Tangent Thread: The Value of Encumbrance (or lack thereof)

[Osuniev]

I like Variant Encumbrance a lot. Using it in all my games.
Mostly because it makes Strength less of a dump-stat, but also, I felt it made for interesting decisions : many people are saying "it means players will have to put down equipment to carry the gold".

Well, not really : this happens with Carry Capacity rules.

In games with Variant Encumbrance, you have instead a trade off where "carry the gold" means reduced speed. It also means players will start looking for a place to stash their gold, which I also like a lot. And then it creates a good money sink where they hire people to guard their stash.

Of course, we also like tracking rations, torches, etc... Which may mean we are weird.

But suddenly "Light" becomes a useful cantrip when it means you sacrifice Firebolt so you don't have to carry torches.

My Ranger player loves the fact that on his own, he's saving the party from having to carry all these rations and water. He loves his survival checks. My Cleric suddenly cares about the spell "Create Food and Water". Even my Druid is using Druidcraft to check the weather because if it's going to rain, then they can afford not taking too much water.

Carry Capacity means you're just fine with 15 times your STR, but can't move when you pick up 1 pound and suddenly you can't move.
Variant Encumbrance means you'll never reach that point, because you'll try to stop at 5 times your STR. And when you go over that, it's a minor problem, so you won't HATE it, but you'll try to fix it quickly.

It also means interesting decisions : do we leave the Mule outside the Dungeon ? What happens to the mule afterwards ?
I have players "drop their backpack on the floor" at the beginning of a fight, then run back to it if they need rope. Etc.

Not everyone cup of tea, but I like it, and so do my players.

[Democratus]

It also means interesting decisions : do we leave the Mule outside the Dungeon ? What happens to the mule afterwards ?
I have players "drop their backpack on the floor" at the beginning of a fight, then run back to it if they need rope. Etc.

Not everyone cup of tea, but I like it, and so do my players.

Great stuff here. Sounds a lot like our game table.

My players also have a "drop backpack" at the beginning of most combats to give them the needed freedom of movement.

When the party is going light (just the PCs) this does risk losing the pack and its contents sometimes. But often the party will be traveling with porters, torchbearers, etc. They will look after the dropped packs till the fight is over.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Ok, it's funny. A player made a new character and straight from character creation, they were overencumbered. I checked the spreadsheet and everything was correct. They just started overencumbered. They had 8 str, a heavy, light, and hand crossbow, chainmail armor, 20 crossbow bolts, 10 rations, 10 torches, 10lbs of rope and some other things that I'll have to check again but he was overencumbered by 20lbs as soon as he made the character.

You're right. Your players are little hoarders. Why do they have three crossbows?

Also, given that they're using chain at S8, they might have other issues, since chain is min S13 otherwise you get penalties, IIRC.


As for pack weights, a Dungeoneers pack is the heaviest at 61.5lbs [most are lighter like 30lbs], which leaves 60 pounds of space for even a S8 character to work with for weapons and for treasure.

[Chaosmancer]

I like Variant Encumbrance a lot. Using it in all my games.
Mostly because it makes Strength less of a dump-stat, but also, I felt it made for interesting decisions : many people are saying "it means players will have to put down equipment to carry the gold".

Well, not really : this happens with Carry Capacity rules.

In games with Variant Encumbrance, you have instead a trade off where "carry the gold" means reduced speed. It also means players will start looking for a place to stash their gold, which I also like a lot. And then it creates a good money sink where they hire people to guard their stash.

Of course, we also like tracking rations, torches, etc... Which may mean we are weird.

But suddenly "Light" becomes a useful cantrip when it means you sacrifice Firebolt so you don't have to carry torches.

My Ranger player loves the fact that on his own, he's saving the party from having to carry all these rations and water. He loves his survival checks. My Cleric suddenly cares about the spell "Create Food and Water". Even my Druid is using Druidcraft to check the weather because if it's going to rain, then they can afford not taking too much water.

Carry Capacity means you're just fine with 15 times your STR, but can't move when you pick up 1 pound and suddenly you can't move.
Variant Encumbrance means you'll never reach that point, because you'll try to stop at 5 times your STR. And when you go over that, it's a minor problem, so you won't HATE it, but you'll try to fix it quickly.

It also means interesting decisions : do we leave the Mule outside the Dungeon ? What happens to the mule afterwards ?
I have players "drop their backpack on the floor" at the beginning of a fight, then run back to it if they need rope. Etc.

Not everyone cup of tea, but I like it, and so do my players.

