D&D 5E Pet Peeve: Weapon Weights

[the Jester]

I think they should just change 'weight' to 'encumbrance' and leave it there.

This is the best solution right here.

 

[Zustiur]

I'm leaning towards encumbrance rather than weight too.

Perhaps it could be measured in 'coin weight' (cn). Ahh full circle heheh

On a more serious note, I don't actually think coin weight is a good idea. I'd rather see small items with 0 encumbrance, and things like swords with 1 or 2. Basically reduce the numbers down to some manageable level.

One of the things that irritates me is carrying capacity of small creatures... shouldn't a longbow encumber a halfling more than a human? If so, how do you fix that? Reduce their carrying capacity? Increase encumbrance of larger items? Hmm.

 

[AeroDm]

If we want rules to make emcumbrance more realistic, then we/they can add an optional module. But let's keep the weights real. Don't tell me a throwing axe is 7 pounds when it is in fact, one. That's an unforgivable error of an order of magnitude.

I agree with most everything you said. I once tried to create what I thought was an innovative approach to encumbrance. It was simple and quick but still allowed for the interesting tradeoffs of "do I carry it or not." What I learned is that most people fall strongly into one of two camps.

(1) Encumbrance is annoying. Hand wave it. The attempt to make it "more interesting" is not worth the carrying cost (pun intended) of the system and they hate it.

(2) Encumbrance is important because realism is important. Any effort to streamline it requires some level of suspension of disbelief and they now hate it.

The result is that trying to split the difference, even with a "superior" system, was a losing proposition. The people that don't want it want it to be easy to ignore. The people that want it are happy to track weight. So just go realistic and leave the rest alone.

 

[Hautamaki]

Encumbrance is actually fairly easy to bookkeep when you have a good system.

I go by 'stones'; that archaic British unit of measurement that equals about 14 lbs. 'Stone' is a perfect unit of weight for DnD for so many reasons.

1) Very few people outside of England know exactly what it equals so they don't have a clear frame of reference to nitpick at.

2) Its archaic nature makes it fit into the DnD fantasy world nicely.

3) 14 lbs is a nice big unit of measurement so that you don't have to calculate large figures to a very precise degree.

A character can carry a number of Stones equal to half his Strength Score without suffering any encumbrance penalty. Once he exceeds that number of Stones he is considered encumbered and suffers a penalty to movement and all strength based checks; he also suffers fatigue damage to his HP every hour of travel and after every battle (or similar sustained exertion like sprinting or climbing a cliff). So there are only 2 conditions to track, and the encumbered condition is sufficiently onerous that PCs are likely to make every possible effort to avoid it.

Most weapons and shields weigh 1 stone. Of course they are normally lighter, but they count as a stone based also on how awkward they are to carry. Armour is much heavier than a weapon but because it is perfectly distributed, armour generally also weighs 1 stone for light, 2 for medium, and 3-4 for heavy. Ammo packs (eg a quiver of 20 arrows or 30 crossbow bolts) also weigh 1 stone. A large amount of coinage (I go with 200) weighs 1 stone. Potions, scrolls, amulets, helmets, daggers, throwing knives, and other small items of negligible weight can all be listed together as a single stone of miscellaneous gear, as long as a player isn't carrying a ridiculous amount like 20 daggers or something.

4 legged animals like horses and donkeys can carry or pull double their strength in stones rather than half, as 4 legs are much more efficient for moving heavy loads (but not necessarily for other strength based actions like attacking).

And that's it. Using this system, a 10 Str character can carry 5 stone worth of gear without being encumbered. That could include a primary weapon, a ranged weapon, plenty of ammo for that weapon, light armour, and some coinage and miscellaneous gear. In other words: not a lot. But the average Fighter is clearly not going to be a Str 10 character. Well trained soldiers that would have to carry and fight with a lot more gear would probably be at least Str 12 to 14 (if it bothers you that average soldiers would have above average strength for humans, another explanation could be that training as a soldier--or coolie for that matter--could count as a sort of feat or specialty that improves carrying capacity), while heroic adventurer Fighters are likely to have 16-20 Str and thus have no problem carrying around 1 weapon and a backup or shield, a ranged weapon with ammo, medium or even heavy armor, some adventuring gear and coinage, and still have some capacity left over for a bit of treasure. But still, if a big treasure haul is in the offing, even high strength characters most likely need to hire porters and/or pack horses/donkeys to get it all back to town.

I do think that tracking encumbrance is important. It can be a major balancing factor for certain types of equipment. It prevents a fighter from carrying around 6 types of primary weapon for example. It also means that going with heavier armor for example is a serious trade-off in terms of how many other sorts of useful gear like potions you can bring into a dungeon. This gives a DM a firm baseline of what sorts of drawbacks a player incurs when choosing what equipment to bring into a dungeon.

