Encumbrance in "Stone"

[Olgar Shiverstone]

So, are you really suggesting a system in Base 14, or just using that as a metaphor?

 

[Redbeardin84]

I like to recognize what I think are good ideas when I see them, and I will say yours is a good idea.

I will also admit that I have great doubts that it will be implemented.

But it's a neat idea. that much i am sure of.

 

[Jackelope King]

When encumbrance actually matters, I've always had more success just using a strength check with levels of success to see how the load affected the character (and when it's someone loading a backpack, it works fine for them to just "take 10" or "take 20").

 

[Garboshnik]

For the purpose of an isolated encumbrance system it does not matter what the unit is. You could get the same result by just rounding off all of the weights in pounds and dividing by ten to get a modifier. In fact, I would separate the units from weight entirely and just use some sort of unit-less 'encumbrance points' based on a rough estimate of size and weight.

I've never been in a game that tracks encumbrance as it adds a lot of bookkeeping compared to how much it improves the game. A change like the one proposed above could certainly be bettered but it is an improvement over the current rules.

 

[Fifth Element]

One of the biggest problems is, of course, the fact that 'stone' is only used as a unit of measurement in the UK. The biggest D&D market is, of course, the US, where they are used to using pounds. The former British colonies (Canada and Australia) are metric, so we don't officially use pounds, much less stone - though I know in Canada pretty much everyone is also comfortable with pounds. Don't know if the same applies to Oz.

 

[heirodule]

Barleycorns and furlongs!

 

[Sound of Azure]

One of the biggest problems is, of course, the fact that 'stone' is only used as a unit of measurement in the UK. The biggest D&D market is, of course, the US, where they are used to using pounds. The former British colonies (Canada and Australia) are metric, so we don't officially use pounds, much less stone - though I know in Canada pretty much everyone is also comfortable with pounds. Don't know if the same applies to Oz.

It depends largely on how old you are here. I was fortunate to have started school the year metric was introduced into the education system. The only time I use imperial is when I'm cooking (usually translating from old cookbooks or magazines that have stubborn editors) or when I'm playing D&D. It's always amusing/interesting at the cinema seeing (younger) people's brows furrowing when they convert weights and speeds back into metric.

Since we're not directly on the US's doorstep like Canada is, we have less day to day exposure to the imperial measurements. [/threadjack]

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

Yeah, how much is that in Nippur talents?

Campaign worlds could do with making up their own weights and measures, but the core rules should preferentially keep to better-known units. Ideally, metric, but I'm definitely not holding my breath.

If I bothered with encumbrance at all, I'd probably houserule "one item per point of strength" or some such nonsense; maybe medium armor counts as two items and heavy as three. I strongly advise my players to buy some mules to carry their stuff around, like real medieval mercenaries would probably do. YMMV.

 

[Delta]

So, are you really suggesting a system in Base 14, or just using that as a metaphor?

Well, you're not going to see any base 14 if the whole weight system gets converted wholesale into "stone" (or kilograms, or anything else, for that matter). The most important thing, as I started out with, is that the proper thing to do for game playability is to reduce the granularity. I don't think most of us really care if a weapon is 6 or 7 versus 8 or 9 pounds.

I think you could just as easily say "all weights are counted in 5-pound units". Or 10-pound units. Or totally abstract "D&D Weight Units". Or whatever.

It just so happens that historically people dealt with the same issue and there's a ready-made weight unit that does exactly that job, and it connotes Old World flavor (just like coins being in gold pieces), and it just so happens to also pretty much equal what your skill check penalty should be. So for me there's all sorts of reasons to use that as the converted granularity.

But hey, if everyone takes a vote and prefers 5-pound units, I'd be all for that as well. The overriding priority for me is that units must be bigger, so the numbers are smaller and can be added quickly, and potentially even memorized by the players (like class hit dice, ability modifiers, weapon damage, etc.). I think that's been the primary mistake in the encumbrance system since OD&D; the units were not picked with game playability in mind, and that's why so many people feel compelled to ignore them.

 

[Legildur]

PHB 3.5 p161 - Encumbrance by Armor.

Looks to me that there was already some simplification for those not inclined to add up pesky pounds and half pounds.

PS I'm and Australian, and quite comfortable with pounds, stone and kilograms. But then, I'm from a slightly older generation than your typical WoW player.