A hard look at Carrying Capacity and ammunition

[Azothath]

In Organized Play they had vanities. You see minor buffs in social skills for things like perfume, etc.
In my Guide to PFS1 Org Play I suggest buying a heavy war trained horse by a PC's third adventure. There's really no excuse not to.

In another Org Play campaign (Not PF1) they had upkeep that PCs paid. Paying more gave a bonus to Diplomacy and social skills much like wearing Nobel Attire & Jewelry to Court functions or High Society events. This always involved a room to villa that was used by the PCs.

In past home campaigns I played in at 6th level or so you need a base of operations to craft (normally I play Wizards). Often there's your deity's statue for doubling the bonus on Consecrate (I also tend to cast Hallow as Undead are a pest that you need to deter).

I'd agree that many players in many games just focus on the super simple basics as there's no pressure game-wise to do otherwise. So it just follows the lead of the GM. GMs need to enforce consequences for poor choices otherwise there's no penalty for a 6 Cha or Str.
In my home game players with low Cha pay more for everything. Merchants simply charge them more due to poor social skills. Likewise they sell for less than half the original value.

[Senko]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Azothath wrote:

One thing the campaign glosses over is a PC's domicile. I suggest if you don't have a horse or some very heavy stuff (one character had half a bronze golem he carted about) leave it at HOME. There's no need to tote Everything about. Yes, it's very Everything is on my person centric but that doesn't always make sense. PCs often rent rooms, have a camp, or own a home/shop/building. Think of it more american wild west with a horse, wagon, and your camp.

A goblin, pugwumpi, etc don't stand much chance against a trained heavy war horse in a scuffle. The horse has better ability scores (including Wis) and HPs than most 1-2 lvl PCs.

Horses do fine on grasslands. Supplementation with oats & grains still requires roughage else the animal with get diarrhea. Supplementation is only done in stalls or environments where grazing isn't available, the animal is working hard, or you want a fat horse/cow {feedlots temper the gaminess of livestock}.

What starting GP rules do your campaigns start with? I use the following houserules for my homebrewed campaigns: 1. PCs start with 150 GP each, everyone gets a free skill rank usable only on Craft, Perform or Profession skills (just the rank, doesn't give a free Class skill), and every PC begins with a free Shack (the Room in the Downtime rules).

This gives PCs a starting base of operations (the Shack), enough GP to get mounts, carts and draft animals, or hirelings, and a skill rank they might use to create things for themselves. There shouldn't be any reason PCs in my campaigns should leave treasure in any form behind: GP, art objects, furnishings, Trophies, Goods or Magic Capital, magic items, and so on.

Do players take advantage of all of this? No. They typically forget or don't upgrade their Shacks for several levels, don't pick up mounts or hire hirelings, and never use more than a day or two of Downtime so they never make non-magical items. Instead all of the money and resources they DO have/pick up they spend on weapons, armor and...

Does that gold value work? Its about 2.5 times the starting monk value and half the starting paladin value. Different classes do have different starting costs and while getting more isn't an issue getting less could be if you need to buy a lot of expensive items.

[TxSam88]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

What starting GP rules do your campaigns start with? I use the following houserules for my homebrewed campaigns: 1. PCs start with 150 GP each, everyone gets a free skill rank usable only on Craft, Perform or Profession skills (just the rank, doesn't give a free Class skill), and every PC begins with a free Shack (the Room in the Downtime rules).

This gives PCs a starting base of operations (the Shack), enough GP to get mounts, carts and draft animals, or hirelings, and a skill rank they might use to create things for themselves. There shouldn't be any reason PCs in my campaigns should leave treasure in any form behind: GP, art objects, furnishings, Trophies, Goods or Magic Capital, magic items, and so on.

Do players take advantage of all of this? No. They typically forget or don't upgrade their Shacks for several levels, don't pick up mounts or hire hirelings, and never use more than a day or two of Downtime so they never make non-magical items. Instead all of the money and resources they DO have/pick up they spend on weapons, armor and...

In our campaigns, PC's start with starting gold per the core rules, plus any mundane equipment they want. We're not worried about things like mounts or hirelings. We're adventurers, not travelers. Our game time is spent on adventuring, the mundane "how do we get there" is glossed over and assumed you use mounts, wagons or whatever necessary.

