Zombies that need to stay dead. DEAD.

[delericho]

Apart from the fact that bags of holding etc. make encumbrance rules dead weight.

This was actually deliberate. The idea was that at the start of the game, you would micro-manage encumberance and gear carried, and engage in low-level dungeon crawling. However, at some point the effort of tracking encumberance became more of a pain than it was worth, and at that point the bag of holding would let you bypass that mechanic, so it ceased to be an issue.

You see a similar thing with light sources - at low level you were supposed to track these, but eventually doing so would become tedious so you grabbed an everburning torch.

There were a couple of weaknesses with this:

- It assumes you only ever play one campaign. Otherwise, in the second campaign you ended up sick of encumberance, but without the means to ignore it!

- As the editions went on, the designers gradually mucked around with this. And so, the everburning torch became standard equipment very early, rendering other light sources basically obselete from the outset.

 

[Storminator]

Assuming, of course, that you give such things out in your game. Also, putting sharp pointy things into bags of holding has never really been that good of an idea... Hey, if someone wants to game the system by carrying 20 swords around along with all their other gear*, I'm more than ready to game the system right back and smack 'em down; I have neither time nor patience for that sort of thing. However, if someone's reasonable about how they play and doesn't try to pull stunts with the rules then I'll be just as reasonable in return.

* - but note that if a donkeyhorse is involved then all is well.

Lanefan

I fondly remember our 1e game where we had a bag of holding full of weapons and a portable hole full of armor.

We found the prison in the dungeon and sprang all the prisoners. The DM said "they're all low level and have no equipment so they aren't much good in a fight. . ."

15 magic weapons, 12 magic shields and 15 suits of magic armor later, they were a pretty formidable wall!

PS

 

[drothgery]

In 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder, stats were just too important to leave to chance. And, indeed, all the point-buy systems that actually got used in those systems gave characters that were actually more powerful than those rolled.

... by the base die-rolling method specified in the book. But in actual play, I've never seen rolled attributes fail to include multiple sets of attribute rolls (and not just for a by-the-book 'hopeless character', either), bonus points, and/or re-rolling 1s.

 

[billd91]

Huh, what? The borked game rules force the player to carry a normal sword, a silver dagger, an adamantium hammer, an cold iron rapier to do his job properly, and pull every trick in the book to boycott him? Why? The guy who's "pulling stunts with the rules" is you, because there is absolutely nothing that says Bags of Holding can't hold sharp objects.

The rule wasn't borked. There were other ways around some of this including handling a little adversity gracefully. That said, I think PF's refinement on this is a good one - pluses 3 or higher started discounting certain DRs.

But why carry the normal sword in your example?

 

[malkav666]

Huh, what? The borked game rules force the player to carry a normal sword, a silver dagger, an adamantium hammer, an cold iron rapier to do his job properly, and pull every trick in the book to boycott him? Why? The guy who's "pulling stunts with the rules" is you, because there is absolutely nothing that says Bags of Holding can't hold sharp objects.

The PC never chose to carry around a golf bag. The rules force him to, and you add to the insult by punishing him for it. What's the message here? Sucks to be you, why didn't you play a Wizard, so I can pester you with bat guano and sulphur needs for Fireball?

Ok, here is another zombie that needs to stay dead:

* Adversarial GMing: No, it's not your job to make the game an exercise in frustration because "that's how Gary did it", "it's not a children's card game" or "it would be boring". I deal with this kind of crap enough in real life, thank you. You're a negative influence that drives players away. Get out of my hobby. YOU SUCK THE FUN OUT OF THINGS, FUNSUCKER.

Actually to be fair, the PC is the one who is trying to get around DR rules and the DM is the voice of reason in your example. If a player has chosen a "golf bag" then they are trying to circumvent DR instead of just having their damage reduced and the bad guy getting a few more hits in. I don't see the big deal.

