Level Up (A5E) possible way of fixing carrying capacity

[Mister-Kent]

*Is there a P-word for "worn"?

Put-on? Maybe use Prepared or Personal to go with Pouch and Pack - I like your system of organization!

 

[tetrasodium]

Any encumbrance system that I would even consider using, would need to eliminate the need to do math on the exact weight of what you are carrying. I lean more towards a system of slots based on your strength, although there are obviously loopholes for any such system if you look closely.

I agree on the math part

The math part is why the core rule fails so hard, not one of them even mentions their weight but they are massive. Here's the mathed up bit I pulled from google that looks right

The system is so overly forgiving that wotc themselves so strongly assumed it would be ignored on starting gear everyone gets at level 1 that they didn't bother to math how big it was once collected or even if it was a reasonable weight on top of starting armor/weapons/etc rather than leaning into the system & putting in a small exception like a lot of slot based systems that give a few quick use items the player can define or fill as they want while still maintaining a moving van of unsorted stuff.

@vincegetorix mentioned costless rituals with capacities that defeat the purpose of even bothering to pretend your character considered weights/burden of carrying stuff. This all falls victim to 5e's lquest for pointless & lazy halfass implimentations of simplicity for simplicity in other areas too. You only need to compare the 5e bag of holding & handy haversack to the 3.5 one to see why the comparison does't make any sense

The 5e haversack is missing this

It's easy to see why it's missing when you look at phb190.

Either they designed the object interaction first & when came upon the handy haversack didn't bother to ask "why is this here" & simply deleted it without bothering to consider if the resulting rare magic item still made sense when compared to the unaltered merely uncommon bag of holding, presumably because it was so obscure nobody knew it existed in nearly every version of d&d so far. Or they made all that in a way that worked mechanically & made sense then went back to change it all into that mess without making any effort to fix the mess when they decided to remove the entire tactical combat subsystem.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'd say: the game should remove the rules that will be ignored. No need to waste page count for useless stuff.

• Weight
• Focus vs no cost components
• Free hand/items juggling
• Alignment
• Ammo
• Travel pace

Instead, focus on detailing the rules that will be used. I can find a bunch of ways to make the above more abstract and make them easier/funnier to handle, but if A5E is to be a more detailed and crunchier version of 5e, I dont think more abstract is the way to go. And let's be honest: there's not amount of detail and crunch that could be added to the above rules to make them funnier. More difficult to handwave? Maybe? Less boring? Probably not.

I enforce all of the bolded ones & replace the underlined ones. The problem with weight is that 5e goes so far out of its way to make it an ignored thing that the system fights you as soon as you start changing that. I can assure you that my players feel awesome when they get $rarecomponent needed for that spell they've been itching to cast, they feel so awesome that there have been cases where the whole party went off doing a quest of some form i order to get said component to someone willing to pay them with it much like they do when they go off getting that +5 holy avenger or whatever for bob the paladin. Free hand? when did you grow a third arm bro?....

I've tried several variations of alignment looking for something not still rooted in the wording of absolute morality despite kicking it to the curb everywhere else in 5e but they generally had trouble with being too complex to convey & whatnot. It's looking like this thematic alignment will be great for my next game but with covid I've got plenty of time to decide what system I wind up continuing with post covid.

Ammo? The default rule is needlessly specific & pointlessly punitive. I replace it with an ammo die similar to the psionic die. Players might get:

• An Aundairan quiver: (common noattune) conjures d8 arrows every long rest
• A d6 of slaying arrows that function like slaying arrows.
• a d4 of +3 arrows

When you have a weapon with ammunition under normal rules you write something like this "Longbow 1d8p (150/600) xx" then each shot you erase the xx & write a new number that many arrows/bolts/etc lower. With an ammo die you write the die size instead of the xx & whenever you fire that weapon you roll the ammo die. If the result of that roll is anything but a 1 you ignore it & continue as normal without erasing anything. If it's a 1 you drop the die size a notch (d12>d10>d8>d6>d4>1>zero).

