stuff is heavy.. could it be too heavy? am I seeing things wrong?

[dehro]

My 2nd level character has 19 strength... meaning he can carry up to 47,5 Kg of stuff before he becomes encumbered...
Since we're really sticking to the book, he has the default equipment as detailed for his background and class, respectively, Accolyte and Paladin.
The weight of his basic gear when he's fresh out of the gate is 63 Kg... putting him in the condition of having to drop his backpack and half his gear if he wants to be effective in combat.
what the what??
is that normal? given that going above 20 is virtually impossible (or so I understand) and that most classes that don't rely on strength won't have half as much carrying capacity.. does that mean that everybody is constantly walking around naked or encumbered, or that at every encounter piles of stuff are thrown to the ground in the first round?

[nickl_2000]

Our table doesn't use the default encumbrance rules, but we do often litter the battlefield with junk as we are fighting. Also, a bag of holding or two are the first items we seek out.


In your case, I would look into getting yourself a draft horse or a donkey. They are cheap.

[Boverk]

Carrying capacity is strength score * 15 lbs

So 19 strength would let you carry 285 lbs which is about 129 kgs

[Eric Diaz]

There is a similar thread on the first page...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559949-Variant-encumbrance-rules-Thoughts

Here is what I've said:

The "standard" rules are ridiculously lenient (15lb x STR). Might as well just ignore encumbrance.

The "variant" rules are ridiculously harsh (5lb x STR)... 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

[dehro]

Carrying capacity is strength score * 15 lbs

So 19 strength would let you carry 285 lbs which is about 129 kgs

that's not taking into account medium/heavy encumberance..that's just the upper limit of carrying capacity, which in the Italian handbook is STR*7,5 Kg..

in the italian translation the threshold for walking around unencumbered is STR *2.5 Kg...
somebody dropped the ball..quite heavily.

[JeffreyGator]

I generally calculate encumbrance with and without my pack.

My goal is that the fighting weight be without pack and that would be unencumbered. This creates a limitation for playing below average str characters and is why str isn't just a dump stat for dex based fighters/casters.

And yes bags of holding are greatly sought out because of this.

Platemail, sword and shield are just barely unencumbering for someone with 15 str.

Note also that many "big" races get to double their encumbrance (firbolgs, bugbear, goliath, orc, minotaur, centaur)

[OvisCaedo]

I'm actually left wondering if the Italian translation could have messed up with the weight of gear when they were converting it to Kg. By the numbers you've stated for carrying capacity, it seems like they went with a rough 2-to-1 conversion. Maybe I'll take a look and see if in the english book, that starting gear really adds up to 126 pounds.

edit: Okay, after a quick inspection... No, that really IS just how heavy this starting gear adds up to. The overwhelming bulk of it being in the 55 pound chainmail and the 24 pound priest's pack or staggering 59 pound explorer's pack.

my takeaway from the whole encumbrance situation is: A lot of things in DnD have sort of unrealistic weights, but it's often made irrelevant by the default exceedingly generous carrying capacity. Encumbrance rules make you start looking at a more realistic carrying capacity, but then a lot of things still weigh a silly amount. Still, since so much of the weight you're lugging is probably in your "pack", you might just want to be dropping it when combat starts.

[Dyndrilliac]

that's not taking into account medium/heavy encumberance..that's just the upper limit of carrying capacity, which in the Italian handbook is STR*7,5 Kg..

You're talking about the variant encumbrance rule. By default, the vanilla game doesn't impose any penalties so long as your stuff doesn't weigh more than your upper limit. The only reason you should be having trouble is if your DM is using the variant encumbrance rule. Even still, with 19 STR, the limit to not be heavily encumbered is roughly 86 kg (190 lb) so with 63 kg you are only medium encumbered. That's a -10 ft. to your speed which does hurt, but isn't terribly harsh. Heavily encumbered is much more serious (-20 ft. speed penalty and disadvantage on STR/DEX/CON d20 rolls) and essentially cripples a character.

It sounds like you are very new to the game. I recommend asking your DM to let you start off with the vanilla encumbrance rules (which as Eric points out is basically equivalent to not tracking encumbrance at all), and then move to the variant rule when you feel more comfortable with the game and have a strategy for how to deal with carrying stuff (Tenser's Floating Disk and wagons/animals are the most common solutions).

[DeadMech]

having more stuff than you can comfortably carry is pretty standard in my experiences through the years. I don't tend to play characters that focus solely on strength and I like having stuff. As much stuff and as varied stuff as possible.

Of course no one says you have to carry all your personal belongings. At low levels a mule or a donkey is a good investment. As long as you were stopping at an area where grazing was possible it wouldn't be too hard on the pocketbook.

Failing that, no one says that your party members can't carry your gear. I've never had a situation where I noticed I was 1 coil of rope overweight and didn't have someone willing to take it for me. Allot of gear isn't necessarily for personal use. Tents and cooking pots are heavy. But you don't need one per person. Depending on what it is you may only need one in a party. Food and water tends to contribute quite a bit of weight as well. That's good stuff to pawn off on your less encumbered teammates.

