Backpacks can hold 4 bulk, but because of the way the bulk system rounds down, does this really mean it can hold 4 bulk and 9 additional items of L bulk?
I would cap it at 4 bulk. Or 40 Light bulk if that is how you want to look at it.
Backpacks can hold 4 bulk, but because of the way the bulk system rounds down, does this really mean it can hold 4 bulk and 9 additional items of L bulk?
4 bulk, 9 L AND 1 less than a vast amount of negligible items...
Pretty sure it's 4 bulk 9 L
I picture L items shoved/stowed wherever on a person's gear, and they don't really matter until you try to squeeze the last L somewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I propose the following notation: 4L9
I've always been fond of "4.9" or "4.9 bulk."
It's pretty much universal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I propose the following notation: 4L9I've always been fond of "4.9" or "4.9 bulk."
It's pretty much universal.
It also computes correctly with numerous auto-calculating character sheets.
To each their own. I see the restriction to 4 bulk as being restrictive to exactly that 4 bulk. I understand that 9 light bulk is effectively 0 bulk, but at the same time I see it like this: If you had a bottle that could contain 1 liter of water, you wouldn't be able to fill that bottle with 1 liter and 999 milliliters, even though the bottle doesnt specify its capacity in ml.
That's why it's called an abstraction, because it simplifies the game (or at least was intended to) and doesn't really work that way in real life.
That's why it's called an abstraction, because it simplifies the game (or at least was intended to) and doesn't really work that way in real life.
Yeah, if the game cared that much about realistic it was compared to real life, we wouldn't have bulk.
To each their own. I see the restriction to 4 bulk as being restrictive to exactly that 4 bulk. I understand that 9 light bulk is effectively 0 bulk, but at the same time I see it like this: If you had a bottle that could contain 1 liter of water, you wouldn't be able to fill that bottle with 1 liter and 999 milliliters, even though the bottle doesnt specify its capacity in ml.
On the other hand, when I'm packing my luggage, no matter how zipper-bustingly full it is, there always seems to be room to slip an extra usb cable somewhere.
To each their own. I see the restriction to 4 bulk as being restrictive to exactly that 4 bulk. I understand that 9 light bulk is effectively 0 bulk, but at the same time I see it like this: If you had a bottle that could contain 1 liter of water, you wouldn't be able to fill that bottle with 1 liter and 999 milliliters, even though the bottle doesnt specify its capacity in ml.On the other hand, when I'm packing my luggage, no matter how zipper-bustingly full it is, there always seems to be room to slip an extra usb cable somewhere.
Sure, but that would be negligible bulk. Would there be room for 9 more suits of Padded armor? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but that would be negligible bulk. Would there be room for 9 more suits of Padded armor? :)To each their own. I see the restriction to 4 bulk as being restrictive to exactly that 4 bulk. I understand that 9 light bulk is effectively 0 bulk, but at the same time I see it like this: If you had a bottle that could contain 1 liter of water, you wouldn't be able to fill that bottle with 1 liter and 999 milliliters, even though the bottle doesnt specify its capacity in ml.On the other hand, when I'm packing my luggage, no matter how zipper-bustingly full it is, there always seems to be room to slip an extra usb cable somewhere.
That's arguing for more granularity in the bulk system. The abstraction of bulk means a suit of padded armor takes up the same amount of weight/space as a vial of poison (which might be easier to stow than my USB cables, despite the TSA's protestations)
I do believe the intent of the bulk system is to make concerns about stowing between 0 and 9 L a non-issue.
Whether this physically makes sense in all cases is kind of besides the point.
L rounding is only used for the carrier not containers. There is nothing in the rules stating otherwise.
Would you please cite a rules source supporting your statement?
Technically speaking, nothing I can find states that rounding only counts towards carrying objects and not containers, at least as far as I can tell. But I will say that there are ample examples of containers that can carry only a specific number of light bulk objects, which indicates to me at least that "volume" stats are specific and restrictive.
Bandoliers for example can only hold 8 objects of light bulk. Belt Pouches similarly hold 4.
Really, this is an example where I can see justifying either interpretation pretty well. Backpacks state that they hold, "up to 4 Bulk of items," and typically when you write, "up to," that means no more than that amount. Adding light bulk items to that would be going over that amount, at least in my mind.
Bandoliers for example can only hold 8 objects of light bulk. Belt Pouches similarly hold 4.
Not so, they can also carry a non-vast amount of negligible items much like a container rates in bulk items can carry 9 extra L items... You also have the fact that a bandolier CAN carry more than 8L or it couldn't be "dedicated to a full set of tools" as they have 1 bulk...
Bandoliers for example can only hold 8 objects of light bulk. Belt Pouches similarly hold 4.Not so, they can also carry a non-vast amount of negligible items much like a container rates in bulk items can carry 9 extra L items... You also have the fact that a bandolier CAN carry more than 8L or it couldn't be "dedicated to a full set of tools" as they have 1 bulk...
