| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1KalaniAug 09, 2014 10:57:45 | While the normal rules simply handwaive encumbrance and allow all characters to carry 15(Strength Score) Pounds, the variant encumbrance rules on the same page finally present a realistic carrying capacity and encumbrance system.
Using the variant system, 5E characters can carry up to 5(Strength Score) pounds without being encumbered (av. 50lbs). If their equipment weighs more than 5(Strength Score), the character is encumbered - reducing their speed by 10 ft.
If their equipment weighs between 10(Strength Score) and 15(Strength Score), the character is heavily encumbered, reducing their speed by 20 and imposing disadvantage on a variety of checks and actions.
I have to say that for the first time in ages, dnd encumberance rules come closest to simulating RW carrying capacities. Many manual labour jobs expect people to routinely lift/carry 40lb weights, which is in keeping with average 5E strength CCs. Jobs that require people to lift/carry 80lbs routinely expect applicants to have a 16 Strength (or suffer encumbrance). All in all, it seems fairly balanced with RW expectations.
Military/camping backpacks would likely boost the characters effective strength by 2-3 points for the purpose of determining encumberance (due to efficient weight distribution). |
| #2Plaguescarred1Aug 09, 2014 11:01:20 | I prefer the variant encumbrance rules too |
| #3jaelisAug 09, 2014 11:01:59 | I like that they give both options. |
| #4KalaniAug 09, 2014 11:50:09 | The variant system is far more realistic than anything we have been given over the last ~15 years since 3.X started..... Your average human (with Strength 10) cannot reliably carry 100lbs of gear before becoming encumbered, and could barely lift (let alone carry) a 150-200lb person, yet 3.X and 4E characters were superhuman in this regard. The 5E variant system is far closer to what people can carry IRL while still being a simulation. |
| #5quindiaAug 09, 2014 12:02:58 | I like them too and will be using them in my campaign. |
| #6ShiroikenAug 09, 2014 12:31:21 | I will also be using them, but mostly I think it will affect the dump Str spellcasters and the Cleric. |
| #7MarandahirAug 09, 2014 12:56:37 | Why specifically the Cleric? A number of Cleric subclasses will want Str (though some weapon Clerics will want Dex instead). The ones that don't are dump Str spellcasters like the rest of that catch-all. |
| #8h347h50Aug 09, 2014 12:59:39 | I also like the variant rules, it also makes people think twice about thinking dex is the most important stat as well. |
| #9SturmunddrangAug 09, 2014 13:05:22 | It's pretty far from realistic. The point that encumbrance starts is much too low and the point that it becomes heavily encumbered is too high. It also doesn't account for size of the character. If anything the non-variant rules are more accurate. |
| #10Sailing_Pirate_RyanAug 09, 2014 13:30:11 |
|
| #11h347h50Aug 09, 2014 13:53:17 |
|
| #12CVBAug 09, 2014 13:57:04 | THEY LISTENED! OK, everyone who has a book take a look at the weapons section. And note that all the 'one handed' weapons are withing the 2-3lbs top range for blades, up to about 5 for the heavier ones. While the Two Handed ones max out at 10lbs. for the Maul.
These are more 'realistic' weights for weapons! FINALLY! |
| #13jaelisAug 09, 2014 14:49:08 |
|
| #14ProletheusAug 09, 2014 14:57:27 | I second the opinion that these rules are more realistic. However, we won't use them in our campaign: Since most PCs will already be encumbered with just their starting equipment, I guess it would become micro-management hell. |
| #15SturmunddrangAug 09, 2014 15:20:49 |
|
| #16h347h50Aug 09, 2014 17:15:18 | ROFL
Dude go out in the woods with 150 pounds stuffed into a back pack. Go try and run at full speed. Next take it off and run at full speed. You will notice a huge difference.
Also I had a good laugh at every thing you posted
Just because he can lift it with his amrs does not mean gravitiy WILL NOT STOP HIM FROM BEING HINDERED. He is not "tossing" it arround. IF he did do that he would most likely hurt himself. You clearly have never really worked out or something other wise you would know lifting weights only counts for lifting weights. Benchpressing 1000 pounds does not mean you can suddenly ruck better.(Your logic)
I notice you just posted a list with no weights to it.... Just because somethign has a lot of items in it does not mean crap.
The plates for modern body armor(US) weigh 40 pounds by them selves. 9 pound helmet Then the soft armor & crap that holds that together. +12 pounds.(That is 61 pounds just for chest and moderate head protection.) Thats not all the extra parts to the body armor either.... Then the rifle or machine gun. 9 - 30 pounds. Then ammo. 30 rounds = 1 pound. 7 pounds for a rifleman. Roughly 33 Pounds for a SAW gunner.(That is roughly 50 pounds just for a SAW and its ammo, also lazers sights and flashlights bring it to that number as listed weights will be lower do to them not having those items on them) Then the rest of the crap that goes on your kit.(variable weight) Then boots, and cloths. THEN you have ruck sacks and every thing that goes in that. Deployment means usually 60+
Knights didn't carry anywhere near that much. They also had horses, and squires. |
| #17setiAug 09, 2014 17:32:45 | D&D incumbrance is like a video game.
