| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The correction here is that those are issues with how Pathfinder wrote Bulk to be ambigious and probably largely miscommunicated or even ill thought out like in many other cases where old rules text still linger, Not how bulk/slots and similar capacity works as a games concept which is what I understood the discussion as being about.Though I do not understand what you mean with "magical resizing", Its rounding. We both agree that half would've been better than 1/10th but I do believe theres reason for 1/10... mostly alchemist and just holding alot of small items in general.
It's magical resizing when X = 2Y when one character holds them, and X = 20Y when another character holds them. That's not how physical objects work. Longswords somehow magically shrink to take up a fraction of the space they used to while longbows don't because reasons.
That's not about rounding at all, though the bulk rounding rules are not intuitive either.
The most absurd example I've seen is much more contrived, but it's actually on topic for how this thread started: a human is 6 bulk and a halfing is 3 bulk. So if you try to carry them, 1 human = 2 halflings. Reasonable enough.
Get a gargantuan creature to pick them up and 1 human = 60 halflings. I don't know if they're compressing the halflings into a human size box or if they're being carried on a keychain or what, but makes no sense whatsoever.
Also do you need to recalculate the bulk of their gear since most of it will now be L since a bigger creature is carrying it, or does armor take up more bulk if you're carrying a halfling that is carrying the armor vs if you're carrying the halfling and armor separately?
The whole table 6-19 on how objects are worth different amounts of bulk on creatures of different sizes is completely nonsensical if you think about it at all. The Foundry devs just came to the same conclusion when they said "we're not implementing that because it contradicts the other table."
I think a big reason for bulk being a pain point for pf2 is that a big part of the appeal of pf2 is that the players & GM can "trust the system" and do not need to spend table time inventing their own rules or actions that everyone has to agree to.
Bulk is one of those neglected pockets that really doesn't play nice RaW. I'd rephrase that as "bulk is way more specific and limited system than it seems."
And while pf2 is perfectly set up to enable GMs to handle weight-sensitive needs via their own creative problem solving, I think the lack of that "creative need" elsewhere in pf2 is why the limited utility of bulk stands out all the more.
The bulk rules are just not suitable as a "one size fits all" weight/encumbrance system. The same abstraction that enables it to work where it's designed for, is why it doesn't work in all the other contexts one might need.
___________________
There's loads of guidance across pf2 as to how one might handle a "what about bulk" moment.
"Well, because of [__], you would need to carry the Wizard outright, not drag him. We can ignore bulk, but I'll have you make an Athletics check for that. Not too hard for your PC, but if you are going to keep your ax in 1 hand, that'll be at a -4 circ penalty. Hm, doesn't make sense for a Fail to drop him, but it'll reduce your speed."
Like, that kind of creative improv used to be more or less required to play ttrpgs, but it's pretty easy to go through an entire pf2 session without doing that a single time these days.
The lack of *specific* guidance on when bulk rules should be ignored and enforced means that tables have to break the rust off that forgotten skill, which can cause frustration.
___________________
As far as my own specific recommendations.
I try to remember that the bulk system is specifically for fully "carrying" and wielding equipment so that the items can be used by their relevant actions in a moment's notice. It's a system for a PC's equipment and adventuring gear.
(and for item storage inside of containers)
Being able to act upon or move objects around the environment doesn't automatically need to follow the bulk rules, because kind of interaction is not the same thing as strapping a scroll to your bandolier.
Using that "bulk of creatures table" to carry another PC would to me translate in-world as the Barb wrapping and strapping that KOed wizard to their backpack, Death Stranding style. That bulk table genuinely does get used, but usually for scenarios like my Alchemist quickly shoving a fresh corpse into their bag for later dissection/harvesting.
In contrast, the act of grabbing and lift/moving a creature around, such as to flee from a fight, is a different kind of interaction.
Same idea that has Reposition not invoke bulk rules, etc.
I would argue that it is actually not that hard at all.
The logic boils down to three straightforward steps, which any competent programmer can implement with basic conditional checks and simple math:
1) Check the creature's size (Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge, or Gargantuan--this is just a single attribute on the creature object).
