Carrying capacity: The ruling currency?

[MarkB]

I somewhat assume most D&D players handwave encumbrance, but that's something which has also struck me as somewhat curious.

The groups I've played in don't track it too closely, but do keep an eye on it, and Handy Haversacks / Bags of Holding are usually a popular purchase once they become affordable.

I think the existence of such items is one reason why groups don't get in the habit of tracking encumbrance closely - once you get past a certain power level, it becomes effectively irrelevant, so it's only ever really important at low levels.

While I understand handwaving for ease of play, one of the complaints I see most often about 'mundane' characters (especially in 3rd) is that they are too easily outclassed by casters. While I do agree to an extent that they are, I also suspect that things might be a little more difficult for a wizard if said wizard had to obey some of the rules that were most often overlooked. I still believe there would be some disparity between classes, but I'd be interested to see how a game would play out with those rules being given more attention.

I'm not sure how this would be a particular limiting factor for wizards. Most of what they need to carry in order to function well isn't particularly heavy.

 

[Ashtagon]

I prefer to make items have an encumbrance equal to their weight in pounds or their length in feet, whichever is greater. Items which can be carried together (eg. arrows) are counted as single items for this purpose, so a quiver of 20 arrows would "weigh" 3 lb (based on length), regardless of actual weight.

This also sidesteps the endless debates about how much historical swords actually weighed, as their actual weights in lb were almost all lower than their length in ft.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Indeed it might not be for everyone. Still, I'd like to expand on the idea:

Say your capacity is not not 12 at first level. Say it's 6. Then we have room for carrying capacity level boons. That is, maybe fighters get another slot at 3rd level, and then another one at 6th. (Or whatever).

Okay, but can stronger or tougher people also start with more slots?

I agree that a sling and a great axe are pretty different in weight but they still occupy one hand. Now, I'm not suggesting we count hands but there we have a connection. Also the sling requires no Str but the great axe require 15 (for example).

This might make sense as an abstraction when it comes to actually wielding the object, but for carrying it a well? I can only carry 6 slings, but not 7? But I can carry 6 great axes?

Moreover: We already use slots when it comes to active magic items. That system could be rolled into this as well.

I'd also like to get away from the body slots thing. I got rid of it in my RPG, and I hope 5e follows suit.

Alas, if you don't like it I guess the idea is useless. Thanks for chiming in!

Well, I'm interested in something that models space, and maybe isn't as fiddly as weight. But I'm not sure how I like the idea of slots. I'm interested in the concept of abstract carrying capacity, though! As always, play what you like

 

[N'raac]

I somewhat assume most D&D players handwave encumbrance, but that's something which has also struck me as somewhat curious. While I understand handwaving for ease of play, one of the complaints I see most often about 'mundane' characters (especially in 3rd) is that they are too easily outclassed by casters. While I do agree to an extent that they are, I also suspect that things might be a little more difficult for a wizard if said wizard had to obey some of the rules that were most often overlooked. I still believe there would be some disparity between classes, but I'd be interested to see how a game would play out with those rules being given more attention.

A good point, especially with that power level under discussion elsewhere and "hundreds of scrolls" being a recurring theme. That 7 STR wizard has a lot of trouble carrying his spellbook and some food and water if we apply the encumbrance rules. Carrying items may help in the long run, but haversacks also have limits. And those same "overpower" concerns often refer to spells like Rope Trick. OK, Mr. Wizard, now that you have made it up the rope, you open your haveersack and see an empty backpack. As it is in an extra dimensional space, the bag's own extra dimensional spaces are inaccessible. Since you can't get your spellbook out, how will you be replenishing your spells?

Sucks to be last in initiative order, doesn't it... Carrying a heavy load and roll low on initiative? Then you'll be fumbling with the straps on your pack before you can ditch it. Let's say you normally have a +2 init and are wearing full plate (Max Dex +1) and, with the additional weight of your other gear, carrying a heavy load. During the first round of combat, you roll a 9, resulting in a 4 (9 + 1 - 6). You ditch your pack on your turn but when the next round starts, your initiative is now a 10, so you can go a bit sooner than before. If you were wearing scale mail, your initiative would be 5 (with the pack) and 11 without the pack.

OK, I'm confused. You normally roll initiative at the start of the battle. You either move on your initiative, or you delay. If you delay, when you move later, your place in the order changes. Are you modifying those rules so, I can move at 5 on the first round, then 10 on the second, and get two actions before the fellow moving at 8 gets another one? So, on 5, I let go of the sack I'm carrying (swift or free action, I assume) and start a full round spell. The guy who moved on 8 can't do anything about it since I'll finish on 10 next round.

