The life expectancies are not under attack. They are based on contemporary records and fairly reliable. The only issue is how much is due to disease, malnutrition, war or accident
One kind of has to be careful as those figures tend tto get thrown out due to high infant mortality rates. Childbirth has a decent chance of killing the mother as well. If you survive childhood you had a reaosnable chance of a normal lifespan for that era.
Some of those "primitive" socieites also had a better life expectancy than people in the industrialised nations so being more advanced was not always an indicator of quality of lfe. Life was grim though compared to what we have now. Population explosions in the 18th and 19th century caused alot of problems. The main point was that life probably was not as bad as the common perception of the middles ages depending on the time period, location, wars, government in question etc.
One kind of has to be careful as those figures tend tto get thrown out due to high infant mortality rates. Childbirth has a decent chance of killing the mother as well. If you survive childhood you had a reaosnable chance of a normal lifespan for tha
One kind of has to be careful as those figures tend tto get thrown out due to high infant mortality rates.
The link I provided factored out infant mrtality.
Some of those "primitive" socieites also had a better life expectancy than people in the industrialised nations so being more advanced was not always an indicator of quality of lfe.
No primitive society ever had the life expectancy of 20th and 21st century societies.
The main point was that life probably was not as bad as the common perception of the middles ages depending on the time period, location, wars, government in question etc.
Depends on whose perception. Karnos seems to think medieval man was an Olympic athlete who could comfortably carry 100 lbs. all day without fatigue, that malnourishment had no ill effects if you survived infancy, and that toiling in the fields is in fact the source of a healthy aerobic workout. I think the Middle Ages was clearly a lot worse than that.
The link I provided factored out infant mrtality.No primitive society ever had the life expectancy of 20th and 21st century societies. Depends on whose perception. Karnos seems to think medieval man was an Olympic athlete who could comfortably carr
I'd be curious to know how many folks use encumbrance.
I find it to be an important aspect to the game. I also count about 50 gold coins as a pound. Very often my players have had to organize caravans to haul their loot after they have cleared out a complex or defeated a dragon to gain his hoard.
I like it. The dwarves in the hobbit had to leave alot of the troll treasure behind, and I remember heroes leading men back to reclaim hordes of gold in other literature. It also allows for a good time pressure element for higher level characters. If they are not quick enough getting back to the hoard they may lose it or have to fight for it. This is generally only for higher level characters when they find enough treasure to make hauling it difficult.
Portable holes are great, but they are a finite space. Just under 283 cubic feet, so a very small room's worth of treasure. I make portable holes a little bigger, 7 feet in diameter and 15 feet deep (Approx 575 cubic feet) in order to make it competetive with the Bag of Holding IV (250 cubic feet) Portable holes and bags of holding can't solve all the problems. The portable hole can hold a large storeroom worth. If you have more tresure than that time to get the ponies and the wagons.
I find it to be an important aspect to the game. I also count about 50 gold coins as a pound. Very often my players have had to organize caravans to haul their loot after they have cleared out a complex or defeated a dragon to gain his hoard.I like
Meh. I don't even track encumbrance. Unless the PCs are bringing their lucky cinderblock collection along on the adventure, it's not worth the fuss.
I enjoy how you say a rule shouldn't be changed because PCs are heros and then admit you don't use it anyway.
I wrote about this a while back in the thread linked by the OP. I'll just repost that:
Carrying capacity is a little silly in 4e/5e. Ridiculously silly. Worse than hitpoints. The 10x Strength is simple but not particularly satisfying and very quickly leads to inhuman feats. I'm reasonably strong. I've been going to the gym for a couple years and while I've still packing a few extra pounds, I can also lift a fair amount. Yet I'd be hard pressed to carry a hundred pounds and not be slowed down. And that's 10 strength. I know I can squat a little more than 250lbs, which would be my "lift" weight. Working backwards from that, I have an effective 4e/5e strength score of 5. FIVE!
Frankly, 4e carrying capacity starts crazy high but advances slower compared to earlier editions. For comparison, check out the 3e table: www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm A 10 Strength in 4e can carry as much as an 18 could in 3e while a 17 Strength in 4e can carry as much as a 22 in 3e and a 40 Strength in 4e equates with a 28 in 3e. My 4e psion with strength as a dump stat can carry more than my 3e fighter could!
There's no "easy" solution for this. Because D&D characters are expected to carry so much gear but also because the designers want something simple. However, you really only figure out your carrying capacity once: when you make your character. It's something you look at once in the book and then write down on your sheet. Without ability drain, a chart isn't that huge of an inconvenience. Likewise, light, medium, and heavy loads are also a bit much. You could probably just have unencumbered, encumbered, lift, and push. If you still want a non-chart option, I would halve the 4e/5e numbers. Strength score x5 instead of x10. But this is slightly trickier math wise...
The ironic thing is that people who track encumberance are the players most likely to want more realism in their game. People who hate reality simulators or want the PCs to be heroes will likely ignore encumberance anyway. So design the rules for people who will most likely use them but include options for those who want simpler rules.
I enjoy how you say a rule shouldn't be changed because PCs are heros and then admit you don't use it anyway.I wrote about this a while back in the thread linked by the OP. I'll just repost that:Carrying capacity is a little silly in 4e/5e. Ridiculou
If D&D had an encumbrance system that was both sensical (made sense) and simple (avoiding nitpicking bookkeeping), I would prefer to use it.
If players routinely decide their characters will purchase a donkey to carry treasure loads while avoiding encumbrance penalties - well that just seems realistic.
If D&D had an encumbrance system that was both sensical (made sense) and simple (avoiding nitpicking bookkeeping), I would prefer to use it.If players routinely decide their characters will purchase a donkey to carry treasure loads while avoiding enc
4e had the concept of “body slots”. I wonder if a system that looks something like that is a good way to handle encumbrance weight.
Each part of the body can handle a certain kind of equipment - any item unusually beyond it could then cause encumbrance penalties?
4e had the concept of “body slots”. I wonder if a system that looks something like that is a good way to handle encumbrance weight.Each part of the body can handle a certain kind of equipment - any item unusually beyond it could then caus
Strength is defined as a number between 3 and 18 and a human commoner has a Strength of 10 (according to the Playtest Bestiary). Therefore, a Strength of 10 should interact with other mechanics in a way that accurately reflects a human commoner.
Nor did I say otherwise. But there is such a thing as median strength for a human being. The military has studied it extensively.
Evidence 1: A human commoner has a Strength of 10. Evidence: Bestiary, page 59. Evidence 2.: A modern human is no weaker than a medieval human. Evidence: post 77 where I gave links. QED
Now you give evidence that modern man is weaker than the average medieval man.
No, you were comparing deadlift weights, not fatigue from encumberance.
Alternately, the Strength scores are wrongly calibrated. Your position only makes sense if the medieval man can carry 100 lbs. without being encumbered, for which you have shown no evidence.
I've been providing links throughout this thread as anybody can easily verify. I don't know why you persist in making stuff up that is so easily shown to be inaccurate.
You just insist on denying reality. Exercise makes a person stronger. The average person today doesn't really get very much exercise, and most modern jobs involve sitting or standing around most of the day with no significant physical labor component.
Still, you really like to jump to conclusions. Fact, in D&D 10 strength signifyies the capability to carry 100 lbs without much issue. Fact, a D&D commoner has 10 strength in the beastary. Not a fact: the D&D commoner's strength is evidence of the same strength of a medieval human commoner. That is simply you jumping to conclusions. A medieval human "wizard" could never perform real magic, does that mean that magic is unrealistic and needs to be removed? 10 strength is average in D&D, but it can well be above the average that humans have and have had in real life.
You keep bringing up real world peasants of the middle ages, and while I still believe they are on average stronger than a modern human with a desk job, they don't PROVE your point simply because they are not the same as a human commoner or adventurer or soldier in D&D.
However, just to humour you anyway, I did a little search.
SPIEGEL: In their physical strength, as well, medieval men cut terrifying figures.
Mortimer: Men in those days were very strong -- as long as they got enough to eat. They may not have been bodybuilders, but they did hard physical labor out in the fields every day. Even young boys were good with weapons, such as the longbow, and were expected to play an active role in defending their communities. Many took part in life-or-death fights from a young age. Future knights received training from the age of six or seven. Jousting served both as sport, and as training for war, in which the aim was to unseat the opponent and break his neck.
SPIEGEL: Sounds like a frightening time.
Mortimer: Violence dominated daily life -- and humor, as well. Both men and women found nothing more amusing than seeing someone get hurt. King Edward II, for example, paid one of his kitchen servants a bonus equivalent to a year's salary because the man had given his king a good laugh by coming unseated from his horse several times, hitting the ground painfully."
Completely obliteraties your whole argument. Not that the strength of medieval men in the real world is all that relevant as far as D&D humans are concerned, but there you go anyway.
You just insist on denying reality. Exercise makes a person stronger. The average person today doesn't really get very much exercise, and most modern jobs involve sitting or standing around most of the day with no significant physical labor compone
The carrying capacity is currently listed as 10x your Strength for unencumbered movement.That means a Strength 10 character can carry 100lbs unencumbered. This seems extremely unrealistic. I'm a pretty strong guy, able to bench 230-250 on a good day, with a best of 315. Back when I was in the US Army, I was in great shape. However, 100lbs of gear was uncommon and was very fatiguing.
Most military "light" packs are anywhere from 30-50lbs plus weapons, ammo and clothes. This allowed for quick, tactical movement. Heavier packs would be any where from 60-120lbs including gear. Heavier gear is meant to be moved from point-to-point so you can set up camp.
I would suggest unencumbered be your Strength x5. Strength 10 would be 50 pounds. Strength 18 would be 90lbs, unencumbered. Maximum carry encumbered would be unencumbered x3 (or Strength x15). Strength 10 would be able to carry and lift overhead for a short time 150lbs max. More than that and you will have to drag, put it on a cart, or get help. Drag and dead lift seems about right at x5.
do you have any idea how quickly medeival armored men could move? That might be a good way to gauge things.
do you have any idea how quickly medeival armored men could move? That might be a good way to gauge things.
Yeah I think he has a romantic view of working in the fields. I have worked in the fields in New Zealand and it is hard work and it sucks. Theres is a theory going around about malnutrtion in the middle ages was not so much a lack of food but the wrong type of food. I have had middle age recipies and pies and some of them taste good but you would not want to live on it day in and day out.
one of our frineds got a cook book with MA food in it this christmas. Its full of substitutes though as it can be hard getting the right plant or whatever and some of the ingredients mentioned are lost to time as thye were called somehting else and its difficult to be 100% sure as to what they were referring to. They also had blends of spices. Once agina it depends on the country I am guessing England, North Germany and parts of France had a higher calorie intake than other parts of the world. With no baking powder cakes/pies etc had alot of eggs and high calorie foods but low nutrition value in terms of a balanced diet.
WreacnYeah I think he has a romantic view of working in the fields. I have worked in the fields in New Zealand and it is hard work and it sucks. Theres is a theory going around about malnutrtion in the middle ages was not so much a lack of food but t
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You just insist on denying reality. Exercise makes a person stronger. The average person today doesn't really get very much exercise, and most modern jobs involve sitting or standing around most of the day with no significant physical labor component.
That medieval man is stronger is an assumption, that is not necessarily true. A peasant did not get near the protein level that modern people do. That is going to have a severe impact on their strength. Nor did they get the nutrition required for stronger bones than modern humans. Stronger bones as part of the simple machine can give a mechanical advantage.
You cannot use an assumption as a fact.
That medieval man is stronger is an assumption, that is not necessarily true. A peasant did not get near the protein level that modern people do. That is going to have a severe impact on their strength. Nor did they get the nutrition required for
Average modern man is bigger than medieval peasant so that is an issue. The peasant may be stronger than the average modern human but he probably won't be healthier. And I doubt he will be as strong as a modern farm worker, truck driver etc.
A modern office worker would be comparable to a priest and maybe a noble in terms of physical exertion required. My brother drove a truck and I saw him move a 200kg load by hand I could not budge. He pushed a barrel full of metal around and I am a reasonably strong guy as I can lift 100kg and carry it but 200kg is beyond me.
