PDA

View Full Version : Schrödinger's Backpack



jiriku
2010-12-28, 02:19 AM
This is a piece of mundane adventuring gear I designed to simplify the process of filling out inventory. It also enhances the usefulness of skills and gives more narrative control of the game to the players by allowing them, within a limited scope, to use skill checks to produce creative solutions to their problems. Feedback is welcome.

Adventurer’s Pack: An adventurer’s pack contains a variety of tools, implements, containers, spare coins, and even alchemical items that are of use to adventurers in the field.

The contents of an adventurer’s pack are not specified when the pack is purchased; rather, you load the pack with a variety of goods suited to your expected travels. Later, you may attempt to withdraw any item of common adventuring gear from the pack, with success determined by a Knowledge (dungeoneering) check made to determine how well you chose the contents of the adventurer’s pack. Essentially, the pack grants you the unlimited ability to use Knowledge (dungeoneering) to retroactively state what you packed in it. When you purchase or find an adventurer’s pack, note the current gp value and weight of your pack on your character sheet, as later on you’ll be deducting the value of goods removed from the pack.

What you can pack:
You may attempt to withdraw non-magical trade goods, equipment, tools, alchemical items, and any other items that your DM agrees could reasonably fit in the adventurer’s pack. You may not attempt to withdraw an item with a gp value or weight greater than the current gp value or weight of the pack, nor may you attempt to withdraw weapons, ammunition, armor, shields, spell foci, expensive spell components, poison, or any magical items. Your DM is the ultimate arbiter of what an adventurer's pack can reasonably contain. For examples of the equipment you might withdraw from an adventurer’s pack, consult Table: 7—8: Goods and Services in the Player’s Handbook, tables 4—2 through 4—6 in Complete Adventurer, Table 5—3: Alchemical Items in Complete Scoundrel, and other resources as approved by your DM.

How to withdraw an item from the pack:
When you need something from the adventurer's pack, make a Knowledge (dungeoneering) check as a move action to search the pack, with a DC determined by the type of item you are attempting to withdraw (see Table: Adventurer’s Pack, below). If you succeed, you remembered to pack the item in question and have withdrawn it from the pack. If you fail, you either didn’t think to pack that item or you haven't found it yet. You may not Take 10 when attempting to withdraw an item from an adventurer’s pack, as its contents represent your guesswork as to what equipment you might need. However, you may take Take 20 (this takes about 2 minutes as you rummage through the bottom of the bag looking for the lost item).

At the DM’s discretion, you may use a different skill when withdrawing items from the pack, so long as the skill is appropriate to the desired item. For example, you might roll Climb to draw forth a mountaineering kit or Perform (harp) to withdraw a set of harp strings.

If you are withdrawing something from an adventurer's pack that you yourself did not pack, you use the Knowledge (dungeoneering) modifier of the person who originally packed it, rather than your own. You may not use alternate skills to draw forth items from a pack that you didn't pack yourself, and you do not benefit from the DC modifier for using a satchel or greatpack.

Emptying and filling the pack:
An adventurer’s pack is not bottomless, and will eventually become depleted through use. Every time you successfully withdraw an item from the pack, reduce the pack’s gp value and weight by the gp value and weight of the withdrawn item. Once the gp value of the adventurer’s pack reaches its base value or its weight reaches the pack’s base weight, the pack is depleted and can no longer be used to withdraw items. However, a depleted pack is not empty. If the gp value is reduced to its base value, then pack contains a variety of useless junk and broken items sufficient to fill out the remaining weight within the container. If the weight is reduced to the pack’s base weight, then the pack contains a handful of coins, gems, or other valuable objects of negligible weight with value sufficient to round out the remaining gp value of the pack’s contents.

If you have access to appropriate shops or supplies (as determined by the DM), you can “recharge” a fully or partially depleted pack by spending gp equal to the difference between the pack’s initial value and its current value and repacking the pack with additional gear. “Recharging” a partially depleted pack also restores its current weight back to its initial weight.

