Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lakesidefantasy" data-source="post: 8066274" data-attributes="member: 6682043">I agree that tracking things like this is not much fun, but it's also not much fun to hamper our ability to play in adventures where tracking this stuff is significant. I think most of the time this stuff could be generally ignored, but it would be nice to be able to quickly track it when it becomes significant.Quite voluntarily, I always divide my character's equipment into three locations: Pack, Pouch(es), and stuff that is Worn* on the body. It never comes into play, it's just something I like to do; however, I always thought it could be the basis for some kind of rule or system of rules**. For instance, the Pack represents stuff that is packed away and is thus less accessible. Perhaps we use the Use an Object action to retrieve something from it***. Pack would be a game term that could be a backpack, a satchel, a large sack over the shoulder (which would also require a Hand), or anything that you pack things away in. Things in the Pack are harder to steal and impose disadvantage on Sleight of Hand checks.The Pouch or Pouches are readily accessible so don't require the Use an Object action and the same goes for stuff that is Worn, but these things are more vulnerable to theft. Pouch would be another game term that encompasses belt pouches, purses (as in the kind with strings), pockets, or anything that is convenient for the character to access (as well as the pickpockets).Things that are Worn are much like the things in the Pouch, but things can only be Worn if they're designed to be worn. The Pouch gives us the ability to "wear" things that are not designed to be worn, like potions and money.This would give us the incentive to think more about our encumbrance, and would help support the Exploration Pillar in a more meaningful way.*Is there a P-word for "worn"?**Although, I think more rules tend to limit gameplay (yet, arguing over rulings tends to muddle gameplay).***I get the impression from reading Heward's Handy Haversack that this is actually what is intended, but I don't know--do you?</blockquote>

Verification