2) Check the item's base Bulk (stored as a value like "negligible," "L" for light, 1, 2, etc., along with the size category the item was designed for--usually Medium by default).
3) Apply the appropriate conversion formula based on the mismatch between creature size and item size, then output the effective Bulk for that specific creature.
This isn't some exotic algorithm--it's nested conditionals referencing a small lookup table or multiplier (exactly the kind of modular math you see in game systems all the time). For example:
- A Large creature treats a 1 Bulk (Medium-sized) item as Light bulk, and Light items as negligible.
- A Tiny creature treats negligible items as counting toward Bulk much faster, and scales upward accordingly.
- The conversions scale predictably (roughly doubling or halving per size step in most cases, with special handling for Light and negligible).
The system can (and should) recalculate dynamically any time:
- An item is transferred from one creature to another (different sizes = different effective Bulk).
- A player or GM manually resizes an item (e.g., "this longsword is now sized for a Large creature").
- Any other inventory change occurs.
Modern virtual tabletops and character managers already handle far more complex interdependent calculations (ability modifiers, spell effects, multiple stacking bonuses, etc.) in real time. This is well within the realm of "basic event-driven programming." You define the item once with its base stats, attach a size tag, and let the code apply the size-conversion rules on the fly. No constant manual tracking required.
I've seen plenty of nested modules and formula references in codebases--this is no different. It's just inventory math with a size axis. Claiming it's "too complicated" for software underestimates how straightforward conditional logic and data-driven design actually are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How hard is it to ...
That math could be automated. But.
The whole point / issue is that bulk as a system is not supposed to be used for that kind of context. It's not that bulk as a system "is broken," it is that pf2 lacks a system to handle other contexts in which tables want weight to be a number with mechanical significance, and they are misled into using bulk due to that table (and it's dang text).IMO, the reason the creature bulk table is useful is for storing creatures in a spacious pouch, etc, and not for battlefield extraction of allies.
If some PC had a "Corpse Muncher" ability, and wanted to keep the bodies of Tiny creatures on their belt for mid-combat snacks, then yes, it would be appropriate to use the bulk rules in that context.
Or if some small monster has flavor text that its body can be used as weapon outright, and the Barb wants to hit foes with its corpse. That kind of context, where "the creature is equipment," is when that bulk table is supposed to be invoked.
Quibbling over how much a dying Ranger's strapped gear does / not add to their bulk is barking up the wrong tree; that's not supposed to be a number you care about at that time.
This idea of "you shouldn't be using bulk" is not something that only exists via implication or between the lines, btw.
It's already unavoidable thanks to the Riding rules.
In that context, the encumbrance of the other creature on their back is abstracted as an action penalty, there is no bulk involved.
_________________________
To be clear, this PoV does require some degree of "no, it is the text that is wrong." style GMing.
The text directly says:
"You might need to know the Bulk of a creature, especially if you need to carry someone."
That is pretty dang heavy RaI that even battlefield GTFO is 'supposed' to use bulk rules.
To reach my PoV, you need to interpret / mutate "carry someone" from an over the shoulder thing, into exclusively looking like that Death Stranding style backpack transport.
I personally justify my approach due to how that one sentence contradicts with how bulk is otherwise presented as a narrow subsystem of the Equipment rules, and because you have those riding rules, plus others, such as guidance on improv skill checks for custom actions, etc.
I've seen plenty of nested modules and formula references in codebases--this is no different. It's just inventory math with a size axis. Claiming it's "too complicated" for software underestimates how straightforward conditional logic and data-driven design actually are.
This is a completely disingenuous argument that takes the actual issue and contorts it into "the Foundry devs didn't implement it because they're incompetent."
They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.
If you actually follow both tables RAW, tiny creatures can carry substantially less equipment even when it's sized for them. As that is explicitly stated as not the intention of the rules, the rules contradict themselves.
So they implemented the part that makes sense. It's laid out pretty clearly in the github issue linked here if you bother to read it.
