carry capacity [Archive] - Wizards Community

carry capacity [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Mind of Darkness
01-14-05, 08:49 PM posted on another thread:
I generally dislike playing small characters from personal taste, but gnomes are the best core small race for doing so because of their CON boost and their oft-overlooked ability to carry more small stuff than a medium creature could carry medium stuff. That's what happens when your carrying capacity is 3/4 normal, but things weigh half as much.

I'd never really thought of it before, but when it comes to armor:

Bigger and Smaller Creatures: The figures on Table: Carrying Capacity are for Medium bipedal creatures. A larger bipedal creature can carry more weight depending on its size category, as follows: Large x2, Huge x4, Gargantuan x8, Colossal x16. A smaller creature can carry less weight depending on its size category, as follows: Small x3/4, Tiny x1/2, Diminutive x1/4, Fine x1/8.

Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and nonhumanoid creatures have different costs and weights from those given on Table: Armor and Shields. Refer to the appropriate line on the table below and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.Size Cost Weight
Tiny or smaller x1/2 x1/10
Small x1 x1/2
Medium x1 x1
Large x2 x2
Huge x4 x5
Gargantuan x8 x8
Colossal x16 x12

small, tiny and collosal creatures have an edge, huge creatures get jipped, and medium, large and gargantuan creatures are the same. I don't really see this as a problem, but can anyone shed any light on the philosophy behind this design for me? :confused:
anders
01-14-05, 09:05 PM @Mind of Darkness
I dont see how Huge creatures get any disadvantage, as the armor weights x4, and they can carry x4. They also have a strength boost due to size, so this actually gives them an advantage to smaller creatures.

Why the price is x5 and not x4 ... I have no idea. It could be a typo, have you checked the erratra?
evangelion1010
01-15-05, 12:04 AM Note that AC for tiny and smaller creatures decreases as the creature decreases in size - i believe its -2 per size category. This means that a tiny mithril chain shirt is +2 ac only.

This is a balancing factor for the tiny ones.

As for large and larger - i don't see much of the point. Its carrying compacity, most large creatures have insane strength, to the point where they carry boulders as light loads anyways. Its not perfectly scaled, but it won't affect balance anytime soon (who lets their PC's play a huge creature anyways - spiked chain anyone?)
Kintara
01-15-05, 02:42 AM Strength scales down with size, so that partially ameliorates the difference (a halfling has 13/20 the carry capacity of a human, if both have an average Strength).

Also, the whole scale thing is kind of a mess, anyway. It's what I'm going to call the Ant Effect, or the Impossible Giant Effect, depending on which way you go. Ants have huge carry capacities for their size because of the way things change in scale. Most giants are not strictly "realistic" because something twice as tall is eight times as heavy. Similarly, something half as tall weighs 1/8 normal. If I'm doing the math right, that means halflings are pretty chunky for their size (35 lbs. looks to be pretty heavy when you're 3'1", if you have an adult human's proportions). But anyway, the point is that the whole scale thing is pretty arbitrary in D&D, and really works more on the principle of playability than realism.

Edit: Physics isn't my strong suit, so someone else can feel free to jump in and explain what's what, if I'm not making sense.
Mind of Darkness
01-15-05, 04:23 PM I dont see how Huge creatures get any disadvantage, as the armor weights x4, and they can carry x4. They also have a strength boost due to size, so this actually gives them an advantage to smaller creatures.
Sorry, the table didn't copy well. Huge armor actually costs x4 and weighs x5.

Here's the breakdown:
Tiny:
carrying capacity: x1/2
armor weight: x1/10

small:
carrying capacity: x3/4
armor weight:x1/2

large:
carrying capacity: x2
armor weight: x2

Huge:
carrying capacity: x4
armor weight: x5

Gargantuan:
carrying capacity: x8
armor weight:x8

colossal:
carrying capacity: x16
armor weight:x12
Note: this only applies to bipeds.

