D&D 5E Simple Encumbrance system (to make Strength matter)?

[Charlaquin]

Well, when you consider the example of the explorer's pack, think about what is in it:

Backpack (5 lbs.), containing:
bedroll (7)
mess kit (1)
tinderbox (1)
10 torches (10)
10 days of rations (20)
waterskin (5)

and 50 feet of hemp rope (10) strapped to the side.

Now, a backpack can only hold up to 30 lbs. of stuff. This "pack" has 44 lbs. already, almost 50% more than a backpack is suppose to be able to hold. So, I don't put much stock in the 5E design team for this bit of brilliance.

If you assume instead the bedroll is strapped to the top (common enough), the mess kit and tinderbox are both tied or hooked to a side, as well as the waterskin, then only the 10 torches and 10 days of rations are inside, the full 30 lbs of capacity.

However you look at it, this is a good amount of gear to be carrying around. 10 days of food (even rations) is heavy and bulky, torches are not small by any means. a 50' coil of rope is bulky, and a rolled up bedroll is also a hefty thing really. So, I could see a normal person (STR 10) being hampered by a load such as this.

Here are the rough weights of the different packs in the PHB:

• Burglar's = 47.5
• Diplomat's = 36
• Dungeoneer's = 61.5
• Entertainer's = 38
• Explorer's = 59
• Priest's = 25
• Scholar's = 11.25

Even if you (or whoever) feel the weights aren't accurate that's fine, but I think a lot of players bog down their PCs with too much gear without a lot of thought and then end up complaining about the weight. What you might consider essential, others might consider excessive.

As for your edit#2, IMO the weight associated with the big three scores vs. the little three is overblown in most cases. How important CON and DEX are depends a lot on how much combat your game has in many cases. WIS is used a lot in exploration and some decent amount in social even. While I wouldn't want to have a penalty in these scores, I also don't like a penalty in STR, INT, or CHA if possible.

Too much importance is placed on maxing out a prime score or two if possible, even though a good score (say 14-16) is usually sufficient, even if it makes the game a bit more challenging.

Excellent analysis. I would posit that rations are probably supposed to be 1 lb. I know Mike Mearls and possibly Jeremy Crawford have said otherwise, but a day’s worth of rations was 1 lb. in 3e and 4e, and in the TSR editions iron rations worked out to about a pound for a day’s worth. Plus the rules say you need 1 lb. of food a day and talk about half-rations being worth half a day without food, despite half a 2 lb. ration being enough to meet the daily 1 lb. requirement. I am 100% convinced that rations being 2 lbs. was a typo that the devs doubled-down on instead of correcting when it was pointed out, and they are accordingly 1 lb. each in my games. This change also makes all the starter adventuring packs fit in the backpack they come with if you assume the bedroll and the rope are strapped to the top/side.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Excellent analysis. I would posit that rations are probably supposed to be 1 lb. I know Mike Mearls and possibly Jeremy Crawford have said otherwise, but a day’s worth of rations was 1 lb. in 3e and 4e, and in the TSR editions iron rations worked out to about a pound for a day’s worth. Plus the rules say you need 1 lb. of food a day and talk about half-rations being worth half a day without food, despite half a 2 lb. ration being enough to meet the daily 1 lb. requirement. I am 100% convinced that rations being 2 lbs. was a typo that the devs doubled-down on instead of correcting when it was pointed out, and they are accordingly 1 lb. each in my games. This change also makes all the starter adventuring packs fit in the backpack they come with if you assume the bedroll and the rope are strapped to the top/side.

That's completely understandable. IIRC, in 1E iron rations were 1 lbs and "standard rations" were 2 lbs per day. I agree 2 lbs seems a bit much IMO. If you adjust rations to 1 lb per day, the pack weights become:

• Burglar's = 47.5 - 5 = 42.5
• Diplomat's = 36
• Dungeoneer's = 61.5 - 10 = 51.5
• Entertainer's = 38 - 5 = 33
• Explorer's = 59 - 10 = 49
• Priest's = 25 - 2 = 23
• Scholar's = 11.25

 

[Adamant]

Side note on this based on my experience with the variant encumbrance rules. I've run dozens of players through scenarios using them. Here are a couple of observations:

1. Players hate any hit to speed. Even when they are in a dungeon with a lot of close-quarters combat, the thought of losing 10 feet off their speed is completely unacceptable to them. They will work to get around that speed hit by any means they can, even if in context it doesn't actually matter all that much.

2. Players will not stash their backpacks - it must be on their person at all times. In my games, I make it an action in combat to disentangle oneself from a cumbersome pack on par with doffing a shield. I've suggested they just find a place to put the backpack and come back to it if they need some gear, but they look at me like I'm crazy.

These two issues combined have caused almost every single group I've run through such scenarios to bring hirelings along to carry their stuff. Also, if races with powerful build are an option, someone's probably going to take it. However, powerful build and variant encumbrance has a weird interaction by the strict letter of the wording such that you're still technically encumbered like everyone else even though you can carry more. So that would probably need an adjustment to work better.

That seems pretty accurate, given that I'm looking from the player's perspective. In a dungeon crawl, maybe I'd be okay with -10 speed on a melee character(ranged I'd be fine with it), but I'd still worry about the occasional big room. I'd always be worried about something happening to the stashed pack, although in a city I happily leave not just the pack but also most of my weapons(and in a city i'm comfortable in even armor) at the inn when I'm not expecting trouble.

