Variant encumbrance rules. Thoughts?

[Snig]

Hey guys I've always wanted to play with this Rule and I'm about to be dming for my first time and planned on implementing it. Mainly because I would like to add a little bit more realism and strategy to the campaign but also to give strength more value. Right now Dex has much more benefit to a player than strength. With this variant rule strength becomes a little more valuable. We also have a Goliath Barbarian in our party and I don't want to devalue his racial trait.

I don't really see it really causing too much issue? Drop your pack before combat? Invest in a horse and sattlebags? Stash your wagon before heading into the dungeon? You'll have to be strategic about what you want to take with you.

I also plan on using an app (DLG inventory) which makes its super simple to add and track all of your equipment and weight, so I should help keep things rolling smoothly and take care of the math and tracking for us.

So anyhow, one player (my brother) decided to play a tiefling Warlock and dump his STR to 8. Now he's pissed and throwing a hissy fit because he's heavily encumbered with just his starting gear (I haven't confirmed). He's saying it's a stupid rule that takes away from the fun of the game, and had about 100 other weak arguments against using it.

I'm feeling a little discouraged and I'm looking for some advice. Should I just scrap it? Should people who dumped strength not be affected by carrying weight does that not make sense?

[PeteNutButter]

Did you tell the players you were using the variant rule before they created their characters?

I don’t see how a warlock would be heavily encumbered with his starting gear, but I suppose it is possible. Is he a hexblade wearing medium armor?

In video games do you enjoy running back to town every 2 minutes because “I can’t carry anymore”? It’s a noble endeavor to try and balance the stats, but I’m not sure you have the desired result via encumbrance. How do the rest of your players feel about it? If they like it, power through. If they don’t, it’s probably best to drop the rule. There is a reason the default rules are so ridiculous. It’s just not what most players like to focus on.

In the end if you allow them to drop their pack as a free action in combat it’ll only mean that medium armor wearers really suffer, as light armor doesn’t weigh enough and heavy armor users by default have a good str.

If it comes down to having a few more points in con and making your teammate carry your junk, or having enough str to carry your own junk... your optimizer players are just going to make the Barbarian the pack mule and keep str at 8.

Including environmental checks like jumping, climbing, and swimming are great ways to make players value str by the way. Athletics is a great tool.

[Gilrad]

It adds a lot more fiddlyness to the game and takes quite an amount of inventory-tetris to get everyone's packs set up so they have their immediately-accessible stuff with them at all times while at the same time able to travel at -10 speed encumberance. Even so, it is really useful if you want to add survival elements (did we forage enough food for today? Can we afford to move fast and take the risk that we won't be able to forage tomorrow? Did a random encounter just **** on all our rations?). You can't just buy 100kg of rations next time you're in an outpost.

Mechanically my DM lets me drop my pack as a free item interaction which puts me at unencumbered, but that can add lots of complications to encounters if things go pear-shaped. Running away could be a Bad Thing, especially if the big strength type is the only one who is dropping their pack in combat and it contains all your food. Likewise a clever DM might have wild animal encounters go after a sufficiently unguarded pack if the fighting drifted far enough away from the starting point.

As for your player, he's going to have to accept that he can't carry all his stuff with him at all times. Tools and survival gear should be pooled anyway so there's no harm in passing off rope, cooking tools, and other heavy things to the strength type to get within -10 speed with his travel pack on. If your party really isn't roughing it that much he could probably get away with being unencumbered.

[mephnick]

Variant Emcumberence is the only way to run it. Normal encumberence is so lenient it might as well not exist, it's a joke they even wrote it into the game when they obviously wanted it to be optional. Your Warlock player should be fine unless he dumped STR, but he can't really complain about that unless he didn't know about the rule in the first place. Your group may want to learn about this special magic called "horses and hired help".

EDIT: Oh he did dump STR. Too bad for him.

[Lunali]

I'm guessing the warlock was upset because he didn't know in advance that this would be the rule. No one will appreciate a major change to disadvantage their character. Would suggest either scrapping the rule or allowing him to rebuild/scrap the character.

[Snig]

Everyone in the party knew this rule before creating characters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Knowing going in is tolerable, but I'll say (from experience) that clerics are totally hosed by this variant.

You're encumbered by your starting kit unless your strength is 15+. You can drop to leather armor, but then you're giving up a class feature/features. And you're basically unable to carry anything else either. No-armor/light armor types can get away with not having high strength, heavy armor types will always have high strength. Clerics (especially Knowledge/trickery/Light/Death) are just SoL.

[JellyPooga]

Everyone in the party knew this rule before creating characters.

More fool the Warlock then.

The variant encumbrance rules are the only ones I use; the standard rule is way too lenient and create ridiculous imagery of these heavily laden adventurers moving around like they're completely unencumbered.

[Pelle]

It depends on what kind of game you are running. If it is a political game in an urban setting, the characters are probably not carrying much anyways, so don't bother with encumbarance at all. If you are running a wilderness exploration game, where life or death can be determined by what you are carrying with you, you should use it. I find the variant rule much more fitting for my immersion, and if not using it I think it's just better to handwave all encumbrance.

If the character concept of the warlock includes being weaker than the average commoner, then expecting to be able to carry up to 60 kg without problem is a bit silly IMO. Not wanting to spend game time on tracking inventory etc is understandable, though. So determine if the carrying limitations are adding to the game, by forcing interesting choices of what to bring, or if it is just an inconsequential bookkeeping exercise.

[mephnick]

Knowing going in is tolerable, but I'll say (from experience) that clerics are totally hosed by this variant.

Heavy armour clerics will have high STR like you say and the rest have no problem. Even a 10 in STR can carry Med Armor, a weapon and a shield with some lbs to spare. The rest of your stuff gets carried by a strong character, a horse or a follower. No one is screwed. It's a different style of play That's the point.

[Snig]

Knowing going in is tolerable, but I'll say (from experience) that clerics are totally hosed by this variant.

You're encumbered by your starting kit unless your strength is 15+. You can drop to leather armor, but then you're giving up a class feature/features. And you're basically unable to carry anything else either. No-armor/light armor types can get away with not having high strength, heavy armor types will always have high strength. Clerics (especially Knowledge/trickery/Light/Death) are just SoL.

So the cleric drops his pack before fighting in combat?

[Snig]

Heavy armour clerics will have high STR like you say and the rest have no problem. Even a 10 in STR can carry Med Armor, a weapon and a shield with some lbs to spare. The rest of your stuff gets carried by a strong character, a horse or a follower. No one is screwed. It's a different style of play That's the point.

My thoughts exactly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Heavy armour clerics will have high STR like you say and the rest have no problem. Even a 10 in STR can carry Med Armor, a weapon and a shield with some lbs to spare. The rest of your stuff gets carried by a strong character, a horse or a follower. No one is screwed. It's a different style of play That's the point.

I was playing a knowledge cleric whose whole shtick was books. He wasn't supposed to be a primary martial, so I left his STR at 10. That meant that carrying medium armor + shield meant he was tapped out. No books possible.

The variant encumbrance also means that dwarves don't get one of their features--they're still slowed by heavy armor unless they have the right strength. And on an already slow race...

The big problem is that the weights of items in this edition were fixed without considering the variant. So things are drastically overweight, especially armor. No, scale doesn't weigh 65 pounds. That's absurd. The packs themselves (before you pick up anything) are ~65 pounds.

Either you hand-wave dropping packs, or it's an annoyance. If you hand-wave dropping things, then it's meaningless.

Edit: I'll admit to being salty about this one, because unlike the current instance, we weren't told at character generation. I found out a few months later in the middle of a dungeon. Otherwise I'd have built the character differently (at significant cost, still, but it would have been less obnoxious).

[Snig]

I'm also considering ruling that "worn" armor does not count toward your carry weight?

[Snig]

Also, if we are just assuming that characters automatically drop their pack before combat, does it render the variant rule meaningless? I'm sure there are other factors to consider?/

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm also considering ruling that "worn" armor does not count toward your carry weight?

That would go a long way toward sanity.

As to the clerics--scale mail is 45 pounds. Shields are 6 pounds. Thus, at 10 STR, you're taking encumbrance penalties with just armor.

And if the main thing is "realism", then things worn and things carried will vary greatly in how much you feel it. Even just an improperly balanced pack can be more encumbering than a heavier, well-balanced and braced pack. Weight is not a good measure for that, except in specific circumstances or extremes.

[KRSW]

With variant encumbrance rules the characters I assume the characters only ever have their armor, weapons and combat stuff ever on their person. They keep their food, books, tools, whatever else in their wagon or on their horse. As is, I think all variant rules in 5e are really bad and all of them need some tweaking at least for them to make any sense in terms of being believable or just having it fit in mechanically.

If you still have a problem with it though you can just increase the carrying capacity per point of strength ratio, encumbered is 5:1 you can bump it to 8:1 or 10: 1 and everything should be fine, but still more believable because the players still cant drag thousands of pounds worth of gold around.

[mephnick]

I'm also considering ruling that "worn" armor does not count toward your carry weight?

Nah count it. Pheonix has a point that some equipment is a bit heavier than it should be. I'd tweak the few worst ones if you think it's necessary, but worn armour should be the biggest weight tax.

[KRSW]

Nah count it. Pheonix has a point that some equipment is a bit heavier than it should be. I'd tweak the few worst ones if you think it's necessary, but worn armour should be the biggest weight tax.

I think making worn armor contribute only half of its weight to encumbrance would be reasonable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nah count it. Pheonix has a point that some equipment is a bit heavier than it should be. I'd tweak the few worst ones if you think it's necessary, but worn armour should be the biggest weight tax.

You can swim, do acrobatics, etc. in full plate. Things worn properly aren't nearly as encumbering as their weight suggests. If you care about versimilitude, I'd say that 2H weapons are a much worse thing--carrying a greatsword or polearm should require a hand at all times (since you can't really sheath them).

[PhoenixPhyre]

With variant encumbrance rules the characters I assume the characters only ever have their armor, weapons and combat stuff ever on their person. They keep their food, books, tools, whatever else in their wagon or on their horse.

Then how do you adventure at levels 1-5 when you can't afford a wagon and horse?

And how do you do dungeons? Just leave the horse outside? Or do you have to hire retainers to handle them?

These rules worked well for one particular style of play. A long time ago. They really don't work well with other play styles.

[Snig]

Nah count it. Pheonix has a point that some equipment is a bit heavier than it should be. I'd tweak the few worst ones if you think it's necessary, but worn armour should be the biggest weight tax.

Actually maybe just for dwarves so that their racial doesn't go wasted with the variant ruling

[Lunali]

You can swim, do acrobatics, etc. in full plate. Things worn properly aren't nearly as encumbering as their weight suggests. If you care about versimilitude, I'd say that 2H weapons are a much worse thing--carrying a greatsword or polearm should require a hand at all times (since you can't really sheath them).

Well, you can sheath a greatsword in a scabbard carried on your back. The problem is that in order to draw it you generally would have to take the scabbard off your back and draw the sword. This means leaving the scabbard on the ground or taking the time to put it back on.

For a polearm, about all you can do is have it sideways behind you at your belt, giving you very wide hips and forcing a very awkward draw. In practice, you would want to keep it in hand or on the ground unless you really needed to keep it with you while using both hands.

[mephnick]

Then how do you adventure at levels 1-5 when you can't afford a wagon and horse?

And how do you do dungeons? Just leave the horse outside? Or do you have to hire retainers to handle them?

These rules worked well for one particular style of play. A long time ago. They really don't work well with other play styles.

A donkey and cart costs like 20g. A guard costs like a gold a day. You can easily run this style at low levels.

And yes it works for a certain syle of game...the style I assume OP is attempting to play hence this whole thread. And it works fine in 5e. If you don't like that style it's one thing, but lots of people find it fun and more engaging than modern D&D's casual playstyle.