Adventurer’s packs are available in three sizes. A belt pouch has an initial value of 26gp and initial weight of 5 ½ pounds. Its base value is 1gp and its base weight is ½ pound. A satchel reduces the DC of associated checks by 5 and has an initial value of 126gp and an initial weight of 26 pounds. Its base value is 1gp and its base weight is 1 pound. A greatpack reduces the DC of associated checks by 10 and has an initial value of 252gp and an initial weight of 52 pounds. Its base value is 2gp and its base weight is 2 pounds.

{table=head]Desired Item|DC
Mundane Item|20
Alchemical Item|25
Masterwork Item|30
Adventurer’s Satchel|-5
Adventurer’s Greatpack|-10[/table]

stormywaters
2010-12-28, 05:48 AM
I love the idea of this backpack, though I think it needs tweaking.

Tracking what is or isn't in the pack seems tedious and unnecessary. Why not just track what you did find until you discover everything inside. If you search for an object and it's not in there, you might have overlooked it (a move action is only a couple of seconds, after all), so it could still be in there. They can spend 5 minutes to automatically succeed at finding any mundane object that could fit inside (which would obviously modify the remaining weight/gp value as normal).

Also, I wouldn't use another skill to check the pack (except maybe Knowledge Arcana for specific reagents or focuses), but I would grant a bonus to the check based on skills.

Example: You are looking for a rope. If you have X ranks in Climb, you get a +2 (or whatever) bonus to the check. The rationale here is that someone skilled at climbing (or performing musically, or whatever) would be more likely to pack the appropriate gear by default. They are already good at it, so they know what gear they'll want to bring!

Does any of that make sense? I don't know if I worded it clearly. Anyway, that's how I would run it.

Debihuman
2010-12-28, 07:39 AM
I never allow for do-overs for having items on hand. It is an unfair advantage. If the PC doesn't have it, then he or she can't use it. Tough. Players are supposed to keep track of their stuff, writing it down if necessary. If you allow the PCs to retroactively have stuff on hand, do you allow the same for Monsters? Worse, what kinds of items are you allowing? Tanglefoot bags? Caltrops? If so, then I hope you are using those tactics against the PCs as well or there is an unfair advantage.

It's one thing to remind players to write their acquisitions down or even keep track of it and remind them that they have an item (everyone forgets things now and then) but to retroactively allow them to "possess" an item is a level of play that I know I wouldn't feel right about.

What about the cost of items in the bag? How much is this worth if it comes pre-assembled with items? This could get very expensive indeed. Furthermore, if it comes preloaded how much does it weigh? Do the items actually fit within the parameters of the backpack? How big is it?

And why a Dungeoneering check? Why not a Concentration check to find what you are looking for?

If you simply want to assume that the PCs have appropriate gear than tell them what they have and let them keep track of it. If they lose a pocketknife during a battle, it shouldn't miraculously appear in the backpack.

Have the PCs go through their inventory BEFORE even starting an gaming session. Recapping a game is always useful. It's a lot better to be prepared ahead of time than it is to make retroactive decisions. They slow down play and can be the source of friction. It's too easy to play favorites with such things.

Debby

jiriku
2010-12-28, 10:02 AM
It would be less paperwork to simply dispense with the "empty" list and allow players to Take 20. Simplicity is good! Change made.

I chose Dungeoneering (rather than any other skill) because:

1. It seemed like the most fitting skill to represent the ability of a seasoned adventurer to know what he needs to have with him on a stereotypical dungeon crawl adventure.

2. I've houseruled Knowledge (dungeoneering) onto the class skill list of the fighter, monk, and rogue, so this makes the non-spellcasting archetypes very good at always having the right mundane tool for the job (which they'd need to be, since mundane resources are really all they have).

I could see a skill synergy bonus instead of an alternate skill, but I want the packs to be useful even if you don't have Dungeoneering as a class skill. The ability to use an alternate skill is also a good reason to pack a bag yourself, rather than going through munchkin shenanigans to get the person with the highest Dungeoneering skill to pack every bag. I suppose the ability to Take 20 would help with that, though. I will consider this.

I also added a line making it clear that you can't attempt to withdraw an item with a gp value or weight greater than the current gp value and weight of the pack. I've also reorganized the description to break up the wall-o-text and make it easier to see how the item works.

stormywaters
2010-12-28, 01:41 PM
Debby, I think you missed the point of the item entirely. A character would think to pack things that a player might not. My dungeon-crawling thief would think about packing chalk for instance, while I (as a player) might not have.

