D&D 4E Encumbrance in 4e

[wgreen]

Another might be based on the Donjon RPG, in which only weapons and armor really matter when calculating encumbrance (and only a weapon's ability to do damage or armor's ability to resist damage matter). If you use a weapon that's damage rating is higher than your Strength ("Virility" in that game), then you suffer a penalty to your roll.

Oh, man, I love how Donjon handles encumbrance. I also love its Provisions system*. Poring over the list of mundane equipment that you pretty much have to buy in D&D is fun exactly once, IME. After that, I kind of wish we could just assume everyone has a lousy 50' rope, a few torches, etc.

* Basically, during an adventure, if you need some piece of mundane equipment, like a rope, you just roll your Provisions score; if you succeed, you brought the item in question along with you, and if you fail, you didn't. You can modify this score at the beginning of each adventure via your Wealth score.

Which is also cool, since you're not tracking how much cash you're hauling around, either. But that's not such a pain in D&D. Except for how it affects encumbrance.

!@#%ing encumbrance.

-Will

 

[Zaruthustran]

Poring over the list of mundane equipment that you pretty much have to buy in D&D is fun exactly once, IME.

Yep. I really dug it the first time, but after that... it's just tedious writing all that garbage down. WotC even started cribbing a bit, writing "Adventuring gear" in NPC stat blocks.

I like the provision system you described. Living Greyhawk did something similar; each player could bring a certain number of special cards to the table. Each card provided a minor bonus or ability to his character once per session (like reroll initiative, +1 DC for a spell, and so on). One of the cards was called "I have that!" and let your character rummage around in his backpack and whip out a single mundane item priced at 50gp or less.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't think we even have weapon weights yet.

This quote bothers me because these numbers are very easy to get from Oakeshott, etc.

 

[wgreen]

I don't think we even have weapon weights yet.

This quote bothers me because these numbers are very easy to get from Oakeshott, etc.

I think the weights used in D&D also try to take into account the bulkiness of various items. Like, if something weighs N pounds, but is really long and unwieldy, its D&D weight would be some number greater than N. I could be mistaken.

-Will

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

I voted for simpler/faster.

I would be fine with keeping the same encumbrance rules we have now in 3.5, but if there's a simpler and faster way to do it without making it too abstract or worthless, then I'm all for it.

 

[pawsplay]

I think the weights used in D&D also try to take into account the bulkiness of various items. Like, if something weighs N pounds, but is really long and unwieldy, its D&D weight would be some number greater than N. I could be mistaken.

-Will

They used to, but I think that was a justification for made up weights.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Oh, man, I love how Donjon handles encumbrance. I also love its Provisions system*.

Yes, I like that, too. Having played a few games of Donjon, it's hard for me to pore over lists of mundane gear trying to buy stuff.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I voted for simpler. Honestly, we always abstract the hell out of it anyone unless some of the characters try and get silly with what they want to carry.

I propose a simple slot system, similar to the magic item system. This would be simple, and also help players envision their character. Which--by forcing the player to think about what goes where--would make the game more real/fun. Verisimilitude for the win!

This is actually the first thought I had. Only problem is if you thought people were complaining about trying to make 4e into a video game before, this will hurl them over the edge. Not only that, I wouldn't want to have to keep referring back to a schematic to see how much my character is carrying. I like the idea, just don't think it will work.

 

[Dykstrav]

I've never had a problem with the encumbrance system for 3.5. 1E was a little nutty (with "approximate weight in gold pieces" given for weapons). It's never bothered me to do basic addition or subtraction, even at the table during play. Elsewise, I would have given up on D&D when 2E introduced the THAC0 business.

I think the encumbrance issue most players have has very little to do with the way the system is set up. In my experience, it seems to be more to do with the fact that they want to carry half a page of gear without consequences. I'm not going to bog down the discussion with an argument for "realism," but I will mention that real-world police officers, soldiers, and the like carefully consider the weight of their gear and how easy it is to carry it on duty. In that vein I actually enjoy the encumbrance rules, especially as a player. To me, it's another challenge wherein you can demonstrate smart play.

Invariably, some players complain that the encumbrance rules don't allow them to cart off all the treasure in a dungeon. I've always thought this was a matter of perspective. Goblin spears and shields carried by skeletons aren't really treasure (and aren't worth looting past 1st level anyway). Besides, whenever you have about a full load of treasure, there's a good chance that you're about ready to rest for the day anyway. Might as well carry that loot back to town as long as you're going to rest, right?

 

[Gold Roger]

Quick and simple. Heck, it becomes moot as soon as the PC's have bags of holding, portable holes and handy haversacks anyway.