Negligible and Light bulk are not the same. Negligible is special, in that you essentially ignore them for encumbrance. Items of Light bulk on the other hand do add to your overall encumbrance. So treating them the same is a fools errand.
As I said I can see either ruling being justified, I simply prefer a more strict ruling. Strapping extra torches and what have you to the backpack explaining away the extra 9 bulk added to a "full" backpack, or explaining away how a 1 bulk kit fits in a bandolier by saying that the original carrying "case" of the kit is the other 2 light bulk that you are "getting rid of". This is just one more quark of Bulk, a subsystem that I honestly don't care for and feel isn't handled very well.
Good catch on armor upsizing in bulk when stowed Staffan. I had forgotten that bit. Still odd to be able to cram 9 Bedrolls into a "full" backpack. :)
Negligible and Light bulk are not the same. Negligible is special, in that you essentially ignore them for encumbrance. Items of Light bulk on the other hand do add to your overall encumbrance. So treating them the same is a fools errand.
You are comparing bulk limit containers to L limit containers: L for bulk limits is similar to negligible for L limit containers. The rules state that enough negligible items count towards bulk, to IMO it doesn't seem like a "fools errand".
Secondly, L items do NOT add to your "overall encumbrance": 10 do and ONLY in increments of 10. This is NO different than a vast amount of negligible items counting as L. Adding a non-vast amount of negligible impacts L totals as much as L totals less than 10 impact bulk.
Negligible and Light bulk are not the same. Negligible is special, in that you essentially ignore them for encumbrance. Items of Light bulk on the other hand do add to your overall encumbrance. So treating them the same is a fools errand.You are comparing bulk limit containers to L limit containers: L for bulk limits is similar to negligible for L limit containers. The rules state that enough negligible items count towards bulk, to IMO it doesn't seem like a "fools errand".
Secondly, L items do NOT add to your "overall encumbrance": 10 do and ONLY in increments of 10. This is NO different than a vast amount of negligible items counting as L. Adding a non-vast amount of negligible impacts L totals as much as L totals less than 10 impact bulk.
Missing the point once again I see. Can you carry as many L bulk items as you like?
No. They contribute to encumbrance. A character is only limited in "-" bulk items by the GM. You are very much limited in the number of L bulk items you can carry by the core rules. That limit is 10 times your maximum bulk plus 9.
Missing the point once again I see. Can you carry as many L bulk items as you like?
No but neither can you carry as many negligible items as you like either so I don't see your point.
A character is only limited in "-" bulk items by the GM.
They are still limited: how you determine the limit doesn't matter. There are only so many, lets say candles, I can put in a belt pouch before the DM is going to say it's L worth of them: the exact amount doesn't matter for this debate. I'm not surprised if I try to put 1000 candles on my backpack and the DM starts marking off L from it's capacity.
You are very much limited in the number of L bulk items you can carry by the core rules. That limit is 10 times your maximum bulk plus 9.
Was anyone arguing this wasn't how it works? Though a slight qualifier that it'd be 10 times your [maximum bulk +2] plus 9 with a backpack.
Was thinking about this tonight as I loaded a new characters backpack full of stuff.
Does anyone have any new thoughts to add, particularly in light of the errata that changed how backpacks and other container-type items function?
Does anyone have any new thoughts to add, particularly in light of the errata that changed how backpacks and other container-type items function?
How did the newest errata change backpacks?
Does anyone have any new thoughts to add, particularly in light of the errata that changed how backpacks and other container-type items function?How did the newest errata change backpacks?
Just 2 things. First is the general change to how items are now all held, worn, or stowed, and there's a little less keeping track of different containers for different kinds of items now. Second is they added the sentence “The first 2 Bulk of items in your backpack don’t count against your Bulk limits.”
Just 2 things. First is the general change to how items are now all held, worn, or stowed, and there's a little less keeping track of different containers for different kinds of items now. Second is they added the sentence “The first 2 Bulk of items in your backpack don’t count against your Bulk limits.”Does anyone have any new thoughts to add, particularly in light of the errata that changed how backpacks and other container-type items function?How did the newest errata change backpacks?
To be clear, the character's bulk limits, not the backpack's bulk limits. :P
Just 2 things. First is the general change to how items are now all held, worn, or stowed, and there's a little less keeping track of different containers for different kinds of items now. Second is they added the sentence “The first 2 Bulk of items in your backpack don’t count against your Bulk limits.”Does anyone have any new thoughts to add, particularly in light of the errata that changed how backpacks and other container-type items function?How did the newest errata change backpacks?
The "general change to how items are now all held, worn, or stowed" didn't impact backpacks as far as I know and 2 extra bulk came from the 1st errata, not the second. I can't see how the 2nd errata in any way changed things for the backpack.
Does anyone have any new thoughts to add, particularly in light of the errata that changed how backpacks and other container-type items function?
Can you think of anything that the errata changed?