And if your players having a chance to find mundane or alchemical items is such an unbalancing factor in your eyes, you may want to reevaluate your campaign. I rarely bother tracking simple things like food, ammo, etc. We have a standing agreement that the character would remember to pack enough food and supplies, even if the player forgot to mark it down.

Debihuman
2010-12-28, 07:50 PM
I completely understand WHY a PC would have an item that a Player might not think about. However, giving out FREE items isn't really fair. Now, if the DM were to deduct the cost from the character sheet for said item that is more fair. But to say the backpack "magically" creates items, isn't. Not for a measly 2 gp.

Here's the deal, if a character has a backpack for 2 gp, then you have to decide how much it can hold and what items should go it. Obviously people forget to pack stuff all the time. Part of the fun is seeing how people improvise with these things.

Understand too, there is a difference between a "need" and a "want." Just because a player whines that he should have item X, doesn't mean that he actually needs to have it.

You forgot to buy chalk. Burn a tree branch and use the ash. You forgot to buy a bedroll, use leaves as padding. Just because you didn't buy something doesn't mean you can't find a free substitute.

As a DM, it's my job to remind players to use resources at hand even if I have to tell them what the resources are and gently remind them how to use them. Not everyone is an experienced camper.

Why give them stuff when I can make them do a little work and let them "find" the items that they need or let them barter with some wandering NPC for them. A good DM can incorporate this without having to resort to some "do-over."

Part of the charm of D&D is turning a situation where a PC find he or she is missing something into a part of the adventure.It's a missed opportunity to learn how to be a better gamer.

Debby

Squark
2010-12-28, 08:08 PM
I believe Dragon Magazine had a feat sort of like this during the last few issues of the Paizo run, that let you have miscellaneous stuff in your pockets, but once you pulled out the tool, you had to spend like 200 GP shopping to replenish your stash. Of course, it also required your character to be literally immortal to take it- (it was the april fools issue, filled with silly things like Modrons and stuff).


This sort of idea could work here, actually- You invest, say, 500 GP in your backpack, and get like 3 uses out of it to pull out a potentially useful object. However, this is more suited to a player who wants to create a crazy prepared kind of character, and I'd limit what Items they could get- Caltrops/alchemical items on demand could get very ugly.

ForzaFiori
2010-12-28, 10:39 PM
@Debi: It's not free though. You buy a pack, say the belt pouch, for 26gp, and it weighs 5.5 pounds. the pouch itself costs 1 gp and weighs 0.5 pounds. The pouch, therefor, has a working price of 25 GP, and 5 pounds. you can try to pull anything that is 25 gp or less, and 5 pounds or less, from the pouch. When you take something out, the pack loses weight and price equal to those of the item. You are still buying the item, and carrying the weight. You just don't really decide what exactly you spent the money and weight on until later.

Demons_eye
2010-12-28, 10:52 PM
I believe Dragon Magazine had a feat sort of like this during the last few issues of the Paizo run, that let you have miscellaneous stuff in your pockets, but once you pulled out the tool, you had to spend like 200 GP shopping to replenish your stash. Of course, it also required your character to be literally immortal to take it- (it was the april fools issue, filled with silly things like Modrons and stuff).


This sort of idea could work here, actually- You invest, say, 500 GP in your backpack, and get like 3 uses out of it to pull out a potentially useful object. However, this is more suited to a player who wants to create a crazy prepared kind of character, and I'd limit what Items they could get- Caltrops/alchemical items on demand could get very ugly.

Pack Rat: Put X amount of Cash and Y amount of Weight said to be in a bag or container. Take out items until you no longer have that amount of cash or weight left. Limited to 10 times your level in cash and 100 times your level in weight.

jiriku
2010-12-28, 11:38 PM
ForzaFiori has the right of it.

