Is there anything in the rules that might prevent a flying PC from picking up and flying away with another humanoid character (such as to make an escape)?
I know I'll have to deal with bulk encumbrance, but I'm wondering if there's anything akin to "flying creatures can't fly while encumbered" in the rules.
I'm working on a bird beastkin character that can transform into a large bird and am wondering if I should take the Hefty Hauler feat. :)
|
So assuming you have a flight speed of 30.
PC = Flier
Humanoid = Passenger
1 Action: Take flight with the Flier and end up in the "square" vertically above the Passenger. The Flier is 5 ft off the ground.
1 Action: Grab/Grapple the Passenger. The Passenger is on the ground.
-Flier is now Encumbered and takes a 10 ft Penalty to their Speed plus Clumsy 1. This applies to Maneuver in Flight Checks that the GM might reasonably apply for any future checks to move given that carrying lots of weight is likely not something that is normally assumed.
1 Action: The Flier now uses their Adjusted flight speed of 20 and can move horizontally at no penalty but if you want to bring the Passenger to be truly airborne you'll need to spend 10 of movement per 5 ft of height you gain.
At the end of your first turn, you could move upwards 10 ft leaving the Flier 15 ft in the air and the Passenger 10 ft in the air.
Now it gets a bit complicated because MOST creatures are taller than 5 ft and I believe most GMs would probably rule that in a 3-d scenario any creature that is taller than 5 ft also is considered to "occupy" the top vertical square of their space and their melee reach extends vertically as well which means that the Passenger would still be in melee reach of any creature of Medium or greater size, possibly even Small ones given that they are supposed to have the same reach.
The next round wouldn't be so sloppy though as you could take 1 Action to move another 10 ft vertically and the other two actions to move up to 40 ft away, although this is still a fairly glacial pace compared to what most creatures can manage on land and this still puts you in jeopardy of ranged attacks unless some type of Cover can be used such as buildings, trees, or geography.
As for hefty hauler, I don't know if it would matter too much because the BASE bulk for a creature without even factoring in the equipment they hold/wear is 6 for a Medium Creature. Unless the Passenger has an exceptionally light load, is Small (3 bulk instead), or the Flier has a +4 or greater Str Mod it's almost certainly going to always run into the encumbrance issue. This also assumes that the Flier has 0 Bulk that it carries or has to deal with during this whole ordeal too. Ant Haul would be really helpful for this though and as an 8 hour Spell for 1st level, a Scroll or Wand of this could be really useful in making this more viable too.
The character I'm working on currently has a 16 Strength and a fly speed of 75 feet. XD
|
|
Then that would put you in a much better position for doing this assuming you have suitable "appendages" to grab the (willing) Passenger securely that aren't used for the task of flying.
Assuming the form has Talons or Claws I'd probably give you a big ol' thumbs-up on this. With that kind of speed, you're looking at being up to 30 ft straight up off the ground with your Passenger in one turn, not shabby.
16 STR even with Hefty Hauler is going to really be "pushing it" in terms of rocking the encumbrance line so Ant Haul might very well be a great tool for them. This can help bypass the Clumsy 1 Condition and also the penalty to your speed so the only real loss of speed you're looking at are the normal ones you incur from flying to gain altitude or in the presence of disruptive wind.
Yeah, bulk limits are likely to be a burden with this. Most people are surprised how bulky they are when they include all their gear and their body
Unless the gear is exceptionally heavy or awkward, I just use the base 6 or 3 in my games.
I understand that not everyone plays that way though.
|
So lets have a look at actual values here:
Assumption: Str 16, Heafty Hauler
This gives us 5+3+2 = 10 bulk unencumbered
10+3+2 = 15 bulk maximum carry capacity
Take away 6 for a medium character and we are left with 4-9 bulk of items to carry.
Armor:
Light armor is 1, medium is 2 and heavy 3 to 4. A shield is an additional 1.
So 2 players in plate mail and shield mean you are stuck already as it adds up to 10. Any heavy armor will make this difficult.
Weapons - 2 handed weapons have a bulk of 2. The same is true for longbow and heavy crossbow. A two handed weapon plus a longbow times 2 makes a total of 8.
You can still move - but you are unarmored.
Healers Tools, Repair Kit, Thieve's Tools, Climbing kit all have a weight of 1 bulk. Assuming 2 of these each and you get 4 bulk from tools.
Backpack: A backpack adds an additional 2 bulk as the first two bulk in the pack don't count. But - this assumes you wear it. It certainly wouldn't count if the character you carries has a backpack. Keep this in mind when calculating encumbrance.
But why theory craft. Lets have a look at some characters. I just chose the fatastic collections of Ravingdork Characters he made. I do not apply a bonus for the backpack.
