I've SEEN the monk carrying multiple small folk before: there isn't a downside and a whole lot of upside.
That sounds like mounted combat. The mounted combat rules actively discourage GMs from letting humanoids mount other humanoids. As such, it's more of a house rule to allow it than to disallow or limit it.
It’s recommended you disallow humanoid creatures and most other bipeds as mounts, especially if they are PCs.
If it's not mounted combat because those carried are unconscious, then I simply don't see a problem with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's only good in powergaming way
*shrug* It's like common sense in that you'll get different depending who you ask; The party with the monk said that could move faster with a mount so what was the difference? I don't think they saw it as powergaming, just using a rule their advantage just like it's not powergaming to take advantage of flanking to get flatfooted on a foe.
Small also restricts your choice of ancestries considerably.
Does it? 1/2 the common ancestries are small and 4 of the 9 others are too so it restricts you to 46.666666% of the ancestries... Not "considerably" IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like mounted combat.
Nope, they get dropped as soon as combat starts, mounts require an action from the rider to mount while carrying requires an action from the carrier, and using mounts requires an attempt to control the mount [through Command an Animal/ Diplomacy]. Under examination, it actually has nothing in common with mounts: it's closer to riding on a boat/wagon that a mount.
If it's not mounted combat because those carried are unconscious, then I simply don't see a problem with it.
There is 0% difference between unconscious and conscious with this as neither is trying to control the carrier, they aren't spending any action on the carrier, they don't act on your initiative, don't fight as a unit, don't share a multiple attack penalty... again, if it's cool to carry off a KO'd friend, there isn't anything explicit or implicit in the rules to indicate you treat a conscious friend ANY different. Forcing mounted would be a houserule to force the bad, bad monk for using the rules as presented. :P
I'm a little confused by this particular tangent. Is the current subject that it would be outrageous for a medium creature to be able to carry multiple small creatures around for hours?
Remember, someone small is the size of a toddler. A young toddler. Who do get carried around by quite normal adults for stretches of time. A monk who is near the peak of both strength and endurance for a human, and possibly a little beyond, should be well able to carry a couple toddlers around for hours with no visible effort.
Like, i literally pick my boyfriend up and carry him around my apartment, and he's not much smaller than I am, nor am I particularly fit. The party monk carting the rest of the party around if they're all small isn't really a huge mental stretch for me.
I think everyone understands it's gamist and why it was done but it's like Rebounding Assault from the playtest. I understand why it's done but when something is SO outrageous it becomes irksome as it stretched credulity FAR beyond fantasy/comic book expectations and moves into loony toons physics. Someone picking up multiple people and walking around without being encumbered or hindered in ANY way ranks up there with throwing a bastard sword 50', shooting the sword with a tree branch shoved into a hand cannon to both deal damage to the target AND carefully returning said bastard sword into your hand.
You really find "carrying multiple people" to be a stretch in a game where you can fight a 40-foot tall giant weighing 25k pounds with a dagger?
You really find "carrying multiple people" to be a stretch in a game where you can fight a 40-foot tall giant weighing 25k pounds with a dagger?
It's generally not hard to find something implausible that Pathfinder character can just do over and over again, the most basic of which is "get stabbed with a spear, then go run a race." Since no amount of HP loss is inconvenient except for "all of your HP lost."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, i literally pick my boyfriend up and carry him around my apartment, and he's not much smaller than I am, nor am I particularly fit. The party monk carting the rest of the party around if they're all small isn't really a huge mental stretch for me.
You're looing at it from the perspective of a medium sized creature: you can have a toddler sized creature pick up 3 creatures of the same size and walk around all day without impacting your abilities in the least. So it's like you carrying around 3 of your husbands on a 12 hour hike through rugged terrain at the same speed and being as capable as you would be on the same hike without them.
You really find "carrying multiple people" to be a stretch in a game where you can fight a 40-foot tall giant weighing 25k pounds with a dagger?
