Hi everyone.
So after the new errata you define all your carried items in one of three categories: held, worn, and stowed
Is there something preventing a character from declaring every item as worn? (aside from DM intervention).
The only limit seems to be the max. 2 Bulk on worn tools, and I assume every character will stow some items inside their backpack to benefit from the "2 free bulk".
Is this how it is supposed to work from now on?
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There has to be a point where having scads of worn items becomes ridiculous.
Like if you have a polearm, and you want it to be "worn". Or a ten-foot pole. Or a ladder.
But it would appear that there is no RAW limitation, apart from tool sets.
I mean, the problem comes when you take things to the extreme, like wearing 60 short swords. Under most cases, will you be carrying dozens of L items? On one hand, you may not have much of a reason to, but on the other, you don't have much reason *not* to.
The inventory rules work fine when used as intended but can get weird when taken to their full extent. This was true before this errata so not much has changed.
There has to be a point where having scads of worn items becomes ridiculous.
Like if you have a polearm, and you want it to be "worn". Or a ten-foot pole. Or a ladder.
But it would appear that there is no RAW limitation, apart from tool sets.
I mean, the problem comes when you take things to the extreme, like wearing 60 short swords. Under most cases, will you be carrying dozens of L items? On one hand, you may not have much of a reason to, but on the other, you don't have much reason *not* to.
The inventory rules work fine when used as intended but can get weird when taken to their full extent. This was true before this errata so not much has changed.
...If you have a high Strength score, you usually don’t need to worry about Bulk unless you’re carrying numerous substantial items.
...
Bulk Values
Items can have a number to indicate their Bulk value, or they can be light (indicated by an L) or negligible (indicated by a —) for the purpose of determining Bulk. For instance, full plate armor is 4 Bulk, a longsword is 1 Bulk, a dagger or scroll is light, and a piece of chalk is negligible. Ten light items count as 1 Bulk, and you round down fractions (so 9 light items count as 0 Bulk, and 11
light items count as 1 Bulk). Items of negligible Bulk don’t count toward Bulk unless you try to carry vast numbers of them, as determined by the GM.Estimating an Item’s Bulk
As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk, an item weighing less than a few ounces is negligible, and anything in between is light. Particularly awkward or unwieldy items might have higher Bulk values. For example, a 10-foot pole isn’t heavy, but its length makes it difficult for you to move while you have one on your person, so its Bulk is 1. Items made for larger or smaller creatures have greater or lesser Bulk, as described on page 295.
I would agree that it becomes ridiculous after a point. As a GM I really only pay attention to Bulk when it seems it is being neglected or abused. If it doesn't make sense for the character to be able to "wear" a 10 foot ladder, 2 boulders and a small child, I probably will veto that yesterday.
What I actually appreciate is the difference in held vs worn vs stowed. It's now clear that your appendages (typically 2) hold items and manipulate them, worn is "accessible" but still stored in something or on something, and stowed actually means tucked away. I think it clears it up quite nicely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, christmas tree characters are standard, sacks serve no point except for handing off large amounts of items with one action and backpacks might as well just read "functions like a mini bag of holding that stores 2 bulk"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of my favorite posts of the errata discussion so far points out that wearing a ton of items is actually perfectly in line with the official Wayne Reynolds character art for the system. :3
Seriously, go look at the general design of iconics, straps and pouches and sheathes and bandoliers are everywhere. And, honestly, I like the extra access. Items that are too big to make a ton of sense at L bulk but too small to be serviceable at 1 bulk have always been a verisimilitude problem if abused, but this errata doesn't really change that. And, I mean, it's not like you can reasonably stuff the super bulky items like polearms and ladders in a backpack, anyway, it makes more sense for them to be worn in a sheath or harness of some kind. It makes more sense to wear 60 shortswords in 60 sheaths like a very dangerous coat than to pile them into a backpack. Backpacks are just not super big and are better for awkwardly shaped but compact things or heavy things or both.
