As a DM, it's been over 14 years since I worried about carry weight in any shape or fashion. You are the final say as to what rules are used, and how things work in a world, I generally skip over any micro management type rules as they quickly become an interference between fun and gameplay. I only concerned about weight when the narration of the story requires it, and I usually make a Bag of Holding available to a party by level 3. (my current party has a funny RP were they fear their bag of holding, as DM I know it's safe, but I'm not going to say a word about that because the player made drama around it is so much fun.)
DON’T take this advice, Heydanseegil. By not tracking weight, you are giving strength based characters a gigantic nerf. One of the major selling points of a strength based character is they can carry more, and are thus able to mule gear for the party and lug more treasure out of the dungeon. Item weight is part of the game. Tracking it is part of the game. Rations, arrows, consumable items of any kind and the tracking of them is part of the game. Part of the fun.
The very fact that almost every item in the game has a defined weight, or encumbrance, proves that tracking weight, among other things, is a key element of the game.
Such a key element that the rules on carrying capacity include
Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don’t usually have to worry about it.
[...]
The rules for lifting and carrying are intentionally simple
They're there. You can use them. There are even slightly more complicated rules you can use if you want. Most people don't find nitpicky accounting to be a big part of their fun in a heroic adventure game, so there's a lot of hand-waving and vague approximation.
Also, the bag of holding has been a much-beloved item since the early days for a reason, and that reason is that most people don't want to care.
They're designed so even low-STR characters can carry them comfortably. Why do you need days and days of rations on your person at all times? Aren't you getting constantly drenched in water, monster poison, blood, acid...? I mean yeah, there's nothing in the rules that says your dry rations would get spoiled by being submerged in a pool of poison, but c'mon.
There is room for a larger backpack as an option for stronger PCs. That would make sense. But I will always have an axe to grind with the infinite inventory.
I am not strong, very skinny and can carry 60 lbs of gear on my back for several miles
Okay, but can you fight while wearing one? And are you three feet tall like some PCs?
Like I said, I can see the argument for having larger backpacks.
As a DM, it's been over 14 years since I worried about carry weight in any shape or fashion. You are the final say as to what rules are used, and how things work in a world, I generally skip over any micro management type rules as they quickly become an interference between fun and gameplay. I only concerned about weight when the narration of the story requires it, and I usually make a Bag of Holding available to a party by level 3. (my current party has a funny RP were they fear their bag of holding, as DM I know it's safe, but I'm not going to say a word about that because the player made drama around it is so much fun.)
DON’T take this advice, Heydanseegil. By not tracking weight, you are giving strength based characters a gigantic nerf. One of the major selling points of a strength based character is they can carry more, and are thus able to mule gear for the party and lug more treasure out of the dungeon. Item weight is part of the game. Tracking it is part of the game. Rations, arrows, consumable items of any kind and the tracking of them is part of the game. Part of the fun.
The very fact that almost every item in the game has a defined weight, or encumbrance, proves that tracking weight, among other things, is a key element of the game.
Correct. People will argue that it’s tedious, but I don’t see it that way. It is simply the game. Always has been. Management of your carry capacity is an important aspect of being a good D&D player- what is your next mission, how much and what gear and rations do you expect to need, how much do you want to leave free to haul as much treasure back as you possibly can?
At my table this stuff matters. The problem with ignoring rules is that it is a slippery slope. Is missing attack roles tedious? Let’s just have players always hit. That sort of thing.
Also, yes, there are some who consider missing attack rolls tedious. The reason that the concept is normally kept around is because so much of the game depends on attack rolls missing, so you'd have to rework a ton of things just to be able to remove it. I think you'll find that basically nothing relies on carrying capacity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
In my group we still track carry capacity, but we don't really think much about where, exactly, every item you're carrying is kept. We definitely don't track what's in the backpack, what's tied to your waist, etc. Just as long as everything you're carrying adds up to less than your carry capacity, you're fine. It's definitely a very "videogames" idea, where basically anything you're carrying just kind of disappears into your body until you pull it out.
Such details, exactly where the item is, used to be more important when equipment could be damaged by attacks and the environment.
Remember the Item Saving Throw matrix? :-D
Edit: It can also matter if a PC's container is stolen. If you know exactly what's in the backpack vs. the sack being carried, you know if your prized item was stolen or not. Without any rationalizing on the player's part of 'why of course it's not in the container that was actually stolen'. ;-)
I swear the devs have never done any actual camping, were never in scouts or equivalent and have zero idea of what the real world is like outside of cities. At best, they are used to tiny little day packs and have never seen a proper frame pack.