[Derklord]

Senko wrote:

Does that gold value work? Its about 2.5 times the starting monk value and half the starting paladin value. Different classes do have different starting costs and while getting more isn't an issue getting less could be if you need to buy a lot of expensive items.

150gp is a step up for everyone. If a Paladin player would rather go to having half as much gp because they can't stand the Monk having 120gp left over whereas they only have 5gp remaining, they're a self-centered, petty, spiteful jerk, and you should boot them from the table & group immediately.

Also, while it's true that different classes have different starting costs for what they desire, they also have different things they can spend their gold on. A Paladin could use that 150gp to potentially buy a Four-Mirror armor, getting +6 AC (+1 over what they could afford otherwise). Meanwhile, the cheapest a Monk can boost their AC with is a Wand of Mage Armor costing 750 gp. If you look at it this way, the increase in starting wealth favors the Paladin, not the Monk! At least if you're using averages, and the alternative isn't forcing the Monk to start with literally just 10gp.

150gp for everyone is what PFS uses too, by the way.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Derklord, I forgot Muleback Cords. They're cheap; only 1000 GP. If everyone in the party at APL2 chipped in 250 GP ea, that 18 Str martial could push their carrying capacity from 100 Lbs Light Load limit to 306. Add in a masterwork backpack to push that to 346 Lbs. Suddenly the 10 Str witch doesn't need to worry so much about her Cauldron hex.

What it's especially valuable on is characters with dumped strength that nonetheless wear armor. 7 strength with Muleback Chords is a light load of up to 66lbs, that's enough to even wear a breastplate with room for normal stuff. In case you have e.g. a Skald with Desna's Shooting Star.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

and a half-dozen belt pouches as well

Rob Liefeld approves of this statement!

[Senko]

Derklord wrote:

Senko wrote:

Does that gold value work? Its about 2.5 times the starting monk value and half the starting paladin value. Different classes do have different starting costs and while getting more isn't an issue getting less could be if you need to buy a lot of expensive items.

150gp is a step up for everyone. If a Paladin player would rather go to having half as much gp because they can't stand the Monk having 120gp left over whereas they only have 5gp remaining, they're a self-centered, petty, spiteful jerk, and you should boot them from the table & group immediately.

Also, while it's true that different classes have different starting costs for what they desire, they also have different things they can spend their gold on. A Paladin could use that 150gp to potentially buy a Four-Mirror armor, getting +6 AC (+1 over what they could afford otherwise). Meanwhile, the cheapest a Monk can boost their AC with is a Wand of Mage Armor costing 750 gp. If you look at it this way, the increase in starting wealth favors the Paladin, not the Monk! At least if you're using averages, and the alternative isn't forcing the Monk to start with literally just 10gp.

150gp for everyone is what PFS uses too, by the way.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Derklord, I forgot Muleback Cords. They're cheap; only 1000 GP. If everyone in the party at APL2 chipped in 250 GP ea, that 18 Str martial could push their carrying capacity from 100 Lbs Light Load limit to 306. Add in a masterwork backpack to push that to 346 Lbs. Suddenly the 10 Str witch doesn't need to worry so much about her Cauldron hex.

What it's especially valuable on is characters with dumped strength that nonetheless wear armor. 7 strength with Muleback Chords is a light load of up to 66lbs, that's enough to even wear a breastplate with room for normal stuff. In case you have e.g. a Skald with Desna's Shooting Star.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

and

...

Ah I noramally use the roll so a paladin starts with 60 to 300 gp. If they roll max that armour is still leaving over 150 GP to buy weapons, mounts, tents and other items which can benefit the other party members. Its why I asked as 150 could be a step up if they roll low or a step down if they roll high. Since their average is around 200 GP it is a step down for them and other classes that have higher rolls on average. I normally play arcanists so 150 is an increase over my max roll but I generally find melee classes have more they need to buy.

[Mark Hoover 330]

TXSam88 wrote:

In our campaigns, PC's start with starting gold per the core rules, plus any mundane equipment they want. We're not worried about things like mounts or hirelings. We're adventurers, not travelers. Our game time is spent on adventuring, the mundane "how do we get there" is glossed over and assumed you use mounts, wagons or whatever necessary.

Your adventures either lead to you building a base, becoming a monarch, dominating a region? Inspired by 1e campaigns as a kid, any time I'm a player and not playing an AP I make something like this one of my goals. I don't usually get tyrannical, but I want to build a "stronghold" and "clear an area" or control it for the forces of good and such.