Those who want to hand wave it or just don't think that the balance issues are important or fun don't even have to turn this into a module or anything; just give every character a bag of holding or a cloak of many pockets--problem basically solved instantly.

 

[Dykstrav]

On a more serious note, I don't actually think coin weight is a good idea. I'd rather see small items with 0 encumbrance, and things like swords with 1 or 2. Basically reduce the numbers down to some manageable level.

One of the things that irritates me is carrying capacity of small creatures... shouldn't a longbow encumber a halfling more than a human? If so, how do you fix that? Reduce their carrying capacity? Increase encumbrance of larger items? Hmm.

Well... If you go by "encumbrance points," I think the easiest solution would be to simply say that you can carry a number of EP equal to your Strength score as a light load (without penalties of any sort). You can carry up to twice your EP as a medium load (with some mild penalty), and up to three times your Strength score as a heavy load (with some mild-to-moderate penalty).

It'd be sort of intuitive for a DM to say that a single, one-handed weapon is usually 1 EP, a two-handed weapon is 2 EP, and so forth. Armor could provide EP equal to its armor bonus as a simple starting point, as the bulkier armors generally offer better protection, and armor tends to be the most restricting thing the typical adventurer wears. Small/tiny items such as daggers or keys are easy enough to handwave as 0 EP, with the caveat that DMs can rule that carrying enough of them poses an EP rating.

Containers such as backpacks, belt pouches, and so forth effectively increase your Strength score for encumbrance purposes only. A backpack could give you +8 EP and a belt pouch could give you +2 EP, for example.

It'd be sort of intuitive for a DM to adjudicate EP on the fly, once the system was fleshed out and playtested a bit. You could rule that every 100 coins was 1 EP, one day of food and water is 1 EP, and other things depend not just on weight, but on how bulky and manageable they are. A small treasure chest could be 10 EP because it has handles and is designed to be carried, whereas a crate of equivalent size could be 15 or 20 EP because it's not designed to be carried--you're supposed to stack it in storage or put it in wagons to move it.

I think that smaller races would be somewhat covered by the fact that those creatures tend to have lower Strength scores, but I'd want to see this system get a bit of development before I made any calls on that.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm liking much of what I'm seeing. Perhaps this can be turned into a useful set of modules. For instance

No Encumbrance: Characters can carry as much as they like, though the DM has the right to declare a character encumbered if it makes sense for the story, such as when carrying an ally or very large object.

Encumbrance Points: Encumbrance points represent how awkward an item is to carry, regardless of it's weight. Each item carried adds a number of points to the total carried. A character carrying more points than his or her dexterity is encumbered.

Weight: Every item has a weight. A character can carry a number of pounds up to five times their strength score before becoming encumbered. Other rules belong here as well.

Encumbrance and Weight: This method uses both Encumbrance Points and Weight. Either method can cause you to become encumbered. Some extra rules would be needed for interactions between these.
​

By breaking it up like this, your group can get as detailed as they like. Those that want to keep it simple can use no encumbrance, or choose if to care about one or the other form of encumbrance. Those that really want realistic detail get a system where encumbrance from weight and awkwardness both have an effect.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I like the proposals of Hautamaki and Dykstrav -- encumbrance is a more straightforward and intuitive route to go than weight, and finding a workable system should not be impossible.

Here is a suggestion, that is constraining but not (I feel) unreasonable:

1. Each character has an Encumbrance limit equal to their Strength (score) + their (adjusted) Dex modifier.

1b. This could be modified (e.g. x2 for quadrupeds; - 4 for small or smaller). [that's tweak-able]

2. If what you carry exceeds your encumbrance, all actions (combat, skills) are at disadvantage. Your maximum load is twice your encumbrance.

3. Some objects must be carried "in hand" to be usable; if not in hand they are stored, and not instantly accessible. Most people have two hands. Carrying more than that in hand means all actions are at disadvantage.

4. Armour encumbrance (by type):
Light 3
Medium 5
Heavy 8
Shield +2 (in hand if it adds to AC)

5. Weapon encumbrance (by type)
Finesse weapons and simple missile weapons: 0 (in hand) 1 (stored).
Basic, Heavy, and Martial weapons (in hand or stored) 2
Martial and Heavy Missile weapons (in hand or stored) 3

6. Containers
Backpack (filled): up to 16 item slots (subject to dm approval), at half encumbrance. e.g. a backpack with 12 items in it has encumbrance of 6.
Sack (filled): up to 8 item slots, at half encumbrance (must be in hand).
Belt: one weapon is accessible (not stored), even if not in hand.
Pouch, components pouch: a 1-space item is accessible, even if not in hand.