Its carrying compacity, most large creatures have insane strength, to the point where they carry boulders as light loads anyways. Its not perfectly scaled, but it won't affect balance anytime soon (who lets their PC's play a huge creature anyways - spiked chain anyone?)
I agree that it's not a balance issue, I am just kinda wondering why they did it. It could be a typo, have you checked the erratra?
yeah, I didn't see anything, and I don't have a 3.5 player's handbook to check. Anyone else know if it's a typo?
lso, the whole scale thing is kind of a mess, anyway. It's what I'm going to call the Ant Effect, or the Impossible Giant Effect, depending on which way you go. Ants have huge carry capacities for their size because of the way things change in scale. Most giants are not strictly "realistic" because something twice as tall is eight times as heavy.
That makes sense for smaller creatures, but large and gargantuan creatures have effectively the same carrying capacity in relation to their armor as medium-sized creatures, and collosal creatures have x16 carrying capacity, but their armor only weighs x12.
But anyway, the point is that the whole scale thing is pretty arbitrary in D&D, and really works more on the principle of playability than realism.
that's the thing, why is this system more playable than simply making armor weight scale with carrying capacity (at least for creatures larger than medium)? And if it is about realism, why do colossal creatures have better effective carrying capacity than medium-sized creatures? And if its a balance issue, what's the problem with regular scaling... :confused:
Mind of Darkness
01-15-05, 04:30 PM looking at my 3.0 player's handbook I noticed something interesting: armor weights are the same as on the SRD up to huge, but after that it says: "Armor for even larger creatures must be specially made and has no standard price or weight." So 3.0 seemed to follow the pattern of "scaling favors the small", but why did 3.5 break from this pattern for gargantuan and colossal creatures?
Zycko
01-15-05, 05:24 PM I was playing a halfling rogue with a strength of 10, and I almost couldn't carry the most essential. Is worn armor counting against max carry capacity?
Kintara
01-15-05, 10:34 PM that's the thing, why is this system more playable than simply making armor weight scale with carrying capacity (at least for creatures larger than medium)? And if it is about realism, why do colossal creatures have better effective carrying capacity than medium-sized creatures? And if its a balance issue, what's the problem with regular scaling... :confused:Eh, my answer would be that the average Strength for each size category has something to do with it. It would probably be helpful to calculate out a Strength average for each size category, and use that to determine the average carry capacity for that size. Then we can sort out who is getting what benefits.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mind of Darkness 01-14-05, 08:49 PM	posted on another thread: I generally dislike playing small characters from personal taste, but gnomes are the best core small race for doing so because of their CON boost and their oft-overlooked ability to carry more small stuff than a medium creature could carry medium stuff. That's what happens when your carrying capacity is 3/4 normal, but things weigh half as much. I'd never really thought of it before, but when it comes to armor: Bigger and Smaller Creatures: The figures on Table: Carrying Capacity are for Medium bipedal creatures. A larger bipedal creature can carry more weight depending on its size category, as follows: Large x2, Huge x4, Gargantuan x8, Colossal x16. A smaller creature can carry less weight depending on its size category, as follows: Small x3/4, Tiny x1/2, Diminutive x1/4, Fine x1/8. Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and nonhumanoid creatures have different costs and weights from those given on Table: Armor and Shields. Refer to the appropriate line on the table below and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.Size Cost Weight Tiny or smaller x1/2 x1/10 Small x1 x1/2 Medium x1 x1 Large x2 x2 Huge x4 x5 Gargantuan x8 x8 Colossal x16 x12 small, tiny and collosal creatures have an edge, huge creatures get jipped, and medium, large and gargantuan creatures are the same. I don't really see this as a problem, but can anyone shed any light on the philosophy behind this design for me? :confused:
anders 01-14-05, 09:05 PM	@Mind of Darkness I dont see how Huge creatures get any disadvantage, as the armor weights x4, and they can carry x4. They also have a strength boost due to size, so this actually gives them an advantage to smaller creatures. Why the price is x5 and not x4 ... I have no idea. It could be a typo, have you checked the erratra?