[Pelle]

I was playing a knowledge cleric whose whole shtick was books. He wasn't supposed to be a primary martial, so I left his STR at 10. That meant that carrying medium armor + shield meant he was tapped out. No books possible.


Isn't that just an inconsistent concept, though? If it involves always carrying around lots of heavy stuff, it makes sense to have an above average strength either way, variant rule or not...

You may be right about the armour weights, and it would be better to complain about that instead. As for polearm weapons, if a character is trying to "sheath" one, the DM can always impose disadvantage on acrobatics etc.

[mephnick]

I also allow proficiency in Athletics to up the limits to x6/x11 as a little bonus.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Isn't that just an inconsistent concept, though? If it involves always carrying around lots of heavy stuff, it makes sense to have an above average strength either way, variant rule or not...


Under normal rules, it's fine, especially for a scholar whose normal habitat is a library. Armor, a couple books, no problem. Under the variant, it becomes a problem. That's why I was so angry that they decided (after almost 100% turnover of the group, as it was an open-table-ish game) that "oh, we're actually using variant encumbrance" halfway through a dungeon.

I really don't like when people decide to play 2e (or 3e, etc) using 5e rules. You can do it, but it's like programmers who can program FORTRAN in any language...

[Pelle]

Under normal rules, it's fine, especially for a scholar whose normal habitat is a library. Armor, a couple books, no problem. Under the variant, it becomes a problem.

Then just bring a donkey or wheelbarrow to carry the stack of books? If he leaves most of the books in the library and only bring a couple to the adventure, just wear a lighter armor if it is still a problem?

Not wanting to bother with how much you can carry is fine, if it doesn't matter for the type of game you play. Are you using the normal encumbrance rules and actually enforcing them? If you don't want to play 5e like it was 2e (not sure what that entails), I would think it would be better to just not care about encumbrance at all.

To me, the benfit of not caring about encumbrance is that you don't need to keep track and bookkeep. The benefit of the variant rule is that the carrying limit are sensible. The normal rule is neither, I have to both keep track of the weights and lose some versimilitude.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then just bring a donkey or wheelbarrow to carry the stack of books? If he leaves most of the books in the library and only bring a couple to the adventure, just wear a lighter armor if it is still a problem?

Donkeys and wheelbarrows don't work down in dungeons. That's the big problem.

He was (not playing that game anymore for a while now) build with DEX as a dump stat (standard array). Yes, sub-optimal, but it fit the character. So lighter armor means dead meat. Couldn't dump INT (because scholar), couldn't dump CHA (because of some other house-rules I can't remember right now). So high WIS/CON, medium INT/CHA, low STR/DEX. For a knowledge cleric, that's not bad.

If I'd have known, I'd have built a completely different character from the get go. But I didn't, and we were 2 days deep into a megadungeon, 2 weeks from civilization. Yes, that means that actually bringing out any loot would be pointless, since no one could carry it. Didn't matter, the DM was all about going old-school even if it broke stuff. He was adapting old modules on the fly (which made things have weird problems all over the place and take forever).



Not wanting to bother with how much you can carry is fine, if it doesn't matter for the type of game you play. Are you using the normal encumbrance rules and actually enforcing them? If you don't want to play 5e like it was 2e (not sure what that entails), I would think it would be better to just not care about encumbrance at all.

To me, the benfit of not caring about encumbrance is that you don't need to keep track and bookkeep. The benefit of the variant rule is that the carrying limit are sensible. The normal rule is neither, I have to both keep track of the weights and lose some versimilitude.

I have yet to see a time when, under the normal rules, encumbrance ever came close to being hit in normal life. So normal encumbrance is pretty much identical to ignoring it. By design:


This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it

I only ever use it when trying to move something super heavy (like a gnome carrying a bigger character or trying to pull a statue or something like that). And then it's a sanity check only--ball-park the weights involved and compare. I use an app that tracks it for me, and my STR 12 bardlock (currently) isn't anywhere close to maxed out under the normal rules.

[Justin Sane]

I've seen a houserule where you use your Passive Athletics score to determine Encumbrance, instead of straight-up Strength score. Made some sense at the time, but I personally have no experience with it.

[Pelle]

He was (not playing that game anymore for a while now) build with DEX as a dump stat (standard array). Yes, sub-optimal, but it fit the character. So lighter armor means dead meat. Couldn't dump INT (because scholar), couldn't dump CHA (because of some other house-rules I can't remember right now). So high WIS/CON, medium INT/CHA, low STR/DEX. For a knowledge cleric, that's not bad.


Reasonable enough build. If you have low Str, you shouldn't expect to be able to carry heavy stuff, though. This looks more like a limitation with the stat distribution process. Why the high Con, couldn't you have taken points from that and put into Str? Of course, with limited build resources you can't put high scores in everything.

If you are not powergaming, worrying about lighter armor and being dead meat shouldn't be an issue :smallwink:



If I'd have known, I'd have built a completely different character from the get go.


Sounds like a communication problem instead of variant rule problem then.



I have yet to see a time when, under the normal rules, encumbrance ever came close to being hit in normal life. So normal encumbrance is pretty much identical to ignoring it. By design:


Sure, but it still means you have to track it. If you are not tracking anything, you are not using the normal rules, which I think is the preferable option.



I only ever use it when trying to move something super heavy (like a gnome carrying a bigger character or trying to pull a statue or something like that).

I usually don't invoke encumbrance rules unless something strains my sense of plausibility. How much can you actually carry with Str 12?? As long as the players try to not be silly and claim they are carrying everything but the kitchen sink, you don't need to use encumbrance at all.

[MrStabby]

He's saying it's a stupid rule that takes away from the fun of the game, and had about 100 other weak arguments against using it.



I am not sure why you would consider it a weak argument. Something he does purely for fun is made less fun by a decision. It seems a legitimate concern. This doesn't mean to bow to his wishes but you should expect that, as for any houserule, it is a net positive at your table. This means that the fun it should add for other players should be more than the fun lost for this player.

You are running a game not a simulation. Fun is the primary objective and at least one person has identified this as "not Fun".

As others have pointed out communication helps. But it is only part of a solution. Your brother isn't saying "you didn't tell me about your house rule", he is saying that he doesn't find it fun. No matter how clearly you told him does not impact on whether it is a fun rule or not.

Sometimes this doesn't matter. Sometimes players can pick which tables they play at and can walk to another table if they don't like the style or the concept. At other times they have friends or family they play with so it isn't that simple. If he can't play the character concept he wants this game because of variant rules, when we he next get to play in a different game without those rules? How will he feel about waiting that long.

Ultimately the DM does make a call but the best DMs will do so by consensus, in a mature way and by genuinely listening to what others find fun. It sounds like the problem at the tables runs deeper than a specific rule. I suggest talking it out with the players, the people who will ultimately enjoy the game or not, rather than the internet who won't sit at the table. After all, what we find fun is interesting rather than important.

[Lombra]

We use it and it makes the bag of holding something you really want to keep. It also promotes the use of carriages, donkeys, mounts and such, we like the need of planning an adventure trip that way, being actually scared of encounters along the road because we can't lose a caravan, and things like that.

[Dyndrilliac]

First thought: D&D 5e is a "movie hero simulator" system. It doesn't even try to be realistic, as some previous editions did. It's drifted away from its gritty war-game roots. Honestly, for this type of play, you're better off with another system entirely that is designed from the ground up to simulate realistic conditions.

Second thought: All it takes is one Wizard with Tenser's Floating Disk (which can be cast as a ritual so no spell slots are needed, and it doesn't require concentration) and the variant encumbrance rules are rendered just as meaningless as the vanilla encumbrance rules because everyone can just let the disk (which can carry up to 500 lbs) carry their stuff. If I were you, I would point out to the Warlock that if he goes Pact of the Tome he can grab the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation at 3rd level and get Tenser's Floating Disk as a ritual. So he really only has to deal with the rule for the first two levels, and then after that he can just ignore it like he clearly wants to do.

[Kane0]

My favorite 'variant' is the simple you can carry a number of 'substantial' items (weapons, armor, packs, quivers, etc) equal to your STR score, or bonus if you want to get gritty. Don't bother counting up the little things like rings and potions unless they come in stacks/bundles.

[Tanarii]

Use it. It makes encumberance a factor.

IIRC all characterscan carry their full starting kit without slowing down unless they put an 8 in Str even with the variant rule. Although there may be some that need a 12 to take a fully loaded Explorer's or Dungeoneers.

When it matters is when you find treasure, mainly art objects. Without variant encumberance it never matters. Which was almost certainly the point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

]
IIRC all characterscan carry their full starting kit without slowing down unless they put an 8 in Str even with the variant rule. Although there may be some that need a 12 to take a fully loaded Explorer's or Dungeoneers.


This is not true, especially for clerics.

Let's consider a standard non-heavy-armor/non-martial weapon cleric.

Starting equipment
Mace: 4 lbs
scale: 45 lbs
light crossbow + 20 bolts : 5 + 1.5 = 6.5 lbs
priests pack = 5 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 6 + 4 + 5 = 25 lbs
Shield (with holy symbol): 6 lbs

Total: 86.5
Required strength not to be encumbered: 18 (17.3, rounded up).

If we exchange the medium armor (accepting that you'll always have crap AC or requiring high DEX), that saves 35 pounds. You'd need an 11 not to be encumbered.

If instead of the priests pack you chose the explorer's pack, it would increase by (5+7+1+1+10+20+5+10 - 25) = 34 pounds. That means that even with the leather armor, you'd need an 18 STR to not be encumbered.

Oh, and if you're a heavy armor type (switching scale for chain and mace for warhammer): your needed strength went up by 8/5 = 1.6 (chain is 10 lbs heavier, but a warhammer is 2 lighter than a mace).

So no. Clerics get screwed by variant encumbrance. Hardcore.

[JackPhoenix]

Under normal rules, it's fine, especially for a scholar whose normal habitat is a library. Armor, a couple books, no problem. Under the variant, it becomes a problem. That's why I was so angry that they decided (after almost 100% turnover of the group, as it was an open-table-ish game) that "oh, we're actually using variant encumbrance" halfway through a dungeon.

I really don't like when people decide to play 2e (or 3e, etc) using 5e rules. You can do it, but it's like programmers who can program FORTRAN in any language...

Changing rules halfway through the game is bad, no argument against that.

However, you describe the character as "scholar whose normal habitat is a library" and "all about the books"... yet you insist on wearing weighty armor. Why? It seems like it clashes with the character concept. The same description could be applied to lore bards, wizards and some warlocks... none of them bothers wearing armor (because they aren't proficient with it), yet they still get by.

Just because you're proficient with armor doesn't mean you have to wear it, if you lack attributes for it... see every single Dex fighter who avoids heavy armor.

[Tanarii]

Total: 86.5
Required strength not to be encumbered: 18 (17.3, rounded up).
Str 10 is all you need to carry 100 lbs without being heavily encumbered.

Edit: I'll grant you it looks like they need a Str 13 to move freely without their pack. Unless they dump the light crossbow for a javelin, at which point it drops to Str 11. Or they can just start with a Chain Shirt instead and drop 25 lbs.

But moving at -10ft is not "screwed". Str x10 is the point at which you're screwed under the variant encumberance rule. If you were basing your assessment off of Str x5 no wonder you're so anti-variant encumberance.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I went ahead and checked all the classes, taking the lighter options where reasonable.

Short answer: only the warlock and wizard are unencumbered at 10 STR by their starting gear. And that's only if they don't take the explorer's pack (which weighs 59 lbs all by itself) and instead take the scholar's pack, which leaves out things like bedrolls, rations, clothes, water, etc.