Debihuman
2010-12-29, 04:50 AM
@Debi: It's not free though. You buy a pack, say the belt pouch, for 26 gp, and it weighs 5.5 pounds. the pouch itself costs 1 gp and weighs 0.5 pounds. The pouch, therefor, has a working price of 25 GP, and 5 pounds. you can try to pull anything that is 25 gp or less, and 5 pounds or less, from the pouch. When you take something out, the pack loses weight and price equal to those of the item. You are still buying the item, and carrying the weight. You just don't really decide what exactly you spent the money and weight on until later.

The problem isn't so much the cost of the belt pouch or the weight, but how can the calculations for what is in the belt pouch be done quickly and easily by the DM on the fly. The answer is that it can't. You have to pour through books and read charts and stop play to figure out if player X can have said items or not. If it's just one item it's fairly quick. Technically, the bag has the potential to hold any item that fits the perimeter.

It's a renewable resource as long as a PC can afford it, making far more valuable than it would appear.

It goes back to choices. I'd much prefer to give out a pre-loaded adventurer's greatpack with a list of items already included than to stop play to adjust.

Some items are renewable (you can use the same tent, bedroll and flask multiple times). However consumables are another problem. Your PCs will never face hunger since he has an unlimited supply of rations. He'll never be caught in the dark with an unlimited supply of torches. That's now going farther than it should.

Debby

jiriku
2010-12-29, 11:00 AM
Debby: First of all, I respect and acknowledge that this item isn't suited to your DMing style. While I'm rebutting your points below, it's not so much an effort to change your mind (you clearly have a consistent, coherent playstyle that doesn't need changing) as it is an attempt to address concerns that might prevent others from using the item.


The problem isn't so much the cost of the belt pouch or the weight, but how can the calculations for what is in the belt pouch be done quickly and easily by the DM on the fly. The answer is that it can't. You have to pour through books and read charts and stop play to figure out if player X can have said items or not. If it's just one item it's fairly quick. Technically, the bag has the potential to hold any item that fits the perimeter.

As a DM, you don't want to stop play unless you must. During playtest, I have resolved this issue by asking the player who wants the item to look it up for me...and continuing to run the game while he does. If the player wants an item and the game would HAVE to stop while he looks it up (e.g. it's his turn in combat), then I make an ad-hoc ruling based on my gut instinct, and the show goes on (my players understand that my "gut instinct" can be bribed with chips and soda).


It goes back to choices. I'd much prefer to give out a pre-loaded adventurer's greatpack with a list of items already included than to stop play to adjust.

This is a valid concern that the item is a mismatch for your playstyle. I'd agree that if you prefer to roll a different way, then you should.


It's a renewable resource as long as a PC can afford it, making far more valuable than it would appear.

Some items are renewable (you can use the same tent, bedroll and flask multiple times). However consumables are another problem. Your PCs will never face hunger since he has an unlimited supply of rations. He'll never be caught in the dark with an unlimited supply of torches. That's now going farther than it should.

For comparison's sake, the everburning torch (110gp) is better than an unlimited supply of torches, and is affordable from about 2nd level onwards.

An unlimited supply of rations for four humanoids per day can be accomplished several ways:


About 3 castings per day of goodberry;
1 casting per day of create food and water;
A handy haversack stuffed with food (~2,100 gp);
A DC 16 Survival check (which takes about half a day);

The Survival check is an option from 1st level onwards. The other options, which are more convenient, kick in somewhere in the range of 3rd - 6th level.

So to clarify, the concern you're expressing is really focused on gameplay in the "gritty/realistic" zone of D&D's gameplay, from levels 1-5. From 6th level onward, players can already duplicate the benefits of an adventurer's pack using the existing rules.

I would suggest that DMs who prefer a more "gritty" playstyle could simply not make adventurer's packs available until level 6. By that level, the pack's utility is nothing special and it presents no threat.

For DMs who are interested in slightly more cinematic, narrative-driven play, it's all good. In my games, if my players are trapped in an underground cave system for two weeks, it's all the same to me whether the ranger Takes 10 on an easy Survival check to find food in the environment or the fighter Takes 20 on an easy Knowledge (dungeoneering) check to find food in his pack. Either way, the challenge is so trivial that the players can overcome it without even rolling the dice. I'd much rather just get on past the minor detail of "OK, you don't starve" and move on to the action!