(This is also the only part of the rules where PF2 mentions size of items mattering at all. Like a tiny maul and a gargantuan maul do the exact same damage and are functionally identical in all ways except when dealing with bulk and price, and the nonsensical outcomes caused by one scale going up by 2x while another is going down by 10x at the same time.)
I generally think of Bulk as a subsystem like Vehicles, Hexploration, or Chases. If it is useful to the story, use it. If not, don't worry too much about it.
Yes, if the players are carrying an absurd amount of gear and items then that is something that you can as a GM either ignore or find a subsystem such as Bulk to limit it with.
And if players are carrying three sacks of 999 coins each and claiming that this results in no Bulk, then that is indeed a different problem. That is not a rules problem. That is not a problem with the Bulk subsystem. That is a problem with the players trying to cheese out every advantage that they can so that they 'win the game' against the GM rather than playing a cooperative game about telling engaging stories. Again, as the GM you can either ignore it, or find some way of fixing the actual problem.
They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.
And to that I say "So what?" There's nothing stopping them from implementing it other than themselves.
Not incompetence; just a lamentable choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally think of Bulk as a subsystem like Vehicles, Hexploration, or Chases. If it is useful to the story, use it. If not, don't worry too much about it.
Well, there is an issue with that: they integrated it into other mechanics. There are spells, items, feats and even ancestries involving bulk and if you're just have waving it a lot of the time, you're also hand waving those investments. Even if you're ignoring it part of the time, you ignoring those investments too. If handles before the game starts, players can mitigate now less useful mechanics, but they could still end up they [say they want to play a centaur].
And if players are carrying three sacks of 999 coins each and claiming that this results in no Bulk, then that is indeed a different problem.
But it 100% IS an issue with the system. Coins get their negligible items, nothing is added to bulk. If you pick up a negligible bulk item and 999 coins, you add no bulk. If I pick up 1 coin and 999 coins, somehow that adds an entire bulk. Then is you pick up 100 more coins, it adds no more bulk [even when the basics of the bulk system is that 10 L = 1 Bulk. I don't think any explanation would get me to think coins isn't an issue with the bulk system: they just don't follow the system that made for other items.
I'm not sure what the age of the product is meant to illustrate. You mentioned not knowing a modern RPG that uses weight [and 5.5 JUST updated], so I mentioned one.Revisions don't change the core edition, Just as I don't consider DCC to be new despite its latest 2021 printing, or the revised Gurps basic set to be a different system. I also did mention a modern system that had abstract but precise weight in Crucible.
Without a common understanding of what a "modern" game is, I have no way to determine what might be on or not in your eyes. Since I haven't the slightest idea what Crucible is, it wasn't overly helpful in narrowing what cut-off date you think a game stops being modern. A quick look just brings up the video game Crucible which doesn't seem applicable.
EDIT: by modern, do you mean a rules lite system?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.And to that I say "So what?" There's nothing stopping them from implementing it other than themselves.
Not incompetence; just a lamentable choice.
"The rules contradict themselves so we're not implementing the contradiction" is a pretty good reason to stop.
I can't tell if you're serious and just don't understand the problem or if you're being deliberately obtuse.
Without a common understanding of what a "modern" game is, I have no way to determine what might be on or not in your eyes. Since I haven't the slightest idea what Crucible is, it wasn't overly helpful in narrowing what cut-off date you think a game stops being modern. A quick look just brings up the video game Crucible which doesn't seem applicable.
EDIT: by modern, do you mean a rules lite system?
Not at all, Rules lite has always existed and thrived on the nordic and european scenes. if anything "rules-medium" is becoming the new trend since the pandemic forced everyone to adopt the digital in some capacity. Its more that the design principles visibly change over time, even OSR games have moved on from many of the 80s design principles despite being inspired by that time.
If you want a cutoff point, Then I have a hard time believing anyone would consider 3.5e,4e or pathfinder 1st edition as modern so after 2010s.
