| Captain Morgan |
So a big chunk of treasure in this PF1 adventure is going to come from a bunch of bandit loot from various merchant convoys, most of it carried by 8 large sized beasts of burden. They include:
9 100lb brass plates worth 150gp each.
300 pounds of spices worth 10gp/pound
600 2 pound silver bars worth 10gp each
So that's 300 pounds of spices, 1,200 pounds of silver bars, and 900 pounds of plates. Anyone have thoughts on default rules for converting this kind of stuff? When I compare bags of holding between editions, they were made with the assumption that 10 lbs = 1 bulk. A type I bag holds 250 pounds in PF1 or 25 bulk in PF2, a type II holds 500 pounds or 50 bulk, etc. The one big exception is the weight of creatures, but that has been discounted largely for ease of use and being able to carry your party members off the battlefield.
I'd previously decided that the 900 pounds of plates would be discounted as well, putting them at 45 bulk instead of 90. My players have these already and stuck them in a type II bag of holding so there's no going back on them.
My current idea is that I'll treat the remaining loot at 10 lbs = 1 bulk, for 30 bulk worth of spices and 120 bulk worth of silver bars. But using small items to make up larger bulk runs into an issue when it comes to mounts: large sized creatures treat 1 bulk items as light bulk, and light bulk items as negligible. An obnoxious person could argue that because these are all small items, a horse could carry an unlimited amount of them.
My compromise is that I'm going to treat the 1,500 pounds of cargo as 1 bulk increments when it is efficiently distributed. Meaning the 150 bulk will only be treated as 15 bulk when strapped to the party's horse.
I'm fairly happy with this solution, but I thought it couldn't hurt to run it by the hive mind anyway. Please, no complaining about bulk, and no suggestions of just strapping it to the bandit corpses. There are other threads for that malarkey.
| thenobledrake |
I would completely skip trying to do a math-based conversion because even where it does look like there's a clear conversion rate, that's misleading at best.
What I would do is think "how would this normally be transported?" and then assign a Bulk value that makes that method of transport make sense.
For example, a silver bar might only be 1 bulk when carried because a dense brick of metal is awkward, but the full load of 600 of them would likely be stacked onto a wagon and easily pulled by a single beast of burden so calling it 10 bulk in that context wouldn't be out of line.
rainzax
|
This is a very good question.
My gut reaction is that your solution sounds pretty fair.
...
Quick google search suggests a "max comfortable" load for a horse be 30% of their body weight.
Quick google search says a typical horse weighs in the neighborhood of 1,000 lbs.
Quick Bestiary search stats a typical horse with Strength 18 (+4 modifier).
Quick check of Bulk Conversions is Large creatures treat 10 Bulk = 1 Bulk.
Quick check of Bulk values for creatures has a Medium creature at 6.
This edition "normalizes" Bulk to the creature who therefore operates according to the same rules: The horse in this case is Encumbered after 9 Bulk, and cannot carry more than 14 Bulk. For a stronger War Horse, these numbers come out to 10 and 15 respectively due to their higher strength.
This means a War Horse can carry about 1,500 pounds = 150 Bulk for a medium creature = 15 Bulk for a large creature.
...
So, after some rudimentary research, I would support your hard-fast rule that a horse can carry about 1,500 lbs of stuff, with a single rider (Bulk = 0.6), and at reduced speed due to being encumbered.
Cheers!
| Captain Morgan |
I would completely skip trying to do a math-based conversion because even where it does look like there's a clear conversion rate, that's misleading at best.
What I would do is think "how would this normally be transported?" and then assign a Bulk value that makes that method of transport make sense.
For example, a silver bar might only be 1 bulk when carried because a dense brick of metal is awkward, but the full load of 600 of them would likely be stacked onto a wagon and easily pulled by a single beast of burden so calling it 10 bulk in that context wouldn't be out of line.
Seems like a similar result-- 12 bulk to a beasty vs 10 bulk.
| Captain Morgan |
A relevant details I forgot to mention: the journey is going to be perilous and fraught with difficult terrain, so relying on a wagon won't work and a non-animal companion mount is unlikely to survive 12th level combat. They do have a companion horse though.
This is a very good question.
My gut reaction is that your solution sounds pretty fair.
...
Quick google search suggests a "max comfortable" load for a horse be 30% of their body weight.
Quick google search says a typical horse weighs in the neighborhood of 1,000 lbs.
Quick Bestiary search stats a typical horse with Strength 18 (+4 modifier).
Quick check of Bulk Conversions is Large creatures treat 10 Bulk = 1 Bulk.
Quick check of Bulk values for creatures has a Medium creature at 6.This edition "normalizes" Bulk to the creature who therefore operates according to the same rules: The horse in this case is Encumbered after 9 Bulk, and cannot carry more than 14 Bulk. For a stronger War Horse, these numbers come out to 10 and 15 respectively due to their higher strength.
This means a War Horse can carry about 1,500 pounds = 150 Bulk for a medium creature = 15 Bulk for a large creature.
...
So, after some rudimentary research, I would support your hard-fast rule that a horse can carry about 1,500 lbs of stuff, with a single rider (Bulk = 0.6), and at reduced speed due to being encumbered.
Cheers!
2 details you may have overlooked:
1) large sized creatures also have double carrying capacity, so the horse in your example can take 18 bulk before becoming encumbered.
2) My read on treating 1 bulk as L is that it only applies to 1 bulk items. A 2 bulk item is still 2 bulk to a large sized creature. Most notably, that means a medium sized rider remains 6 bulk, which means that the horse above can carry 2 comfortably and 3 only if they have nothing else... Which seems much more reasonable than being able to stack 10 people comfortable on one horse.
Thanks for the thoughts folks.