I'm curious, do the monsters every have their speed reduced by what they are carrying? Especially if they looted the player's stash of gold? Are humanoids carrying torches, rations and water as well?

I am glad you and your players are having fun, I'm just curious if you extend that movement penalty to anyone else.

[Democratus]

I'm curious, do the monsters every have their speed reduced by what they are carrying? Especially if they looted the player's stash of gold? Are humanoids carrying torches, rations and water as well?

I am glad you and your players are having fun, I'm just curious if you extend that movement penalty to anyone else.

These are important considerations when the humanoids come out and raid civilization. How much can they reasonably take from the village? Odds are that they loot what can be easily carried away and burn the rest.

Adventurers often encounter these humanoids where they live; kicking down doors and storming tunnels. In which case the monster treasure is laying about rather than in their pockets.

If the players are lugging about 400 lbs of gold and are waylaid (and somehow bested) by 3 weak goblins, seems fair that they would have a heck of a time dragging the loot back home.

[greenstone]

I'm curious, do the monsters every have their speed reduced by what they are carrying? Especially if they looted the player's stash of gold? Are humanoids carrying torches, rations and water as well?

The ones in my game do. Some of them hold torches or lanterns instead of shields, dropping their AC. The ones returning from raids are laden with goods; they do travel at a slower pace, allowing PCs to catch up.

[Osuniev]

Also, given that they're using chain at S8, they might have other issues, since chain is min S13 otherwise you get penalties, IIRC.

Yeah, I was wondering about them wearing armor that they don't match the strength requirement for. Their speed was reduced by 10 ft the moment they put it on.

RAW says : "When you use this variant [Encumbrance], ignore the Strength column of the Armor table.", since the rule already takes the weight of the Armor in consideration.

[Osuniev]

I'm curious, do the monsters every have their speed reduced by what they are carrying? Especially if they looted the player's stash of gold? Are humanoids carrying torches, rations and water as well?

I am glad you and your players are having fun, I'm just curious if you extend that movement penalty to anyone else.

Humans often carry torches. Goblins and other darkvision monsters, no, unless they need light for some reason (drows have lanterns when they need to read, for example). But their homes often have an area that is lit if it makes sense for it to be.

My monsters sometimes have their speed reduced if they are heavily armoured AND have many weapons , but they often don't carry nearly as much stuff as my players, because they are often encounterd in their lairs.

But last time they raided a villain's lair, the enemy carrying black powder kegs were definitely encumbered. Of course, they dropped it at the beginning of combat, just like my players would have done (and the kegs became an interesting tactical target, just like my players backpacks sometimes are).

And if my PCs encounter humanoid enemies in the wilderness, the first thing they find when looting them is waterskins and food, unless the monsters are foragers. I even had one game where my players attacked a troop of half-orcs to steal their food ! (a rare event, I'll admit). It made for great RP moments when I asked a Nature or Cook's Tools check to know WHAT meat this was...

The stash of gold of my players was only attacked once, by a mage who wanted a magical artifact, so he didn't take the gold. But if he had, sure, he would have been encumbered.

[NoxMiasma]

Okay, so the reason the 5e team decided to simplify encumbrance is that for most parties, it was an annoying distraction that resulted in a lot of fiddly bookkeeping. However, the reason the system for encumbrance was first invented was because early D&D was a heist game - and that meant that getting the loot back out of the dungeon was literally half the point. If you're doing a gritty, high-bookkeeping game, or an old-style heist campaign, variant encumbrance is great, but if your players find it difficult to keep track of, or the campaign is more of an epic fantasy romp, there's nothing wrong with using the simplified encumbrance instead.

Also, my one nitpick with encumbrance - armor only counts for weight when you aren't wearing it. I've - IRL - worn a set of plate armor which I cannot physically lift when its packed away, but once the set is on, I can job basically fine, and have even managed a cartwheel!

[Osuniev]

Simplifying away encumbrance and other stuff such as light, eating and drinking, etc... Makes sense in most campaigns, but it does make any kind of challenge with the wilderness much harder to set up. I believe the Rangers would get much more love if people really NEEDED that food and water because packing it was not an option.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I like Variant Encumbrance a lot. Using it in all my games.
Mostly because it makes Strength less of a dump-stat, but also, I felt it made for interesting decisions : many people are saying "it means players will have to put down equipment to carry the gold".

Well, not really : this happens with Carry Capacity rules.

In games with Variant Encumbrance, you have instead a trade off where "carry the gold" means reduced speed. It also means players will start looking for a place to stash their gold, which I also like a lot. And then it creates a good money sink where they hire people to guard their stash.

