Encumbrance

[robbie374]

Encumbrance is annoying. Adding up all the weights of everything is a slog. But managing an inventory and have to choose what you are carrying is interesting. How can we easily change this in 5e? Here's my suggestion:

You can carry a number of items equal to your Strength score. This includes items worn.
Bulk items of a kind may be counted together as one item when stored together in a suitable container.
Non-empty containers do not count against the number of items you are holding.
A single item, whether a magnifying glass or a greatsword or a suit of plate mail, counts as one item.
These rules do not enable you to carry things that ordinarily cannot be carried. Your DM may rule that an item you wish to carry counts as more than one item for the purpose of your item number limit.

[Ventruenox]

Yes please! I want my D&D to be indistinguishable from a MMORPG!

Bags of Holding, pack animals, Powerful Build racial trait... There are reasons for these to exist.

[robbie374]

Yes please! I want my D&D to be indistinguishable from a MMORPG!

Bags of Holding, pack animals, Powerful Build racial trait... There are reasons for these to exist.

Fair enough, but is there an easy way to simplify these things? Adding up item weights is a pain.

[Eragon123]

Yes please! I want my D&D to be indistinguishable from a MMORPG!

Bags of Holding, pack animals, Powerful Build racial trait... There are reasons for these to exist.

While I get your sarcasm, there is something to be said to expedite fun.

There are some legitimate quirks to the encumbrance system as it is as heavier armor often offsets the gains made from having a high strength character.

So I don't mind talking about alternatives to the current system that reward having higher strength.

[Ventruenox]

There are some character sheets that will do this for you. I recommend the MPMB one. It was taken down from DMs Guild, but still available on a few sites. I suggest the Patreon one to toss him a buck or two. He also gives a link to where it can still be found for free there.

https://www.patreon.com/morepurplemorebetter

[diabloblanco18]

Unless you're using the variant encumbrance rules in the PHB, carrying capacity tends to be forgiving enough that you don't have to do any math. Just eyeball your list of equipment to make sure it isn't super long and doesn't have a bunch of heavy items on it, and you should be fine.

[Galactkaktus]

Aren't mules really cheap in D&D? So shouldn't carrying capacity be close to a non issue?

[GlenSmash!]

Unless using an Sheet that autoamtically totals that stuff up like ForgedAnvil or MBMP I tent to handwave encumbrance, unless the particular situation is truly egregious.

[GlenSmash!]

Aren't mules really cheap in D&D? So shouldn't carrying capacity be close to a non issue?

You ever try to coax a mule into a mummy's lair! Darn things are more stubborn than a rules lawyer.

[Trask]

item slots = Strength score is gamey and unrealistic

But item weight is also unrealistic because its so annoying that its just handwaved and so we carry small general stores on our backs. Also realistically item weight isn't as important as size and clumsiness to wield.

Im a big fan of the Item Slots = Passive Athletics/Strength because its easy to keep track of and makes encumbrance not a pain. As it is, non variant encumbrance is so generous you can pretty much just forget it exists. And variant encumbrance leads to so much book keeping and adding up tiny little numbers that nobody bothers and that defeats the whole point.

[Tanarii]

Look up pack weights online. Add armor and weapons. Add 5 lbs for belt pouch plus clothes. Take max carry minus all that weight. That is your excess carrying capacity. Do not exceed in the dungeon.

For most characters in game with standard encumberance, that's it. There's a little basic math, but not a lot.

Edit: they definitely should have listed the weights of the basic packs in the PHB, not just the cost.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Most people, at least from what I've observed, don't care all that much about encumbrance.

In my campaign it hasn't been an issue because CoS doesn't hand out a lot of pack filler, except for coins that my players don't care all that much about. In the campaign I'm playing in, the DM has only gone so far as to make sure we're keeping our kingdoms worth of gold accounted for since we've gotten several bags of holding.

[Willie the Duck]

Start with defining your goal. Originally, gold dragged out of the dungeon = the bulk of the xp you received from the dungeon. Thus encumbrance was a careful balance of bringing equipment into the dungeon to help you survive the experience, and the fact that you either then had to abandon the equipment at some point (meaning you had to buy it again) or it was encumbrance value worth of gold you couldn't lug out of the dungeon for more XP. This was a neat little game of managing finite resources and no one clear victory path and a rather clever early feature (that even then was often ignored).

Now, why do you use encumbrance? Realism? A form of constraint? A penalty to those who use Str as a dump stat? I totally understand the desire to eliminate inventory micromanagement, and thus that goal I think I get. But without knowing your overall goal for your encumbrance metric, I can't tell you if this slot system is a good or bad solution.

[Sigreid]

I play online and the platform we use tallies that all up for us.

[Anonymouswizard]

But item weight is also unrealistic because its so annoying that its just handwaved and so we carry small general stores on our backs. Also realistically item weight isn't as important as size and clumsiness to wield.

I've found that it actually works really well, if you're not going to be picking much up during gameplay. I have found memories of playing games with fairly detailed encumbrance systems (at least as detailed as variant encumbrance in 5e, sometimes more), and working out if I can afford to take a metal breastplate despite it taking up almost all of my 'normal' capacity (turned out those 5 chest armour points saved my life at least once, so it was well worth the -1 to Dodge and Speed). Trying to work out what I can spend my twenty kilos of capacity is really fun, especially when I have to add in the weight of containers as well (so I always pay for a bag, and often pay for multiple belt pouches to keep some items on hand in a fight).

I once ended up with a satchel that included an ereader, a lot of occult equipment (including a fancy knife), a gun, and basic notetaking materials, alongside a wallet in my trouser pocket, a watch, a belt pouch containing spare ammunition, a second belt pouch in case I ever bought specialty ammunition, and a holster with a pistol in it (the campaign background gave us all licence to carry and use firearms, being members of the anti-demon police).

But if I'm having to update my items list after every combat then I don't want to also be number crunching a new total and working out what to remove to avoid (more) penalties. However working out if any of us can actually carry the MucGuffin, and who needs to give some gear to somebody else so we can get out again.

Also, I tend to rule that all equipment in a suitable container doesn't weigh anything, for simplicity. This includes arrows in a sheath, throwing knives on a belt, and bullets in a pouch.

[Dos246]

Just use the DND beyond character sheet it totals is all for you.

[Lombra]

You only ever have to add things up once, then make small changes for when you drop/pick up new stuff, it's not a constant calculation, you may have a stamdard bag with always the same things so you know exactly how mich you add or subtract when you carry it around or not.

Just don't track things mid-fight, and use a separate sheet to keep track of your stuff, shouldn't take that long.

[Zippdementia]

I don't use encumberance unless things get ridiculous (hello Paladin with seven long swords) or the scenario is specifcally tailored to it (I had one mission that was all about scaling a frozen mountain: encumberance was a big deal here, as was oxygen, cold weather clothes, and food and water... but only until the end of that scenario).