And since then we have had 5e, Critical Role, The OSR explosion, The indie and crowdfunding golden age, the pandemic forcing even the largest publishers into the online domain which then led into hybrid play. All of these have visibly affected how games are currently designed. So I would put the cutoff in the late 2010s, but even then theres games from earlier than 2015 that I would consider modern simply because they were ahead of their time.
as for Crucible, It's still in development by the FoundryVTT team. But it highlights the digital thats becoming increasingly common and how that allows for deeper rules without the tedium.
... all this and I still don't know what you define a 'modern' RPG as. :P
They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.And to that I say "So what?" There's nothing stopping them from implementing it other than themselves.
Not incompetence; just a lamentable choice.
"The rules contradict themselves so we're not implementing the contradiction" is a pretty good reason to stop.
I can't tell if you're serious and just don't understand the problem or if you're being deliberately obtuse.
I just don't see it as a problem. Contradiction or no, it could be implemented as is without impacting gameplay negatively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see it as a problem. Contradiction or no, it could be implemented as is without impacting gameplay negatively.They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.And to that I say "So what?" There's nothing stopping them from implementing it other than themselves.
Not incompetence; just a lamentable choice.
"The rules contradict themselves so we're not implementing the contradiction" is a pretty good reason to stop.
I can't tell if you're serious and just don't understand the problem or if you're being deliberately obtuse.
I think their comment said it all. They concluded that having tiny and large creatures not carrying about the same amount of appropriately sized gear as a Medium creature to affect gameplay in a negative way and would be against the stated intent of the statement "Because the way that a creature treats Bulk and the Bulk of gear sized for it scale the same way, Tiny or Large (or larger) creatures can usually wear and carry about the same amount of gear as a Medium creature."
Sorites Paradox...the one that asks when does a heap of grain cease being a heap as you remove one grain at a time...is not a paradox on Golarion. They likely have quite rigorous vocabulary re: heaps & weights, etc. because residents know exactly when removing one coin alters a pile of coins. They likely would've made 10 coins weight one L because of the simplicity given that's how physics operates. That's a knock against Bulk, not against Golarions that make use of that difference or PCs' player puppeteers. Any encumbrance system will have demarcations like this, as nobody wants a system so granular that there's a spectrum of encumbrance states. But I think Bulk swung too far the other direction. Unlike with weight, I can hardly use my intuition to adjudicate using Bulk. It's simpler to ignore Bulk entirely re: moving a statue, etc., especially with fantasy creatures & superhuman PCs.
In PF1 I had a pig familiar, if only because it could carry the staff that'd push my feeble old PC in plate armor over the encumbrance limit. And he'd often need to drop other gear. Piggy had its own backpack too (and became the mascot of the team in the eyes of the city). So yeah, weight encouraged workarounds too, but Bulk exacerbates that if anything.
The problem, in my mind is simply that how hard it is to carry something depends a lot on how it is being carried. If I put a child in a sack (referencing fables like Krampus) it is a lot harder to carry than if I give them a piggy back ride. A human body carried with fireman's carry might have a low bulk for its weight and size, but when you load it in a cart it is no different per weight than a bundle of bows or sack of potatoes.
I'm fine with keeping the load system for equipment but there needs to be something else for dragging or cargo transport at minimum.
Giving this some thought it sems to me that he bulk system as written has two major flaws:
1st, the equation of 5 lbs=1 bulk. This means that with a maximum bulk of 5+str and beefy starting character can only carry 45 pounds. I have worked jobs where the minimum requirement for physical capability was the ability to lift 40 pounds with a single hand. This is a far cry from the "epic heroes" the system is supposed to model, and bulk 1=25 pounds would make much more sense, which also then would put a bulk:6 human at 150 lbs, which comes out about right. The other point is that bulk for larger creatures should multiply by 4 per level instead of two- so a small character would be bulk 2, a tiny would be L, a large creature (like a horse) would be bulk:24 and so on.
Giving this some thought it sems to me that he bulk system as written has two major flaws:
1st, the equation of 5 lbs=1 bulk. This means that with a maximum bulk of 5+str and beefy starting character can only carry 45 pounds. I have worked jobs where the minimum requirement for physical capability was the ability to lift 40 pounds with a single hand. This is a far cry from the "epic heroes" the system is supposed to model, and bulk 1=25 pounds would make much more sense, which also then would put a bulk:6 human at 150 lbs, which comes out about right. The other point is that bulk for larger creatures should multiply by 4 per level instead of two- so a small character would be bulk 2, a tiny would be L, a large creature (like a horse) would be bulk:24 and so on.