From my perspective, people, myself included, are more willing to suspend our disbelief for things like combat and short term far more than it happening long term: As you've seen here, people are willing to see the "carrying multiple people" as an "adrenaline" rush. You just have to look at some of the comments here like that it's "powergaming". And I'm aware that PF2 players CAN start doing super human things as they get higher in level but the thing with this is that unlike "40-foot tall giant weighing 25k pounds with a dagger" it's something that can be done at 1st. I can tell you, seeing the looks on peoples faces of people when you see someone pick up the slowest person during a timed [the cavern is going to cave in] scenario as it turns into a nail-biter to a cake walk is enough to tell they are thinking 'what the heck'. The DM paused the game to look up the rules because "that can't be right".
I also think the "you can carry 3 people all day no trouble" isn't an issue with Bulk. Its an issue with the fact you can do most things for 16 hours straight in Pathfinder without getting tired.
It's the combination of the two: I think the abnormally low bulk of creatures was done for a specific reason [rescuing PC in dangerous situations] without taking into account that it would/could be used outside of that situation.
Like, i literally pick my boyfriend up and carry him around my apartment, and he's not much smaller than I am, nor am I particularly fit. The party monk carting the rest of the party around if they're all small isn't really a huge mental stretch for me.You're looing at it from the perspective of a medium sized creature: you can have a toddler sized creature pick up 3 creatures of the same size and walk around all day without impacting your abilities in the least. So it's like you carrying around 3 of your husbands on a 12 hour hike through rugged terrain at the same speed and being as capable as you would be on the same hike without them.
If the problem was someone the same size carrying multiple people also their size, I wish you had mentioned that earlier. It is a little hard see your point of view if you constantly change what your point of view is and what problem you have with the system.
I am curious why you're willing to suspend logic in one aspect, but the other glaringly weird parts, like that carrying capacity is based on strength in the first place, slide on by.
Strength, as it is usually defined, should not determine your carrying capacity. It might possibly be combined with Constitution; that would at least get you within the ballpark of simulationist, and honestly Dexterity should probably be a factor, but as it is using Strength is just a way to make it simple and easy to understand for the rare moments it comes up.
That's another reason you get so much pushback. None of this makes logical sense in either system using real world logic. It only does so if you accept the in-world logic. So it's kind of odd that you're willing to accept one system, but not a different system, given that neither really work.
But, actually, being able to carry someone your own size, while running, doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to do. Certainly not while marching or hiking. I have quite literally done so. Yesterday in fact.
I haven't carried 3 people my own size, but given the limitations of the system, it doesn't seem like a big deal. Something the size of a 2 year old can't arm wrestle an adult human, and win, but that is a regular occurrence here. Small characters are as strong as medium ones, and can carry the same weight. Not really too complex to understand, even if it makes no logical sense.
Nothing else does either, why expect it here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the weird parts of the system are generally just avoided by the players choosing not to do things that they find weird.
Like you *can* carry around 50 bedrolls and 100,000 decks of cards all the time, no problem. This is patently silly, but you avoid this by *not doing it.* The rules, after all, do not simulate the physics of the setting.
So yes, my gnome barbarian could carry the rest of the party overland for long journeys. But "long distance travel" is sufficiently abstracted in exploration mode that "tracking this is unnecessary."
The monk or barbarian picking up and carrying the rest of the party out of the cave sounds pretty cool actually. I'd love to have been the GM for that. Such a great use of a characters abilities and using the game's logic to solve problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1.1 million less 50 thousand is still 1.1 million, because on the scale of "a million" 50 thousand is negligible. So, having recognized that, I don't need to do the actual subtraction unless I really need an exact number. Which will rarely be the case. Of course, there are a lot of people who do not, probably cannot, recognize that on the scale of a million 50 thousand is negligible. And that's fair enough.
The game is a series of abstractions. If people find "bulk" easy to use than "pounds" (or "kilograms"), that's fine. If other people don't, that's fine too. It's a game. Not everything has to perfectly fit any one players' preferences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the problem was someone the same size carrying multiple people also their size, I wish you had mentioned that earlier. It is a little hard see your point of view if you constantly change what your point of view is and what problem you have with the system.