Average modern man is bigger than medieval peasant so that is an issue. The peasant may be stronger than the average modern human but he probably won't be healthier. And I doubt he will be as strong as a modern farm worker, truck driver etc. A modern
Average modern man is bigger than medieval peasant so that is an issue. The peasant may be stronger than the average modern human but he probably won't be healthier. And I doubt he will be as strong as a modern farm worker, truck driver etc.
A modern office worker would be comparable to a priest and maybe a noble in terms of physical exertion required. My brother drove a truck and I saw him move a 200kg load by hand I could not budge. He pushed a barrel full of metal around and I am a reasonably strong guy as I can lift 100kg and carry it but 200kg is beyond me.
Huh? I said the carrying capacity (without being encumbered) is the only thing anchoring strength in reality.
Incorrect. The score distribution also anchors str score to reality. The average human in D and D (i.e. a human commoner) has 10 str.
Incorrect. The average human has whatever strength score the DM decides upon. Could be six, could be sixteen.
Incorrect. The score distribution also anchors str score to reality. The average human in D and D (i.e. a human commoner) has 10 str. [/quote]Incorrect. The average human has whatever strength score the DM decides upon. Could be six, could be si
If D&D had an encumbrance system that was both sensical (made sense) and simple (avoiding nitpicking bookkeeping), I would prefer to use it.
If players routinely decide their characters will purchase a donkey to carry treasure loads while avoiding encumbrance penalties - well that just seems realistic.
If D&D had an encumbrance system that was both sensical (made sense) and simple (avoiding nitpicking bookkeeping), I would prefer to use it.
If players routinely decide their characters will purchase a donkey to carry treasure loads while avoiding encumbrance penalties - well that just seems realistic.
A rhinocereous is superior.
Huh. Iv never heard of trainable, domesticated, rhino.
A rhinocereous is superior. [/quote]Huh. Iv never heard of trainable, domesticated, rhino.
If D&D had an encumbrance system that was both sensical (made sense) and simple (avoiding nitpicking bookkeeping), I would prefer to use it.
If players routinely decide their characters will purchase a donkey to carry treasure loads while avoiding encumbrance penalties - well that just seems realistic.
A rhinocereous is superior.
Huh. Iv never heard of trainable, domesticated, rhino.
Adventurer's Vault: Rhino 2600GP
A rhinocereous is superior. [/quote]Huh. Iv never heard of trainable, domesticated, rhino. [/quote]Adventurer's Vault: Rhino 2600GP
Average modern man is bigger than medieval peasant so that is an issue. The peasant may be stronger than the average modern human but he probably won't be healthier. And I doubt he will be as strong as a modern farm worker, truck driver etc.
A modern office worker would be comparable to a priest and maybe a noble in terms of physical exertion required. My brother drove a truck and I saw him move a 200kg load by hand I could not budge. He pushed a barrel full of metal around and I am a reasonably strong guy as I can lift 100kg and carry it but 200kg is beyond me.
The Mutant Family of Zardnarr...
I'm kind of a big guy 6' tall 100kg but at the time my brother wasn't a super large guy and was similar size to me. My strength was about 13/14 in 3rd ed terms now its about 12. One brother was a pilot the other was a truck driver and that os a tough job. I helped him that day and he was moving around that barrel and offloading kegs of beer by hand. I can carry 60kg kegs into a walk in cooler no problem but he was beating me 2-1 almost.
The Mutant Family of Zardnarr... [/quote] I'm kind of a big guy 6' tall 100kg but at the time my brother wasn't a super large guy and was similar size to me. My strength was about 13/14 in 3rd ed terms now its about 12. One brother was a pilot the
The average height in the middle ages was 5'8". This declined to less than 5'6" by the beginning of the industrial age. Today the average height is over 5'10".
Better nutrition and fewer diseases makes modern man taller and stronger.
Professional athletes today are far more powerful than ever in the world's history as far as archeologists can discern.
Usain Bolt is probably the fastest man in the history of the world. World weightlifting records are probably the highest ever.
The average height in the middle ages was 5'8".This declined to less than 5'6" by the beginning of the industrial age.Today the average height is over 5'10".Better nutrition and fewer diseases makes modern man taller and stronger.Professional athlete
If D&D had an encumbrance system that was both sensical (made sense) and simple (avoiding nitpicking bookkeeping), I would prefer to use it.
If players routinely decide their characters will purchase a donkey to carry treasure loads while avoiding encumbrance penalties - well that just seems realistic.
A rhinocereous is superior.
Huh. Iv never heard of trainable, domesticated, rhino.
Adventurer's Vault: Rhino 2600GP
Heh, but whats the point of spending 2.6 k, for an animal that doesnt listen to a thing you say?
A rhinocereous is superior. [/quote]Huh. Iv never heard of trainable, domesticated, rhino. [/quote]Adventurer's Vault: Rhino 2600GP[/quote]Heh, but whats the point of spending 2.6 k, for an animal that doesnt listen to a thing you say?
Since it's trained and domesticated, it does listen to what you say.
Yep, it's a mount. You can get one for free if you want one that 'doesnt listen to a thing you say'. Just let me know when you do because I want to watch Haldrik...
Yep, it's a mount. You can get one for free if you want one that 'doesnt listen to a thing you say'. Just let me know when you do because I want to watch Haldrik...
I can see the Rogues in force now. “Do I have a great mount for you. Never saw such an obedient animal! My own grandmama used to ride it. Since I like you, Il let you buy it for only 2k.”
Heh.I can see the Rogues in force now. “Do I have a great mount for you. Never saw such an obedient animal! My own grandmama used to ride it. Since I like you, Il let you buy it for only 2k.”
You are trying to use history where it's not usable.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but the problem is, his response was to someone who was using history as an example, so he's free to respond using history in that case.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but the problem is, his response was to someone who was using history as an example, so he's free to respond using history in that case.
>The average height in the middle ages was 5'8". >This declined to less than 5'6" by the beginning of the industrial age. >Today the average height is over 5'10".
Interesting factoid but useless towards the ongoing argument.
I guess it's relevant if you want to start a thread about how it's stupid that dwarf and halfling characters can obtain great strength scores, since their height should indicate a lower potential strength, but it's not really anything to do with this as long as we are talking about D&D and not actual historical peasants.
>Better nutrition and fewer diseases makes modern man taller and stronger.
It's interesting that you say that while the historian I found on google says the opposite (re: strength). It's also funny because my wife was just watching some show on netflix about how the modern diet is so horrible because we no longer eat actual food, but rather "food like substances", and went on to talk about how we eat more calories but fewer actual nutrients, and some other things about how we consume about 100X as much raw sugar as humans did just a few hgundred years ago.
I mean really, fewer diseases, not completely true. Diabetes is up 90% in the last 10 years. Not down, up.
I feel like you and others are looking at specific times in history where the plague or red death or whatever epidemic was going on and thinking that is how life has always been up until the last 20 years. I'm not going to deny that people died a lot younger and such, but trying to say the disease level was such that people were literally all walking around crippled and decrepidly weak is going to take more than a forum post. I've heard that the weak and elderly died from the diseases, not the healthy young. If anything, the killer plagues and such would drive the average strength up, because the weakest people were killed off.
I found a link with evidence that people were stronger and nobody has disputed it, time to offer up a contrary citation if you want to be taken seriously.
>Professional athletes today are far more powerful than ever in the world's history as far as >archeologists can discern.
I agree. But the top 1% isn't the average. I am still arguing that the average person today is less strong than the average human in a D&D game, and since you guys keep drawing examples from mideveal history, see the historian I quoted above who agrees.
>Usain Bolt is probably the fastest man in the history of the world. >World weightlifting records are probably the highest ever.
And yet the average is lower. Anyone with the simpliest knowledge of statistics should know that just because the maximum is higher doesn't tell you anything about the average or median.
>The average height in the middle ages was 5'8".>This declined to less than 5'6" by the beginning of the industrial age.>Today the average height is over 5'10".Interesting factoid but useless towards the ongoing argument.I guess it's relevant if you
Incorrect. The average human has whatever strength score the DM decides upon. Could be six, could be sixteen.
Well, you can make the average human in your campaign have whatever score you want, but the one in the books is going to have 10 str, assuming that they don't change the stats in the bestiary before release (and I don't have any reason to believe they would). If your DM declares that 5 is the average human strength, then you've also got issues with not being able to make a character that is below average strength.
Again, you can do it that way if you want, but there's no way that the default game is intended to result in the weakest ivory-tower book-loving wizard adventurer be able to carry 37.5% more than an average human.
I agree. But the top 1% isn't the average. I am still arguing that the average person today is less strong than the average human in a D&D game, and since you guys keep drawing examples from mideveal history, see the historian I quoted above who agrees.
Here's the problem though: in terms of the lowest encumberance threshold, the average person in D&D Next is stronger than the average modern infantry soldier. By a lot. I honestly don't know whether the average medieval person is stronger than the average modern person, but it makes absolutely no sense that they would be able to carry twice as much weight as a modern person whose training involves carrying a lot of weight on their backs. The same goes for the average commoner in whatever non-medieval millieu you prefer.
Well, you can make the average human in your campaign have whatever score you want, but the one in the books is going to have 10 str, assuming that they don't change the stats in the bestiary before release (and I don't have any reason to believe the
Huh? I said the carrying capacity (without being encumbered) is the only thing anchoring strength in reality.
Incorrect. The score distribution also anchors str score to reality. The average human in D and D (i.e. a human commoner) has 10 str.
Incorrect. The average human has whatever strength score the DM decides upon. Could be six, could be sixteen.
No the rules state what the average strength is. You can see this by the modifier of 0. A DM can drop this rule if he likes, but indeed mathematically and by RAW you are incorrect.
Incorrect. The score distribution also anchors str score to reality. The average human in D and D (i.e. a human commoner) has 10 str. [/quote]Incorrect. The average human has whatever strength score the DM decides upon. Could be six, could be si
>The average height in the middle ages was 5'8". >This declined to less than 5'6" by the beginning of the industrial age. >Today the average height is over 5'10".
Interesting factoid but useless towards the ongoing argument.
I guess it's relevant if you want to start a thread about how it's stupid that dwarf and halfling characters can obtain great strength scores, since their height should indicate a lower potential strength, but it's not really anything to do with this as long as we are talking about D&D and not actual historical peasants.
>Better nutrition and fewer diseases makes modern man taller and stronger.
It's interesting that you say that while the historian I found on google says the opposite (re: strength). It's also funny because my wife was just watching some show on netflix about how the modern diet is so horrible because we no longer eat actual food, but rather "food like substances", and went on to talk about how we eat more calories but fewer actual nutrients, and some other things about how we consume about 100X as much raw sugar as humans did just a few hgundred years ago.
I mean really, fewer diseases, not completely true. Diabetes is up 90% in the last 10 years. Not down, up.
I feel like you and others are looking at specific times in history where the plague or red death or whatever epidemic was going on and thinking that is how life has always been up until the last 20 years. I'm not going to deny that people died a lot younger and such, but trying to say the disease level was such that people were literally all walking around crippled and decrepidly weak is going to take more than a forum post. I've heard that the weak and elderly died from the diseases, not the healthy young. If anything, the killer plagues and such would drive the average strength up, because the weakest people were killed off.
I found a link with evidence that people were stronger and nobody has disputed it, time to offer up a contrary citation if you want to be taken seriously.
>Professional athletes today are far more powerful than ever in the world's history as far as >archeologists can discern.
I agree. But the top 1% isn't the average. I am still arguing that the average person today is less strong than the average human in a D&D game, and since you guys keep drawing examples from mideveal history, see the historian I quoted above who agrees.
>Usain Bolt is probably the fastest man in the history of the world. >World weightlifting records are probably the highest ever.
And yet the average is lower. Anyone with the simpliest knowledge of statistics should know that just because the maximum is higher doesn't tell you anything about the average or median.
Google is not a good source you have to FIRST evaluate the link. Go to Google Scholar you are better off. A historian stating people were stronger is an educated speculation. Archaeologists can't agree. Ian Mortimer the historian you quoted never said that Peasants were stronger than modern humans. You are doing what the ancient aliens guys do: Finding evidence to support your conclusion. On Google you will always find the evidence to fit your conclusion whether correct or not.
I have spent the last half hour on a google search for this just to see what I could come up with. The best, and most reliable sites seem to have this comparison as inconclusive.