And encumbrance is not adversarial DMing. Disagreeing with a player is not adversarial DMing. Honestly if I had a player that would cry and call me a fun sucker every time they ran into a limitation in the rules and I followed the rules. I would just remove them from the game. I have to deal with peoples poorly raised self entitled children in the real world. I should not have to be the one explain basic life lessons while I am trying to get my game on.

Restrictions set the stage for great acts of heroism and desperation and in the long run add dramatic tension and thinking outside the box to the game. If your group doesn't want to use encumbrance, that's cool. But you have to realize that the system is in place specifically for "golf bags". So if you want to complain about golf bags and then in turn encumbrance (which specifically deals with the golf bag complaint). I have to wonder if you just want to complain in general without any recourse or discussion. Let me break it down for you: The idea is that the gear you choose to take is a tactical decision. If you choose poorly then you may face the most funsucking aspect of D&D. You may not be optimal! You may have to think of a plan using the tools at hand that may talked about and remembered by your gaming group for years to come regardless of whether or not it is successful.

Or you could cry and moan your DM into total submission and remove every challenging aspect of the game from it, so that you always perform optimally under every circumstance, get some of those business as usual kills under the belt that the group will forget about before the next session. Do it over and over again until there is nothing left kill in the current edition. Get a new edition and do it all over again for a nominal fee.

You ever stop to wonder what types of play most strongly support the idea of an edition treadmill?

love,

malkav
(from the year 2012)

 

[Flatus Maximus]

The guy who's "pulling stunts with the rules" is you, because there is absolutely nothing that says Bags of Holding can't hold sharp objects.

Hey man, calm down. In fact, you cannot put sharp objects into a bag of holding without ruining the bag. It's been that way since AD&D, look it up. However, in 3.xx (maybe before, I don't remember) there is a quiver you can get that will hold weapons. So your point stands -- it is possible to have the golf bag, if one can find one of these quivers.

 

[delericho]

... by the base die-rolling method specified in the book. But in actual play, I've never seen rolled attributes fail to include multiple sets of attribute rolls (and not just for a by-the-book 'hopeless character', either), bonus points, and/or re-rolling 1s.

Sure. That's fair enough. But the by-the-book dice rolling method really needs to match up with the by-the-book point buy method(s)!

 

[Grydan]

You see a similar thing with light sources - at low level you were supposed to track these, but eventually doing so would become tedious so you grabbed an everburning torch.

There were a couple of weaknesses with this:

- It assumes you only ever play one campaign. Otherwise, in the second campaign you ended up sick of encumberance, but without the means to ignore it!

- As the editions went on, the designers gradually mucked around with this. And so, the everburning torch became standard equipment very early, rendering other light sources basically obselete from the outset.

Pretty much the only house rule I enforce in my 4E campaign is that there is no such thing, despite their appearance in the Adventurer's Kit, of anything called a sunrod. Nor is there an everburning torch.

A fireless, smokeless, long-lasting, reliable and bright light-source is something the Queen of the Elves might give you ONE of, as a precious gift. Not something you pick up with pocket change.

Y'know, unless we're in Eberron or something, in which case, go nuts.


* of course, then the wizard goes and uses his Light cantrip, and spoils the mood of the dimly lit corridor/crypt/fine dining establishment anyways, but at least the area of illumination on that is mercifully small, and it feels like magic, rather than convenience technology.

 

[drothgery]

Sure. That's fair enough. But the by-the-book dice rolling method really needs to match up with the by-the-book point buy method(s)!

I don't know; in 4e, at least, the by-the-book point buy really is used most of the time (probably because the character builder defaults to it rather than any rules presentation factors). Whereas dice are inherently prone to fudging.

 

[Hassassin]

The guy who's "pulling stunts with the rules" is you, because there is absolutely nothing that says Bags of Holding can't hold sharp objects.

"If the bag is overloaded, or if sharp objects pierce it (from inside or outside), the bag ruptures and is ruined. All contents are lost forever."