D&D 5E Variant Encumbrance and Monsters

[redrick]

I'm starting up a little mini-campaign (2-3 short adventures for 5-8 sessions or so.) I've decided to really push the "low-adventure" aspect, and we're running the Variant Encumbrances rules. These rules are heavy, and I'm fine with that. I wouldn't want to worry about tracking encumbrance if it wasn't actually going to be a thing. As it is, a 16-strength character barely has enough capacity for chain mail, sword and board before being encumbered, let alone basic gear. And, again, I think that's part of the point. A heavily armored character should be slower than a lightly armored character. Being "encumbered" is only a 10 foot movement penalty. It's not until you reach "Heavily Encumbered" that penalties on attacks, saves and ability checks come into play.

So our paladin will be "encumbered" (eg movement speed of 20), unless he drops his pack (to flee), or buys a pack animal.

My question is, has anybody tried applying the same Encumbrance penalties to some of the armored monsters and NPCs? I'm looking for instance, at the Hobgoblin, with sword, shield, longbow and chain mail, but a strength of 13. Why not apply the same movement penalty to my encumbered Paladin to the encumbered Hobgoblin? If he wants to run away, he can drop his shield.

Obviously, I wouldn't pull out the equipment list and calculator, more just an eyeball type thing. Off the top of my head, only the Hobgoblin and a couple of the NPCs would be "encumbered" in the MM. Seems like a nice bone to throw to the PCs for making their lives a little harder. (Not to mention to the players for making them do the extra record keeping.)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

That sounds like a great idea if you want to make encumbrance a big deal.

I'm not the sort to track encumbrance to heavily (I actually go the opposite route and make it easier to deal with by having each player figure out their carrying limit, subtract the weight of their combat gear, then add the remainder to a "party carry total" on a party inventory sheet that one player tracks all shared items under the assumption that whoever decides to use a particular item was probably the one carrying it even though it is recorded in a nebulous "the party is carrying this" way), but I do feel that if you are going to do it that it only makes sense to apply it universally.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Just a reminder, but dropping a shield takes your action for the round. Depending on how far you need to run before you consider yourself to be safe, it's probably not going to be worth taking that action in place of Dash or Disengage or Dodge.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just as a perspective, I have simplified the Encumbrance variant:

At Strength x 10 you gain the Heavy Armor Speed penalty.

That's it.

To my players, a -10 Speed penalty is huge. Something they would avoid like the plague. I really see no need for harsher penalties than that (except for the rule on dragging really heavy stuff at a speed of 5). As we see it, a Speed slower than 20 is a devastatingly crippling blow that in practice is a "don't do it" prohibition.

The way this penalty does not stack with [the speed penalty from] wearing heavy armor is intentional. Again, a speed penalty larger than 10 in in practice making that character unable to keep up. Such a penalty is not needed because it would never come up in actual play.

This rule is much simpler than the sidebar on Variant Encumbrance, but like that rule, it takes the excess out of the standard rule while being much MUCH simpler in play (since any heavily armored character can simply stop counting; they already suffer the penalty).

Of course, this is just my group of speed-loving dex-loving skirmishers where being saddled with a Speed of 20 would make you feel like a slug in comparison. If most of your players are classic knights and people generally don't move about much in combat, this simple trick might not work for you.

 

[wedgeski]

If you can afford the extra effort, I think the players will appreciate seeing their own hardships reflected in their foes, absolutely.

 

[redrick]

Just a reminder, but dropping a shield takes your action for the round. Depending on how far you need to run before you consider yourself to be safe, it's probably not going to be worth taking that action in place of Dash or Disengage or Dodge.

I wouldn't worry about this, honestly. The Action cost for doffing a shield discourages characters from insta-switching between sword-board and two-handed weapons. I don't think the rule had a barely encumbered monster dropping a shield so as to escape penalties under variant encumbrance in mind. Unstrapping a shield, drawing a long and firing plausibly seems like something that would take more than one turn, while I can see a character frantically stripping off a shield as they run. Forcing an opponent to drop his or her AC by 2 in order to keep up in a chase seems like a meaningful outcome.

 

[redrick]

Just as a perspective, I have simplified the Encumbrance variant:

At Strength x 10 you gain the Heavy Armor Speed penalty.