Breadcrumbs - goblin, small - 10.8 bulk to carry
Brendall - dwarf, medium - 13.6 bulk to carry
Caladriel - elf, medium - 8.7 bulk to carry
Gefglin - gnome, small - 7.9 bulk to carry
Hama - human, medium - 13.1 bulk to carry
Kelgore - dwarf, medium - 15.9 bulk to carry
Marcellana - human. medium - 16.7 bulk to carry
Mammo Higgins - dwarf, medium - 10.6 bulk to carry
Caltrop, Gutsy - halfling, small - 11.5 bulk to carry
Revin Bitter - Human, medium - 11.9 bulk to carry
2 out of 10 are above 15 bulk - so you wouldn't be able to carry these (20%) at all - without leaving items behind.
5 out of 10 are carrying below 6 bulk. Why does it matter? 15 take away 3 for a small character = 12. Halfed is 6. So you would be able to carry a small character in around half the cases.
1 out of 10 are carrying below 4.5 bulk. Why does it matter? 15 take away 6 for a medium character = 9. Halfed is 4.5. So you would be able to carry a medium character in only 10% of the examples.
Off the three characters below 5 bulk we have 2 who fight with hand-wraps and 2 with more or less no armour (none, padded).
You might disagree with some assumptions - but bulk is an issue if you really calculate it and properly use it in these circumstances.
Can be great for RP - the fighter drops his precious towershield to get hauled to safety by the beastkin etc.
Well, if we're going to get into that level of specificity, I suppose I should mention that my character is large.
|
|
Well, if we're going to get into that level of specificity, I suppose I should mention that my character is large.
Actually that would have been useful to know in the first post. Being large doubles your carrying capacity.
Having a max of 15 encumbered (Str. 16, Hefty Hauler) or 20 unencumbered (Large, Str. 16, Hefty Hauler) makes a large huge difference (pun intended) if this works in real game play or not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now it gets a bit complicated because MOST creatures are taller than 5 ft and I believe most GMs would probably rule that in a 3-d scenario any creature that is taller than 5 ft also is considered to "occupy" the top vertical square of their space and their melee reach extends vertically as well which means that the Passenger would still be in melee reach of any creature of Medium or greater size, possibly even Small ones given that they are supposed to have the same reach.
This is a pretty hot take, to me. Saying that because your head barely pokes into the 5 foot cube above you means you can reach a creature fifteen feet off the ground without a reach weapon stretches credulity. How, exactly, is a 6-foot-tall human with roughly 2-foot-long arms reaching that far up?
And on the flip side, you are saying that a creature 15 feet off the ground can make melee attacks against you?
You are also creating a mechanical difference between people who are 5'1" and 4'11", which I don't see any support for in the rules.
Now it gets a bit complicated because MOST creatures are taller than 5 ft and I believe most GMs would probably rule that in a 3-d scenario any creature that is taller than 5 ft also is considered to "occupy" the top vertical square of their space and their melee reach extends vertically as well which means that the Passenger would still be in melee reach of any creature of Medium or greater size, possibly even Small ones given that they are supposed to have the same reach.This is a pretty hot take, to me. Saying that because your head barely pokes into the 5 foot cube above you means you can reach a creature fifteen feet off the ground without a reach weapon stretches credulity. How, exactly, is a 6-foot-tall human with roughly 2-foot-long arms reaching that far up?
And on the flip side, you are saying that a creature 15 feet off the ground can make melee attacks against you?
You are also creating a mechanical difference between people who are 5'1" and 4'11", which I don't see any support for in the rules.
I think the situation just assumes the same kind of lenience that horizontal reach assumes, that characters are moving about and extending themselves. Otherwise characters with knives would have "0-reach" since they're pretty up close weapons.
As a GM, if the character is really short (hovering about 5ft) I would just let them reach on 10ft (Two squares on top of each other), but taller characters and with longer weapons (specially 2h), I would definitely reach at 15ft (3 squares stacked up, assuming movement and extending oneself to attack). It doesn't seem particularly game changing for me, since it's a very, very rare occurrence that would hardly invite my players to only make tall characters for the sake of mechanical advantages.
Also, keep in mind that the rule of "A backpack adds an additional 2 bulk as the first two bulk in the pack don't count" does no longer exist with current 2nd printing errata. Backpacks, bandoliers and the like no longer have any mechanical role.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, keep in mind that the rule of "A backpack adds an additional 2 bulk as the first two bulk in the pack don't count" does no longer exist with current 2nd printing errata. Backpacks, bandoliers and the like no longer have any mechanical role.
This just isn't true.