One easy way to handle it is just to give everyone bags of holding at character creation or, better yet, make them use strict encumberance rules for their first mission but make the reward a bag of holding. They will never appreciate it more than when it removes math for them. Problem solved.

Another thing I like is the simple item slot system used by Lone Wolf. Eight items can be carried in the backpack, two weapons outside of it (unless they are small like amunition, darts, daggers), one long range weapon, and any number of small doo-dads like rings, pendants, necklaces, keys, etc. Some items take up two spaces in the backpack.

Easy system, and if you want to work strength into it, just say that your total number of carried items is 8 +/- STR modifier. I've been thinking of going to this in my main game, actually.

[Anonymouswizard]

Another thing I like is the simple item slot system used by Lone Wolf. Eight items can be carried in the backpack, two weapons outside of it (unless they are small like amunition, darts, daggers), one long range weapon, and any number of small doo-dads like rings, pendants, necklaces, keys, etc. Some items take up two spaces in the backpack.

That's a nice system, I might end up using it myself. Allow players to use a satchel instead of a backpack, add in the ability to have a couple of belt pouches for quick access and I'm all over it. Bedrolls should be able to hold a sword, but you won't be able to access wit without unrolling the bedroll.

Small items, like daggers.
Medium items, like torches, a day's rations,


Easy system, and if you want to work strength into it, just say that your total number of carried items is 8 +/- STR modifier. I've been thinking of going to this in my main game, actually.

One of the nicest systems I've seen is Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Arrows and some items are free, and some small weapons are two to an inventory slot, and some small items are assumed to not impede you (coins do, because you're still trying to recieve treasure), and particularly big or unweildy items are two. Encumbrance is measured in points, every seven normal items adds a point, mail adds a point, and plate adds a point. It's not as punishing as many 'simplified' encumbrance systems, but it forces you to keep your pack light (it only takes 14 items to begin taking penalties).

[Tanarii]

I don't use encumberance unless things get ridiculous
IMX players run out of ways to carry stuff long before they do Str capacity to do so. I can't count the number of times players have had to shift stuff between everyone's backpacks because no one thought to spend 1cp on a sack.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Fair enough, but is there an easy way to simplify these things? Adding up item weights is a pain.
Your basic idea is decent-- it's really the "every item counts as one, no matter what" bit that hurts. Adding a bit of complexity will go a long ways. Say...

Items above ~100 pounds take up five slots
Heavy armor, heavy weapons, and items up to ~25 pounds take up three slots
Medium armor, normal weapons, and items up to ~10 pounds take up two slots
Light armor, light weapons, and items up to ~5 pounds take up one slot.
Anything less than ~1lb is free.
100 coins take up 1 slot

Or better yet, something based more on size than weight, like this (http://rottenpulp.blogspot.com/2012/06/matt-rundles-anti-hammerspace-item.html). (The basic idea: characters can have so many containers, which can either be "a good-sized weapon or tool strapped to their back/side" or "up to three distinct small-ish items." You also have to think about where you're carrying things, which is neat)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qgsX3J3RBCY/T-RRDdLlwOI/AAAAAAAAAPo/cuCxkdGkJfo/s400/Scan+(1).jpg

[Tanarii]

Torchbearer or DW (I forget which) has a slots system.

What I found interesting about it was that it was clearly intended to replicate the old-school serious difficulty in managing encumberance, and the need to ditch stuff for treasure. It was NOT designed to make encumberance easier, just less math-y, and to abstractly take into account both weight and bulk. But also to make logistics a serious concern.

[McMoria]

I've used my own simplified system for awhile now, where simple numbers are assigned and I tracked them in an excel sheet along with a bunch of other stuff. Then I've just told players when they're close to becoming encumbered.

However in my group I've found it to be distracting and a bit of a kill-joy and of course an extra job I'd rather not do. Auditing encumbrance or typing items into formulas is boring for everyone concerned.

So then I decided to occasionally look at their sheets and if it looked ok , it's ok. Unless it was adding fun or tension or something useful, I don't see it as a loss and they can get on with the fun stuff. As long as they're not carrying 7 longswords or a trebuchet around with them it doesn't seem to impact anything.

[Tanarii]

Unless it was adding fun or tension or something useful, I don't see it as a loss and they can get on with the fun stuff.
For a lot of people, especially early wargamers, managing logistical concerns was part of the challenge, and thus the fun stuff. Especially the tension between needing equipment to survive vs dragging treasure out. For xp in really early games.

5e kinda removed the need for that unless you go with variant encumberance. Its still potentially an issue with bigger treasure hoards though. Or for characters who want to haul tons of oil, caltrops, and ballbearings for tactical purposes. (acid and alchemists fire tend to be more cost prohibitive than weight)

Not trying to bash your fun, just pointing out why it was a thing in the first place. Although most people really into it go with OSR games, or other alternatives that really focus on dungeoneering.

[UrielAwakened]

Yes please! I want my D&D to be indistinguishable from a MMORPG!

Bags of Holding, pack animals, Powerful Build racial trait... There are reasons for these to exist.



Yes please, I want my D&D to be a fiddly nightmare of inventory tracking rather than fun.

I have never once tracked encumbrance. I've never once played in a game where anyone did. It's just not worth it. Unless you're playing a system where resource and inventory management actually matters, like Torchbearer, why bother tracking stuff like food, ammo, torches, weight etc.. when 99% of the time it can be conjured out of thin air or mitigated by magic.

[Anonymouswizard]

So then I decided to occasionally look at their sheets and if it looked ok , it's ok. Unless it was adding fun or tension or something useful, I don't see it as a loss and they can get on with the fun stuff. As long as they're not carrying 7 longswords or a trebuchet around with them it doesn't seem to impact anything.

Many games literally use an encumbrance system that amounts to 'don't take the piss', and it actually works well in lots of cases, but those systems also tend to abstract things more than D&D does. At that point you're really only noting down important or unusual items, not your wallet, phone, keys, spare underpants for when you eventually fail a shock check, and so on. But you will note down if you're carrying an axe (big, sharp, and heavy, +9 damage), 4cc of mouse blood, holy water, a flare fun, or the Platonic Ideal of Turnips (+15% to any checks to make stew with it, if you can find a knife able to cut it). Although there was an argument over whether a multitool is the sort of thing is reasonable to suspect a character carries on them. It totally was, and I stand by my claim.

[Mikal]

Yes please, I want my D&D to be a fiddly nightmare of inventory tracking rather than fun.

If doing the most basic of math is a 'fiddly nightmare' for you, then you have larger issues at hand than keeping track of encumbrance.

[UrielAwakened]

If doing the most basic of math is a 'fiddly nightmare' for you, then you have larger issues at hand than keeping track of encumbrance.

Something can be annoying without being hard.

I don't want to track how many each thing weighs and adjust the weight every time I get a new item. Nor do any of my friends.

