Why are there 2 different encumbrance rules?

[Eclectic Wave]

I was creating magic armor and wanted one of the magic affects to be that the armor was weightless, so checked the encumbrance, which I had previously not really paid all that much attention to. I was less then thrilled when I read the rules, which is the standard how much can you carry business. It means that a charcter that has say strength of 9 (far less then the minimum strength needed for most weapons) can still wear full plate mail with no problem.

 

Which immeditaly made me ask, why doesn't armor have minimum str requirements? It would be easy to use the exactly same rule setup for minimum strength for weapons.

 

If your strength is 5 points below the str minimum, you take the full encumbrance penalty. If your less then 5 points under the strength minimum, you have a small encumbrance penalty (-1 from dex rolls? Use a end pre phase maybe?) If your str equals the str minimum or is higher by up to five points your not encumbared, but can only carry your casual strength before being encumbared. If you excedd the minimum strength by more then 5, then you can use your full strength for encumbrance.

 

Right now, there are really two totally different rules for encumbrance, one for weapons and carrying things (encluding armor). I'm pretty positive that no one is ever going to use the current encumbrance rules on armor (Been gaming for over 25 years, I've yet to been in a game yet that the GM and players did use encumbrance rules). By adding str minimums to armor, it makes armor encumbrance a more important factor, adds more varity for magic items (this magic full plate mail has NO str minimums), gives a set of rules that will actually get used yet not impede games, and finally, makes armor and weapons use the same rules, instead of two different sets.

 

Anybody have any thoughts or comments on this idea?

[Alcamtar]

I'm using encumbrance, but I'm basing it on casual STR instead of full STR. The standard encumbrance rules (using full STR) are so "generous" that you might as well ignore them and let characters carry whatever they want.

 

Your version is definitely simpler than the enc rules, but ignores equipment. The reason I'm using encumbrance is because it seems ridiculous to hike for 8-10 hours in full plate armor, with a 30kg backpack on your back, carrying weapons in your hands, over mountains and across burning deserts, without feeling it. I don't want to cripple the PCs or hamper them in combat, I just want them to feel the effects of hard travel and encourage them to travel light. I get tired of the "kitchen sink" syndrome.

 

Mike

[Talon]

I've used the encumbrance rules (house rule from 4th, now only slightly different from the 5th version) multiple times and feel it's an important balancing tool.

 

The STR Min rules aren't really encumbrance in that they don't penalize you for carrying the weapon, just for using it. I've never considered there to be overlap, but maybe that's just my thinking.

[Monolith]

Re: Why are there 2 different encumbrance rules?

 

Originally posted by Eclectic Wave

It means that a charcter that has say strength of 9 (far less then the minimum strength needed for most weapons) can still wear full plate mail with no problem.

Your STR 9 character, assuming he is carrying a weapon and other normal items, would be at -2 DCV/DEX rolls, -1" of movement, and 1 END per Turn from wearing the Full Plate. Not exactly "no problem." When you start adding in shields and weapons and backpacks full of material this character would very quickly drop into the next lowest group.

 

I Personally like the new ENC rules. They make much more sense than the older versions did. The few FH games I have played in all used ENC, and the game I am currently working on will use ENC too. So I would not say that it is uncommon for players to use the rules.

[Eclectic Wave]

Your version is definitely simpler than the enc rules, but ignores equipment. Mike [/b]

 

Carrying extra equipment in addition to the armor is what I was refering to with the mention of the casual strength (Funny how we both ended up at that), if your strength is equal or greater but less then 5 over then you would only use your casual for how much you could carry, and with 5 over strength, full strength.

 

The problem is the encumbarance rules that use weight, are a pain in the ass. Yea, we found a treasure chest full of gold coins, after 10 minutes of figuring out encumbrance values and equipment weight on all the players, it works out that only 1 pound of gold coins can be picked up, and we have to ditch the rest. Oh boy.

 

Hero at least addressed encumbrance of weapons in a new unique way, with Str minimums. Most gamers ignore the encumbrance rules, the Str minimuns are a lot harder to ignore.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Eclectic Wave

Yea, we found a treasure chest full of gold coins, after 10 minutes of figuring out encumbrance values and equipment weight on all the players, it works out that only 1 pound of gold coins can be picked up, and we have to ditch the rest. Oh boy.