And, overall, "extant but not a big deal or difficult to track" is probably a good place to leave the bulk system, given that the point of it in the first place was ease of use to make equipment load actually relevant. Backpacks being mini-Bags of Holding (when Bags of Holding themselves are pretty early magic items that help even more if desired), bulk being adjusted so it's not mega punitive to certain low-Strength classes, more access to worn items so there's less of a chance they're unavailable in a fight — all good errata changes, in my book. I won't hate it if more worn item limits are instituted, but I honestly think the current paradigm's perfectly fine for what it set out to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you really want to play a game where it's a Big Thing whether your car keys are in your left jacket pocket or right pants pocket?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need a ladder or a 10-foot pole in encounter mode, you do need weapons and potions. Basically, anything you might need in an encounter is worn, and anything you would need in exploration is stowed. When you're counting time in 10 minute increments, taking a round to pull a tool out from your bag of holding isn't a big deal.
Having many weapons is fine, Fighters are known for having a wide arsenal of weapons available for any situation that arises. People just need to keep in mind what the bulk of their "worn" items are, and not just think because they have a bag of holding their maximum bulk is increased by that much.
You don't need a ladder or a 10-foot pole in encounter mode, you do need weapons and potions. Basically, anything you might need in an encounter is worn, and anything you would need in exploration is stowed.
The point I was trying to make earlier was that a ladder, a 10-foot pole, a halberd or a longspear cannot be worn or stowed on a human-sized creature.
Those things need to either be in your hands, or over in the corner, unattended. Or stowed on your wagon, on your ship, in your closet at the inn. Or carried in the hands of your hireling "Polebearer".
Sadly, the rules make no mention of the limits to wearing or stowing oversized items. So you can put a guisarme in your pocket, if you want.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I'm not "sad" about that. It's a degree of fussing about gear I don't want.
The Held/Worn/Stowed system keeps it simple. You make tradeoffs between how much you can carry and how fast you can use it.
Ladders have Bulk 3. Most polearms have Bulk 2. Carrying one imposes enough of a cost for my taste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is drastically changed expectations.
Personally I am not sure why they didn't just simplify it down to 5+str and 10+str as what you can carry with backpacks and sacks be abstracted as well.
As is they have reduced the verisimilitude gains so far it is extra book keeping with no roleplay value. Just make everything take an action to withdraw, three if it is in a bag of holding (bake it into the item) and be done, simple for the crowd who wants simple and everyone who wants more (including myself) can move on.
As for Zapp's argument of it is a game first, sure... and that is why some folks like the hard decisions that had to be made with more restricted itemisation.
I have had two scenarios in my current game where people retreated to a safer location to dig out items that would help them and that is a narrative that simply won't happen with characters being able to carry 5-9 bulk worth of useful items at all times and within arms reach.
Not for everyone but after two years with a different system, and one that I was quite accepting of compromise wise. I am sad to see it go.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I geared up a new PC and noticed that Bandoliers, Belt Pouches and Sheathes were removed from the Core Rulebook.
Saved me 1.5 silver!
But I think simplifying everything into held/worn/stowed and turning those "containers" into fluff descriptions is one of the greatest decisions to come out of this update.
It also means my characters can finally have quivers! Up until now I've been reflavoring a Belt Pouch to do the job ^_^
Actually, if you watch that video, you see that "holstering" your polearm is really problematical, almost as tough as holstering a bow. And the polearms he's using have relatively short hafts. A proper halberd, guisarme or longspear is going to be a lot worse than that.
But hey, we're playing a game, and one of the stated goals of PF2's encumbrance system is to reduce bookkeeping and accountancy-level details, especially now that the errata has drawn a definitive line through various containers, and stopped at three catergories: carried, worn and stowed.
What I would've liked to see is some kind of hard limit on worn equipment, not just 2 bulk of toolkits, but x bulk of worn equipment. Hard to quantify, and hard to quantify the penalty that might inflict on your combat capabilities. But since one of the stated goals was to reduce the accountancy burden, I'm sure we'll just roll with the carried, worn and stowed categories, and trust to individual players to draw some kind of line at how ridiculously they want to push the limits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ha, ha.