Everyone here is so desperate to feel superior about literally anything to literally anyone. It's so pitiful.

[GlenSmash!]

Something can be annoying without being hard.

I don't want to track how many each thing weighs and adjust the weight every time I get a new item. Nor do any of my friends.

Everyone here is so desperate to feel superior about literally anything to literally anyone. It's so pitiful.

I'm with you here. Something can be easy but still tedious.

If the value of the tedious thing doesn't out weigh the work involve for you, change it.

There is a reason some people prefer milestone leveling to XP after all.

[McMoria]

For a lot of people, especially early wargamers, managing logistical concerns was part of the challenge, and thus the fun stuff. Especially the tension between needing equipment to survive vs dragging treasure out. For xp in really early games.

5e kinda removed the need for that unless you go with variant encumberance. Its still potentially an issue with bigger treasure hoards though. Or for characters who want to haul tons of oil, caltrops, and ballbearings for tactical purposes. (acid and alchemists fire tend to be more cost prohibitive than weight)

Not trying to bash your fun, just pointing out why it was a thing in the first place. Although most people really into it go with OSR games, or other alternatives that really focus on dungeoneering.

Oh I know. I'm just presenting another view. A lot of the old hands say "If it's not fun/doesn't work at your table then change it" which is so true. But it's sometimes a hard lesson to learn in the beginning; when the rules are what keep a potentially daunting game to run on the rails. Reading the table is vital.

[AvatarVecna]

Under the standard encumbrance rules, a PC with 8 Strength can carry 120 lbs of gear before it starts to weigh them down at all; the variant rules make this more realistic, but if you're not using those, the end result is "why are you even worried about carrying capacity?" For clarity, that's enough to wear heavy plate, a shield, a pike, and a heavy crossbow, with some room to spare. That's the lowest possible CC under the standard rules, and it's enough for a fighter with all the heaviest arms and armor plus some gear (why you'd wear plate with Str 8, I dunno, but you could). And most characters are more likely gonna have Str 12 or Str 16 specifically so they don't have to worry about CC (giving them another 60/120 lbs to work with). I just did a quick check of one of my groups, and that six-man group can collectively carry up to 1440 lbs worth of gear without being slowed down (without even getting into the pack animals).

Keeping track of all the fiddly little numbers can be a pain, but with how it's handled in 5e, it basically only matters if your DM says it does.

[Eric Diaz]

Like many people, I find the standard rules ridiculously lenient and the variant rules too harsh.

Here is one random idea:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/04/encumbrance-armor-for-5e-et-al-d.html

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gqp4-YyMAos/WsV6jbx4jCI/AAAAAAAABeU/0yfZ8R8jaaEGuV5rDZWD9pAa5J5q6PKbgCK4BGAYYCw/s320/all.png

A similar method has been used on Dragon Heresy.

But really, the main point of encumbrance is dealing with armor or unusual items (i.e., you found heavy treasure); for normal equipment, hand-waving is good enough.

[Dankus Memakus]

I think the slots idea is the best answer personally. I hate having to flip through the player handbook and add up all the weights. It just slows down the game and I'd rather play. However I'd like a form of encumbrance because it adds realism even if its just managing slots instead of pounds. I'm a fan of anything that keeps similar rules but doesn't hamper the game speed. Maybe its just my opinion though. I like simplicity, hence why I play 5e.

[Caesar]

I agree with the "dont add unnecessary tedium to the game" side of the argument, especially in a game that includes heroically strong adventurers, pack animals that cost a pittance, spells like tensor's floating disk, and items like bags of holding.

If a mechanism exists in a game, it should do so to add interesting decisions and increase fun, without being tedious. I find it hard to believe that tracking the weight of every item in a game where you are busy saving the world can possibly meet all three of these expectations in a satisfactory manner.

The very fact that the game includes bags of holding and magic carrying spells indicates itself, that the system was tedious and the players needed a good excuse to escape from it. Sounds to me like its best to just remove the mechanism entirely (within DM-reasonable limits) and get rid of the tedium of needing those items/spells while you are at it.

Or you can ask yourself: do you track the number of arrows in every player's quiver? What about the calories of food they carry, versus their physical expenditure? Do they drink enough water during the day to stay hydrated, and do you factor in physical exertion and local temperature, humidity, and wind conditions? Do you keep careful tally of how long every action takes, careful to describe exactly what time of the day or night it is as the adventure progresses, regardless of whether they are crossing the cursed dunes of aggrabah, or just shopping for rations in the common market? Etc, etc, etc..

[Tanarii]

There are already rules for ammunition, food, water, encumberance, and yes even weather extremes. If you choose not to use them because you find them unnecessary or detrimental to your enjoyment of other parts of the game, based on your preferred way of play (be it "saving the world" or "story" or whatever), go for it.

But this hostility and bad-mouthing towards the entire concept, which others enjoy, is baffling and unnecessary.

[mephnick]

Sounds to me like its best to just remove the mechanism entirely (within DM-reasonable limits) and get rid of the tedium of needing those items/spells while you are at it..

Needing that stuff is the part that makes it interesting. Where do you hide your wagon when you go into the dungeon? How do you protect it? Who do you hire to help out? How do you protect them? Do you pay them enough to ensure loyalty? What spells do you replace if you're expecting a big haul? Is the possibility of extra cash worth not prepping Fly? What do you take? What do you leave behind? Can your troupe of Dex hippies even lift it into the wagon? Do you hide your wealth on the return trip? How do you hide or protect a wagon full of gold and gems in the mountain pass known for bandits? Etc etc etc

Encumberence adds narrative decision points and decisions are what make RPGs interesting. It's not just adding up weight.

[UrielAwakened]

None of that sounds fun.

Table time is way too valuable for me as a working professional and if I have a DM making me go through all of that stuff every session I'm going to find a new table that better-emphasizes the parts of the game that are a game.

It's also really empty narrative devoid of real conflict, and none of the decisions that it provokes are character-driven. They're purely logistic. That's neither good gameplay nor good storytelling.

That's the kind of stuff people mock when they poke fun at the hobby honestly.

[mephnick]

if I have a DM making me go through all of that stuff every session I'm going to find a new table that better-emphasizes the parts of the game that are a game.

That is the game. It was the game for decades.

You're probably the type of player that doesn't get random encounters, handwaves travel and yells at the DM every time you suffer a setback.



Table time is way too valuable for me as a working professional

We're all working professionals. No one cares.

[UrielAwakened]

Random encounters are also completely pointless.

The game has evolved past these outdated modes of play, sorry. The operative word in your post is "was."

[mephnick]

Random encounters are also completely pointless.

OK, good. That's the question I ask when I try to figure out whether to take someone's opinion seriously or not.

[JNAProductions]

That is the game. It was the game for decades.

You're probably the type of player that doesn't get random encounters, handwaves travel and yells at the DM every time you suffer a setback.