This is one of the many reasons I encourage players in my games to hire hirelings, loot everything not nailed down, and try to take control of adventure sites. Its also why I'm such a fan of spells like Expeditious Excavation/Construction, Wall of Stone, Move Earth or Stone Shape.

[Derklord]

Ah, sorry, I misrembered and misread. I forgot who ridiculously uneven the starting wealth is - the d10 HD classes (except Bloodrager, and also not including Barbarian) have an average of 175, so it's indeed a slight step down for them. Of course, there is no problem in increasing the starting wealth to 175gp if you don't want some classes to end up with less than what the book says, or maybe even increase it to 200gp or whatever. It's not as if having a few more mundane items will break the game.

The starting wealth also seems to be done with no rhyme or reason. Druid is treated as an unarmored caster, for example, and even a Witch has more starting wealth. Hell, why would a Barb need less gold than a Fighter? At least this isn't 3.x where a Monk's average starting wealth was 12.5gp... daily reminder that 3.x was done on drugs.

Regarding rolling, quite frankly, I consider letting the players roll for starting wealth a colossal dick move by the GM, as it has the chance to leave characters unable to equip their characters with even the bare minimum, leaving to a very miserable first session. You think it's fun playing a Monk with 10 starting GP? You think it's fun making players beg their group members for a tent because the character was literally unable to afford one?
Just like rolling ability scores and rolling HD, rolling starting wealth has literally zero upsides and should never, ever be done.

It's all fun musing about what happens when players roll (near) the maximum, but what if they roll poorly? What do you do if the Archery Barbarian rolls the minimum (30gp) and can't even afford a shortbow (35gp)? What if the campaign starts away from any villages/towns, and none of the first couple enemies are archers? Would you change the campaign rather than change rolling for starting wealth? Or for how long would you torture the player?

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Your adventures either lead to you building a base, becoming a monarch, dominating a region? Inspired by 1e campaigns as a kid, any time I'm a player and not playing an AP I make something like this one of my goals. I don't usually get tyrannical, but I want to build a "stronghold" and "clear an area" or control it for the forces of good and such.

This is one of the many reasons I encourage players in my games to hire hirelings, loot everything not nailed down, and try to take control of adventure sites. Its also why I'm such a fan of spells like Expeditious Excavation/Construction, Wall of Stone, Move Earth or Stone Shape.

It doesn't look like your players share this goal, though. Every thought they may not forget about their shack, and hiring henchmen, but rather that they simply don't like that stuff?

[Mark Hoover 330]

At the start of the megadungeon campaign and the hexcrawl campaign I'm currently running, I asked "did you all ever have characters that made it to 'name level' in D&D? Like, they built a stronghold or dug their own dungeons and stuff?" In both instances, I got positive feedback and a few of them asked if we could make PF1 games like that.

So... I created the houserules I did, giving folks shacks and skill ranks and such. I promised a free Leadership feat at level 7. I committed to using the Downtime rules for crafting, using Rooms and Teams to give bonuses, and potentially use the Kingdom Building rules if the PCs went that way.

I think in the end my current players liked the IDEA of those old games, but not the spreadsheets and accounting of how we get there. In both campaigns they have businesses in settlements but now into the upper levels the idea of having kingdoms, building castles, controlling armies or adventurer's guilds or whatever has fallen to the wayside.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

That's how my players feel too, to a large degree. We started out with the some kingdombuilding rules but we dropped that pretty quickly in favor of more narrativly driven kingdom running. Everyone chose Leadership as one of their feats, even.

Still, in my case two PCs have actual kingdoms (technically one is a principality) and the other two have organizations they run, but these are kept running in the background and used for plot hooks more than anything.

[TxSam88]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

TXSam88 wrote:

In our campaigns, PC's start with starting gold per the core rules, plus any mundane equipment they want. We're not worried about things like mounts or hirelings. We're adventurers, not travelers. Our game time is spent on adventuring, the mundane "how do we get there" is glossed over and assumed you use mounts, wagons or whatever necessary.

Your adventures either lead to you building a base, becoming a monarch, dominating a region? Inspired by 1e campaigns as a kid, any time I'm a player and not playing an AP I make something like this one of my goals. I don't usually get tyrannical, but I want to build a "stronghold" and "clear an area" or control it for the forces of good and such.