There is no doubt that we hiked with bigger packs that 30 pounds. But conversely, we never fought monsters with swords wearing a 60 pound pack. Anyone who has done ANYTHING physical wearing such a pack (I have) besides hiking with it, knows that it is bloody impossible.Try doing a portage with a 60 pound pack and a canoe over your head. That are the ONLY things you do laden down like that, and it is slow going. And let's not get started on "I pull out of my pack in 6 seconds exactly what I need". All campers know that whatever you need is ALWAYS at the bottom of the pack.
Frankly, I would love to see DM's actually adhere to realistic encumbrance rules, and say "oh, you want to fight that Ogre while wearing that 60 pounds of gear.....well, you are some serious disadvantages". And it would mean that having NPC porters and mules/ponies/horses carrying the bulk of the gear. But so many players say "well, that is no fun, because it involves math".
This is exactly why it upsets me. I typically get a chest and then have to sort out how to carry it or drop it during battle. It makes it something I have to then guard and while exploring I do use NPCs to establish supply and communication lines. That being said a larger backpack isn't outside the realm of reality in the fantasy. I mean soldiers wear the huge tactical ones right?
BTW @SirSamuel no worries about it I agree with you. In the campaign I play in we just did the above and set up a supply chain using out 15 NPC soldiers supplied to us while we explore the Underdark. No one wanted to manage them in combat and bog down an encounter we could handle ourselves anyway and this way we can pass our loot back to sell in the city along with get items we may need delivered to us. Weights honestly do enhance a game once DMs know how to do it.
Also, yes, there are some who consider missing attack rolls tedious.
And rightly so. A failed attack roll means nothing happens. I expect this is why some people put critical failures into their games.
The reason that the concept is normally kept around is because so much of the game depends on attack rolls missing, so you'd have to rework a ton of things just to be able to remove it. I think you'll find that basically nothing relies on carrying capacity.
Yes and no. You're right that the game fundamentally still works, but a lot of valuable fluff is lost along the way. The fluff that's supposed to make this more than a tactical combat sport, that's supposed to make it a fantasy tale on top of that. Just as a simple example, you can imagine how thrilled a character must be to find a Bag of Holding if he's been struggling to carry all the things he wants to carry. If he's encountered some scenarios where he needed a particular tool but he'd had to leave it behind in order to take something else. If he'd found a big pile of loot but couldn't take it with him. But if a character never encountered such difficulties, well, it's as if he's always had a Bag of Holding. Gaining one means nothing to him.
Idk. I understand both sides, and this won't surprise you because of my house rules, I think the 5e carrying rules fail to deliver any noticeable fluff even if you do use them. But more importantly, insisting upon them as a player makes you the annoying "well, actually" person, here to spoil everyone's fun, apparently. Because the only ways to engage with the rules are 1) Planning with them in mind, which is boring because planning isn't acting and it's susceptible to quarterbacking, or 2) Trying to undo player choices because they wouldn't have been possible if you were following the rules correctly, which will never be popular because players want to do what they want to do, that's why they tried to do it. No, enforcing this particular aspect of the rules is a role we've collectively decided to foist upon the DM, so they can enjoy a dual role as fun-creator and fun-destroyer, becoming a true reflection of the godhead or something.
I'm beginning to feel like D&D will never have a broadly appreciated and broadly used set of carrying rules until it has carrying rules that can be engaged with in different ways than planning and retconning. What could those be, you ask? I don't know, but I'll think on it.
My experience with 5E's carry capacity rules is that unless you wear heavy armor without putting points into strength, you feel the need for a different polearm for ever day of the week, or you insist on hauling more junk around than a Kendermore garage sale, you're not actually likely to have any issues with your carrying capacity.
And if you want a modern camping pack, well, how much aluminum have you got?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Back on topic, the general thing taught is 20% of your body weight. Newer studies adjust that somewhat, but that's everything including the backpack and stuff packed on the outside.
Really?
That means I should be able to carry 18 kilos or ~36 pounds. As stated above, I've carried twice that much, and would be expected to carry up to 50 kilos or ~100 pounds in an actual combat scenario (I want to point out that Denmark has a constript army, and I was never a professional soldier - just a conscripted grunt for 9 months).
Now, in actual real life, soldiers don't tend to march any real distance carrying 50 kilos on their backs - unless they're deep infiltration units. The majority of infantry gear is carried on their APC or whatever. But then on the other hand, back in the 90's soldiers (in Denmark) did not have body armor.