We're all working professionals. No one cares.

That's unneededly rude. Just because someone prefers heroic fantasy, saving the world, high-drama, or whatever you want to call it that doesn't bother with minutia, does NOT mean they're a bad player who throws temper tantrums.

There are players like that, true, but they don't go away just because you decide to track weight. And I personally would not want to bother with encumbrance, unless that was explicitly part of the challenge. In a game that was pitched as "Every ration matters. Track everything carefully, lose nothing. The desert is a harsh and unforgiving place," I would totally understand tracking weight, because the point is survival. In a game where the pitch was "The princess is in danger! The fearsome dragon Karnk has captured her, and you must rescue her!" I wouldn't expect weight to be tracked very much. Obviously ridiculous things like, say, carrying a catapult with you would be vetoed, but normal rations and such being tracked don't fit with the style.


OK, good. That's the question I ask when I try to figure out whether to take someone's opinion seriously or not.

Have you considered asking them why they consider random encounters pointless? Because in some games, they are. In other games, they're a vital part of play. You both (Meph and Uriel) seem to have specific styles as your favorite, and are excluding other styles. That's not good for either of you.

It's totally fine to prefer old-school, trickery and tracking heavy style gameplay. It's also fine to prefer the more modern, story and character-heavy gameplay style. But that doesn't mean people who like the other style (or anything else) are wrong.

[Trask]

Encumbrance can be rewarding. Im playing in ToA right now using variant encumbrace and while I'd certainly prefer to use some kind of slot based system which I find easier to track and more in line with D&D's abstractions, it feels rewarding to plan out our supplies for a trek into the jungle and have our preparation pay off.

Also in situations where we need supplies or run low, we know the locations of goblin camps or villages and raid them for food, stuff like that. It creates new opportunities for play that wouldnt otherwise exist. Its not for every game but it can be fun.

[AvatarVecna]

So, after sleeping on it, I'd like to bring up an issue I have with how encumbrance is handled in 5e - not just the idea of encumbrance in general, like some people, but the specific way it's handled this edition. Namely, it scales linearly with Strength, and Str is soft/hard capped at 20/30. Additionally, CC doubles every size category bigger than Medium, but only halves for Tiny creatures, not small ones...but that's not the point of this complaint.

In 3.5, the Tarrasque is Colossal, a quadruped, and had Str 44. In 5e, sizes only go up to Gargantuan, Str only goes up to 30, and quadrupeds don't have additional carrying capacity...but the Tarrasque in both editions has the same dimensions (70 ft long, 50 ft tall) and weighs the same (~130 tons), it's just that the size and encumbrance rules have changed. So where the 3.5 Tarrasque could push/drag 768 tons (or about 6 times its own body weight and 1.5 million pounds, impressive and appropriate for a beast of legend), the 5e Tarrasque even if you arbitrarily double its CC for being a quadruped, can only push/drag 14400 lbs (or not even 6% of its own body weight). And again, I just made up a doubling for being a quadruped; by base rules, Big T can actually only push/drag 7200 lbs!

Obviously, this is taking an extreme look at the problem, but it serves to highlight the issue: oversized creatures of legendary strength are frickin' weak! Giants and dragons and legendary monsters like Big T seem like they've been hit upside the head with the Square-Cube Law in a world where that shouldn't be a thing! I realize this would probably never come up for players, since they rarely get very big and all and don't have to deal with carrying capacity much anyway, but if players ever get in a mood to try (via polymorph effects or what have you) to grow to Huge/Gargantuan and try to just lift things out of the way that are objectively much smaller and lighter than they currently are, I feel like it's kinda letting them down to say "sorry, your CC before was 600, and right now it's 7200, but neither of those are anywhere near enough to lift this 100000 lbs object" even though the lifter in question weighs more than twice that.

[UrielAwakened]

In a game that was pitched as "Every ration matters. Track everything carefully, lose nothing. The desert is a harsh and unforgiving place," I would totally understand tracking weight, because the point is survival. .

Same. That would be a great game.

But it's also a game I would never in a million years play in 5e. I'd play it in Dungeon World or even better, Torchbearer. But not here.

[Tanarii]

It's totally fine to prefer old-school, trickery and tracking heavy style gameplay. It's also fine to prefer the more modern, story and character-heavy gameplay style. But that doesn't mean people who like the other style (or anything else) are wrong.
Seconded. As someone who just spoke out against badmouthing the idea of encumberance, it's not appropriate to bad mouth not wanting it either.

They designed this edition so it can be used (with some variant rules) in many old school ways. And they made it easy enough to hand wave away stuff that's still bother those that don't want it. Logistics (ammunition, food & water, weight), random encounters, time itself can mostly be ignored. Or they can implemented strictly.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I've come up with a variation for grittier games, partly based on what's present and also a few other game systems that use slot-based encumbrance. I'd only recommend it for games that want greater realism and survival-as-war gameplay but don't want to bog down standard gameplay/have players that aren't that great at math. Here's what I've got-

Take your Strength score and add your Proficiency Bonus. This represents your absolute Maximum Capacity.
If you reach more than half of your Maximum Capacity, you are Encumbered. As with the regular variant, you have -10 feet of movement while Encumbered.
If you reach your Encumbered limit +2, you are Heavily Encumbered. As with the regular variant again, you have -20 feet of movement and disadvantage on all attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws that use Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.

Next, each item that weighs roughly 5-10 pounds or takes up as much space as a shortsword or rolled up blanket takes up one slot of your Capacity. Pouches, backpacks, empty quivers, and empty scabbards do not take up Capacity when worn. Ten smaller objects weighing a pound or less can count as a single slot, so long as they are stored together. All types of ammunition take up one slot per 20. All types of thrown items take up one slot per 5. 500 coins take up one slot.

All weapons that are heavy or two-handed take up 2 Capacity slots. All armors take up at least 2 Capacity slots, while any armor that has a Strength requirement takes up 3. Worn clothing takes up no slots, and worn armor takes up only 1 slot. However, if you are not proficient with the armor you are wearing, you add one slot of Encumbrance. You also add a slot if you do not meet the Strength requirements for the armor you are wearing. This means that if you are wearing armor you are not proficient in and don't meet it's Strength requirements, it will take up 3 slots- exactly as many as it would had you left it in your backpack.

Now, for carrying all of that- a backpack can hold up to 6 Capacity slots (and store one slot worth of rope on the side). A pouch can hold a single slot. Scabbards can hold one weapon regardless of size or five thrown items, while quivers can be overpacked to hold 2 slots. You can wear one backpack, up to four scabbards/quivers, have two pouches on either of your sides, and either another pouch, a bandolier, or an inner robe pocket on your front (all of which, like a pouch, can hold one slot). You can also hang any additional pouches you want under your back.

The location is critical- drawing an item from an equipped scabbard/quiver or a container on your front is a free action. Drawing from your side is a bonus action. Drawing anything from your back takes a full action, as you have to rummage through it by feel alone.