Can I just delay dropping the sack until after he moves, then start my spell so it finishes 5 higher (and before he moves again) in initiative order?

The groups I've played in don't track it too closely, but do keep an eye on it, and Handy Haversacks / Bags of Holding are usually a popular purchase once they become affordable.

I think the existence of such items is one reason why groups don't get in the habit of tracking encumbrance closely - once you get past a certain power level, it becomes effectively irrelevant, so it's only ever really important at low levels.

Those Bags and Haversacks have capacity too. And some items don't make sense tucked away (a Move action to retrieve your crossbow bolt, for example, or spell components, is unhelpful, and your familiar wants his familiar carrier in THIS dimension, thank you!). For very low STR, even with the haversack there are challenges. Sticking to Light load means 33 lb at 10 STR - how many Arcanists dump STR lower than that (hint: the optimizers generally do!)?

My Witch just bought a haversack. But my Witch has a tent, a camp chair, a mess kit, a cooking pot, a bedroll, a cot, rations, and a waterskin when on the road (not to mention actual adventuring gear). Guess what? I still need my mule, since the haversack can't quite accommodate all that gear. Next up, a Bag of Holding (the lightest one weighs 15 lb - too much with gear I want on hand) to fill up with camp gear and toss in the Haversack (where the items will be inaccessible - no biggie). That's great...until I run out of space there.

Lucky I'm not a crafting witch. Carrying the tools to craft arm's and armor would add more weight.

I'm also building a cleric for another game. Scale Mail, Shield and Morning Star are pretty heavy. Now I can go to a Medium load with no penalties beyond the armor, but I'm not a high STR melee cleric, so it's still tight. Those haversacks are sure handy - but they pull some wealth away, and there are still weight issues.

I'm not sure how this would be a particular limiting factor for wizards. Most of what they need to carry in order to function well isn't particularly heavy.

Spellbooks add up fast, especially for the spellcaster who has to have every spell he can lay his hands on. Just those cantrips and starting L1 spells eat a good chunk of that 100 page spellbook. Spell component spell, likely a dagger or staff, and a crossbow. Clothes (I hope - especially if you dumped CHA ), food, water, camping gear, etc. although much of the latter can sit on a mule (or a warrior ) until you can afford a carrying item.

At low STR levels, moving up to a medium load can happen pretty quick, even if you're not the party pack mule (high STR warrior type) hauling out the treasure. My 1/2 Orc Barbarian can carry a selection of other party members, gear and all, but do you trust him with your possessions? Extra food and water, tent, bedroll - sure. Spellbooks? Maybe no so much?

 

[Li Shenron]

I'd also like to get away from the body slots thing. I got rid of it in my RPG, and I hope 5e follows suit.

They are getting away from it, by default.

But for those groups which would like a magic-item-heavy game (think like 3e), some of them might probably also want additional rules to limit how many are worn at the same time (i.e. active or activable), so body slots can still be used e.g. just like they were defined in 3e.

For carrying, "slots" really should not refer to body areas or parts, just weight and/or size.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

After having time to think about it, I think I prefer a simple weight system, but where some items get weight multipliers for being awkward. For example, a longsword has a weight of 3lbs (x2), meaning it weights three pounds but counts as six for encumbrance.

 

[3catcircus]

OK, I'm confused. You normally roll initiative at the start of the battle. You either move on your initiative, or you delay. If you delay, when you move later, your place in the order changes. Are you modifying those rules so, I can move at 5 on the first round, then 10 on the second, and get two actions before the fellow moving at 8 gets another one? So, on 5, I let go of the sack I'm carrying (swift or free action, I assume) and start a full round spell. The guy who moved on 8 can't do anything about it since I'll finish on 10 next round.

Can I just delay dropping the sack until after he moves, then start my spell so it finishes 5 higher (and before he moves again) in initiative order?