I wasn't infantry, I was artillery. We still trained to carry up to 100 pounds of gear - and it could get worse than that. In case we abandoned our howitzer, we'd be lugging around our supplies and gear, as well as our squad weapons, a.50 cal., an LMG, ammo for said weapons, our own rifles. Of course, this is worse than an infantry platoon only in the fact that we had a Browning M2 HMG. That's still 100+ kilos, in addition to ammo.
And we were expected to be able to march 30-35 kilometers each day, carrying such a load. Not, mind you, in terrain. But on road.
Maybe I should add that we really weren't. We did, twice, march 30+ km with full gear. It was torture, especially for the ... less physical guys. Anyways, point being that the actual limit for real world non-hero style guys seems to be quite a bit more than 20% of body weight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Back on topic, the general thing taught is 20% of your body weight. Newer studies adjust that somewhat, but that's everything including the backpack and stuff packed on the outside.
Really?
That means I should be able to carry 18 kilos or ~36 pounds. As stated above, I've carried twice that much, and would be expected to carry up to 50 kilos or ~100 pounds in an actual combat scenario (I want to point out that Denmark has a constript army, and I was never a professional soldier - just a conscripted grunt for 9 months).
Now, in actual real life, soldiers don't tend to march any real distance carrying 50 kilos on their backs - unless they're deep infiltration units. The majority of infantry gear is carried on their APC or whatever. But then on the other hand, back in the 90's soldiers (in Denmark) did not have body armor.
I wasn't infantry, I was artillery. We still trained to carry up to 100 pounds of gear - and it could get worse than that. In case we abandoned our howitzer, we'd be lugging around our supplies and gear, as well as our squad weapons, a.50 cal., an LMG, ammo for said weapons, our own rifles. Of course, this is worse than an infantry platoon only in the fact that we had a Browning M2 HMG. That's still 100+ kilos, in addition to ammo.
And we were expected to be able to march 30-35 kilometers each day, carrying such a load. Not, mind you, in terrain. But on road.
Maybe I should add that we really weren't. We did, twice, march 30+ km with full gear. It was torture, especially for the ... less physical guys. Anyways, point being that the actual limit for real world non-hero style guys seems to be quite a bit more than 20% of body weight.
Bear in mind:
Adventurers would consider 30km a "well, that's just what you do every single day" thing. A day you don't manage that is a lazy day. You did it twice, so presumably not every day.
You probably had the expectation of being able to get rid of the load at the end of it. You reach friendly lines, you get a vehicle. Something. People back then would consider any weight to be permanent. My seventy year old father could carry 100lbs. For a day. He couldn't do it permanently.
Your technology is substantially better than theirs. How the backpack fits, the shoes and so forth. They wouldn't be backwards idiots...but that progress in technology doesn't count for nothing.
That 20% varies depending on build. It's for a modern, healthy civilian. Adventurers would be able to go higher, having better muscle-to-fat ratio. I wouldn't go for 50% though.
I'd probably lean more for something like 30%. For 180lb, that would mean about 60lb.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Adventurers would consider 30km a "well, that's just what you do every single day" thing. A day you don't manage that is a lazy day. You did it twice, so presumably not every day.
You probably had the expectation of being able to get rid of the load at the end of it. You reach friendly lines, you get a vehicle. Something. People back then would consider any weight to be permanent. My seventy year old father could carry 100lbs. For a day. He couldn't do it permanently.
Your technology is substantially better than theirs. How the backpack fits, the shoes and so forth. They wouldn't be backwards idiots...but that progress in technology doesn't count for nothing.
That 20% varies depending on build. It's for a modern, healthy civilian. Adventurers would be able to go higher, having better muscle-to-fat ratio. I wouldn't go for 50% though.
I'd probably lean more for something like 30%. For 180lb, that would mean about 60lb.
I do bear those things in mind. That's why I say we were mere conscripts - not heroes. Even Haugaard, who wasn't an athletic human being, walked 30 km with 36 kilos on his back. And we did so 4 days in a row - on our final exercise, so we had something like 7 months of training to get fit enough to do it.
You're correct that - in spite of the training aim, in real life we would certainly expect most of the heavy gear to be in the APC. But similarly, adventureres would have mounts, pack golems or magical discs to carry their stuff.
Same goes for the 3rd point: Yea, my tech is better, but on the other hand I have no magic at all.