In this system, bags of holding can have grades. They start by simply negating the Capacity within them (single slot) and eventually get up to 8 towards the end of the game (but I'd recommend no more than this; we want the players to have encumbrance issues in this system, and it shouldn't be trivialized too easily). Heward's Handy Haversack can normally carry 6 slots in the main compartment and 2 in each side pouch, and you can draw items from it with a bonus action. A Portable Hole can store 14 slots.

I modified the armor values again and added proficiency bonus to Maximum Encumbrance, to make things a little less tight all around.

[Tanarii]

All armor, regardless of type, take up 2 Capacity slots. Worn clothing and armor takes up 1 less slot than usual- this means worn clothing costs you nothing, while worn armor takes up 1 instead of 2.
Your system reminds me a lot of Torchbearer. But am I reading this right that Heavy armor takes up just a single slot?

[Anonymouswizard]

Or you can ask yourself: do you track the number of arrows in every player's quiver? What about the calories of food they carry, versus their physical expenditure? Do they drink enough water during the day to stay hydrated, and do you factor in physical exertion and local temperature, humidity, and wind conditions? Do you keep careful tally of how long every action takes, careful to describe exactly what time of the day or night it is as the adventure progresses, regardless of whether they are crossing the cursed dunes of aggrabah, or just shopping for rations in the common market? Etc, etc, etc..

If it's important I track it, and will make rough alterations for conditions (so maybe 4*normal water rations if travelling through a desert). But I also assume that resupply is easy, as I tend not to run classic dungeon adventures.

So if you have a ranged weapon you likely have a quiver which holds twenty arrows, or in a game with firearms or energy weapons have a couple of clips or batteries on your person (although possibly just the one loaded in the weapon). In combat they tick down, having a limited ammount of ammunition is the price you pay for ranged combat (in most of the games I run attack magic is expensive, and therefore generally not worth it). But if you have an hour of downtime or make a successful skill roll (generally whatever the baseline DC for the system is) then you can get more ammunition without any hassle, it won't even take away from your other activities (if you have less than an hour and fail the roll then you'll have to sacrifice something for that refil). Although ammunition for anything big, like a portable balista or contained plasma stream weapon, is hard to come by you're also unlikely to even be carrying that around unless you expect to come across something that needs it, and likely aren't pulling it out if you can avoid it anyway.

I'd also be interested in just roughly tracking ammunition in 'attacks'. Like rounds these are an averaged amount of ammunition needed to make an attack check, generally 2-4 shots, and reloading is handwaved away. Abstract it out to get the benefits of tracking but without the hassle of doing it bullet by bullet. Although I'd also track individual minutes spent on an action if the players agreed to it and it fit the situation.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Your system reminds me a lot of Torchbearer. But am I reading this right that Heavy armor takes up just a single slot?
I'm waffling on whether it should take up more. It probably should from a realism angle, but I'm also aiming for fast rules that value depth over complexity.

It really should. Screw it, I'll edit it and think through the repercussions later.

[Kane0]

If I want to make encumbrance a significant factor in my games (like a marches style campaign) I like to go all in.

Each character gets an inventory grid, like you get in Diablo II or NWN. Different equipment take up different amounts of space on the grid based on both physical size and weight. The higher your strength the more grid space you have, plus extra for features that increase carry capacity. Bags of Holding, pack mules, etc give you secondary grids. Most importantly, currency and rations take up inventory space.

This makes a fun minigame of tetris-style arrangement for the players, and is even more fun if you have little cutouts they can blu-tac into their inventories.

PCs getting robbed is also way more entertaining, if a sneaky thief makes off with one of the PCs packs during the night you simply ask for the grid of that pack. The player has much less chance of metagaming out of losing a particular items and actually has to remember what was there and figure out what they lost.

If you're not going all in and making it fun, encumbrance is otherwise mostly just an annoying side-thing and generally ignored. Like counting ammunition.

[Tanarii]

I'm waffling on whether it should take up more. It probably should from a realism angle, but I'm also aiming for fast rules that value depth over complexity.

It really should. Screw it, I'll edit it and think through the repercussions later.My comment wasn't based of realism, but rather game mechanics. Weight is one of the disadvantages of heavy armor. Scale & Halfplate as well.
Unless you're not removing the Str requirement for using Heavy armor? If that's the case maybe it's not needed.

[Malifice]

Encumbrance is annoying. Adding up all the weights of everything is a slog. But managing an inventory and have to choose what you are carrying is interesting. How can we easily change this in 5e? Here's my suggestion:

You can carry a number of items equal to your Strength score. This includes items worn.
Bulk items of a kind may be counted together as one item when stored together in a suitable container.
Non-empty containers do not count against the number of items you are holding.
A single item, whether a magnifying glass or a greatsword or a suit of plate mail, counts as one item.
These rules do not enable you to carry things that ordinarily cannot be carried. Your DM may rule that an item you wish to carry counts as more than one item for the purpose of your item number limit.

Dragon warriors did this and it worked just fine. It was 10 items from memory, but a common HR was [Str] items.

[Pex]

While technically the rules, my groups ignore it until it matters. When something bulky and/or heavy needs or wanted to be carried, then we pay attention to whether it's feasible. Otherwise, we don't track, don't care, and don't abuse the lack of caring. The one game where the DM made everyone count to the ounce how much weight we carried and where on our person was way back when in a 2E game. It was frustrating and eventually ignored a few sessions later because we wanted to play the game, not bookkeep. Realism can only go so far before it interrupts the fun of playing. Exact minutiae of detail gets in the way.

[Waterdeep Merch]

My comment wasn't based of realism, but rather game mechanics. Weight is one of the disadvantages of heavy armor. Scale & Halfplate as well.
Unless you're not removing the Str requirement for using Heavy armor? If that's the case maybe it's not needed.
That was sort of what I was thinking, but having it be three feels right. It's some of the biggest sort of loot that a player might carry, and even having two sets in a backpack is just barely believable, assuming they were tucked away neatly and the backpack is rather large.

Now that I'm back with my books, let's do some math!

From a balance standpoint, I worry that the opportunity cost of wearing heavy armor might become too high. Let's say you've got a typical sword n' board fighter with a 16 Strength. They could carry 8 items before being encumbered. Their longsword and shield already take up 4 points. If the chain mail also takes up 2, they only get 2 more slots before they become Encumbered. It's only one slot off, but when we're dealing with such low numbers, it really matters.

I kind of like the idea that you might be over-encumbered while wearing your backpack, and will take a moment to take it off before big fights if time and opportunity allows. So, in the previous example, they'd have 5 or 6 slots to play with before it starts getting a bit dangerous, risking a bad trap or ambush doing significant damage. I'm actively trying to make carrying gear difficult, but I think this might be a bit too tight.