This is one of the many reasons I encourage players in my games to hire hirelings, loot everything not nailed down, and try to take control of adventure sites. Its also why I'm such a fan of spells like Expeditious Excavation/Construction, Wall of Stone, Move Earth or Stone Shape.

Nah, we did that hundred of times back in the 80's and 90's. We've moved past that and now we concentrate on Adventure Paths and what they entail, enjoying the story presented to us.

[Mightypion]

Ok, my character (Beerfiend) in wrath of the righteous is currently running:

--A mythic booze for prisoners of war smuggling route to Alyushinyrra.

--An Avernus Razorback meat for large quantities of meat trading route the Cheliax.

--An Avernus Razorback meat for prisoners of war, also to Alyushinyrra

He occassionally makes rolls to keep things hidden from the relevant authorities (Galfrey, Shamira and the Chelish Queen, Nocticula knows but is mostly amused). It generates plot rather then income, as in, improving crusade logistics, giving some extra diplomatic options and sources of information.

I do think that keeping background stuff somewhat seperate from frontline stuff is the way to go.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Coming back to the ammo tracking and carrying capacity, I was thinking about this last night: a CRB rogue, back when PF1 first came out, was intended to be the traps person right? So it'd make sense that they needed to have on them a melee weapon, ranged weapon, thieves' tools, clothing and armor at L1, along with whatever mundane gear they also needed/wanted.

The PC begins with an average of 140 GP. Also, the suggested starting stats were a 15 point buy. If we're just talking the CRB, there's no archetypes or traits, so this PC has to arrange points in such a way where they'll be an effective combatant while also having a halfway decent Stealth, Perception and Disable Device skill.

Dex and Wis are important, but there's no Core races with this combo. Just as a thought experiment I noodled around with a half-elf rogue (for the free Skill Focus but also Low Light Vision) with an 18 Dex (16 plus Racial) and a 12 Wis. Skill Focus: Perception. This leaves 3 points to divide among the other stats.

Well, if I'm not dumping any other stats this is, what... 12 Con, 11 Str? If I want to dump stats, drop Cha to 7 for 4 extra points, Str 13, Con 13?
Point is, the PC is likely going to have between a 11-13 Str. Your results may vary.

This puts the PC's light load between 38 to 50 lbs. Give 'em a shortbow and 20 arrows, an explorer's outfit, a rapier, studded leather armor and thieves' tools and we're at 34 lbs already. This PC still needs some way to deal with swarms, a way to bypass DR/Bludgeoning or DR/Slashing as well as DR/Cold Iron and, per several folks in this threat, daily rations, water, and basic "adventuring" gear.

They've got plenty of GP leftover from starting gold, 34 GP to be exact, so a flask of acid (10 GP) and a backpack (2 GP) still leaves us 22 GP but now we're at 37 lbs. If they only have an 11 Str, I can only afford 1 lb to cover DR/Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Cold Iron. I suppose buying a cold-iron dagger gets me most of the way there for 1 lb, but to carry anything more, ever, I either need a 12 Str or better or have spells/gear that allow me to do so.

I've got 18 GP left, so I could purchase a donkey, pack saddle, 50' of rope and a single saddlebag as well as a club I keep on the animal and I'm out of GP. If I've got a 12 or 13 Str, the club is on me; otherwise I change it out for the backpack and acid I suppose, if I know ahead of time I'll need bludgeoning damage.

After that, at an 11 Str, I can't have anything else on me or I'm moving slow. I don't have any outdoor survival gear so if we travel beyond 1/2 a day from some kind of civilization I risk thirst and starvation. I can't ride the animal anywhere w/out taking penalties to such a check, so travel for this character's party overland is based on my base speed.

Counting ammo and carrying capacity stinks for MAD PCs, and in particular your trap disablers. If you know your GM is going to include traps in your game and decide to build a PC to handle that, it means you need Dex and Wis to be important; you automatically have 2 stats to focus on, neither of which is Str. Even in a 20 pt buy, this means your PC starting with an 18 Dex (16 plus Racial) has 10 points left for 5 stats before stat dumping. If you in turn want at least 2 for Wis, that leaves 8 for the other 4.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Lots of races get a +2 racial bonus to Perception, so Wisdom isn't super essential.

I recommend a CRB rogue take Dex > Str > whatever.

[Mark Hoover 330]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Lots of races get a +2 racial bonus to Perception, so Wisdom isn't super essential.