Giving it more thought, the rules make some sense, but the weights of certain armors and weapons make it not work well. I do like the ideas with slots, since that ignores the nonsensical weights of weapons and armor. One of those I'd be open to trying.

 

[tetrasodium]

Side note on this based on my experience with the variant encumbrance rules. I've run dozens of players through scenarios using them. Here are a couple of observations:

1. Players hate any hit to speed. Even when they are in a dungeon with a lot of close-quarters combat, the thought of losing 10 feet off their speed is completely unacceptable to them. They will work to get around that speed hit by any means they can, even if in context it doesn't actually matter all that much.

2. Players will not stash their backpacks - it must be on their person at all times. In my games, I make it an action in combat to disentangle oneself from a cumbersome pack on par with doffing a shield. I've suggested they just find a place to put the backpack and come back to it if they need some gear, but they look at me like I'm crazy.

These two issues combined have caused almost every single group I've run through such scenarios to bring hirelings along to carry their stuff. Also, if races with powerful build are an option, someone's probably going to take it. However, powerful build and variant encumbrance has a weird interaction by the strict letter of the wording such that you're still technically encumbered like everyone else even though you can carry more. So that would probably need an adjustment to work better.

I agree entirely that players will not stash anything. On the one hand there is "I might need it" and more importantly, the encumbrance system is so generous that there is no reason for anyone but the most obsessive glamper to even consider it. I run my games in eberron where teleport networks(with passage paid for by their patron!), magic trains, & more are common but even when given access to a secure house Kundarak Vault/security deposit box of their own they never once used it until I changed to a encumbrance system that worked & even then they still didn't want to use it.

 

[Charlaquin]

2. Players will not stash their backpacks - it must be on their person at all times. In my games, I make it an action in combat to disentangle oneself from a cumbersome pack on par with doffing a shield. I've suggested they just find a place to put the backpack and come back to it if they need some gear, but they look at me like I'm crazy.

That makes sense to me. They want to have access to their stuff if they need it, without having backtrack to get it. They probably don’t want to risk anything bad happening to their stuff while it’s unattended. And they want a container available to store loot in if/when they find any.

 

[iserith]

That makes sense to me. They want to have access to their stuff if they need it, without having backtrack to get it. They probably don’t want to risk anything bad happening to their stuff while it’s unattended. And they want a container available to store loot in if/when they find any.

What I do in such games is look around for a place to stash my pack, then once we've made some progress and it's relatively safe, I go back and get it, then repeat. Nothing bad has ever happened in the doing. Not that it couldn't, of course, but so far so good.

Another thing I've noticed is that people get those adventurer's packs, but almost never use the things that are inside them. Rope and light sources are the exception. So it's kind of like they are holding onto stuff for dear life that they probably won't even use. It's interesting to see it play out.

 

[tetrasodium]

What I do in such games is look around for a place to stash my pack, then once we've made some progress and it's relatively safe, I go back and get it, then repeat. Nothing bad has ever happened in the doing. Not that it couldn't, of course, but so far so good.

Another thing I've noticed is that people get those adventurer's packs, but almost never use the things that are inside them. Rope and light sources are the exception. So it's kind of like they are holding onto stuff for dear life that they probably won't even use. It's interesting to see it play out.

Also I've noticed that almost everyone treats those packs as weightless. 5e giving any container the instant access once reserved for the handy haversack probably contributes to doing so since everything always feels just as accessible as the sheathed weapon and worn armor they have.

 

[iserith]

Also I've noticed that almost everyone treats those packs as weightless. 5e giving any container the instant access once reserved for the handy haversack probably contributes to doing so since everything always feels just as accessible as the sheathed weapon and worn armor they have.

I'm okay with that. While I can see value in certain adventures and campaigns making use of variant encumbrance, I'd be less enthused about fiddling with how to take stuff out of packs. On occasion a question is raised about whether someone can draw and stow or the like and I'm like man it just doesn't matter that much in context, move along.

 

[Charlaquin]

What I do in such games is look around for a place to stash my pack, then once we've made some progress and it's relatively safe, I go back and get it, then repeat. Nothing bad has ever happened in the doing. Not that it couldn't, of course, but so far so good.

I’d be very surprised if anything bad ever happens to it. It’s one of those things many players worry about despite the fact that most DMs aren’t likely to do it.

Another thing I've noticed is that people get those adventurer's packs, but almost never use the things that are inside them. Rope and light sources are the exception. So it's kind of like they are holding onto stuff for dear life that they probably won't even use. It's interesting to see it play out.

Oh, for sure! The majority of the stuff PCs carry with them doesn’t have any explicit mechanical function, and those that do are often forgotten. It’s not a rational anxiety, but no anxiety is.

 

[Coroc]

The party is travelling on an adventure. There are four of them, and the trip is expected to take one week each way - requiring 8 person-weeks of food. Rations are 2 lbs per person per day. That's a total of 112 lbs of rations...

We're on the road to nowhere?

These extreme conditions do only apply if there is no food to be gained by hunting or gathering /looting underway.
Other than that, the party better get a mule / cart to accompany them. Then, of course they might load up on scrap armor (and later on sell it for 10-25% of its worth at least that's how i rule it in my campaigns).

Water is more severe, if you play it like that. Depending on climate a human needs around 0,5 to 1 gallon a day. You can go without food for 2-4 weeks, although it is painful. You die of thirst within 2-3 days.