D&D 5E Encumbrance
- Thread starter PinkRose
- Start date
not-so-newguy
Hero
Eta: here's a link to a download for an inventory sheet
http://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTh.../5e_inventory_tracking_sheet_with_simplified/
http://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTh.../5e_inventory_tracking_sheet_with_simplified/
Last edited:
not-so-newguy
Hero
If you follow the instructions on the inventory sheet, it'll make things pretty simple, IMO.
I would say that for dwarves using the variant encumbrance, weight still counts, but the penalty is reduced by 10 feet:
encumbered, no penalty
heavily encumbered, speed drops by 10 feet.
encumbered, no penalty
heavily encumbered, speed drops by 10 feet.
This was how I was going to do it when I thought about using the variant. However, none of my players wanted to do it, and after playing in the session for a while, I realized that it's probably better to use the simple setup.
I really like the idea of the variant encumbrance, but I find the implementation is just too restrictive. I do like the thought of there being a mechanic that encouraged not letting strength be a dump stat, however. In most cases, wizards and sorcerers won't come up against the limit. But because there's no straightforward way of reducing weight for small-sized armour, I find that halflings and gnomes regularly end up encumbered, regardless of build.
I don't mind that tendency, but it shouldn't be inevitable. It's not that I as a player want to be keeping track of weight throughout, but I do like the incentive not to overload one's characters.
I don't mind that tendency, but it shouldn't be inevitable. It's not that I as a player want to be keeping track of weight throughout, but I do like the incentive not to overload one's characters.
redrick
First Post
Why can't you just reduce weight for small-sized armor?
Also, I don't see any penalties to the carrying capacity of small creatures. There's a penalty for tiny creatures, and a bonus for large creatures, but small and medium are treated as pretty much interchangeable. The little guys seem to be able to carry a greater percentage of their body weight than the big guys.
As a DM? Sure. As a player? no, or not without negotiations. How much would you reduce weight? by half? by a quarter? It's easier just to use the basic encumbrance rules.
Yup, but many concepts involving small races, for me at least, have low-strength builds (I have suspension of disbelief issues with high-strength gnomes and halflings; that's my issue, admittedly). I like the idea of a small dex-based fighter, but it doesn't work well (conceptually) with the variant encumbrance rules.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
In one of my upcoming campaigns where I really want the characters to have that fresh off the farm feeling at low-levels, I'm going to use variant encumbrance at the beginning (along with having them track every ration and arrow). I'll also describe how unpleasant it gets for the city folk to have to walk 20+ miles and sleep in tents every day. I might have them make Con checks to avoid exhaustion after a normal day's walk.
Several sessions in, after they've got the idea of what this would actually be like, I'll phase all of that stuff out, as we assume the characters have toughened up, and they can afford to pay sufficient upkeep that I can assume it includes rations and ammo.
Several sessions in, after they've got the idea of what this would actually be like, I'll phase all of that stuff out, as we assume the characters have toughened up, and they can afford to pay sufficient upkeep that I can assume it includes rations and ammo.
Not trying to poopoo on the OPs preference, but can I get a show of hands on who actually enjoys working out encumbrance and feels it adds to their game? I'm yet to meet anybody who enjoys it. We just have not seen what it adds mechanically.
The only exception being in GURPS, where you kind of need to do that, as the weight you can carry is the gatekeeper for what armor you can wear.
The only exception being in GURPS, where you kind of need to do that, as the weight you can carry is the gatekeeper for what armor you can wear.
redrick
First Post
The people who want to play with the variant encumbrance want to. People who don't find it fun don't have to use it.
Personally, as a player, I like the restriction. As a DM, I would only do it if all my players were on board.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
The funny thing is, variant encumbrance actually makes strength worse. A 15 strength should let you wear full plate without being encumbered and be on a level playing field with a dexterity based character. With variant encumbrance you are very close to being encumbered with just the full plate.
A fix may be as simple as allowing athletics proficiency to add to your strength for your encumbrance limits.
Encumbrance slots with that inventory tracking sheet are an awesome way to make it simple.