It is a statement like this that makes me thing you possibly do not understand the encumbrance rules. Based on the ENC rules a 10 STR person should be able to carry some 100 pounds of gold coins and equipment before suffering any serious setbacks in DCV, etc. Assuming 50 pounds of equipment, that leaves 50 pounds open for gold. And this is just the 10 STR guys. The 20 STR tanks could walk around with some 400 pounds of equipment and gold. Exactly how much does that chest of gold weigh?

[oberon]

Originally posted by Eclectic Wave

Hero at least addressed encumbrance of weapons in a new unique way, with Str minimums. Most gamers ignore the encumbrance rules, the Str minimuns are a lot harder to ignore.

 

My understanding is that the STR Minimum of weapons does not really have anything to do with encumbrance. It is the STR required to effectively wield the weapon in combat. I certainly wouldn't impose STR Min. penaties on anyone who was just carrying the item around and not attempting to use it in combat.

 

oberon

[Catseye]

I found the encumbrance rules overly complex and required too much bookeeping for my tastes.

 

I replaced it with MIN STR and DCV minuses based on armor type.

 

YMMV.

[farik]

I'm in the encumbrance rules seem fine camp. Like most Hero mechanics the initial calculation of how much armor and weapons a person can carry conveniently is done you don't have to refer to the encumbrance chart again. Then again I believe treasure chests should be hauled away in a wagon not in back packs.

[Markdoc]

>>>originally posted by Eclectic Wave

Yea, we found a treasure chest full of gold coins, after 10 minutes of figuring out encumbrance values and equipment weight on all the players, it works out that only 1 pound of gold coins can be picked up, and we have to ditch the rest. Oh boy.<<<<

 

Shows a lack of inventiveness, I say.

 

One of our GMs (who was also a player of mine) stole a page from my playbook by giving us a huge treasure - mostly in low value coins. He figured we'd have to leave the vast bulk behind. No WAY! We fortified the ruins holding the cash and then camped there, sending a couple of characters back to a nearby city for a few small ships. Afterwards, we were sooooo rich

 

cheers, Mark

[Black Rose]

Originally posted by Monolith

It is a statement like this that makes me thing you possibly do not understand the encumbrance rules. Based on the ENC rules a 10 STR person should be able to carry some 100 pounds of gold coins and equipment before suffering any serious setbacks in DCV, etc. Assuming 50 pounds of equipment, that leaves 50 pounds open for gold. And this is just the 10 STR guys. The 20 STR tanks could walk around with some 400 pounds of equipment and gold. Exactly how much does that chest of gold weigh?

 

IIRC, the numbers you're quoting are for the "lift it and struggle for a couple of steps" movement, not the "carry it around for hours" movement. For that, I'd say that Casual Strength is better; I know I can lift about 50 or so pounds (~20kg) and move pretty normally, provided it's balanced (over my shoulders, say). If it were more evenly distributed (backpack, belt, plate and chain armor) I could do nearly 100 pounds (45kg or so). My moves might be a little slow (and slow to stop, too), but I could do it. And I'm not that strong, though I've got the shoulders of Atlas for my height.

[tesuji]

I seem to recall from the hero5 rulebook, either in the section on encumbrance or in the section on armor, a specific mention that some GMs might want to consider/use a specific exception for armor worn and not use the standard encumbrance for it. IIRC it was an additional penalty based on the DEF of the armor or 1/2 def or somesuch?

 

Book not in front of me but it seemed like the rules were giving nod to how the standard lifting weight encumbrance would not necessarily handle armor effects in a satisfactory way on their own.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Black Rose

IIRC, the numbers you're quoting are for the "lift it and struggle for a couple of steps" movement, not the "carry it around for hours" movement.

No, the numbers I am quoting are from the ENC rules on page 250 of FREd. A person can carry up to 24% of their STR and still only be considered only -1 DCV. For a 10 STR person that is 48 kilos. For a 20 STR person that is 192 kilos.