I think for a random person, 20% is propably right. For someone who has trained for it, 30% shouldn't be any issue, and for a professional special forces soldier, 50% is ... within reason. I mean barely, but I did watch a clip of a welch SAS officer who ran 50 miles through mountainous terrain carrying 50 kilos of weight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Back on topic, the general thing taught is 20% of your body weight. Newer studies adjust that somewhat, but that's everything including the backpack and stuff packed on the outside.
Really?
That means I should be able to carry 18 kilos or ~36 pounds. As stated above, I've carried twice that much, and would be expected to carry up to 50 kilos or ~100 pounds in an actual combat scenario (I want to point out that Denmark has a constript army, and I was never a professional soldier - just a conscripted grunt for 9 months).
Now, in actual real life, soldiers don't tend to march any real distance carrying 50 kilos on their backs - unless they're deep infiltration units. The majority of infantry gear is carried on their APC or whatever. But then on the other hand, back in the 90's soldiers (in Denmark) did not have body armor.
I wasn't infantry, I was artillery. We still trained to carry up to 100 pounds of gear - and it could get worse than that. In case we abandoned our howitzer, we'd be lugging around our supplies and gear, as well as our squad weapons, a.50 cal., an LMG, ammo for said weapons, our own rifles. Of course, this is worse than an infantry platoon only in the fact that we had a Browning M2 HMG. That's still 100+ kilos, in addition to ammo.
And we were expected to be able to march 30-35 kilometers each day, carrying such a load. Not, mind you, in terrain. But on road.
Maybe I should add that we really weren't. We did, twice, march 30+ km with full gear. It was torture, especially for the ... less physical guys. Anyways, point being that the actual limit for real world non-hero style guys seems to be quite a bit more than 20% of body weight.
Bear in mind:
Adventurers would consider 30km a "well, that's just what you do every single day" thing. A day you don't manage that is a lazy day. You did it twice, so presumably not every day.
You probably had the expectation of being able to get rid of the load at the end of it. You reach friendly lines, you get a vehicle. Something. People back then would consider any weight to be permanent. My seventy year old father could carry 100lbs. For a day. He couldn't do it permanently.
Your technology is substantially better than theirs. How the backpack fits, the shoes and so forth. They wouldn't be backwards idiots...but that progress in technology doesn't count for nothing.
That 20% varies depending on build. It's for a modern, healthy civilian. Adventurers would be able to go higher, having better muscle-to-fat ratio. I wouldn't go for 50% though.
I'd probably lean more for something like 30%. For 180lb, that would mean about 60lb.
Again, you are arguing that one can carry more in the real world than one should be able to in a heroic fantasy setting. Note the word 'heroic.'
Furthermore, why would any soldier expect a convenient shelter wherever they end up at the end of the day? They are training for actual war, not for a pleasant planned vacation.
And one more time, we are talking pack capacity. This is a completely separate thing from carrying capacity, the rules of which are completely unaffected by how that weight is actually carried.
And as for technology, it is only that it is a magical world holding any of that back. Even with modern medicine, the average human lifespan is still only about 80 years. In campaign, 100, with some non-human races living hundreds or even thousands of years. Things like "how to make clothing or gear that is more ergonomic" are not among the list of areas where technology is normally considered held back by genre. To the contrary, consider the outfits many seem to fight in and the fact there is no official in game penalty even for sleeping in full armor (at least not that I know of, someone please correct me if I am wrong on that) and it would seem that gear is far more ergonomic than IRL.
A backpack can carry 1 cubic foot / 30 pounds of items. A cubic foot of space is only 12 inches by 12 inches by 12 inches.
nothing in the rules says a person couldn’t take several such containers, securely fasten them together, and increase their ability to store and carry larger quantities of whatever.
can’t remember exactly how big modern rucksacks are, but I believe they were capable of carrying around 5 or 6 cubic feet of whatever, because I remember the rucks were about 2 feet tall 2 feet wide and ether 18 inches deep or more.
easy enough to drop when time to ether fight or flight if needed, but the ability to carry around anywhere up to 180 pounds of gear doesn’t really seem like much of an issue.
Then add the fact that some items can be placed in bags of holding, and they’re just space savers, well the weight issues become trivial.
but till such time as an individual can get to that point, an adventurous person will have to take the time and effort to keep track of just they can walk off with.
A backpack can carry 1 cubic foot / 30 pounds of items. A cubic foot of space is only 12 inches by 12 inches by 12 inches.
nothing in the rules says a person couldn’t take several such containers, securely fasten them together, and increase their ability to store and carry larger quantities of whatever.
can’t remember exactly how big modern rucksacks are, but I believe they were capable of carrying around 5 or 6 cubic feet of whatever, because I remember the rucks were about 2 feet tall 2 feet wide and ether 18 inches deep or more.
easy enough to drop when time to ether fight or flight if needed, but the ability to carry around anywhere up to 180 pounds of gear doesn’t really seem like much of an issue.