Fair enough, I didn't actually check which errata it is. So, yeah, "the errata that changed how backpacks and other container-type items function" was probably talking about the first one. And yeah, I'm aware that it didn't change the backpack specifically other than the 2 bulk thing, but it changed a player's relationship with containers in general, which is what the question was about. The concept of containers as a whole.
I think it was just a general question about people's opinion on the change.
I think it was just a general question about people's opinion on the change.
Well, in a general way, it made almost every container meaningless as everything can just be nebulously worn. The exceptions, like the sack or backpack are used ONLY for their special rules [2 extra bulk or carried in one hand]: everything else is fluff. So it's perfectly fine to 'wear' a dozen halfling sling staves in your pockets [except 2 in a backpack to save 2 bulk ;)]...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it was just a general question about people's opinion on the change.Well, in a general way, it made almost every container meaningless as everything can just be nebulously worn. The exceptions, like the sack or backpack are used ONLY for their special rules [2 extra bulk or carried in one hand]: everything else is fluff. So it's perfectly fine to 'wear' a dozen halfling sling staves in your pockets [except 2 in a backpack to save 2 bulk ;)]...
It's been my experience that most players don't use the backpack solely for the 2 free bulk it provides.
I see them putting non-combat items in the backpack all the time, beyond the initial 2 bulk savings, simply because it makes conceptual sense to do so.
As an aside, have you seen some of the iconic character art over the years? Many of the Pathfinder role models are decked out in pockets, belts, pouches, harnesses, and all manner of other devices that would allow the easy carrying of a dozen halfling sling staves. :P
It's been my experience that most players don't use the backpack solely for the 2 free bulk it provides.
I see them putting non-combat items in the backpack all the time, beyond the initial 2 bulk savings, simply because it makes conceptual sense to do so.
I see it the other way: people put items on their equipment list and REALLY don't sort anything out past noting the 2 bulk savings, usually just food, water, torches, ect that you almost never have to draw quickly. It's actually worse for a player to specifically list something is in the backpack as it takes longer to draw instead of just wearing the gear: there isn't any downside to just wearing it all past the bulk savings but there is for packing it. Sacks are for gear that encumbers you so you can drop it as a single action and move normally.
As an aside, have you seen some of the iconic character art over the years? Many of the Pathfinder role models are decked out in pockets, belts, pouches, harnesses, and all manner of other devices that would allow the easy carrying of a dozen halfling sling staves. :P
I don't take the art to mean much: JUST look at the art for the repeating crossbow... That thing is just... It just doesn't work on a fundamental level. I mean you can describe it any way you wish, like calling it a hoop, a bandoleer, holster, sheath, ect instead of a pocket but it's just fluff.
I agree that the current mechanics discourage stowing most things.
I agree that the current mechanics discourage stowing most things.
You might be seeing more people that look at it in a more realistic way [well, it makes sense it'd be in the backpack] while I tend to see people that look at it pragmatically [well, lets figure out exactly 2 bulk for the backpack and wear everything else!].
Isn't the amount of stuff you can wear limited?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It mentions that the amount of tools you can wear is limited to 2 bulk I think. But there's nothing keeping you from wearing 5 different weapons, a ton potions, etc.
Isn't the amount of stuff you can wear limited?
Yep... You can only wear up to your max bulk allowance in items. That means you can wear 100 javelins if you have at least a 10 str [and can still wear 9 more L items and a non-vast amount of negligible items].
I stow things in my backpack as much as possible so I can drop it or take it off before going under water.
I stow things in my backpack as much as possible so I can drop it or take it off before going under water.
Why would you need to do that? I don't know of anything that gets affected by water and if you expect to drop items, a sack is better for that with only needing the drop action.
Why would you need to do that? I don't know of anything that gets affected by water and if you expect to drop items, a sack is better for that with only needing the drop action.I stow things in my backpack as much as possible so I can drop it or take it off before going under water.
I imagine scrolls, books, and other paper products wouldn't fair too well. Nor would things like tindertwigs or powder bombs.
I imagine scrolls, books, and other paper products wouldn't fair too well. Nor would things like tindertwigs or powder bombs.
Much like scrolls, books, and other paper products, tindertwigs or powder bombs aren't affected by a fireball, they aren't affected by water. For instance, is there anything preventing an alchemist from using quick alchemy underwater? Using a scroll underwater? Not that I know of. Now I could see a DM houseruling it, but I see nothing in the rules what water does much to anything other than fire.
Aquatic Combat
Source Core Rulebook pg. 478
You’re flat-footed unless you have a swim Speed.
You gain resistance 5 to acid and fire.
You take a –2 circumstance penalty to melee slashing or bludgeoning attacks that pass through water.
Ranged attacks that deal bludgeoning or slashing damage automatically miss if the attacker or target is underwater, and piercing ranged attacks made by an underwater creature or against an underwater target have their range increments halved.
You can’t cast fire spells or use actions with the fire trait underwater.
At the GM’s discretion, some ground-based actions might not work underwater or while floating.
Nothing about scrolls, books, and other paper products, tindertwigs or powder bombs.