[Legendsmiths]

I am definitely in the camp of the Hero Enc rules are broken. Having done a lot of hiking for pleasure and military I can tell you that a 70lb pack is far more encumbering than -1 DCV.

 

Like Alcamtar we use a casual STR variant.

 

For armor I combine that with an armor penalty to DEX/DCV in addtion to the Enc penalty. The armor penalty can be bought off with Armor Expertise but the Enc never goes away.

 

I use the same Enc chart as in the rules, but with the following mods:

 

.0625 none

.125 light

.25 medium

.5 heavy

.75 xheavy

1 lift

 

This is based on the idea that you can use your casual STR as a 0-phase action. Anything above that (.75 or 1x lift) is taking a STR action. Heavy is pretty much the most that people would carry without essentially "power lifting" every step. This puts it at 50 kg for a 10 STR guy. That's 56-110 lbs for a -3 DEX/DCV and movement penalty. That seemed about right to me when I've carried that much and as a soldier would say that I have at least a 10 STR.

 

This means a 10 STR person can carry 6.25 kilos without being encumbered.

 

Now, all this is well and good, BUT is it dramatic/cinematic? You be the judge. I like a little element of realism myself.

 

Also, a very important thing to remember. Knights in armor were well trained (so assume no penalty from the armor itself) and going into battle with a single weapon. At 15 STR, a 40 kg suit of armor + 2 kg weapon would be medium enc. That's only a -2 DCV/DEX penalty, easily offset by a 7 kg shield. A knight didn't have to contend with adventuring gear.

 

This has lead to my "heavy" fighter players wearing only a breastplate while travelling, with heavy leathers on arms, legs, and head. This gives them mobility. If they know they are going into a big fight, they ditch their gear, strap on the plates, and head on in. But they are not carrying food, a 10' pole, and 50' of rope. That's what hirelings are for.

 

You need to decide whether this level of realism is fun. I personally enjoy it and it is easy to do with the Hero rules. YMMV.

 

FYI, Armor Penalties are based on the weight of the armor.

 

<7.5 kg is -1

7.6-20 kg is -2

21kg+ is -3

 

This allows people to mix armor DEF types.

[Legendsmiths]

As for coin weight, 100 coins should weigh 1 kilo. That's about a quarter sized coin.

 

So, a chest of gold could hold 20 kg? That's 2000 coin.

[PhilFleischmann]

I find the encumbrance rules to be mostly OK, but pehaps a little too lenient. I try to discourage characters from wearing heavy armor. They aren't soldiers who know exactly when they will be entering combat. They're adventurers who have no idea what lurks along the road ahead. I find it very unrealistic that a group of adventurers, while traveling for hours, are going to be wearing plate armor.

 

"But we have to wear our armor at all times, because a troll might attack us at any moment!"

 

So you're willing to pay END continuously and reduce your traveling speed? The faster you get to the next town, the safer you'll be.

 

Also wearing plate armor could be more dangerous in a fantasy wilderness setting due to the containment of body odor. Lots of predatory animals hunt by scent. If you're wearing plate armor all day long, you smell very strong to a hungry monster. Also, if you're hunting for food yourself, all the animals you might want to eat might be able to smell you (and run away) long before you see them.

[AnotherSkip]

and you wash whenever possible.

 

Old scouts maxium.

[Pattern Ghost]

Heh. One word: Horses. Second word: Mules. Third word: Wagons. Well, lots more words, really.

 

Seriously, hauling an plate armored fighter around or a chest of coins is the job of a mount or a beast of burden. Encumberance shouldn't come into play other than for shorter periods of time when the characters are spelunking, delving, or battling. The long distance treks should be done with animals. If the party can't afford horses, mules, or an ox cart, they certainly can't afford heavy armor or a decent sword, at least if you're using a quasi-medieval setting.

[Eclectic Wave]

Actually, after posting my ideas, the post regarding using just casual strength for determining encumbrance is what I'm going to use, it's much cleaner then my idea.

[AnotherSkip]

heh I once pointed out in Earthdawn that since it was cheaper to buy a cart than a horse an Obsidemen could just buy the cart and carry the entire group adventuring....