The argument you are framing though with the average strength is really meaningless. The average strength offers nothing as a comparison. A proper comparison would be monks and scribes to office workers, and farmers to peasants. I am speculating but I imagine the modern farmer is stronger than the medieval peasant, and I would think nutrition would come into play there. People now CONSISTENTLY get food year after year. Peasants did not. A bad harvest means a year of skint food. Modern humans eat alot of crap but they get the nutrition they need for muscle building and bone structure day after day year after year. That cumulative effect is going to maintain the strength, while the peasant has periods of atrophy.
I don't know if people in the middle ages were stronger they may have been. The links you posted did nothing to establish that fact one way or the other.
As for diabetes and modern diseases, those were present in the middle ages. In fact diabetics used to be thrown in jail in victorian times 'to sleep off the drunk" because nobody understood there was a disease like diabetes. The rate of diabetes now is higher because the threats people have to their lives are much less. Plus there is no data to determine the rate of diabetes in the middle ages. It is speculated King Henry VIII had it and that is one reason he was a nutter. The genetic diseases we have now were present in the middle ages, but were undocumented.
This is what you are using for evidence of your case:
Men in those days were very strong -- as long as they got enough to eat. They may not have been bodybuilders, but they did hard physical labor out in the fields every day. Even young boys were good with weapons, such as the longbow, and were expected to play an active role in defending their communities. Many took part in life-or-death fights from a young age. Future knights received training from the age of six or seven. Jousting served both as sport, and as training for war, in which the aim was to unseat the opponent and break his neck.
How is that in any way conclusive evidence? I don't need to post a link refuting this because it tells the reader nothing other than "medieval men were strong". It says nothing to the strength of modern man. Using this as evidence you are correct to that effect is insufficient.
In order to obliterate the argument as you say, you need to find an archaelogist that has conducted a study on this. Until then you are speculating like everyone else.
I suspect though the answer is still closer to modern man being stronger, especially if you consider the averages in terms of career. A modern human office worker to a monk, a US soldier to an English man at arms and even a knight, a professional athlete to a Knight they have about the same societal status, and would presumably be the pinacle of fitness for their society which is why I put them in a category.)
Google is not a good source you have to FIRST evaluate the link. Go to Google Scholar you are better off. A historian stating people were stronger is an educated speculation. Archaeologists can't agree. Ian Mortimer the historian you quoted never
Completely obliteraties your whole argument. Not that the strength of medieval men in the real world is all that relevant as far as D&D humans are concerned, but there you go anyway.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't compare modern man at all and gives us no criteria for what he considers strong. All he says is they weren't bodybuilders but they could weild weapons. That has nothing to do with strength, and everything to do with weapons training, which is what he is describing. They were physically fit enough to weild weapons for training.
I also note that having read the link, you completely took it out of context. He is very clear that they were strong "when they could find enough to eat" and that medieval man had a lot of trouble finding enough to eat.
I also note that you haven't shown anything that indicates that the average medieval man could carry 100 lbs. all day without fatigue, which is what would be required to show that the current encumberance rules make sense.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't compare modern man at all and gives us no criteria for what he considers strong. All he says is they weren't bodybuilders but they could weild weapons. That has nothing to do with strength, and everything to do with weap
Why are we worried about this again? At most it'll just get the characters to spend 20 gold on a mule if they get too repressive.
Some people ignore encumberance. Some people want realistic encumberance. The best thing would be to have realistic encumberance rulesthat can be easilyignored by those who don't want to use them.
Some people ignore encumberance. Some people want realistic encumberance. The best thing would be to have realistic encumberance rulesthat can be easilyignored by those who don't want to use them.
Why are we worried about this again? At most it'll just get the characters to spend 20 gold on a mule if they get too repressive.
Some people ignore encumberance. Some people want realistic encumberance. The best thing would be to have realistic encumberance rulesthat can be easilyignored by those who don't want to use them.
Exactly. There are rules for a fast paced level game to a slow paced leveling game. For a game that is going to be modular they should have several different sets for encumberace as well since people seems to want both sides of it- reality and fantasy. Personally they should also include a middle as well. Personally, my group only brings out encumberance rules if you have an 8 strength and are tryingt to carry a heavy load, haha.
Some people ignore encumberance. Some people want realistic encumberance. The best thing would be to have realistic encumberance rulesthat can be easilyignored by those who don't want to use them.[/quote]Exactly. There are rules for a fast paced lev
I can't believe this thread got so big. It's such an easy answer:
This is the world of dungeons and dragons. In this world, people are strong enough to cary this much. Do you want to run a campaign with stricter rules? Then do so. But there's no need to change the regular rules for you in the regular edition.
I can't believe this thread got so big. It's such an easy answer:This is the world of dungeons and dragons. In this world, people are strong enough to cary this much. Do you want to run a campaign with stricter rules? Then do so. But there's no need
I also note that having read the link, you completely took it out of context. He is very clear that they were strong "when they could find enough to eat" and that medieval man had a lot of trouble finding enough to eat.
When is the last time your character was struggling to afford food? Pretty much every game I have ever played, "getting enough to eat" was never a problem. So what if real medieval humans had to strugle to find food? We are talking about adventurers, who quiet literally could eat like kings if they wanted to.
I also note that you haven't shown anything that indicates that the average medieval man could carry 100 lbs. all day without fatigue, which is what would be required to show that the current encumberance rules make sense.
Nice try at a strawman argument. I never claimed that 10 strength was average in the real world, in fact if you go back and read my posts you will see that I repeat over and over that the real average in the modern world is probably 4-5 based on the sedentary lifestyle most people live. 10-11 strength is average in D&D. Average in the real world is much lower.
When is the last time your character was struggling to afford food? Pretty much every game I have ever played, "getting enough to eat" was never a problem. So what if real medieval humans had to strugle to find food? We are talking about adventure
I never claimed that 10 strength was average in the real world, in fact if you go back and read my posts you will see that I repeat over and over that the real average in the modern world is probably 4-5 based on the sedentary lifestyle most people live. 10-11 strength is average in D&D. Average in the real world is much lower.
OK, so we're back to asking why it makes sense for humans to be so much stronger in D&D than they are in real life. They aren't generally depicted that way. I would expect that most people have an expectation that a normal human in D&D is going to be similar in most qualities to a real world, anatomically modern human. That might easily accomodate, say, an average D&D commoner that's 20% stronger than a real life human. But an 8 str (i.e. below average) human that can carry twice as much on their back than a trained modern person can? That makes no sense; that trait isn't recognizable as "human" anymore.
OK, so we're back to asking why it makes sense for humans to be so much stronger in D&D than they are in real life. They aren't generally depicted that way. I would expect that most people have an expectation that a normal human in D&D is going to
I can't believe this thread got so big. It's such an easy answer:
This is the world of dungeons and dragons. In this world, people are strong enough to cary this much. Do you want to run a campaign with stricter rules? Then do so. But there's no need to change the regular rules for you in the regular edition.
Some people want the standard rules to be realistic and the unrealistic rules to be optional. I completely agree. People who want unrealistic rules can use the optional rules.
Some people want the standard rules to be realistic and the unrealistic rules to be optional. I completely agree. People who want unrealistic rules can use the optional rules.
Why are you asking why? It's been answered over and over.
What makes an olympic class weight lifter stronger than a typical modern person? Strength isn't something that you are just born with, you need to exercise and use your muscles to make them stronger. Modern man *never* needs to do this. For some select few, they may go to the gym and make an effort to exercise a few days a week, and for the 1% such as olympic athletes or sports players they make being fit and strong their life, but the majoprity do not exercise.
Life in D&D land, there are no cars, you walk or ride wherever you need to go. You want to survive against an orc attack, you gotta pick up a weapon and fight them off. You want to be some sort of soldier or guard or fighter, you need to wear 40 lbs+ of armor and equipment and walk around in it for 8-16 hours a day every day. Those without the strength to manage these basic needs die a young age or, if lucky, end up as those 8 str wizards.
Basic life involved a lot of physical work, whatever you did, and those who couldn't handle it died. Those who could handle it got stronger. Exercising and using muscles is how they get stronger.
But back to the modern world, no exercise= no strength. Not sure why it's a difficult concept.
Why are you asking why? It's been answered over and over. What makes an olympic class weight lifter stronger than a typical modern person? Strength isn't something that you are just born with, you need to exercise and use your muscles to make them
I can't believe this thread got so big. It's such an easy answer:
This is the world of dungeons and dragons. In this world, people are strong enough to cary this much. Do you want to run a campaign with stricter rules? Then do so. But there's no need to change the regular rules for you in the regular edition.
Some people want the standard rules to be realistic and the unrealistic rules to be optional. I completely agree. People who want unrealistic rules can use the optional rules.
To me, it seems odd to be arguing over 'realistic and unrealistic' strength rules in a fantasy RPG.
I look for easy and roughly balanced not realistic/unrealistic. and stX10 fits the bill. I'd think that a smaller slice of D&D users want/need this kind of realism than doesn't so on that I'd say realistic = option.
Some people want the standard rules to be realistic and the unrealistic rules to be optional. I completely agree. People who want unrealistic rules can use the optional rules.[/quote]To me, it seems odd to be arguing over 'realistic and unrealistic
Why are you asking why? It's been answered over and over.
Don't be silly. I'm not asking by what process someone becomes stronger. I'm asking why it makes sense for these people:
to be stronger than these people:
Edit: well, apparently the image embed script isn't working or something. The first one was a picture of peasants, the second one was of modern soldiers with packs on.
Do you seriously not understand why this breaks verisimilitude for a lot of people?
Those without the strength to manage these basic needs die a young age or, if lucky, end up as those 8 str wizards.
Yeah, 8 str wizards that can carry more pack weight without slowing than almost anyone alive today.
I look for easy and roughly balanced not realistic/unrealistic. and stX10 fits the bill. I'd think that a smaller slice of D&D users want/need this kind of realism than doesn't so on that I'd say realistic = option.
How much harder is str x5 than str x10 though?
Don't be silly. I'm not asking by what process someone becomes stronger. I'm asking why it makes sense for these people:to be stronger than these people:Edit: well, apparently the image embed script isn't working or something. The first one was a
Agreed. Strength x 5 is easy enough. If that is too tough just do 50 lbs plus or minus 10 x strength modifier.
Modern professional athletes train and exercise far more than knights. They also have facilities and nutrition that are far better. How many olympic level decathletes would feel comfortable hauling 100 lbs around all day long?
I am in good shape. I train and exercise and have benchpressed as much as 350 lbs in my life. I've done 30 pullups nonstop. I've gone on hiking trips with 40 lbs worth of gear. I could handle that. I could handle 100 lbs for only a short time before needing to shed weight and I'd be very encumbered by the time I finished.
Agreed. Strength x 5 is easy enough. If that is too tough just do 50 lbs plus or minus 10 x strength modifier.Modern professional athletes train and exercise far more than knights. They also have facilities and nutrition that are far better. How ma
Karnos: When is the last time your character was struggling to afford food?
As you aptly said to another poster, it's not about my character. It's about the average human, the human commoner that the Bestiary lists as having a Strength of 10, which means, under current encumberance rules, that he can carry twice what a trained soldier in the modern military can carry without becoming fatigued.
So for this to be a reasonable rule, you have to say that (i) D&D characters -- even the commoners -- are superhuman, (ii) D&D Commoners are modeled on the average medieval man, who could carry 100 lbs. all day without being encumbered, or (iii) the encumberance rules need to be changed.
You have appeared to be suggesting number 2, that the average medieval man can carry 100 lbs. of gear all day without fatigue, even though the modern soldier can only carry half that. Your evidence of this has been an historian claiming mediavl man "was very strong" with no indication of what that means.
Karnos: So what if real medieval humans had to strugle to find food? We are talking about adventurers, who quiet literally could eat like kings if they wanted to.
No, we're not talking about adventurers. The encumberance rules apply to all characters, including the human commoner found in the Bestiary, who has a Strength of 10 and can thus carry 100 lbs. all day long without fatigue.
Karnos: I never claimed that 10 strength was average in the real world
I never claimed you did. What you claimed is that the current encumberance rules make sense for characters based on the average medieval man. And the encumberance rules state that the human commoner can carry 100 lbs. all day without fatigue. So what evidence do you have that the average medieval human can carry twice as much as a modern-day soldier all day long without fatigue?