Gorgondantess
2010-12-29, 03:41 PM
If so, then I hope you are using those tactics against the PCs as well or there is an unfair advantage.
My thoughts exactly, but I still love this idea. Next time I run a game, I'm giving this item to a tucker's kobolds encounter.:smallcool:

Debihuman
2010-12-29, 06:42 PM
In theory I like this item. I worry about its potential for abuse during an actual game. I suppose I wouldn't worry if a PC said he forgot to buy chalk and could he deduct the 1 cp cost from his treasure to include it. However, I've had amazingly devious and conniving players who could abuse the heck out of this. Rather than stopping at the only seedy-looking inn, they would rely on the backpack for rations. One everburning torch gets stolen and it hurts. A standard torch gets stolen and you have an unlimited supply. You have no worry about mice eating your rations either. I'm not saying it's not a useful item, but it has the potential to take away mundane problems that crop up in normal sessions. I don't want lazy heroes in my game I want heroic ones!

Debby

Demons_eye
2010-12-29, 11:33 PM
In theory I like this item. I worry about its potential for abuse during an actual game. I suppose I wouldn't worry if a PC said he forgot to buy chalk and could he deduct the 1 cp cost from his treasure to include it. However, I've had amazingly devious and conniving players who could abuse the heck out of this. Rather than stopping at the only seedy-looking inn, they would rely on the backpack for rations. One everburning torch gets stolen and it hurts. A standard torch gets stolen and you have an unlimited supply. You have no worry about mice eating your rations either. I'm not saying it's not a useful item, but it has the potential to take away mundane problems that crop up in normal sessions. I don't want lazy heroes in my game I want heroic ones!

Debby

Heroic heroes can not be heroic if mice ate all their food and they die.

Thiyr
2010-12-29, 11:48 PM
Having played in a game that used something similar to this, I'd say it worked out fairly well for us. We didn't use the DC, it was literally just asking the DM if we could set aside some amount of gold (we generally went for somewhere around 100) for various small knick-knacks that we'd think to bring (Rubber balls, chalk, flasks and vials, that sort of thing). Food was generally a non-issue already, as was light sources due to magic, so it really was just for random stuff that mid-to-high level career adventurers would think to keep on-hand, and it made life really easy to not have to go that far into bookkeeping until after we pulled it out. That's my biggest response to your concerns personally, Deb, that this seems better geared towards providing the clever heroic solutions (say, pulling out the hammer and iron spikes to jam the trap or something) than taking away mundane problems. Otherwise I'd just spend a few days before campaign started scouring A&EG, Dungeonscape, PHB, etc for all the random mundane junk that I don't want to think about but could well come in handy, and spend set aside some cash for rations and some light source (If I even need one at all.) Honestly, if I'm going the mundane route for that stuff, I'm gonna buy in bulk anyway :P

unosarta
2010-12-30, 12:07 AM
Rather than stopping at the only seedy-looking inn, they would rely on the backpack for rations.
Using an Inn simply for food isn't the only reason that players go to one. If they consistently do so, simply have a random encounter most nights that the players do not sleep in an Inn. Your reasoning for being annoyed for them not staying at the Inn seemingly being that you want to have an encounter at the Inn. There is no reason that the encounter can't happen outside the Inn. Also, attacking players late at night, when they should be feeling safe can have the same gut wrenching effects whether it is in an Inn or in the forest.


One everburning torch gets stolen and it hurts. A standard torch gets stolen and you have an unlimited supply.
I can kind of see this point, but it also doesn't seem to hold water. If you have a caster in your group, a single spell with the [Light] descriptor seems to handle most of those problems. If you are wanting to get rid of the light in order to add dramatic tension/interesting combat terms, simply make the torch go out magically, and say that any of the torches that they try to relight do not work. Alternatively, have the sack soaked with water. Even if it does have a seemingly endless supply of torches, if they are soaked, no one is going to be lighting them unless they have a fire spell, most of which are powerful enough that they would burn the torch to cinders the instant they touched the torch.