Class
Minimum STR for starting gear


Barbarian
15.6


Bard
11


Cleric (medium)
17.3


Cleric (heavy)
18.9


Druid
15.6


Fighter (light)
16.8


Fighter (heavy)
25.2(!)


Monk
13.1


Paladin
19.8 (much more if he takes the explorer's pack not the priest's pack)


Ranger (light)
15.2


Rogue
12.9


Sorcerer
13.2


Warlock
5.6 (15.4 with explorer's pack)


Wizard
4 (13.8 with explorer's pack)



So no, the game was not balanced around the variant encumbrance. You'll have to basically jettison the packs, meaning you won't have the ability to use all the fun items that are included. Note that only the explorer's and dungeoneer's packs come with 10 days of rations--the best anyone else does is 2. Meaning you'll have to carry those as well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Str 10 is all you need to carry 100 lbs without being heavily encumbered.

Edit: I'll grant you it looks like they need a Str 13 to move freely without their pack. Unless they dump the light crossbow for a javelin, at which point it drops to Str 11. Or they can just start with a Chain Shirt instead and drop 25 lbs.

But moving at -10ft is not "screwed". Str x10 is the point at which you're screwed under the variant encumberance rule. If you were basing your assessment off of Str x5 no wonder you're so anti-variant encumberance.

I'd say taking penalties is bad. It hurts dwarves, halflings and gnomes the worst--meaning they move half of what others do.

Look at the above. You've got heavy fighters needing 25 STR to move freely in their gear. And that's without any loot. Variant encumbrance is borked. The numbers are all screwy, all the time. If you' use it, change how you do armor (it's all way too heavy for one) and packs. Food is heavy. Water is heavy. Bags are heavy.

It means that you need to buy a cart right out the gate to even go anywhere. Because moving at 15 means taking forever to go anywhere, which means more food. Which means more weight. Etc.

Edit: and you can't actually trade starting gear unless you sell it, then you don't have enough to buy more. And rolling for gold sucks. So no starting with chain shirt. Scale or leather, those are your choices.

2nd edit: a cart is 15 gp and 200 lbs. Meaning you also need a donkey or mule (another 8 gp, plus 5cp/10 lbs per day in feed)--no one can drag that themselves. That means you can haul 220 lbs extra (420 base - 200 cart). That's about the party's packs, not including food for the donkey. SO you need another donkey with a cart or saddlebags. Etc. And it means you can't go through forests, up mountains, or basically anywhere there isn't a good road. And is vulnerable.

[Tanarii]

My players accept the -10ft to move outside of combat all the time. Yes, they move slower, but that's what happens when you've got a heavy pack on. Whenever possible, they ditch their packs before combat if it means they can move faster. It's not a catastrophe by any means.

Anyway, if you want to make encumberance more meaningful and you think the variant is too much, it's easy enough to rule it Str x10 is -10ft of movement, and Str x15 is tapped out.

[mephnick]

The bedrolls and all that stuff go in a wagon or are carried by followers. That's the point. You aren't supposed to carry that stuff. What are you not getting about this?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The bedrolls and all that stuff go in a wagon or are carried by followers. That's the point. You aren't supposed to carry that stuff. What are you not getting about this?

Followers cost money. And aren't available in many, if not most campaigns. I covered wagons up there--money, space, and limited mobility (can't go off road well at all, if we're worrying about verisimilitude).

This is not OD&D. It's not balanced around variant encumbrance. In fact, that works poorly most cases, as I've shown.

And if you're Homebrewing to make it actually function, doesn't that mean you're admitting it's broken by default?

Variant encumbrance works under very special circumstances and requires heavy buy in. Handle with care.

[Kane0]

Well that's why it's a variant rule, no?

[JellyPooga]

I'd say taking penalties is bad. It hurts dwarves, halflings and gnomes the worst--meaning they move half of what others do.

Look at the above. You've got heavy fighters needing 25 STR to move freely in their gear. And that's without any loot. Variant encumbrance is borked. The numbers are all screwy, all the time. If you' use it, change how you do armor (it's all way too heavy for one) and packs. Food is heavy. Water is heavy. Bags are heavy.

It means that you need to buy a cart right out the gate to even go anywhere. Because moving at 15 means taking forever to go anywhere, which means more food. Which means more weight. Etc.

Edit: and you can't actually trade starting gear unless you sell it, then you don't have enough to buy more. And rolling for gold sucks. So no starting with chain shirt. Scale or leather, those are your choices.

2nd edit: a cart is 15 gp and 200 lbs. Meaning you also need a donkey or mule (another 8 gp, plus 5cp/10 lbs per day in feed)--no one can drag that themselves. That means you can haul 220 lbs extra (420 base - 200 cart). That's about the party's packs, not including food for the donkey. SO you need another donkey with a cart or saddlebags. Etc. And it means you can't go through forests, up mountains, or basically anywhere there isn't a good road. And is vulnerable.

Gosh. A penalty for having a low Ability Score. Who'd have thunk it?

Sorry. You can't have your cake and eat it:
- You want to learn to cast (Wizard) spells? Better not be a dullard.
- You want to nail a target at 50 paces with a bow and arrow? Ain't happening if you're a klutz.
- You want to wear heavy armour and carry loads of stuff? Go down the gym and pump iron until you've got the beef to bear it.

It's got nothing to do with starting gear and everything to do with character archetypes. The iron-clad, warhammer-wielding, warrior of [insert deity of choice here] Cleric isn't a 90lb. weakling that struggles to lift some of the heavier tomes in the library he's in, let alone a heap of adventuring gear. If you want to dump Strength and play the bookish Cleric, that's cool, but don't expect to be dancing around freely while carrying more stuff than the party Barbarian. Not in any game I'd want to play at any rate.

[Dyndrilliac]

@PhoenixPhyre: All the problems you mention in regards to mules/carts/followers don't apply to Tenser's Floating Disk. It can cross difficult terrain, follow you in dungeons, doesn't need to eat/drink/sleep, never gets frightened by combat, can't be killed, and costs nothing. Characters that aren't Wizards or Warlocks can grab it with the Ritual Caster feat (or Magic Initiate, if your casting class can already use rituals), which seems like an obvious pick for a book-loving Knowledge Cleric anyway. Unless you went Variant Human you'll have to wait until 4th level to grab it, but after that you're fine.

Not saying it's a fun rule (my personal opinion is that it's stupid), but it's not a death knell for a character.

[JackPhoenix]

@PhoenixPhyre: All the problems you mention in regards to mules/carts/followers don't apply to Tenser's Floating Disk. It can cross difficult terrain, follow you in dungeons, doesn't need to eat/drink/sleep, never gets frightened by combat, can't be killed, and costs nothing. Characters that aren't Wizards or Warlocks can grab it with the Ritual Caster feat (or Magic Initiate, if your casting class can already use rituals), which seems like an obvious pick for a book-loving Knowledge Cleric anyway. Unless you went Variant Human you'll have to wait until 4th level to grab it, but after that you're fine.

Not saying it's a fun rule (my personal opinion is that it's stupid), but it's not a death knell for a character.

You have to be at least 20' away from the disk to follow you, and it can get stuck on obstacles. Good luck getting trying to maneuver it in a dungeon.

[SiCK_Boy]

I won't try to argue for or against the rule, but would rather explain how we use it in one of my groups.

I offered the players the choice between using standard encumbrance or variant. They wanted to try variant (partly because of the realism it brings, but mostly for the added challenge, I think). I do track each character's carried weight in a spreadsheet that gets updated after every session (so they technically can avoid a penalty for acquiring gear mid-session, unless it is clearly some bulky item where I'll intervene and impose encumbrance right away).

The impact on our first session was really interesting. All the characters, once we calculated, were encumbered (-10' of move). The rogue ditched most of his stuff so as to have no penalty; the paladin asked to just drop his backpack before combat, the barbarian was able to move out of encumbered range after getting rid of his bear trap, and the bard and druid just accepted moving slower.

I can say that having characters move at 20' vs 30' makes a lot of difference if you use tactical battle maps for combat encounters.

I had not given much thought to the "I drop my backpack" scenario, but made the following ruling:

- It takes a bonus action to drop your backpack on the ground.
- If you have a shield equipped, it takes a regular action to drop the backpack (unequipping a shield is a bonus action)

The players are aware that their backpacks are vulnerable while not worn, and that it could create problems if they run away from an encounter.

I've updated my tracking sheet to now account for which equipment is part of the backpack or not.

Regarding the player who is not interested in this rule or doesn't find it "fun", it should obviously be part of an ongoing discussion between the players and the DM. As a DM, I would not impose this rule on my players, but I'm certainly happy to see that they opted for it as I think it brings an interesting tactical and resource management element to the game. If they ever tire of it and ask to revert to the standard rule, I'll accommodate them.

I don't have any dwarves in my group, so I did not give much thought to the racial ability, but I would rule that it does not interact with the encumbrance rules. The move penalty imposed by wearing heavy armor while not meeting the STR requirement is independent of the encumbrance rules, so I would continue to apply it with or without the variant encumbrance.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't have any dwarves in my group, so I did not give much thought to the racial ability, but I would rule that it does not interact with the encumbrance rules. The move penalty imposed by wearing heavy armor while not meeting the STR requirement is independent of the encumbrance rules, so I would continue to apply it with or without the variant encumbrance.

It's not actualy independent: Variant encumbrance removes Str requirements from armor. In 3.5, dwarven racial allowed them to not be slowed down by either armor or a heavy load... I think it would be only fair to, if not remove the penalty entirely, either let them ignore the movement penalty (either from light encumbrance, or from both), or to count their encumbrance as one step lighter (no penalty for light, -10' movement for heavy). Hm, I like the second idea more...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Gosh. A penalty for having a low Ability Score. Who'd have thunk it?

Sorry. You can't have your cake and eat it:
- You want to learn to cast (Wizard) spells? Better not be a dullard.
- You want to nail a target at 50 paces with a bow and arrow? Ain't happening if you're a klutz.
- You want to wear heavy armour and carry loads of stuff? Go down the gym and pump iron until you've got the beef to bear it.

It's got nothing to do with starting gear and everything to do with character archetypes. The iron-clad, warhammer-wielding, warrior of [insert deity of choice here] Cleric isn't a 90lb. weakling that struggles to lift some of the heavier tomes in the library he's in, let alone a heap of adventuring gear. If you want to dump Strength and play the bookish Cleric, that's cool, but don't expect to be dancing around freely while carrying more stuff than the party Barbarian. Not in any game I'd want to play at any rate.

So...a low ability score is 15-? because that's what most classes need not to be taking penalties for their starting gear. I'd need to have an 18 STR to not be encumbered by my starting gear, 20 if I wanted to actually use subclass features and wear heavy armor.

So yes, if I completely nullify a chunk of my subclasses, or put STR as highest stat even for dex builds, I can not take penalties. Wow. Much fun.

That's a big problem I have with variant encumbrance. It means that the pool of viable builds just got a whole lot smaller.

It's become a red flag for a DM who doesn't want players to actually do cool stuff for me. Not a sure sign, but if they care about that and don't about, say, polearms, their sense of realism is horrible and anti-fun. So when you make those PAM people always have a hand occupied just lugging the thing around and make it so they can't fight in small spaces, we'll talk. Because the numbers for variant encumbrance are bad. Horribly bad. Horribly horribly bad and unrealistic. No, plate armor doesn't weigh 65 pounds.

[SiCK_Boy]

It's not actualy independent: Variant encumbrance removes Str requirements from armor.

You're right; just went back and re-read the section (plus the dwarf section).

I would rule that the dwarf can be "encumbered" without penalty in this case. A dwarf only suffers a penalty if he is heavily encumbered, and if so, the speed penalty would only be -10' instead of -20' (he would still suffer disadvantage as per the variant rule, however).

[Eric Diaz]

The "standard" rules are ridiculously lenient. Might as well just ignore encumbrance.