1 bulk is 5-10 pounds, meaning 45-90 pounds. This is also for carrying around all day without ANY penalties. Being able to lift and move a 40 pound item is far different than picking it up and being unaffected by that weight after an 8 hour hike, fighting, ect.
Secondly, try factoring in the reduces Bulk of items for Large and bigger creatures. Doubling their bulk would be overkill.
As for bulk of humans making sense... well, that's never going to happen. I can only guess it's that bulk so people can be dragged away, not for realism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving this some thought it sems to me that he bulk system as written has two major flaws:
1st, the equation of 5 lbs=1 bulk. This means that with a maximum bulk of 5+str and beefy starting character can only carry 45 pounds. I have worked jobs where the minimum requirement for physical capability was the ability to lift 40 pounds with a single hand. This is a far cry from the "epic heroes" the system is supposed to model, and bulk 1=25 pounds would make much more sense, which also then would put a bulk:6 human at 150 lbs, which comes out about right. The other point is that bulk for larger creatures should multiply by 4 per level instead of two- so a small character would be bulk 2, a tiny would be L, a large creature (like a horse) would be bulk:24 and so on.
That 5 lbs = 1 bulk equation is 5-10 in the book, so it's pretty broad. Even then it's frequently not used by the rules themselves, since an adult human is usually not 60 pounds and a horse is not even close to 120 pounds. (For a horse, it's really 50-100 pounds = 1 bulk than it is 5-10 pounds = 1 bulk.)
Likewise it overestimates weapons: a 1h sword like a longsword is not a 5-10 pound weapon for any of its real world equivalents. A 5 pound weapon is almost certainly meant to be used 2 handed and that's heavy for even some of those (that's like claymore weight).
The game itself doesn't really use that formula and it's not particularly practical for anyone else to use it either. That's one of the problems with estimating bulk of objects: you're trying to guesstimate "how hard is this to carry relative to other things at a given bulk value". But that's the only way to do it that gives outcomes that make some kind of sense relative to other objects in the game.
That's not an equation (in rules). But more importantly, who even cares about this? (Not even talking about who cares about pounds? Don't know what it is) In all these years I play this game nobody ever asked a question how bulk and real weight related. It's not important at all.Giving this some thought it sems to me that he bulk system as written has two major flaws:
1st, the equation of 5 lbs=1 bulk.
Your players have never said "hey I want to carry/drag/throw that random object in the scene"? Because as soon as they do that, the bulk of the thing becomes relevant, and it's an absolute PITA to estimate a lot of the time because it's not connected to the real world at all.
At least with weight I have something grounded to work with.
Actually a 5 pound weapon is pretty small. Go to a gym, look at the 10 pound iron weight that can be attached to a bar. It's about 6 inches in diameter- longswords are much bigger.
Marines carry 100 pounds of gear over day long hikes without difficulty, and they are not all weightlifting musclemen. The idea that the maximum unencumbered load is the same as what day laborers pick up and toss around one handed is frankly absurd.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually a 5 pound weapon is pretty small.
A historical European longsword typically weighs between 2.5 and 3.5 pounds. You have to get into something like a traditional Scottish two-handed claymore to hit around the 5 pound weight [typically 5-6 pounds]. Same with axes, where battle axes weigh between 1 and 4 pounds and larger, two-handed Danish axes or poleaxes typically range from 4 to 7 pounds. Your heaviest melee weapon, zweihänder/creatswords, only weigh 9–18 lbs. So, no, 5 pound weapon aren't small.
PS: arbalests tie greatswords at 10 to 18 pounds.
Marines carry 100 pounds of gear over day long hikes without difficulty, and they are not all weightlifting musclemen.