Of course, we also like tracking rations, torches, etc... Which may mean we are weird.

But suddenly "Light" becomes a useful cantrip when it means you sacrifice Firebolt so you don't have to carry torches.

My Ranger player loves the fact that on his own, he's saving the party from having to carry all these rations and water. He loves his survival checks. My Cleric suddenly cares about the spell "Create Food and Water". Even my Druid is using Druidcraft to check the weather because if it's going to rain, then they can afford not taking too much water.

Carry Capacity means you're just fine with 15 times your STR, but can't move when you pick up 1 pound and suddenly you can't move.
Variant Encumbrance means you'll never reach that point, because you'll try to stop at 5 times your STR. And when you go over that, it's a minor problem, so you won't HATE it, but you'll try to fix it quickly.

It also means interesting decisions : do we leave the Mule outside the Dungeon ? What happens to the mule afterwards ?
I have players "drop their backpack on the floor" at the beginning of a fight, then run back to it if they need rope. Etc.

Not everyone cup of tea, but I like it, and so do my players.

We are also using (a slightly more generous version of) variant encumbrance, for some of the same reasons. There will be consequences for min/maxing your character, and Dex got plenty of love RAW. 150 lbs for an average strength character to move and act 100% just seemed silly.

[Necroanswer]

Simplifying away encumbrance and other stuff such as light, eating and drinking, etc... Makes sense in most campaigns, but it does make any kind of challenge with the wilderness much harder to set up. I believe the Rangers would get much more love if people really NEEDED that food and water because packing it was not an option.

Also

Even if you are tracking encumbrance for food, water, and lighting low level spells can do away with it without a Ranger. Goodberry, Create Water and Light cast when needed can basically negate the need to carry or find stuff to cover these needs.

[Tanarii]

Also, my one nitpick with encumbrance - armor only counts for weight when you aren't wearing it. I've - IRL - worn a set of plate armor which I cannot physically lift when its packed away, but once the set is on, I can job basically fine, and have even managed a cartwheel!

What makes you think that?

[Osuniev]

Even if you are tracking encumbrance for food, water, and lighting low level spells can do away with it without a Ranger. Goodberry, Create Water and Light cast when needed can basically negate the need to carry or find stuff to cover these needs.

Yes, it's part of what bothers me with these, but at least they represent a cost (either in spell slots or in spells known/prepared). (And since I play with Gritty Realism, it can be a significant cost).

SO you can play without a Ranger, but if there's one in your party, the Cleric will be glad he doesn't have to prepare Create Water and Purify Food, and the Ranger will feel useful and enjoy being good at survival.

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, it's part of what bothers me with these, but at least they represent a cost (either in spell slots or in spells known/prepared). (And since I play with Gritty Realism, it can be a significant cost).

SO you can play without a Ranger, but if there's one in your party, the Cleric will be glad he doesn't have to prepare Create Water and Purify Food, and the Ranger will feel useful and enjoy being good at survival.

I don't want to pile on, but there is also the outlander background which can provide food and water at no cost and no roll.

And that is assuming they don't forage for food and water, which is a relatively easy survival check in most environments.

[Tanarii]

I don't want to pile on, but there is also the outlander background which can provide food and water at no cost and no roll.

And that is assuming they don't forage for food and water, which is a relatively easy survival check in most environments.

Foraging with the Wanderer background doesn't remove the major penalty for Foraging: you don't get passive perception to detect threats. If you're attacked and there is a check for surprise you'll automatically be surprised.

[Zhorn]

Foraging with the Wanderer background doesn't remove the major penalty for Foraging: you don't get passive perception to detect threats. If you're attacked and there is a check for surprise you'll automatically be surprised.

In before some clever response to this commenting about "But they could just offset that easily by taking the Alert feat" because now you're not only spending a background but also a spending a feat/ASI that may have been preferred for a different character improvement. The workarounds that exist that help avoid dependencies or interactions with mechanics are not free. Limited spell slots, cantrip selections, dedicated background builds, finite ASI and feat opportunities.
I'm just not a fan of the insistence that a mechanic should be cut/ignored on the grounds you can have a build that negates it.

[Nifft]

What makes you think that?

It looks like he has IRL experience doing the thing personally. That's probably why he thinks his opinion is valid.

Honestly having personal IRL experience with armor is a pretty good justification for an opinion about armor.

[Doug Lampert]

It looks like he has IRL experience doing the thing personally. That's probably why he thinks his opinion is valid.