The "variant" rules are ridiculously harsh... in no way compatible to the standard rules... everybody is encumbered, and the Str needed to wear plate (with other equipment) is way higher than the armor list would indicate.

So my ideal would be something in-between.

Here is an option. But there are MANY others.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2018/04/encumbrance-armor-minor-update.html

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mf2N23H7iZw/WsfGl9dweXI/AAAAAAAABfU/Pr1sCAjULLM9nOpKzxZVzq_3bqPBPz5IgCK4BGAYYCw/s320/Max.png

[JellyPooga]

So...a low ability score is 15-? because that's what most classes need not to be taking penalties for their starting gear. I'd need to have an 18 STR to not be encumbered by my starting gear, 20 if I wanted to actually use subclass features and wear heavy armor.

So yes, if I completely nullify a chunk of my subclasses, or put STR as highest stat even for dex builds, I can not take penalties. Wow. Much fun.

That's a big problem I have with variant encumbrance. It means that the pool of viable builds just got a whole lot smaller.

It's become a red flag for a DM who doesn't want players to actually do cool stuff for me. Not a sure sign, but if they care about that and don't about, say, polearms, their sense of realism is horrible and anti-fun. So when you make those PAM people always have a hand occupied just lugging the thing around and make it so they can't fight in small spaces, we'll talk. Because the numbers for variant encumbrance are bad. Horribly bad. Horribly horribly bad and unrealistic. No, plate armor doesn't weigh 65 pounds.

Tell me; what armour is a bookish cleric wearing? If it's anything heavier than leather, then either that bookish cleric is pretty buff or he's struggling against the weight. If armour does have "problematic" weight, as you say, then it introduces the concept that choosing a lighter armour with lower AC having the advantage of increasing your mobility compared to heavier armours. It adds an additional level of thought into a character build; do I go for the high AC or do I want the extra speed? Most Classes starting gear weight has a lot of leeway; take the Cleric - Leather Armour (10lb.), Mace (4lb.), a Dagger (1lb.), Priests pack (22lb, maybe up to 24lb, depending on your interpretation of things like the censer and vestments), a Holy Symbol (1lb.) and a Shield (6lb.). 44lb. total. Required Str to avoid penalties: 9.

[JNAProductions]

Tell me; what armour is a bookish cleric wearing? If it's anything heavier than leather, then either that bookish cleric is pretty buff or he's struggling against the weight. If armour does have "problematic" weight, as you say, then it introduces the concept that choosing a lighter armour with lower AC having the advantage of increasing your mobility compared to heavier armours. It adds an additional level of thought into a character build; do I go for the high AC or do I want the extra speed? Most Classes starting gear weight has a lot of leeway; take the Cleric - Leather Armour (10lb.), Mace (4lb.), a Dagger (1lb.), Priests pack (22lb, maybe up to 24lb, depending on your interpretation of things like the censer and vestments), a Holy Symbol (1lb.) and a Shield (6lb.). 44lb. total. Required Str to avoid penalties: 9.

And if you want to carry a few extra books, or a spare set of clothes, or pretty much ANYTHING extra...

Not to mention the Heavy Armored Fighter? Someone ran the numbers earlier. They need a Strength score that literally REQUIRES a magic item to carry it all unencumbered.

[Tanarii]

Not to mention the Heavy Armored Fighter? Someone ran the numbers earlier. They need a Strength score that literally REQUIRES a magic item to carry it all unencumbered.
Long sword, 2 hand axes, shield, Chainmail, belt pouch = 69 lbs. Str 14 to move without penalty once you put down your pack.

[DeadMech]

At a glance the 5e variant rules for encumbrance look less onerous than 3.5's default rules for encumbrance. The scale for strength score per pound is simple and linear. Low strength characters have higher carry limits though high strength characters do worse. And the only penalty for breaking into the first over encumbered status is a move speed penalty instead of max dex bonus, skill penalties and the same move speed bonus. And I didn't really mind them then. But I'm the kind of deviant that enjoys inventory tetris.

I will admit though that I don't have a complete breakdown of the differences these things have in play. I haven't gone looking at all the items and their weighs. Armor weight does differ between the editions though. Light armor lighter in 5th edition but heavy armor tending heavier. In 3.5 if you wore medium or heavy armor you by default took a penalty to move speed so there was no incentive not to go up to the same encumbrance penalty since they didn't stack. 3.5 generally has more wealth so things like hirelings, donkeys or carts are probably more feasible. In addition magic items that mitigated weight were more common in 3.5. Finally in 3.5 there were more expensive materials items could be built with to halve their weight.

I can see arguments that worn items like armor should probably be counted at some fraction of their weight since it's well dispersed throughout the entire body. But yeah if you are wearing plate armor or carrying allot of stuff you should have to to have some strength. Kinda like how in 3.5 if you wanted skills you needed int. Though they were arguably too stingy with that.

[Dyndrilliac]

I had not given much thought to the "I drop my backpack" scenario, but made the following ruling:

- It takes a bonus action to drop your backpack on the ground.
- If you have a shield equipped, it takes a regular action to drop the backpack (unequipping a shield is a bonus action)

Yea, because it sounds like a huge amount of forethought went into that house rule... Why not have them provoke an opportunity attack while you're at it? You do realize this is a game that is supposed to be fun, right? Not an opportunity for a DM to stroke his ego? Okay, just checking.

[JellyPooga]

And if you want to carry a few extra books, or a spare set of clothes, or pretty much ANYTHING extra...

Not to mention the Heavy Armored Fighter? Someone ran the numbers earlier. They need a Strength score that literally REQUIRES a magic item to carry it all unencumbered.

Are you telling me that you think that someone dressed for full-scale battle, packing the latest it metal-tech badassery, should win a foot race with someone carrying no more weight than the clothes on their back? Think about that one for a second.

And those few extra books? You'll only need average (10) strength for that (bearing in mind, that we're talking about someone that's packed for action; normal people don't wear armour or carry weapons).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are you telling me that you think that someone dressed for full-scale battle, packing the latest it metal-tech badassery, should win a foot race with someone carrying no more weight than the clothes on their back? Think about that one for a second.

And those few extra books? You'll only need average (10) strength for that (bearing in mind, that we're talking about someone that's packed for action; normal people don't wear armour or carry weapons).

No, that doesn't bug me. Your argument from incredulity fails (because it's a fallacy). And you need more STR if you want to actually carry things like...food, water, money...stuff like that. Or actually survive (can't carry a shield, so AC is crap).

Arguments from realism are stupid. Because variant encumbrance (or any weight-based encumbrance) is worse for realism than just abstracting it away. How things are carried matters. The weights matter (and are all wrong). Stowage matters. The idea that a gnome and a goliath have armor that weighs the same is way worse to me than just ignoring encumbrance entirely. Or that the amount of food they need is anywhere near similar.

Here's a (non-exhaustive) list of things that this variant does:

Makes class features into trap options (medium armor proficiency).
Drastically reduces the available archetype space--now everyone either needs high DEX or high STR, bar none. And "High" means 15+
Exponentially increases the book-keeping. Because now you have to recalculate whenever you do anything.
Removes all those items with clever uses (the entire equipment table) from the game, because they're not worth the weight.
Severely limits the campaigns possible--you now either have to run an urban campaign or you have to go places where a cart and horse can go and not get eaten. Or have to hire a bunch of npcs, dramatically increasing the chances of failure (because now all your gear is on easily killed NPCs), costing lots of money (which starting characters don't have), and strongly limiting how far you can go.
Adds newb traps--you have to know to dump most of your starting gear.
Strongly encourage players to dump INT or CHA, making it even more combat focused.


If I rebuilt Ragnar for a variant encumbrance regime (using standard array, because that's what we used):

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, +2 CON +1 WIS (hill dwarf)

12 STR
14 DEX
15 CON
16 WIS
10 INT
8 CHA

would work for light armor. But then you have this scholar who's not very smart. Nope. Can't put the 10 into STR, because then he's taking penalties with starting gear if carrying any food (the priest's pack only comes with 2 days rations and it was a travel campaign). That also means that my AC would be 13 (not enough STR to carry a shield and food). Which makes a cleric real sad, because his class features and spells require him to be at least in the middle line, not hiding 60+ feet away--everything he has is short range.

This makes playing him actively worse, since now he doesn't fit any kind of theme and has to be mechanics focused instead of character focused. And requires a spreadsheet and a whole bunch of extra actions to play. All for a screwy, unbalanced sense of "realism".

[Pelle]

[...]

This makes playing him actively worse, since now he doesn't fit any kind of theme and has to be mechanics focused instead of character focused. And requires a spreadsheet and a whole bunch of extra actions to play. All for a screwy, unbalanced sense of "realism".

Or you could just accept the -10 speed to tactical combat. It's not so big a deal, it was also the default in 3.5. Or he could just drop his backpack with the books whenever a fight breaks out and he don't want to be slowed down. I find the image of heroic warriors fighting with big heavy backpacks on a bit silly anyways, but it is convenient to abstract it away sometimes. It's not really arguments from sense of realism, but from a sense of aesthetics.

The encumbrance doesn't affect your overland travel pace anyways.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or you could just accept the -10 speed to tactical combat. It's not so big a deal, it was also the default in 3.5. Or he could just drop his backpack with the books whenever a fight breaks out and he don't want to be slowed down. I find the image of heroic warriors fighting with big heavy backpacks on a bit silly anyways, but it is convenient to abstract it away sometimes. It's not really arguments from sense of realism, but from a sense of aesthetics.

The encumbrance doesn't affect your overland travel pace anyways.

That bold part is a bigger verisimilitude breaker anyway.

And a dwarf cleric moving at 15 (compared to everyone else's 30) is rather pointless in combat. Even dropping the backpack wouldn't solve it if I wanted any kind of AC. The cleric class expects you to either wear heavy armor (and pump STR) or medium armor (focusing on WIS). If you have to have both high STR (to carry stuff) and high DEX (for AC), you're stuck. I posted the build. I can get to AC 13, 14 with studded. At best, because you can't afford the STR or DEX to do better. And clerics get their survivability from having high(er) armor. They don't get the raft of defensive traits and spells that others do, because they get medium armor by default. Taking that away means you're punishing people for having the temerity to not have your particular aesthetic vision.

The class features expect you to be, if not in the front, at least in the middle. Lots of range touch/30/60 things. And moving at half speed means that nothing works right. So movement penalties are right out if you want the class to function.

And I have yet to hear an actual reason for this other than a mistaken (in the sense that it causes more problems than it fixes) sense of realism.

And none of that goes to my point--the variant rules mean I have to

* Focus on the mechanical pieces of the character instead of following the characterization to the mechanics. That's against the whole premise of this edition.
* Use a spreadsheet or app to track all this stuff. That's a pain in the butt and slows play tremendously.
* Dramatically reduce the number of viable characters. That's a flaw.

And for no gain that I can see.

Edit: I'm not going to reply further to this thread. I can see that our points of view are too far apart on this matter to be reconciled.

[Pelle]

And I have yet to hear an actual reason for this other than a mistaken (in the sense that it causes more problems than it fixes) sense of realism.


The big ones are to add extra strategic questions for the players to decide on; if speed or AC is most important for the task at hand, and what to bring to/from adventures instead of 'everything' which is boring. I like making hard decisions as a player, prioritizing what is best in the current situation. If it is always best to use the package the class is designed/optimized for, the character feels more like a playing piece to me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The big ones are to add extra strategic questions for the players to decide on; if speed or AC is most important for the task at hand, and what to bring to/from adventures instead of 'everything' which is boring. I like making hard decisions as a player, prioritizing what is best in the current situation. If it is always best to use the package the class is designed/optimized for, the character feels more like a playing piece to me.

Breaking my previous statement, but...