I recommend a CRB rogue take Dex > Str > whatever.

Dwarves get a Perception bonus dealing with stonework, not constantly. This left me with Gnome, Halfling, Elf and Half-Elf. I didn't want to be a Small race with a reduction to Str to boot, so that leaves me with Elf and Half-Elf. I landed on Half-Elf eventually for the free Skill Focus: Perception.

I personally prioritized Wis for a +1 to both Will saves and Perception so the rogue starts with Perception +10. Base DC to spot mechanical traps is DC 20. I figure spotting traps more than 50% of the time and getting a small boost to one of my bad saves is more useful than missing half the traps and failing more Will saves.

The final rogue I envisioned was Str 11, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 10. I suppose I could dump Cha to 6 and pump Str to 14 instead. They'd likely struggle the whole game with social encounters, selling their own loot and such, but the PC would start the game with +2 melee attack, +4 ranged attack. I hate dumping stats on characters I'm going to play though tbh.

[Kasoh]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

The final rogue I envisioned was Str 11, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 10. I suppose I could dump Cha to 6 and pump Str to 14 instead. They'd likely struggle the whole game with social encounters, selling their own loot and such, but the PC would start the game with +2 melee attack, +4 ranged attack. I hate dumping stats on characters I'm going to play though tbh.

Or, give up the 18. Its not that important. On a 15 PB with a half elf you could also have 14 STR 16 DEX, 12 CON, INT 10, Wis 13, CHA 10

Table variation and all, but I don't see many games where that starting 18 is the difference between success or failure Only character I'd really consider it for is a wizard anyway.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Yeah, I've been playing 15 point buy as a player, and I've stopped prioritising 18 at level 1, and my characters are still absolutely playable.

[TxSam88]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

This PC still needs some way to deal with swarms, a way to bypass DR/Bludgeoning or DR/Slashing as well as DR/Cold Iron

um, no. he doesn't... Not all characters need to be able to have counters for all things they come across. save your weight for more important things and let other party members deal with these.

(As for DR, the rogue can deal with it just fine by dealing more damage vis sneak attack, thinking you need a specific weapon to deal with DR is a trap)

[Taja the Barbarian]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Yeah, I've been playing 15 point buy as a player, and I've stopped prioritising 18 at level 1, and my characters are still absolutely playable.

Well, in the case of a (presumably unchained) Rogue, Dexterity is kinda important to your core functionality: Initiative, attack, damage, AC, Reflex saves, Acrobatics, Stealth, Disable Device, and Slight of Hand. That's just a lot to give up for a little extra low-level carrying capacity...

In our 15pt buy Return of the Runelords campaign, I went with a 14+2 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con Bloodrager while the other two melee went 'Dump Str (and maybe Wis) to get high Dex scores for Dex to Dmg builds' and I honestly can't say my build has worked out better than theirs (I like my build and feel it's worked really well, but our swashbuckler is just sick...)

[Mightypion]

15 point buy Bloodrager is rough.
You cant dump charisma, dumping wis costs you a feat to compensate, you can kind of dump dex if you are dipping into oracle, and you cant exactly dump STR or Con, leaving only int for dumping and making you pretty useless at anything involving brains.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Well, I was specifically talking about a chained rogue using only the CRB. The thought experiment basically started from the premise of: when the game first started, how high a Str score did the traps PC need to have in order to be a decent combatant and carry all their own gear, w/out sacrificing too much of their Perception and Disable Device scores?

What gear do you consider essential? A rogue's kit contains a backpack, a bedroll, a belt pouch, caltrops, chalk (10), a flint and steel, a grappling hook, an iron pot, a mess kit, a mirror, pitons (10), rope, soap, thieves’ tools, torches (10), trail rations (5 days), and a waterskin. That's 37 lbs worth of gear and you'll need to refill your waterskin at least once a day or risk dehydration. It also costs 50 GP.

If you're heading into a dungeon or planning to traverse a bunch of ruins, stow your gear on a mount if you have one or leave it in a base camp. However, if your PC doesn't have an animal or whatever, the minimum Str required to carry this kit and wear clothing of some kind would be 12. This doesn't factor in armor which, until you get some serious money is probably going to be another 20 lbs, or weapons, or other combat gear.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

soap

What do you need the soap for?

