Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="redrick" data-source="post: 6722691" data-attributes="member: 6777696">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.)</blockquote>

Verification