I don't have a problem if a player wants to impose those constraints on their own character. I do have a problem with others trying to impose their tastes on me for reasons I not only don't share, but actively oppose.

[Pelle]

I don't have a problem if a player wants to impose those constraints on their own character. I do have a problem with others trying to impose their tastes on me for reasons I not only don't share, but actively oppose.

Like denying you from playing an extradimensional character in an independent setting? :smallwink:

Like everything this is a social group thing. If people agree on taste everything is fine, but if not you need to compromise. And if someone cares strongly for something, should they be able to veto or is it better that they leave the group? Depends on how much the other players care, what is fun for them. Not liking the variant encumbrance rules is fine, complaining about others liking them, not as much.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm also considering ruling that "worn" armor does not count toward your carry weight? That's a dwarf special feature; you giving it to everyone else?

I also allow proficiency in Athletics to up the limits to x6/x11 as a little bonus. Neat idea, I'll ask our table if they are interested in this mod.
And a dwarf cleric moving at 15 (compared to everyone else's 30) is rather pointless in combat. Uh, dwarf's don't run into this problem as I read the racial description.

Speed. Your base walking speed is 25 feet. Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor. Dwarf racial traits.

[Tanarii]

Like everything this is a social group thing. If people agree on taste everything is fine, but if not you need to compromise. And if someone cares strongly for something, should they be able to veto or is it better that they leave the group? Depends on how much the other players care, what is fun for them. Not liking the variant encumbrance rules is fine, complaining about others liking them, not as much.This is the forums. If someone is vehemently opposed to something, they're going to complain about the thing. Hopefully while explaining why.

Personally, I really like that the variant rule means some characters will have to choose between putting down a backpack or moving 10ft speed less per round in combat. I consider that a minor penalty that adds an interesting decision point for some characters. But even more importantly, I like that the effective "cap" on carrying capacity drops from Str x15 and you're useless to Str x10 and you're heavily penalized.

I get that some people don't care about encumberance at all, and want a high limit. And thanks to this thread, I'm now aware that at least one person doesn't want a rule that means they can't carry a backpack and still fight at full speed while using the best possible armor available to them, regardless of character Str.

[JNAProductions]

That's a dwarf special feature; you giving it to everyone else?
Neat idea, I'll ask our table if they are interested in this mod. Uh, dwarf's don't run into this problem as I read the racial description.
Dwarf racial traits.

Except that doesn't affect encumbrance, so they need a high strength anyway to move at full speed.

[DanyBallon]

Except that doesn't affect encumbrance, so they need a high strength anyway to move at full speed.

While not RAW, it’s quite easy to extend the Dwarf ability to heavy emcumbrace like it was in 3.X or for dwarves to remove the weight of the armor in the emcumbrance calculation as the intent is to allow dwarves without the proper strenght requirement to not have a soeed penalty when wearing a set of heavy armor.

[Snig]

Quick question guys that's come up in discussion. If it is assumed that characters at the start of combat dropped their encumbered bags? Then what actual effect will this variant rule have on the game? As far as I can tell there is no effect of being encumbered outside of combat?

As somebody in this thread previously stated I considered making dropping your encumbered bag a bonus action?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Tanarii]

Anyone have any thoughts on this?IMO it's only an object interaction to drop your pack.

That said, my players usually put down their equipment at a base camp, or take off backpacks and other gear in preparation for a fight they know is coming. (Edit: or make strong characters carry the gear; or hire porters.) They don't usually drop them when combat has begun. But that's more because they might want to flee with all their gear. In a combat-as-sport game where you can assume you'll win every fight and rarely or never need to retreat, you could just drop gear at the first sight of hostility. Of course, in such a game it's unlikely the variant encumbrance rules will be used in the first place.

[JellyPooga]

No, that doesn't bug me. Your argument from incredulity fails (because it's a fallacy).

What's fallacious about someone carrying stuff running slower than someone who isn't?


And you need more STR if you want to actually carry things like...food, water, money...stuff like that. Or actually survive (can't carry a shield, so AC is crap).

And yet, between the bracket of Str x5 and Str x10, there's still a lot of leeway. For Mr.Average that's up to 50lb. of extra gear you can carry with no additional penalty beyond the very minor one of taking a movement penalty. You seem to be under the impression that characters must be given the ability to use every class feature without penalty, otherwise they're being "nerfed". That simply isn't the case. Take the Cleric, for example; yes, they're proficient in Medium armour, some of them Heavy armour...where in the rules does it say that Clerics must wear medium or heavy armour to be competetive? I'll wait while you look it up. They have the option (as I've pointed out earlier) of starting with and wearing light armour. If you have a low Strength score and don't want to be taking movement penalties (or, indeed, a penalty to Stealth...), then taking the Leather Armour option is perfectly acceptable and by no means a "nerf". Sure, your AC is lower, but that's your choice. If you assume all characters are "supposed" to use the "best" equipment available to them at all times...well, you're going to have a very small pool of characters to choose from...and that just seems a tad dull to me.

[Beastrolami]

Quick question guys that's come up in discussion. If it is assumed that characters at the start of combat dropped their encumbered bags? Then what actual effect will this variant rule have on the game? As far as I can tell there is no effect of being encumbered outside of combat?


As was stated before, the main effect is that you can punish the players add a level of strategic depth by having enemies target the packs on the ground, or encourage the party to flee a tough combat, and decide what needs to be left behind. Also, on long journeys they may need to bring a caravan with them to carry enough goods, which leads to fun encounters on the road.

As a warning, I did have a campaign derailed/ended by hardcore encumberence. I warned players in advance and they were all fine with the hardcore rules. they had a party donkey which carried all their stuff behind them in a cart. They ended up wandering into uncharted/dangerous territory and I had them roll survival to find a safe place to sleep. They rolled poorly and slept on an ancient burial ground, and undead popped out of the ground and ambushed them at night. I rolled randomly to see which creature the undead would attack first, and got the donkey. So, they murdered the donkey and then got killed by the party members. When the party learned their donkey was dead and they would have to push the cart themselves, they gave up and decided hard-core encumberence wasn't worth it.

[JeffreyGator]

I generally tend toward using the variant encumbrance rules. It adds verisimilitude. And you still get to carry ~40 pounds at unencumbered with below average strength. For comparison a training ruck march will often involve 35 pound pack.

Note that most mounts will be medium encumbrance by riders this way.

Also, if you use these rules you drop the str requirement for heavy armor.

I also implicitly or explicitly follow the drop packs for combat handwave.

This makes bags of holding and mithril (or elven/air elemental) armor that much more appealing as well.

[Slipperychicken]

Everyone in the party knew this rule before creating characters.

Let him swap a higher stat into strength, or swap out some of his equipment for a pack animal, wheelbarrow/rickshaw, or trusty hireling.

But yeah, if you want realistic carry capacity, then you need to accept the kind of strategies people IRL use to deal with that.


Donkeys and wheelbarrows don't work down in dungeons. That's the big problem.

Oh ye of little faith. Keeping your pack animal alive is a big part of the fun! Worst case you park your mules/minions in a safe place (as safe as any dungeon-entrance or room can be) and make a few trips to get the treasure up.

[mephnick]

This is not true, especially for clerics.

Let's consider a standard non-heavy-armor/non-martial weapon cleric.

Starting equipment
Mace: 4 lbs
scale: 45 lbs
light crossbow + 20 bolts : 5 + 1.5 = 6.5 lbs
priests pack = 5 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 6 + 4 + 5 = 25 lbs
Shield (with holy symbol): 6 lbs

Total: 86.5
Required strength not to be encumbered: 18 (17.3, rounded up).

If we exchange the medium armor (accepting that you'll always have crap AC or requiring high DEX), that saves 35 pounds. You'd need an 11 not to be encumbered.

Why would you carry a mace if you're not a STR character? Why are you carrying a light crossbow if you are a STR character? Why isn't the majority of your pack on a wagon or a follower? Are you really bringing your bedroll, blanket, censer, alms box and incense into the dungeon with you? Why? Does your DM actually let you long rest in dungeons? If it's a mega-dungeon, why didn't you prepare for it beforehand? Do you actually think 11 STR as an adventurer expected to scale walls and wade through rivers is an unfair requirement?

I don't think you really understand the play style. Just because it's 2018 doesn't mean wagons and followers don't work in D&D. You just actually have to spend a second thinking about how your character is going to do things. It's definitely a different kind of game compared to the DM warping your from narrative encounter to narrative encounter until you all feel special, but it's still valid.

[SiCK_Boy]

Yea, because it sounds like a huge amount of forethought went into that house rule... Why not have them provoke an opportunity attack while you're at it? You do realize this is a game that is supposed to be fun, right? Not an opportunity for a DM to stroke his ego? Okay, just checking.

Do I know you or something? What's your issue with me?

Are you one of my players and I have not realized it? If so, then maybe we should have a discussion in person... otherwise, why do you care how things are handled at my table?


IMO it's only an object interaction to drop your pack.

You normally get 1 "free" object interaction as part of another action during a turn (for example, you can draw a sword from its scabbard for free as part of the attack action). After that, object interaction is a regular action ("use an object").

What action do you allow this "free interaction" of dropping your backpack to be a part of, exactly? For example, would you allow a player to drop his backpack during round 1, as well as draw his weapon, move, and attack an enemy?

Just trying to assess the differences between making it a "bonus action" vs making it "object interaction" (free or regular action).

[Tanarii]

You normally get 1 "free" object interaction as part of another action during a turn (for example, you can draw a sword from its scabbard for free as part of the attack action). After that, object interaction is a regular action ("use an object").

What action do you allow this "free interaction" of dropping your backpack to be a part of, exactly? For example, would you allow a player to drop his backpack during round 1, as well as draw his weapon, move, and attack an enemy?

Just trying to assess the differences between making it a "bonus action" vs making it "object interaction" (free or regular action).
No to drawing a weapon and shrugging off your pack. If it's an object interaction, follow the normal rules for it. But IMX most characters in a potentially dangerous situation will already have a weapon in hand.

Personally I don't require a free hand to shrugging off a pack. I also don't worry about the fact that a shield would get in the way. But I'm not using the variant encumberance rules to add verisimilitude, but rather to add an additional layer of logistical and tactical considerations.

Having it be a bonus action means it'll conflict with many classes that want to use their bonus action in the first round. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

[Eric Diaz]

Why would you carry a mace if you're not a STR character?

Why would you carry a mace instead of a quarterstaff AT ALL? :smallsmile:

[Lunali]

My only objection to the variant encumbrance rule is that it will most likely only apply to player characters. Even if the DM takes the time to apply it to NPCs, most of them aren't going to need to pack the camping gear that PCs need.

[Armored Walrus]

Why can't the warlock just hand all his rations and torches to the goliath? Even at 8 STR he won't be encumbered if all he's carrying is his weapon, armor and spell focus. Starting equipment almost always encumbers a dumped STR character because everyone starts with those packs that have a ton of food weight in them.

This is not a solo game. The party has to use everyone's strengths to compensate for others' weaknesses. In this case, literally.

[Vogie]

I was helping a friend do something similar for a campaign they were designing before I moved... however, it was a tropical campaign with nautical aspects, so the impact of heavy armor was more on the heat (in the sun) and weight (when getting in the water) vs carrying capacity (which was absolved by most of the PCs possessions were on the boat.

I was firmly in the camp to make it something that can be minimized as the game progresses, largely using ideas from Pathfinder's Inner Sea series:

an item that turns plate armor into folding plate, so it's quickly donned or doffed, and is essentially weightless when folded into the brooch
Ring of Arming, which can store arms & armor inside, then have them all assemble as an action
Waverider Armor being available, which doesn't count weight while in water, and can become magically buoyant

[strangebloke]

Question to everyone who uses this rule:

Do you also require ammo tracking?