Karnos: 10-11 strength is average in D&D.
This is what you said. What evidence do you have that medieval man can carry twice as much weight as a modern soldier (who is more fit than the average modern person) without fatigue? It is truly an extraordinary claim you are making, that a human commoner is twice as strong as a modern G.I.
Karnos: When is the last time your character was struggling to afford food? As you aptly said to another poster, it's not about my character. It's about the average human, the human commoner that the Bestiary lists as having a Strength of 10, which
Agreed. Strength x 5 is easy enough. If that is too tough just do 50 lbs plus or minus 10 x strength modifier.
For me, I'd like to stick with stX10 as it takes almost no ability with math. Everyone can add a 0 to their str. This may seem silly, but I'll take anything to max easy and min error/paperwork.
Modern professional athletes train and exercise far more than knights. They also have facilities and nutrition that are far better. How many olympic level decathletes would feel comfortable hauling 100 lbs around all day long?
I am in good shape. I train and exercise and have benchpressed as much as 350 lbs in my life. I've done 30 pullups nonstop. I've gone on hiking trips with 40 lbs worth of gear. I could handle that. I could handle 100 lbs for only a short time before needing to shed weight and I'd be very encumbered by the time I finished.
I tend to think of characters as heroes, so it doesn't matter to me if they can carry more than 'real' people. As far as NPC's/'monster' humans, they can carry/lift what I want/need them to. Just because a commoner has a 10 str on paper doesn't mean that's what every commoner they meet has. I've never figured out encumbance for one of them before and I don't see why I'd EVER need to. The only person that sees the stats for 'monsters/NPc's is me so what verisimilitude would I break? The only strength they should see is the one on their sheets.
For me, I'd like to stick with stX10 as it takes almost no ability with math. Everyone can add a 0 to their str. This may seem silly, but I'll take anything to max easy and min error/paperwork.I tend to think of characters as heroes, so it doesn't ma
Agreed. Strength x 5 is easy enough. If that is too tough just do 50 lbs plus or minus 10 x strength modifier.
For me, I'd like to stick with stX10 as it takes almost no ability with math. Everyone can add a 0 to their str. This may seem silly, but I'll take anything to max easy and min error/paperwork.
Modern professional athletes train and exercise far more than knights. They also have facilities and nutrition that are far better. How many olympic level decathletes would feel comfortable hauling 100 lbs around all day long?
I am in good shape. I train and exercise and have benchpressed as much as 350 lbs in my life. I've done 30 pullups nonstop. I've gone on hiking trips with 40 lbs worth of gear. I could handle that. I could handle 100 lbs for only a short time before needing to shed weight and I'd be very encumbered by the time I finished.
I tend to think of characters as heroes, so it doesn't matter to me if they can carry more than 'real' people. As far as NPC's/'monster' humans, they can carry/lift what I want/need them to. Just because a commoner has a 10 str on paper doesn't mean that's what every commoner they meet has. I've never figured out encumbance for one of them before and I don't see why I'd EVER need to. The only person that sees the stats for 'monsters/NPc's is me so what verisimilitude would I break? The only strength they should see is the one on their sheets.
So we need 2 sets of optional encumbrance rules. 1 for people who want realism. 1 for people who want simplicity.
My argument would be that: Realism: 50 lbs plus or minus 10 x strength modifier. Simplicity: Ignore encumbrance. Don't bother keeping track of it. If that seems strange then so does the 10 x strength to people who think it should be recorded and tracked realistically.
For me, I'd like to stick with stX10 as it takes almost no ability with math. Everyone can add a 0 to their str. This may seem silly, but I'll take anything to max easy and min error/paperwork.I tend to think of characters as heroes, so it doesn't ma
I can't believe this thread got so big. It's such an easy answer:
This is the world of dungeons and dragons. In this world, people are strong enough to cary this much. Do you want to run a campaign with stricter rules? Then do so. But there's no need to change the regular rules for you in the regular edition.
Some people want the standard rules to be realistic and the unrealistic rules to be optional. I completely agree. People who want unrealistic rules can use the optional rules.
The whole game is unrealistic. In a world where people can teleport and go to the Abyss does it hurt if load carrying isn't precise?
Some people want the standard rules to be realistic and the unrealistic rules to be optional. I completely agree. People who want unrealistic rules can use the optional rules.[/quote]The whole game is unrealistic. In a world where people can telepo
The whole game is unrealistic. In a world where people can teleport and go to the Abyss does it hurt if load carrying isn't precise?
For some people, yes. We expect nonmagical human commoners to have the capacities expected of actual human commoners. It allows us to anticipate and immerse ourselves in the world. A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day soldier would be a world completely unrecognizable to us.
For some people, yes. We expect nonmagical human commoners to have the capacities expected of actual human commoners. It allows us to anticipate and immerse ourselves in the world. A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day so
The whole game is unrealistic. In a world where people can teleport and go to the Abyss does it hurt if load carrying isn't precise?
People can teleport or go to the Abyss by means that make sense within the context of the game. Having normal, average people be stronger than almost anyone in real life is doesn't really make sense within the context of the game. Having 8 Str characters be able to carry more than almost anyone in real life are is actively detrimental to some people's ability to suspend disbelief. It's not really about precision; in fact, 50 pounds is still quite a bit more than an average real life person could be expected to carry unencumbered, but it's much better than the numbers that exist now.
People can teleport or go to the Abyss by means that make sense within the context of the game. Having normal, average people be stronger than almost anyone in real life is doesn't really make sense within the context of the game. Having 8 Str char
Why are we worried about this again? At most it'll just get the characters to spend 20 gold on a mule if they get too repressive.
Some people ignore encumberance. Some people want realistic encumberance. The best thing would be to have realistic encumberance rulesthat can be easilyignored by those who don't want to use them.
When I DM I use encumberance. When players in my group get the DM bug they never use it. I am one of the few DM's that like to keep track of that. It works for me. Please make the rules a little more on point so I have fun, since most other people do not care. I realize that is your point I am just seconding it.
Some people ignore encumberance. Some people want realistic encumberance. The best thing would be to have realistic encumberance rulesthat can be easilyignored by those who don't want to use them.[/quote]When I DM I use encumberance. When players i
The whole game is unrealistic. In a world where people can teleport and go to the Abyss does it hurt if load carrying isn't precise?
For some people, yes. We expect nonmagical human commoners to have the capacities expected of actual human commoners. It allows us to anticipate and immerse ourselves in the world. A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day soldier would be a world completely unrecognizable to us.
Well in a world of dragons, beholders, ghosts, demons, and gelatinous cubes how much hay Reginald Griswold IV can carry is the least of my worries with regards to it being recognizable or not. Plus the NPCs in the background so to speak are going to be played as the DM wishes regardless of the stats.
For some people, yes. We expect nonmagical human commoners to have the capacities expected of actual human commoners. It allows us to anticipate and immerse ourselves in the world. A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day so
Well in a world of dragons, beholders, ghosts, demons, and gelatinous cubes how much hay Reginald Griswold IV can carry is the least of my worries with regards to it being recognizable or not.
So you wouldn't really mind if it changed to Strx5 instead of Strx10 is what you're saying? Cool. Let's be friends.
Plus the NPCs in the background so to speak are going to be played as the DM wishes regardless of the stats.
PCs have strength scores too, and those carrying capacities also don't make sense.
So you wouldn't really mind if it changed to Strx5 instead of Strx10 is what you're saying? Cool. Let's be friends.PCs have strength scores too, and those carrying capacities also don't make sense.
Well in a world of dragons, beholders, ghosts, demons, and gelatinous cubes how much hay Reginald Griswold IV can carry is the least of my worries with regards to it being recognizable or not. Plus the NPCs in the background so to speak are going to be played as the DM wishes regardless of the stats.
And then, for you, realistic encumberance rules can be safely ignored. But for those who want realistic encumberance rules, we don't have them... yet. Which is a pity, since they can be so easily included.
And then, for you, realistic encumberance rules can be safely ignored. But for those who want realistic encumberance rules, we don't have them... yet. Which is a pity, since they can be so easily included.
The whole game is unrealistic. In a world where people can teleport and go to the Abyss does it hurt if load carrying isn't precise?
People can teleport or go to the Abyss by means that make sense within the context of the game. Having normal, average people be stronger than almost anyone in real life is doesn't really make sense within the context of the game. Having 8 Str characters be able to carry more than almost anyone in real life are is actively detrimental to some people's ability to suspend disbelief. It's not really about precision; in fact, 50 pounds is still quite a bit more than an average real life person could be expected to carry unencumbered, but it's much better than the numbers that exist now.
One problem with that and this is a problem with D&D since 1st edition when attributes went from 3-25 is that to model the vast difference in capabilities between say a bookworm or rot grub on the low end and Zeus or Odin or a Titan at the top end is you have to have a very nonlinear chart. Even with percentile dice in the 18 range giving a bit more granularity to the chart. Simplicity is fine and x 5 is fine but then dragons and other very powerful critters are going to have strengths in the 50,000 range and I thought D&D folk like to keep numbers small. It cannot work both ways with a linear scale.
Non-linear has it's own issues as well. Ultimately players just need to realise that most if not all the game rules are an abstraction.
People can teleport or go to the Abyss by means that make sense within the context of the game. Having normal, average people be stronger than almost anyone in real life is doesn't really make sense within the context of the game. Having 8 Str char
The whole game is unrealistic. In a world where people can teleport and go to the Abyss does it hurt if load carrying isn't precise?
For some people, yes. We expect nonmagical human commoners to have the capacities expected of actual human commoners. It allows us to anticipate and immerse ourselves in the world. A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day soldier would be a world completely unrecognizable to us.
Well, all we have are the stats of commoners that are combat 'monsters' from the bestiary. We don't have any stats on non-combat commoners do we? As such, how do we know what the average human can carry in the game?
My point is that I expect that the humans we have stats on are balanced and built for combat only. They aren't built for out of encounter things.
For some people, yes. We expect nonmagical human commoners to have the capacities expected of actual human commoners. It allows us to anticipate and immerse ourselves in the world. A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day so
The whole game is unrealistic. In a world where people can teleport and go to the Abyss does it hurt if load carrying isn't precise?
For some people, yes. We expect nonmagical human commoners to have the capacities expected of actual human commoners. It allows us to anticipate and immerse ourselves in the world. A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day soldier would be a world completely unrecognizable to us.
Well in a world of dragons, beholders, ghosts, demons, and gelatinous cubes how much hay Reginald Griswold IV can carry is the least of my worries with regards to it being recognizable or not. Plus the NPCs in the background so to speak are going to be played as the DM wishes regardless of the stats.
To me though that is a worry. In fact i use encumberance as a limiting factor to treasure.
My adventurers are employers as well as employees. They hire people to lug their spoils, and occasionally if they do not make sure those people are defended, they might get killed which causes problems alignment wise and treasure wise. It is a problem solving part of the game for my players which they enjoy. In my home campaign I want this.
When I run Sanctioned WOTC ENCOUNTERS, I make sure it is merely logical. A much simpler style. I realize people in the sanctioned events don't want to bog themselves down in minutiae. So for a one shot campaign where I gather people for a night to tryout a new adventure or a one shot, no I do not track encumberance.
For my CAMPAIGN with characters going through many sessions over many levels I want a realistic... no let me change it to PLAUSIBLE encumberance system.
For some people, yes. We expect nonmagical human commoners to have the capacities expected of actual human commoners. It allows us to anticipate and immerse ourselves in the world. A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day so
Well in a world of dragons, beholders, ghosts, demons, and gelatinous cubes how much hay Reginald Griswold IV can carry is the least of my worries with regards to it being recognizable or not. Plus the NPCs in the background so to speak are going to be played as the DM wishes regardless of the stats.
And then, for you, realistic encumberance rules can be safely ignored. But for those who want realistic encumberance rules, we don't have them... yet. Which is a pity, since they can be so easily included.
I suppose what I am trying to convey is that instead of endless debate about "realism" which will never be modified satisfactory for extreme advocates of realism, people ought to accept that in a game there will be game like elements. Otherwise, how long you can march in different terrains in different weather before a bath room break will have to be codified. And might as well let males take a pee break in 1 round and females in 3 for realism. Sex differences in encumberance also ought to be modeled if realism is key.