[Derklord]

One big reason I would never make people track cheap ammunition: "Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch." CRB pg. 213
If casters don't have to track the contents of and refill their supply poach, and it always weights the same, why should martials be worse off? It's not as if a SCP was a magical item. I'm not adverse to tracking ammunition spendage during a fight (at least for characters carrying a low amount of ammunition), but I'd handwave the refilling.
Not counting costly ammunition, which is alike to casters having to track costly material components.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Coming back to the ammo tracking and carrying capacity, I was thinking about this last night: a CRB rogue, back when PF1 first came out, was intended to be the traps person right?

I don't think the game is made with the intention for there to be a "trap person". Everyone can spot magic traps (and a high wisdom character is actually better at it than a Rogue), everyone can put points into Disable Device (cross class skills were made way more accessible), and in general traps play a smaller role in campaign design.

Also, bold of you to assume that the cRogue was made for PCs!!!

Not that the Rogue not being a dedicated "trap guy" helps much for the issue at hand. I think every GM that uses 15PB (or less) is either an idiot, a jerk, or both, but in this case, I'm not sure a higher point buy helps: Someone planning to go the dex-to-damage route likely wouldn't want to increase strength with those additional points. To be honest, while I'm in favor of self-sufficient PCs that aren't made useless by one small(ish) encounter feature, I think in this case you don't need everything for the first couple levels. If you do, the campaign isn't suited for a class like Rogue that's notoriously bad at being self sufficient, anyway.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Some say he!! is other people. For Derklord, it is having to play an entire campaign with a chained rogue and a 15 pt buy. NOOOOOO!!!!

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Some say he!! is other people. For Derklord, it is having to play an entire campaign with a chained rogue and a 15 pt buy. NOOOOOO!!!!

My GMs have opted for 15 point buy in order to make preparing Adventure Paths for very experienced players just a bit easier on them, without needing to buff encounters out the wazoo.

[Waterhammer]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

What gear do you consider essential? A rogue's kit contains a backpack, a bedroll, a belt pouch, caltrops, chalk (10), a flint and steel, a grappling hook, an iron pot, a mess kit, a mirror, pitons (10), rope, soap, thieves’ tools, torches (10), trail rations (5 days), and a waterskin. That's 37 lbs worth of gear and you'll need to refill your waterskin at least once a day or risk dehydration. It also costs 50 GP.

Remove the bedroll, replace it with a winter blanket. Remove the iron pot. Carry only 3 pitons. Get a silk rope instead. Carry only 3 torches. I’d probably cut the grappling hook too. I’m too lazy to do the math, but if you are still overloaded, you can remove the caltrops, and a couple days rations, and carry as few as one torch.

If doing a long trek where you need rations, you’d carry the extra rations/water in a sack, so you could drop it if needed.

This assumes that someone in the party can cast light, or dancing lights for illumination purposes. And maybe someone else could bring the cooking pot.

[Loren Pechtel]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

What gear do you consider essential? A rogue's kit contains a backpack, a bedroll, a belt pouch, caltrops, chalk (10), a flint and steel, a grappling hook, an iron pot, a mess kit, a mirror, pitons (10), rope, soap, thieves’ tools, torches (10), trail rations (5 days), and a waterskin. That's 37 lbs worth of gear and you'll need to refill your waterskin at least once a day or risk dehydration. It also costs 50 GP.

How often do 1st level PCs go on 5 day adventures? I've seen plenty of 1st level adventures where none of the housekeeping gear was needed. And you don't need every PC in the party to have all of the gear, either. What rogue will be out of touch from the party long enough to use 10 torches?

Derklord wrote:

One big reason I would never make people track cheap ammunition: "Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch." CRB pg. 213

If casters don't have to track the contents of and refill their supply poach, and it always weights the same, why should martials be worse off? It's not as if a SCP was a magical item. I'm not adverse to tracking ammunition spendage during a fight (at least for characters carrying a low amount of ammunition), but I'd handwave the refilling.
Not counting costly ammunition, which is alike to casters having to track costly material components.

Exactly how I see it. You need to account for carrying them but under normal conditions you don't need to account for their use.

Waterhammer wrote:

Remove the bedroll, replace it with a winter blanket. Remove the iron pot. Carry only 3 pitons. Get a silk rope instead. Carry only 3 torches. I’d probably cut the grappling hook too. I’m too lazy to do the math, but if you are still overloaded, you can remove the caltrops, and a couple days rations, and carry as few as one torch.
If doing a long trek where you need rations, you’d carry the extra rations/water in a sack, so you could drop it if needed.

If you need pitons 3 probably isn't enough.

However, I do agree with the drop-it idea. If you have load problems put the heavy but non-critical items in a separate container tied on with a quick release knot. Even if you lose your bedroll, ratios and the like it's not going to be a catastrophe.

[TxSam88]

Loren Pechtel wrote:

However, I do agree with the drop-it idea. If you have load problems put the heavy but non-critical items in a separate container tied on with a quick release knot. Even if you lose your bedroll, ratios and the like it's not going to be a catastrophe.

This is why we don't use encumbrance, it really only matters in combat, and we assume you can drop your pack as a free action when combat starts. Combined with whatever way you want to carry heavy gear, bags of holding, etc. it really makes the game more of a chore to track it all than it's worth .

[Azothath]

if PCs opt to drop backpacks then a bandolier is required to keep potions (things in glass vials) and other fragile items safe.

[Senko]

Azothath wrote:

if PCs opt to drop backpacks then a bandolier is required to keep potions (things in glass vials) and other fragile items safe.

Depends on your packing I'd say wrapping them in a spare outfit could provide plenty of padding. Not to mention vials for potions to drink are probably made of fairly thick glass as they're intended for combat. At higher levels you could also get enchanted ones with the old glasssteel spell or similar.

[Loren Pechtel]

TxSam88 wrote:

Loren Pechtel wrote:

However, I do agree with the drop-it idea. If you have load problems put the heavy but non-critical items in a separate container tied on with a quick release knot. Even if you lose your bedroll, ratios and the like it's not going to be a catastrophe.

This is why we don't use encumbrance, it really only matters in combat, and we assume you can drop your pack as a free action when combat starts. Combined with whatever way you want to carry heavy gear, bags of holding, etc. it really makes the game more of a chore to track it all than it's worth .

If you have to run away you lose whatever you dropped.

[DeathlessOne]

Not to mention that if the items are no longer in your possession, they no longer have the safety of your saving throws to rely on if they get caught in an explosion.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Loren Pechtel wrote:

How often do 1st level PCs go on 5 day adventures? I've seen plenty of 1st level adventures where none of the housekeeping gear was needed. And you don't need every PC in the party to have all of the gear, either. What rogue will be out of touch from the party long enough to use 10 torches?

This is what I've been trying to get a consensus on since I started this thread. I know Kingmaker sees the PCs out in the wilderness; Mummy's Mask apparently has a prolonged desert travel sequence; Reign of Winter sees the party traveling between villages through Irrisen. Aside from these, how many APs actually see the party traveling so far afield that you need tons of rations, grooming and hygiene gear, etc?

As for needing torches... an Ioun Torch costs 75 GP. This item might not make it into your starting gear, but after one adventure it should become affordable. Barring GM fiat, the cost is so low that most settlements as small as a village might have one for sale. This is on top of so many classes having access to 0 level spells and Light or Dancing Lights being so accessible to those classes.

Loren Pechtel wrote:

If you have to run away you lose whatever you dropped.

This is anecdotal, but running away has been rare at my tables. Seriously, the PCs need to be so outmatched for them to flee its ridiculous. In one campaign the PCs had only one martial of 3 that could overcome a demon's DR, the creature itself was APL +2 and with the exception of the swamp druid all the PCs were trudging through Swamp terrain w/all the speed of a giant snail and they kept slogging.

In my megadungeon game when the PCs were still only L3 they stumbled into a large, open area fed by 3 adjoining rough-hewn caverns. In the open they fought a few kobold guards and were going to keep surging forward until they realized that the caverns beyond were the lair of hundreds more of the creatures. The paladin player was still like "they're only kobolds, we can take 'em" but they finally retreated after a few rounds. Those same PCs hunted an adult black dragon into its lair and rather than back out, regroup, they charged the creature and 2 of the PCs died before they were able to secure victory.

[Mightypion]

Interesting, in wotr we have retreated twice so far, both vs optional encounters.

There was a prolonged battle with a brine dragon, that we technically tried to run away from, but then it put up a wall of force to stop us from running, so we turned and smashed it because it rolled very badly on mirror image rolls.

[TxSam88]

Azothath wrote:

if PCs opt to drop backpacks then a bandolier is required to keep potions (things in glass vials) and other fragile items safe.

who says potions can't be in metal flasks? or leather water skins?

