How many miles can one travel in a day?

As for the gear that a typical D&D group cart around the countryside, that also is a genre trope that i do not believe any sensible people would engage in. If they really needed all that gear they they would buy pack animals and people to guard them or invest in portable holes and other such devices.

I think a lot of the issue here is that D&D characters tend to accumulate gear, very rarely ever lose/sell/give away any of it, and tend to carry everything they own at all times. After all, they never know when they might be called on to engage in life-or-death combat, delve a random dungeon, or otherwise engage in extreme activity.

A more realistic approach would be for characters to regularly throw away and/or replace their mundane gear (due to it being lost, wearing out, or just being old), and to re-equip themselves on a per-expedition basis.

(One potential way of modelling this would be to use a much more punishing set of encumberance rules, coupled with allowing the party to 'buy' mundane equipment at zero cost. So, they can acquire rope, iron spikes, rations, lanterns, oil, and so on easily enough... but they can only carry a tiny number of items at a time, so they really have to choose.

That might actually make "dungeon hack" adventures more interesting, since the party have to make hard choices about what to take in to the dungeon, and then make do with whatever they've got - rather than just having the fighter carry an absurd amount of gear and/or handwaving equipment availability.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think a lot of the issue here is that D&D characters tend to accumulate gear, very rarely ever lose/sell/give away any of it, and tend to carry everything they own at all times. After all, they never know when they might be called on to engage in life-or-death combat, delve a random dungeon, or otherwise engage in extreme activity.

A more realistic approach would be for characters to regularly throw away and/or replace their mundane gear (due to it being lost, wearing out, or just being old), and to re-equip themselves on a per-expedition basis.

(One potential way of modelling this would be to use a much more punishing set of encumberance rules, coupled with allowing the party to 'buy' mundane equipment at zero cost. So, they can acquire rope, iron spikes, rations, lanterns, oil, and so on easily enough... but they can only carry a tiny number of items at a time, so they really have to choose.

That might actually make "dungeon hack" adventures more interesting, since the party have to make hard choices about what to take in to the dungeon, and then make do with whatever they've got - rather than just having the fighter carry an absurd amount of gear and/or handwaving equipment availability.)

Oh, I agree, totally agree but the pain of the bookkeeping to enforce that. That is why I amd other like me ignore encumbrance unless there is abuse going on.
Maybe someday when the DM and players can register their mobile devices with the smart table and we can do RoleMaster properly :D
 

Oh, I agree, totally agree but the pain of the bookkeeping to enforce that.

The problem is the D&D uses entirely the wrong scale for encumberance. Tracking things down to a tenth of a pound (or even to a single coin in some editions) is just too much detail, especially since a character's load will change frequently (every time they use an arrow in combat; every time they find treasure).

Besides, very often the character's ability to carry all that stuff would be nothing to do with their muscles' ability to shift that load, but rather down to how well it is packed. (Think about it: how many dice can you carry in your hands? How many can you carry if you put those same dice into a really big bag?)

Note: this system works particularly well with item cards, since there's then a really obvious sign of what the character is carrying.

A very simple encumberance system (and probably not a much less realistic system) could just allow characters to carry "ten things" (adjust number to suit), such as:

Leather Armour
Shortsword
Shortbow
Quiver of arrows (up to 20; any combination)
Potion (Cure Light Wounds)
Thieves' Tools
Rope and Grapple
Bundle of Poor Loot
Pouch of Monies

and so on.

(Of course, you'll have to make a call about what counts as one of the ten things. This probably shouldn't include worn clothing items, or the various containers a character might use. But how many coins count as a thing? Do two daggers count as two things, or just one between them? And so on.)

A more complex system would split items into Major items, Minor items, and Conditional items. Major items would be the big, bulky items such as a suit of armour, a weapon, rope... Minor items would be the small, light items: a coin, a potion. Conditional items would mostly be clothing items - when worn, these are considered Minor, but if the character is just carrying them, then they'd be considered Major.

Then, in addition to the limit above, characters would be further limited by their Strength: they can carry a number of Major items equal to their Strength before becoming encumbered, then a further 3 items before being heavily encumbered, and then a final 3 before reaching their maximum load.

So, our theoretical thief above would be carrying a load of 6 (armour, sword, box, quiver, rope, bundle of loot).

A more complex still system would replace the simple "ten items" limit with a number of 'slots' of different types. A character can carry an item if he has an appropriate slot available. Adding a pack would add a number of slots that can be used for anything.

So, our example thief:

Body: Leather armour (major)
Weapon 1: Shortsword (major)
Weapon 2: Shortbow (major)
Weapon 3: Quiver (conditional - consider minor; adds 3 "quiver" slots for arrows)
Weapon 4: Unassigned
Back: Backpack (conditional - consider minor; adds 6 "pack" slots)
Quiver 1: Arrows (up to 20; any one type; major)
Quiver 2&3: Unassigned
Pack 1: Rope & Grapple (major)
Pack 2: Potion of Cure Light Wounds (minor)
Pack 3-6: Unassigned
Left Hand: Sack (minor; adds 3 "sack" slots for treasures)
Sack 1: Bundle of Poor Loot* (major)
Sack 2-3: Unassigned
Belt Pouch: Pouch of monies (minor)
Concealed: Thieves' Tools

About Treasure

In the example above, I've listed "a bundle of poor loot". The idea here is that I would recommend abstracting a lot of treasures out into single items.

For example, when the party defeat a band of goblins, the DM should first present them with the list of gear the goblins have. If the PCs want to equip any of these items individually, they are free to do so. However, whatever is left is then considered to be wrapped up and turned into a single (major) item called a "bundle of XX loot". Such items cannot then be unbundled (since we're not tracking what they are individually), but can be resold at town for a fixed amount.

This saves micromanaging the details of everything a random bandit has (and especially the small amounts of coin/gold teeth/minor trinkets they might have).

You could have a "bundle of poor loot", a "bundle of average loot", a "bundle of good loot", and so on, right up to "a bundle of priceless loot". (In each case, the bundle should consist of stuff that isn't good enough for the PCs to bother using, but good enough for them to want to sell on.

Similarly, with coins, I would go with "a pile of poor coins" (mostly copper with some silver) up to "a pile of priceless coins" (mostly platinum with just a few gold). A pile is about 3,000 coins (or set accordingly), but the exact number is handwaved - it's not as if the party is going to rigorously catalogue this in the middle of the dungeon anyway, is it?

And the same can be done with gems.

The idea here is to reduce the book-keeping of mundane treasures, and avoid overloading the encumberance system with detail (while still not allowing PCs to carry absurd amounts of loot everywhere).
 

I think there are too many variables in the original question to get a meaningful answer.

There's a huge difference between the maximum distance an individual can accomplish in a 24-hour period, assuming he or she can just collapse at the end and rest for a few days, versus what can be done on a day-in-day-out basis.

There's also the question of how much time must be set aside for travel overhead. Setting up and tearing down encampments, cooking, etc.--not to mention foraging--eat into the time and energy available for walking.

So, OP, are we looking for a short-burst forced march type figure, or an everyday sustained travel figure?
 

The problem is the D&D uses entirely the wrong scale for encumberance. Tracking things down to a tenth of a pound (or even to a single coin in some editions) is just too much detail, especially since a character's load will change frequently (every time they use an arrow in combat; every time they find treasure).

snip... Still too much policing required for my taste

Not only are the D&D encumbrance systems too detailed but alot of weapon and armour weight were pulled out of someones ass.

Grabbing a random PHB (3.0 it turns out) a long sword is listed at 4lbs
Bit on the heavy end I would say and a quick Google and it is and wikipedia also agrees.

That said I do like your item card idea.
 

Okay, folks, fill in this chart IYO:

party distance/day in miles, normal encumbrance

Avg -- Max(force march) -- terrain
----------------------------------------------
20 -- 40 -- Open/trail
w1 -- w2 -- woods
r1 -- r2 -- rough/brush
h1 -- h2 -- hills
m1 -- m2 -- mountains
s1 -- s2 -- swamp
 

...Grabbing a random PHB (3.0 it turns out) a long sword is listed at 4lbs
Bit on the heavy end I would say and a quick Google and it is and wikipedia also agrees...

I couldn't find it in the 3.0 or 3.5 PHB (although I may have just overlooked it), but in past edition PHB's I believe the weight for weapons included things like the scabard/sheath, baldric/belts, etc. Including this stuff may still leave the weights a little high, but considerably closer. I think the idea wasn't so much about how much the weapon weighed when used, but how much the whole package weighed to wear or carry.
 

Normal healthy people walk 3 miles/hour on level terrain when unencumbered, and can do this for around 8 hours/day, or 24 miles in one day - but will likely be sore afterwards if not used to doing this. Fit people walk at the same speed, but 10 hours/day is reasonable, or 30 miles.

Terrain can reduce speed to 2 miles an hour, 1 mile an hour, or less in extreme cases.

Americans walk less than any population in world history, making US personal experience possibly misleading except for a modern-US set campaign.

Re medium load - the WW2 German army - the Wehrmacht - reckoned their soldiers had a sustained march rate of 40 km/day, about 25 miles/day, over European terrain. That's carrying around 60 lbs in pack, weapon et al. I read that the US Marine corps reckon they have a sustained march rate of 10 km/day, while the US Army is not capable of sustained march. The Wehrmacht figure is comparable to eg the ancient Roman army march rate and looks reasonable as a guide for what D&D PCs should be able to do.
 

I think that the average unburdened person walks about 3 miles an hour on a nice, flat, level surface. Assuming a reasonable travel day of 8 effective hours gives about 24 miles/day. The eight hours of travel are spread over perhaps 10-12 hours of actual time due to rest breaks, stops to eat, etc. The amount of weight carried and the roughness of the terrain could greatly reduce this, of course.

BTW, in AD&D Movement equated to miles per half day, so 24 miles per day at MV 12". Pretty much in line with the above.

Yes, this is accurate.

24 miles is actually quite easy for a normally fit, unburdened person who just gets up in the morning and starts walking, I did it myself and wasn't even tired afterwards. With a loaded backpack it's tougher, you need to be fairly fit and you'll be tired afterwards.
 

As for the gear that a typical D&D group cart around the countryside, that also is a genre trope that i do not believe any sensible people would engage in. If they really needed all that gear they they would buy pack animals and people to guard them or invest in portable holes and other such devices.

During the Falklands War the British soldiers marched across the boggy island carrying 100-120 lb or so each. The Argentines didn't think this was possible, due to having been trained by Americans. :p
 

Remove ads

Top