Speaking of, let's look at the opposite end- a TWF rogue that dumped strength. Their leather armor and short swords would take up 3 of their 4 slots, allotting only one slot before they face encumbrance issues. On the one hand, that's what they get for dumping Strength. On the other, this appears a bit TOO draconian. Even one more slot would really help here. They couldn't even have a shortbow and quiver on hand like this without going heavily Encumbered.


Given all of this, a slight addendum- calculate Maximum Encumbrance from your Strength score plus your proficiency bonus. This would give the fighter 4 slots before encumbrance, and the weakling-but-fully-armed rogue 2. If I just tweak the heavy armor back down to 2 slots, now the fighter can carry 5 before hitting any encumbrance- this'll let them pack mule to an extent, which takes a bit of the edge off the party.

The other thing I'd like to consider is the full build. Let's say we've got a fighter at level 17 with a 20 in Strength. They'd have a maximum of 26 things they could carry, and 13 before they hit any encumbrance. Considering a sword n' board plate user, that'd be 8 slots that they could carry, assuming no magic items. They couldn't carry something in every slot without feeling something, but they nearly could, and that's something. Meanwhile, the rogue caps at 4 slots- they'll never be great at it if they continue to refuse to raise it any, and that's actually fine I think. At least they have room for some tricks.

This dramatically raises the value of the Bag of Holding, Heward's Handy Haversack, and the Portable Hole, even if they're pretty nerfed with the slots I gave. It's more about opportunity cost here. If they can get their hands on them, they can ensure that only their actively used gear counts against them at all. I also wouldn't drop a system like this on people before pointing out how important Strength is here- it's almost Constitution level in necessary for everyone. Which I actually like.

[MeeposFire]

That was sort of what I was thinking, but having it be three feels right. It's some of the biggest sort of loot that a player might carry, and even having two sets in a backpack is just barely believable, assuming they were tucked away neatly and the backpack is rather large.

Now that I'm back with my books, let's do some math!

From a balance standpoint, I worry that the opportunity cost of wearing heavy armor might become too high. Let's say you've got a typical sword n' board fighter with a 16 Strength. They could carry 8 items before being encumbered. Their longsword and shield already take up 4 points. If the chain mail also takes up 2, they only get 2 more slots before they become Encumbered. It's only one slot off, but when we're dealing with such low numbers, it really matters.

I kind of like the idea that you might be over-encumbered while wearing your backpack, and will take a moment to take it off before big fights if time and opportunity allows. So, in the previous example, they'd have 5 or 6 slots to play with before it starts getting a bit dangerous, risking a bad trap or ambush doing significant damage. I'm actively trying to make carrying gear difficult, but I think this might be a bit too tight.

Speaking of, let's look at the opposite end- a TWF rogue that dumped strength. Their leather armor and short swords would take up 3 of their 4 slots, allotting only one slot before they face encumbrance issues. On the one hand, that's what they get for dumping Strength. On the other, this appears a bit TOO draconian. Even one more slot would really help here. They couldn't even have a shortbow and quiver on hand like this without going heavily Encumbered.


Given all of this, a slight addendum- calculate Maximum Encumbrance from your Strength score plus your proficiency bonus. This would give the fighter 4 slots before encumbrance, and the weakling-but-fully-armed rogue 2. If I just tweak the heavy armor back down to 2 slots, now the fighter can carry 5 before hitting any encumbrance- this'll let them pack mule to an extent, which takes a bit of the edge off the party.

The other thing I'd like to consider is the full build. Let's say we've got a fighter at level 17 with a 20 in Strength. They'd have a maximum of 26 things they could carry, and 13 before they hit any encumbrance. Considering a sword n' board plate user, that'd be 8 slots that they could carry, assuming no magic items. They couldn't carry something in every slot without feeling something, but they nearly could, and that's something. Meanwhile, the rogue caps at 4 slots- they'll never be great at it if they continue to refuse to raise it any, and that's actually fine I think. At least they have room for some tricks.

This dramatically raises the value of the Bag of Holding, Heward's Handy Haversack, and the Portable Hole, even if they're pretty nerfed with the slots I gave. It's more about opportunity cost here. If they can get their hands on them, they can ensure that only their actively used gear counts against them at all. I also wouldn't drop a system like this on people before pointing out how important Strength is here- it's almost Constitution level in necessary for everyone. Which I actually like.

Just curious are you having the encumbrance of the armor be different when being worn than when you carry it in your pack? I ask because let us pretend that you are wearing plate armor and you find a suit of magic plate armor that you need to take back to town. Both armors weigh the same but carrying that armor on your back is going to feel heavier and be bulkier than wearing the armor correctly. You could have heavy armor have a value of 1 when being worn and have it be 2 or 3 when it is being carried (or if it has not been sized adjusted correctly for the wearer). This way your heavy armor users are not killed by wearing their armor as normal but would not want to carry an extra sets they might find on the road even if they are worth decent money.

[Tanarii]

While technically the rules, my groups ignore it until it matters.
Most common time I saw non-variant encumberance mattering is the moment someone tries to drag a grappled creature.

Another time I know it matters, but haven't seen (because I saw non-variant in AL) is mounts. In particular barded warhorses with a heavily armored & personally heavy fighter on top. Ditto flying creatures carrying PC, like the Giant Owl Wonder Figurine.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Just curious are you having the encumbrance of the armor be different when being worn than when you carry it in your pack? I ask because let us pretend that you are wearing plate armor and you find a suit of magic plate armor that you need to take back to town. Both armors weigh the same but carrying that armor on your back is going to feel heavier and be bulkier than wearing the armor correctly. You could have heavy armor have a value of 1 when being worn and have it be 2 or 3 when it is being carried (or if it has not been sized adjusted correctly for the wearer). This way your heavy armor users are not killed by wearing their armor as normal but would not want to carry an extra sets they might find on the road even if they are worth decent money.
I did have it encumbering less when worn, but I wasn't thinking about making worn armor always use up only one slot. Maybe with a slight tweak- if you aren't proficient in it, the armor takes up 1 additional slot when worn, and if you don't meet any Strength prerequisites for the armor, it takes up yet another slot. So a wizard in full plate would be eating 3 Capacity slots for doing it, which can basically cover for previous armor encumbrance rules, I think. Just keep the note about spellcasting in armor you aren't proficient in, and you're golden.

Also, as a slight change to the heavy armor taking up 3 slots- I'm thinking any armor that has a Strength requirement. It helps balance the previous statement appropriately (without it, there'd be no opportunity cost with wearing them aside from proficiency), and makes sense with the bulk.

Time for some edits!

[Tanarii]

Personally I find the idea of figuring out how many slots everything takes, figuring out where it goes, and juggling possible combinations of those, a lot more complex than just adding up some numbers.

I don't think complexity is bad. I just don't think a slots system saves anything in terms of complexity.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Personally I find the idea of figuring out how many slots everything takes, figuring out where it goes, and juggling possible combinations of those, a lot more complex than just adding up some numbers.