A couple of things that prevent this from occurring with the houserules I use:

1. Not sure why you'd think you'd go 5 higher in your example. If you dropped a from a heavy load down to a light load, your -6 Init penalty would go away (and you'd end up with a new Init of 11). Drop from Med to Light and you'd lose a -3 penalty. Drop from heavy to medium and you'd go from a -6 penalty to a -3 penalty.
2. Stuff can be dropped as a free action only if it is hand-held; so the sack could be dropped as a free action (assuming you are carrying it by hand), but dropping a backpack is a move action (ever try to take off a school backpack while wearing a winter coat or try to take off a loaded hiking backpack? It takes a bit of time).
3. Your example of casting a full round spell starting in round 1 would still end on initiative position 5 the 2nd round regardless of dropping a sack or ditching a pack. It is a full round, and in round 1, you are starting at a initiative position of 5; A full round means you'll end just prior to position 5 the next round (i.e. a full 6 seconds later), so in this case, you won't be able to take advantage of lowering your encumbrance until after you've completed the action that you started at the lower initiative position. If you had dropped a sack and conducted a charge (a full attack and as such, a full-round action), it'd be the same thing.
4. If you dropped a sack, you could move, attack, and then do the same thing sooner in round 2 because those action are not full-round actions (how much sooner dependent upon how much your encumbrance changed). If you had to get out of your backpack, you could still attack and take a 5-ft. step, and then conduct any actions sooner in round 2.
5. I don't follow your logic on using a delay. You can only delay until the end of the round you are currently in unless you don't mind losing an action, so if you waited from initiative position 5 in round 1 all the way down to initiative position 10 in round 2 and dropped a sack as a free action, you'd be starting your spell on initiative position 10 in round 2, ending just prior to initiative position 10 in round 3 with the casting of your full-round spell. In round 4, you'd end up higher at initiative position 10+x. Delaying doesn't buy you anything because you end up losing an action in comparison to the number of actions your opponent can take.

Here's a breakdown, with your guy with an Init of 5 (-6 penalty included for carrying a heavy load in a sack), the dropping of which will take you down to a light load, and his opponent with an Init of 10 with a light load:

Round Init Action
------ ---- -------
1 10 Opponent Acts

1 5 You drop your sack and begin casting a full-round spell

2 10 Opponent acts (he cannot conduct an AoO because you started in rd 1)

2 5+ Your spell goes off

2 5 You can take your normal action this round

3 11 You can act this round

3 10 Your opponent acts


As you can see - you don't get any extra actions, but once your encumbrance is lower, you can act sooner.

Here's the same thing, but with you taking a delay to happen at the very bottom of the initiative order:

Round Init Action
------ ---- -------
1 10 Opponent Acts

1 5 You delay to initiative position 1

1 1 You drop your sack and begin casting a full-round spell

2 10 Opponent acts (he cannot conduct an AoO)

2 1+ Your spell goes off

2 1 You can take your normal action this round

3 10 Your opponent acts

3 7 You act

As you can see - delaying gets you nothing here - you still end up going after your opponent each round.

Here's the same thing, but with you taking a delay to happen just prior to your opponent:

Round Init Action
------ ---- -------
1 10 Opponent Acts

1 5 You delay

2 11 You drop your sack and begin casting a full-round spell

2 10 Opponent acts (he cannot conduct an AoO)

3 11+ Your spell goes off

3 11 You can take your normal action this round

3 10 Your opponent acts

4 17 You act

4 10 Opponent acts

As you can see - your opponent can take 4 actions to your 3 due to you delaying to just prior to him, so it gets you less than nothing...

 

[N'raac]

The aspect I see as potentially tactically beneficial is the ability to take two actions between two of your opponent's actions, leaving him no opportunity to react to the first. Things that continue "to the start of the opponent's next action" don't require teamwork, since I can act again before his next action.

How often that would be an issue is a different question, of course. As a simple example, if I can Trip the target on my action at INIT 5 (drop the sack, then trip), I can follow up with a full attack action on my new INIT 11 before he has the opportunity to do anything about his Prone state.

Similarly, if I roll the 11 to begin with, and I can delay until 9 so he moves at 10, I can now act again at 11, before he gets an opportunity to respond to my last move. This is, to me, why delay resets your initiative.

By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.
You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen. You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action).

[h=5]Initiative Consequences of Delaying[/h] Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again).

If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.

Contrary to your comment, Delay can allow me to move early in the next round rather than late on this one. However, my initiative number does not reset to my roll after I take my delayed action. It becomes the number on which I chose to act. So, in my example, I could delay from 11 to 5 (or from 11 this round and act at Init 175 on the next round), but my new init would be 5 (or 175) and the target would have an action before I get my next action.

Your encumbrance structure seems to allow the character to take his next action less than a full round after his previous action, something not possible under the RAW. Hence my confusion.

 

[3catcircus]

The aspect I see as potentially tactically beneficial is the ability to take two actions between two of your opponent's actions, leaving him no opportunity to react to the first. Things that continue "to the start of the opponent's next action" don't require teamwork, since I can act again before his next action.

