery system I would say you can cut those in half and have the person expected to burn body fat as part of there daily calories, with the intent to binge/feast when they return to civilization or when they find something large and edible (A common eating habit before modern ease). This is kind of supported by them being around 1 lb each for PF1e.

However I'm certain it's a mistake and is supposed to be 1 Bulk each week. Since Starfinder uses the exact same bulk system and there rations are sci-fantasy dense nutrient bars and are 1 B/week.


Lady Melo wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
orphias wrote:

Something I just noticed -

1 full waterskin is 1 bulk

1 weeks of rations if L (bulk) - my understanding is 10 x L (bulk) = 1 B
so... 1 bulk of rations = 70 days of rations ?

Bulk system just fails here LOL

Go back to imperial, at least that made sense !

If you count calories you burn about 3600 a day as and adventurer. At least.

That is 400 grams of fat. Pure fat. little less than 1 lb.

If you go with 1/3 fat, 1/3 carbs, 1/3 protein and add little Extra for some remaining water/fibers and packaging you get to around 1kg of food per day. Or little more than 2 lb food per day.

So it's 1kg(2 lb) of food per day when on adventuring and 0,5kg(1 lb) of food per day when full resting and doing nothing in town. Or secure camp.

I would say that 3 days of adventuring food is Worth 1 Bulk.

Considering survival rations would be less complete then proper modern rations with a good delivery system I would say you can cut those in half and have the person expected to burn body fat as part of there daily calories, with the intent to binge/feast when they return to civilization or when they find something large and edible (A common eating habit before modern ease). This is kind of supported by them being around 1 lb each for PF1e.

However I'm certain it's a mistake and is supposed to be 1 Bulk each week. Since Starfinder uses the exact same bulk system and there rations are sci-fantasy dense nutrient bars and are 1 B/week.

rations are considered to give you enough food for a day. Not to put you on starvation diet.

If you are losing 0,5kg per day that is extreme diet and considered unhealthy for more than a week or so.

If they are mostly fat with some carbs and proteins then 3500 calories can be in 0,5kg(1 lb)


Wow... didn't expect to get vaguely insulted for writing down inventory lists in a way that requires the least amount of erasing and re-writing when adjusting quantities of carried items.

Good job, guys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
...waterskin (L)...
And as a bonus on top, the waterskin is only L if it is empty. ;)
IMO, that's the biggest 'sleight of hand' done in the Bulk system: you look at the bulk totals of the pregens and some don't LOOK too bad until you think 'who goes out with an empty waterskin?' Once you correctly change that 1L to 1B, the numbers look a LOT less good. IMO, the waterskin should list the bulk as 1B and then make a note that if emptied it counts as L. The way it is now, it's just begging for intentional and unintentional miscounting of bulk totals.

Keep your waterskin almost full, so that it doesn't go to 1B and stays L.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
...waterskin (L)...
And as a bonus on top, the waterskin is only L if it is empty. ;)
IMO, that's the biggest 'sleight of hand' done in the Bulk system: you look at the bulk totals of the pregens and some don't LOOK too bad until you think 'who goes out with an empty waterskin?' Once you correctly change that 1L to 1B, the numbers look a LOT less good. IMO, the waterskin should list the bulk as 1B and then make a note that if emptied it counts as L. The way it is now, it's just begging for intentional and unintentional miscounting of bulk totals.
Keep your waterskin almost full, so that it doesn't go to 1B and stays L.

Do that and it's worthless as a FULL one contains the water you need for the day: As far as I can tell, drinking an almost full waterskin and not drinking are the same thing by the rules for Starvation and Thirst.

Secondly, unless you went out of our way to have a full bulk number without any extra L items, it'll round up to a bulk anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

Wow... didn't expect to get vaguely insulted for writing down inventory lists in a way that requires the least amount of erasing and re-writing when adjusting quantities of carried items.

Good job, guys.

Nothing insulting at all: Ubertron_X said it well - "Well I guess thats part of being human, what is alien for one is totally natural for others." I've never seen anyone doing what you did and IMO it seems harder to use and much more prone to mistakes vs writing out actual totals. Nothing insulting there IMO.