I don't think complexity is bad. I just don't think a slots system saves anything in terms of complexity.
Not strictly on paper, no. There are a lot of rules to go over, a lot of levers and cranks to tweak. What I've written here is already more verbose than what exists in the PHB, and it's at least twice as dense.

The final step to making this work is an inventory tracking sheet that puts it all into practice. Lines that are annotated to easily track remaining slots, and how many you can fill before you reach encumbrance. Brackets to represent storage location. A reference section for when things take up more or less slots. Then it becomes a simple matter of counting, and can be explained and utilized by a new player very quickly and easily.

This isn't really meant for every table- this is a lot more strict than the PHB's encumbrance charts, meant for games where the DM wants encumbrance to be an issue, and also for games where the players aren't great at doing math on the fly or you'd like to speed up how quickly things are used, dropped, or added without needing to crack open the book and record weights. It has no place at a normal D&D table.

[UrielAwakened]

For the record while I still think tracking encumbrance in a game like 5e is altogether pointless, if I had to do it, the slot system would probably be the approach I would take as well.

[Greywander]

So I've been thinking about this and I think I might have come up with an interesting hybridization of of Matt Rundle's Anti-Hammerspace Item Tracker (https://rottenpulp.blogspot.com/2012/06/matt-rundles-anti-hammerspace-item.html) and Encumbrance Armor (https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/04/encumbrance-armor-for-5e-et-al-d.html), combining the benefits of both systems.

First, take a look at this picture (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rPm3zInsXLU/T-Rg6CVXbJI/AAAAAAAAAQA/0S9Foad_dQM/s1600/items-2-a4.png). As you can see, it shows six "containers", each with three item slots. This picture (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qgsX3J3RBCY/T-RRDdLlwOI/AAAAAAAAAPo/cuCxkdGkJfo/s1600/Scan+(1).jpg) shows an example of an inventory filled with items. We're going to tweak this system to make it work for our own purposes.

For simplicity's sake, let's say you have a number of item slots equal to 6 + your Strength score, with every 3 slots completing a container (partial containers don't function differently, they only hold less items). If you carry more than that, you become encumbered (-10 speed), and if you carry more than 6 + double your STR score you become heavily encumbered (-20 speed, disadvantage on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws that use STR, DEX, or CON). Since aarakockra can apparently fly while heavily encumbered, with a speed of 50 - 20 = 30 feet, no less, let's create a 3rd stage of encumbrance, just to be sure. Carrying more than 6 + three times your STR score makes you mega ultra encumbered, bro, reducing your speed to 5 feet regardless of what it was before (unless it was already < 5).

Note the three containers on the right. Each of the three containers is associated with a different level of armor. Even though these are labeled "leather", "chain", and "plate", we'll reorganize these into "light armor", "medium armor", and "heavy armor". In total, there are nine item slots here. Let's call these "armor slots", as this will be useful later on, mostly for medium armor. Do remember, though, these are also normal containers and as such can carry items if we choose not to wear armor. Also note that these "armor containers" can be any three containers that we have, and also that we need at least a STR of 3 to have three complete containers in the first place.

Okay, so here's how this works. If you wear light armor, the "light armor" container is blocked; it can't hold any items. If you wear medium armor, then both the light and medium armor containers are blocked. Heavy armor blocks all three. But just because these slots can't carry items doesn't mean they aren't used at all.

Equipping any armor fills the first slot under light armor, except if it's padded armor. Padded armor is the only exception to this rule. The rest of the slots may be filled with AC bonuses, either from armor or from DEX. AC from DEX can fill any empty item slot, but AC from armor can only fill slots in that armor's container, or the armor containers below it. For example, AC from medium armor can fill slots in both the medium and light armor containers, but not the heavy armor container. Each slot thus filled provides +1 AC.

Here's an example. Leather armor is listed in the PHB as having an AC of 11 + DEX mod. Since base AC is 10, that translates into +1 AC from armor. So our light armor container will have it's first slot filled with the armor itself (remember padded armor is the only exception to this rule), and the 2nd slot filled with +1 AC from armor. If we have a DEX of 12 or higher, we can put a +1 AC from DEX in the 3rd slot of the light armor container. Any remaining AC from DEX can go in any empty item slot. If you later fill that slot with an item, you lose that AC bonus until you empty the slot again.

Something you'll notice is that since the first slot of the light armor container is always filled, and AC from armor can only go in the armor slots of that container, the maximum AC from light armor we can get is +2, as there are only two slots remaining in the light armor container. This matches studded leather armor from the PHB. As you would expect, there is no limit on how much AC from DEX that we may get while wearing light armor.

Medium armor is a bit different. We can fill light or medium armor slots with AC from medium armor, and since the first slot in the light armor container is always filled, that means the maximum bonus is +5, which matches half-plate from the PHB. You may notice, though, that half-plate also gives disadvantage on Stealth checks (which you may want to generalize to all DEX checks). So, here's what we're going to do: by default, medium armor gives disadvantage on Stealth (or DEX) checks, but you have the option of filling the first slot of the medium armor container to remove that penalty. This works like filling the first slot of the light armor container. If we do this, the maximum AC from armor we can achieve is +4, which matches the breastplate.

Here's where medium armor gets different; how it handles AC from DEX. Medium armor is no longer restricted to +2 AC from DEX, but rather you are restricted to only filling armor slots (from any armor container) with AC from DEX, rather than any empty item slot. Remember, there are only nine "armor slots", and one of them (or two, if you don't want disadvantage) is filled with your armor. This means you have a hard limit of AC 18, but you are flexible in how you combine AC from armor and AC from DEX. If you have a DEX of 18 (+4 AC from DEX), you only need scale mail (+4 AC from armor) or a chain shirt (+3 AC, no disadvantage) in order to get the maximum benefit. If you wear, say, a breastplate (+4 AC, no disadvantage) with a DEX of 20 (+5 AC from DEX), you are wasting 2 AC from DEX, as you have no more space to put it.

And yes, I realize this basically gives everyone Medium Armor Master for free. It's not perfect.

Heavy armor works more like you would expect it to. You no longer gain any AC from DEX. You only fill the first slot of the light armor container leaving up to 8 remaining slots for AC from armor. This corresponds to a maximum AC of 18 with plate armor. You always have disadvantage on Stealth and/or DEX checks. Although, you could tweak the system to carry over the mitigation from medium armor by filling a slot to avoid the penalty, giving you a max of AC 17 with no disadvantage.



Something you'll notice is that each point of STR gives you one item slot, which potentially means +1 AC from armor per point of STR (up to a max of +8). On the other hand, you need two points of DEX for +1 AC, and you might also need one point of STR for an empty slot to put it in. This means STR is more efficient at giving you AC, but is more reliant on armor. Also remember that you can still put items in the slots used for DEX AC if you really need to, although you'll lose the AC bonus until you empty the slot again.