Honestly having personal IRL experience with armor is a pretty good justification for an opinion about armor.

How you are carrying something often matters a lot more than the simple weight. Backpacks are a lot easier than most other ways to carry something, well designed plate armor is even better weight distribution than a backpack.

Pick up 45 pounds of lead weight in your hands and carrying it around, awkward, it probably slows you down. You don't want to carry it all that far and certainly don't want to go on a five mile hike.

Put the same 45 pounds in a backpack, no problem, as an older couch potato I probably don't want to go on a long hike with it, but a soldier in decent shape would consider it a light load.

Now pick up a 45 pound twin mattress and trying to carry it around. Odds are you need two people, it's just too bulky, awkward, and just a bit too flexible to be easily moved.

A pike isn't that heavy, but carrying one should, by itself noticeably encumber you because there's no way to stow that weight where it isn't horribly awkward. Classical shields were awkward and carried in hand, that's one reason that routing troops always threw away their shield, a heavy shield slows you down far more than the weight would suggest it should.

A simplification to abstract "bulk points" or "item slots" or something similar can easily be more realistic than simply adding weights if you assign the points partly on how awkward or well distributed the weight is.

[Pex]

In before some clever response to this commenting about "But they could just offset that easily by taking the Alert feat" because now you're not only spending a background but also a spending a feat/ASI that may have been preferred for a different character improvement. The workarounds that exist that help avoid dependencies or interactions with mechanics are not free. Limited spell slots, cantrip selections, dedicated background builds, finite ASI and feat opportunities.
I'm just not a fan of the insistence that a mechanic should be cut/ignored on the grounds you can have a build that negates it.

On the other hand some might view it as a tax. They have to take it just to get rid of the annoying stuff. The players ask themselves who will make the sacrifice as it used to be asked who will have to play the healbot. There is a difference between wanting to take a feat or cast a spell and the game/DM making you do it.

[Chaosmancer]

Foraging with the Wanderer background doesn't remove the major penalty for Foraging: you don't get passive perception to detect threats. If you're attacked and there is a check for surprise you'll automatically be surprised.

Sure, but that only applies if you are foraging while on the march. I have never heard a good argument for why players can't forage after setting up camp.

And, if a DM wanted to get pendantic about the foraging option only being mentioned in the context of doing it on the march, then I would have to respond that the Outlander background feature actually doesn't specify you take the foraging action anyways, it just says you find the food. Which means it should be automatic and not a penalty on my passive perception.

It also bears mentioning that this specific penalty only applies if your DM is making wandering monster checks. And the official 5e rules on those are pretty limited. They have intervals anywhere between 1 hour, every 8 hours, or once a day, and you roll a d20 needing to get an 18 or higher. So, officially, a 15% chance per day is not unreasonable, and if you have had one encounter, there is a decent chance you might not have another.

[Democratus]

Sure, but that only applies if you are foraging while on the march. I have never heard a good argument for why players can't forage after setting up camp.

And, if a DM wanted to get pendantic about the foraging option only being mentioned in the context of doing it on the march, then I would have to respond that the Outlander background feature actually doesn't specify you take the foraging action anyways, it just says you find the food. Which means it should be automatic and not a penalty on my passive perception.

It also bears mentioning that this specific penalty only applies if your DM is making wandering monster checks. And the official 5e rules on those are pretty limited. They have intervals anywhere between 1 hour, every 8 hours, or once a day, and you roll a d20 needing to get an 18 or higher. So, officially, a 15% chance per day is not unreasonable, and if you have had one encounter, there is a decent chance you might not have another.

Sounds like a conversation is needed at Session 0 to set expectations.

What kind of campaign is it going to be? Will resource availability be an issue? How will the various wilderness features of classes and background behave?

If you don't have conversations like this, it could easily lead to mismatched expectations and disappointment.

[LordCdrMilitant]

We are also using (a slightly more generous version of) variant encumbrance, for some of the same reasons. There will be consequences for min/maxing your character, and Dex got plenty of love RAW. 150 lbs for an average strength character to move and act 100% just seemed silly.

150lbs carry weight is pretty silly. I don't think I can carry 75 pounds in a backpack IRL, much less 150 pounds.

This just goes with "the base game rules for carry weight are just absurdly high"

[Tanarii]

It looks like he has IRL experience doing the thing personally. That's probably why he thinks his opinion is valid.

Honestly having personal IRL experience with armor is a pretty good justification for an opinion about armor.

Thanks. I missed it was an IRL opinion. I thought it was a statement about the rules.