log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Tomb of Annihilation mounts

machineelf

Explorer
It seems likely that adventurers will want to buy dinosaurs as mounts and pack animals to lug their gear through the jungles. You can buy various kinds, but what really is the difference?

A hadrosaurus is 100 gp. It can be used as a mount. How much gear in weight can it carry?

An ankylosaurus and deinonychus can be bought for 250 gp. Can the deinonychus be used as a mount? Seems too small for that. What is it good for?

A triceratops can be bought for 500 gp. It can also be used as a mount or to carry gear.

What do you get from the triceratops that you don't get from the much cheaper hadrosaurus? What really are the pros and cons of the various types that justify the price differences?

Any help would be appreciated.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CapnZapp

Legend
Assuming you're asking for more details on mount carrying capacity, my recommendation is to look at d20 (3rd edition or Pathfinder).

The basic idea is that just like characters, the carrying capacity of a mount is based on its Strength.

But then you modify the final value by the mount's size and whether it's quadrupal.

All the details should be freely available in the respective online SRD.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 

machineelf

Explorer
Assuming you're asking for more details on mount carrying capacity, my recommendation is to look at d20 (3rd edition or Pathfinder).

The basic idea is that just like characters, the carrying capacity of a mount is based on its Strength.

But then you modify the final value by the mount's size and whether it's quadrupal.

All the details should be freely available in the respective online SRD.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
Yeah, I suppose the differences in costs come down to differences in strength, hitpoints, and overall CR and attack abilities. But it would have been useful if they had included a chart of carrying capacities for each of them in the book.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Really, 5e is supposed to be the quick and simple editions. How about instead of calculating actual numbers you do this:

CARRYING CAPACITY
Any medium mount: can carry a small rider, but no extra equipment
Any large mount: can carry a medium rider, and all his gear or one extra medium creature
Any huge mount: can carry a medium rider, and all gear for the whole party or the whole party (or a large rider and all his gear or one extra large creature)

Differences between two mounts of the same size then boils down to looks, coolness, and the animal's actual combat stats (speed, attacks etc)

The above assumes ground-based quadrupal mounts. Bipedal or flying mounts act like half a size lower (a large such mount can carry one medium creature, not two; a huge such mount can carry half the party etc)
 

It seems likely that adventurers will want to buy dinosaurs as mounts and pack animals to lug their gear through the jungles. You can buy various kinds, but what really is the difference?

A hadrosaurus is 100 gp. It can be used as a mount. How much gear in weight can it carry?
Depends on its Strength score. Carrying capacity is detailed in page 176 of the 5e PHB.

An ankylosaurus and deinonychus can be bought for 250 gp. Can the deinonychus be used as a mount? Seems too small for that. What is it good for?
As a medium creature, a deinonychus can carry a small rider. It is also quite dangerous as a combatant: trained ones could be used like hunting dogs etc.

A triceratops can be bought for 500 gp. It can also be used as a mount or to carry gear.

What do you get from the triceratops that you don't get from the much cheaper hadrosaurus? What really are the pros and cons of the various types that justify the price differences?
What size are triceratops? What are the Str score differences between them and Hadrosaurs? That will tell you the difference in carrying capacity.

I don't have access to the stats at the moment, but I'd also guess that the triceratops is tougher, and better in a fight than the hardosaur, so less likely to get killed and strand the party without a way to carry their gear.
 

machineelf

Explorer
Really, 5e is supposed to be the quick and simple editions. How about instead of calculating actual numbers you do this:
Because I don't want to.

I do appreciate the suggestions for a quick solution, though.

There rules for carrying capacity are there for people who want to use them. My group likes to keep track of all weights. It makes a survival in the jungle type campaign more interesting, and it means that pack animals and mounts are more important to be able to carry all your gear into the jungle. It pulls in a lot of other important rules, like tenser's floating disc, and individual strength scores, and portable holes. Rangers and druids who can find food and water, because you could only carry so much of it for your long trek. Etc. All of which are less important or useful if you hand-wave weight rules.

Nothing wrong with hand-waiving those rules if someone chooses to, but we've been playing together for several years and we like the gritty details. That's why I was asking.
(BTW, we do use a handy equipment sheet someone created that makes figuring out carrying capacity a lot quicker. So that helps with time investment.)
 
Last edited:

Mecheon

Explorer
Outside of game stuff, because Dinosaurs are my thing

Hadrosaurus is a bit of a weirdy because despite being a famous dinosaur, we sort of, uh, only have 35 bones from it. And nothing about the cranial, which is a pity given how weird Hadrosaurs got. But looking at its fellows, it probably serviceable as a mount, given the other hadrosaur feature (Being able to utterly just consume massive areas of plants) is going to be of limited use

Ankylosaurus is the tank. It is nothing but sheer armor and a tail-club capable of reducing bone to splintered fragments.

Deinonychus is the size of a wolf and is not good at being used to carry stuff or as a mount (Except for small characters). Instead, they should be used because they're wolf sized predators and prone to jumping on prey and bringing them down through that. They're great.

If Ankylosaurus is the tank, Triceratops is the battering ram. Aside from probably the best carrying capacity of the lot (These things are massive), it also has that whole frill, and its horns. But, to apply real think here for a moment, they sort of lived in the Hell Creek area which was, well, subtropical. Like, warmer than today but not jungle warm. Jungles are really no place for them.