Studies indicate that weight beyond roughly 30–45% of a Marine's body weight significantly reduces effectiveness. This is why the Fighting/Assault loadout is roughly 50–70 pounds, including body armor, helmet, rifle, ammo, and water. Loads above ~60 lb have markedly increase fatigue and decreased mobility; above ~80–100 lb increase risk of injury and reduce operational tempo. This is why only heavy dismounted assaults or sustained operations will carry 80–100 lb and generally not for extended periods [ammo used, extra water consumed, forward base set up, ect].
The idea that the maximum unencumbered load is the same as what day laborers pick up and toss around one handed is frankly absurd.
WOW, where you live, day laborers are walking 8 hr while carrying 100+ weight and can move full speed while fighting? All while having no fatigue or impairment? Do they have a super soldier program there?
I was talking about day laborers tossing around 45 pounds, not 100.
Now object shape and dimensions are certainly an issue for something abstract like bulk, but if we are talking about a generalization based on weight alone that is something completely different. thee is a reason food and general supplies tend to come in 50 pound bags, and it isn't because it is over the maximum amount that normal people can haul around.
of course using a 5-10 pound guideline it puts the bulk between 5-10, which is a very significant range in and of itself.
On the other hand I have watched 14 year old boys haul 50 pound bags of dirt or other supplies for 4 hours straight. It certainly shouldn't be something that is reaching into the strong man definitions.
A guideline of 25 pounds per bulk "or more" for objects that are just unwieldy not only fits the real world better but it makes the medium size definition fit the guidelines.
I was talking about day laborers tossing around 45 pounds, not 100.
Moving around with 45 pounds falls under strength +0 using bulk [25-50 pounds, as it's 5 + modifier]. Seems fine to me.
On the other hand I have watched 14 year old boys haul 50 pound bags of dirt or other supplies for 4 hours straight.
I seriously doubt you've watched them carry it non-stop for multiple hours without rest, moving as fast as they would without that much weight and not have any sign of fatigue or tiredness afterwards. In pathfinder, you can climb ladders, ropes, ect without any extra effort carrying 5+mod bulk. Have you seen those day laborers doing that for instance? We're talking about 100% unaffected by the weight.
A guideline of 25 pounds per bulk "or more" for objects that are just unwieldy not only fits the real world better but it makes the medium size definition fit the guidelines.
So you expect me to believe that the average person [str +0] can carry 125 pounds around for 8 hours without any impairment or fatigue while hiking... Not buying it. Even physically fit people that can pick up and carry another person can't do so for extended periods of time without slowing down or pacing themselves. You seem to be conflating what the max is that a person can move around with and what they can "comfortably carry" for hours on end and perform the same as if they weren't carrying it.
And as I pointed out last post, studies indicate that weight beyond roughly 30–45% of a marine's body weight significantly reduces effectiveness. This is with people at the best fitness levels. With the average weight of a US marine at around 175, this puts the weight they can "comfortably carry" at 52.5-78.75 pounds. If we go by your quite unrealistic numbers, that would put the average marine at a Str of -2 to -3... So 25 pounds per bulk seems wildly out of line with the real world.
The fact is hat anyone moving as fast as they could with nothing on for several hours will get tired. Nobody finishes a marathon as fresh as a daisy, and nobody runs a marathon at the same speed they do a 50 yard dash. Even walking 8 hours carrying nothing without a break will leave someone tired, so your basis of comparison makes no sense.
I use weights for two reasons- first they are a pretty clear about how hard they are to carry, and they are generally made of the same material (iron) as medieval weaponry.
Also considering that the range for strength is from -1 to 4 without hitting the exceptional range I don't think Str:1 would be average- more like str: 1.5, maybe Str:1
Which means a medium person (bulk 6) is light encumbrance. How long an average person can carry another human being seems like a better measure of what that means than what they can run with for hours.
Though I have never seen a person climb a rope while carrying another person either.
Now I was just basing my estimation of hat a marine carried based on my dad's experiences in Vietnam, but looking it up a marine's load for combat ranges from 60-100 pounds on average topping out at 117 pounds, https://www.mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/Paying-for-Weight-in-Blood.p df lists data for casualty rates amongst marines carrying 120 pounds- you might also note on that sight that while they list a fighting load of 65 pounds they compare this to actual load of 117 pounds.