Then add the fact that some items can be placed in bags of holding, and they’re just space savers, well the weight issues become trivial.
but till such time as an individual can get to that point, an adventurous person will have to take the time and effort to keep track of just they can walk off with.
The issue is not the size of the backpack. It is the fact that the backpack's contents are only a fraction of the entire weight a PC is carrying. Let's assume your 18 Str Fighter is wearing his plate mail. That is 65 pounds right off the top. Then tack his shield, weapons, and any other odds and ends (like a bed roll, clothing) that is not in the pack. Suddenly, a pack loaded at 30 lbs might be all this guy can handle...No...that is not true, because of this ridiculous 5e rule of an 18 Str char carrying 270 pounds all day long, every day, and FIGHTING while carrying said 270 pounds.
I would love, just love, to know how many firemen can carry an unconscious 200 lb dead weight body out of a burning building, while weighed down as well with oxygen, and all the other equipment a firefighter wears.
The issue is not the size of the backpack. It is the fact that the backpack's contents are only a fraction of the entire weight a PC is carrying. Let's assume your 18 Str Fighter is wearing his plate mail. That is 65 pounds right off the top. Then tack his shield, weapons, and any other odds and ends (like a bed roll, clothing) that is not in the pack. Suddenly, a pack loaded at 30 lbs might be all this guy can handle...No...that is not true, because of this ridiculous 5e rule of an 18 Str char carrying 270 pounds all day long, every day, and FIGHTING while carrying said 270 pounds.
I would love, just love, to know how many firemen can carry an unconscious 200 lb dead weight body out of a burning building, while weighed down as well with oxygen, and all the other equipment a firefighter wears.
Most, if not all, firefighters can do that. It's probably a job requirement. Propotional size is probably the main limiter. The fireman's carry is a well-known technique for carrying another person. In the real world, weight distribution matters a lot. That armor is harder to carry in a bag in one hand than it would be in a backpack, which is still harder than wearing it. A backpack with a frame, or even just straps, that distributes the weight to your back and hips lets you carry a lot more than one that puts it on your shoulders. In the days of plate armor, the wearers were actually quite maneuverable.
But that sort of simulation is way out of scope for any version of D&D. Even GURPS abstracts it away. Maybe one of the hyper-simulationist games like Phoenix Command (or whatever it was called; the one that got a rep for its insanely granular hit location tables) went to that kind of extreme. Maybe.
For D&D, just saying "you can carry quite a lot", and assume the character will know how best to distribute the weight, works fine.
The issue is not the size of the backpack. It is the fact that the backpack's contents are only a fraction of the entire weight a PC is carrying. Let's assume your 18 Str Fighter is wearing his plate mail. That is 65 pounds right off the top. Then tack his shield, weapons, and any other odds and ends (like a bed roll, clothing) that is not in the pack. Suddenly, a pack loaded at 30 lbs might be all this guy can handle...No...that is not true, because of this ridiculous 5e rule of an 18 Str char carrying 270 pounds all day long, every day, and FIGHTING while carrying said 270 pounds.
I would love, just love, to know how many firemen can carry an unconscious 200 lb dead weight body out of a burning building, while weighed down as well with oxygen, and all the other equipment a firefighter wears.
Most, if not all, firefighters can do that. It's probably a job requirement. Propotional size is probably the main limiter. The fireman's carry is a well-known technique for carrying another person. In the real world, weight distribution matters a lot. That armor is harder to carry in a bag in one hand than it would be in a backpack, which is still harder than wearing it. A backpack with a frame, or even just straps, that distributes the weight to your back and hips lets you carry a lot more than one that puts it on your shoulders. In the days of plate armor, the wearers were actually quite maneuverable.
But that sort of simulation is way out of scope for any version of D&D. Even GURPS abstracts it away. Maybe one of the hyper-simulationist games like Phoenix Command (or whatever it was called; the one that got a rep for its insanely granular hit location tables) went to that kind of extreme. Maybe.
For D&D, just saying "you can carry quite a lot", and assume the character will know how best to distribute the weight, works fine.
I am a simulationist, and proud of it. You want to talk about weight distribution, and handwaving, I will allow you that when PC's are merely traveling (though I still laugh at this 270 pound all day, every day limit).
