Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vintrastorm 02-28-06, 05:08 PM	Well...? page referenses, personal judgement calls...? Also, is there any rule somewhere that armors counts as if they weigh only half as much when worn than what it says in the armor descriptions?
ShinAkuma2 02-28-06, 05:12 PM	It says right in the PHB, by the clothing descriptions, that clothes you wear don't count against carrying capacity. Armor still counts, though.
Vintrastorm 02-28-06, 05:24 PM	oh, thank you. I was using the SRD, don't think there were any info on that there...
NthDegree256 02-28-06, 05:29 PM	Also, is there any rule somewhere that armors counts as if they weigh only half as much when worn than what it says in the armor descriptions? Hahahahaha. If you can give me a good, logical explanation as to why this should be so, I'd almost be tempted to allow it in my games. :P No, seriously, think about that for a moment.
Donraj 02-28-06, 05:31 PM	Really? That's actually a relief to me, and I need to change a couple of character sheets.
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 05:35 PM	Hahahahaha. If you can give me a good, logical explanation as to why this should be so, I'd almost be tempted to allow it in my games. :P No, seriously, think about that for a moment. I actually used to use a rule almost exactly like this....of course we were playing 2nd edition at the time (or maybe 3.0...I can't recall clearly) My reasoning was that while the gross weight will remain the same, armor that is well-made will distribute its weight fairly evely via use of straps and buckles and such. Of course, when I did it, I took into account the style of the armor and had different ratios for each armor (chain hangs like a ton of bricks, while banded is quite well distributed, etc). Someone picking you up would use your gross weight, while you are encumbered based on the adjusted weight of the armor. (I also had masterwork backpacks that effectively reduced they weight of their contents by 10% while worn) In 3.5 this isn't really necessary, though, since you only use your encumbrance penalty or armor penalty, which ever is worse. I find this to be a nice approximation of the weight-distribution issue.
Snicker 02-28-06, 05:38 PM	Hahahahaha. If you can give me a good, logical explanation as to why this should be so, I'd almost be tempted to allow it in my games. :P No, seriously, think about that for a moment. Because it's easier to carry something properly distributed about your body and centre of gravity than it is to carry something in your backpack or arms. Take for instance the carrying capacity of small creatures versus medium creatures. A STR 10 Human can carry more than a STR 10 gnome. The gnome penetrates armour, snaps rope, breaks handcuffs, wins arm wrestling matches, and hits just as hard as the human. Does the gnome's muscles, then, atrophy whenever it picks something up? No, because carrying capacity takes more than weight into account. The gnome has more trouble carring that treasure chest because it's relative weight makes for more complications when taking into account balance, centre of gravity, et cetera. Same goes for quadrupeds. A mule kicks just as hard as a STR 16 human. But it carries more. Does sticking a saddlebag on its back make it grow more muscles like Popeye with his spinach? Obviously not. But because it has four legs, it's more securely balanced and its centre of gravity is harder to disrupt.
Vintrastorm 02-28-06, 06:30 PM	My reasoning was that while the gross weight will remain the same, armor that is well-made will distribute its weight fairly evely via use of straps and buckles and such. And, most importantly: Because it's easier to carry something properly distributed about your body and centre of gravity than it is to carry something in your backpack or arms. There are my reasons for asking, expecially the last one. Now I don't have to write them done. Besides, it's not an unused rule in other RPGs to let your armor weigh half as much.
NthDegree256 03-01-06, 03:49 AM	Fair enough. I did ask you to "think about it for a moment," and it looks like that was all you needed. :)
Vintrastorm 03-01-06, 05:55 AM	Fair enough. I did ask you to "think about it for a moment," and it looks like that was all you needed. :) Well, thank you mate. So... are ye gonna use it? ;)
Lenarior 03-01-06, 06:00 AM	Doesn't it also say in the rules that the first set of clothing you wear does not count but any further layer worn does count as weight being carried. This is the rule I use (and the main reason for superheroes like superman to wear their underpants on top of their hevier clothing).
White_Wizard 03-01-06, 09:51 AM	I don't see any reason to half an armor's weight when worn. 50 pounds of metal will always be 50 pounds of metal, there's no way they become 25 punds. The more comfortable an armor is, the least armor check penalty it has, not the least weight when worn. Items do not change their weight (not without magic at least) and wanting the things to work so only mean that we want to stretch the rules of the game in our favor. And, besides, in most cases an armor's weight is not a problem since heavy armors are usually worn by strong characters.
Lenarior 03-01-06, 09:57 AM	I don't see any reason to half an armor's weight when worn. 50 pounds of metal will always be 50 pounds of metal, there's no way they become 25 punds. The more comfortable an armor is, the least armor check penalty it has, not the least weight when worn. Items do not change their weight (not without magic at least) and wanting the things to work so only mean that we want to stretch the rules of the game in our favor. And, besides, in most cases an armor's weight is not a problem since heavy armors are usually worn by strong characters. True. 50 lb. will allways be 50 lb. But what is trying to be said is that distributing the weight over somepnes body does make a difference in encumbrence. This is simulated in the rules by halving the effective weight of armor when worn. Do this: Take a backpack and fill it with books. Wear the backpack normaly on both shoulders and walk around for a while. Now take the backpack of hand hold it out in front of you arms extended straight forward. Walk around for a bit again and see how this feels. Which one felt heavier?
Ogg 03-01-06, 11:58 AM	Yes, the players handbook says one suit of clothes is free weight (nice for monks). It also breaks down what a suit is. As far as layers, I would basically break it down like the DMG breaks down areas you can wear magic items. So when it comes to regular clothes a regular hat doesn't weigh anything but a hat worn on top of a cloth cap should have it's weight added. It shouldn't matter too much though for non-magic. The "half weight on armor" is a carry over from either 1st or 2nd edition in which magic armor weighed half as much as non-magic. They got rid of that in 3.0/3.5 . Now masterwork just reduces armor penalty. Having worn armor on several occasions I will agree that it's easier to carry 50 lbs of chainmail worn then 50lbs of chainmail in a case but 50 lbs is still going to wear you down either way so that's why they have the weight added to encumberance. I wouldn't have major issues with a half weight on worn armor for the reasons mentioned above plus the fact that armor heavier then light carries it's own encumberance penalties for just being the type of armor it is, kind of redunant. If your wearing heavy armor your already suffering the penalty for carrying a heavy load. I guess it's just to keep a whimp from wearing a suit of plate which isn't too bad.