Instead of storing those arrows for a rainy day that's never quite bad enough when they remember those magic arrows exist my players suddenly use them and there is the potential for tension that comes with not being able to look at the clock to decide if they have enough ammunition to finish the session without question or not... The resulting moments of awesome with cool powerful arrows & tension of "I'm running kinda low on ammo so..." leading to an excuse for finding a solution are indeed fun at my table.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Ammo? The default rule is needlessly specific & pointlessly punitive. I replace it with an ammo die similar to the psionic die. Players might get:

Yeah the Usage Die (I took the rule from the Black Hack, IIRC) works pretty well for that. I reduce the die on 1-2, though. I use it for ammos, food, water, light, ropes etc.

I will even using it for the Stamina of a character: you start with a die size equal to your HD, and roll it after each encounter, when you suffer a crit, when you cast a spell of 6+ level, when you drop to 0 and after each hour of travel (IIRC). When the die is exhausted, you gain a level of exhaustion. You can spend a HD on a short rest to recover one die (up to your max), a long rest restore the die to its full value, and a particularly good sleep (good lifestyle, in an inn or owned house) can increase the die max by 1 size for the day. I'll playtest it a little, but I think it could be fun.

I think it would also work for weapon/armor breakage: yes you can have a good AC with full dex and light armors, but with only (say) 1d4 Durability, I hope you have a leatherworking kit! This gives a light advantage to str-build with heavier, metal armor.

I also think it would be possible to use the diminishing die mechanic for inventory space/weight. Let's say you have a die size equal to 2 times you Str mod (minimum 1, then 1d2 for +1 mod, 1d4 for +2 mod etc). When you add one Load (approx. 1 items, 3 smalls, 10 tiny or negligible) to your equipment (not counting worn armor/weapon) you roll the die, when the die reach 0, you are over-encumbered a cant move.

 

[Imaculata]

Tracking equipment isn't fun until the situation arises were it adds a new element of drama. What equipment will I ditch so I can carry enough water to get across the desert? Will I drop my sword so I can drag my friend to safety?

Of you ignore minutiae of the weight of potions or coins, that could fluctuate regularly, how often does a characters loadout change? It's not terribly onerous to track just the big ticket items.

So, basically there are two clear positives about managing carry capacity:

1. It can force you to make tough decissions regarding what to bring with you, and what to leave behind.

2. It can force you to change your loadout more often.

So any system we come up should be designed with these goals in mind.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My characters just push hard for a Bag of Holding from session 1 and once they get it they stop caring about encumbrance forever.

 

[EscherEnigma]

An I the only one who thought of Nodwick when reading this thread?

Regardless, if you don't like the idea of the heroes doing so much heavy lifting, arrange for em to get a minion (or multiple minions) who follow em around to carry stuff.

 

[schneeland]

I've long been using a modified version of Matt Rundle's anti-hammerspace item tracker (I find it slightly stingy and add in a couple of other factors), with carrying capacity being based on bulk not mass as it leads to both a faster and a more visual and interesting game.

Could you elaborate a bit? Would be interesting to hear how your system works.
(I tend to favour slot-based systems at the moment, but they have some limitations, too)

 

[Horwath]

for carrying capacity, 15lb per strength point is good enough, other thing is that some weight on some items is little bit off.
50% of weapons and armor are heavier that they should be.

 

[toucanbuzz]

...The math part is why the core rule fails so hard, not one of them even mentions their weight but they are massive. Here's the mathed up bit I pulled from google that looks right...

The math does work for packs. For example, the Burglar's Pack (listed in your post at 46.5 lbs), actually rings up at 27.5 pounds interior and 15 pounds exterior. A backpack carries 30 pounds on the inside, same capacity and weight as a Sack, BUT, unlike a sack, the backpack specifically states you can strap items on the exterior such as a waterskin, bedroll, and rope. Math:

Spoiler

Ball Bearings +2
String, Bell, Candles = no weight
Crowbar +5
Hammer +3
Pitons (10) + 2.5
Hooded Lantern +2
Flask of oil (2) +2
Rations (5) +10
Tinderbox +1
= 27.5 pounds interior

Waterskin +5
Rope, hemp + 10
= 15 pounds exterior

Summary: nevertheless, I find tracking weight is a pain even if the items fit, and I expect there wasn't a great deal of designer effort to reconcile weight (rations anyone...) given the expectation that because it is a pain, no one will bother to track it.

However, I believe it adds a substantial tactical element to the game if done properly. And, D&D's reliance on weight isn't the way to go. You may have an 18 STR, but you only have 2 hands to carry things. A backpack can fill up based on volume. We use Slot-based encumbrance.