The point being, you shouldn't be able to claim all your gear is worn and not stowed. Wayne Reynolds artwork aside, it makes sense to put most of your gear in a backpack or other containers (stowed). But post-errata, you're better off claiming everything is just worn, except for the 2 bulk of stuff you put in your backpack to take advantage of the bulk reduction clause.
But I get it. It's an abstraction intended to avoid the accountancy load of tracking containers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is where the GM is supposed to step in and say "I don't care if you have Strength 20 and Hefty Hauler, you're not wearing a halberd, a maul, a longbow, and a staff of fire all at once, and especially not combined with 20 potions."Ha, ha.
The point being, you shouldn't be able to claim all your gear is worn and not stowed. Wayne Reynolds artwork aside, it makes sense to put most of your gear in a backpack or other containers (stowed). But post-errata, you're better off claiming everything is just worn, except for the 2 bulk of stuff you put in your backpack to take advantage of the bulk reduction clause.
But I get it. It's an abstraction intended to avoid the accountancy load of tracking containers.
LOL As it stands, you can have that character wear 4 halflings and be ready to draw them with a single action... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagining that is hilarious Graystone.
Well, when you have a barbarian with Friendly Toss, you need to carry some ammunition. ;)
LOL As it stands, you can have that character wear 4 halflings and be ready to draw them with a single action... :PI think this is where the GM is supposed to step in and say "I don't care if you have Strength 20 and Hefty Hauler, you're not wearing a halberd, a maul, a longbow, and a staff of fire all at once, and especially not combined with 20 potions."Ha, ha.
The point being, you shouldn't be able to claim all your gear is worn and not stowed. Wayne Reynolds artwork aside, it makes sense to put most of your gear in a backpack or other containers (stowed). But post-errata, you're better off claiming everything is just worn, except for the 2 bulk of stuff you put in your backpack to take advantage of the bulk reduction clause.
But I get it. It's an abstraction intended to avoid the accountancy load of tracking containers.
Is this before or after the halflings are also wearing creatures ready to be tossed? I mean, during the Space Race, we had multiple stage rocket launches. What's wrong with multiple stage people-flinging?
Is this before or after the halflings are also wearing creatures ready to be tossed? I mean, during the Space Race, we had multiple stage rocket launches. What's wrong with multiple stage people-flinging?The Fastball Super-Special!
Ok, you get a free thumbs up for the x-men colossus and wolverine tag-team move reference. ;)
Is this before or after the halflings are also wearing creatures ready to be tossed? I mean, during the Space Race, we had multiple stage rocket launches. What's wrong with multiple stage people-flinging?The Fastball Super-Special!
Well, canonically Squirrel Girl has the Fuzzball Special (throw a human-intelligent squirrel). She's probably not much bigger than Wolverine. So this could be done if the writers ever wanted it. Just in case that barbarian's halfling ammo has druid levels.
Squirrel Girl has the Fuzzball Special
A trick from an former member of the Great Lakes Avengers! Though you can't make her in PF2 since she has a utility belt comprising multiple pouches known as her "nut sacks" and items like utility belts don't exist anymore. That and Tippy is way more useful than a familiar. ;)
They don't exist mechanically. They exist in the world. Take however many you want! The rule books are far from an exhaustive list of everything that exists in golarion
I guess it's a good thing that now there is an actual reason for the missing quivers! Now it's in the rules that you can just tuck swords, arrows and 10' poles in your pockets. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It reminds me of when blizzard standardized pet stats for hunters in world of Warcraft. lots of people were up in arms because all of the pets became statistically the same, but after that change you did actually see a lot more variance in the types of pets people used because you couldn't optimize anymore, so it became about the aesthetics of the pet.
After all the trouble I went to find and capture a rare animal that only spawn in out of the way places on a long timetable, it didn't' seem out of place to expect it to be better than something I tripped over 10' out of town nd tamed right of the bat. :P
I don't really see what changed. You went from buying containers to organize your things to now all your gear just mag-locks to you. Realistically it changes nothing, but the idea all your gear now just sticks to you is a bit immersion breaking in how silly it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't you still have pouches and bandoliers on you, even if you didn't explicitly buy them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't you still have pouches and bandoliers on you, even if you didn't explicitly buy them?