A good rule is to give the least valuable heavy things to your teammates or your mule. If you give something to a teammate that's too valuable they might be tempted to forget that it is yours. Mules are somewhat unreliable. They can die, generally better to treat them like the wizard... in that they should be protected at the center of a party rather than leading the way or trailing behind... your wizard might object to ear scratching and hand feeding carrots. Or not. Whatever floats their boat.

Some things can be left at your base of operations. You aren't a murder hobo are you? You do have a home, right? Winter clothes, and a heavy blanket are good things to own... They might not see much use in raiding a typical kobold warren. At least as long as it's not actually winter. It's generally good to have a variety of outfits for fitting in with a variety of social classes. But you're not likely to need a bonus to charisma checks with nobility when you're off to drive out some orcs.

Dropping packs at the start of battle or hiding them near the entrance of a dungeon is a good idea. In that you won't be weighed down. You do risk a bandit picking it up and legging it while you're distracted fighting his pals. Or having some rival group of tomb raiders find your gear while you're busy picking your barbarian out of a trap door somewhere underground. Refer back to my advice of choosing heavy but low value items when deciding what to put in the pack you plan to drop. And value is of course relative. Crossing a desert? Water isn't optional. Crossing deadlands with no vegetation or animals. You might be alright skipping the occasional day's rations but you don't want to loose all of them.

[GlenSmash!]

that's not taking into account medium/heavy encumberance..that's just the upper limit of carrying capacity, which in the Italian handbook is STR*7,5 Kg..

That is using an optional encumbrance rule.

If you are using it, then yes it is quite punishing.

[dehro]

It sounds like you are very new to the game. I recommend asking your DM to let you start off with the vanilla encumbrance rules (which as Eric points out is basically equivalent to not tracking encumbrance at all), and then move to the variant rule when you feel more comfortable with the game and have a strategy for how to deal with carrying stuff (Tenser's Floating Disk and wagons/animals are the most common solutions).

not new to the game.. new to 5e... in our 3.5 campaign we tend to have a better balance in these things, also with the help of the occasional handy haversack or bag of holding.
right now our new 5e campaign is a low magic/dragonlance-ish setting, which makes a bag of holding something of a mirage to aspire to. (do handy haversacks even exist in this edition?)
It's just that we haven't played starting characters (1st level) in years, and even then, we've littered the entire setting with "escaped horses" at pretty much every fight.. but on the whole, having a character or two with quite a lot of carrying capacity (well above the 5e 20 stats cap) helps the less sturdy ones. in this system that doesn't seem to be on the table.. I guess we'll really have to resort to buying a mule.. (and if I know my DM, staking it to the ground at every roll for initiative or kiss our equipment goodbye).

[Lombra]

My 2nd level character has 19 strength... meaning he can carry up to 47,5 Kg of stuff before he becomes encumbered...
Since we're really sticking to the book, he has the default equipment as detailed for his background and class, respectively, Accolyte and Paladin.
The weight of his basic gear when he's fresh out of the gate is 63 Kg... putting him in the condition of having to drop his backpack and half his gear if he wants to be effective in combat.
what the what??
is that normal? given that going above 20 is virtually impossible (or so I understand) and that most classes that don't rely on strength won't have half as much carrying capacity.. does that mean that everybody is constantly walking around naked or encumbered, or that at every encounter piles of stuff are thrown to the ground in the first round?

Yeah. You wouldn't fight wearing a backpack full of your adventuring gear, would you?

[Anonymouswizard]

It's a known mismatch. The weights given pretty much assume that you're not using encumbrance penalties.

For fun, I'm going to compare 5e with The Dark Eye, because the unencumbered limits are similar.

Okay, so we're going to be assuming a pretty 'average' mercenary here, with strength at the maximum starting limit for a human in each system. The essential equipment I'm going to be using is a longsword, a shortsword, a bow, twenty arrows, mail armour, a shield, a backback, and ten days of rations.

Carrying capacity=5*16=80lbs.

Longsword=2
Shortsword=2
Longbow=2
Quiver=1
Arrows=1
Mail=55
Shield=6
Backpack=2
Rations=20

Total=94lbs

Our D&D mercenary has no more weight, and must drop his back to fight.