As to "least amount of erasing and re-writing"... The game has hp, focus and all kinds of other things that'd need "erasing and re-writing". It seems the minor boon to avoid "erasing and re-writing" a single number is far outweighed by the increased chance you'll miss that variable L and instead count it as 1 L.

Now, if it works for you that's great. If I had to look at your sheet regularly, like I was your DM, I'd ask you to fill in the numbers.


Megistone wrote:
Keep your waterskin almost full, so that it doesn't go to 1B and stays L.

i round every fraction up, except when the rule explicitely say I have to round it down.

I other words, I consider 8 arrows weight L, as well as rations for 2 days. Similarly, if I had two half-empty waterskin, since there isn't any rule for half-empty waterskin, I'd consider each one weights as much as a full waterskin.

In the other hand, I guess you're right by RAW. A waterskin weights L and the description says "when it’s full, a waterskin has 1 Bulk and contains roughly 1 day’s worth of water for a Small or Medium creature"; the rule mentions "full waterskin" and doesn't mention "half empty waterskin" or "almost full waterskin". Since a "half empty waterskin" and an "almost full waterskin" are still waterskins (but aren't "full waterskin" so the special rule doesn't apply), they weight L.

OK so you can carry 2 half empty waterskin for a weight of LL. But is there a rule saying a half empty waterskin has enough water for half a day? (that's the problem when stupidly using RAW: you have to be sure another stupid usage of RAW doesn't counter you).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
OK so you can carry 2 half empty waterskin for a weight of LL. But is there a rule saying a half empty waterskin has enough water for half a day?

Not a problem; every 24 hours I take one half-full waterskin, empty into another one, and guzzle down the resulting full waterskin. My encumbrance spikes for a moment, but I'm in camp so who cares?

Note that this technique can be generalized to carrying N waterskins each (N-1)/N filled with water. Each day you pour 1/N of a skin from the last waterskin into the first non-empty one, then guzzle the resulting full skin. Lasts you N-1 days and you only ever (between camps) have N*L encumbrance at most!

While this would obviously be an incredibly bogus thing to do, the reasons have nothing to do with the math not working.


graystone wrote:
Megistone wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
...waterskin (L)...
And as a bonus on top, the waterskin is only L if it is empty. ;)
IMO, that's the biggest 'sleight of hand' done in the Bulk system: you look at the bulk totals of the pregens and some don't LOOK too bad until you think 'who goes out with an empty waterskin?' Once you correctly change that 1L to 1B, the numbers look a LOT less good. IMO, the waterskin should list the bulk as 1B and then make a note that if emptied it counts as L. The way it is now, it's just begging for intentional and unintentional miscounting of bulk totals.
Keep your waterskin almost full, so that it doesn't go to 1B and stays L.

Do that and it's worthless as a FULL one contains the water you need for the day: As far as I can tell, drinking an almost full waterskin and not drinking are the same thing by the rules for Starvation and Thirst.

Secondly, unless you went out of our way to have a full bulk number without any extra L items, it'll round up to a bulk anyway.

this is where common sense should come into play.

almost full should be enough for one day and should be worth 1 Bulk of bulk.


graystone wrote:
Nothing insulting at all

I said vaguely insulting. I'm sure the intent wasn't to insult - but saying what was said other than the 'I didn't know people did this that way' makes it read as insulting.

graystone wrote:
As to "least amount of erasing and re-writing"... The game has hp, focus and all kinds of other things that'd need "erasing and re-writing". It seems the minor boon to avoid "erasing and re-writing" a single number is far outweighed by the increased chance you'll miss that variable L and instead count it as 1 L.

If you approach the entire sheet from the perspective of minimizing erasing and re-writing, it's not a "single number."

The chance of miss counting encumbrance is almost non-existent too, when talking about a player that is used to tracking things this way. And the minimal re-writing method helps reduce the impact of the, in my experience very common, "I must have forgotten to change that" errors that players make over the course of a campaign

graystone wrote:
Now, if it works for you that's great. If I had to look at your sheet regularly, like I was your DM, I'd ask you to fill in the numbers.

And if you asked me to change how I keep my own character sheet, I'd tell you to get back in your lane.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Rations & Bulk ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.