[TxSam88]

Loren Pechtel wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Loren Pechtel wrote:

However, I do agree with the drop-it idea. If you have load problems put the heavy but non-critical items in a separate container tied on with a quick release knot. Even if you lose your bedroll, ratios and the like it's not going to be a catastrophe.

This is why we don't use encumbrance, it really only matters in combat, and we assume you can drop your pack as a free action when combat starts. Combined with whatever way you want to carry heavy gear, bags of holding, etc. it really makes the game more of a chore to track it all than it's worth .

If you have to run away you lose whatever you dropped.

I don't think in all my years of playing that I have ever seen the entire party run away....

[Senko]

TxSam88 wrote:

Loren Pechtel wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Loren Pechtel wrote:

However, I do agree with the drop-it idea. If you have load problems put the heavy but non-critical items in a separate container tied on with a quick release knot. Even if you lose your bedroll, ratios and the like it's not going to be a catastrophe.

This is why we don't use encumbrance, it really only matters in combat, and we assume you can drop your pack as a free action when combat starts. Combined with whatever way you want to carry heavy gear, bags of holding, etc. it really makes the game more of a chore to track it all than it's worth .

If you have to run away you lose whatever you dropped.

I don't think in all my years of playing that I have ever seen the entire party run away....

This is because of the tale of Brave Sir Robin..

[Azothath]

TxSam88 wrote:

Azothath wrote:

if PCs opt to drop backpacks then a bandolier is required to keep potions (things in glass vials) and other fragile items safe.

who says potions can't be in metal flasks? or leather water skins?

RAW

There are flask and vial options. Weapon and holy symbol compartments hold flasks or vials, not the contents. Same for Spring-loaded Wrist Sheaths.

I've only seen a few over the years on Alchemists and then it's a temporary use(funnel). I HAVE seen various RPG products try to encourage iron/cold iron flasks etc but given the generic nature of PF nobody uses them nor did they in the other systems. There's also the fact that potions are generally low cost spell storage for non-casters. Most PCs being, ummm.. frugal, aren't going to spend 5gp on something they can't attack with or get a bonus from.

There will be GM variance but I don't think it's fair to rely on or promote it unless it is a common assumption. Likely most GMs would rule a magical potion/poison spoils if you put it in a leather waterskin. Holy water is rather touchy by nature and needs special flasks/weapons (and you still wonder HOW they get all that silver into a little flask). The same can be said for Alchemist's Fire, Acid, Alkali just based on common experience. See also Poisoner's Gloves which I like but for potions the potion rules basically ruin the gloves for use on foes(otherwise Gaseous Form is an excellent debuff, up the the target's action given the potion rules). Same goes for the Syringe Spear etc. Potions just aren't efficient when used on foes. Alchemical items and poisons are a different story. Sipping Jacket is another nice item. Notice the 24hr time limit.

[TxSam88]

Azothath wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Azothath wrote:

if PCs opt to drop backpacks then a bandolier is required to keep potions (things in glass vials) and other fragile items safe.

who says potions can't be in metal flasks? or leather water skins?

RAW

There are flask and vial options. Weapon and holy symbol compartments hold flasks or vials, not the contents. Same for Spring-loaded Wrist Sheaths.

I've only seen a few over the years on Alchemists and then it's a temporary use(funnel). I HAVE seen various RPG products try to encourage iron/cold iron flasks etc but given the generic nature of PF nobody uses them nor did they in the other systems. There's also the fact that potions are generally low cost spell storage for non-casters. Most PCs being, ummm.. frugal, aren't going to spend 5gp on something they can't attack with or get a bonus from.

There will be GM variance but I don't think it's fair to rely on or promote it unless it is a common assumption. Likely most GMs would rule a magical potion/poison spoils if you put it in a leather waterskin. Holy water is rather touchy by nature and needs special flasks/weapons (and you still wonder HOW they get all that silver into a little flask). The same can be said for Alchemist's Fire, Acid, Alkali just based on common experience. See also Poisoner's Gloves which I like but for potions the potion rules basically ruin the gloves for use on foes(otherwise Gaseous Form is an excellent debuff, up the the target's action given the potion rules). Same goes for the Syringe Spear etc. Potions just aren't efficient when used on foes. Alchemical items and poisons are a...

So AON says vials can be steel, which was my point.