evangelion1010 01-15-05, 12:04 AM	Note that AC for tiny and smaller creatures decreases as the creature decreases in size - i believe its -2 per size category. This means that a tiny mithril chain shirt is +2 ac only. This is a balancing factor for the tiny ones. As for large and larger - i don't see much of the point. Its carrying compacity, most large creatures have insane strength, to the point where they carry boulders as light loads anyways. Its not perfectly scaled, but it won't affect balance anytime soon (who lets their PC's play a huge creature anyways - spiked chain anyone?)
Kintara 01-15-05, 02:42 AM	Strength scales down with size, so that partially ameliorates the difference (a halfling has 13/20 the carry capacity of a human, if both have an average Strength). Also, the whole scale thing is kind of a mess, anyway. It's what I'm going to call the Ant Effect, or the Impossible Giant Effect, depending on which way you go. Ants have huge carry capacities for their size because of the way things change in scale. Most giants are not strictly "realistic" because something twice as tall is eight times as heavy. Similarly, something half as tall weighs 1/8 normal. If I'm doing the math right, that means halflings are pretty chunky for their size (35 lbs. looks to be pretty heavy when you're 3'1", if you have an adult human's proportions). But anyway, the point is that the whole scale thing is pretty arbitrary in D&D, and really works more on the principle of playability than realism. Edit: Physics isn't my strong suit, so someone else can feel free to jump in and explain what's what, if I'm not making sense.
Mind of Darkness 01-15-05, 04:23 PM	I dont see how Huge creatures get any disadvantage, as the armor weights x4, and they can carry x4. They also have a strength boost due to size, so this actually gives them an advantage to smaller creatures. Sorry, the table didn't copy well. Huge armor actually costs x4 and weighs x5. Here's the breakdown: Tiny: carrying capacity: x1/2 armor weight: x1/10 small: carrying capacity: x3/4 armor weight:x1/2 large: carrying capacity: x2 armor weight: x2 Huge: carrying capacity: x4 armor weight: x5 Gargantuan: carrying capacity: x8 armor weight:x8 colossal: carrying capacity: x16 armor weight:x12 Note: this only applies to bipeds. Its carrying compacity, most large creatures have insane strength, to the point where they carry boulders as light loads anyways. Its not perfectly scaled, but it won't affect balance anytime soon (who lets their PC's play a huge creature anyways - spiked chain anyone?) I agree that it's not a balance issue, I am just kinda wondering why they did it. It could be a typo, have you checked the erratra? yeah, I didn't see anything, and I don't have a 3.5 player's handbook to check. Anyone else know if it's a typo? lso, the whole scale thing is kind of a mess, anyway. It's what I'm going to call the Ant Effect, or the Impossible Giant Effect, depending on which way you go. Ants have huge carry capacities for their size because of the way things change in scale. Most giants are not strictly "realistic" because something twice as tall is eight times as heavy. That makes sense for smaller creatures, but large and gargantuan creatures have effectively the same carrying capacity in relation to their armor as medium-sized creatures, and collosal creatures have x16 carrying capacity, but their armor only weighs x12. But anyway, the point is that the whole scale thing is pretty arbitrary in D&D, and really works more on the principle of playability than realism. that's the thing, why is this system more playable than simply making armor weight scale with carrying capacity (at least for creatures larger than medium)? And if it is about realism, why do colossal creatures have better effective carrying capacity than medium-sized creatures? And if its a balance issue, what's the problem with regular scaling... :confused:
Mind of Darkness 01-15-05, 04:30 PM	looking at my 3.0 player's handbook I noticed something interesting: armor weights are the same as on the SRD up to huge, but after that it says: "Armor for even larger creatures must be specially made and has no standard price or weight." So 3.0 seemed to follow the pattern of "scaling favors the small", but why did 3.5 break from this pattern for gargantuan and colossal creatures?
Zycko 01-15-05, 05:24 PM	I was playing a halfling rogue with a strength of 10, and I almost couldn't carry the most essential. Is worn armor counting against max carry capacity?
Kintara 01-15-05, 10:34 PM	that's the thing, why is this system more playable than simply making armor weight scale with carrying capacity (at least for creatures larger than medium)? And if it is about realism, why do colossal creatures have better effective carrying capacity than medium-sized creatures? And if its a balance issue, what's the problem with regular scaling... :confused:Eh, my answer would be that the average Strength for each size category has something to do with it. It would probably be helpful to calculate out a Strength average for each size category, and use that to determine the average carry capacity for that size. Then we can sort out who is getting what benefits.