I do encumbrance, but don't track arrows, since even with variant encumbrance rules, it's pretty much always trivial to have a ton of arrows lying around.

Except if the players are playing a hardcore survival type game... but dnd isn't really good for that.

[JellyPooga]

Question to everyone who uses this rule:

Do you also require ammo tracking?

I do. What's the point in having a granular inventory system, including rules for encumbrance, if you're not going to use it? In a more abstract, rules-lite game like FATE, I don't bother tracking ammo, but for a game like D&D which differentiates between the weight of arrows and bolts, yeah, I track ammo. I also care about the difference between a bow and a crossbow further than what damage die they use, I actually care about things like weapon range, terrain, rations and whether you've refilled your waterskin recently, among other things. I am not a proponent of the "just handwave it because it's too much effort to track all that stuff" style of GMing in a game that specifically calls out such things. If D&D is too much work with all these minutiae, I would tend to suggest playing a different system.

I mean, if you're not tracking ammo or encumbrance, are you tracking HP or how many spells you've used per day? Who has time for that level of fiddly detail? Just handwave it and assume you've got enough, right? D&D is a game about resources; some that can be replenished easily (HP, spells/day, etc.), others that can or may not (ammo, rations, time, lives of the innocent, etc.).

[BW022]

Question to everyone who uses this rule:

Do you also require ammo tracking?

I do encumbrance, but don't track arrows, since even with variant encumbrance rules, it's pretty much always trivial to have a ton of arrows lying around.

Except if the players are playing a hardcore survival type game... but dnd isn't really good for that.

We use the variant rule. However, it really only works well if you have some type of electronic character sheet and even then... it is an issue.

Ammo is really never an issue. When you build your character, you figure out her "normal" weight and as you use ammo -- it is less. You then assume when you are back in town, that you'll restock the ammo. Arrows are pretty light weight and even my ranger only goes throw maybe 10 a combat. 40 arrows, plus another 40 on his horse is typically enough. Slings, spears, javelins, etc. are more easily recovered or typically a secondary weapon anyway.

What really affects encumbrance is treasure. 200gp is 4lbs and silver and copper can quickly get to the points it isn't worth carrying. Potions can add up. Add enemy armor, silverware, paintings, etc. and it can quickly overwhelm the party without a bad of holding.

[Dyndrilliac]

Do I know you or something? What's your issue with me?

Are you one of my players and I have not realized it? If so, then maybe we should have a discussion in person... otherwise, why do you care how things are handled at my table?

No. We don't know each other and I'm not one of your players. I don't have any personal grudge against you. I just call things like I see them, and I don't shy away from criticizing bad ideas worthy of criticism. It's silly enough that you are intentionally punishing players by requiring a bonus action to drop something they're carrying (which, according to the developers, is not intended to require any kind of action (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/)). Forcing sword-and-board martials to waste their entire first turn in combat to stow their shield, drop their non-combat adventuring gear, and then letting them spend the rest of the first round deprived of their shield bonus to AC is just asinine. The fact that I'm apparently the only person here who thinks that is preposterous is equally distressing. It's like you guys don't want players to show up to your games. I find it hard to believe anyone would be willing to put up with that adversarial DM vs PC nonsense.

I for one have better things to do than sit there for four un-fun hours while the DM swings his metaphorical genitalia around everywhere like a gorilla during mating season.

[JackPhoenix]

No. We don't know each other and I'm not one of your players. I don't have any personal grudge against you. I just call things like I see them, and I don't shy away from criticizing bad ideas worthy of criticism. It's silly enough that you are intentionally punishing players by requiring a bonus action to drop something they're carrying (which, according to the developers, is not intended to require any kind of action (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/)). Forcing sword-and-board martials to waste their entire first turn in combat to stow their shield, drop their non-combat adventuring gear, and then letting them spend the rest of the first round deprived of their shield bonus to AC is just asinine. The fact that I'm apparently the only person here who thinks that is preposterous is equally distressing. It's like you guys don't want players to show up to your games. I find it hard to believe anyone would be willing to put up with that adversarial DM vs PC nonsense.

I for one have better things to do than sit there for four un-fun hours while the DM swings his metaphorical genitalia around everywhere like a gorilla during mating season.

There's a difference between dropping something you hold in your hand, and a backpack you wear (presumably) securely strapped on your back. Go on, try it out, if you find that idea preposterous.

And if the sword-and-board martials walks into combat unprepared, with their armanents stowed instead of at the ready, and a heavy pack... well, they deserve what's coming to them. And I speak as someone who played that martial. If my S&B fighter with Protection FS walked into a combat situation with his shield still slung over his shoulder, it's only my damn fault. Ambushes are different, but a) that's the whole point and b) how often do you get ambushed without expecting any enemy presence?

[Tanarii]

Question to everyone who uses this rule:

Do you also require ammo tracking?Yes, of course. Archers tend to go through ammo at an amazing rate. Easily 3 quivers per adventuring day in Tier 2.


D&D is a game about resources;Last time I made that claim at last test other posters flipped out. :smallamused:

Apparently for some people it's about something other than resource management. /smh How dare they!

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm going to be honest - nothing I've read thus far makes me want to play the variant encumbrance rules.

Frankly, this is starting to come across as a load of DMs celebrating their players being screwed over by basic gear. :smallconfused:

From a player perspective it seems like the DM is basically saying 'only strength-based builds are allowed'. And even if you do manage to start within the limit, you then have the joy of tracking the precise weight of every single item you pick up and deducting the weight of every arrow you fire. Wow, what fun. I've always said that the best way to improve D&D would be to make it more like an accountancy course.

It doesn't even seem any better as a DM. Possibly worse, as I'll be expected to keep track of everyone else's weight and make sure no one is over their limit.

Each to their own but to me it just comes across as a lot of dreary bookkeeping.

[Armored Walrus]

Question to everyone who uses this rule:

Do you also require ammo tracking?

I do encumbrance, but don't track arrows, since even with variant encumbrance rules, it's pretty much always trivial to have a ton of arrows lying around.

Except if the players are playing a hardcore survival type game... but dnd isn't really good for that.

I only use variant encumbrance in one game - and yeah we track ammo there. I also track ammo in the game where i don't use variant encumbrance, but that's more because that game is on roll20 and the API automatically deducts arrows as the PC attack.

Back in the 90s in our home games, when we were all in high school, we ignored encumbrance, ammo, spell components, rations, light/darkness rules, etc. But I have a feeling I wouldn't enjoy those games today (there was a lot of "open the Monstrous Compendium to a random page; fight that").

[guachi]

I use variant encumbrance in my game. I know I looked up weights of armor as the weights in the book are a touch high for most metal armors. I also decided that worn armor counts as 1/2 its weight for purposes of encumbrance.

The armor I wore when I deployed to Iraq was Interceptor Body Armor with SAPI plates and it weighs 16.4 pounds. It didn't like I was wearing anything at all.

D&D is a resource game and I'd like to provide some other kind of challenges or at least things to think about. The three campaigns I've used variant encumbrance the players, not surprisingly, found ways to obviate the penalties. Mostly it involved taking horses or pack animals and a cart or eventually a nice wagon. At one point the players actually had four wagons in one campaign.

When going into potential combat situations the PCs take only what's necessary.

[DanyBallon]

I'm going to be honest - nothing I've read thus far makes me want to play the variant encumbrance rules.

Frankly, this is starting to come across as a load of DMs celebrating their players being screwed over by basic gear. :smallconfused:

From a player perspective it seems like the DM is basically saying 'only strength-based builds are allowed'. And even if you do manage to start within the limit, you then have the joy of tracking the precise weight of every single item you pick up and deducting the weight of every arrow you fire. Wow, what fun. I've always said that the best way to improve D&D would be to make it more like an accountancy course.

It doesn't even seem any better as a DM. Possibly worse, as I'll be expected to keep track of everyone else's weight and make sure no one is over their limit.

Each to their own but to me it just comes across as a lot of dreary bookkeeping.

I see more the variant emcumbrance rule as a ressource management, the same as spell slots, HP, short/long rest ability.

When using the variant rules, characters won’t be able to carry everything they want. They’ll need to decide what the carry on themselves, what it packed on a mule/cart/henchman/tenser floating disk, or what is left at the home base. Also, having the charecter, spending it gives a reason for characters to spend money on things other than better weapon and better armor. Buying a cart or hiring henchmen, needs the characters to consider how they will stay safe while adventuring.

All these aspect may be fun for players and DM that lime a certain level of complexity and/or versimilitude in their game, while others will find these boring and tedious and will prefer the standard encumbrance rules.

As far as my group and I are concerned, we like the variant encumbrance rules and we have fun trying to find a way to carry the 5000 gp we just receive as a reward, or making cart trip to our base from time to time to stock the weapons and armors we collect along the way. We have fun believing our world is somehow realistic even if magic exist (we are still low level enough so magic isn’t yet breaking versimilitude too much)

[strangebloke]

I do. What's the point in having a granular inventory system, including rules for encumbrance, if you're not going to use it?
I'm sympathetic to that argument, but...

Ammo is really never an issue. When you build your character, you figure out her "normal" weight and as you use ammo -- it is less.
This.

I mean, 5 stocked quivers is 10 pounds, right? And since you're an archer, you almost certainly have light armor, and unless you're using a heavy crossbow, you have a weapon that only weighs 2-3 pounds.

So, like, total, your basic gear is 25 out of 40 pounds that you can carry, and at that point, you're most likely never going to run out of arrows barring very unusual circumstances, or things that would cause you to run out anyway. (You lost your pack in the river, for example.)

Like, you're firing 3 arrows per turn? 5 turns per combat? 6 combats per day at most? That's 60 arrows, many of which you'll recover. So you're using (probably) less than half of your total in what anyone would agree is an utterly brutal adventuring day.

I guess in the context of a long series of days in the wilderness, it could come up. But in such an instance you definitely have a mule.


Yes, of course. Archers tend to go through ammo at an amazing rate. Easily 3 quivers per adventuring day in Tier 2.

Last time I made that claim at last test other posters flipped out. :smallamused:

Apparently for some people it's about something other than resource management. /smh How dare they!

I mean, complexity needs to be in service of something. that's all I'm saying. If for some reason it isn't possible to refresh your supply semi-frequently, I can see tracking ammo.

I'm going to be honest - nothing I've read thus far makes me want to play the variant encumbrance rules.

Frankly, this is starting to come across as a load of DMs celebrating their players being screwed over by basic gear. :smallconfused:

From a player perspective it seems like the DM is basically saying 'only strength-based builds are allowed'. And even if you do manage to start within the limit, you then have the joy of tracking the precise weight of every single item you pick up and deducting the weight of every arrow you fire. Wow, what fun. I've always said that the best way to improve D&D would be to make it more like an accountancy course.

While variant encumbrance makes strength builds stronger, you'll note how many people believe that DEX builds are better with the default rules, so maybe a buff is in-line.

Anyways, it's not about screwing players over, it's about playing in a specific format.

Variant encumbrance means not being able to carry infinite resources into a dungeon. You can't live out of your backpack for a month. So vEncumbrance is really a way of introducing a new path of attrition. Attrition isn't something strictly for dickish DMs, it's a tool every DM uses to boost the tension in an encounter. Some DMs only use HP and spells, but resources like food can be fun as well.

Because O crap, we got stranded and now we're low on food and we're operating at one level of exhaustion constantly and we really need to make it through to that next town, and....

[Armored Walrus]

I think it's rather missing the point to dismiss DM's who like to use variant encumbrance, ammo tracking, or other optional, player-challenging rules as being egomaniacs or anti-player. The DM's whole job is to challenge the players. Do these same posters think that a DM using a monster is a DM screw job? After all, what's interesting about rolling attack dice and playing the fantasy accounting mini-game of deducting hit points after every roll?