You have no worry about mice eating your rations either.
Mice could steal the bag. Or they could sunder it. Or the bag could get soaked. Or it could have slime on it. The rations could go bad inside the bag. Having players rely on a single item makes it hurt even more when it is taken away. If a player complains, simply tell them that no one ever said that the bag was completely free of any dangers, and that it wasn't just some item that removes an aspect of play.


I'm not saying it's not a useful item, but it has the potential to take away mundane problems that crop up in normal sessions. I don't want lazy heroes in my game I want heroic ones!

I think that it could, but only if you let it. It also has the potential to remove annoying ones when you really don't want/need them, like hunger in the middle of a fight. If they don't have rations, and are in an area that doesn't allow them to forage, then they are truly screwed. For instance, an expedition to any elemental plane for any amount of time that doesn't involve too much magic essentially means that the players have to pack a huge amount of food, or starve halfway through. Most players aren't thinking that far ahead (for me, I sometimes don't because I am trying to get into character, and it is hard enough that my concentration for minor details is sadly lacking).

Debihuman
2010-12-30, 11:11 AM
I'd rather see them use create food and water or heroes' feast for plane traveling instead of relying on a mundane bag. Of course, I could rule that the bag has run out of the items they are looking for and needs to be replenished. It's a mundane bag not a magical one after all. It has its uses to be sure but it also has the drawback of making players lazy. That's why I like the idea that it needs to be replenished.

Debby

unosarta
2010-12-30, 11:15 AM
I'd rather see them use create food and water or heroes' feast for plane traveling instead of relying on a mundane bag. Of course, I could rule that the bag has run out of the items they are looking for and needs to be replenished. It's a mundane bag not a magical one after all. It has its uses to be sure but it also has the drawback of making players lazy. That's why I like the idea that it needs to be replenished.

Debby

What if they don't have access to either of those spells? Should they be retroactively blamed for not having casters/using magic? What if they are in a low magic setting?

The fact that it is a mundane bag and not a magical one is the key idea here. You want them to have their rations spoil? Say that the ones in the bag haven't been replaced in months. You are limited by your imagination. I think that players may complain about you messing with their crutch, but to be honest; I would complain if you messed with my rations as well. It might add a tiny bit to the realism, but it won't improve the speed, party interaction, the story (unless the story is particularly built around it), or the characters themselves, and will likely annoy the players.

ericgrau
2010-12-30, 11:51 AM
Interesting idea. Bit of a problem... by RAW dungeoneering only applies to natural caves. It could be retermed knowledge (underground nature). That's why rangers get it and I think no one else in core does, not even rogues, unless they have knowledge (all). Also a bit annoying when someone screws up a rule, it falls flat because of this and then - instead of finally looking it up - he says "Hey, I know, I'll house rule to fix it!" OTOH "dungeoneering" was a pretty dumb name.

Architecture and engineering covers what many people put under dungeoneering, but I dunno if that fits well here. This is really a knowledge (adventuring) check which might as well be a level + int mod check.

Cieyrin
2010-12-30, 03:44 PM
Interesting idea. Bit of a problem... by RAW dungeoneering only applies to natural caves. It could be retermed knowledge (underground nature). That's why rangers get it and I think no one else in core does, not even rogues, unless they have knowledge (all). Also a bit annoying when someone screws up a rule, it falls flat because of this and then - instead of finally looking it up - he says "Hey, I know, I'll house rule to fix it!" OTOH "dungeoneering" was a pretty dumb name.

Architecture and engineering covers what many people put under dungeoneering, but I dunno if that fits well here. This is really a knowledge (adventuring) check which might as well be a level + int mod check.

Do note that jiriku gave Knowledge(Dungeoneering) to Fighters, Rogues and Monks for his game. In any case, I see Bards and Rangers being the primary users of this Backpack, anyways, as the Adventurer's Adventurer, that plans ahead and has just the right mundane item for the situation. It fits, if you ask me, and I approve of it's existence, as a non-magical alternative to Shax's Haversack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148101), which does have most everything you'd need with the added bonus of not having to search for it (Thanks, Handy Haversack :smallbiggrin:).