And then, for you, realistic encumberance rules can be safely ignored. But for those who want realistic encumberance rules, we don't have them... yet. Which is a pity, since they can be so easily included.[/quote]I suppose what I am trying to conve
The whole game is unrealistic. In a world where people can teleport and go to the Abyss does it hurt if load carrying isn't precise?
For some people, yes. We expect nonmagical human commoners to have the capacities expected of actual human commoners. It allows us to anticipate and immerse ourselves in the world. A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day soldier would be a world completely unrecognizable to us.
Well in a world of dragons, beholders, ghosts, demons, and gelatinous cubes how much hay Reginald Griswold IV can carry is the least of my worries with regards to it being recognizable or not. Plus the NPCs in the background so to speak are going to be played as the DM wishes regardless of the stats.
To me though that is a worry. In fact i use encumberance as a limiting factor to treasure.
If this is how you do it, then pass out more art objects and piles of small value coin. Also, you can make treasure bulky if not heavy. just because they can carry the weight doesn't mean they can tote a 10' statue around.
For some people, yes. We expect nonmagical human commoners to have the capacities expected of actual human commoners. It allows us to anticipate and immerse ourselves in the world. A world in which every human is twice as strong as a modern-day so
One problem with that and this is a problem with D&D since 1st edition when attributes went from 3-25 is that to model the vast difference in capabilities between say a bookworm or rot grub on the low end and Zeus or Odin or a Titan at the top end is you have to have a very nonlinear chart.
If you want absolute, precise realism, sure. But no one here is asking for that (or at least most people here aren't). It would be nice if the numbers made sense for medium sized creatures in the 6-14 range though, since that is where you are likely to find "normal" people which are easy to use as a real life comparison. If it works for horses too, that would be a nice added bonus. I don't really care what the carrying capacity of a dragon is, because none of my PCs is going to be a dragon, nor will they be able to buy a dragon as a pack animal.
Sex differences in encumberance also ought to be modeled if realism is key.
That's already be covered by difference in strength score. A 10 str male and a 10 str female are equally strong, just as a 10 str human and a 10 str dwarf are equally strong; you don't take sexual dimorphism into account after you make ability scores.
Simplicity is fine and x 5 is fine but then dragons and other very powerful critters are going to have strengths in the 50,000 range and I thought D&D folk like to keep numbers small. It cannot work both ways with a linear scale.
What? A Strength of 50000 for a (I'm assuming Huge here) dragon would mean it could carry a million pounds if Strx5 were the rule. And that same dragon would need a strength of 25000 to carry the same amount with Strx10. Even if for some reason you are more worried about the weight a dragon is allowed to carry being more believably simulated than the amount of weight an adventurer is allowed to carry, that seems a bit high to me.
If you want absolute, precise realism, sure. But no one here is asking for that (or at least most people here aren't). It would be nice if the numbers made sense for medium sized creatures in the 6-14 range though, since that is where you are likel
We don't have any stats on non-combat commoners do we?
Those are the stats for non-combat commoners. The adventure Isle of Dread has noncombat encounters with human villagers and we are told to use human commoner stats. Those stats are necessary because PCs can hire these villagers as hirelings. ONe of the things hirelings can be expected to dois to carry things for the adventurers.
Those are the stats for non-combat commoners. The adventure Isle of Dread has noncombat encounters with human villagers and we are told to use human commoner stats. Those stats are necessary because PCs can hire these villagers as hirelings. ONe o
Most of the Strength differentials for creatures like dragons would be handled through size differentials, if you needed rules for that. I already offered such rules, and they worlk fairly well. I did these calculations back in 3e when a similar discussion had erupted on these forums and they formulas work just fine still.
Most of the Strength differentials for creatures like dragons would be handled through size differentials, if you needed rules for that. I already offered such rules, and they worlk fairly well. I did these calculations back in 3e when a similar di
I suppose what I am trying to convey is that instead of endless debate about "realism" which will never be modified satisfactory for extreme advocates of realism, people ought to accept that in a game there will be game like elements.
I think people do accept that. The question is where the line should be drawn. The way you made your point, it appeared that there can be no compromise. Either everything has to be so hyperrealistic as to be a completely outrageously complicated game, or realism must be thrown entirely out the window so that the reality of the game world cannot be recognizable at all to the people playing the game.
Obviously, neither of those extremes is acceptable. So the issue is where do we draw the line. I think wanting average Strength people to behave like average Strength people in the real world isn't a particularly onerous request.
I think people do accept that. The question is where the line should be drawn. The way you made your point, it appeared that there can be no compromise. Either everything has to be so hyperrealistic as to be a completely outrageously complicated g
I want an encumberance system that would be good enough for a movie about my campaign. One where the audience won't simply laugh at it and say it is crap.
I want an encumberance system that would be good enough for a movie about my campaign. One where the audience won't simply laugh at it and say it is crap.
I suppose what I am trying to convey is that instead of endless debate about "realism" which will never be modified satisfactory for extreme advocates of realism, people ought to accept that in a game there will be game like elements.
I think people do accept that. The question is where the line should be drawn. The way you made your point, it appeared that there can be no compromise. Either everything has to be so hyperrealistic as to be a completely outrageously complicated game, or realism must be thrown entirely out the window so that the reality of the game world cannot be recognizable at all to the people playing the game.
Obviously, neither of those extremes is acceptable. So the issue is where do we draw the line. I think wanting average Strength people to behave like average Strength people in the real world isn't a particularly onerous request.
The line is different for different people. This is why I wish the designers nipped certain things in the bud. The concept of D&D being high-fantasy game ought to be a given yet for many it is not.
I think people do accept that. The question is where the line should be drawn. The way you made your point, it appeared that there can be no compromise. Either everything has to be so hyperrealistic as to be a completely outrageously complicated g
The line is different for different people. This is why I wish the designers nipped certain things in the bud. The concept of D&D being high-fantasy game ought to be a given yet for many it is not.
High fantasy doesn't require unrealistic commoners, though. I think they're completely unrelated. High fantasy is merely the ability to have world-shattering magic in theworld. But it says little about the commoner in that world.
Actually, I think the "high" has to be in relation to something,a baseline that we measure "high" from. D&D has always suggested that the common man in D&D is in fact the common man from the real world. But it erred in that respect for encumberance. But that is an easy mistake to fix, with rules that are equally easy to adjust or ignore if you prefer a world in which all mortals have superhuman capacities.
High fantasy doesn't require unrealistic commoners, though. I think they're completely unrelated. High fantasy is merely the ability to have world-shattering magic in theworld. But it says little about the commoner in that world.Actually, I think
For fun, I went through all my old rulebooks to see what the encumbearance limits were for a character with 10 Strength:
Basic: 70 lbs. (unclear what encumbered meant) 1st: 35/70/105 (all this meant was a reduction in your movement and inability to run) 2nd: 40/80/120 3rd: 33/66/100 4th: 100/200
4e is simply unusual in this regard. Which is not surprising. In an October 2007 podcast, mere weeks before sending the new edition to print the designers admitted they hadn't even written encumberance rules yet. This caused me to start a thread in which I tried to update my 3e rules for 4e in the hopes (unsuccessfully) of influencing the edition. (The thread then got mangled through the course of a few website revamps.)
It's time for the course of this ship to reset. Strength x 5 is easy enough to calculate, and is a little more generous than pre-4e.
For fun, I went through all my old rulebooks to see what the encumbearance limits were for a character with 10 Strength:Basic: 70 lbs. (unclear what encumbered meant)1st: 35/70/105 (all this meant was a reduction in your movement and inability to run
Karnos, you seem to think that working on a farm makes you very strong. You are incorrect.
Having grown up and worked on farms, I can tell you it is hard work. Back-breaking, exhausting work. But very little of it needs excessive strength. Shovelling, pruning, and reaping/picking are tiring, but not heavy. Much of it can/is done by women as well as men. In the old days the whole family worked the harvest, including children. These workers would have good endurance, but not a high strength.
Karnos, you seem to think that working on a farm makes you very strong. You are incorrect.Having grown up and worked on farms, I can tell you it is hard work. Back-breaking, exhausting work. But very little of it needs excessive strength. Shovell
>Don't be silly. I'm not asking by what process someone becomes stronger. I'm asking why it >makes sense for these people: >to be stronger than these people: >Edit: well, apparently the image embed script isn't working or something. The first one was a >picture of peasants, the second one was of modern soldiers with packs on.
>Do you seriously not understand why this breaks verisimilitude for a lot of people?
Why is it so hard to be understood? Do you understand the concept of "average"? Do you not realize that military are at the upper end of the scale of human fitness, not the average? When I said the average human in D&D land is stronger than the average human in modern times, it is based on that average being largely computed from the billions and billions of people who work at desk jobs, don't work at all, sit at a desk in school, or at best stand in retail or sales job but ultimately never do any real strength work day to day. That is the majority, and while some are more or less strong than the majority, the majority has the largest effect on the average.
>Yeah, 8 str wizards that can carry more pack weight without slowing than almost anyone alive >today.
And they live in the same world where they don't have cars and physical labor is a daily requirement. Besides that, "almost anyone alive" is a bit of an exaggeration.
>As you aptly said to another poster, it's not about my character. It's about the average human, >the human commoner that the Bestiary lists as having a Strength of 10, which means, under >current encumberance rules, that he can carry twice what a trained soldier in the modern military >can carry without becoming fatigued.
Actually that is false, I know the claim was made earlier but it's simply incorrect.
American soldiers sometimes carry as much as 130 lbs.
>So for this to be a reasonable rule, you have to say that (i) D&D characters -- even the >commoners -- are superhuman, (ii) D&D Commoners are modeled on the average medieval man, >who could carry 100 lbs. all day without being encumbered, or (iii) the encumberance rules need >to be changed.
What are your criteria for the magic rules to be reasonable? How about your "reasonabilty" analysis for the ability of a dragon to support itself in flight with it's wings? The encumberance numbers are plausible and very much in the realm of reality, your complaints nonwithstanding.
>You have appeared to be suggesting number 2, that the average medieval man can carry 100 lbs. >of gear all day without fatigue, even though the modern soldier can only carry half that. Your >evidence of this has been an historian claiming mediavl man "was very strong" with no indication >of what that means.
Nope, I said they were stronger on average than people of today. It's you who keeps insisting on the 10 strength figure, because D&D commoners have 10 strength. It's time for you realize there is a dfifference between the game and reality. Just because a D&D commoner has a given strength doesn't mean that a real life medieval commoner had the same.
However, I do still claim that thewy were stronger than the average person today, given the sedentary life of most people.
>No, we're not talking about adventurers. The encumberance rules apply to all characters, >including the human commoner found in the Bestiary, who has a Strength of 10 and can thus carry >100 lbs. all day long without fatigue.
Really? Do you really spend hours calculating the total weight carried by each and every NPC in your campaign just to make sure the encumberance rules fit? Tip: don't bother, just use it for PCs and even then don't worry too hard unless you have reason to beleive they are near the limit.
>Karnos: I never claimed that 10 strength was average in the real world >I never claimed you did. What you claimed is that the current encumberance rules make sense for >characters based on the average medieval man. And the encumberance rules state that the >human commoner can carry 100 lbs. all day without fatigue. So what evidence do you have that >the average medieval human can carry twice as much as a modern-day soldier all day long >without fatigue?
Ah, the second person to take my "average" and apply it military soldiers. The military are not average. They are, for the most part, near the top end of the scale. As such, while I am suggesting a medieval commoner is stronger than the average human of today, I never once said they are stronger than a typical US marine, for example. Also your numbers are screwed up, military sometimes have to carry as much as 130 lbs. 100 lbs is NOT double 130, no matter how you try to do the math.
>Karnos: 10-11 strength is average in D&D. >This is what you said. What evidence do you have that medieval man can carry twice as much >weight as a modern soldier (who is more fit than the average modern person) without fatigue? It >is truly an extraordinary claim you are making, that a human commoner is twice as strong as a >modern G.I.
See above. 100 lbs isn't double 130 lbs. Also, the military has medical concerns, logistics to worry about, as well as a great variety of individuals to cater to. Just because the upper limit for the US military is 130 lbs that doesn't mean a person couldn't carry more. That 130 lb number is limited by the weakest members of the service.