We don't really have any reason to keep the STR requirements for armor anymore. Heavy armor already limits our inventory, putting us at the risk of encumbrance if we don't raise our STR. With a STR of 10 and heavy armor, you only have 7 remaining slots for items, which is enough for a shield, a one handed weapon, and a two handed weapon (see below), and nothing else.

Now, there is the question of things like magic armor, Mage Armor, and Unarmored Defense. For magic armor, I'd say the bonus is free, it doesn't need to take up a slot. For Mage Armor, I would say that it it does take up space, and since it's +3 you can conveniently place it into the light armor container, essentially blocking it off (DM's choice if you can put items in those slots or not). As such, it basically acts as extra AC from DEX. For Unarmored Defense, I would either make it act like extra AC from DEX, where each extra point of AC needs to fill an empty slot, or simply block off the light armor container regardless of how much extra AC you're getting.

Looking again at variant encumbrance in the PHB, I see it doesn't say anything about encumbrance interfering with AC from DEX. Curious. I'm tempted to say that being encumbered means you can't get AC from DEX, but I'll leave that one up to the judgement of the potential DMs reading this.



Now for the question of how many slots an item takes up. Doing some quick math using variant encumbrance from the PHB and comparing it to how many item slots we have at various STR scores, each individual item slot carries roughly 2 to 4 pounds. However, I think size is actually the more important factor here.

Let's assume that the "length" of an object is its longest dimension, e.g. an item with dimensions of 3x4x6 would have a "length" of 6.

Anything that is less than a couple inches in length can be ignored and listed under "Misc". Anything more than a couple inches but less than 2 feet takes up one slot. Anything between 2 and 4 feet is two slots. Anything more than 4 feet long is three slots. Do note that it either needs to fit inside the container you're putting it in, or be strapped onto the container somehow (or held in your hand). You can't just put a 10 foot ladder inside your backpack.

As far as weight goes, if an item weighs more than your STR mod (but at least 1 pound) it should probably take up 1 slot. If it weighs more than half your STR score, it should probably take up two slots. And if it weighs more than your STR score, it should probably take up three slots (a whole container). If it weighs more than twice your STR score, it should take up two entire containers, three times your STR score is three containers, etc.

Some items can be stacked. Torches, arrows, even rations, basically anything you'd want to carry a large number of, especially if they're light and thin. Just make sure the "stack" doesn't become so tall that the "height" pushes it into the next size category, and keep an eye on the weight as well. With a STR of 10, you can safely carry 5 torches in one slot, for example.

Note that 50 coins = 1 pound, so you can carry up to 50 * STR mod coins (minimum 50 coins) without it taking up any space, 25 * STR score before it takes up two spaces, and 50 * STR score before it takes up three spaces.

This gives us some hard and fast rules for judging how much space an item takes up. We can create some specific rules for weapons and armor.

The club, dagger, sickle, dart, sling, and blowgun (all 1d4 or less, all 2 pounds or less) each take up one slot. Any weapon with the two-handed, versatile, or reach property (except whip) takes up three slots. All other weapons take up two slots. This is assume the weapon is equipped and accessible for use in combat. If it's stored in a pack somewhere, then you can probably stack them like normal items.

A shield takes up two slots, giving +2 AC. As an option, a smaller shield (buckler? targe?) can be used that takes up one slot and gives +1 AC. (You might consider putting the buckler under light armor proficiency, so any class with prof. in light armor can use it even if they don't have prof. with shields.)

I feel like armor should either just take up an entire container, regardless of type, or, more likely, take up as much space as it does when wearing it, i.e. medium armor takes up two containers/six slots, heavy armor takes up three containers/nine slots.

Let's say that clothing is free. You wear it, it's light, it doesn't (generally) provide any mechanical benefits, so don't sweat it. Clothing you're not wearing is going to be folded up, probably taking up one slot.



Whew! That was a long one. I hope someone can disentangle my thoughts here and maybe try this out. I've been using an online spreadsheet for inventory, so weights are totaled up automatically. I'm interested in using a space/location based inventory, though, as this is something that actually came up! (A PC got mugged and had all their items stolen, but then insisted that some of their things were left at the inn. Don't worry, we got them back, and also kind of took over a thieves' guild. At 3rd level.)

[Anonymouswizard]

The system I'd use.

You have the ability to wear the following items:
-One suit of armour, jacket, or robe
-One shirt, dress, or vest
-One pair or trousers or skirt
-One pair of undergarments (yes my settings include the occasional set of magic undergarments, so tracking what ones you're wearing is sometimes important)
-One belt (or bandoleer, which the rules assume is just an alternative orientation of belt)
-One cloak
-One satchel or backpack
-One hat
-One pair of gloves
-One pair of socks (what? You don't carry around Socks of Cold Resistance?)
-One pair of shoes
-One quiver (with twenty rounds of ammunition)

If wearing a belt you can also wear up to four weapons or pouches on it. You can also carry one weapon on your back, but it takes more effort to ready or takes the place of a backpack. Oh, and two items in your hands.

A belt pouch has one item slot, a backpack or satchel has ten, and a sack has twenty. Backpacks also give free space for a bedroll and rope, satchels don't. A slot can be filled by a hundred coin sized items or one item the size of your hand. Large items like weapons can take up multiple slots. Other specific notes:
-A piece of clothing or set of undergarments, socks, or shoes is one slot.
-A wash kit is one slot.
-A mess kit plus tinderbox is one slot.
-Rations are five days to the slot.
-Foci are assumed to be weapons for storage purposes.

This is mainly not to overly punish the players from carrying stuff that'll help with survival and not looking like crazy murder hobos.

Anything on a belt or bandoleer is considered instant access, anything in a satchel takes an action to dig out (we're making this quicker than it might be in reality to stop the system from getting bogged down), anything in a backpack requires one action to move the backpack so you can open it, one to get the item out of the backpack, and one to put the backpack back (or you can drop it for free). Sacks can be searched in an action, but just be carried in a hand.

For a sheet, which I likely will design at one point, you'd have a visual representation of your backpack/satchel with slots to write item names in, a list of what you're wearing (with sections under the belt slot for what weapons or pouches are on it), and similar things like that, plus a section for property owned and items stored at each property. Is it a pain? Sort of, if you're carrying around enough magic clothes that you need to note exactly which one you're wearing right now, but most of the time you'll only be interacting with the belt and bag portions of the sheet.

Oh, and wearing/carrying something you don't have a suitable slot for (and some are interchangable, you can wear two shirts without penalty if forgoing a jacket) gives a level of encumbrance. It's a bit harsh, but maybe you should cut down to carrying what you need.

That sounds complex, but that's because it's including item slots into the encumbrance system instead of having them as a seperate system. Many players already track which shirt they have on, this system just makes it part of the 'lists of items I have on me' instead of a seperate thing.