But I HAVE tried to move around quite a bit while carrying more like a 60 pound pack, and one that was properly packed, with the lowest centre of gravity as possible. It is STILL impossible to do any kind of quick, violent moves, that would be involved in melee combat. No self-respecting PC is going into melee combat wearing a large backpack. The physics are impossible.
Not everyone is going to be carrying that much weight 24/7.
factor in short/long rest, certain combat situations, travel by means other than walking, and other factors and it can be very manageable for a person to handle extra weight.
270 pounds is 1.5 times the amount of a 180 lbs person , 270/1.8/150 pound individual ( at this point, I would argue the weight is too much and some form of penalty is needed), and 270/2.16/125 pound person is penalized easily.
A firefighters heavy equipment tops out around between 75 to 90 lbs, about the same as a heavy armored fighter with heavy weapons. Both are usually trained or have had conditioning exercises to help them handle greater than normal comfort levels for weight carrying capacity.
With that said, weaker individuals tend to find ways to transport weight more efficiently and with less energy by means of magic.
encumbrance and management of weight are not hard things to deal with, but people would rather ignore it and not have to deal with the logistics and time required which is easier then creating an combat encounter.
You want to talk about weight distribution, and handwaving, I will allow you that when PC's are merely traveling (though I still laugh at this 270 pound all day, every day limit).
That limit is for somebody who can, without extra effort, lift about as much as modern weightlifting records. By that figure, an 18 strength is stronger than any human on earth, and your reflex reaction of "nobody can do that" is based on a much narrower range of strength stats than you think it is.
(What it really means is that realism is not one of D&D's concerns. Who would expect that of a game where people can shoot lightning out of their hands or fall a mile then walk away from it?)
But I HAVE tried to move around quite a bit while carrying more like a 60 pound pack, and one that was properly packed, with the lowest centre of gravity as possible. It is STILL impossible to do any kind of quick, violent moves, that would be involved in melee combat. No self-respecting PC is going into melee combat wearing a large backpack. The physics are impossible.
Yes. As D&D players, we are very worried about obeying physics.
As a DM, it's been over 14 years since I worried about carry weight in any shape or fashion. You are the final say as to what rules are used, and how things work in a world, I generally skip over any micro management type rules as they quickly become an interference between fun and gameplay. I only concerned about weight when the narration of the story requires it, and I usually make a Bag of Holding available to a party by level 3. (my current party has a funny RP were they fear their bag of holding, as DM I know it's safe, but I'm not going to say a word about that because the player made drama around it is so much fun.)
DON’T take this advice, Heydanseegil. By not tracking weight, you are giving strength based characters a gigantic nerf. One of the major selling points of a strength based character is they can carry more, and are thus able to mule gear for the party and lug more treasure out of the dungeon. Item weight is part of the game. Tracking it is part of the game. Rations, arrows, consumable items of any kind and the tracking of them is part of the game. Part of the fun.
The very fact that almost every item in the game has a defined weight, or encumbrance, proves that tracking weight, among other things, is a key element of the game.
No, it proves that tracking weight is an element of the game.
The fact that many tables have fun, fulfilling, years-long D&D campaigns without spending a single second on encumbrance proves that it is anything but key.
If you like it, knock yourself out. I won't hate on the way you play. Can you find it within yourself to do the same for others?
Such a key element that the rules on carrying capacity include
They're there. You can use them. There are even slightly more complicated rules you can use if you want. Most people don't find nitpicky accounting to be a big part of their fun in a heroic adventure game, so there's a lot of hand-waving and vague approximation.
Also, the bag of holding has been a much-beloved item since the early days for a reason, and that reason is that most people don't want to care.
Okay, but can you fight while wearing one? And are you three feet tall like some PCs?
Like I said, I can see the argument for having larger backpacks.
Correct. People will argue that it’s tedious, but I don’t see it that way. It is simply the game. Always has been. Management of your carry capacity is an important aspect of being a good D&D player- what is your next mission, how much and what gear and rations do you expect to need, how much do you want to leave free to haul as much treasure back as you possibly can?
At my table this stuff matters. The problem with ignoring rules is that it is a slippery slope. Is missing attack roles tedious? Let’s just have players always hit. That sort of thing.
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.
Also, yes, there are some who consider missing attack rolls tedious. The reason that the concept is normally kept around is because so much of the game depends on attack rolls missing, so you'd have to rework a ton of things just to be able to remove it. I think you'll find that basically nothing relies on carrying capacity.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Such details, exactly where the item is, used to be more important when equipment could be damaged by attacks and the environment.