It's possible to not find something fun that others do find fun without dismissing their opinion entirely.

If you want to flip through Lord of the Rings and only read the fight with the balrog, the fight at Orthanc, the battle of Helm's Deep, the fight at Minas Tirith, etc. That's fine. But some people like to roll to see if you get lost in the Old Forest, some people like to play through nearly freezing to death at the top of Redhorn, and only the strength of the burly humans allowed them to turn back and live, some people like Legolas to turn to Gimli and say "It's down to knife work up here, I'm nearly out of arrows." Some folks like the drama of Sam valiantly struggling under the weight of both his and Frodo's pack, trying to keep up both of their spirits.

If you're not interested in those aspects, there's nothing wrong with that, but don't imply that folks that are are somehow **** DMs.

Edit: Let's not forget that these DMs all have players who, presumably, also like this stuff, or they wouldn't still be at that DM's table...

[MrStabby]

I think variant encumberance is not by itself bad, but the table has to want to play that kind of game. It has to be what the table enjoys.

The only feedback the OP seems to have had has been in the "Please don't, it isn't fun for me" column.

I suspect the answer is to save the concept for another table where there is consensus that that is the type of game the table wants to play.

[Armored Walrus]

I think variant encumberance is not by itself bad, but the table has to want to play that kind of game. It has to be what the table enjoys.

The only feedback the OP seems to have had has been in the "Please don't, it isn't fun for me" column.

I suspect the answer is to save the concept for another table where there is consensus that that is the type of game the table wants to play.

I think the OP's trouble is that he supposedly had player buy-in to this play style, but then one player found out what it actually entails, and balked at it. It means he needs to talk with that player, but it's not an indictment of the rule itself. OP's best solution may very well be to just not use variant encumbrance, or to kick his brother, or something in between, only they can find the solution that will work for them.

[Tanarii]

I mean, complexity needs to be in service of something. that's all I'm saying. If for some reason it isn't possible to refresh your supply semi-frequently, I can see tracking ammo.Agreed. I guess I should have answered that I track ammo, but generally don't worry about it for a typical 1 adventuring day then back to town session. Players can operate on a reasonable level of honor system in that case, if they have enough supplied. Same with rations. For that matter, same with encumbrance. Tally up your normal load, determine your spare carrying capacity, then you only have to worry about it when you want to pick up something significant. A big chunk of heavy treasure. Fireman's carry an ally. Grapple and move an enemy. That kind of thing.

[Vykryl]

I haven't asked my DM if we use this rule in her game. If you look at my inventory list you will see the cost and weight of each item and the combined weight in a pack, with a break down at the top of my inventory with the different levels of encumbrance for that character. I track the cost for replacement reference. Maybe I'm stuck in 2nd edition or its habit from working in the woods and carrying everything with me I may need.

Try going backpacking sometime, or just an all day hike, and it'll give you an idea on what your character is dealing with. I used to do habitat restoration work and had to pack my gear to remote work sites. First day packs would be around 80lbs to get setup, much of that stashed until job was completed. Normal daily packs would be 40-60 lbs depending on what was needed. Packing out could be up to 300lbs, clearing unneeded gear while crewmates finished up. You learn real quick 40-60 lbs is workable all day, any more and fatigue hits hard.

I'm with the crowd that says go play Final Fantasy on your preferred game box if you don't want a game that tracks resources. Why play a game that requires you to track anything when a computer can track everything for you?

[Dr. Cliché]

While variant encumbrance makes strength builds stronger, you'll note how many people believe that DEX builds are better with the default rules, so maybe a buff is in-line.

But that's the thing - you're not buffing strength builds, you're just punishing low-strength builds.

[MrStabby]

I think the OP's trouble is that he supposedly had player buy-in to this play style, but then one player found out what it actually entails, and balked at it. It means he needs to talk with that player, but it's not an indictment of the rule itself. OP's best solution may very well be to just not use variant encumbrance, or to kick his brother, or something in between, only they can find the solution that will work for them.

What we've got here, is failure to communicate.

Worth running what it entails past everyone. If one person didn't get it others may not. Ask "Would you rather use this rule or not?" As a less pushy version than "We are using this rule". Have an open chat amongst the group of what they would like to see more of in the games: if they complain about realism/lack of book keeping then this may be a solution. It may be that they have other bigger issues with the game.

If realism is an issue, or any other problem is that this might fix then don't be wedded to it as a solution. Explore with the group if there are other less controversial solutions to that problem.

As a general guideline if a DM respects their players (and vice versa) then pretty much all problems can be solved.

[guachi]

I also had the players track arrows/bolts. It turns out it never was a problem. It also took zero extra table time. The player accounted for the arrows during the next player's turn. What I didn't do is have the player roll for arrow recovery. I simply gave the PC twice as many arrows.

Tracking weight or arrows or food or water or light doesn't matter too often. But when it does it can make an encounter or adventure more memorable. It can make PCs feel more awesome.

For example, in one campaign I was running I had a young (13 years old) new player to D&D playing a Paladin. From 3rd (where she started) to 6th level I don't think she had ever used a spell slot for something other than smiting. But when the party was traveling by boat through brackish swamp water by boat her Purify Food and Water came in very handy on the barrels (actually firkins which are smaller and easier to handle) the PCs used to carry their water.

When the party left the boats I wondered how they'd take all of their stuff with them, especially their firkins of water, as they were travelling across a hot desert and absolutely needed sufficient water to not have negative effects from heat. Then the Paladin piped up that she had Find Steed. I had forgotten about the spell and she was pleased she was able to trivialize and help the party.

5e has stripped so many challenges away that the only real challenge is a TPK. I've told all my players that I want challenges short of a TPK for the party to overcome. Sure, a 2nd level spell trivialized the need for a beast of burden but that's the kind of thing that only a Paladin or a Bard using Magical Secrets can do. I'm ok with that.

Coming back to encumbrance. There are several ways to overcome it and they can make PCs feel useful. Have a Wizard? Cast Floating Disc and be happy you have the master of arcane versatility. Have an unarmored Barbarian with high Strength? Have him carry the party's stuff.

[Daphne]

While variant encumbrance makes strength builds stronger.

No it doesn't, it makes STR builds worse, you either choose between having less carry weight than DEX builds, or have the same (or even lower) AC than DEX if you don't want the penalty to your movement speed (which is a serious nerf imo). Heavy armor is too heavy.

[Dyndrilliac]

I think it's rather missing the point to dismiss DM's who like to use variant encumbrance, ammo tracking, or other optional, player-challenging rules as being egomaniacs or anti-player. The DM's whole job is to challenge the players. Do these same posters think that a DM using a monster is a DM screw job? After all, what's interesting about rolling attack dice and playing the fantasy accounting mini-game of deducting hit points after every roll?

For the record, I don't hate the variant encumbrance rules. I don't think they are necessary, but if I had a group that wanted to use them, I'd be okay with that. I also don't have a problem with the DM providing the players with genuine challenges. What I do take issue with is DMs supplementing those already much harsher rules with even harsher house-rules as was the case with SiCK_Boy.

There is a massive difference between throwing a monster at the players that you pull directly from the Monster Manual and rewriting the fundamental rules of the game (beyond officially sanctioned variant rules, like the variant encumbrance) specifically to screw the players. It's one thing to use the existing rules to provide the maximum challenge possible, it's another thing completely to write entirely new rules on the spot sight-unseen with zero play-testing specifically to further disadvantage the players. You can make all the fancy arguments you want, that's still a **** move and I personally wouldn't stand for it. If you want to impose house-rules penalizing players dropping their packs (which they wouldn't even have to do were you not using the variant rules), that's the kind of thing that needs to be established during session zero. If you're gonna use house-rules, they need to be made available to the players prior to the beginning of play. Otherwise you're just moving the goal posts to satisfy your own personal God complex.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's one thing to use the existing rules to provide the maximum challenge possible, it's another thing entirely to write entirely new rules on the spot sight-unseen with zero play-testing specifically to further disadvantage the players. You can make all the fancy arguments you want, that's still a **** move and I personally wouldn't stand for it. If you want to impose house-rules penalizing players dropping their packs (which they wouldn't even have to do were you not using the variant rules), that's the kind of thing that needs to be established during session zero. If you're gonna use house-rules, they need to be made available to the players prior to the beginning of play. Otherwise you're just moving the goal posts to satisfy your own personal God complex. Amen. Preach it, Deacon Dyndrilliac. :smallcool:
Pulling a fast one like that is a symptom of DM versus Players attitudes at the table that, IME, degrade fun.

[Tanarii]

But, that's the thing - you're not punishing low strength builds, you're making the choice between dex and str more of a balanced proposition.

Low dex = slow to act, so easier to hit; and less effective with ranged weapons
Low str = cannot handle heavy armor, so easier to hit; and less effective at basic survival tasks

The only reason Dex builds became 'superior' is the default encumbrance rule is so lax and munchkins only look at 'clean room' combat while neglecting the 'exploration' and environmental parts of the game.
HI point was that Studded Leather weighs 13 lbs, and Heavy Armor weighs 55 lbs (Chainmail) to 65 lbs (Full Plate). If you are focusing on the Str x5 part of the variant rule as the 'baseline', then a Heavy Armor wearer needs 9 pts more Str at level 1, and 11 pts more by around level 6-7. Given that the difference between a Dex Warrior specifically (IMX usually Str 10 as opposed to casters who dump Str) and a Str Warrior is typically 5-6 pts.

Of course, when it comes to actual decent carrying capacity, which is what was mentioned, you're realistically operating off Str x10 for the variant rule. So Str warrior builds vs Dex warrior builds are looking at a 6-7 pt difference, not a 9-11 pt difference, to account for armor

[SiCK_Boy]

For the record, I don't hate the variant encumbrance rules. I don't think they are necessary, but if I had a group that wanted to use them, I'd be okay with that. I also don't have a problem with the DM providing the players with genuine challenges. What I do take issue with is DMs supplementing those already much harsher rules with even harsher house-rules as was the case with SiCK_Boy.

There is a massive difference between throwing a monster at the players that you pull directly from the Monster Manual and rewriting the fundamental rules of the game (beyond officially sanctioned variant rules, like the variant encumbrance) specifically to screw the players. It's one thing to use the existing rules to provide the maximum challenge possible, it's another thing completely to write entirely new rules on the spot sight-unseen with zero play-testing specifically to further disadvantage the players. You can make all the fancy arguments you want, that's still a **** move and I personally wouldn't stand for it. If you want to impose house-rules penalizing players dropping their packs (which they wouldn't even have to do were you not using the variant rules), that's the kind of thing that needs to be established during session zero. If you're gonna use house-rules, they need to be made available to the players prior to the beginning of play. Otherwise you're just moving the goal posts to satisfy your own personal God complex.

I keep feeling like you are impugning some sort of nefarious motives to me and I can't help but feel attacked by the way you frame the conversation.

For the record, I made no change to any existing rule.

Nowhere in the rules does it stipulate what kind of action is required to "drop" a backpack. The sage advice you linked to earlier has to do with dropping a weapon held in your hand, not to removing some piece of equipment strapped to your character's body. It is completely irrelevant.

"Dropping" may be misleading when talking about a backpack. Really, the action is "removing a strapped" item from your torso and putting it on the ground (or throwing it on the ground in a hurry).

There is no description of the backpack, so we don't know how complicated the straps are, or if they come with any "fast release" mechanism. I assumed such a system did not exist on the default backpack. I also assumed the backpack was solidly strapped to one's body, such that it holds in place while you are traveling (or fighting), without requiring the use of your hand to support it or carry it.

In the absence of any specific instructions on handling backpacks and their use, I made a ruling. I took inspiration mostly from the section on donning and doffing armor, and I think my ruling is not as harsh as it could have been.