I said it was an issue with being able to pick up 3 other PC's and PC's come in small and medium size. I only brought up relative size when someone else did. The issue didn't change nor did my point of view.
I am curious why you're willing to suspend logic in one aspect, but the other glaringly weird parts, like that carrying capacity is based on strength in the first place, slide on by.
Everyone has different tolerances for such things and are rarely uniform for all situations. What I tolerate if a high action sifi combat is far different from a documentary on hiking. I'd be surprised if someone DIDN'T have varied levels that they are willing to suspend disbelief.
That's another reason you get so much pushback. None of this makes logical sense in either system using real world logic. It only does so if you accept the in-world logic. So it's kind of odd that you're willing to accept one system, but not a different system, given that neither really work.
It made more sense, IMO, in PF1 because you had more realistic weights that prevented easily carrying a person as dead weight.
But, actually, being able to carry someone your own size, while running, doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to do. Certainly not while marching or hiking. I have quite literally done so. Yesterday in fact.
You most likely aren't doing it with multiple people your size or doing so just as easily as you would without carrying them.
The monk or barbarian picking up and carrying the rest of the party out of the cave sounds pretty cool actually. I'd love to have been the GM for that. Such a great use of a characters abilities and using the game's logic to solve problems.
I don't disagree and it was one of the situations it bug me the least but the Dm looked like he was going to have a brain aneurism. ;)
Like you *can* carry around 50 bedrolls and 100,000 decks of cards all the time, no problem. This is patently silly, but you avoid this by *not doing it.* The rules, after all, do not simulate the physics of the setting.
The difference, from my perspective, is that you get no tangible benefit from your examples unlike giving a huge speed boost to your party.
It made more sense, IMO, in PF1 because you had more realistic weights that prevented easily carrying a person as dead weight.
For you perhaps, but you're making an objective statement here. For me, I am telling you that weight is not a great measure of carrying capacity if you have to do it for real, and Bulk really does simulate it better. Although, again, the limitations of being in a game means it still doesn't make full logical sense, and that 5-10 pounds thing I fully agree is just weird.
As Ed said, people are going to have different tastes here. I am sympathetic that it does not work for you, but stating that it does not work as well as weight does, objectively, is just flat untrue. I will go as far as to say that trying to apply weight to this system is where it stops working for me entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For you perhaps, but you're making an objective statement here.
Well, that is why I added IMO [in my opinion].
For me, I am telling you that weight is not a great measure of carrying capacity if you have to do it for real, and Bulk really does simulate it better. Although, again, the limitations of being in a game means it still doesn't make full logical sense, and that 5-10 pounds thing I fully agree is just weird.
I fully understand that some people prefer one over the other. I'll will disagree quite strenuously that bulk "does simulate it better" however.
As Ed said, people are going to have different tastes here. I am sympathetic that it does not work for you, but stating that it does not work as well as weight does, objectively, is just flat untrue.
Which is EXACTLY why I didn't: note the IMO.
I will go as far as to say that trying to apply weight to this system is where it stops working for me entirely.
And I accept and acknowledge that. Never said it's for everyone: clearly some people love it.
For you perhaps, but you're making an objective statement here.Well, that is why I added IMO [in my opinion].
As Ed said, people are going to have different tastes here. I am sympathetic that it does not work for you, but stating that it does not work as well as weight does, objectively, is just flat untrue.Which is EXACTLY why I didn't: note the IMO.
I read it as saying "IMO, this one is objectively better" not just better for you. But if the the latter is what you actually meant, then I stand corrected.
And I really don't know what to tell you as to the rest. Bulk is a lot closer to how I calculate carrying. That's just a fact, and why I say bulk is objectively closer to correctly simulating that particular metric, even with the wonkiness and straight up errors that you bring up.