Carrying Capacity=15*4=60lbs

Longsword=2
Shortsword=1.5
Longbow=1.5
Quiver=1.5
Arrow=no weight listed
Mail=24
Shield=7
Backpack=4
Rations=30

Total=71.5

Again, we have to drop our pack in combat, but it's interesting to notice that most items are lighter, and the armour significantly so. We could save a few pounds by going from a wooden shield to a leather shield, but that's really all the optimisation we could do here. The killer in DSA is the rations, if we only needed to carry a week's worth we'd save nine pounds. Drop down to five days worth and our mercenary could wear his back in combat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Everyone knows my view, but I do want to make it clear that the armor weights are

a) all wrong historically (and so make a horrible simulation)
b) not really relevant to encumbrance.

a)
Plate in game weighs 65 pounds. That's absurd.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour

A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15–25 kg(33-55lbs).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armour was spread evenly throughout the body. The armour was articulated and covered a man's entire body completely from neck to toe. In the 15th and 16th centuries plate armored soldiers were the nucleus of every army. Large bodies of men-at-arms numbering thousands or even more than ten thousand men (approximately 60% to 70% of French armies were men at arms and the percentage was also big in other countries) were fighting on foot wearing full plate next to archers and crossbowmen

Chain mail (55 pounds in game) probably weighed closer to 25 pounds (depending on the era).

b) Armor, when worn, contributes little to direct encumbrance (inability to move fast). If it did, it would have not been so mandatory. The idea that plate-armored people were basically immobile is absolute crap. Properly balanced, with a proper belt, you can carry a suit of armor that's significantly heavier than you can lift and carry normally. Same goes for a backpack. Size and awkward shape make much more of a difference. That glaive you're carrying? That's encumbering you. The armor? Not so much, as long as you're conditioned to its use (ie proficient).

Note: expecting people to drop their backpacks on the first round only gives advantages to spell-casters, who don't need to draw a weapon. Anyone who needs to draw their weapon (since maneuvering through narrow corridors with a drawn weapon is pretty bad) needs to

a) stow a shield (action), since you can't fit the backpack straps over an equipped shield)
b) drop the pack (free interaction)
c) next turn draw weapon (interaction)
d) put on shield

burning 2 full turns. It's only 1 (burning interaction and action) if you don't have a shield. Or 0 if you're a spell-caster. That's if you actually want to play things realistically.

So a compromise. Run variant encumbrance, but cut the weight of worn armor by 50%, 100% for dwarves (so as not to deprive them of a racial feature). Let people drop bags for free (not costing an interaction).

You're still making medium armor a trap and devaluing class features, but it's more tolerable now.

[GlenSmash!]

Yeah. You wouldn't fight wearing a backpack full of your adventuring gear, would you?

I might.

Infantry often had to fight with their packs on. It had the added bonus of making you hard to cut down from behind.

The smart cavalry man wouldn't try to hit an infantry man in the back, but would pull up along side him and swing back into his face. :smalleek:

Still this is a game and to me the question is: Should our table care enough about this to use the encumbrance variant? Not use It? Homebrew something else?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I might.

Infantry often had to fight with there packs on. It had the added bonus of making you hard to cut down from behind.

The smart cavalry man wouldn't try to hit an infantry man in the back, but would pull up along side him and swing back into his face. :smalleek:

Still this is a game and to me the question is: Should our table care enough about this to use the encumbrance variant? Not use It? Homebrew something else?

Compared to the large range of things that are bigger verisimilitude-breakers (if you don't accept the abstraction), encumbrance is a tiny thing. And this is a bad way of going about it. It's thrown in as a sop to people who want that play-style, but I'd bet saw exactly zero play-testing. It's all nice round numbers, with the equipment table being written without considering it.

Edit: One thing that tells me that they just threw some weights together is the fact that the packs, as written, don't work.

A backpack can hold 30 lbs of gear. The Dungeoneer's pack has 45 pounds of stuff inside of it (60 pounds, minus 5 for the backpack itself and 10 for the bundle of rope "strapped to the side"). Error!

The Explorer's pack is the same.

The game was not designed to care about weights of stuff, except in extreme cases. So just enabling variant encumbrance is likely to cause as many breaks both with game rules and verisimilitude as it brings. It's a never-ending spiral of brokenness.

[MaxWilson]

So a compromise. Run variant encumbrance, but cut the weight of worn armor by 50%, 100% for dwarves (so as not to deprive them of a racial feature).

I like it.

[Xetheral]

Just for added fun, note that the 5e backpack can hold only up to 28 liters or 30 pounds. That's a large daypack or school backpack! If you want to follow the rules strictly, much of your gear will need to be strapped to the outside of your pack and will get wet.

Perhaps this is realistic--I'm not familiar with medieval backpack sizes--but weight may not be a concern if one can't find large enough containers to hold the full load.

I'm really curious where the designers expected characters with Diplomat's Packs to carry the included chest without a cart or a wagon. (Sure, a mule is strong enough, but a chest is entirely the wrong shape for lashing to a mule.)

[parryhotter]

Interesting. Very interesting.

[guachi]

I'm also on board with the variant encumbrance and cut listed armor weight in half.

Not only are the weights of armor too high in the book but something you wear close to your body is less encumbering.

[Lombra]

Still this is a game and to me the question is: Should our table care enough about this to use the encumbrance variant? Not use It? Homebrew something else?

That's a question for your table to answer.

[GlenSmash!]

That's a question for your table to answer.

Indeed. Or in this case the OPs.