The other rule that could apply is the "use an object" action. "You normally interact with an object while doing something else", says the rule. What would be the "something else" in the case of dropping your backpack? I'm really unsure. To me, it is clearly more complex than just drawing a weapon as part of the attack action. So I went with a compromise: you can't just "drop your backpack" as part of something else for free, but rather than requiring a full action, you can do it as a "bonus action" if you don't have any object significantly hindering your arms/hands (I assume you switch your weapon from hand to hand, but the shield being also strapped to your arm creates an additional hindrance). If you are hindered in such a way, then it becomes a full action to drop your backpack (use an object).

Feel free to be more lenient; what really matters is that this is a decision that should be made in a collaborative way between DM and players. For example, if my player wanted to purchase or invent some sort of "fast release" system for his backpack, I could certainly consider and accept it (would probably double the cost of the backpack). It could be one of those new gnomish inventions gaining traction in the adventurer market. But it was not raised as an issue by my players, and they certainly did not feel or express any frustration at the rule we all agreed upon.

[Dyndrilliac]

INowhere in the rules does it stipulate what kind of action is required to "drop" a backpack. The sage advice you linked to earlier has to do with dropping a weapon held in your hand, not to removing some piece of equipment strapped to your character's body.

You clearly don't understand the design philosophy behind 5th edition D&D. There is no legitimate reason to make a distinction between dropping one type of item you are carrying and any other type of item you are carrying. Dropping an item is free. Period. It takes no appreciable effort. Even in real life, any backpack I've ever worn, can be removed in less than 5 seconds - but D&D is not real life! Creating a hard rule where there previously was none is a house-rule by definition. A house-rule that penalizes the players, that you created out of thin air, is blatantly unfair. Now, your players might either be new enough to the game or they may have had a string of terrible DMs in the past, and that has led them to either not realize or not care that you are being blatantly unfair. Regardless, that doesn't make it okay to be unfair, and I wanted to make it abundantly clear to the OP (who is trying to figure out the best way to handle situations exactly like this) that your way will lead to more player frustration as opposed to less. Remember the OP? That was their problem, that they had a player who was already feeling unnecessarily burdened by the variant encumbrance rule. Your solution is to burden that player even further!

EDIT: Also, for the record, the Player's Handbook clearly states that you can "interact with one object or feature of the environment for free" per turn during your move or attack (page 190). This is intended to be for drawing a weapon, but if the PCs already have weapons drawn, nothing stops them from using that free interaction to drop their pack as part of their move or attack even if you insist that Crawford's ruling doesn't apply.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Let's consider that "just drop your pack" and "have someone stronger carry it" idea.

Take a level 5 Sword and board person, with what seems to be a normal kit. We'll even say he's got 20 STR.

That gives him a max load (before penalties) of 100 lbs.

Plate armor = 65 pounds. 35 left.
Longsword = 3 pounds. 32 left.
A shield = 6 pounds. 26 left.
--this is the bare minimum needed to do his job in combat.
He needs a ranged attack, so lets say a few javelins. For ease, let's say 3. That's 6 pounds (2 each). 20 left.

So carrying the bare minimum to do his job, he's got 20 pounds of carrying capacity left. A waterskin costs another 5 pounds--can't leave that on the cart. 15 left. He's wearing clothes under his armor, right? That's another 3 pounds. 12 left. A day's rations is 2 pounds (can't leave that behind). 10 pounds left.

So just carrying the bare minimum to get through the day, he's got 10 pounds of spare capacity before he's taking penalties. And a backpack costs 5 of that. With his remaining 5 pounds, he can carry...a book. One book. That's it. Or 250 coins. Total. Of all denominations. If he doesn't have a separate sack for them--that's 0.5 pounds. And each potion is 0.5 pounds.

So basically, if you're a heavy armor type, you're taking penalties no matter what. Even without a big pack. With just a waterskin and a sack with some food in it. And no treasure.

And yes, losing 1/3 of your movement is a serious penalty. That's like having a constant-effect ray of frost on you. If it counts as an effective rider for a spell, it's probably intended to be a significant penalty. 10' of movement is 1/3 of a feat (mobile), or a full class feature (Fast Movement). At 20 move, you can be endlessly kited by something with 40, if you do nothing but chase (no attacks). And lots of things have 40' movement. Even 30' move speed is enough to deny most opportunities.

Compare that to an archer fighter (12 STR, 20 DEX):

The archer's total combat load is 13 (armor) + 2 (longbow) + 3 (60 arrows) + 3 (quivers) + 4 (2x shortsword) + 5 (waterskin) + 3 (clothes) + 2 (food) = 35 pounds. He's got 25 left. 15 left if his STR is only 10. So yes, the low STR person can carry more loot than the high STR person. And is less affected by penalties if he takes them, since ranged combat has more room to maneuver and doesn't have to be in melee. Huh?

So variant encumbrance, by the books:

* doesn't work (the packs have higher weights than the backpack can carry)
* disproportionately favors light armor over heavy armor, and makes medium armor always a trap.
* Favors DEX over STR (just contrary to what its intent is)
* Favors ranged over melee, and spell-casters over both.

[Tanarii]

The only thing you dont need in your pack is armor, clothes and weapons. Maybe a belt pouch with your thieves tools.

Thats traditional for the game of D&D btw. Everything else in in your pack which you put down right before a potential combat situation so you can move freely. 5e makes it easy to do when combat starts if your DM allows it as an object interaction.

2 days Rations, waterskin, rope? All part of the pack.

A Cart? Thats where you have an extra weeks rations and water per party member. Bedrolls. Tents. Maybe a sledgehammer just in case. A climbing kit. Hunting traps. Stuff you can bust out when the particular adventuring site calls for it.

Also, porters are a thing. Problem is they tend to run. 😂

[JellyPooga]

Let's consider that "just drop your pack" and "have someone stronger carry it" idea.

Take a level 5 Sword and board person, with what seems to be a normal kit. We'll even say he's got 20 STR.

That gives him a max load (before penalties) of 100 lbs.

Plate armor = 65 pounds. 35 left.
Longsword = 3 pounds. 32 left.
A shield = 6 pounds. 26 left.
--this is the bare minimum needed to do his job in combat.
He needs a ranged attack, so lets say a few javelins. For ease, let's say 3. That's 6 pounds (2 each). 20 left.

So carrying the bare minimum to do his job, he's got 20 pounds of carrying capacity left. A waterskin costs another 5 pounds--can't leave that on the cart. 15 left. He's wearing clothes under his armor, right? That's another 3 pounds. 12 left. A day's rations is 2 pounds (can't leave that behind). 10 pounds left.

So just carrying the bare minimum to get through the day, he's got 10 pounds of spare capacity before he's taking penalties. And a backpack costs 5 of that. With his remaining 5 pounds, he can carry...a book. One book. That's it. Or 250 coins. Total. Of all denominations. If he doesn't have a separate sack for them--that's 0.5 pounds. And each potion is 0.5 pounds.

So basically, if you're a heavy armor type, you're taking penalties no matter what. Even without a big pack. With just a waterskin and a sack with some food in it. And no treasure.

And yes, losing 1/3 of your movement is a serious penalty. That's like having a constant-effect ray of frost on you. If it counts as an effective rider for a spell, it's probably intended to be a significant penalty. 10' of movement is 1/3 of a feat (mobile), or a full class feature (Fast Movement). At 20 move, you can be endlessly kited by something with 40, if you do nothing but chase (no attacks). And lots of things have 40' movement. Even 30' move speed is enough to deny most opportunities.

Compare that to an archer fighter (12 STR, 20 DEX):

The archer's total combat load is 13 (armor) + 2 (longbow) + 3 (60 arrows) + 3 (quivers) + 4 (2x shortsword) + 5 (waterskin) + 3 (clothes) + 2 (food) = 35 pounds. He's got 25 left. 15 left if his STR is only 10. So yes, the low STR person can carry more loot than the high STR person. And is less affected by penalties if he takes them, since ranged combat has more room to maneuver and doesn't have to be in melee. Huh?

So variant encumbrance, by the books:

* doesn't work (the packs have higher weights than the backpack can carry)
* disproportionately favors light armor over heavy armor, and makes medium armor always a trap.
* Favors DEX over STR (just contrary to what its intent is)
* Favors ranged over melee, and spell-casters over both.

12 Str guy might havr 25lb of wiggle room unencumbered, but he also only has 85lb of wiggle room before he's cripplingly overencumbered (10 Str guy only has 65lb), compared to the 105lb of the 20 Str guy. A 10ft speed penalty is problematic, sure, but it's nothing compared to taking disadvantage on practically everything and you seem to be ignoring the fact that your Str guy example has AC: 20 compared to Dex guys 17 and further that Str guy can have that AC 20 without ASI investment (assuming point buy stats).

If the choice is between;

- No-one, functionally, takes penalties for encumbrance.
And
- Encumbrance gives penalties, favouring those with higher Strength and lighter, typically worse, equipment.

I'm going to take the latter option. Nothing about high Strength requires that you take the heaviest, best armour that you possibly can. An unarmoured Barbarian will have immense Str and virtually no encumbrance. Many Monks enjoy high Str from athletic pursuits, but almost never use armour. Strength Rogues are a thing, despite only being proficient in Light Armour. Rangers often take high Strength, but are rarely seen in Plate Armour...do you want the list to go on? It's a lot longer.

Your argument that basically one stereotype (the plate armoured warrior) of two or three classes (Fighter, Paladin, maybe Cleric) might take a penalty from using the best gear available to him doesn't have much traction with me. I exaggerate, but the point stands that the game does not and should not assume that a character must take the best numerical/mechanical options available to it. Thinking otherwise is little more than throwing an entitled tantrum over not being allowed to play with your favourite toys.

This is not a wargame, it's a roleplaying game. So Roleplay.
- Bookish Clerics don't normally wear armour.
- Mercenary Fighters sometimes wear a simple chain shirt because half-plate is a pain in the butt to put on in the morning.
- A travelling Paladin might wear leather instead of plate because he's on foot, it's more comfy and less conspicuous.

[mephnick]

This is not a wargame, it's a roleplaying game. So Roleplay.
- Bookish Clerics don't normally wear armour.
- Mercenary Fighters sometimes wear a simple chain shirt because half-plate is a pain in the butt to put on in the morning.
- A travelling Paladin might wear leather instead of plate because he's on foot, it's more comfy and less conspicuous.

- People who spend their lives exploring wilderness and fighting monsters generally don't have less strength than a shopkeep. Put some of your precious points into STR regardless of who you are instead of maxing out your INT/WIS/CHA at level 4. If you dump STR to 8, you're a weak loser and you get to suffer the consequences of your lifestyle.

[mcgheejt]

For anyone who is still monitoring this thread, I would like to say thanks to all for the vigorus debate. There were great points made by many people. I am just starting to develop a home brew campaign as a 5e DM and learning the new system. After having played 1st, 2nd and 3.5 editions, it is quite the challenge. I have so many rules scrambled in my aging brain that I can't keep them straight. I determined right away that the standard 15x1 STR rule was too easy and was basically ignoring encumbrance. I just can't allow such an important part of the game to be ignored. I hadn't come across or missed the variant rule. I must say, that I definately plan on introducing the variant rule in my campaign. I do get tired, even as a player, of having the "tank" in the front having all the fun while the "squishy" players just have to stand by with missile weapons hoping the big bad monster doesnt get passed their tower shield. It must be just as frustrating for a DM to have to create encounters where he/she has to try to balance a DR in which the monsters need to be able to have a chance of hitting an 23 AC tank while also having to be careful not to TPW the "weaker" AC players. I am looking forward to working with my players within this system to see how it goes.

Bring on the hirelings and mules!!

[Ventruenox]

Mödley Crüe: Gone, gone, oh undead thread. Your discussion has been had, no more to be said.