RPG Rant: Weapon Weights

[Tetsubo 57]

I rant about something that has bugged me for 30+ years...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNUbjenhs8Y

[Folytopo]

Yeah, Accountants don't often spend all day swinging hammers or chop down trees. Good points, I have seen this argument before and you were very articulate, and easily accessible.

[Tetsubo 57]

Yeah, Accountants don't often spend all day swinging hammers or chop down trees. Good points, I have seen this argument before and you were very articulate, and easily accessible.

Thanks. I've had thirty years to think about it. :)

[Grumman]

I rant about something that has bugged me for 30+ years...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNUbjenhs8Y

I think I've told you this before, but if you can't be bothered to post something here instead of just linking to your Youtube video, you shouldn't expect us to be bothered watching it.

[Tetsubo 57]

I think I've told you this before, but if you can't be bothered to post something here instead of just linking to your Youtube video, you shouldn't expect us to be bothered watching it.

I make videos because I find if far easier to communicate in that manner. If you don't want to watch, I understand. Feel free to ignore my posts.

[Drakevarg]

Honestly, I had never noticed this before. Probably because most of the time when I'm using a sword it's a weighted rattan one.

On a related note, as a hobbyist blacksmith and the owner of a chainmail shirt, it's always irritated me how lightweight their listings for armor is. For example, the PHB Chain Shirt weighs 25 lbs, which is only about half the proper weight.

[Reinboom]

I think a major part of the weight issues is that with many new RPGs the designers don't think to do research for such things but instead trust that the RPG they retrieved it from first did the research correctly.

This information is insignificant to many people. Instead, the mechanics and style of the game system itself appeals more to their liking and thus they research and do more work on that portion.

Of course, rants like this are great - if they can get attention - because it gives the issue more light.

Personally, in my design, I've grown to not specify weight but instead use encumbrance specifically. It simplifies the system down and it makes much more sense with armor. Worn armor feels lighter and is much easier to work in than the weight of just carrying it would have you believe, after all.

On the rant itself, you're quite well spoken and I very much appreciate your weaving of references into your speech. Also you're cute. I'll have to look up any other videos you've done.

[Drakevarg]

Personally, in my design, I've grown to not specify weight but instead use encumbrance specifically. It simplifies the system down and it makes much more sense with armor. Worn armor feels lighter and is much easier to work in than the weight of just carrying it would have you believe, after all.

Keep in mind that you aren't always wearing armor, either; can you imagine wearing full plate for a whole day, while hiking over rough terrain? Enjoy your stroke. The actual weight matters then.

And I'm well aware that worn armor is not as much of a burden as carried armor, but in that case why not have a listing for both weight and encumbrance?

On the weapon end of the equation, there's really not a noticible difference between the weight of a sword on your belt and a sword in your hand. (Other than say, holding it out at arms length for an extended period of time. But thats mostly just because your center of balance is off.)

[Tetsubo 57]

I think a major part of the weight issues is that with many new RPGs the designers don't think to do research for such things but instead trust that the RPG they retrieved it from first did the research correctly.

This information is insignificant to many people. Instead, the mechanics and style of the game system itself appeals more to their liking and thus they research and do more work on that portion.

Of course, rants like this are great - if they can get attention - because it gives the issue more light.

Personally, in my design, I've grown to not specify weight but instead use encumbrance specifically. It simplifies the system down and it makes much more sense with armor. Worn armor feels lighter and is much easier to work in than the weight of just carrying it would have you believe, after all.

On the rant itself, you're quite well spoken and I very much appreciate your weaving of references into your speech. Also you're cute. I'll have to look up any other videos you've done.

Thank you on both accounts. :) I do rpg related videos regularly. I review the new things I read and occasionally older games.

[Reinboom]

And I'm well aware that worn armor is not as much of a burden as carried armor, but in that case why not have a listing for both weight and encumbrance?

Because how you carry it matters as well. Weight also tends to be misleading.

I do "Carried/Worn" encumbrance on armors, personally. Other things can lean to decreasing carried encumbrance. And armors exhaust over time.


Of course, the other problem here is that a game system must flow. This is a big reason to not use multiple values (though, a passing mention of the weight range in the description may be useful). There's also the problem that, like many of the game designers that tetsubo has complained about, people have their own decided thoughts about weight and what it should be - whether wrong or not.