Backpack
Source Core Rulebook pg. 289 with errata 2.0
"A backpack holds up to 4 Bulk of items and the first 2 Bulk of these items don't count against your Bulk limits."
|
|
Also, keep in mind that the rule of "A backpack adds an additional 2 bulk as the first two bulk in the pack don't count" does no longer exist with current 2nd printing errata. Backpacks, bandoliers and the like no longer have any mechanical role.
Ninja'd as I wasn't near a PC
You mistake it likely with
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
The 2 bulk bonus got introduced (not removed) with an errata - but I think that was already the first errata.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the situation just assumes the same kind of lenience that horizontal reach assumes, that characters are moving about and extending themselves. Otherwise characters with knives would have "0-reach" since they're pretty up close weapons.
As a GM, if the character is really short (hovering about 5ft) I would just let them reach on 10ft (Two squares on top of each other), but taller characters and with longer weapons (specially 2h), I would definitely reach at 15ft (3 squares stacked up, assuming movement and extending oneself to attack). It doesn't seem particularly game changing for me, since it's a very, very rare occurrence that would hardly invite my players to only make tall characters for the sake of mechanical advantages.
You are basically saying that dwarves have a shorter vertical reach than other Medium creatures, and I can't see anything in the rules that would remotely support that. Besides, that kind of "I need to know how tall your character is down to the inch so that I know if you can reach that square or not" crunch is something 2e has tried very hard to do away with.
The rules also say that Small size characters have the same reach as Medium size characters, which also supports the idea that giving an extra square of vertical reach based on height is firmly in the houserule territory.
I think the situation just assumes the same kind of lenience that horizontal reach assumes, that characters are moving about and extending themselves. Otherwise characters with knives would have "0-reach" since they're pretty up close weapons.
As a GM, if the character is really short (hovering about 5ft) I would just let them reach on 10ft (Two squares on top of each other), but taller characters and with longer weapons (specially 2h), I would definitely reach at 15ft (3 squares stacked up, assuming movement and extending oneself to attack). It doesn't seem particularly game changing for me, since it's a very, very rare occurrence that would hardly invite my players to only make tall characters for the sake of mechanical advantages.
You are basically saying that dwarves have a shorter vertical reach than other Medium creatures, and I can't see anything in the rules that would remotely support that. Besides, that kind of "I need to know how tall your character is down to the inch so that I know if you can reach that square or not" crunch is something 2e has tried very hard to do away with.
The rules also say that Small size characters have the same reach as Medium size characters, which also supports the idea that giving an extra square of vertical reach based on height is firmly in the houserule territory.
"As a GM, I would let them". Simply because I'm deferring to common sense on this issue. It's much easier to extend your reach horizontally and your size doesn't matter that much in this situation, while trying to reach above the circumstances change and your height definitely becomes an issue (sorry short people).
So yeah, I would rule it that way and there is absolutely zero reason not to reward taller characters on this very narrow and rare situation. There's no point in bending over common sense just to force the mechanical rules. If this were a common occurrence, I would either cut back on the benefit or create a way for smaller characters to get it.
Different sizes get different benefit. That's just it,
...I think the situation just assumes the same kind of lenience that horizontal reach assumes, that characters are moving about and extending themselves. Otherwise characters with knives would have "0-reach" since they're pretty up close weapons.
As a GM, if the character is really short (hovering about 5ft) I would just let them reach on 10ft (Two squares on top of each other), but taller characters and with longer weapons (specially 2h), I would definitely reach at 15ft (3 squares stacked up, assuming movement and extending oneself to attack). It doesn't seem particularly game changing for me, since it's a very, very rare occurrence that would hardly invite my players to only make tall characters for the sake of mechanical advantages.
You are basically saying that dwarves have a shorter vertical reach than other Medium creatures, and I can't see anything in the rules that would remotely support that. Besides, that kind of "I need to know how tall your character is down to the inch so that I know if you can reach that square or not" crunch is something 2e has tried very hard to do away with.
The rules also say that Small size characters have the same reach as Medium size characters, which also supports the idea that giving an extra square of vertical reach based on height is firmly in the houserule territory.
"As a GM, I would let them". Simply because I'm deferring to common sense on this issue. It's much easier to extend your reach horizontally and your size doesn't matter that much in this situation, while trying to reach above the circumstances change and your height definitely becomes an issue (sorry short people).
So yeah, I would rule it that way and there is absolutely zero reason not to reward taller characters on this very narrow and rare situation. There's no point in bending over common sense just to force the mechanical rules. If this were a common occurrence, I would either cut back
One inch? If the character is 0.0000000001 inch taller than 5ft, it's getting the benefit. 5ft? I sleep. 5.000000001? Come here get your free reach!
Don't be heightist.
Dwarves are astonishing short-form hoppers. Didnt you know?
Curing ignorance with hypocrisy every day.
;D
Nah dude. All my rules have the "You must be at least this tall to benefit from".