Debihuman
2010-12-30, 03:59 PM
Much improved. I like that the bag depletes itself after use. This prevents it being used as a magic item. That was one of my main concerns with it. Although the bag is initially limited in what can be contained, it can hold any items placed in it as long as they don't exceed the weight limit. Exceeding the weight limit would cause the bag to burst.

Debby

jiriku
2010-12-30, 10:11 PM
Of course, I could rule that the bag has run out of the items they are looking for and needs to be replenished. It's a mundane bag not a magical one after all. It has its uses to be sure but it also has the drawback of making players lazy.

Yes exactly! The bag is a time-saving tool, sure, but it's also an opportunity for the DM to partner with the players in constructing the narrative.

When the player says "I whip a set of pitons and a hammer out of my adventuring pack and pound the pitons into the wall before the crushing ceiling trap can kill us!", the DM can respond with "Sounds good, roll Dungeoneering to see if you packed them and Climb to see if you can spike them in securely before the ceiling comes down."

OTOH, when the player says "So this NPC wants us to find a lot of chalk? What a coincidence, I happen to have packed 43 pounds of chalk in my adventurer's pack!", the DM can respond with "Uhhh, no."


Interesting idea. Bit of a problem... by RAW dungeoneering only applies to natural caves.... This is really a knowledge (adventuring) check which might as well be a level + int mod check.

Yeah, it's a problem that there isn't really a Knowledge (adventuring) skill. Perhaps I could make it a Profession (adventurer) check instead? The pack is part of a small set of house rules I have that are intended to make Knowledge and Profession skills much more useful in the game, and I picked Knowledge (dungeoneering) to support that...but really, Profession is a better fit, isn't it? And using a Profession check would still support my goal of making those under-used skills more mechanically useful.

ericgrau
2010-12-30, 10:46 PM
The thing is every adventurer tends to be an adventurer by profession even if he doesn't have ranks in a skill for it. I suppose you could create it, and then you might also allow profession (adventurer) checks for things like "Of course I checked the ceiling!"

If you want to make knowledge skills more useful then try calling for checks to find out monster weaknesses whenever the PCs face a monster and for figuring out plot things in general. To shorten the RAW further on plot uses:
Arcana: magic/caster related stuff (magic itself - a spell - is spellcraft)
Architecture and Engineering: constructions (doors, bridges, supports, etc.)
Dungeoneering: cave stuff
Geography: political borders, region types
Local[ities]: peoples/cultures
Nature: seasons / weather
Religion: gods, myths

Already obvious: History, Planes, Nobility and Royalty

jiriku
2010-12-31, 11:21 AM
If you want to make knowledge skills more useful then try calling for checks to find out monster weaknesses whenever the PCs face a monster and for figuring out plot things in general.

Yeah, I do that. I also have a system for allowing each player to use a Knowledge or Profession check once per skill per game session to state a true fact about the game world, provided it falls within the scope of the skill. It grants the players authorship within the game world and allows resourceful players to get considerable benefit from their skill ranks.

Debihuman
2010-12-31, 11:45 AM
Yes exactly! The bag is a time-saving tool, sure, but it's also an opportunity for the DM to partner with the players in constructing the narrative.

When the player says "I whip a set of pitons and a hammer out of my adventuring pack and pound the pitons into the wall before the crushing ceiling trap can kill us!", the DM can respond with "Sounds good, roll Dungeoneering to see if you packed them and Climb to see if you can spike them in securely before the ceiling comes down."

OTOH, when the player says "So this NPC wants us to find a lot of chalk? What a coincidence, I happen to have packed 43 pounds of chalk in my adventurer's pack!", the DM can respond with "Uhhh, no."

That was my main concern. The problem is knowing where the line is and keeping to it. If you think munchkin players are bad, even worse are munchkin DMs! They give out ludicrous amounts of stuff during adventures. Getting extra goodies is nice, but it's a lot easier to deal with when the DM doesn't have to think/guess about such things. That's kinda why I like the idea of a pre-loaded bag. Although for life of me I can't figure out what would exactly equal 252 gp worth of stuff.


Yeah, it's a problem that there isn't really a Knowledge (adventuring) skill. Perhaps I could make it a Profession (adventurer) check instead? The pack is part of a small set of house rules I have that are intended to make Knowledge and Profession skills much more useful in the game, and I picked Knowledge (dungeoneering) to support that...but really, Profession is a better fit, isn't it? And using a Profession check would still support my goal of making those under-used skills more mechanically useful.