So fundamentally your numbers are wrong.
That said given the descriptions of what load means, it seems like there are a lot of bad numbers involved, since in game people can do things carrying these loads that people cannot actually d unencumbered, and the creature loads look even more unrealistic.
The fact is hat anyone moving as fast as they could with nothing on for several hours will get tired. Nobody finishes a marathon as fresh as a daisy, and nobody runs a marathon at the same speed they do a 50 yard dash. Even walking 8 hours carrying nothing without a break will leave someone tired, so your basis of comparison makes no sense.
Which makes a comparison difficult as in pathfinder you go from unaffected to encumbered with no inbetween.
I use weights for two reasons- first they are a pretty clear about how hard they are to carry, and they are generally made of the same material (iron) as medieval weaponry.
I've already pointed out that you've overestimated the weight of medieval weaponry.
Also considering that the range for strength is from -1 to 4 without hitting the exceptional range I don't think Str:1 would be average- more like str: 1.5, maybe Str:1
IMO, Strength +0 is average, as you've neither added or subtracted from the base value. [lots of people dump stat strength]. Of course, the average will trend higher with level.
Which means a medium person (bulk 6) is light encumbrance. How long an average person can carry another human being seems like a better measure of what that means than what they can run with for hours.
There is no such thing as "light encumbrance" in pathfinder: it's a binary condition. This means the test IS both can they pick up another person AND can they do so all day while doing other things unimpaired because they are carrying that other person.
Though I have never seen a person climb a rope while carrying another person either.
And that's the crux of the issue: in pathfinder, you can do such things, like climb ladders, long jump and swim without hindrance while under that Bulk limit.
Now I was just basing my estimation of hat a marine carried based on my dad's experiences in Vietnam, but looking it up a marine's load for combat ranges from 60-100 pounds on average topping out at 117 pounds, https://www.mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/Paying-for-Weight-in-Blood.p df lists data for casualty rates amongst marines carrying 120 pounds- you might also note on that sight that while they list a fighting load of 65 pounds they compare this to actual load of 117 pounds.
Did you actually READ what you linked?
It notes it was about teams that "engaged with a fire team-sized element (in a defensive position) from 100 meters carrying various loads.": that's a far cry from an 8 hour hike.
"Studies show that increasing load decreases physical performance from 0.36 to 0.68 percent per pound for tactical combat movements."
"An increase in only 15 pounds, from 65 to 80 (fighting to assault load), results in approximately one additional casualty on average, per engagement. Even more profound, the difference in casualties between the fighting load (65 pounds)and the average actual combat load (117 pounds) is nearly 3 Marines."
"From the warfighter’s perspective, every piece of gear added to the load without the removal of another only makes the load heavier, which reduces physical performance."
This clearly shows that going above the optimal 65 pounds reduces physical performance: this fits well with pathfinder, as a Str +0 can cover that weight [remember, a backpack carries 2 bulk that do not count against the limit]. If anything, pathfinder people carry more, not less the real life since they can start off carrying 130 pounds without Encumbered at 1st level: str +4, 2 from backpack, 2 from hefty hauler [several backgrounds offer it].
So fundamentally your numbers are wrong.
No, they are 100% right. Again, I don't think you read your own material.
That said given the descriptions of what load means, it seems like there are a lot of bad numbers involved, since in game people can do things carrying these loads that people cannot actually d unencumbered, and the creature loads look even more unrealistic.
Bulk is a vague guesstimate of the amount of gear you can carry and is made to be as easy as possible. I have a lot of issues with it, but the general bulk to weight values vs real life actually aren't far off for 'human' sized creatures.
of course using a 5-10 pound guideline it puts the bulk between 5-10, which is a very significant range in and of itself.
On the other hand I have watched 14 year old boys haul 50 pound bags of dirt or other supplies for 4 hours straight. It certainly shouldn't be something that is reaching into the strong man definitions.
You really need to stop treating that 5-10 pound suggestion like it has any meaning. It doesn't. The game ignores it constantly in its own definitions of bulk of different objects. Like, if it actually followed it, a horse would be 100 bulk instead of 12.
Throw that 5-10 pound suggestion away entirely, never think about them again, and compare bulk of things with the relative bulk of other things. That is the way to go about having this function.
Bulk and encumbrance are extremely abstract systems in PF2. If you try to make real world sense of them, you will have problems. I've explained why before in this thread.
Your options here boil down to "don't equate bulk and PF2 encumbrance/fatigue with real world equivalents because it's too abstracted for the comparisons to work well", or "homebrew something that makes more sense to you."
Once again, graystone, encumbrance for an eight hour hike in the real world is a meaningless comparison, since a person hiking for 8 hours naked in the real world will become exhausted.
Tridus, I am an engineer, so even when I am given a number range for a guideline I want to see how it works. The conflict with people and horses was where is where I started seeing problems, but then decided to look at real world objects that are of regular shapes rather than being unwieldy and oblong, like sacks of flour or dumbbell weights, and the while guideline just seemed like utter nonsense. So of course I had to try and figure out what it should be.
Once again, graystone, encumbrance for an eight hour hike in the real world is a meaningless comparison, since a person hiking for 8 hours naked in the real world will become exhausted.
No it's quite meaningful as that's the base standard for pathfinder: you're trying to tie real world examples to pathfinder examples so how it works in both worlds matters. You're trying to compare what a person can do in the real world that causes exhaustion and trying to say that that compares 1 to 1 for an activity in pathfinder that doesn't do so: since it's NOT a 1 to 1, it's a pretty meaningless endeavor without an actual conversion from exhausting activities to non-exhausting ones. 'But a real life person can carry X weight and get tired' is a meaningless statement when the guideline in pathfinder is 'you can carry X without getting tired.'
If you wanted to compare weights where someone IS encumbered, we'd be closer to what you're talking about: EI, numbers where the weight is actually affecting you're abilities. That is where your "117 pounds" meets the 10+Str mod numbers. That means the numbers for starting characters could go from 130 pounds max to 180 pounds. Again, the numbers don't seem out of place ot "utter nonsense".
The place I really started was figuring out what wagons were capable of carrying, which really does feel (emphasis on feel here) broken, because a horse carrying 175 pound person in a wagon and the same horse pulling 175 pounds of grain should have the same effective contribution towards encumbrance.
Which may mean that wagons need some sort of modifiers to reduce the effective load of certain types of objects...
I didn't make any reference to specific vehicles, or any of the points you are arguing. I simply indicated that (for a wagon) the difficulty in pulling a 175 pound person and 175 pounds of flour or grain should be the same.
What the load limit should or should not be was not part of my point, it was entirely about how the actual load was calculated.
Unlike your examples a human body and sacks of grain have roughly the same density. Your counter-arguments avoid the issue I'm raising to introduce straw men.
Human beings have a density slightly below that of water, depending on what percentage body far they have. grain generally has a density of 1.2 to 1.6 so the grains take up less weight per volume than a human body. So much for it being about "how much can fit", since the same weight (lower volume) of grain has a *higher* bulk than a human body by RAW.
Fundamentally human beings have incredibly low bulk compared to anything else of the same approximate size- fixing this would require that we either increase the bulk of creatures by size category of change the relationships of every other measure of bulk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fundamentally human beings have incredibly low bulk compared to anything else of the same approximate size- fixing this would require that we either increase the bulk of creatures by size category of change the relationships of every other measure of bulk.
Or we just leave it alone while acknowledging the fungible abstract nature of bulk and the fact that the developers clearly wanted to make it relatively easy for adventures to drag each other out if harm's way.
The fact is it could have been at least possible to drag each other out of harms way with a much higher bulk- right now any but the weakest party member can pick someone up without encumbrance and carry them away. Even if that is the goal a system to revise bulk for wagons and other forms of cargo transport wouldn't be hard to implement.
So that in 3 years there won't be jokes all over the internet about pathfinder physics the way there is about D&D physics.