D&D 5E Simple Encumbrance system (to make Strength matter)?

[Umbran]

While I partially agree, even from a gameplay experience, putting a 8 in a stat is voluntarily choosing a weakness, and a player should expect some kind of consequences from that.

There's level of "choosing" though. If you agree to rolling dice for stat generation, then you are voluntarily choosing the possibility of an 8. If the GM says the game is standard array, you take an 8 or you find another game. Only in point buy is it really all the player's direct choice to have it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Here is the spreadsheet I made for buying gear. I'll upload it later tonight if people are interested, but I have to be off to work right now and need to add some notes for new uers.

 

[Laurefindel]

There's level of "choosing" though. If you agree to rolling dice for stat generation, then you are voluntarily choosing the possibility of an 8. If the GM says the game is standard array, you take an 8 or you find another game. Only in point buy is it really all the player's direct choice to have it.

Good point.

But a 8 score in an ability is still supposed to represent a weakness, regardless whether you rolled it, assigned it, refused to increase it, or somehow chose to get one (in game offering choice of different stat arrays for exemple).

Whether the -1 on all Strength rolls is enough to represent that weakness, or whether it should also be represented by your carrying capacity, is another matter however. And while I seem to disagree with your and @Charlaquin on this, I can see the point of a carrying penalty being superfluous or unnecessary.

 

[Umbran]

Whether the -1 on all Strength rolls is enough to represent that weakness, or if it should also be represented by your carrying capacity, is another matter however. And while I seem to disagree with your and @Charlaquin on this, I can see the point of carrying penalty being superfluous or unnecessary.

I don't agree or disagree. It is merely a choice of style for a game.

For me, the question is - does the rule add enough interest to the game to justify the bookkeeping? For some games, the answer will be yes, for others it will be no. That should be evaluated for each campaign.

Edit to add:

For example - a little while ago, I ran 5e to teach my goddaughter and a friend of hers to play. I took note of character carrying capacity, and then just kept an eye that the characters didn't try to carry egregious amounts of stuff (they didn't). That level of detail wasn't going to help the kids have more fun while trying to learn the basics.

Right now, I am playing a gnome artificer with a strength of 8 (we all took standard array stats). I am trying to play fair by that, which means if I don't watch it, I am toddling along with a move of 15'. I have a bit of fun fiddling the details... working out what I carry, what my mastiff can carry, and what's gotta be shoved in the infused Bag of Miscellaneous Gnomish Tools and Crap Holding.

 

[Charlaquin]

Good point.

But a 8 score in an ability is still supposed to represent a weakness, regardless whether you rolled it, assigned it, refused to increase it, or somehow chose to get one (in game offering choice of different stat arrays for exemple).

Whether the -1 on all Strength rolls is enough to represent that weakness, or whether it should also be represented by your carrying capacity, is another matter however. And while I seem to disagree with your and @Charlaquin on this, I can see the point of a carrying penalty being superfluous or unnecessary.

I don’t mind the idea of a penalty to carrying capacity, but in practice I haven’t found it to my liking. It’s just a real bummer for me and the players to tell them that if they put an 8 in strength they either have to leave some essential gear behind or have 10 feet less movement per turn than everyone else. I much prefer giving characters with higher strength a better armor option. That feels good, that feels like you gain something special for boosting your strength instead of feeling like you lose something that would otherwise be standard for dumping strength.

 

[Umbran]

I much prefer giving characters with higher strength a better armor option. That feels good, that feels like you gain something special for boosting your strength instead of feeling like you lose something that would otherwise be standard for dumping strength.

That's probably a nice way to look at it - add fun rather than subtract it.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I find the slot based inventory in the 5e darker dungeons suppliment (link) to work very well, the biggest problem in my experience is the same as any other house rule... Namely "OMG!!! DDB doesn't support it or any of WotC's own variant rules and muh subscription must limit your game so I'll fight you tooth & nail at every chance I get". The solution to that is to simply ban dnsbeyond without mercy or exception at your table
View attachment 117313
There is some leeway for a basic amount of things that don't count against your slots (100 coins, some rations/water) so a low strength character can still function without a packmule while mid & high strength characters can carry a large but believable amount

The slot style of abstraction like this are systems that I hate the most. Heavy armour and weapons are given weight values that far outpace the bonus that a high strength score gives to the point where you are now penalized for playing a high strength character. In the example the small kobold wizard with a strength penalty carries more extra stuff than the cleric with a strength bonus.

 

[Undrave]

The Angry GM had an article about it. Encumbrance matter in exploration, tacking combat rules is silly, combatants could just doff their backpack and get it back after a fight. If you want encumbrance to matter you need to make what they are carrying matter

 

[Laurefindel]

I much prefer giving characters with higher strength a better armor option. That feels good, that feels like you gain something special for boosting your strength instead of feeling like you lose something that would otherwise be standard for dumping strength.

Do you have any example of that in the game, or ideas of what could be added as houserules?

I guess the trick is to make whatever comes with high strength not too critical, otherwise those without it will feel penalized, and we're back to square one.

 

[Umbran]

The Angry GM had an article about it. Encumbrance matter in exploration, tacking combat rules is silly, combatants could just doff their backpack and get it back after a fight.

In the action economy, that one interaction with an item can still be meaningful. Like... can't take off the pack and draw a weapon without using an action.