>Don't be silly. I'm not asking by what process someone becomes stronger. I'm asking why it >makes sense for these people:>to be stronger than these people:>Edit: well, apparently the image embed script isn't working or something. The first one w
Karnos, you seem to think that working on a farm makes you very strong.
Using your muscles makes them strong, compared to not using them. I don't care about your anecdote of one, it's not statisticly useful.
Fact is you take two people and have one sit at a desk for 16 hours a day and have the other dig holes for 16 hours a day, the one who actually performs physical labor will be stronger at the end of 10 years.
Using your muscles makes them strong, compared to not using them. I don't care about your anecdote of one, it's not statisticly useful.Fact is you take two people and have one sit at a desk for 16 hours a day and have the other dig holes for 16 hour
Karnos: American soldiers sometimes carry as much as 130 lbs.
And doing so, they become fatigued, as established in this article, I posted at the very beginning of the thread. Your article does not state what the effects of carrying 130 lbs. is. Mine does.
Karnos: Nope, I said they were stronger on average than people of today.
Such a point is completey irrelevant to any discussion. If they are not strong enough to meet the criteria of the human commoner in the bestiary, then the encumberance rules are still inaccurate and should be changed.
You now argue that the D&D commoner does not have a strength related to modern man and also does not have Strength comparable to medieval man. (Which as option "1" of the three options I offered.) Moreover , the D&D commoner is stronger than the modern soldier in that he is not fatigued carrying 60 lb. packs (or even 100 lbs. packs) and the modern military man is (as evidence by the link I provided). So your position now appears to be that humans in the D&D world are in fact superhuman compared to humans in the real world (modern or medieval).
Karnos: Really? Do you really spend hours calculating the total weight carried by each and every NPC in your campaign just to make sure the encumberance rules fit?
No. I expect an elementary rule to allow me to accomplish that in seconds as needed, such as a rule I provided earlier in the thread.
Karnos: Ah, the second person to take my "average" and apply it military soldiers. The military are not average.
I know. That's what I said. That's what makes your claim even the more absurd. You are claiming that D&D commoners are and should be stronger even than the modern military. You don't realize that because you didn't bother to read the link I provided in the beginning of this thread that specifically says that the average modern soldier is fatigued by carrying a pack of a mere 60lbs.
Karnos: American soldiers sometimes carry as much as 130 lbs.And doing so, they become fatigued, as established in this article, I posted at the very beginning of the thread. Your article does not state what the effects of carrying 130 lbs. is. Min
Fatigued, does the article state that this condition results in the soldiers being at disadvantage in all rolls? Oh thats right, it didn't. You can't know the real effects and differences. You act like you can take a game mechanic and translate it directly into real life, sometimes you can't.
Fatigued, does the article state that this condition results in the soldiers being at disadvantage in all rolls? Oh thats right, it didn't. You can't know the real effects and differences. You act like you can take a game mechanic and translate it
Karnos, you seem to think that working on a farm makes you very strong.
Using your muscles makes them strong, compared to not using them. I don't care about your anecdote of one, it's not statisticly useful.
Fact is you take two people and have one sit at a desk for 16 hours a day and have the other dig holes for 16 hours a day, the one who actually performs physical labor will be stronger at the end of 10 years.
I notice you ignore the rest of my post. Poor form. You are choosing to be obtuse, or are trolling. I expect the latter. Have fun in your arguement without me.
Using your muscles makes them strong, compared to not using them. I don't care about your anecdote of one, it's not statisticly useful.Fact is you take two people and have one sit at a desk for 16 hours a day and have the other dig holes for 16 hour
Why is it so hard to be understood? Do you understand the concept of "average"? Do you not realize that military are at the upper end of the scale of human fitness, not the average?
That's exactly my point. The encumberance rules as currently written create this situation:
D&D human commoner > trained modern soldier
Again, I don't really care whether the average is precisely the same between modern humans and D&D commoners. You can assume I've stipulated that D&D commoners are stronger than the average modern human if you want. But why is a D&D commoner stronger than nearly every modern human?
And they live in the same world where they don't have cars and physical labor is a daily requirement. Besides that, "almost anyone alive" is a bit of an exaggeration.
It's not an exaggeration. Have you read the encumberance rules? A D&D commoner can carry 100 pounds on his back without being slowed down. Modern infantry soldiers, who we both agree are well above the average modern human in terms of carrying capacity, can do something closer to 50. Yes, they can carry upwards of 100 pounds, but they wouldn't be able to fight with that on; it would certainly reduce their speed and give them disadvantage on checks, in D&D terms.
>As you aptly said to another poster, it's not about my character. It's about the average human, >the human commoner that the Bestiary lists as having a Strength of 10, which means, under >current encumberance rules, that he can carry twice what a trained soldier in the modern military >can carry without becoming fatigued.
Actually that is false, I know the claim was made earlier but it's simply incorrect.
You realize that that article is talking about trying to reduce the weight that soldiers carry because it starts reducing their speed and combat effectiveness (i.e. starts encumbering them) after 40 lbs., right?
That's exactly my point. The encumberance rules as currently written create this situation:D&D human commoner > trained modern soldierAgain, I don't really care whether the average is precisely the same between modern humans and D&D commoners. You
Fact is you take two people and have one sit at a desk for 16 hours a day and have the other dig holes for 16 hours a day, the one who actually performs physical labor will be stronger at the end of 10 years.
Somewhat. You actually only get stronger if you are doing work that is above what your muscles are used to doing. You can maintain muscle mass by doing a constant weight over the course of a long period of time, but you can't really build it to any significant extent. Someone who's digging holes 16 hours a day is certainly doing a lot of work, but it's not high intensity (you can tell, because they're able to do it for 16 hours a day). They would plateau after a few months to a year; assuming they didn't have any ergonomic problems, they would be as strong as it takes to make shoveling pretty easy and not very much stronger than that.
Somewhat. You actually only get stronger if you are doing work that is above what your muscles are used to doing. You can maintain muscle mass by doing a constant weight over the course of a long period of time, but you can't really build it to any
You realize that that article is talking about trying to reduce the weight that soldiers carry because it starts reducing their speed and combat effectiveness (i.e. starts encumbering them) after 40 lbs., right?
You realize that in the real world, carrying a single lb puts you at a "disadvantage" compared to running around without. The real world doesn't have nice neat breakpoints where after X lbs you move slower but until that point you are at 100%. The game has to round such things off.
edit: explained clearly here-
"The distance marched in six hours decreases 1.24 miles for every 10 pounds over 40 pounds the soldier carries, and the time required to complete an obstacle course increases 10 to 15 percent for every additional 10 pounds carried"
You realize that in the real world, carrying a single lb puts you at a "disadvantage" compared to running around without. The real world doesn't have nice neat breakpoints where after X lbs you move slower but until that point you are at 100%. The
For fun, I went through all my old rulebooks to see what the encumbearance limits were for a character with 10 Strength:
Basic: 70 lbs. (unclear what encumbered meant) 1st: 35/70/105 (all this meant was a reduction in your movement and inability to run) 2nd: 40/80/120 3rd: 33/66/100 4th: 100/200
4e is simply unusual in this regard. Which is not surprising. In an October 2007 podcast, mere weeks before sending the new edition to print the designers admitted they hadn't even written encumberance rules yet. This caused me to start a thread in which I tried to update my 3e rules for 4e in the hopes (unsuccessfully) of influencing the edition. (The thread then got mangled through the course of a few website revamps.)
It's time for the course of this ship to reset. Strength x 5 is easy enough to calculate, and is a little more generous than pre-4e.
In the reallife description about the military loads and fatigue: the “fighting load” includes the weight of the armor worn (kevlar vest), seemingly equivalent to D&D light armor, plus weaponry (gun at ready along with ammunition). This fighting load totals roughly 35 lb, and seems to correspond to “light encumbrance”.
Then, the max load before becoming subject to fatigue seems to be roughly 60 lb. This might well correspond to moderate encumbrance. The description identifies weights somewher around 100 lb as causing critical fatigue that is likely to seriously harm fighting performance and even degenarate morale and the ability to function as a cohesive unit. The average marker of 100 lb is additionally convenient because in the D&D tradition, this corresponds to the maximum weight of a military press, the ability to lift a heavy object above ones head.
By the way, this link between fatigue and the *ability* to follow a leader is interesting. Almost like Charisma might be a factor in mitigating some of the effects of fatigue - or perhaps more accurately - fatique interferes with mental capacity in addition to interfering with physical capacity. Thus, mental ability checks are necessarily effected by fatigue in addition to physical ability checks.
In any case, with regard to an average character (or a slightly above average warrior) the following seems to be in play:
Encumbrance • Light: upto 35 lb • Moderate: 35 lb to 60 lb • Heavy: 60 lb to 100 lb • Extreme: 100 lb to 1000 (dragging?) lb
I would like a simpler system with rounder numbers that dont need much bookkeeping, but the above numbers seems to be what is in play.
Note: Since a suit of plate armor is about 60 lbs, it seems “heavy armor” automatically incurs “heavy encumbrance”. However, it seems a masterwork item specifically designed for lightness and tailored for a specific person could conceivably reduce to only moderate encumbrance? It also seems like especially strong characters should be able to mitigate the penalties for wearing heavy armor?
Wait. This schema, where 60 lb marks “heavy encumberance”, feels correct. But it means wearing a suit of armor causes *fatigue*. I guess that seems right. Marching in plate armor seems historically implausible. Any thoughts about that?
Wait. This schema, where 60 lb marks “heavy encumberance”, feels correct. But it means wearing a suit of armor causes *fatigue*. I guess that seems right. Marching in plate armor seems historically implausible. Any thoughts about that?
If plate armour weights 40bl, and average Joe has 10 strength, the yes he should be already be near max "walking" load by this armour.
If in middle ages you had a plate then you are rich and very well trained ~14 strength. If you have plate and 10 str you're a noble that want to play a knight or you have already seen to many winters and out of shape and really "you're getting too old for this ****".
If plate armour weights 40bl, and average Joe has 10 strength, the yes he should be already be near max "walking" load by this armour.If in middle ages you had a plate then you are rich and very well trained ~14 strength. If you have plate and 10 str
D&D has always associated the wearing of heavier armour with penalties relating to either movement, evasiveness or whole body motor skills. Now, there's something to be said for full plate making it difficult to sneak around, but the reason you're not moving so well is much more down to the weight you're bearing. I would love to see armour weight and encumbrance levels pitched at the right levels to combine these two systems.
D&D has always associated the wearing of heavier armour with penalties relating to either movement, evasiveness or whole body motor skills. Now, there's something to be said for full plate making it difficult to sneak around, but the reason you're no
Karnos: American soldiers sometimes carry as much as 130 lbs.
And doing so, they become fatigued, as established in this article, I posted at the very beginning of the thread. Your article does not state what the effects of carrying 130 lbs. is. Mine does.
Actually, it does. Which makes it such an interesting article to quote to make his point as it says: "And it’s taking its toll. The Army is seeing an increase in musculoskeletal injuries – sprains, stress fractures and neck and back pain" "“The distance marched in six hours decreases 1.24 miles for every 10 pounds over 40 pounds the soldier carries, and the time required to complete an obstacle course increases 10 to 15 percent for every additional 10 pounds carried,” Chiarelli said."
The US army should really stop recruiting 8 Strength wizards.
Actually, it does. Which makes it such an interesting article to quote to make his point as it says:"And it’s taking its toll. The Army is seeing an increase in musculoskeletal injuries – sprains, stress fractures and neck and back pain""
Karnos, you seem to think that working on a farm makes you very strong. You are incorrect.
Having grown up and worked on farms, I can tell you it is hard work. Back-breaking, exhausting work. But very little of it needs excessive strength. Shovelling, pruning, and reaping/picking are tiring, but not heavy. Much of it can/is done by women as well as men. In the old days the whole family worked the harvest, including children. These workers would have good endurance, but not a high strength.
True, but it is regular physical exercise. Low weight and lots of reps, which leads to denser muscles and higher endurance. Of course, medival peasents also didn't get a lot of protein or vitamins and ate a lot of high-carb foots, so they likely weren't that much stronger. They might be slightly more fit than your average office worker, anyone in a blue collar field should be able to put a mideval worker to shame in terms of carrying capacity.