Make it an Intelligence check rather than specific Knowledge check. it's far more generic. You don't need to be skilled to use the bag after all.

Debby

Merk
2010-12-31, 12:42 PM
Yeah, I do that. I also have a system for allowing each player to use a Knowledge or Profession check once per skill per game session to state a true fact about the game world, provided it falls within the scope of the skill. It grants the players authorship within the game world and allows resourceful players to get considerable benefit from their skill ranks.

I'd just make it a flat d20 + character level check. As a dungeoneering check, it imposes a skill tax on fighters et. al. (everybody who was offered the skill would take it, I'd think). As an int check, that makes int too valuable and again privileges wizards and punishes fighters.

DracoDei
2010-12-31, 01:41 PM
I concur that this is a VERY campaign specific concept. This isn't to say that there aren't a wide variety of campaigns that this could work with, just that many of the ones it WOULDN'T work with, it would completely wreck.

As a for-instance, there is an adventure I have created where half the challenge is in figuring out what to pack... Note that this adventure happens at levels where it is quite possible for every party member to have an HHH. The necessary equipment to take the adventure from "Very Hard" to "Medium" difficulty could probably be obtained for less than 1,000 GP TOTAL. "Easy" requires much more cash. Never the less, this mechanic would ruin the point of that adventure in my mind (although players who are under the delusion that intensive tactical planning can only happen after initiative has been rolled might still have problems with it).

To me, saying that the rogue wouldn't forget to pack something is the same as giving the warblade "redo"s when does something tactically stupid in combat. To me, yes, the character would know better, but the character also has less time to think about it (in combat I mean, not when shopping), and it is primarily the responsibility of the player to play the character competently. The GM and other players can occasionally give OOC hints and more-than-occasionally answer questions, but beyond that...

jiriku
2010-12-31, 03:12 PM
Hmm. A level check or Intelligence check would not support my goal of making under-used skills more valuable.


Honestly, I have difficulty imagining how any of these doomsday scenarios could occur. When PCs can use stone shape, wood shape, minor creation, and fabricate to create most items at the drop of a hat, when they have the wealth to purchase robes of useful items or bags of holding that can hold the entire contents of a well-stocked general store, and can store improbably large items using shrink item, when they can use teleport, phantom steed, or wind walk to get to the nearest big city (and all of its shops) in a jiffy, it's hard to imagine how having 25 gp worth of especially convenient mundane gear in your belt pouch could "completely wreck" a campaign.

If a campaign is based on scenarios where players have to scrounge from the environment, the DM is already planning a plot device to clear the party's inventory, and a backpack isn't especially hard to ruin/lose. And if encounters suddenly become trivial in the presence of mundane gear, well, the backpack is simply a shorthand mechanic that the player can use to say "I'm loaded up and ready for anything!" A player could do the same by spending an hour poring through sourcebooks before showing up at the game session, but many players would consider that tedious.

MageSparrowhawk
2010-12-31, 03:53 PM
I really like the idea of this item, and support the concept behind it (namely, players can't always replicate how characters think). In certain campaigns, I can see the problem with it though, if the DM is going for a...well, grittier campaign. But anything past...I dunno, 6-9th level? You don't need it besides a slight increase in convenience and not burning a teleport or two.

DracoDei
2010-12-31, 07:49 PM
A player could do the same by spending an hour poring through sourcebooks before showing up at the game session
From my experience running that scenario, no, MOST of them CAN'T.

Stoneshape costs a 3rd level spell-slot, which is not going to be anything to sneeze at in that scenario (although not entirely out of the question). Wood Shape would be practical to cast but is a Druid-Only spell, and doesn't do anything that couldn't be done with a battle-axe taken from a fallen foe... if the players would THINK of it, which... well I don't want to rant too much on that subject. Teleporting/Plane Shifting to the nearest city isn't an option (the scenario is carefully designed to ensure this, since if the PCs could pull that off, they could auto-win the scenario in a completely unrelated way).