Edit: To more fully explicate it, the reason it is closer is that, in reality, volume is as much if not more often the limiting factor of carrying, and bulk gives simulating both volume and weight a go. That a small character is considered the same volume as a medium character is a simulationist problem, but one that has a good enough reason (simplicity between the two most common sizes of player characters) that I'll let it slide. To the point that I'd rather a small PC and a medium PC count the same for someone dragging and carrying, even when they should be different. Edit2: misremembered that particular chart, so this is even closer to how I'd like to see it than I'd remembered. It's just how well a small/medium creature can carry that is the same, and that is even more strongly how I'd prefer to see it done because of the utility of medium and small creatures being treated to as close to the same as possible in what they can do.
The incoming rules for Tiny PCs should be interesting. I'm curious how the system will adapt to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bulk is a lot closer to how I calculate carrying. That's just a fact, and why I say bulk is objectively closer to correctly simulating it that particular metric, even with the wonkiness and straight up errors that you bring up.
That's what you just accused me of: stating an objective truth. With NO objective metric for the added unwieldiness, it's just a handwavium to explain why the number is what it is depending on what the creator 'feels' like it should count against carry which ends up with a Schrödinger's item depending on whatever DM and/or creator looks at it.
volume is as much if not more often the limiting factor of carrying, and bulk gives simulating both volume and weight a go.
Agreed: bulk, IMO, fails to simulate either volume OR weight while weight at least measures one. Bulk more or less is taking what one person 'feels' it should be compared to other items and total carry which is about as subjective as you can get.
Again, I'll agree different people will like one system or the other: it's when we get into someone trying to prove WHY their way is better that I start debating.
PS: "The incoming rules for Tiny PCs should be interesting. I'm curious how the system will adapt to that.": same. It'll be interesting seeing 10 sprites sitting on the monk. ;)
Bulk is a lot closer to how I calculate carrying. That's just a fact, and why I say bulk is objectively closer to correctly simulating it that particular metric, even with the wonkiness and straight up errors that you bring up.That's what you just accused me of: stating an objective truth. With NO objective metric for the added unwieldiness, it's just a handwavium to explain why the number is what it is depending on what the creator 'feels' like it should count against carry which ends up with a Schrödinger's item depending on whatever DM and/or creator looks at it.
I am aware, yes. And, objectively, it is. It really, truly, absolutely, and I say this as a professional, is better at doing it than weight. And, again, neither really works, but one is closer to objectively correct, and it isn't weight. That the numbers are smaller and more readily divisible, not to mention making direct use of your strength modifier rather than multiplication, in my opinion also makes bulk easier, but that is subjective and I won't argue that point too strongly. Suffice that I think it is easier for the average person.
I know you don't believe me, because of table variance. That in your opinion, it makes more sense to use weight because that is something you can easily google and at least get SOME objective fact. Unfortunately, again speaking as a professional that has had to do that, that is incorrect.
There is way too much variance, not just between items that should be the same size, but how much the same weight can be harder or easier to carry, so you're still stuck handwaving it. Or at least you should be; if you aren't that is its own oversimplification for the sake of expedience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am aware, yes. And, objectively, it is. It really, truly, absolutely, and I say this as a professional, is better at doing it than weight.
I could do the same as a professional that deals with similar things. Weight at least gives me one of the variables I need while bulk... give me none. Not seeing the objective betterness.
I know you don't believe me, because of table variance.
I didn't believe you BEFORE I factor in table variance.
That in your opinion, it makes more sense to use weight because that is something you can easily google and at least get SOME objective fact. Unfortunately, again speaking as a professional that has had to do that, that is incorrect.
And as a professional, I'd say you're incorrect in calling me incorrect. Who wins? Does being a professional mean you can't be wrong on your opinion?
There is way too much variance, not just between items that should be the same size, but how much the same weight can be harder or easier to carry, so you're still stuck handwaving it. Or at least you should be; if you aren't that is its own handwaving for the sake of expedience.