True, but it is regular physical exercise. Low weight and lots of reps, which leads to denser muscles and higher endurance. Of course, medival peasents also didn't get a lot of protein or vitamins and ate a lot of high-carb foots, so they likely were
For fun, I went through all my old rulebooks to see what the encumbearance limits were for a character with 10 Strength:
Basic: 70 lbs. (unclear what encumbered meant) 1st: 35/70/105 (all this meant was a reduction in your movement and inability to run) 2nd: 40/80/120 3rd: 33/66/100 4th: 100/200
4e is simply unusual in this regard. Which is not surprising. In an October 2007 podcast, mere weeks before sending the new edition to print the designers admitted they hadn't even written encumberance rules yet. This caused me to start a thread in which I tried to update my 3e rules for 4e in the hopes (unsuccessfully) of influencing the edition. (The thread then got mangled through the course of a few website revamps.)
It's time for the course of this ship to reset. Strength x 5 is easy enough to calculate, and is a little more generous than pre-4e.
I second the x5 Strength as a simple option, although x4 might work just as well. I'd like a chart for those who want to be a little finickier.
I second the x5 Strength as a simple option, although x4 might work just as well. I'd like a chart for those who want to be a little finickier.
Fatigued, does the article state that this condition results in the soldiers being at disadvantage in all rolls?
That question is only relevant once it is accepted that Stength-10 humans should be experiencing fatigue when carrying 60 lbs. in the first place, something whih, so far, you have refused to acknowledge.
Once we agree on that point, we can discuss whether disadvantage is the appropriate way to replicate the effects of fatigue. But you're putting the cart before the horse. Based on the articles that both you and I linked, loads over 60 lbs. can cause serious injury to a solder. Do you think that means 60 lbs. is the appropriate benchmark for where encumberance effects should manifest or not?
That said, here's how the article to which I linked described the effects of fatigue due to encumberance:
Their reactions were slow and their minds fuzzy.... the tired point man missed seeing movement ahead as he cleared the edge of a small grove. ... No one survived.
The article you linked said the following:
The Army is seeing an increase in musculoskeletal injuries – sprains, stress fractures and neck and back pain... a 72-pound load increases energy required by 40 percent and increasing the load by 20 percent from there raises the heart rate by 20 beats per minute.... If the equipment’s lighter, it’s more than likely going to be so that you have more flexibility, more range of movement.
I do think that disadvantage would be a decent way to replicate these effects mechanically. I'm open to alternative mechanics. Either way, however, Strength x 5 appears to be the appropriate yardstick for encumberance effects.
I note that the bestiary lists the Strength of a Human Warrior at 12 (as opposed to a human commoner's Str 10). That would give the human warrior an encumberance threshold of 60 lbs., nuicely matching modern soldiers.
Personally, I'd have the encumberance limits be: Unencumbered (no effect): 0 - Strengthx5 Encumbered (disadvantage): Strengthx5 - Strengthx15 Overladen (disadvantage, slow): Strengthx15 - Strengthx30
Thus a commoner (Str 10) would have: 50/150/300 A warrior (Str 12) would have: 60/180/360 An Olympian (Str 20) would have: 100/300/600 A desk jockey (Str 8) would have: 40/120/240
That seems to work just fine... as long as weapon and armor weights are reduced to a more reaosnable maount.
That question is only relevant once it is accepted that Stength-10 humans should be experiencing fatigue when carrying 60 lbs. in the first place, something whih, so far, you have refused to acknowledge.Once we agree on that point, we can discuss whe
If plate armour weights 40bl, and average Joe has 10 strength, the yes he should be already be near max "walking" load by this armour.
If in middle ages you had a plate then you are rich and very well trained ~14 strength. If you have plate and 10 str you're a noble that want to play a knight or you have already seen to many winters and out of shape and really "you're getting too old for this ****".
I've seen real sets of plate armor designed for children. Plate armor does not require you to be all that strong because the plates are fitted and the weight is distributed evenly. Chain is actually far more encumbering.
I've seen real sets of plate armor designed for children. Plate armor does not require you to be all that strong because the plates are fitted and the weight is distributed evenly. Chain is actually far more encumbering.
That question is only relevant once it is accepted that Stength-10 humans should be experiencing fatigue when carrying 60 lbs. in the first place, something whih, so far, you have refused to acknowledge.
Once we agree on that point, we can discuss whether disadvantage is the appropriate way to replicate the effects of fatigue. But you're putting the cart before the horse. Based on the articles that both you and I linked, loads over 60 lbs. can cause serious injury to a solder. Do you think that means 60 lbs. is the appropriate benchmark for where encumberance effects should manifest or not?
Disadvantage is huge, it's really a pretty huge penalty.
That said, I think *any* level of weight is going to have some effect. You take 2 identicle sprinters, give one a 10 lb weight and force him to carry it, and the one without the weight will be able to run faster and longer. In the real world there isn't a nice even number where your weight starts to matter, every lb matters.
Now, as far as D&D the number is defined by 10XStr. To me, this means that 10 Strength is enough to carry 100 lbs before hitting the severe penalties. Will carrying 90, 70, 50, 30, or even 15 lbs slow down a character with 10 strength in my mind? Sure, but it's not enough to be worth calculating in game terms. Base move speed is already pretty slow. I don't see it getting slower from carrying a few lbs of weight. The decision made when Strength was defined was that you could carry 10 lbs per point before hitting the rather serious point where you are at disadvantage.
Personally, I like 10 lbs per strength point, it feels fair, and actually allows a fighter to carry a little bit of stuff above and beyond the weight of his armor and weapons. 5lbs per strength is a rather absurb limitation as far as gameplay is concerned, as it means any dex based fighter or rogue is going to be seriously limited and basically unable to carry anything beyond the basic needs without being at disadvantage in all checks. Even worse, a wis based cleric who wants to wear heavy armor but has a strength of 9-11. Maybe thats your hidden agenda, maybe you have something against the classes that don't highly value strength, but IMO it would really screw up the game in a lot of ways.
Take a 12 strenth cleric, with plate mail and a shield and a mace, he is already encumbered at your 5X str limit. That is absurd. Basically ever cleric is going to be forced to take strength as a secondary stat under your system, if they want to be able to wear plate, and even then they won't have much room to carry anything but their armor, shield and weapon unless they have insane rolls such that they can get a huge Strength score after taking Wisdom first as needed for their class.
Disadvantage is huge, it's really a pretty huge penalty.That said, I think *any* level of weight is going to have some effect. You take 2 identicle sprinters, give one a 10 lb weight and force him to carry it, and the one without the weight will be
That question is only relevant once it is accepted that Stength-10 humans should be experiencing fatigue when carrying 60 lbs. in the first place, something whih, so far, you have refused to acknowledge.
Once we agree on that point, we can discuss whether disadvantage is the appropriate way to replicate the effects of fatigue. But you're putting the cart before the horse. Based on the articles that both you and I linked, loads over 60 lbs. can cause serious injury to a solder. Do you think that means 60 lbs. is the appropriate benchmark for where encumberance effects should manifest or not?
Disadvantage is huge, it's really a pretty huge penalty.
That said, I think *any* level of weight is going to have some effect. You take 2 identicle sprinters, give one a 10 lb weight and force him to carry it, and the one without the weight will be able to run faster and longer. In the real world there isn't a nice even number where your weight starts to matter, every lb matters.
Now, as far as D&D the number is defined by 10XStr. To me, this means that 10 Strength is enough to carry 100 lbs before hitting the severe penalties. Will carrying 90, 70, 50, 30, or even 15 lbs slow down a character with 10 strength in my mind? Sure, but it's not enough to be worth calculating in game terms. Base move speed is already pretty slow. I don't see it getting slower from carrying a few lbs of weight. The decision made when Strength was defined was that you could carry 10 lbs per point before hitting the rather serious point where you are at disadvantage.
Personally, I like 10 lbs per strength point, it feels fair, and actually allows a fighter to carry a little bit of stuff above and beyond the weight of his armor and weapons. 5lbs per strength is a rather absurb limitation as far as gameplay is concerned, as it means any dex based fighter or rogue is going to be seriously limited and basically unable to carry anything beyond the basic needs without being at disadvantage in all checks. Even worse, a wis based cleric who wants to wear heavy armor but has a strength of 9-11. Maybe thats your hidden agenda, maybe you have something against the classes that don't highly value strength, but IMO it would really screw up the game in a lot of ways.
Take a 12 strenth cleric, with plate mail and a shield and a mace, he is already encumbered at your 5X str limit. That is absurd. Basically ever cleric is going to be forced to take strength as a secondary stat under your system, if they want to be able to wear plate, and even then they won't have much room to carry anything but their armor, shield and weapon unless they have insane rolls such that they can get a huge Strength score after taking Wisdom first as needed for their class.
So, er, perhaps we can have a lesser penalty at Strengthx5. Something like.. requiring twice as long for a 'short rest', or reduced movement, or disadvantage on only physical ability checks. The penalties for being encumbered are best modelled as long-term effects anyway, so perhaps we shouldn't be penalising any short-term checks whatsoever - adrenaline helps with those - but long-term effects such as movement rate and healing.
Disadvantage is huge, it's really a pretty huge penalty.That said, I think *any* level of weight is going to have some effect. You take 2 identicle sprinters, give one a 10 lb weight and force him to carry it, and the one without the weight will be
Disadvantage is huge, it's really a pretty huge penalty.
That issue is only relevant once it is accepted that Stength-10 humans should be experiencing fatigue when carrying 60 lbs. in the first place, something which, so far, you have refused to acknowledge.
Once we agree on that point, we can discuss whether disadvantage is the appropriate way to replicate the effects of fatigue. But you're putting the cart before the horse. Based on the articles that both you and I linked, loads over 60 lbs. can cause serious injury to a solder. Do you think that means 60 lbs. is the appropriate benchmark for where encumberance effects should manifest or not?
As I said before, I'd personally prefer three tiers of encumberance: unencumbered, encumbered, and overladen. I'm open to making disadvantage the penalty for overladen, and something less onerous the penalty for encumbered. Perhaps disadvantage only on Strength- and Dexterity-based checks.
Now, as far as D&D the number is defined by 10XStr.
Only in 4e and the current playtest. Historically, in D&D, the line has been around Strengthx4. My Strengthx5 suggestion is actually generous compared to the pre-2008 editions of the game.
And since the playtest is just that -- a playtest -- it has very little bearing. In fact, it appears the designers simply copied the 4e rules without much thought, probably because encumberance rules are not a high priority for them at the moment.
Personally, I like 10 lbs per strength point
That's fairly obvious, based on the fact that you insist on keeping it even though it has almost no history in the game, and no bearing on reality.
Maybe thats your hidden agenda, maybe you have something against the classes that don't highly value strength, but IMO it would really screw up the game in a lot of ways.
I have no hidden agenda, but thanks for the unnecessary personal attack all the same. The rule I'm proposing is more generous that what D&D used in BECMI and in 1e through 3e and it did not in fact screw up the game. And, please note, since you've apparently ignored the fact that I've said it many times in this thread, that weapon and armor weights are also unrealistically high and should be reduced. Plate armor should be about 40 lbs. Heavy weapons should be about 5 lbs.
Basically ever cleric is going to be forced to take strength as a secondary stat under your system
Only the ones expecting to be in melee combat, and those characters should have a 12 Strength, at least. At which point, the plate and heavy weapon won't encumber them at all. If we have plate be 40 lbs., the heavy weapon at 5 lbs., they still have room for 15 lbs. of gear. Clerics who don't anticipate being in the forefront of melee can do just fine with lighter armor. Those are the sorts of meaningful choices the game should be encouraging for those who choose to use encumberance rules. Obviously for those who don't want encumberance rules, it has absolutely no effect on them at all.
You appear to want encumberance rules that won't have an effect on the game. Why not just ignore the rule altogether? What's the point of setting encumberance thresholds so high that they are unlikely ever to be invoked?
That issue is only relevant once it is accepted that Stength-10 humans should be experiencing fatigue when carrying 60 lbs. in the first place, something which, so far, you have refused to acknowledge.Once we agree on that point, we can discuss wheth
Mix the worn armor only uses half it's weight towards encumberance, and the weight adjustments to weapons and armor and this whole thing should work fine.