Thank you on both accounts. :) I do rpg related videos regularly. I review the new things I read and occasionally older games.

[Hague]

Usually weight isn't even a significant factor but when you do use it, it's really to limit things like rope and excessive alchemical gear and the like. (DnD 3.5) If the weights were appropriate, it would make a wider variety of weapons available to weaker characters (not that weaker chars will use weapons often...) Really, if you use realistic encumbrance rules, water ends up being your heaviest piece of equipment, followed by rope, and then inevitably all the gold you carry back with you. Of course, once the bag of holding is in play, well, it's not such a big deal. But with weapon weights as high as they are, a person with average strength can't wield a two-handed sword and have a regular equipment layout without being at least moderately encumbered.

[Drakevarg]

once the bag of holding is in play, well, it's not such a big deal.

It's bad policy to assume that any given item is going to be available. Since items are handed out by DM Fiat, you really shouldn't plan anything around the idea that item X will be available when you need it.

(Sorry, a pet peeve of mine when listening to people's character creation plans.)

But with weapon weights as high as they are, a person with average strength can't wield a two-handed sword and have a regular equipment layout without being at least moderately encumbered.

Pff. I've made enough NPC sheets to know that a person with average strength can't even carry a city guard's equipment without at least moderate encumberance. Moderate encumberance is practically the norm.

[Irreverent Fool]

It's bad policy to assume that any given item is going to be available. Since items are handed out by DM Fiat, you really shouldn't plan anything around the idea that item X will be available when you need it.

(Sorry, a pet peeve of mine when listening to people's character creation plans.)

Pff. I've made enough NPC sheets to know that a person with average strength can't even carry a city guard's equipment without at least moderate encumberance. Moderate encumberance is practically the norm.

Thanks to 3.5's WBL and item availability based on settlement size, affording a bag of holding at the appropriate level is practically RAW. The DM Fiat would come in when characters are forced to trek through an unpopulated world in which they never find treasure. The DMG pretty much spells out that characters should be able to acquire items appropriate to their level, so it's reasonable for a character created in a RAW world to include item acquisition as part of his build.

Back on the topic: Moderate encumbrance should be the norm for heavily-armed and armored individuals. I'm afraid I don't have a link, but there was a rather eloquent post awhile back comparing D&D encumbrance with what real-life armed forces deal with. The general conclusion was that although specific item weights may be out of whack, the overall effect of encumbrance was fairly accurate within the abstracted d20 system in comparison to real-world analogues.

I'm a fan of tracking overall weight. It means I can put in huge treasure hoards and know the characters will only be able to carry off a WBL-appropriate amount (at lower levels).

[Drakevarg]

Thanks to 3.5's WBL and item availability based on settlement size, affording a bag of holding at the appropriate level is practically RAW. The DM Fiat would come in when characters are forced to trek through an unpopulated world in which they never find treasure. The DMG pretty much spells out that characters should be able to acquire items appropriate to their level, so it's reasonable for a character created in a RAW world to include item acquisition as part of his build.

An unpopulated world with no treasure is one thing. It's an entirely different matter to assume that everything in the DMG can be purchased over the counter. It's entirely allowed within the rules for the DM to simply say "no, they don't have a Bag of Holding."

(On the other hand, it's entirely allowed within the rule for the DM to whatever the hell he wants. Rule 0 is RAW.)

[Xuc Xac]

A two-handed sword is called a Zweihänder (all nouns are capitalized in German) or you can anglicize it as zweihaender if you can't type "ä". It's pronounced "zvai-hen-der" not "zwee-lan-der".

"Parlance" is a way of speaking. "Common parlance" is using normal everyday language. For example, "a zweihaender is called a 'two-handed sword' in common parlance".

"Mêlée" is not "mee-lee". It's "may-lay".

[sofawall]

It's pronounced "zvai-hen-der" not "zwee-lan-der".

Tsvai-hehn-dehr, but close.

[dr.cello]

I always figured the weights were more concerned with balancing with a character's carrying capacity than anything else. Allowing people to wear armor without being unable to do anything, but keeping them from carrying an entire arsenal of weapons.