That's it.

To my players, a -10 Speed penalty is huge. Something they would avoid like the plague. I really see no need for harsher penalties than that (except for the rule on dragging really heavy stuff at a speed of 5). As we see it, a Speed slower than 20 is a devastatingly crippling blow that in practice is a "don't do it" prohibition.

The way this penalty does not stack with [the speed penalty from] wearing heavy armor is intentional. Again, a speed penalty larger than 10 in in practice making that character unable to keep up. Such a penalty is not needed because it would never come up in actual play.

This rule is much simpler than the sidebar on Variant Encumbrance, but like that rule, it takes the excess out of the standard rule while being much MUCH simpler in play (since any heavily armored character can simply stop counting; they already suffer the penalty).

Of course, this is just my group of speed-loving dex-loving skirmishers where being saddled with a Speed of 20 would make you feel like a slug in comparison. If most of your players are classic knights and people generally don't move about much in combat, this simple trick might not work for you.

Yeah, this totally makes sense. A heavily armored character still runs the risk of hitting Strength x 10 once loot comes into play. (Especially if playing an adventure with large sums of small-denomination coins. Who doesn't love a chest of 2000 cp!? (We're doing treasure for xp, and dirt-farmer style, so 1 sp = 1xp when safely removed from the dungeon and brought to a settlement for proper parading around.)

Does it affect your lightly armored characters?

As I see it, being at a speed of 20 is not a total game-killer. Any halflings, gnomes or dwarves are at a speed of 25, so it makes you slower than the halfling rogue. The only PCs likely to be operating regularly at this speed are the heavily armored types (in our campaign a paladin), so the assumption is that they will be playing a more in-place role in combat. If they ever need to hoof it, they can drop their pack as an object interaction. Hopefully somewhere that they can get back to it. If being at a reduced speed is really unpalatable, they can switch out for lighter armor.

Honestly, I was a little shocked to look at the Paladin's sheet and see "Encumbered: 80 lbs. Carrying: 140 lbs." I thought about changing the rule. But this is a short campaign, so I'm going to stick to my guns. It will be interesting to see what effect it has on our game-world. Pack animals will probably be an early investment. They also might decide to hire a local pack-bearer. (Carries all the gear, so the Paladin can move faster. Minor drain on resources. Easily killed. Could get scared and run off with all your food, maybe some of the treasure.)

 

[Mavrik6666]

I think you have a fair point redrick.. but I think the Hobgoblin is the only anomaly (i haven't looked at every creature in fine details) but all the others seem right on , or very close...
I do run a variant encumbrance campaign, and should we ever use hobgoblin I will slow them down or change their armour if its that important. Would be good to see if I have missed any other in my searching.

 

[redrick]

I think you have a fair point redrick.. but I think the Hobgoblin is the only anomaly (i haven't looked at every creature in fine details) but all the others seem right on , or very close...
I do run a variant encumbrance campaign, and should we ever use hobgoblin I will slow them down or change their armour if its that important. Would be good to see if I have missed any other in my searching.

Ha, yes, I think most monsters are not heavily armored until much higher CRs where they have the strength to back it up. It could come up for NPCs.

Of course, most PCs are carrying gear, which is what puts them over the line. 10 days of rations is 20 pounds, which is the equivalent of 4 points of strength.

I might just homebrew a monster or two that fights bruiser style in armor that's a bit too heavy for it. If we make the assumption that, at low levels, at least until hirelings or pack animals can be brought in to carry gear, a heavily armored character will probably be encumbered, I think it's cool, every once in a while, to throw those players a bone and have some monsters who have a hard time moving as quickly because of all their armor.

(Chain Mail + Shield + Longsword + Backpack = 69 pounds. At 16 Strength, that leaves 11 pounds for gear and treasure. Throw in a ranged weapon, a water-skin, one or two days of rations, maybe a torch or two, a precious tapestry depicting St. Cuthbert pacifying the Chaotic hordes...)

 

[CapnZapp]

Redrick, not sure what about my variant you're unsure about.

If you carry more than Strength x 10, including the weight of your armor, your speed drops by 10.

If you wear armor subject to the heavy armor speed penalty, your speed drops by 10.

Your speed does not drop by 20 even if both things are true.

Best of luck with your game!