So you're asking why a character can't have items they didn't buy? Isn't that how buying things works?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't you still have pouches and bandoliers on you, even if you didn't explicitly buy them?So you're asking why a character can't have items they didn't buy? Isn't that how buying things works?
it could just be assumed (reasonably based on the artwork) that pouches and straps and belts are just part and parcel with clothing
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ha, ha.
I think this is where the GM is supposed to step in and say "I don't care if you have Strength 20 and Hefty Hauler, you're not wearing a halberd, a maul, a longbow, and a staff of fire all at once, and especially not combined with 20 potions."
ultimately it's up to the table to figure out where the "ridiculous" line is
the idea all your gear now just sticks to you is a bit immersion breaking in how silly it is.
I was confused when I first read Wheldrake's reply, but decided not to respond because they were obviously inferring tone in my post when there was none.
But I'm legitimately confused by the consensus here.
What is "funny", "ridiculous", "silly", etc. about capping your carried equipment at StrMod+10? Most people won't even attempt StrMod+5 for fear of being encumbered.
Worn items are tucked into pockets, belt pouches, bandoliers, weapon sheaths, and so forth, and they can be retrieved and returned relatively quickly
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it could just be assumed (reasonably based on the artwork) that pouches and straps and belts are just part and parcel with clothingWhy can't you still have pouches and bandoliers on you, even if you didn't explicitly buy them?So you're asking why a character can't have items they didn't buy? Isn't that how buying things works?
It's actually explained that way in the errata:
Worn items are tucked into pockets, belt pouches, bandoliers, weapon sheaths, and so forth, and they can be retrieved and returned relatively quickly.
Damn 30 seconds too slow ;)
it could just be assumed (reasonably based on the artwork) that pouches and straps and belts are just part and parcel with clothingWhy can't you still have pouches and bandoliers on you, even if you didn't explicitly buy them?So you're asking why a character can't have items they didn't buy? Isn't that how buying things works?
LOL Well the artwork was made before so I can't see how that impacts much. Would PF1 artwork impact PF2 rules for instance?
As to the errata: "This change also removes several sorts of "container" items from the tables on 286-292, as they are no longer tracked separately from the items they store. These are: bandolier, belt pouch, satchel, scroll case, sheath, vial." As such, these items might exist but you no longer list then on your sheet.
In fact, Fine Clothing can be assumed to NOT have such things because: "Fine clothing reduces that limit to light Bulk worth of tools."
Does it say in adventuring clothes, and perhaps every armor, that they come with as many of those containers as you could want? Also they can't be detachable because then you might get it in your head to sell ones you don't need.
Otherwise these things have no value, so no one would ever make them, thus they don't actually exist in any ecconomy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They functionally have a value of zero. Even when they were listed, they only ranged in price from 1cp to 1sp. Infinitely more expensive than a staff or club.
I imagine it's like pockets on your jacket. They're just built into the price. When you purchase a sword, the cost of the sheath is included. Arrows come in their own quiver.
The Designers have expressed before that Pathfinder isn't a game of economics. The minutiae of peasants making a living selling belt pouches is something adventurers just don't concern themselves with.
There's a big difference in low value and no value. No matter how much it might not matter to players, it matters to world building.
As I said before, it basically changes nothing to most players, before you would spend a few gold on containers and say you have enough room for everything, now you just have room. It takes away from people who are hyper focused on inventory management, and takes away some from world immersion.
Adding a line on containers saying once you have a few of them you can assume to have most things worn that are under standard weapon bulk, or maybe add an adventuring tack item that fulfills the same roll, being a bunch of straps, containers and sheathes. Might have been more elegant that way, similar to class kits, one item to fulfill a need for simplicity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it say in adventuring clothes, and perhaps every armor, that they come with as many of those containers as you could want?
You can wear your full bulk carry [and 2 of it tools] in any clothes but fine clothes so you can infer it's got plenty of pockets and such in them.
Otherwise these things have no value, so no one would ever make them, thus they don't actually exist in any ecconomy.
Not only no value but no bulk values: they only exist for looks alone.