Admittedly the 'weapons are ridiculously heavy' has always bothered me, but I'm not too worried about armor being light (because I don't like my players or characters to be unable to move).

[Spiryt]

On a related note, as a hobbyist blacksmith and the owner of a chainmail shirt, it's always irritated me how lightweight their listings for armor is. For example, the PHB Chain Shirt weighs 25 lbs, which is only about half the proper weight.

Excuse me, what? Mail shirt weighing 50 pounds?

Mail shirt reconstructed from the remains of Roman soldiers ones (around 50 AD) usually weigh about 20 pounds, while made of small rings of about 5mm of internal diameter, all riveted.
And they're made for modern guys, who are usually bigger than Roman legionnaires were.

[Shademan]

and chainmail is always heaviest before you put it on.

[Tetsubo 57]

Excuse me, what? Mail shirt weighing 50 pounds?

Mail shirt reconstructed from the remains of Roman soldiers ones (around 50 AD) usually weigh about 20 pounds, while made of small rings of about 5mm of internal diameter, all riveted.
And they're made for modern guys, who are usually bigger than Roman legionnaires were.

Well, there is a difference between a mail shirt and a full hauberk. Plus the gambison worn beneath...

[Spiryt]

Well, there is a difference between a mail shirt and a full hauberk. Plus the gambison worn beneath...

So? I quoted post about shirt only, so I talked about shirt.

Mail covering whole body from hands to feet usually weighted around 40 pounds to best of our knowledge, but mail finds are of course really scarce. And it was individual thing.

[JaronK]

Still, a lot of people overestimate weights of armor and weapons. These guys marched in the stuff... it wasn't that heavy. A good two handed sword should weigh about 5-6 pounds. Just because lame replicas are 12 pounds doesn't make that actually true for what battle swords were.

Meanwhile, ornate armor designed for parades was heavy... but armor used for soldiers in the field was light and useful. If it's got pretty drawings all over it and weighs 100 pounds, it probably wasn't used in war (except maybe on horseback).

JaronK

[Shademan]

armour in general tend to annoy me. padded gambesons are so underated and leather is so overrated.
and come on... do a armour decrease your speed and dexterity that much? sure it will tire you quicker but...

[tiercel]

Well.. it's a game system. And -- just to address armor alone -- one where pretty much every character that wears armor at all tends to wind up wearing a mithral chain shirt, or full plate, once ~4th level or so is reached. Other armor types are mostly just flavor text at that point.

I mean seriously, unless there's a campaign restriction of some kind, why would anyone bother with the expense of making a magical set of scale mail? For that much money, you might as well enchant a "real" set of armor (mechanically speaking).

[Greenish]

It's not just RPGs. The ARMA has a couple of essays on the topic.

[The Rose Dragon]

I think the best game in this regard is Weapons of the Gods, which has the lightest weapons weighing 50 pounds. Even those that are not actual weapons of the gods. You might be a (relative) weakling unable to lift 200 pounds over your head, but your sword will weigh 500 pounds and you will swing it around perfectly because that's just how Weapons of the Gods rolls.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

An unpopulated world with no treasure is one thing. It's an entirely different matter to assume that everything in the DMG can be purchased over the counter. It's entirely allowed within the rules for the DM to simply say "no, they don't have a Bag of Holding."

All that fiat is going to start feeling a little oppressive and, well, downright unfun if everything I ever try to obtain is out of stock every single freakin’ place I look and if there is no wizard in the whole wide world that would even consider taking a commission for it.

[Godskook]

I'm not sure I understand the point.

In the video, you claim "Never more than 6 lbs" and the heaviest sword in 3.5 weights 8lbs.

Doesn't seem 'too' far off.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Do the weights in the PHB etc. include scabbards or other accessories? Not sure how much a scabbard weights...

[Matthew]

There is a long ongoing thread in its fifth (or sixth?) iteration devoted to this sort of iscussion. I seem to recall it was created to avoid the worst of real world versus fantasy arms and armour debate. As it goes, D20/3.5 revised all its weapon weights to much more reasonable numbers.

Also, quite wrong on the encumbrance/weight score. The first edition of AD&D is definitely all about encumbrance, and actively hostile to providing cut and dried weights. That said, the numbers are clearly derived from outdated sources.