However, I'm more inclined to have unencumbered to STRX5; encumbered to STRX10, -5 move, burdened to STRX15 -5 move, -1 AC, Disadvantage; overburdened to STRX20, -15 move, -2 AC, Disadvantage. Over STRX20 move is 0, -5AC, Disadvantage
So a 10 STR is 50, 100, 150, 200 20 STR 100, 200, 300, 400
I want to make a 20 STR character and name him Mule.
Mix the worn armor only uses half it's weight towards encumberance, and the weight adjustments to weapons and armor and this whole thing should work fine.However, I'm more inclined to have unencumbered to STRX5; encumbered to STRX10, -5 move, burdene
Personally, I like 10 lbs per strength point, it feels fair, and actually allows a fighter to carry a little bit of stuff above and beyond the weight of his armor and weapons. 5lbs per strength is a rather absurb limitation as far as gameplay is concerned, as it means any dex based fighter or rogue is going to be seriously limited and basically unable to carry anything beyond the basic needs without being at disadvantage in all checks. Even worse, a wis based cleric who wants to wear heavy armor but has a strength of 9-11. Maybe thats your hidden agenda, maybe you have something against the classes that don't highly value strength, but IMO it would really screw up the game in a lot of ways.
Take a 12 strenth cleric, with plate mail and a shield and a mace, he is already encumbered at your 5X str limit. That is absurd. Basically ever cleric is going to be forced to take strength as a secondary stat under your system, if they want to be able to wear plate, and even then they won't have much room to carry anything but their armor, shield and weapon unless they have insane rolls such that they can get a huge Strength score after taking Wisdom first as needed for their class.
No hidden agenda, I promise. I really want something like this in the open so it can be discussed. Honestly, I just never considered the cleric with an average strength and you make some interesting points in that regard. I know a lot of my perspective is from the fighter's point of view and from overthinking how a fighter would perform day-to-day. I would imagine they would peel their armor off at the end of the day if they could and try to sleep comfortably.
I like that someone had posted strength limits from previous editions. It helps give some insight into its development. It takes a while to get used to wearing armor and gear for long periods of time. Much like other activities such as horse-riding (or motorcycles).
Here's a proposed compromise - Unencumbered is Str x5. Armor is a special case, since it is usually designed and fitted to distribute the weight. If you are proficient with the armor, it does not count against your weight when worn, only when carried.
No hidden agenda, I promise. I really want something like this in the open so it can be discussed. Honestly, I just never considered the cleric with an average strength and you make some interesting points in that regard. I know a lot of my perspecti
Encumerance is five times your strength. Armor is not counted towards that limit*
*I would include other worn items, such as helms and boots in that as well.
This seems familiar. Some game I've played in the past had a similar rule.....
Carl
I like it.Encumerance is five times your strength.Armor is not counted towards that limit**I would include other worn items, such as helms and boots in that as well.This seems familiar. Some game I've played in the past had a similar rule.....Carl
Encumerance is five times your strength. Armor is not counted towards that limit*
*I would include other worn items, such as helms and boots in that as well.
This seems familiar. Some game I've played in the past had a similar rule.....
Carl
Sounds good to me. And to give credit where it is due, we wouldn't be able to consider this without Karnos' points of view as well. I hope the developers see this as a possible solution and see how the community really is working together to come up with ideas to improve the game. Below is my revision.
I'm not trying to call anyone out on this or make this personal, so know this is not an attack - would those who are more supportive of Str x10 consider this a decent compromise?
Unencumbered is Str x5. Armor (including helm and footgear) is a special case, since it is usually designed and fitted to distribute the weight. If you are proficient with the armor, it does not count against your weight when worn, only when carried.
Sounds good to me. And to give credit where it is due, we wouldn't be able to consider this without Karnos' points of view as well. I hope the developers see this as a possible solution and see how the community really is working together to come up
EXAMPLE OF STRENGTH SCORES • Average Strength score 10: 30/50/100 lb • Military Strength score 12: 36/60/120 lb • Highest Strength score 20: 60/100/200 lb
The reallife encumbrance threshholds for military marches are about as follows: 40/60/120 lb. Since the soldier is above average Strength, say 12, the above encumbrance formula corresponds precisely to the reallife threshholds: 36/60/120 lb. In fact, the reallife value for a lightweight “fighting load” is about 37 lb, so the formula value of 36 lb is highly accurate.
Note, where 36 lb marks the beginning of becoming moderately encumbered, it corresponds closely to the D&D tradition, where 1e has 35 lb mark the beginning of becoming encumbered.
D&D TRADITION
Helpfully, Wrecan cites the D&D tradition for encumbrance values.
As the reallife military values are about 40/60/120 lb, the overall D&D tradition is surprisingly accurate.
So, the encumbrance formula of Strength score ×3/×5/×10 corresponds well with the D&D tradition, as well as precisely with reallife, since a military of Strength 12 lists 36/60/120 lbs.
Note, the 4e encumbrance values are more so for its simplicity, less so for its accuracy (100/200).
D&D NEXT ENCUMBRANCE - BASIC CORE AND ADVANCED OPTIONS
For D&D Next, a simplified encumbrance system can be in place for Basic, then a more nuanced system for Advanced. If so, the Basic encumbrance should probably only have two categories: lightweight versus heavyweight. As such, the critical value would Strength score ×5. An average Strength score that exceeds 50 lb suffers a heavyweight load. This is the only value that Basic needs to worry about: ×5. The Advanced options can additionally add the categories of a midweight load and an extreme load.
For players who dislike tracking any encumbrance it is easy to opt out of Lightweight versus Heavyweight, simply by ignoring any penalties that a Heavyweight load inflicts.
ENCUMBRANCE CATEGORIES = ARMOR CATEGORIES
D&D Next can use the same system for both encumbrance penalties and armor penalties. This simplifies gaming mechanics. In other words, armor simply incurs weight, therefore might incur encumbrance penalties.
Moreover, the encumbrance formula corresponds well with reallife armor values. A suit of plate armor is approximately 50 lb ± 10 lb, thus ranging somewhere between 40 to 60 lbs. This 50 lb of armor is automatically “heavyweight encumbrance” for the average Strength score 10. However, a masterwork tailormade suit of armor can be conceivably 40 lb, thus if carrying nothing else except a single two-handed weapon at around 6 ±2 lb, will be able to avoid heavyweight encumbrance. Oppositely, exceptionally strong characters can easily avoid encumbrance penalties while wearing armor. If armor and encumbrance use the same mechanical system, then the strong ones wearing a suit of plate will tend to only incur moderate penalties for enduring “midweight encumbrance”.
Dexterity is an extremely powerful ability. However it inherently requires “freedom of movement” to function properly. Yes, the benefits of Dexterity require maintaining loads less than 30 pounds on average. Not only does this seem true to reallife, it also seems mechanically fair. One of the benefits of being extremely strong is the ability to use bigger equipment and carry more equipment for more options to use different equipment in different circumstances.
EASE OF ENCUMBRANCE FORMULA
Finally, the encumbrance formula is easy to understand, remember and calculate. It uses the six abilities as the fundamental mechanic. The Strength score ×3 marks the beginnings of encumbrance: a midweight load that begins to reduce speed, hamper combat performance, and increase the risk of injuries. ×5 marks a heavyweight load, causing the fatigue that seriously compromises combat performance, both physically and mentally. The Strength score ×10 marks an extreme load that is generally impossible for marches.
D&D NEXT ENCUMBRANCETaking many considerations into account, the following threshholds for encumbrance seem ideal. ENCUMBRANCELightweight load: Strength score ×0 lbMidweight load: Strength score ×3 lbHeavyweight load: Strength score &time
You know, there is something to be said about motivation and encumberance as well. 120lbs is a LOT of gear, but I once had to do a fireman's carry with a 120lb female soldier as part of an Army excercise. I didn't mind at all!
You know, there is something to be said about motivation and encumberance as well. 120lbs is a LOT of gear, but I once had to do a fireman's carry with a 120lb female soldier as part of an Army excercise. I didn't mind at all! ;)
Encumerance is five times your strength. Armor is not counted towards that limit*
*I would include other worn items, such as helms and boots in that as well.
This seems familiar. Some game I've played in the past had a similar rule.....
Carl
armour comes with personal anti-gravity boosters?
I could agree that equipped armour counts as 75% or even 50% weight as it is well distributed or we can go other way around, all items that are not properly strapped on a character counts as +50% weight. i.e. carrying full plate well sorted in backpack with shoulder and waist straps or carrying it in a sack with one hand.
armour comes with personal anti-gravity boosters?I could agree that equipped armour counts as 75% or even 50% weight as it is well distributed or we can go other way around, all items that are not properly strapped on a character counts as +50% weigh
Haldric, awesome post! I like the cut of your jib. The suggestion for players who don't want to fritter over levels of encumberance to instead just go by max carrying capacity is very reasonable.
Trance, I agree with you for the most part. However, it seems like a decent comprimise for the Str x10 crowd. I for one strongly prefer 50% less weight for worn equipment, but it wouldn't be a big hassle to go with full weight or even no weight for equipped items (still easy to modify with a simple houserule if need be). Also, having simple optional rules for tracking where and how players are holding their stuff would be great (for those of us who like to worry about those kinds of things)
Its nice to see this discussion became more productive. The Str x5 crowd definitely has insight to gain by listening to the Str x10 crowd / Karnos, even if we ultimately disagree on things. Thanks for pointing that out PapaOgre!
Haldric, awesome post! I like the cut of your jib. The suggestion for players who don't want to fritter over levels of encumberance to instead just go by max carrying capacity is very reasonable.Trance, I agree with you for the most part. However, i
So, what does it take to get the designers to take note of our suggestions, both for and against? I hope they see our cooperation and effort as a sign that we care. I'm sure they do and I'm also sure that they are so busy that it would be easy to miss a good post like this.
So, what does it take to get the designers to take note of our suggestions, both for and against? I hope they see our cooperation and effort as a sign that we care. I'm sure they do and I'm also sure that they are so busy that it would be easy to mis
Another problem is present with weapon weights. The table lists ridiculously high weapon weights. Historically, long swords, bastard swords and even two-handed swords of any type did not weigh more than 3 lbs. Not even polearms and halberds weigh more than 4 lbs. Go to a museum and ask any expert how much the exhibited weapons weigh. It is simple as that. Really, what makes the great club 5 times heavier than the normal club? The table is full of insanely and unrealistically heavy items that weigh over 10 lbs, it is just wrong.
Another problem is present with weapon weights. The table lists ridiculously high weapon weights. Historically, long swords, bastard swords and even two-handed swords of any type did not weigh more than 3 lbs. Not even polearms and halberds weigh mor
Another problem is present with weapon weights. The table lists ridiculously high weapon weights. Historically, long swords, bastard swords and even two-handed swords of any type did not weigh more than 3 lbs. Not even polearms and halberds weigh more than 4 lbs. Go to a museum and ask any expert how much the exhibited weapons weigh. It is simple as that. Really, what makes the great club 5 times heavier than the normal club? The table is full of insanely and unrealistically heavy items that weigh over 10 lbs, it is just wrong.
Heh, historically, longswords, bastard swords, and two-handed swords are the same thing.
True. It seems the classifications came along much later. I think my only quibble is that longswords are rarely referred to as a single-handed weapon. They tend to have longer handles that could accommodate two hands.
I believe it was Garthanos that pointed out that 4e had them listed as versatile. I would certainly prefer that to the current misnomer in play test and have them replace the name bastard sword.
True. It seems the classifications came along much later. I think my only quibble is that longswords are rarely referred to as a single-handed weapon. They tend to have longer handles that could accommodate two hands.I believe it was Garthanos that p
Heh, historically, longswords, bastard swords, and two-handed swords are the same thing.
I believe it was Garthanos that pointed out that 4e had them listed as versatile. I would certainly prefer that to the current misnomer in play test and have them replace the name bastard sword.
Sounds good to me.
• Call the Hand-and-half sword, Longsword • Call the regular one-handed sword, Sword
Just like there is a normal “spear”, there can also be a normal “sword”.
I believe it was Garthanos that pointed out that 4e had them listed as versatile. I would certainly prefer that to the current misnomer in play test and have them replace the name bastard sword.[/quote]Sounds good to me.• Call the Hand-and-half
The suggestion for players who don't want to fritter over levels of encumberance to instead just go by max carrying capacity is very reasonable.