7. Individual items. Most items take 1 slot or have an encumbrance of 1, and must be in a container or in hand.
Some exceptions might include:
Adventurer’s kit 5
Artisan’s tools 2
Block and tackle 2
Hunting trap 5
Ladder 7 (must be in hand)
Instrument 1-4
Ten foot pole 2 (must be in hand)
Ram 6
Rations. 1 slot per day.

Example: a Str 12, Dex 12 human has 13 Encumbrance points. He can wear medium armour, carry a shield and a longsword, have a dagger or a sling in his belt, and still carry a backpack with a pot and 5 days rations and a bedroll and not yet be at disadvantage.

 

[Blackwarder]

I'm going to quote ACKS on this

ENCUMBRANCE
Encumbrance measures how much equipment and treasure characters are carrying. Encumbrance is important because characters can only carry so much, and if they are heavily weighed down with equipment they cannot carry as much treasure, nor move as fast. Encumbrance is measured in stone.

A stone is a historical unit of measure that varied from 8 to 14lb depending on what was being measured. ACKS assumes a stone weighs around 10lb, but it is left purposefully abstract to represent an amalgam of weight, bulk, and generally portability. After characters purchase their equipment, they should calculate their encumbrance. To determine the number of stone encumbering a character, simply consult the table below.

Item Encumbrance in Stone
Worn clothing 0 stone
Armor & Shield 1 stone per point of Armor Class*
Items 1 stone per 6 items
Heavy Item 1 stone per heavy item (8–14lb)
Treasure 1 stone per 1,000 coins or gems
*Magical armor and shields are lighter than mundane items. They reduce their encumbrance by 1 stone per point of magical bonus.

When counting items, each weapon, scroll, potion, vial, wand, magic item, or other object counts as an item. Multiple small items sold as a bundle (such as 12 spikes, 6 torches, 20 arrows, etc.) count as one item for this purpose. Very small single items (such as 1 silver arrow) can be ignored for encumbrance purposes. Heavy items include two-handed weapons (including bows, crossbows, and various large melee weapons); any item that is as tall as the carrying character (including spears, staffs, and 10' poles); any item that weighs around 8-14lb; and any item that requires two hands to carry (such as chairs or chests). Items weighing more than 14lb will weigh more than 1 stone. For purposes of encumbrance, 1,000 coins are considered 1 stone. When a carrying device, such as a backpack, lists the weight it can carry in stone, this weight can be converted at 1:1000 from stone to coins to determine how many coins it can carry. A character's speed will be affected based on his encumbrance, as shown on the Character Movement and Encumbrance table, below. For additional information on movement, see the Time and Movement section in the Adventures chapter. The maximum any character can carry is 20 stone, plus his Strength adjustment.

EXAMPLE: Marcus is carrying a two-handed sword (1 heavy item), a crossbow (1 heavy item), a mace (1 item), 2 daggers (1 item each), 1 week's iron rations (1 item), a tinderbox (1 item), 2 flasks of oil (1 item each), 3 stakes and mallet (1 item), a small mirror (1 item), a pound of wolfsbane (1 item), a pound of garlic (1 item), and a case with 20 bolts (1 item). He is carrying 12 items, which counts as 2 stone. His two-handed sword and crossbow count as 2 stones. Finally, he is wearing plate armor (AC6), which counts as 6 stone. His total encumbrance is 10 stone, so his exploration movement is 60' per turn. Later, he picks up 8,000 silver pieces. This increases his encumbrance to 18 stone, and reduces his exploration movement to 30' per turn.

Up to 5 stones light encumbrance up to 7 is medium 10 is heavy and 20+Str modifier is max

If you haven't read ACKS you should grab a copy, even if you don't intend to play it, the book is filled with great ideas and tweaks for the standard D&D game.

I really like this rule, in fact I intend to grab it as is to our next playtest session, only change will be adding Str mod to all the tiers.

I especialy like the armor and shields encumbrance being +1 per bonus, it makes the distinction between kinds of armor more interesting, I might want to use full plate but my Str 15 fighter won't be able to move in it, OTOH if I'm mounted than it shouldn't be a problem...

Warder

 

[Ashtagon]

In my games, I mostly use pounds (or kg, as you like). But I also apply a minimum "effective weight" of 1 lb per foot of item length (or 0.5 kg per 30 cm of item length). That reflects the awkwardness of larger items (including nearly all weapons) quite nicely.