PDA

View Full Version : Consolidating equipment



TheThan
2013-12-13, 03:10 PM
Have you ever been flipping through a book and come across a piece of gear you know is already found in another book? Ever been stuck trying to find that one piece of equipment you thought was in one book, but is actually in another? Ever wonder why a piece of gear is listed twice, with different rules and from different books?

I have too, so I thought that since I was working on another larger dnd project, I’d take the time handle mundane equipment better. So I’m combing through all the 3.5 dnd resources that I have (most if not all), and consolidating them into one place. In the meantime I’m also categorizing them to make this whole thing easier to search through. So I'm you’re looking for rules for say a sledge hammer, you can find it listed under tools. When I’m done everything should be nice and organized and all in one place.

So far, these are the categories I’ve come up with:
Containers
tools
illumination
clothing
camping & survival
hunting, fishing & gathering
climbing
Navigation
signaling
security
pets and mounts
dungeoneering.


So I was wondering if there are any more categories that I haven’t though up yet. (I’ll probably think up more while you’re posting, but any additional ideas would be nice.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-13, 03:34 PM
When I'm searching for something, I want it all to be on the same page so I can do a [Control + F] and find it immediately

vitkiraven
2013-12-15, 05:54 PM
Alchemical, herbal/natural, material (maybe split into inorganic and organic?) Could be some good categories.

TheThan
2013-12-16, 02:41 AM
Yeah, those are two good categories. I already have alchemical, but herbal items are a good place to put stuff like wolvesbane, holly and mistletoe and other natural stuff (it is the holiday season).

One thing I’ve noticed that sort of surprises me is that a lot of this stuff doesn’t have any real rules behind it. How much volume does a backpack have in it? How much weight can it support? How many scrolls fit in a scroll case?

That sort of stuff. it may not seem important, until you consider that bags of holding have a volume and a max weight limit.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 03:08 AM
One thing I’ve noticed that sort of surprises me is that a lot of this stuff doesn’t have any real rules behind it. How much volume does a backpack have in it? How much weight can it support? How many scrolls fit in a scroll case?

That sort of stuff. it may not seem important, until you consider that bags of holding have a volume and a max weight limit.

Honestly, none of my groups have even made me track encumbrance. If you have containers (like sacks or saddlebags), then you can take up to your carrying capacity, if anyone bothered to track it anyway.


I prefer ACKS' encumbrance system for its simplicity*. Everything is measured in Stone, which is an abstract representation of both weight (IIRC one stone is around 8-14lb. 10 on average), and how easily something is carried or stored. Basically, "big" items like short-swords, shields, and a day's rations (including water) are all considered to be 1 Stone (Armor is 1 stone per point of armor class it grants, and weighs 1 less per point of magic bonus). A smaller item like a book or a dagger will weigh 1/6 stone, and 1000 coins are 1 stone. Tiny items like a single arrow are typically ignored unless kept in a bundle.

A backpack in ACKS carries 4 stone (or 40lb) of equipment, so that seems like a good baseline.

*Also, because the encumbrance categories (i.e. big item, small item) are easily intuited, so you usually don't need to ask the GM before writing it on your sheet.

TheThan
2013-12-16, 05:15 PM
Yeah, it’s just something I’ve noticed when I started looking closer at equipment.

I honestly don’t expect people to keep track of how much space is actually in their backpack. At most, I expect them to sum up the weight of their armor, weapons and gear and compare it to their encumbrance, so they know when they are encumbered.

I think that stone system is interesting, not sure if I’m going to utilize it, however I think the backpack is a little too small, 40lbs is not terrible, but modern military rucksacks can hold 80lbs or more. That’s the sort of big heavy-duty backpack I imagine an adventurer would buy.

edit
yeah, the list of gear I typically buy weighs in at 77.5 lbs. Not including weapons and armor. I'll have to convert this list over to that stone system and see how it measures (har har) up

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 08:57 PM
Yeah, it’s just something I’ve noticed when I started looking closer at equipment.

I honestly don’t expect people to keep track of how much space is actually in their backpack. At most, I expect them to sum up the weight of their armor, weapons and gear and compare it to their encumbrance, so they know when they are encumbered.

I think that stone system is interesting, not sure if I’m going to utilize it, however I think the backpack is a little too small, 40lbs is not terrible, but modern military rucksacks can hold 80lbs or more. That’s the sort of big heavy-duty backpack I imagine an adventurer would buy.


In ACKS, I think it's assumed that PCs will wear a backpack, have several small sacks tied to their belts (which each hold 2 stone of equipment), and keep additional items in a mount's saddlebags (or in a cart/wagon driven by said mount).

Of course, converting to a better** encumbrance system will only help if you want encumbrance to be an additional challenge*. I think a conversion for encumbrance would either be (20 stone +/- strength modifier = max load. Max load/4 = light load, with the same multiplications for size, quadraped, etc), or (divide existing carrying capacity by 10).

*(You thought beating the dragon was hard? Already splitting up the treasure? Now haul it all back through the dungeon, through the wilderness, and spend it all in town without being ganked by bandits and monsters. While you're weighed down by said treasure.)

**(I haven't tried this conversion out, so I'm not sure how good it'll be). I'll probably try the math later on.