Say what now? There is too much variance in weight compared to bulk...? I... I don't even know what to say. That's like someone trying to tell me the world if flat and the sun revolve around it. My brain hurts. :P
There is way too much variance, not just between items that should be the same size, but how much the same weight can be harder or easier to carry, so you're still stuck handwaving it. Or at least you should be; if you aren't that is its own handwaving for the sake of expedience.Say what now? There is too much variance in weight compared to bulk...? I... I don't even know what to say. That's like someone trying to tell me the world if flat and the sun revolve around it. My brain hurts. :P
I mean, yeah. It's a thing. Even standard weight is not really standard, and might not even be approximately standard. Loads of Water can vary in weight, and that really makes no damn sense, but it happens.
I mean, yeah. It's a thing. Even standard weight is not really standard, and might not even be approximately standard. Loads of Water can vary in weight, and that really makes no damn sense, but it happens.There is way too much variance, not just between items that should be the same size, but how much the same weight can be harder or easier to carry, so you're still stuck handwaving it. Or at least you should be; if you aren't that is its own handwaving for the sake of expedience.Say what now? There is too much variance in weight compared to bulk...? I... I don't even know what to say. That's like someone trying to tell me the world if flat and the sun revolve around it. My brain hurts. :P
I understand that. What I'm saying if that bulk doesn't even give you an estimated dimensions or estimated weight. Weight, even estimates, give you something tangible to work off of. A blob of unknown shape or mass is what bulk is with no touchstone to work off of: it just gives you someone elses guess on how difficult it is to carry without any grounding for it that you can perceive. I can see an argument on why it's work for other as a game construct but I'm not getting it as being a better simulation for... well anything: it doesn't have any actual quantifiable ways to track dimension, mass or a identifiable modifier for unwieldiness. It track nothing but someone else thought looked good for it.
I understand that. What I'm saying if that bulk doesn't even give you an estimated dimensions or estimated weight.
Except it does. 1 bulk is 1 bulk. There's an entire list of items that are 1 bulk in the CRB. If you can imagine an item being approximately the same size/shape/density as any of them, the level of exactness that weight demands becomes irrelevant; that item is also 1 bulk. Similarly, it doesn't really matter for you if a particular bottle of water is 17oz or 15oz; it's a bottle of water.
And yes, the GM will have to estimate it, just like they'd have to estimate if 10 pounds of feathers is the same as 10 pounds of water or 10 pounds of sand to carry, and make a judgement call based on that. That was the comment where you threw up your hands in dismay; 10 pounds is just 10 pounds. For me, that tells me nothing. Almost worse than nothing, because from the outside weight does seem like a relevant metric when it really doesn't tell me what I need it to. Especially since 10 pounds is often "10 pounds".
For me, 1 TEU is 1 TEU. 1 container is 1 container, despite there being about 7 different "standard" sizes for cargo containers. Well, more like 20, but some of them are pretty rare, like 48' containers, so 7 is enough to get someone started. 1 carload is 1 carload (except when its not; but if it was that easy anyone could do my job).
What if I told you that two trains loaded from the same origin station, one headed to Los Angeles, the other headed to Long Beach, CA, will weigh vastly different (as in 25-30% difference in weight), but are ran as if they were identical in loadout because it is the number of containers that matters up until certain points (those points being about 14 million pounds for weight, 8100' for length)?
Bulk is a similar estimation tool scaled down to something humansized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how I approximate bulk for basically anything that could come up:
1) This thing, can one person carry it?
If 1=F, then approximately how many people would you need to move it?This gives a range of possible bulks, since each person can accommodate 10-14 bulk.
Is the item, even with sufficient hands, particularly unwieldy or easy to move? This will tell you which part of the range to pick.
If 1=T, then about how much does it weigh? Dividing by 5 and 10 in parallel gives a range of bulk, alternatively compare it to similar objects of known bulk.
Within this range, you pick the low end or the high end based on "how hard is this to carry."
So a sofa is about 24 bulk, and a bicycle is about 4.
Not necessarily. My kid does not try to escape my grasp. He just makes zero effort to help me carry him. And it really feels like he weights thrice as much as he does when he helps me carry him through his balance and holds.
One day you will put down your child and never pick them up again. Cherish these times.