I like them to help me visualize what my character has.
double post
Last edited:
[MENTION=98008]Unwise[/MENTION] : As I said above, "I do like the thought of there being a mechanic that encouraged not letting strength be a dump stat", and encumbrance is the best implementation of that goal that D&D has had. It's *not* a question of constantly keeping track of your weight like you're on Jenny Craig. It is an issue of (as a player) making reasonable choices about the stuff you are carrying with you as you adventure, and not just buying everything under the sun.
That's why I like having a flexible system that rewards player investment.
[MENTION=6748898]ad_hoc[/MENTION] : I agree with you, as I say in the post you quote: the implementation in the pub is too restrictive to be workable.
That's why I like having a flexible system that rewards player investment.
[MENTION=6748898]ad_hoc[/MENTION] : I agree with you, as I say in the post you quote: the implementation in the pub is too restrictive to be workable.
Last edited:
delericho
Legend
Encumbrance is one of those rules that I like in theory, but in practice I find is more hassle than it's worth - it's too much work for too little value-add.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
As a rule, I find that it is most noticeable in its absence. If there's no limit, then things get crazy. If there's a nominal limit, and you don't really worry about tracking the small details unless you think you're close to hitting it, then it's preferable to have the rule than to not.
Even then, I would prefer to just estimate small miscellaneous gear as totalling 10 lbs, rather than adding up every item individually.
delericho
Legend
Just a thought: if you just want some sort of limit to stop things "getting crazy", why not go for something really simple: you can carry 1 (non-armour) item per point of strength?
The thing is, most characters will carry a fairly small number of key heavy items - a weapon, a shield, etc, and then they'll a number of smaller, less important 'utility' items. Average that out, and you can probably set some sort of "this many items" limit.
(Armour being a special case, but it has a "minimum Str" rule already, so can be ignored.)
The Crimson Binome
Hero
That could work, as long as nobody really wants to play the Batman character who has chalk and a mirror and string and a fishing hook, etc.
The only hard/arbitrary part would be deciding how many coins count as a single item. I'm pretty sure that was the whole point of encumbrance in the first place, back in the day.
delericho
Legend
True, and it was indeed.
That may be better solved by saying "a sack can hold 1,000 coins" (or whatever) and then counting the filled sack as the 'item'. That may be the more realistic solution anyway - I know that when I'm carrying my shopping home it's usually not the simple weight that limits what I can carry but rather the volume of my shopping bags.
I had a look at the document.
I like the idea, in fact i had a very similar one. Mine is a bit simpler, so i'll put it here in case anyone is interested or has comments.
Each character can comfortably carry:
- any reasonable number of minute items (keys, rings, etc)
- anything they wear (armor, boots, wearable items, but not weapons or shields)
- a number of small items (torches, lanterns, crowbars, rope, one handed weapons) up to their strength score
- a number of heavy items (heavy weapons, shields, etc) equal to their strength modifier
I am excluding worn armor, food (unless its relevant to the adventure) and coins from the encumberance system, for simplicity.
I am also considering having armor using up a number of "small items" slots, but probably is too much.
There is immediately a "bug" that i can think of; a 8-str wizard carrying a staff around. Is a staff heavy? Surely you can't cram 8 staves on your person. An 8-str character gets 0 heavy items allowed. Should 1 be allowed at a minimum?
The goal here is to be able to track useful items now that you can't dispel/disintegrate/fly/teleport 15 times per day, so gear and skills are more important.
I like the idea, in fact i had a very similar one. Mine is a bit simpler, so i'll put it here in case anyone is interested or has comments.
Each character can comfortably carry:
- any reasonable number of minute items (keys, rings, etc)
- anything they wear (armor, boots, wearable items, but not weapons or shields)
- a number of small items (torches, lanterns, crowbars, rope, one handed weapons) up to their strength score
- a number of heavy items (heavy weapons, shields, etc) equal to their strength modifier
I am excluding worn armor, food (unless its relevant to the adventure) and coins from the encumberance system, for simplicity.
I am also considering having armor using up a number of "small items" slots, but probably is too much.
There is immediately a "bug" that i can think of; a 8-str wizard carrying a staff around. Is a staff heavy? Surely you can't cram 8 staves on your person. An 8-str character gets 0 heavy items allowed. Should 1 be allowed at a minimum?
The goal here is to be able to track useful items now that you can't dispel/disintegrate/fly/teleport 15 times per day, so gear and skills are more important.
Similar Threads