Remember the Item Saving Throw matrix? :-D
Edit: It can also matter if a PC's container is stolen. If you know exactly what's in the backpack vs. the sack being carried, you know if your prized item was stolen or not. Without any rationalizing on the player's part of 'why of course it's not in the container that was actually stolen'. ;-)
This is exactly why it upsets me. I typically get a chest and then have to sort out how to carry it or drop it during battle. It makes it something I have to then guard and while exploring I do use NPCs to establish supply and communication lines. That being said a larger backpack isn't outside the realm of reality in the fantasy. I mean soldiers wear the huge tactical ones right?
BTW @SirSamuel no worries about it I agree with you. In the campaign I play in we just did the above and set up a supply chain using out 15 NPC soldiers supplied to us while we explore the Underdark. No one wanted to manage them in combat and bog down an encounter we could handle ourselves anyway and this way we can pass our loot back to sell in the city along with get items we may need delivered to us. Weights honestly do enhance a game once DMs know how to do it.
"Life is Cast by Random Dice"
Burn my candle twice.
I have done my life justice
Against random dice.
And rightly so. A failed attack roll means nothing happens. I expect this is why some people put critical failures into their games.
Yes and no. You're right that the game fundamentally still works, but a lot of valuable fluff is lost along the way. The fluff that's supposed to make this more than a tactical combat sport, that's supposed to make it a fantasy tale on top of that. Just as a simple example, you can imagine how thrilled a character must be to find a Bag of Holding if he's been struggling to carry all the things he wants to carry. If he's encountered some scenarios where he needed a particular tool but he'd had to leave it behind in order to take something else. If he'd found a big pile of loot but couldn't take it with him. But if a character never encountered such difficulties, well, it's as if he's always had a Bag of Holding. Gaining one means nothing to him.
Idk. I understand both sides, and this won't surprise you because of my house rules, I think the 5e carrying rules fail to deliver any noticeable fluff even if you do use them. But more importantly, insisting upon them as a player makes you the annoying "well, actually" person, here to spoil everyone's fun, apparently. Because the only ways to engage with the rules are 1) Planning with them in mind, which is boring because planning isn't acting and it's susceptible to quarterbacking, or 2) Trying to undo player choices because they wouldn't have been possible if you were following the rules correctly, which will never be popular because players want to do what they want to do, that's why they tried to do it. No, enforcing this particular aspect of the rules is a role we've collectively decided to foist upon the DM, so they can enjoy a dual role as fun-creator and fun-destroyer, becoming a true reflection of the godhead or something.
I'm beginning to feel like D&D will never have a broadly appreciated and broadly used set of carrying rules until it has carrying rules that can be engaged with in different ways than planning and retconning. What could those be, you ask? I don't know, but I'll think on it.
My experience with 5E's carry capacity rules is that unless you wear heavy armor without putting points into strength, you feel the need for a different polearm for ever day of the week, or you insist on hauling more junk around than a Kendermore garage sale, you're not actually likely to have any issues with your carrying capacity.
And if you want a modern camping pack, well, how much aluminum have you got?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Really?
That means I should be able to carry 18 kilos or ~36 pounds. As stated above, I've carried twice that much, and would be expected to carry up to 50 kilos or ~100 pounds in an actual combat scenario (I want to point out that Denmark has a constript army, and I was never a professional soldier - just a conscripted grunt for 9 months).
Now, in actual real life, soldiers don't tend to march any real distance carrying 50 kilos on their backs - unless they're deep infiltration units. The majority of infantry gear is carried on their APC or whatever. But then on the other hand, back in the 90's soldiers (in Denmark) did not have body armor.
I wasn't infantry, I was artillery. We still trained to carry up to 100 pounds of gear - and it could get worse than that. In case we abandoned our howitzer, we'd be lugging around our supplies and gear, as well as our squad weapons, a.50 cal., an LMG, ammo for said weapons, our own rifles. Of course, this is worse than an infantry platoon only in the fact that we had a Browning M2 HMG. That's still 100+ kilos, in addition to ammo.
And we were expected to be able to march 30-35 kilometers each day, carrying such a load. Not, mind you, in terrain. But on road.
Maybe I should add that we really weren't. We did, twice, march 30+ km with full gear. It was torture, especially for the ... less physical guys. Anyways, point being that the actual limit for real world non-hero style guys seems to be quite a bit more than 20% of body weight.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Bear in mind:
I'd probably lean more for something like 30%. For 180lb, that would mean about 60lb.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I do bear those things in mind. That's why I say we were mere conscripts - not heroes. Even Haugaard, who wasn't an athletic human being, walked 30 km with 36 kilos on his back. And we did so 4 days in a row - on our final exercise, so we had something like 7 months of training to get fit enough to do it.
