Holy Carrying Capacity Batman!

[NRSASD]

Wow. Carrying Capacity in 5E is 15 times STR? That's ridiculous! What is a good way to bring that down to more reasonable numbers? Also, does what's your guys' opinion on the times 30 stat for lifting/dragging/pulling?

As always, thanks for your help!

[Townopolis]

The encumbrance variant on PHB 176 does that. Exactly that.

I guess, if you want something more complicated, you could the the 4th edition GURPS characters book and use that game's encumbrance tables, but you'd also want to go through and manually adjust the weights of every piece of equipment, and that just seems like a lot of work.

[imanidiot]

Wow. Carrying Capacity in 5E is 15 times STR? That's ridiculous! What is a good way to bring that down to more reasonable numbers? Also, does what's your guys' opinion on the times 30 stat for lifting/dragging/pulling?

As always, thanks for your help!

That would put the average around 150 pounds carrying capacity. That's not that much. The average for a strong person (15 str, the minimum for plate) would be 225 pounds. 160 pounds after the plate itself. That's perfectly reasonable. I would expect a typical U.S. Army Infantryman to wear around 75 pounds of gear and carry a 150 pound wounded soldier for an extended period of time (let's say a day). No problem, I would expect any Infantry in a professional army to be able to do that.

My fighter has a 600 pound carrying capacity which seems high umtil you take into account that he has 20 Strength, is a natural athlete (Remarkable Athlete), and is obviously stronger than the "average" 20 strength person (Brawny feat). He's not a "realistic" character. His strength is on the level of mythical Hercules, or Captain America, or unarmored Master Chief from Halo. It completely reasonable for someone like that to be able to lift 1200 pounds for short periods of time.

Edit: I have 2 hog carcassesin my walkin cooler right now. One is 165 pounda, and the other is 176. I can with some difficulty lift either up on to my shoulders and carry it around the cooler pretty easily. Now that's just shuffling around a 20' area or so not carrying the weight through a dungeon. I'm strong, but not particularly strong maybe an 11 or 12 strength in D&D terms and I live a largely sedentary lifestyle. If I had been active and exercising for the past 20 years as an adult I would be able to move them easily.

The encumbrance rules are fine.

[Kane0]

The only problem I see is that its not in metric. Damn grating if you ask me.
But hey, we've put up with it this long.

Also Brawny Goliath Barbarian says hi.

[imanidiot]

The only problem I see is that its not in metric. Damn grating if you ask me.
But hey, we've put up with it this long.

Also Brawny Goliath Barbarian says hi.

What is that, like 650 kilos carrying capacity? That's a lot. There are small trucks (lorries?) that can't carry that much.

[MaxWilson]

Edit: I have 2 hog carcassesin my walkin cooler right now. One is 165 pounda, and the other is 176. I can with some difficulty lift either up on to my shoulders and carry it around the cooler pretty easily. Now that's just shuffling around a 20' area or so not carrying the weight through a dungeon. I'm strong, but not particularly strong maybe an 11 or 12 strength in D&D terms and I live a largely sedentary lifestyle. If I had been active and exercising for the past 20 years as an adult I would be able to move them easily.

The encumbrance rules are fine.

The encumbrance rules are fine-ish at the high end, but they're quite silly at the low end. An unusually weak halfling (Str 8) can still carry around three other halflings (120 lb.) all day without issues. Even a typical housecat (Tiny, Str 3) can carry 22.5 lb. around all day without issues, and can push/lift/drag up to 45 lb. I assure you, a real housecat can do no such thing. Even 5 lb. is pushing it.

[imanidiot]

The encumbrance rules are fine-ish at the high end, but they're quite silly at the low end. An unusually weak halfling (Str 8) can still carry around three other halflings (120 lb.) all day without issues. Even a typical housecat (Tiny, Str 3) can carry 22.5 lb. around all day without issues, and can push/lift/drag up to 45 lb. I assure you, a real housecat can do no such thing. Even 5 lb. is pushing it.

Yeah that doesn't work. Just DM-fiat it and say "I don't care what your strength is, you're 2'5" you can't carry the wizard."

[Kane0]

What is that, like 650 kilos carrying capacity? That's a lot. There are small trucks (lorries?) that can't carry that much.

Erm well with Str 24 he could carry 15x24x2x2x2=2880 lbs or about 1.3 metric tons. Or push/drag/lift 2.6 tons or so.

You could also double that again using an Enlarge spell, but even then you still probably won't be able to carry or push your average african elephant. Kinda disappointing for a level 20 character that breaks the mortal strength limit and takes every weightlifting option short of magic items.

Under variant encumbrance I believe it's one third that number before encumbered and two thirds before heavily encumbered.

[imanidiot]

Erm well with Str 24 he could carry 15x24x2x2x2=2880 lbs or about 1.3 metric tons. Or push/drag/lift 2.6 tons or so.
You could also double that again using an Enlarge spell.

Under variant encumbrance I believe it's one third that number before encumbered and two thirds before heavily encumbered.

I missed some doubles somewhere, afb. But anyway, its a lot. A whole lot.

[Quoxis]

Erm well with Str 24 he could carry 15x24x2x2x2=2880 lbs or about 1.3 metric tons. Or push/drag/lift 2.6 tons or so.


You mean he could lift the small trucks?

[Cybren]

The encumbrance variant on PHB 176 does that. Exactly that.

I guess, if you want something more complicated, you could the the 4th edition GURPS characters book and use that game's encumbrance tables, but you'd also want to go through and manually adjust the weights of every piece of equipment, and that just seems like a lot of work.

I don't think that would work without changes to the fundamental assumptions of D&D 5e.

[hymer]

Erm well with Str 24 he could carry 15x24x2x2x2=2880 lbs or about 1.3 metric tons. Or push/drag/lift 2.6 tons or so.

You could also double that again using an Enlarge spell, but even then you still probably won't be able to carry or push your average african elephant. Kinda disappointing for a level 20 character that breaks the mortal strength limit and takes every weightlifting option short of magic items.

Now add in the Shove ability, and realize that shoving along a living elephant is quite possible with a little size boost, but once the elephant dies it becomes too heavy to move. :smallsmile:

[Omegonthesane]

The encumbrance rules are fine-ish at the high end, but they're quite silly at the low end. An unusually weak halfling (Str 8) can still carry around three other halflings (120 lb.) all day without issues. Even a typical housecat (Tiny, Str 3) can carry 22.5 lb. around all day without issues, and can push/lift/drag up to 45 lb. I assure you, a real housecat can do no such thing. Even 5 lb. is pushing it.

Back when D&D was good in 3.5 your carrying cap got a different multiplier based on your personal size. But then, back in 3.5 equipment was likewise weighted differently depending on the size of character meant to wield it, so a Str 16 halfling would be expected to wear Small versions of the same kit as a Str 16 humie.

Now add in the Shove ability, and realize that shoving along a living elephant is quite possible with a little size boost, but once the elephant dies it becomes too heavy to move. :smallsmile:
Less obviously stupid than it sounds unless the elephant explicitly faceplants at the start of the shove - normally shoved mammals will stumble in the direction of shoving to maintain their balance.

[Aett_Thorn]

The encumbrance rules are fine-ish at the high end, but they're quite silly at the low end. An unusually weak halfling (Str 8) can still carry around three other halflings (120 lb.) all day without issues.

Well now I've got my next character concept: a stack of halflings with an overcoat.

[Slipperychicken]

Wow. Carrying Capacity in 5E is 15 times STR? That's ridiculous! What is a good way to bring that down to more reasonable numbers? Also, does what's your guys' opinion on the times 30 stat for lifting/dragging/pulling?


It is pretty reasonable. If you want more detail, use the variant.

If you want a really great encumbrance ruleset that takes bulkiness/portability into account while being much faster and easier to use, then I strongly recommend looking into encumbrance systems from modern OSR (Old School Renaissance/Revival) games. I personally love the one ACKS has. It's a crime that something like that hasn't been re-introduced to offical D&D rules yet, but don't let that stop you from using one if you like it.


The encumbrance rules are fine-ish at the high end, but they're quite silly at the low end. An unusually weak halfling (Str 8) can still carry around three other halflings (120 lb.) all day without issues. Even a typical housecat (Tiny, Str 3) can carry 22.5 lb. around all day without issues, and can push/lift/drag up to 45 lb. I assure you, a real housecat can do no such thing. Even 5 lb. is pushing it.

That's just what happens when you have a ruleset that treats toddler-sized people the same as 6ft tall adult humans.


Back when D&D was good in 3.5 your carrying cap got a different multiplier based on your personal size.

5e still does. Tiny characters get halved encumbrance, and you get x2 for each size category over medium. But there's no adjustment for being small, which is one of my gripes with 5e.

[hymer]

Less obviously stupid than it sounds unless the elephant explicitly faceplants at the start of the shove - normally shoved mammals will stumble in the direction of shoving to maintain their balance.

Except, of course, that the same goes for a prone elephant. In fact, a living, paralyzed elephant is a lot easier to shove around than a dead elephant. :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

That's just what happens when you have a ruleset that treats toddler-sized people the same as 6ft tall adult humans.



5e still does. Tiny characters get halved encumbrance, and you get x2 for each size category over medium. But there's no adjustment for being small, which is one of my gripes with 5e.


Halflings being as strong as humans despite being lighter and smaller isn't that surprising. Even if you want to look only at mammals only the chimps are very strong despite being small.

So yes, one halfling could carry several halflings, or carry as much as a medium-sized humanoid

Note that halfling still have issues using weapons too big for them

[smcmike]

Halflings being as strong as humans despite being lighter and smaller isn't that surprising. Even if you want to look only at mammals only the chimps are very strong despite being small.

So yes, one halfling could carry several halflings, or carry as much as a medium-sized humanoid

It's quite surprising. Halflings are significantly smaller than chimps, and anything carrying around almost four times its weight without a problem is pretty odd. As strong as chimps apparently are, I would be surprised if they could comfortably carry a 300 lb load for any significant period of time. And that's just an average halfling!

[Easy_Lee]

5e apes have sixteen strength. Level 1 fighters can be stronger than that. We aren't dealing with normal people.

Seriously, guy at the gym fallacy all over again. This is why martials rarely get any cool maneuvers: DMs limit their abilities only to things the DM can imagine an athletic person doing. Nevermind that humans in D&D don't follow our standards.

[smcmike]

5e apes have sixteen strength. Level 1 fighters can be stronger than that. We aren't dealing with normal people.

Seriously, guy at the gym fallacy all over again. This is why martials rarely get any cool maneuvers: DMs limit their abilities only to things the DM can imagine an athletic person doing. Nevermind that humans in D&D don't follow our standards.

Most of the complaints have been at the low end, not the high end. Let megabarbarians lift whatever they want, it's still strange how much a cat or a weak halfling can carry.

[Joe the Rat]

Square-cube gets you every time. 'twas one of the fun things in 3.5: 3/4 carry capacity, and half-weight gear. The net difference basically ended up with about the same "discretionary" (i.e. loot) capacity, but it did leave a window for comparative shenanigans.


On 5: It's a pretty heroic capacity, and goes nicely with the overweight gear. That said, the variant encumbrance rules might suit you better. Your fighter probably could carry another fighter all day, but he'd be slowed (usually taking action to dash to keep up), and hard-pressed to do anything else while carrying.

[UrielAwakened]

Well now I've got my next character concept: a stack of halflings with an overcoat.

I went to the adventurerer place today. I did a swordfight.

[Easy_Lee]

Most of the complaints have been at the low end, not the high end. Let megabarbarians lift whatever they want, it's still strange how much a cat or a weak halfling can carry.

"Weak" is relative. A weak ape is still stronger than an ordinary human. Additionally, if we combine this with D&D humans' improved ability to survive falls, it would be reasonable to guess that gravity is lower in that universe.

[Willie the Duck]

Wow. Carrying Capacity in 5E is 15 times STR? That's ridiculous! What is a good way to bring that down to more reasonable numbers? Also, does what's your guys' opinion on the times 30 stat for lifting/dragging/pulling?

As others have mentioned, no. No it is not ridiculous. It is barely even unrealistic (and realism is not clear as a goal, as others have mentioned, high strength fighters are supposed to resemble folk heroes or mythic characters). Even within the boundaries of realism, the maximum carrying capacity isn't the unrealistic part, it is that the average person isn't slowed at one pound away from their maximum, and that has a very clearly labeled optional rule that accounts for it.



Except, of course, that the same goes for a prone elephant. In fact, a living, paralyzed elephant is a lot easier to shove around than a dead elephant. :smallsmile:

What, the game doesn't have specific rules that accurately disentangle the challenges of pushing dead, live, and live-but-prone elephants? That is truly a serious flaw in the system!

[Aett_Thorn]

"Weak" is relative. A weak ape is still stronger than an ordinary human. Additionally, if we combine this with D&D humans' improved ability to survive falls, it would be reasonable to guess that gravity is lower in that universe.

Or maybe the air is just denser, providing more resistance?


Considering the a suit of Plate Mail weights just as much if it's Halfling size as it does if it were to be fit to a Dragonborn or Half-Orc, I'd say that the way encumbrance is handled is about right.

[smcmike]

"Weak" is relative. A weak ape is still stronger than an ordinary human.

I'm not talking about a weak ape. I'm talking about a scrawny 8-strength 35-lb halfling who has never done a bit of physical labor in his life.



Additionally, if we combine this with D&D humans' improved ability to survive falls, it would be reasonable to guess that gravity is lower in that universe.

Ha. This sort of reasoning is fun, I guess, but it seems simpler to say "yeah, the rules are kinda funny about that," doesn't it?

[Slipperychicken]

Halflings being as strong as humans despite being lighter and smaller isn't that surprising. Even if you want to look only at mammals only the chimps are very strong despite being small.

So yes, one halfling could carry several halflings, or carry as much as a medium-sized humanoid

Note that halfling still have issues using weapons too big for them

Chimps stand at 4ft tall, weigh 90-130lb, have arms one and a half times their height, and their muscles are structured for short bursts of strength in ways that are fundamentally different from humans. Their strength comes because their muscles sacrifice much of the endurance and manual dexterity which humans take for granted.

Halflings are around 3 feet tall, weigh about 40-45 pounds, and have the physiology of human toddlers.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not talking about a weak ape. I'm talking about a scrawny 8-strength 35-lb halfling who has never done a bit of physical labor in his life.



Ha. This sort of reasoning is fun, I guess, but it seems simpler to say "yeah, the rules are kinda funny about that," doesn't it?

An eight strength halfling is weak in comparison only to a 16 strength halfling. As evidenced by their carrying capacity (as in how much weight they can carry at a full sprint), an eight strength halfling isn't
"scrawny and weak" by any real-world standard.

And that's simpler, sure. But if we wanted a simple experience, we'd all be playing Dungeon World or similar, certainly not D&D of all things.

[smcmike]

An eight strength halfling is weak in comparison only to a 16 strength halfling. As evidenced by their carrying capacity (as in how much weight they can carry at a full sprint), an eight strength halfling isn't
"scrawny and weak" by any real-world standard.

This is the problem. The smallest, weakest character you can make using the standard array isn't scrawny or weak. That's dumb.

The solution isn't to say that he's actually strong, it's to say that he's scrawny and weak and the encumbrance rules are generous to ease gameplay.

[Easy_Lee]

This is the problem. The smallest, weakest character you can make using the standard array isn't scrawny or weak. That's dumb.

The solution isn't to say that he's actually strong, it's to say that he's scrawny and weak and the encumbrance rules are generous to ease gameplay.

While I understand your opinion, I'm just reading the mechanics as they're written. The fact is that it's impossible under point buy to create someone who's weak by real world standards.

There are quite a few confusing mechanics. One that gets me is that there's a strength requirement for heavy armor instead of a constitution (endurance) requirement, but no such requirement for wielding a longbow.

We can guess at why they setup the mechanics this way, but at the end of the day, that's all we're doing unless someone asks the developers.

[Willie the Duck]

This is the problem. The smallest, weakest character you can make using the standard array isn't scrawny or weak. That's dumb.

I would call it, 'a decision they made.' Sure, the smallest, weakest character you can make using the array isn't really that weak, nor would the dumbest character you can make if you put your lowest into Int. They made a decision to make the standard array character marginally weak in one characteristic and that's it. If that's a problem, don't use the standard array. Its presence in the book does not take away the other attribute generation methods.


The solution isn't to say that he's actually strong, it's to say that he's scrawny and weak and the encumbrance rules are generous to ease gameplay.

I think most people could live with/get behind that.

[rbstr]

I totally agree that 8 strength really isn't weak. It's below "D&D average person" but that clearly doesn't sync up to reality-average well in any way.
I don't really see that as much of a problem. Someone with 16 strength is essentially beyond realities limits and it's part of the fantasy game. Plus 5e's weights are a bit high in general and you really don't want the plate-armored fighter to to have to bring a squire along with him everywhere like he'd really need.


That would put the average around 150 pounds carrying capacity. That's not that much. The average for a strong person (15 str, the minimum for plate) would be 225 pounds. 160 pounds after the plate itself. That's perfectly reasonable.
I would expect a typical U.S. Army Infantryman to wear around 75 pounds of gear and carry a 150 pound wounded soldier for an extended period of time (let's say a day). No problem, I would expect any Infantry in a professional army to be able to do that.

That's actually a pretty ridiculous amount to carry for a day no matter who you are. Being able to lift some amount and being able to haul it around for protracted periods are very different. Soldiers carry 100lbs +-20 or so and studies show that that much weight leads to a significant number of injuries.
The 8 strength person carrying 120lbs on day-long multi-mile hike through whatever a D&D adventurer might be in? That's a whole lot for a even a fit person. Typical guidance for backpackers is to carry ~30% of your weight. 225lbs is close to being outside the realm of possibility.

[ZorroGames]

The encumbrance rules are fine-ish at the high end, but they're quite silly at the low end. An unusually weak halfling (Str 8) can still carry around three other halflings (120 lb.) all day without issues. Even a typical housecat (Tiny, Str 3) can carry 22.5 lb. around all day without issues, and can push/lift/drag up to 45 lb. I assure you, a real housecat can do no such thing. Even 5 lb. is pushing it.

I am a Mountain Dwarf, not a *****... cat. :smallwink:

[NRSASD]

Huh... had no idea there was such an array of divergent opinions on something as mundane as carrying capacity. Maybe we are in disagreement about what carrying capacity is as well? I'm defining it as the amount of weight you can carry on an 8 hour march through rough terrain and suffer no ill effects at the end of it. Please let me know how you define carrying capacity.

From personal experience, I'm a decently big guy. When I was trim and in fighting shape, I weighed a little over 180 lbs. Sure, I can lift things that weigh a lot more than I can carry. I can lift my full-sized refrigerator and carry it out of the house no problems (if someone opens doors for me). Even so, I can't imagine lugging a 120 lbs pack for 8 hours over hills and through forests.

Regardless, I've decided to go with the variant encumbrance ruleset (thanks Townopolis!), primarily because I want my character to need to use a donkey/porter/cart & wagon if I can't secure everything on my person. Maybe I'm making a mistake by wanting to use 5E to create verisimilitude and not seeking a better system, but that's my mistake to make.

Also, here's a news report on a study (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/weight-of-war-gear-that-protects-troops-also-injures-them/) supporting rbstr's numbers. Thanks for all the input so far everyone!

P.S. While a 22.5 lugging house cat is hilarious and bizarre, lifting more proportionally for your body weight the smaller you get isn't unusual. Insects are frequently extreme examples of this (but cats are not insects!!).

[ZorroGames]

Huh... had no idea there was such an array of divergent opinions on something as mundane as carrying capacity. Maybe we are in disagreement about what carrying capacity is as well? I'm defining it as the amount of weight you can carry on an 8 hour march through rough terrain and suffer no ill effects at the end of it. Please let me know how you define carrying capacity.

From personal experience, I'm a decently big guy. When I was trim and in fighting shape, I weighed a little over 180 lbs. Sure, I can lift things that weigh a lot more than I can carry. I can lift my full-sized refrigerator and carry it out of the house no problems (if someone opens doors for me). Even so, I can't imagine lugging a 120 lbs pack for 8 hours over hills and through forests.

Regardless, I've decided to go with the variant encumbrance ruleset (thanks Townopolis!), primarily because I want my character to need to use a donkey/porter/cart & wagon if I can't secure everything on my person. Maybe I'm making a mistake by wanting to use 5E to create verisimilitude and not seeking a better system, but that's my mistake to make.

Also, here's a news report on a study (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/weight-of-war-gear-that-protects-troops-also-injures-them/) supporting rbstr's numbers. Thanks for all the input so far everyone!

A friend's wife was a naval intel officer atrached to tactical marine unit in Afghanistan, after a few tours humping full combat load "same as the boys" up and down hills she was medically retired because the pressure on her nerves damaged her ability to use her hands - for example, cannot touch thumbs to her ring and little fingers among other, more grave, nerve damage deficits.

Weight of combat load bloat has been a problem since at least the 1800s and despite all the talk of reducing or lightening the load carried the load of gear only gets added to.

[90sMusic]

I think average human strength (for men, as women are usually much weaker) struggles to carry even 70 pounds. I've done a lot of home improvement work over the years and dealt with a lot of 50 and 70 pound bags of concrete which only the very physically fit folks can pickup or move around easily. Others might be able to lift it to put in a wheelbarrow but carrying it any distance would be impossible. Some cant lift it at all.

[Easy_Lee]

Also, here's a news report on a study (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/weight-of-war-gear-that-protects-troops-also-injures-them/) supporting rbstr's numbers.

According to that, fifty pounds is the recommendation. Full plate armor in 5e weighs sixty-five pounds by itself (real world plate weighed a lot less unless it was for jousting or similar mounted purposes). And I imagine the fighter is also supposed to carry his six-pound greatsword too, and a bag full of rations and other supplies.

Does anyone really want realistic human encumbrance on these unrealistic characters?

[ZorroGames]

According to that, fifty pounds is the recommendation. Full plate armor in 5e weighs sixty-five pounds by itself (real world plate weighed a lot less unless it was for jousting or similar mounted purposes). And I imagine the fighter is also supposed to carry his six-pound greatsword too, and a bag full of rations and other supplies.

Does anyone really want realistic human encumbrance on these unrealistic characters?

Considering no DM so far has asked about how we get the treasure out of the dungeon so far, nope.

[Slipperychicken]

According to that, fifty pounds is the recommendation. Full plate armor in 5e weighs sixty-five pounds by itself (real world plate weighed a lot less unless it was for jousting or similar mounted purposes). And I imagine the fighter is also supposed to carry his six-pound greatsword too, and a bag full of rations and other supplies.

Does anyone really want realistic human encumbrance on these unrealistic characters?

The kind of people who historically wore that kind of plate armor were attended by servants (i.e. squires), had access to horses, did not wear their armor unless expecting battle, and did not carry two-handed swords on their backs.

[Willie the Duck]

No way. Everything about D&D characters is unrealistic. There aren't large amounts of conveniently located dungeons, the kind of people who wore plate armor did not routinely traipse all over the countryside in it (certainly not on foot, and certainly not while carrying their own rations, etc.). Even if the pure numbers were realistic, what they actually inform isn't so it is a false sense of realism from the jump. The numbers are things to track so that you don't carry around two extra sets of armor "just in case" and have to make actual decisions like "do I help carry the wounded out of the dungeon, or hang onto this big bag of copper pieces?" (hopefully not a hard decision, but the point is sometimes you will have to forgo treasure in exchange for other things of import).

[NRSASD]

Well, if we go with the assumption that 5E lbs are not imperial lbs, then an STR 10 carrying 150 "lbs" is not a problem. But that kinda dodges the issue. According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour), a 1400's full plate harness is in the 15-25 kg (30-55 lbs) range, which means you're right, 5E's weight tables are out of whack. Ah well, a DM's work is never done.

Also, figuring out how to get the treasure out of the dungeon and back to town is about 1/4 the fun in the campaigns I play in. I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that I probably wouldn't recognize AL if someone sat me down at a table.

[Easy_Lee]

The kind of people who historically wore that kind of plate armor were attended by servants (i.e. squires), had access to horses, did not wear their armor unless expecting battle, and did not carry two-handed swords on their backs.

Start imposing real world penalties on heavy armor while leaving everything else untouched, and you'll just encourage your players to play dexers and casters.

[KorvinStarmast]

Wow. Carrying Capacity in 5E is 15 times STR? That's ridiculous! What is a good way to bring that down to more reasonable numbers? Also, does what's your guys' opinion on the times 30 stat for lifting/dragging/pulling? If what you want is more attempted simulationism, go back to AD&D 1e


Strength
3
4
5 Here or lower the character can only be a magic user
6 Minim'um strength for a gnome, half-orc or halfling character
7
8 Minimum strenqth for a dwarf character
9 Minimum strength for a fighter character
10
11
12 Minimum strength tor an assassin or paladin character
13 Minimum strength fora ranger character
14 Maximum strength possible for a female halfling character
15 Maximum strength possible fora female gnomr character, minimum strength for a monk character
16 Maximum Strength possible for a female elf character
17 Maximum strength possible for a female dwarf, or female half elf of male halfling character
18 Maximum strength possible for all non-fighter characters
18/01-50 Maximum strength possible for a female human or male gnome character
18/51-75 Maximum strength possible for a male elf or female half-orc character
18/76-90 Maximum strength possible for a male half elf character
18/91-99 Maximum strength possible for a male dwarf or male half orc character.
18/00 Maximum human strength
5e doesn't try so hard to be simulationist. I'd suggest you not sweat these fiddly details.

[Pelle]

Does anyone really want realistic human encumbrance on these unrealistic characters?

It depends on if it breaks my immersion or not. If a big heavy object is presented, and the PC grabs it and just keeps on trucking, I would like it to make more sense. For normal stuff, I don't bother.

Depends on the campaign though. For my next I want carrying capacity to be a part of the resource management game, and will use the optional rule.

[KorvinStarmast]

It depends on if it breaks my immersion or not. If a big heavy object is presented, and the PC grabs it and just keeps on trucking, I would like it to make more sense. For normal stuff, I don't bother.
Our DM uses the encumbrance rule. My human cleric in chain is slow.

[Easy_Lee]

It depends on if it breaks my immersion or not. If a big heavy object is presented, and the PC grabs it and just keeps on trucking, I would like it to make more sense. For normal stuff, I don't bother.

Depends on the campaign though. For my next I want carrying capacity to be a part of the resource management game, and will use the optional rule.

Reminder: D&D apes have sixteen strength. Barbarians and most fighters are stronger than that. And all of these people can fully recover from a near-death injury in 24 hours.

If none of that breaks your immersion, then fighters picking up big rocks shouldn't either.

[Pelle]

Our DM uses the encumbrance rule. My human cleric in chain is slow.

Cool, sounds fun!

[Slipperychicken]

Start imposing real world penalties on heavy armor while leaving everything else untouched, and you'll just encourage your players to play dexers and casters.

You might want to bring that up to Mearls. The PHB already contains speed-reductions for weak armor-wearers, and additional penalties from encumbrance.

Personally, I think it's fine. If players take appropriate and historically-accurate measures like using mounts or keeping retainers, they'll be more than okay. It's also okay to ignore encumbrance or use it only as a rough guideline. Encumbrance is not very important to D&D as it's played today.

[NRSASD]

The whole reason this bothered me in the first place is that these rules apply to both PCs and NPCs alike. D&D PCs are exceptions to the rule. I get that, no big deal. They can lift gigantic pillars, pull up anchor chains alone, pull an ox to a stop, etc.

The issue is that things like transport and such go waaaaaay out the window. Who breeds donkeys in a world where a couple of stout farmhands can pull you and your cart to market in the town next door? Why invest in a cargo ship when caravans are so stupidly effective? I first discovered this when I was trying to place some random cargo in a warehouse and discovered that, RAW, the PCs could clean out 1.5 tons of cargo in one go, no questions asked, no help needed. Hence the variant encumbrance system.

[Pelle]

Reminder: D&D apes have sixteen strength. Barbarians and most fighters are stronger than that. And all of these people can fully recover from a near-death injury in 24 hours.

If none of that breaks your immersion, then fighters picking up big rocks shouldn't either.

Cool, then the barbarian can carry more than the ape, according to the encumbrance rules. I don't buy the argument that just because it's a game with fantastical elements, everything silly have to be accepted. Different people draw the line at a different place. Even if you don't want carrying capacity as a game element, how big rock can a Barbarian carry in your games, 100 kg, 1000 kg, 10 000 kg, etc?

[smcmike]

The whole reason this bothered me in the first place is that these rules apply to both PCs and NPCs alike. D&D PCs are exceptions to the rule. I get that, no big deal. They can lift gigantic pillars, pull up anchor chains alone, pull an ox to a stop, etc.

The issue is that things like transport and such go waaaaaay out the window. Who breeds donkeys in a world where a couple of stout farmhands can pull you and your cart to market in the town next door? Why invest in a cargo ship when caravans are so stupidly effective? I first discovered this when I was trying to place some random cargo in a warehouse and discovered that, RAW, the PCs could clean out 1.5 tons of cargo in one go, no questions asked, no help needed. Hence the variant encumbrance system.

This sort of reasoning is why it's best to think of the rules as a way for players to interact with the world, not as some sort of set point upon which to build the world.

Commoners all have 10 strength not because the world is some freaky place where every peasant is exactly as strong as every other peasant, but because it makes it easier to play.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly, I'd say the bigger issue is WHERE DO THEY PUT EVERYTHING?

I've had characters with RIDICULOUS amounts of gear-not necessarily in weight, but in volume-and it's just mind-boggling where they fit it all.

In the end, though, here's what I'd say-let your players know how you're gonna handle weight and encumbrance. Try to avoid overly punishing heavy-armor wielders, and similar peeps. And feel free to say "Isn't that a bit ridiculous that you're moving a 1,200 lb boulder easily?" Because at level 1? Yeah, it's a little ridiculous they're easily shifting half a ton. But at level 20? Sure, it's ridiculous. But at that point, they SHOULD be ridiculous.

[GlenSmash!]

Alight lets see, 20th Goliath Bear Totem Barbarian with 24 strength and the Brawny feat, who is a Werebear in hybrid form, under the effect of an enlarge spell.

That would make him currently Size Huge with 3 other features that double carrying capacity one way or another. As far as I know they all stack. So all that doubling would put carrying capacity around 11520 lbs or around 5240 kilos. Not bad at all.

I'm in the camp that says gravity works differently in D&D since Giants aren't crushed under their own weight, and Dragons can fly with wings that are far too small in relation to their bodies, and mid to high level barbarians can fall from the stratosphere and walk away from it.

I guess we all have different points of suspending our disbelief.

[Tanarii]

Also, figuring out how to get the treasure out of the dungeon and back to town is about 1/4 the fun in the campaigns I play in. I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that I probably wouldn't recognize AL if someone sat me down at a table.Ditto on details being fun. At least, fun enough. Like ... it doesn't need to take a lot of game time unless it needs to take a lot of game time, because the rules *already* allow players to fairly easily bypass lots of logistical things. (Edit: the variant rule makes weight more of an issue than the standard rule, obviously. If you want that to be more of an issue, definitely use it. If you don't, don't.)

AL is very heavily populated by a Combat-as-Sport mindset. What matters is tactically overcoming the current challenge (be it combat or not). Anything not related to the current set-piece challenge is discarded. Details are just 'fiddly', especially logistics management. That's fine and dandy, it certainly suits me sometimes too. I've played and run plenty of games that way.

But other times, part of the challenge is preparing properly, and dealing with the details of logistics. At least to the degree necessary described by the rules. Honestly I would have been much happier if they'd provided the weights of the standard packs in the summaries for them. IMX players are perfectly happy to tally up weapon, armor, and a preknown pack weight (a grand total of 3-5 numbers) and subtract that from their carrying capacity, and that's their free carrying capacity.

For 5e I actually prefer to give treasure out in weights, not coins. They certainly don't know that they found 500 gp, 1000 sp, and 1000 cp. They know they found 50 lbs of mixed gold, silver and copper coins. With that ratio, they can't even tell if it's more copper or silver than gold. If they want to spend an hour or two making wandering monster checks to separate the copper out to try and reduce "pointless" weight, that's on them.

[Easy_Lee]

Cool, then the barbarian can carry more than the ape, according to the encumbrance rules. I don't buy the argument that just because it's a game with fantastical elements, everything silly have to be accepted. Different people draw the line at a different place. Even if you don't want carrying capacity as a game element, how big rock can a Barbarian carry in your games, 100 kg, 1000 kg, 10 000 kg, etc?

In a game with magic and dragons, I don't think humans being stronger than apes us silly. D&D human fighters are, roughly speaking, on par with Captain America from the movies. They'd have to be to fight dragons, so I don't take issue with that.

[Willie the Duck]

Reminder: D&D apes have sixteen strength.

To Paraphrase Inigo-- You keep using this reference. I think you think that it proves more than anyone else thinks it proves.

[Easy_Lee]

To Paraphrase Inigo-- You keep using this reference. I think you think that it proves more than anyone else thinks it proves.

If it proves nothing to you then you've missed my point. People are judging D&D characters based on real world human limitations. Stop doing that. These humans are not the sort you're used to.

[Willie the Duck]

The whole reason this bothered me in the first place is that these rules apply to both PCs and NPCs alike. D&D PCs are exceptions to the rule. I get that, no big deal. They can lift gigantic pillars, pull up anchor chains alone, pull an ox to a stop, etc.

That's right. PCs are exceptions to the rules, as in the literally play by different rules.


The issue is that things like transport and such go waaaaaay out the window. Who breeds donkeys in a world where a couple of stout farmhands can pull you and your cart to market in the town next door? Why invest in a cargo ship when caravans are so stupidly effective? I first discovered this when I was trying to place some random cargo in a warehouse and discovered that, RAW, the PCs could clean out 1.5 tons of cargo in one go, no questions asked, no help needed. Hence the variant encumbrance system.

Donkeys have a lower salary than strapping farm hands, and are less likely to hit on your daughter. Caravans aren't stupidly effective because bandits can be found ten feet outside every town.

Beyond silly answers like that, I have just two observations--

If, in 5e, you are still feeling constrained by RAW, that is the problem, not the encumbrance system. If the PCs are clearing out 1.5 tons of cargo, tell them that the cargo is physically bulky and "weighs" 3x it's actual weight for purposes if efficiently moving.
D&D has never worked well as a genuine world emulator, and the only time it really tried (3e), it had stuff like a ten foot ladder costing less than the two ten foot poles needed in its' construction. There will always be stuff that if you think to hard about will fall apart. That's because it really is a player-facing world that works to facilitate the game of the PCs going into and out of dungeons (or "dungeons") and stopping in towns to buy equipment, sell off stuff, or find plot hooks. If you want the game to deviate from that, kudos, but then why should you care about the rules?

[Pelle]

In a game with magic and dragons, I don't think humans being stronger than apes us silly. D&D human fighters are, roughly speaking, on par with Captain America from the movies. They'd have to be to fight dragons, so I don't take issue with that.

I haven't said that humans being stronger than an ape is silly. What I have tried to say is that to me, for either a human or an ape to just put a 10 000 kg rock in his "inventory" and not sweat at all seems silly.

As you might guess, I prefer lower level D&D, and I'm not a fan of superhero movies :smalltongue:

[JNAProductions]

D&D has never worked well as a genuine world emulator, and the only time it really tried (3e), it had stuff like a ten foot ladder costing less than the two ten foot poles needed in its' construction. There will always be stuff that if you think to hard about will fall apart. That's because it really is a player-facing world that works to facilitate the game of the PCs going into and out of dungeons (or "dungeons") and stopping in towns to buy equipment, sell off stuff, or find plot hooks. If you want the game to deviate from that, kudos, but then why should you care about the rules?


I don't see anything wrong with wanting a more fleshed out, world-emulatoring system. But I think it's important to understand that's NOT 5E's aim-they might make a supplement later that provides better world rules, but for now, it's an adventure simulator. Homebrew is needed for more than that.

[Easy_Lee]

I haven't said that humans being stronger than an ape is silly. What I have tried to say is that to me, for either a human or an ape to just put a 10 000 kg rock in his "inventory" and not sweat at all seems silly.

As you might guess, I prefer lower level D&D, and I'm not a fan of superhero movies :smalltongue:

I don't think anyone can normally hit a 10,000 kg carry weight. A fighter might pack 15*20=300 pounds of gear. That's only six times what we can reasonably expect soldiers to carry. Similarly, the most impressive thing we've seen Captain America do in the movies is use his bare hands to stop a helicopter from taking off, countering about three thousand pounds of lift. The comparison isn't far off, which is why I made it.

If you prefer lower power campaigns, that's your prerogative. But if you want a game with normal humans in it, who have normal human capabilities, D&D is not that game.

Why do I care? Because it affects me. This crap right here is why martials will NEVER catch up to spellcasters for raw power. The Guy at the Gym Fallacy affects everyone's thinking, everyone's assumptions.

No matter how much you tell them people just refuse to accept the obvious truth that D&D humans are superhuman. And thus the fighter, one of my favorite classes to play, is never capable of the things he should be based on what every other class can do.

[Unoriginal]

The whole reason this bothered me in the first place is that these rules apply to both PCs and NPCs alike. D&D PCs are exceptions to the rule. I get that, no big deal. They can lift gigantic pillars, pull up anchor chains alone, pull an ox to a stop, etc.

The issue is that things like transport and such go waaaaaay out the window. Who breeds donkeys in a world where a couple of stout farmhands can pull you and your cart to market in the town next door? Why invest in a cargo ship when caravans are so stupidly effective? I first discovered this when I was trying to place some random cargo in a warehouse and discovered that, RAW, the PCs could clean out 1.5 tons of cargo in one go, no questions asked, no help needed. Hence the variant encumbrance system.

First, having carts pulled by farmhand happened. Second, you're assuming something pretty incorrect, namely that your average person has stats as high as a PC.

Most civilians are Commoners with around 10 in all the stats before racial modifications. Most warriors have at best 14 in STR.

Saying "the PCs could do it" is like saying "the Teen Titans could do it"

[Tanarii]

First, having carts pulled by farmhand happened. Second, you're assuming something pretty incorrect, namely that your average person has stats as high as a PC.

Most civilians are Commoners with around 10 in all the stats before racial modifications. Most warriors have at best 14 in STR.Seemed pretty clear to me that he also has a problem with 150 lbs for Str 10, and 210 lbs for Str 14, as a weight that can be carried all day long at full speed without problem.

Part of the issue in this thread is the OP appears to have both a simulation complaint (not 'realistic') and a gamist complaint (makes dealing with weight issues an irrelevant challenge).

[Slipperychicken]

Seemed pretty clear to me that he also has a problem with 150 lbs for Str 10, and 210 lbs for Str 14, as a weight that can be carried all day long at full speed without problem.

I share this problem. This issue why the detailed variant rules on the same page handle this exact issue for people who are bothered by it.

[Pelle]

I don't think anyone can normally hit a 10,000 kg carry weight. A fighter might pack 15*20=300 pounds of gear. That's only six times what we can reasonably expect soldiers to carry. Similarly, the most impressive thing we've seen Captain America do in the movies is use his bare hands to stop a helicopter from taking off, countering about three thousand pounds of lift. The comparison isn't far off, which is why I made it.

If you prefer lower power campaigns, that's your prerogative. But if you want a game with normal humans in it, who have normal human capabilities, D&D is not that game.

Why do I care? Because it affects me. This crap right here is why martials will NEVER catch up to spellcasters for raw power. The Guy at the Gym Fallacy affects everyone's thinking, everyone's assumptions.

No matter how much you tell them people just refuse to accept the obvious truth that D&D humans are superhuman. And thus the fighter, one of my favorite classes to play, is never capable of the things he should be based on what every other class can do.

10 000 kg was just because I tried to ask what your limit was, and got the impression that you would handwave any carrying capacity issues.

For me the optional encumbrance rules jives well with my experiences. When I'm hiking, walking 20 km/day for a week, carrying a backpack of 25 kg is heavy enough. I reckon I might be at 10 Str, which makes the capacity at the limit for reducing the speed.

I was believing that D&D Str 10 Lvl 1 Commoners were supposed to be normal humans, not superhumans. If you want your Captain America fighter to stop a helicopter, you should consider giving him somewhat higher Str than 10, instead of ignoring encumbrance rules. I haven't seen those movies by the way.

I agree, D&D is not the best game for me, but it's what I'm stuck with. Works OK for low levels though. And if I want carrying capacity to actually matter in the resource management game, the optional encumberence rules seem nice. And by using these rules, having a high str actually matters.

I don't care what other people think about the Guy at the Gym, I just replied to your question.

[mephnick]

I use the variant x5/x10 encumbrance and allow those with proficiency in Athletics x6/x11. It works perfectly, promotes strength and makes Powerful Build a very enticing racial ability. Perfect.

[Tanarii]

I share this problem. This issue why the detailed variant rules on the same page handle this exact issue for people who are bothered by it.Agreed. And so did the OP, in the comment that Unoriginal was replied to that I was replied to.

[Vogonjeltz]

That would put the average around 150 pounds carrying capacity. That's not that much. The average for a strong person (15 str, the minimum for plate) would be 225 pounds. 160 pounds after the plate itself. That's perfectly reasonable. I would expect a typical U.S. Army Infantryman to wear around 75 pounds of gear and carry a 150 pound wounded soldier for an extended period of time (let's say a day). No problem, I would expect any Infantry in a professional army to be able to do that.

I agree with the sentiment, but 150 lbs seems low, google for the marines recruiting standards suggests an average of 171 lbs.

[Vykryl]

The numbers in D&D for strength are assuming someone is all around fit. Just out of school I worked for the California Conservation Corps doing habitat restoration in semi remote locations. Normal gear packs were 60-120 pounds, hikes were anywhere from 10 minutes to over an hour from the truck or campsite. With a good frame pack I have carried loads over 300 pounds on shorter hikes, to clear a worksite quickly while others were finishing up.

Amount to carry has more to do with terrain, fitness, proper pack. I was 6ft tall and 240lbs at the time and out of shape. My average pack was 100lbs were not an issue on any of the hikes. I've seen other people my size struggle wiith 80lbs loads. Worked with a little gal that claimed to weigh 120lbs and could handle 60-80lbs without issue.

My crew often wondered at me because in the field id pick up, pack, shift what would it usually took 2-3 of them to do. Get me in a weight room and I'm useless. My guys had a good laugh at that one. Had guys strong in the weight room that were useless in the field. Strength ability has a lot to do with knowing how to use your body.

The milder the terrain and the more and longer you can pack. I worked in coastal mountains and it's hard on the legs with D&D adventurer's pack.

The CCC got us WW2 packs from somewhere as a cheap replacement when our frame pack numbers had dwibdled. Even I complained about a 60lbs load with one of those. Skinny leather straps on a square steel frame is in no way comfortable. Crew ditched the packs and found other ways to carry the work gear.

It's all dependent on conditions and knowing how to maximize your body.

[Xetheral]

Reminder: D&D apes have sixteen strength. Barbarians and most fighters are stronger than that. And all of these people can fully recover from a near-death injury in 24 hours.

If none of that breaks your immersion, then fighters picking up big rocks shouldn't either.

For some players, what breaks immersion can be additive... accepting the rapid healing, for example, rather than serving as a justification for accepting other immersion-breaking rules, might instead make the carrying capacity issues more problematic.


Honestly I would have been much happier if they'd provided the weights of the standard packs in the summaries for them. IMX players are perfectly happy to tally up weapon, armor, and a preknown pack weight (a grand total of 3-5 numbers) and subtract that from their carrying capacity, and that's their free carrying capacity.

If they did that they'd have made it blatantly obvious that many of those equipment packs lack sufficient volume capacity to actually hold all their contents. Even if you assume most everything is strapped to the outside of the backpacks (as per the footnote on PHB 153) some equipment packs still exceed a backpack's listed weight limit.

Although I give credit for trying to provide the extra detail (for those who want it) by including the Container Capacity chart, I would at least have expected the figures on it to be compatible with the pre-generated Equipment Packs.

[Tanarii]

If they did that they'd have made it blatantly obvious that many of those equipment packs lack sufficient volume capacity to actually hold all their contents. Even if you assume most everything is strapped to the outside of the backpacks (as per the footnote on PHB 153) some equipment packs still exceed a backpack's listed weight limit.Good call. Dungeoneers is about 5 lbs, and explorers 2 lbs. But all the other packs are under 30 lbs total inside the container. Assuming rope, bedroll, water skin, and crowbars are all acceptable strapped to the outside.

Edit: if crowbars are too much of a stretch, that puts Dungeoneers 10 over.

More important point is packs don't include sacks for treasure, and they don't really have room for it unless you dump some stuff out first. Even if you dump everything, you're carrying no more than 1500 coins each.

[Easy_Lee]

For some players, what breaks immersion can be additive... accepting the rapid healing, for example, rather than serving as a justification for accepting other immersion-breaking rules, might instead make the carrying capacity issues more problematic.

So then the designers should get out their crystal ball and try to guess exactly which aspects of the game are going to break immersion for those "some players?" And regardless, I'm not convinced that immersion even exists. I've never been at a table where people didn't crack jokes or make pop culture references, where everyone stayed on-topic at all times, where not a single meta thought was had.

I don't think anyone ever gains or loses "immersion." I think that's just something people use as an argument against crap they don't like.

And furthermore, I can turn that back on you. I'm trying to play a game with more powerful humans in it, and have all of these mechanics showing me how strong they are. Well guess what, it breaks my immersion if these characters can't carry three-hundred pounds of gear or pick up heavy rocks. I was trying to be "immersed" in this fantasy. Why are you destroying my immersion?

Do you see my point? Immersion is a worthless argument.

[GlenSmash!]

Immersion is a worthless argument.

Ain't this the truth.

[smcmike]

Immersion is a worthless argument.

It's pointless to argue about on the internet, because it's an aesthetic judgment about the tone of the game. That doesn't mean it isn't a real thing at the table. Let's say you're trying to run a fairly serious game, and a new player sits down with his character, Sir Poopyface the Paladin. This is a problem, right?

[GlenSmash!]

It's pointless to argue about on the internet, because it's an aesthetic judgment about the tone of the game. That doesn't mean it isn't a real thing at the table. Let's say you're trying to run a fairly serious game, and a new player sits down with his character, Sir Poopyface the Paladin. This is a problem, right?

I think that's more of a discussion about table expectations, and less of a discussion about immersion.

[Xetheral]

Good call. Dungeoneers is about 5 lbs, and explorers 2 lbs. But all the other packs are under 30 lbs total inside the container. Assuming rope, bedroll, water skin, and crowbars are all acceptable strapped to the outside.

Edit: if crowbars are too much of a stretch, that puts Dungeoneers 10 over.

More important point is packs don't include sacks for treasure, and they don't really have room for it unless you dump some stuff out first. Even if you dump everything, you're carrying no more than 1500 coins each.

Wait... how are you going over the backpack's weight limit by strapping things to the outside? Shouldn't that only help get around the volume limit? The backpack will still structurally fail if you try to carry to much inside or outside.

Excellent point on the sacks and the coins.


So then the designers should get out their crystal ball and try to guess exactly which aspects of the game are going to break immersion for those "some players?" And regardless, I'm not convinced that immersion even exists. I've never been at a table where people didn't crack jokes or make pop culture references, where everyone stayed on-topic at all times, where not a single meta thought was had.

I don't think anyone ever gains or loses "immersion." I think that's just something people use as an argument against crap they don't like.

And furthermore, I can turn that back on you. I'm trying to play a game with more powerful humans in it, and have all of these mechanics showing me how strong they are. Well guess what, it breaks my immersion if these characters can't carry three-hundred pounds of gear or pick up heavy rocks. I was trying to be "immersed" in this fantasy. Why are you destroying my immersion?

Do you see my point? Immersion is a worthless argument.

Hmm. I used "immersion" because that was the wording you used in the post I quoted. In context, I assumed you were using it broadly as a rough synonym for verisimilitude, rather than as the much more narrow question of whether someone is mentally lost in (e.g.) a book or movie. I agree the latter doesn't happen in the same way in an interactive medium like an RPG, but I didn't think that's what you were originally referring to: your point about healing vs carrying big rocks didn't seem to be limited to such a narrow sense of "immersion".

Did I misinterpret your claim in the post I quoted? Did you mean to only state that if rapid healing doesn't knock someone out of an all-consuming mental focus on the game, that carrying capacities shouldn't either? If so, then I agree with the original claim... that kind of immersion is much more black & white and probably isn't additive.

[smcmike]

I think that's more of a discussion about table expectations, and less of a discussion about immersion.

Call it table expectations or immersion, it's the same issue.

[Easy_Lee]

Hmm. I used "immersion" because that was the wording you used in the post I quoted. In context, I assumed you were using it broadly as a rough synonym for verisimilitude, rather than as the much more narrow question of whether someone is mentally lost in (e.g.) a book or movie. I agree the latter doesn't happen in the same way in an interactive medium like an RPG, but I didn't think that's what you were originally referring to: your point about healing vs carrying big rocks didn't seem to be limited to such a narrow sense of "immersion".

Did I misinterpret your claim in the post I quoted? Did you mean to only state that if rapid healing doesn't knock someone out of an all-consuming mental focus on the game, that carrying capacities shouldn't either? If so, then I agree with the original claim... that kind of immersion is much more black & white and probably isn't additive.

Immersion is one of those words so ubiquitous that it's hard to get away from. The nicest way I could interpret it is as another word for internal consistency. If Bob the Fighter can throw an opponent ten feet through the air, it's weird if he can't kick down a wooden door in the next moment. But I wouldn't say that breaks immersion so much as it feels inconsistent.

It reminds me of the dumb rules thread, which is currently on a slight tangent about skill checks in general. The designers didn't do a good job conveying power level. We don't know whether the average person can kick down a wood door, carry a heavy load across miles, etc., or whether the average person would break their foot on that door and can't carry a fifty pound backpack without getting winded. Without a clear idea, you can't blame people for leaning toward the latter. it's closer to real life, after all.

But that's why I make the point about humans and apes, and about the healing factor. Those are the two best pieces of evidence I know of that these humans are physically superior to normal humans. Exactly how superior is up for debate, because it's unclear.

Some people go even farther and debate the idea that these people are superior at all. However, I think that's just a cover for those people not wanting to play physically superior humans.

[smcmike]

Here's the thing, though. The ape example is hot nonsense. "Ape" is a made up generalization with no direct comparison in the real word. Further, a lot of people's opinions about the strength of various real-world apes also seems to be based on, at best, some very old and very flawed studies. How much can an average chimpanzee deadlift? You don't know, and neither do I.

The healing factor is a good example of inconsistency between everyday, nonmagical aspects of the game world and the real world, but it seems to me that this is because we are playing a game, not because the people in that game are different in nature from real people. Following your logic, it is also the case that D&D people are immune from having limbs cut off in battle, because of some mysterious difference in their physiology. That strikes me as ridiculous.

[Easy_Lee]

Here's the thing, though. The ape example is hot nonsense. "Ape" is a made up generalization with no direct comparison in the real word. Further, a lot of people's opinions about the strength of various real-world apes also seems to be based on, at best, some very old and very flawed studies. How much can an average chimpanzee deadlift? You don't know, and neither do I.

The healing factor is a good example of inconsistency between everyday, nonmagical aspects of the game world and the real world, but it seems to me that this is because we are playing a game, not because the people in that game are different in nature from real people. Following your logic, it is also the case that D&D people are immune from having limbs cut off in battle, because of some mysterious difference in their physiology. That strikes me as ridiculous.

The Regeneration spell allows one to regrow lost limbs, and the undying warlock pact can reattach lost limbs. It's clear that limb loss happens.

Additionally, as I've seen a chimpanzee win a tug of war contest with a much heavier sumo wrestler, it's fair to say that real life "apes" are pound for pound much stronger than humans. It's not a perfect comparison; people are better at throwing things. But it's close enough.

But that's not the only example. Carrying capacity, as per the thread, is also a great example of D&D humans being stronger than real humans.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The healing factor is a good example of inconsistency between everyday, nonmagical aspects of the game world and the real world, but it seems to me that this is because we are playing a game, not because the people in that game are different in nature from real people. Following your logic, it is also the case that D&D people are immune from having limbs cut off in battle, because of some mysterious difference in their physiology. That strikes me as ridiculous.

I agree. The difficulty seems to stem from considering the game rules (which are game rules, designed for engaging game-play about heroic people doing adventuring-type things) as a reflection of the underlying physical reality. I've said this before, but I like having the freedom to play games where some of the obnoxious parts of reality are waived for the sake of the game. When I play D&D, I'd rather not have to deal with a spreadsheet to calculate how much I'm carrying in real-time. Much easier to use it as a "no, that's too heavy to lift--you'll need help" criteria instead of a constant thing. IMO at least.

Let's add to this the fact that the weights of items in the PHB are made up from whole cloth and don't really reflect "real" weights. Nor do the carrying capacity rules--5x/10x/15x were choices of convenience, not of physics/physiology. Many things are rounded to the nearest 5 pounds (for heavy things) or to the nearest pound. Last time I looked at that, you'd have to overhaul the whole list if you wanted more "realism."

Using the variant rules, clerics are screwed using the standard array--their starting kit weighs enough (with medium armor) to encumber anyone with less than 15 STR. Also, dwarves lose a racial feature--they're encumbered by the weight of heavy armor unless they have 15+ STR, not by the heavy armor table entry itself. Thus their feature doesn't apply (on its face, anyway).

[smcmike]

The Regeneration spell allows one to regrow lost limbs, and the undying warlock pact can reattach lost limbs. It's clear that limb loss happens.

And yet, there is no rule for it in regular combat. The "damage" that D&D characters heal from at such a spectacular rate does not appear to be similar in kind to the damage inflicted on regular humans who are hit by swords or axes.


Additionally, as I've seen a chimpanzee win a tug of war contest with a much heavier sumo wrestler, it's fair to say that real life "apes" are pound for pound much stronger than humans. It's not a perfect comparison; people are better at throwing things. But it's close enough.

First, thanks for the YouTube recommendation.

Second, the video I found features an Orangutang.

Third, we aren't talking about pound-for-pound strength, we are talking about absolutes. In the video I saw, it seemed to be a fairly even match for a while, before the orangutan won. It was certainly not inconsistent with the possibility that an ape and a very strong (but real) person might be similar in strength by some measures.



But that's not the only example. Carrying capacity, as per the thread, is also a great example of D&D humans being stronger than real humans.

It is also circular, since the topic of discussion is whether the carrying capacity seems rather high.

[puzzler7]

Additionally, as I've seen a chimpanzee win a tug of war contest with a much heavier sumo wrestler, it's fair to say that real life "apes" are pound for pound much stronger than humans.

Just popping in to comment on your physics logic, not your game logic.

Tug of war has literally nothing to do with strength. As long as you can hold onto the rope, the only thing that matters is how much each team weighs, and what surface you're standing on.

When playing tug of war, you pull on the rope without moving forward because of friction with the ground, no matter how hard you pull. The side that wins is the side that has the most friction between them and the ground. Assuming the ground is level and consistent, the heavier team wins. This may change if the ground is even slightly slanted, or has patches that are more slippery than others, but that still is completely unaffected* by strength.

For example, imagine tying a rope to a 1000 pound sack of bricks, and "playing" tug of war with it. The bag obviously has no strength; it's a bag. However, no matter how hard you pull, you won't move the bag an inch.

*You can do things such as digging into the ground with your feet, adding your leg strength ~somewhat~ into the mix, but that's still heavily dependent on weight and surface: how far can you dig, how stable is your foothold, etc.

[Easy_Lee]

So now we're contesting whether apes are stronger than humans, pound for pound? Yeah, okay guys, have fun with that. If you don't want to accept the mechanics as evidence of D&D humans' greater strength, that's on you. But I don't see much support for the other side of this argument.

[smcmike]

So now we're contesting whether apes are stronger than humans, pound for pound?

I am explicitly NOT arguing that.

I'm arguing absolute strength, and pointing out that some Apes are considerably smaller than some humans.

[Easy_Lee]

I am explicitly NOT arguing that.

I'm arguing absolute strength, and pointing out that some Apes are considerably smaller than some humans.

Well, I don't want to make this thread about apes. I want to talk about carrying capacity, as per the thread title. And given that carrying capacity isn't the only area where D&D humans have above-average capability, I take physical superiority to be a theme of D&D, at least as far as the player characters are concerned. Maybe the PCs are just superior individuals, as per the concept of heroes from the movie Unbreakable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, I don't want to make this thread about apes. I want to talk about carrying capacity, as per the thread title. And given that carrying capacity isn't the only area where D&D humans have above-average capability, I take physical superiority to be a theme of D&D, at least as far as the player characters are concerned. Maybe the PCs are just superior individuals, as per the concept of heroes from the movie Unbreakable.

I think that's generally true across many settings. Player characters are special in 5e. How? That depends. Do note that the rules are only explicitly for player characters (although I expect humanoid NPCs to follow basically the same ideas). The rules are for the game, not the game for the rules. 5e really doesn't try for more than a hand-waved simulationism as far as I've been able to see. The default carrying capacity is explicitly set to "don't worry about it except when trying to lift/drag something." That's a game decision, not a physics decision.

In my setting, PCs are special because they can literally absorb anima (soul-stuff) from the environment as they learn and grow and incorporate that into themselves. That leads to the largely unbounded growth of capability and makes even the most mundane fighter somewhat supernatural at higher power levels. Most NPCs are capped strongly--most can never get the equivalent of PC class levels. Their powers are one-offs--that rare priest who can raise the dead is a high priestess of her god and is granted those abilities without the rest of the PC class level baggage. She may be an ordinary human as to combat capability, with no weapon or armor proficiencies and without the ability to cast the wide range of lower level spells you'd expect. She can cast raise dead and a few healing spells. That's all.

In essence, PCs explicitly, in-universe, play by different rules than NPCs. That's how they survive as adventurers when the average number of lifetime missions completed is in the high single digits (an amazing feat--the earlier form of the Guild averaged two missions before death. Turns out that sending ill-equipped convicts into the wilderness to explore ancient ruins/kill threats has a high mortality rate).

[Tanarii]

Wait... how are you going over the backpack's weight limit by strapping things to the outside? Shouldn't that only help get around the volume limit? The backpack will still structurally fail if you try to carry to much inside or outside.

Excellent point on the sacks and the coins.Interesting. I've always assumed the weight limit applied to the backpack as a container, and the 'strap things to the outside' applied as a limited exception to both volume and weight.

Well in that case, rope, bedroll and/or waterskin will but many of them considerably over the limit. Otoh for loose treasure, especially a hoard, the party is still often going to need additional containers regardless. So I'm happy to assume the backpack can handle the basic load with those things strapped on.

I'm a fan of logistics mattering somewhat when I DM. But after judging overall player willingness, I now mostly go with 'plan ahead a little' and/or special circumstances requiring some additional handling. Despite my personal nature loving crunching detailed numbers and minutia, I'm not going to inflict high precision accounting of gear and encumberance every second of the game. That's why I like players to have an idea of spare carrying capacity. If they know they're going to exceed that when they find some phat (and heavy) loots, they can adjust accordingly in short order.


Using the variant rules, clerics are screwed using the standard array--their starting kit weighs enough (with medium armor) to encumber anyone with less than 15 STR. Also, dwarves lose a racial feature--they're encumbered by the weight of heavy armor unless they have 15+ STR, not by the heavy armor table entry itself. Thus their feature doesn't apply (on its face, anyway).IMO if you're going to use variant encumberance, Dwarves should get to apply their bonus to the load somehow. One encumberance category less works pretty well.

But yeah, medium armor non-Str clerics (and Rangers) have it tough.

[Sredni Vashtar]

In essence, PCs explicitly, in-universe, play by different rules than NPCs. That's how they survive as adventurers when the average number of lifetime missions completed is in the high single digits (an amazing feat--the earlier form of the Guild averaged two missions before death. Turns out that sending ill-equipped convicts into the wilderness to explore ancient ruins/kill threats has a high mortality rate).

Which solves the problem of housecats dragging off small children and laborers out-competing mules (although one could argue that mules are still more economic since you don't have to pay them).

A "weak" halfling who can carry three other halflings is only weak from a PC perspective. The carrying capacity of NPC halflings should rarely come up.

[Xetheral]

Interesting. I've always assumed the weight limit applied to the backpack as a container, and the 'strap things to the outside' applied as a limited exception to both volume and weight.

I guess that would depend on the construction of the pack and the materials used. Maybe the weakest point is the leather or canvas on the bottom on the bag, in which case the weight limit would indeed only apply to the internal contents? I would think that would be an unusual weak spot, however.

Other than that particular case, avoiding a weight limit by strapping things to the outside seems bizarre--the pack still needs to transfer the weight to your shoulders (and hips) regardless of where that weight is stowed, and that's going to stress the pack's stitching and other joins, which would likely be the weakest parts.

Either way, the internal volume limit is more problematic... D&D backpacks are smaller than most modern daypacks--much too small to be useful for overland travel.


Well in that case, rope, bedroll and/or waterskin will but many of them considerably over the limit. Otoh for loose treasure, especially a hoard, the party is still often going to need additional containers regardless. So I'm happy to assume the backpack can handle the basic load with those things strapped on.

I'm a fan of logistics mattering somewhat when I DM. But after judging overall player willingness, I now mostly go with 'plan ahead a little' and/or special circumstances requiring some additional handling. Despite my personal nature loving crunching detailed numbers and minutia, I'm not going to inflict high precision accounting of gear and encumberance every second of the game. That's why I like players to have an idea of spare carrying capacity. If they know they're going to exceed that when they find some phat (and heavy) loots, they can adjust accordingly in short order.

When I'm DMing, which is almost always, I don't require my players to track emcumbrance either. When playing low-strength charaters, I often do track it as a player, however, just for my own sense of verisimilitude. My last PC had a donkey to carry around all her cooking supplies and foodstuffs. Rescuing the donkey from various hijinks became a recurring theme.


Which solves the problem of housecats dragging off small children and laborers out-competing mules (although one could argue that mules are still more economic since you don't have to pay them).

Now I want to play an eccentric Druid who is just fine with animal labor, but expects such animals to be paid a fair wage.

[furby076]

Wow. Carrying Capacity in 5E is 15 times STR? That's ridiculous! What is a good way to bring that down to more reasonable numbers? Also, does what's your guys' opinion on the times 30 stat for lifting/dragging/pulling?

As always, thanks for your help!

15* str is not that much. Assume you have 10 str (average). Now total up all your stuff: non-modern clothing, shoes, armor, weapon or two. Now include your backpack, food, water skin, sleeping matt, tent, utensils, plus other stuff you picked up. Remember, you don't get carbon fiber/alumnium stuff, you get stuff made from wood and thick/heavy cloth at best.

And...150 lbs gets soaked up pretty quick. The weight is also distributed all over your body, not just in your arms

[Easy_Lee]

And...150 lbs gets soaked up pretty quick. The weight is also distributed all over your body, not just in your arms

Some American soldiers carry around about 70 pounds of gear, and even that is too much for a regular person to carry without long-term damage (arthritis, bone spurs, etc.). But having D&D PCs be three times as strong as a real life average soldier is not that far-fetched.

[Slipperychicken]

Some American soldiers carry around about 70 pounds of gear, and even that is too much for a regular person to carry without long-term damage (arthritis, bone spurs, etc.). But having D&D PCs be three times as strong as a real life average soldier is not that far-fetched.

A 2007 study found that our boys carried 60-100lbs, sometimes as much as 120 or even 160. It might be possible for the short-term, but not healthy for the long-term.

Thankfully for player-characters in 5th edition dnd, the long-term impacts of encumbrance are not modeled under the rules for reasons that should be obvious: It's a game about action-packed fantasy adventure, not about watching young healthy people be permanently crippled by depressingly-banal causes like the weight of their backpacks.

[Temperjoke]

I know the conversation left this point a while ago, but I just want to point out that while a halfling might be the size of a toddler, they aren't built like one, they're built like a fully-developed adult. I believe the problems small creatures have with heavy weapons is due to the shape and size, not the weight, since the particular weapons are usually longer in length than halflings are in height. I do agree that there should be a carrying/lifting capacity penalty due to the size, just like goliaths, firbolg, and bugbears get a bonus for their size.

Weight distribution also make a big impact on how much weight a person can actually carry. Plate armor is worn all over the body, and carrying things in a backpack (which is a reasonable assumption that the characters have) is easier than trying to carry them in your arms for long periods of time.

I do agree though that weight/height and a lot of the measurements used in this game don't line up with reality in a lot of ways, but aside from rewriting the entire book, there's not a lot that can be done with it. So it's better to just roll with it and ignore the inconsistencies.

[Laurefindel]

While I understand that D&D is a superhero game and that PCs are much more powerful that "regular" people, I don't think referencing modern military soldiers as STR 10, 10 CON NPCs should be the metric. Even the "lowly" guard NPC has a STR of 13.

Also, a quick search on Google suggest wieghts carried by soldiers on the field oscillating between 90 ans 150 lbs depending on divisions and nations (with US soldiers in the upper parts of the range). The same search yield a lot of studies and articles about "overweight" soldiers leading to diminished performances and higher risks of injuries. This leads me to believe that soldiers are, in fact, encumbered at these weights (but that the benefits of higher survavibility still thrumps the effects of real-life encumbrance).

I think that a carrying capacity of 15xSTR fits well within the superhero-fantasy genre of D&D, but is altogether unrealistic.

Also, I'm willing to bet that immersion is at the crux of RPG for many people (me included). What people find immersive however, or on the contrary, above their ability of suspension of disbelieve, varies from individuals.

'findel

[Kane0]

I like my golfbag packed with swords and javelins, thankyou very much!

[Willie the Duck]

I like my golfbag packed with swords and javelins, thankyou very much!

That's an interesting point. I, for one, would much rather have a PC who has a handaxe, some daggers, some javelins, a maul, an shield, and even a short bow and quiver of 40 arrows than another bog-standard Composite Longbow, plus either greatsword or longsword+shield that we saw every character armed with from oD&D+GH through 3e (with occasional side-turns for katanas or longspears in 2e when they became the best for a bit or spiked chain in 3e).