How often that would be an issue is a different question, of course. As a simple example, if I can Trip the target on my action at INIT 5 (drop the sack, then trip), I can follow up with a full attack action on my new INIT 11 before he has the opportunity to do anything about his Prone state.

And that is part of the trade-off. Can I act more quickly by dumping my gear, hoping to take down my opponent first, or should I have lugged around the gear because I'd need it in combat?

Similarly, if I roll the 11 to begin with, and I can delay until 9 so he moves at 10, I can now act again at 11, before he gets an opportunity to respond to my last move. This is, to me, why delay resets your initiative.

Contrary to your comment, Delay can allow me to move early in the next round rather than late on this one. However, my initiative number does not reset to my roll after I take my delayed action. It becomes the number on which I chose to act. So, in my example, I could delay from 11 to 5 (or from 11 this round and act at Init 175 on the next round), but my new init would be 5 (or 175) and the target would have an action before I get my next action.

Your encumbrance structure seems to allow the character to take his next action less than a full round after his previous action, something not possible under the RAW. Hence my confusion.

The part you are missing about Delay, when used with a houserule that loads above a light load penalize your initiative is that it doesn't really matter what you delay to, once you ditch your gear, your initiative penalty goes away and you can act sooner in the next round.

So you delay from an 11 (or a 20 or a 5) to top of the order the next round. Once your encumbrance drops, your initiative will increase and the round after next, you can act sooner. It doesn't buy you an extra attack, and delaying through the end of the round to be at the top in the following round means you lose an action, regardless of houserules or RAW.

That is the point - you aren't gaining extra actions, you are merely acting earlier in the round following your encumbrance decrease (in the case of a single action) or earlier in the next to next round (in the case of a full round action). That you may happen to get an action, followed by another action in the following round before your opponent can act doesn't increase the number of actions you can take in the long run. Now - if your earlier action in a subsequent round means your opponent becomes worm food, you could technically say you got more actions, but that is splitting hairs.

 

[N'raac]

The part you are missing about Delay, when used with a houserule that loads above a light load penalize your initiative is that it doesn't really matter what you delay to, once you ditch your gear, your initiative penalty goes away and you can act sooner in the next round.

So you delay from an 11 (or a 20 or a 5) to top of the order the next round. Once your encumbrance drops, your initiative will increase and the round after next, you can act sooner. It doesn't buy you an extra attack, and delaying through the end of the round to be at the top in the following round means you lose an action, regardless of houserules or RAW.

That is the point - you aren't gaining extra actions, you are merely acting earlier in the round following your encumbrance decrease (in the case of a single action) or earlier in the next to next round (in the case of a full round action). That you may happen to get an action, followed by another action in the following round before your opponent can act doesn't increase the number of actions you can take in the long run. Now - if your earlier action in a subsequent round means your opponent becomes worm food, you could technically say you got more actions, but that is splitting hairs.

I think the ability to take two actions in rapid succession (ie without the opponent having the opportunity to react to the first action before you can take the second) carries the potential to be very powerful in action. Let's powergame it (and this takes the matter to an absurd, if logical, extreme).

I'm a glass cannon. The opponent will kill my character with one blow. He's that powerful. I can do some decent damage, but I need two or three hits to really turn the tide. My teammates are tanks, and can tie the opponent down, but can't really hurt him, so they can only prolong the inevitable. My initiative is 14, including -3 from a medium load which I can eliminate by dropping a sack of rocks (carried for just such an occasion). The Big Bad's is 15.

Round 1: Init 15, Big Bad swings on one of the Tanks
Round 1: Init 14: drop sack of rocks; charge the Big Bad (since my bag of rocks is more than one move action away)
Round 2: Init 17; withdraw and pick up big bag of rocks
Round 2: Init 15: Big Bad can swing on one of my teammates, chase after me (and suck up attacks of opportunity from my teammates - I won't be within a single move action, so he can't attack unless he charges), or delay/ready until I come back. From here, I either:

(a) If Big Bad keeps swinging on my teammates, drop rocks at 14 to charge, then retreat at 17 next round. Wash, rinse, repeat.
(b) If Big Bad delays, the situation has reversed - since he never acts, my teammates eventually beat him down.
(c) If Big Bad charges, all my teammates use trips, bull rushes, etc. as their AoO to slow him down - once one succeeds, they use normal melee attacks to get some extra damage in

Accessing two actions with no retaliation seems potentially powerful to me.