You're correct that - in spite of the training aim, in real life we would certainly expect most of the heavy gear to be in the APC. But similarly, adventureres would have mounts, pack golems or magical discs to carry their stuff.
Same goes for the 3rd point: Yea, my tech is better, but on the other hand I have no magic at all.
I think for a random person, 20% is propably right. For someone who has trained for it, 30% shouldn't be any issue, and for a professional special forces soldier, 50% is ... within reason. I mean barely, but I did watch a clip of a welch SAS officer who ran 50 miles through mountainous terrain carrying 50 kilos of weight.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Sleeping in armor XGtE page #77
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
If you want a larger capacity for a backpack on your character sheet you can customize it.
A backpack can carry 1 cubic foot / 30 pounds of items. A cubic foot of space is only 12 inches by 12 inches by 12 inches.
nothing in the rules says a person couldn’t take several such containers, securely fasten them together, and increase their ability to store and carry larger quantities of whatever.
can’t remember exactly how big modern rucksacks are, but I believe they were capable of carrying around 5 or 6 cubic feet of whatever, because I remember the rucks were about 2 feet tall 2 feet wide and ether 18 inches deep or more.
easy enough to drop when time to ether fight or flight if needed, but the ability to carry around anywhere up to 180 pounds of gear doesn’t really seem like much of an issue.
Then add the fact that some items can be placed in bags of holding, and they’re just space savers, well the weight issues become trivial.
but till such time as an individual can get to that point, an adventurous person will have to take the time and effort to keep track of just they can walk off with.
The issue is not the size of the backpack. It is the fact that the backpack's contents are only a fraction of the entire weight a PC is carrying. Let's assume your 18 Str Fighter is wearing his plate mail. That is 65 pounds right off the top. Then tack his shield, weapons, and any other odds and ends (like a bed roll, clothing) that is not in the pack. Suddenly, a pack loaded at 30 lbs might be all this guy can handle...No...that is not true, because of this ridiculous 5e rule of an 18 Str char carrying 270 pounds all day long, every day, and FIGHTING while carrying said 270 pounds.
I would love, just love, to know how many firemen can carry an unconscious 200 lb dead weight body out of a burning building, while weighed down as well with oxygen, and all the other equipment a firefighter wears.
Most, if not all, firefighters can do that. It's probably a job requirement. Propotional size is probably the main limiter. The fireman's carry is a well-known technique for carrying another person. In the real world, weight distribution matters a lot. That armor is harder to carry in a bag in one hand than it would be in a backpack, which is still harder than wearing it. A backpack with a frame, or even just straps, that distributes the weight to your back and hips lets you carry a lot more than one that puts it on your shoulders. In the days of plate armor, the wearers were actually quite maneuverable.
But that sort of simulation is way out of scope for any version of D&D. Even GURPS abstracts it away. Maybe one of the hyper-simulationist games like Phoenix Command (or whatever it was called; the one that got a rep for its insanely granular hit location tables) went to that kind of extreme. Maybe.
For D&D, just saying "you can carry quite a lot", and assume the character will know how best to distribute the weight, works fine.
I am a simulationist, and proud of it. You want to talk about weight distribution, and handwaving, I will allow you that when PC's are merely traveling (though I still laugh at this 270 pound all day, every day limit).
But I HAVE tried to move around quite a bit while carrying more like a 60 pound pack, and one that was properly packed, with the lowest centre of gravity as possible. It is STILL impossible to do any kind of quick, violent moves, that would be involved in melee combat. No self-respecting PC is going into melee combat wearing a large backpack. The physics are impossible.
Then D&D, any D&D, may not be your ideal game.
That limit is for somebody who can, without extra effort, lift about as much as modern weightlifting records. By that figure, an 18 strength is stronger than any human on earth, and your reflex reaction of "nobody can do that" is based on a much narrower range of strength stats than you think it is.
(What it really means is that realism is not one of D&D's concerns. Who would expect that of a game where people can shoot lightning out of their hands or fall a mile then walk away from it?)
Yes. As D&D players, we are very worried about obeying physics.
No, it proves that tracking weight is an element of the game.
The fact that many tables have fun, fulfilling, years-long D&D campaigns without spending a single second on encumbrance proves that it is anything but key.
If you like it, knock yourself out. I won't hate on the way you play. Can you find it within yourself to do the same for others?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm