|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 4:52AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Mar 25, 2001
|
I came up with this off the top of my head, it makes it mostly easy to calculate and it might be more in line with realism, it allows for slightly more than light load did in 3.5 (for average str) but less than initially set by the playtest here. Times your strength mod by 10 and add 50 pounds.
(STRMOD x10) + 50lbs STR 01 = 0lbs (things less than 1lb are fine)
STR 02 = 10lbs
STR 05 = 20lbs
STR 08 = 40lbs
STR 10 = 50lbs
STR 12 = 60lbs
STR 15 = 70lbs
STR 16 = 80lbs
STR 18 = 90lbs
I was looking at some random Google/Yahoo searches and found that average military weights are generally 50lbs for gear and restricted to a max of 100lb (usually). Remember the basic carrying capacity in D&D should be for what is allowed for totally unrestricted movement and functionality (i.e. if you had no gear it should be basically the same as it is with you under your weight cap). These numbers make sense if you think of an average person as STR 10 and say an average military person as maybe STR 12 leaving their max at 120lb and max carry without being restricted to 5ft moves (encumbered but still mostly mobile). Most average people can lift half their own weight so size should factor into these, so the basic rules of small is half and large is double should work. This system isn’t perfect either but balances ease of use with a more realistic set of numbers. I know I sure as heck would not be comfortable carrying around 100lbs all day without it affecting my performance even if it was properly distributed in a backpack or etc. let alone fight with it.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 8:27AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
The rules seem fine to me. They are quick and easy and not too far off from realistic. As for all the pull X all day arguments, do we really need a rule to say yeah pushing a weight at your limit is tiring and you wont be doing that all day?
Edit to add, they can change the multipliers a bit and it would still be fine or do what was sugested about and have a multiplier with 50lbs added on for the next level. Just keep it quick and easy and within reason. Don't get me wrong dead lifting 500lbs is not something the average guy will do without a huge adrenaline burst. The carry/carry encumbered seemed a bit more on point though. I weight lift and you wont see me dead lift 500lbs, leg press sure no problem but dead lift not so much. But for a quick easy system where you group dead lift and push it works.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:16PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
I was thinking a nice compromise here would be:
Max Light Load = up to 5 x Strength Score (50 lbs for 10 STR)
Max Heavy Load = up to 15 x strength score (150 lbs for 10 STR)
Max push/drag/deadlift = up to 45 x strength score (450 lbs for 10 STR)
In other words:
Light Load = 5 x STR
Heavy Load = 3 x Light Load
Push/drag/deadlift = 3 x Heavy Load
Easy.
I think this is realistic, because assuming that I have 10 STR, I could probably carry 50 well-distributed pounds around all day without too many adverse effects. 100 would wear me out, but I could manage, and 200 would be like carrying another one of me around and would not be sustainable for long when running around adventuring. 150 seems perfect to me as a maximum heavy load.
450 isn't quite as heavy as 500 either, so maybe some people will see that as more feasible.
(FYI, 20 STR would be Light:100, Heavy:300, Push/Drag:900. A Large-sized Horse with 20 STR would be double that, which seems almost right.)
EDIT: That being said, I think the current rules are suitable enough, and you can't beat its simplicity.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 1:00AM
#24
|
|
|
I agree that the current DnDN rules are broken.
However, the biggest problem I see with the rules is the fact that lifting and dragging have the same max weight. The fact is that 4.0 used the same math but did not include lifting in the the list of things that the average human can do with 500 lbs. At least in every game that I played, this seemed reasonable.
That being said, it is a huge oversight to say that the average human can lift 500 lbs and a gigantic departure from the former rules used to calculate max capacities. IMO returning to 4.0's math for these numbers would fix most of these issues we are seeing with Next's numbers.
Medium load would then be up to 10xSTR. Heavy load and max lift would be 20xSTR. Max drag or push would be 50xSTR.
Simple, easy, and more aligned with reality. Everybody wins.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 4:27AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I agree that the current DnDN rules are broken.
"Broken" or "not realistic"
They are not the same thing.
Broken means it actually harms gameplay.
Not realistic means it just doesn't conform to your calculations of how you think the world should be simulated.
Do the inaccuracies in the carry weights really break your game?
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 10:11AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
I agree that the current DnDN rules are broken.
"Broken" or "not realistic"
They are not the same thing.
Broken means it actually harms gameplay.
Not realistic means it just doesn't conform to your calculations of how you think the world should be simulated.
Do the inaccuracies in the carry weights really break your game?
Carl
It sorta relates to the overcosted poison thread. I would rather limit poison usage with weight than artificial cost. Cant do that if everyone hauls like a mule.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 10:27AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I agree that the current DnDN rules are broken.
"Broken" or "not realistic"
They are not the same thing.
Broken means it actually harms gameplay.
Not realistic means it just doesn't conform to your calculations of how you think the world should be simulated.
Do the inaccuracies in the carry weights really break your game?
Carl
It sorta relates to the overcosted poison thread. I would rather limit poison usage with weight than artificial cost. Cant do that if everyone hauls like a mule.
How much do you think Poison weighs? I suspect the weakest person could carry enough poison to kill an army. So I don't see how weight is going to balance poison....
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 11:39AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
I agree that the current DnDN rules are broken.
"Broken" or "not realistic"
They are not the same thing.
Broken means it actually harms gameplay.
Not realistic means it just doesn't conform to your calculations of how you think the world should be simulated.
Do the inaccuracies in the carry weights really break your game?
Carl
It sorta relates to the overcosted poison thread. I would rather limit poison usage with weight than artificial cost. Cant do that if everyone hauls like a mule.
How much do you think Poison weighs? I suspect the weakest person could carry enough poison to kill an army. So I don't see how weight is going to balance poison....
Carl
Item damage is another cost control. Players are more likely to purchase kits to hold poison, potions, acid and oil. The best kits are thick padded and somewhat heavy. Poison is weightless. If I didnt roll for equipment damage it would have no weight and player's could buy an insane amount (in certain rare locations where its stocked) especially since I would keep it cheap and sell it in bulk. Potion, and acid flasks, are only a pound each. You would have to play it this way or you are going to end up with some really videogamy inventories.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 4:56PM
#29
|
|
|
The recent rules for carrying capacity (4e and the current playtest) tend to break down fairly quickly when you step away from anything but average strength. The reason for this is that the developers have opted for simplicity over realism.
The current rules make calculation easy (good), but result in strength scores being linear (bad). 3rd edition had an exponential system that doubled your carrying capacity every 5 points. This kept strength scores for really strong characters/creatures from getting out of hand (good), but required table-lookups or memorization (bad). It's all of matter of how important one views these pros and cons to be. Personally, I prefer the 3rd edition approach.
I'm not a big fan of looking stuff up on a table for play. But encumbrance is something you check once -at character creation- and then reference off a sheet. And only if you're using it.
As long as you're not changing stats (like 3e) it shoudn't be a problem. Make a table.
Plus, that means super-humanly strong creatures (19-25 str) can lift appropriately more amounts. A large-sized ogre or Minotaur should weigh easily 1600 pounds, and should be able to lift their bodyweight.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 23, 2012 - 8:12AM
#30
|
|
|
I don't mind the crazy encumberance rules as is. It just means that the average person in the dnd world is a lot stronger than the average person in our world. I'm okay with that.
Its also nice because it makes putting a 12 in strength instead of an 8 somewhat meaningful for not melee fighters.
|
|
|
