Carrying items (after errata)

[OrochiFuror]

Cosmetics still have value though, look at modern video games, heh.

[graystone]

OrochiFuror wrote:

Cosmetics still have value though, look at modern video games, heh.

If you can convince someone to buy your old belt pouch, more power to you. ;)

[Rysky]

OrochiFuror wrote:

Cosmetics still have value though, look at modern video games, heh.

Cosmetics you and others can see and will be seeing for the majority of your playtime.

A pocket on your clothing in P2 is not a Cosmetic, it's a mechanic. One that doesn't exist anymore. It's flavor text now.

[OrochiFuror]

graystone wrote:

If you can convince someone to buy your old belt pouch, more power to you. ;)

This is why I like the idea of a tackle harness, no extra parts to separate and worry about value and is a nice simple solution that makes sense.

Pockets have always been flavor, but now things that cost materials to make and technically give a mechanical benefit are flavor text and that, to me, is silly.
Just saying if it NEEDED to be changed, it could have been done better.

[Nefreet]

With this errata in mind, someone should totally make a new alchemist and name them George de Mestral.

[Qaianna]

Looking over this, I think the general idea is to cut down on arguments over whether someone bought 'enough' storage on them. And to maybe take it easier on players who don't think in 'action economy' terms and just want to be able to get things done. As well as avoiding the slowdown of 'Where are you keeping those potions/bombs/daggers?'.

I know each table will have variation over how much is too much, but between this and the Bulk concept it looks like the main goal is to avoid dithering over minutia. In 1E our group had to do to avoid enough pounds to go over on encumbrance; the only one who didn't care about going over light was the barbarian (who was in medium armour too).

Is it ultrarealistic? No. Is it playable? I'd say yes.

[theservantsllcleanitup]

For the people upset about who don't like this change. Does your character walk around barefoot? There is no footwear listed in the book. So if your character has shoes or boots or clogs, or whatever, I'm just wondering... how?

Maybe you've never thought about that due to the fact that it literally doesn't matter at all, and you just assumed without having to even consider it for a second that Golarion has shoes in it because obviously it does, and it's not worth the ink it would be printed with to delve into the economics of footwear. And I'm willing to bet that it hasn't been a problem in any conceivable way.

This is the same exact thing. If you want rough leather boots that have been through hell and back, great. If you want roman style sandals, alright, sounds gladiator-y. If you want pouches and bandos, you just... have them. You are a hero fighting demons and undead, not a fashion model. If you want to play an economy simulator, idk go cook one up in gurps or something, but this ain't it, chief.

[graystone]

theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

For the people upset about this change.

Did someone say they where upset?

theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

There is no footwear listed in the book. So if your character has shoes or boots or clogs, or whatever, I'm just wondering... how?

There is footwear. It's magic footwear, but it's there. ;)

[Levi]

AS long as my players aren't doing something silly like the beginning of Shad's video, or a bandolier of goblin alchemists, I'm not too worried about where they put things.

Other than the intelligent sunblade that's afraid of the dark (she REALLY doesn't like being put in dimensional pockets)it's only come up a few times and we've been playing the same campaign since 2e went live.

[OrochiFuror]

Well with this as the base rule you are guided toward not having table variance over it, that might be an issue for some people.
Of course it's playable, as I said I think the rule change does nothing for most people, someone asked why I thought it was a bit silly and immersion breaking. Having something that has mechanical value be hand waved as no value in the game is why.
I guess it's a good thing my lizardfolk and Kobold characters all go around barefoot anyway, not that foot wear give you any mechanical advantages like sacks and bandoliers do.
So in summery, a rule that only fixes things for what I imagine is a small number of people while taking a small hit to immersion, so could have been done better.

[CrystalSeas]

OrochiFuror wrote:

Well with this as the base rule you are guided toward not having table variance over it, that might be an issue for some people.

Of course it's playable, as I said I think the rule change does nothing for most people, someone asked why I thought it was a bit silly and immersion breaking. Having something that has mechanical value be hand waved as no value in the game is why.
I guess it's a good thing my lizardfolk and Kobold characters all go around barefoot anyway, not that foot wear give you any mechanical advantages like sacks and bandoliers do.
So in summery, a rule that only fixes things for what I imagine is a small number of people while taking a small hit to immersion, so could have been done better.

For me, this change actually improves immersion.

As someone upthread said "now I can have a quiver for my arrows".

Removing the minutia of exactly which containers were available gives me much more imaginative range to outfit my character. Just as I can describe appropriate footwear (because the game doesn't define it), I can now also describe appropriate containers to fit my character.

[theservantsllcleanitup]

The thing that had value is not being handwaved as not having value, it's just that that value has been abstracted away from those specific table entries. The value of a bandolier still very much exists in the new system, you just don't need to buy a specific item called a bandolier to access it. You are assumed to have access to the most mundane of organizational tools, just like you are assumed to have the benefit of generic footwear.

Ever walk barefoot on gravel? It's difficult terrain. And yet nobody would argue that the game needs to model walking around barefoot.

[Megistone]

A lot of things are abstracted just like basic footwear. Does your vest have pockets? Or sleeves? Do you wear a scarf? Can you have a comb for your hair, even if it's not listed in the equipment list?
I remember a long discussion on this forum about how many bandoliers you could actually wear: it's not like these details were precisely defined, before errata. What's getting abstracted is just the price of a few low-cost items that you don't have to explicitly buy anymore; the GM is still there to catch anything that goes over the 'credibility threshold' of their table.

[WatersLethe]

Also, if the party wanted to collect up leather scraps and boots and clothes from their fallen foes, I would lump it together and let them sell it for a reasonable amount. Just like they could look for pretty river rocks to sell.

Don't need to clutter up books with tiny value items when the GM can totally cover it.

[graystone]

WatersLethe wrote:

Also, if the party wanted to collect up leather scraps and boots and clothes from their fallen foes, I would lump it together and let them sell it for a reasonable amount.

I think it's all just fall under Clothing, with the 'extra's' like sandals and sashes subsumed into that item for value.

[Gisher]

Ascalaphus wrote:

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? ....

My OCD says YES!!!

[Spamotron]

Just add up the old containers. The Adventurer's kit came with three belt pouches that could hold 4 L each. Most people would agree that two bandoliers 1 on each shoulder are reasonable that's 8 L each. Wearing a sword and dagger in two sheathes is 1 B 1 L. Finally, either a shield or a backup ranged weapon worn on the back is 1 B. Total it all up and that's 4B 9L, 5 B if they have some arrows/bolts in a quantum quiver.

Add in armor and plenty of characters could plausibly be wearing almost their entire bulk limit under the old system anyway.

[arlic]

Personally, I think there should be 4 carrying methods.
Held(carried): as stated in PFCBR--weapons or items in 1 or both hands--full sac/bag, chests, unconscious ally slung over a shoulder, etc.
Worn: clothing, armor, and adventuring kit/backpack, and a number of magic items are actually worn--or added to worn items.
Ready: the 'ready' state would replace the current rule for worn; it's all those items in a belt, quiver, bandolier, sheath, pouch, or pocket.
Stowed: items put in bags, sacs, backpacks, chests, etc. as stated in the PFCRB
shields would be either held or stowed if slung over a creature's back.
Retrieving a stowed item should take 3 interact actions or even a full round to retrieve items.

Also, bulk of coins should be 100/1 vice 1,000/1. A sac of $100 in quarters weighs in at 5 lbs; equal to 2 bulk (basing that on a longsword weighing ~2.5lbs (1 bulk))