Sure, your high strengh figher can carry 240 lbs. So...PCs are basically welcome to carry an extra suit of armor. Or 40 swords. Or 20000 gp.
I generally ignore incumbrance rules, unless someone wants to carry too much. They can say "But it's allowed in the RAW!" I can tell them to STFU.
Not in my game. I keep it simple; you cannot carry so much that it gets really illogical. 13 pole arms doesn't break the weight limit for many PCs. But...C'mon. 13 F-ing pole arms?!
what a PC (or NPC or monster, whatever) can carry should, and has to, really be a DM decision. Unless bags of holding are involved; you just cannot logically carry some things, or too much things.
Oh, and then there's fighting. If you have a loaded backpack on, maybe you should be at disadvantage on attack rolls and dex saves. Also, if a PC is hauling sacks of treasure, they should be at major disadvantage to a surprise attack. |
| #18AhglockAug 09, 2014 17:34:37 | While the x5 seems more realistic, I do think its a bit on the low side. I frequently move around with 50+ pounds of stuff, while my top speed in the sprinting sense is hindered my ordinary movement isn't and I'm only encumbered on the really long term scale as I am not really trained at multi hour hikes. And my stuff is mostly centered in a back pack not distributed across my body more evenly like armor is. Were I to make the rules, I'd stick with x5 as its easy to use but I would halve the weight of armor when worn. |
| #19SturmunddrangAug 09, 2014 17:40:10 |
|
| #20h347h50Aug 09, 2014 18:27:31 |
|
| #21SturmunddrangAug 09, 2014 18:28:42 |
|
| #22h347h50Aug 09, 2014 19:33:53 |
|
| #23SturmunddrangAug 09, 2014 21:28:20 |
|
| (Reply to #20)Overpromises |
|
| #25billnewsomeAug 10, 2014 12:05:16 | I am a big fan of realism in my D&D campaigns. I try to simulate reality (albeit a Medieval- and Renaissance-era one) as much as possible. That's why I only allow clerics or "priests" who, while very faithful, can't actually perform magic. What cleric really had the ability to perform magic in the Middle Ages? Wizards are right out too. Now, if someone wanted to play an "alchemist" who could try (but ultimately fail) to create the philosopher's stone, I'd allow that... but no actual magic. Oh, and no dragons, trolls, bugbears, kobolds, beholders, or any other magical beasts because those don't exist in the real world, so why should they exist in my "realistic" game?
In all seriousness, though, D&D is just a game. I think most people play games to escape the real world, not to be sucked further into it by micromanaging each copper coin and tallying up its weight. I am pretty lax on encumbrance unless it gets ridiculous. That's one reason I don't mind throwing a couple of bags of holding at my players early on. I want my players to feel heroic and not worry so much about strict realism in all its forms (e.g. encumbrance, diagonal movement costing more, having to stop in the middle of a combat to relieve oneself in the bushes, etc.). Again, I play roleplaying games to escape the mundane things of day-to-day life; that's why I have never had my players complete a "dig the latrine" skill challenge to see if they're able to dig the latrine deep enough and far enough away from their camp that they're not kept up all night by the foul smell and are fatigued the next day. I understand that some people prefer a more realistic style of play, but personally I'd find a strict adherence to overbearing/"realistic" encumbrance rules to be anti-fun. |
| #26KalaniAug 10, 2014 13:40:19 |
|
| (Reply to #21)TheMattyLee |
|
| #28KalaniAug 10, 2014 14:09:10 |
|
| #29SturmunddrangAug 10, 2014 15:04:09 |
|
| #30TheMattyLeeAug 10, 2014 15:43:09 |
|
| #31KalaniAug 10, 2014 16:37:19 | Matty is correct
As the OP - The original point of this topic was to discuss the fact that the variant encumbrance rules are closer to realistic examples than in previous editions (my opinion). As such, the discussion is in respect to how close the encumbrance rules (and by extension item weights) approximate real world encumbrance/weights.
The item weights, and encumbrance rules used in the book were never a point of contention.
What was being discussed was how closely the printed rules approximated real world encumbrance and weight. Calling out the rules as printed and saying that someone is wrong for stating the RW weight of an equivalent weapon is an irrelevant point, as the entire purpose of this thread was to compare the rules to RW examples.
As I said in my OP, I believe that the variant encumbrance rules come the closest of all editions to simulating RW encumbrance and by extension item weights. If you wish to make a relevant counter point to that, perhaps you should share your thoughts on which edition of Dnd simulated RW encumbrance better, and give evidence to your reasoning? Such an argument would at least be on topic. Your choices are limited to:
It is impossible to invalidate the weight/encumbrance of RW items in this thread, as they are the baseline (control) which the dnd encumbrance rules are being compared to.
|
| #32SturmunddrangAug 10, 2014 16:56:33 |
|
| #33KalaniAug 10, 2014 18:07:05 |
|
| #34TheMattyLeeAug 10, 2014 18:04:48 |
|
| #35lawrencehoyAug 10, 2014 21:38:15 |
|