Now, the true answer? Find a way to get a Quetzalcoatlus and have a flying mount the height of a giraffe
 
Last edited:

Demetrios1453

Adventurer
Outside of game stuff, because Dinosaurs are my thing

Hadrosaurus is a bit of a weirdy because despite being a famous dinosaur, we sort of, uh, only have 35 bones from it. And nothing about the cranial, which is a pity given how weird Hadrosaurs got. But looking at its fellows, it probably serviceable as a mount, given the other hadrosaur feature (Being able to utterly just consume massive areas of plants) is going to be of limited use

Ankylosaurus is the tank. It is nothing but sheer armor and a tail-club capable of reducing bone to splintered fragments.
It seems to me they chose hadrosaurus to represent hadrosaurs in general (instead of giving us a dozen stat blocks for functionally similar dinosaurs), and they just went with the one that supplied the name.


Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Because I don't want to.
Lol. The best reason.

I do appreciate the suggestions for a quick solution, though.
Thanks.

To do it the "hard" way:

The general rules for carrying capacity assume a medium-sized bipedal creature (such as an elf).

Quadrupal creatures can carry half again as much. This bonus is doubled each size category (x3 for large, x6 for huge)
Larger creatures can carry twice as much. This bonus is doubled each size category (x2 for large, x4 for huge)
Both multipliers count, so a Gargantuan quadruped would be able to carry 96 times as much as its Strength indicates.
Importing from the d20 SRD

So a medium-sized bipedal mount like a Deinonychus can carry 225 pounds.
A Wolf, a medium-sized quadruped (x1 1/2) can carry 216 pounds.
The Hadrosaurus is large (x2), but still not quadrupal, and can carry 450 pounds.
A Giant Lizard is both large (x2) and quadrupal (x3) and can carry 1350 pounds.
An Ankylosaurus is a huge (x4) quadruped (x6) and can carry 8664 pounds.
A Tyrannosaurus Rex is also huge (x4), but decidedly not a quadruped, and so can carry 2500 pounds (not that it wants to, unless stomach content counts :)).

All assuming default ability scores. Realistically, these would vary slightly between different members of a given species.

For flying mounts, I would not reduce the carrying capacity other than not applying the quadruped bonus (even if it has four legs) - instead I'd reduce the flying speed by 1/3 if the creature is carrying more than half its regular capacity.

That is, a Quetzalcoatlus would have a carrying capacity of 15x15 (for Strength) x4 (for Huge) x5 (quadruped) = 5400 punds on the ground (if you have the patience for its miserable land speed). In the air that would be 15x15x4=900 pounds, and that only at a reduced fly speed of 55 ft. If it carries 450 pounds or less, however, it can fly at its regular speed of 80 ft.

Hope you want to be helped this time ;)
 

pukunui

Adventurer
I worked out the dinos' carrying capacities before starting my own ToA campaign:

Ankylosaurus: 1,140 lbs
Deinonychus: 225 lbs
Hadrosaurus: 450 lbs
Triceratops: 1,320 lbs
 




CapnZapp

Legend
I think @pukunui has me on his block list - why would he otherwise repost what I just posted.

Note also that his numbers significantly nerf larger creatures (because 5E has done away with quadruped bonuses).

If a creature that should easily weigh (and eat) ten times as much can't even carry three times as much cargo, I know I would much rather have three smaller ones than a single Huge one.

The easy antidote to this is to use d20 rules, as I did.

Quadrupeds can carry heavier loads than characters can.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm
 

I think @pukunui has me on his block list - why would he otherwise repost what I just posted.
He didn't. If you check, you'll see the numbers are different.

It looks like the ones he posted are the correct ones for 5e, whereas the ones in your post are the 3.5e ones.

Note also that his numbers significantly nerf larger creatures (because 5E has done away with quadruped bonuses).

If a creature that should easily weigh (and eat) ten times as much can't even carry three times as much cargo, I know I would much rather have three smaller ones than a single Huge one.

The easy antidote to this is to use d20 rules, as I did.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm
If the OP regards this as a major issue as you do, then I'm sure the figures you gave will be very useful.
 


CapnZapp

Legend
He didn't. If you check, you'll see the numbers are different.
I already know this and why.

If you had actually read my post you wouldn't write that. You would have realized I incorporated my clear suggestion to use the quadruped factor from d20.

I even gave a link.

Apart from not using that, our figures are identical since we use identical formulas.

Unlike him, you don't even have the excuse you didn't read my post.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 

I already know this and why.
Then . . . then why did you claim pkunui had reposted what you had posted? Annd why make the assertion that he had blocked you?

If you had actually read my post you wouldn't write that. You would have realized I incorporated my clear suggestion to use the quadruped factor from d20.

I even gave a link.
That link isn't the same as the way that you suggested doing it though. You're suggesting the quadrupedal multiplier is size-based and used in addition to a size multiplier rather than a flat x1.5.

And again, if you knew that pkunui had used a different method than you, why claim that he was reposting your work?

Apart from not using that, our figures are identical since we use identical formulas.

Unlike him, you don't even have the excuse you didn't read my post.
The posts are saying two different things! They're not the same! One is not a repost of the other!

Arrgh! :confused:
 



Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top