Simplified Encumbrance System

[Scipio202]

I think that encumbrance is one of the most common rules that people skip over, because it gets too complicated to track. However, I think it is still useful to have some reasonable limits on how much characters can carry. So, I came up with this simplified encumbrance system (inspired by similar systems on several D&D blogs).

I'm keeping the existing limits of 10xStr in weight drops your speed by 10' and gives disadvantage on rolls, and 20xStr is your max. However, I'm going to try to make as many things multiples of 5 lbs as possible.

Weight is tracked in 5 places: Armor, Weapons, Beltpouches, Sacks and your Backpack. Round up to the nearest 5lbs within each location. You can also carry things in your hands, but your "standard gear" should all have a location.

Armor: As printed, since everything is in 5lb increments.

Weapons: Here I simplify a lot. There are four possible weights: 2.5lbs, 5lbs, 10lbs, 15lbs. Finesse weapons and Simple Missile weapons start at 2.5 lbs as a base, everything else is 5lbs. Move up one category if Two Handed, another category if Reach (So a short sword is 2.5lbs, a Katana is 5 lbs, and a Glaive is 15 lbs). Ammo is 50 bullets or 20 arrows/bolts per sack(quiver). Common sense limits the number of weapons not in your backpack (e.g. you probably can't have 5 different swords in scabbards on your belt).

Containers: Use common sense to decide what can fit in a pouch, sack or backpack. Pouches count as 2.5lbs each, sacks as 5lbs each. You can get an item during combat from pouches/sacks that have only one type of item with no problem. If the pouch/sack has multiple kinds of items it takes 1d4 rounds to find something, and attackers have advantage while you are searching. Backpacks are either "mostly empty", "half full" or "full", counting as 10 lbs / 30 lbs / 50 lbs depending on how full it is.

Anything that is really awkward might make you encumbered at the DM's discretion even if it's not very heavy (e.g. carrying multiple polearms/10' poles/magical staves).

Here are three examples based on the suggested equipment (Double slash denotes separate pouch/sack). I think it's pretty reasonable, and shows that encumbrance can still matter. The fighter should be fine, but if the Thief has a dump stat 8 Str he's pretty close to being encumbered. The Wizard is fine even with a low strength.

Fighter (Protector)/Soldier:
Chainmail+Shield
Longword, Hand Crossbow
Sack: 20 Bolts // Healer’s Kit
Backpack: Adventurer’s Kit, Soldier stuff
Weight = 40+5; 5+2.5 (round up to 10); 5+5; 30 = 95


Rogue (Thief)/Charlatan:
Leather Armor
Rapier, 5xDaggers
Belt: Thieves tools // small mirror, lampblack, oilcan
Sack: Healer’s Kit // Disguise Kit, vials w/ water
Backpack: adventurer’s kit, rest of the charlatan stuff
Weight = 15; 6*2.5; 2.5+2.5; 5+5; 30 = 75

Wizard/Sage
Robes
Quarterstaff
Sack: Healer's Kit
Backpack: Spellbook, adventurer's kit
Weight: 0; 5; 5; 30 = 40

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I have been using a variation of this for quite some time, although I use strength score plus strength mod as that gets closer to the 3x encumbrance table.


Also quadrapeds double the limit, winged flying creatures half the limit.

Instead of multiplying by ten, I use "stone" weight as an aggregate of weight and bulk. Armor weighs 1 stone per mundane + to AC, half that is stowed. Etc..

I am glad 5e is looking to make this the official rule!


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[slobster]

I use the following encumbrance rules in my game:

You can carry as many minor items as you want, as long as they are all written on your character sheet somewhere. Try not to let the GM see exactly how many items you have written down, or he might get cross and make you leave some of them behind (until you inevitably gather more minor trinkets and start the process all over).

If the item is obviously heavy, like a greatsword or a dead baboon*, you can only carry about as many as your strength modifier.

Carrying items over your encumbrance is penalized by the GM rolling his eyes at you when he notices, and telling you to stop being a hoarder, or at least buy a bag of holding.

So yeah, more on the "rules lite" side of the spectrum here. Note that I am the GM in these sessions.

*carrying around a living baboon in your knapsack, no matter its weight, involves a different subsystem and multiple attacks of opportunity.

 

[triqui]

I liked that system where you had three pictures. One of them was a guy in clothes, with a beltpouch and a book and little else. The second one was a picture of a guy in light armor, with a 1h weapon, and carrying a crossbow, a bag, and a few items. The third one was a picture of a guy in heavy armor, with a two handed sword, and a big backpack with a lot of stuff hanging. Each picture has a penalty attached.

Then you point to the picture you like and say "my character goes like this". And there you go. THAT'S rules-lite.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I like where you're going with this, but I think it can be simplified a bit more. Instead of tracking actual weight, abstract it to encumbrance points (ep), where 1 ep is usually 5 pounds.

Then 2xStr ep halves your movement and 4xStr ep is maximum, with same effects you mentioned.

Using abstract encumbrance points also allows you to account for bulkiness and difficulty of carrying without strictly tracking it. That suit of chain mail might be 50 lbs but it's only 5 ep rather than 10 because the weight is well distributed for carrying. That staff is only 5 lbs, but it's 2 ep because it's a bit awkward to carry. Small items don't have an ep cost unless you're carrying bulk amounts of them, including coins.

The DM can figure ep of treasure ahead of time to simplify in game play, and the Player's Handbook gear list would list ep too.

I've always thought that encumbrance was something that could add to play, but it's always been more work than it's worth. Places where it could make a difference are in limiting how much food you can bring on an expedition, limiting how much loot you can carry back, figuring fatigue in extended wilderness travels, and determining if you can carry those big logs a mile to bridge a chasm. With a system like this I might be tempted to give it a try.

 

[Szatany]

i,ve read op's idea and i don't see how that system is a simplification.
in my games i'm using something much, much simpler and it works well for my group because nobody cares much about encumbrance anyway. the rules are this: certain items are designated as heavy - and you can carry a number of heavy items equal to your Str bonus +1 (one item with Str 10-11, no heavy items with Str 9 or less).

 

[TarionzCousin]

Simplified Encumbrance System #1 : Munchkin, by Steve Jackson Games.

• One Hand (You get two of these)
• Two Hand (Or One of these)
• Extra Hand (Or whatever it's called)
• No Hand (Worn items, like rings and shoes)
• Other (Stuff your DM lets you get away with)

 

[Mattachine]

In my 4e game, I go with Strx5 for basic weight limit; over that, there is a movement and skill penalty. Likewise, I have skill penalties for all armor (starting with leather) and movement penalties starting with chain.

One of the things I liked about AD&D was that the encumbrance values were recognizable as being taken from the real world. Also, though there was no skill penalty from leather, there was a skill bonus for not wearing armor at all.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

My simplification: no encumbrance rules. Armor type determines movement limits. If you're carrying a golf bag of weapons, or the contents of a small house, or something else the GM judges ridiculous he'll come up with a penalty.

All the games I've played where I've tried to rigorously follow encumbrance rules have all broken down to this level of hand-waving by level 3, so might as well just start there.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Some of the above posts appear to come from folks who think the op is pure house rule territory. The simplification is from the encumbrance rules listed in the recent playtest package.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2