Encumbrance & Spell Components Question

[Traveller]

Gahhh!

This only accents my belief that this information should be added to each magic item as a baseline, rather than done ad-hoc.

It's Steve's call as to how to proceed though, not mine.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[Troll Lord]

koralas wrote:
Uhm, Steve are you stealing quotes from Gary -

PHB Page 102 (Column 1, Paragraph 3) -



DMG Page 225 (Column 2, Paragraph 2) -



Funny that your two specific examples were mirrored in the PHB and DMG discussion of encumbrance!

The 1st Ed DMG didn't give weights for 99% of the magic items, but rather used the ad-hoc system presented on page 225, and the relevant tables in the PHB on pages 37-38.

See my above posts for pertinent sections pulled from 1st Ed. for comparison/contrast/just plain old nostalgia.

hahaha I was apparently channeling Gary Gygax! We did work together for many years and consequently I have a fondness for tapestries and underground plant flora as it alone works well with the ecology of dungeons.
Gary rules.

Mark actually mentioned that he didn't know where in ADD it said that magic items have no weight. I waved him off as a madman.

Steve
_________________
The High Lord, Coburg the Undying

He who sits on the elephants back

Castle and Crusade Society
troll@trolllord.com

[Troll Lord]

koralas wrote:
LD I agree, and take it a step farther, I always assumed magic items had weight in D&D (and consequently in C&C), in fact, as doing some research in the AD&D 1st Ed. system came across a few references that in AD&D Magic Items do have weight...

DMG Page 225 (Column 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2) -



DMG Page 225 (Column 1, Paragraph 2, Sentence 3-4) -

(this was also pointed out by someone else on the forum)

DMG Page 164, Column 2 (Paragraph 13) -



However, as pointed towards in the UA Page 104 (Column 1, Paragraph 7) -



There are still some issues with other magical armors and bulk, to which the "weightless" note above does not help address. In those instances it is up to the DM as stated on DMG Page 225, Column 2 (Paragraph 2, last sentence) -

Holy crap! so many items in DD have weight to them??? magical or not.

When I tell Todd he is going to beat me to death with the 1st edition DMG!

Steve
_________________
The High Lord, Coburg the Undying

He who sits on the elephants back

Castle and Crusade Society
troll@trolllord.com

[Troll Lord]

Traveller wrote:
Gahhh!

This only accents my belief that this information should be added to each magic item as a baseline, rather than done ad-hoc.

It's Steve's call as to how to proceed though, not mine.

I"m with Trav. GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

lol

Steve
_________________
The High Lord, Coburg the Undying

He who sits on the elephants back

Castle and Crusade Society
troll@trolllord.com

[zombiehands]

cheeplives wrote:
But in a system with mechanical differences between a Bec de Corbin, a Bill, a Glaive, and a Glaive Guisarme, I find a few paragraphs tellings players to "take in account volume" to be disingenuous at best. There's nothing in the game mechanically that accounts for volume... you can carry X GP in items and each item weighs Y GP... there's nothing in it saying "add Z GP when an item is bulky" or anything like that.

So, while I appreciate that some lip service was paid to the concept of volume, older versions of D&D never actually mechanized it to the point of it being anything more than a GM call.

I think the point is that volume is taken into conderation when GP enc. values were set. For example a 2h sword does not weigh 25lbs (250gp) more like 5lbs. Bulking/long weapons have a higher "weight"

[serleran]

Yes, practically every magic item in AD&D has weight, but they're also made from specific materials such as meteorite, adamantine, mithril, etc... whereas C&C simply offers these as possible for "any" item, magical or not.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[koralas]

cheeplives wrote:
But in a system with mechanical differences between a Bec de Corbin, a Bill, a Glaive, and a Glaive Guisarme, I find a few paragraphs tellings players to "take in account volume" to be disingenuous at best. There's nothing in the game mechanically that accounts for volume... you can carry X GP in items and each item weighs Y GP... there's nothing in it saying "add Z GP when an item is bulky" or anything like that.

So, while I appreciate that some lip service was paid to the concept of volume, older versions of D&D never actually mechanized it to the point of it being anything more than a GM call.

First about the weapons... Are you referring to the space requirements and to hit adjustments based on base armor AC? If so, these things help players visualize how the weapons are used. These are things that are easily codified.

Bulk is something though that cannot be truly mechanized. Take for instance a box that is 2'x2'x2', and weighs about 15 pounds. A human male 6' tall could easily carry this by himself, but will not be able to carry anything else in his hands, it is a fairly bulky item, so instead of 150GP you can increase the encumbrance value to say 200GP. Now look at the same for a 4'6" tall dwarf, and he will have a difficult time carrying this box since the bulk is a larger percentage of of his total size, and he will have to actually change his stance to a much greater degree than the human. As such, I would double the encumbrance value of the base weight, that is make it 300GP. With the change in stance now to apply leverage, things such as the cloak the dwarf wears is now dragging the ground, any equipment within the backpack will not benefit from being in the pack for encumbrance reduction, in fact, the total GP value will be increased since rather than standing straight up and down he is leaning back, adding even more strain.

So, how do you actually mechanize that in a rules system? It would take a complete manual of it's own to give out all the permutations. Every system for encumbrance requires some rational thought by the players and game master. Another sample, a backpack may be able to hold 50# worth of equipment, 500GP... but a 2x3x1 backpack cannot hold a staff, or pole arm, sure based on weight it could, but the item simply wont fit. The same goes for all carrying containers, including your hands.

Consider that the total volume of text dedicated to encumbrance, not including charts, is little more than a page, the references are actually a decent proportion of that. It also gives warnings on becoming over-encumbered. In the end, nothing can take the place of common sense when looking at encumbrance.

Once you start looking at these things, you understand the need for pack mules, and the vast number of retainers that almost always accompanied adventurers in the early days of gaming. Using these helps to ease the book keeping on what the characters are carrying.

[koralas]

serleran wrote:
Yes, practically every magic item in AD&D has weight, but they're also made from specific materials such as meteorite, adamantine, mithril, etc... whereas C&C simply offers these as possible for "any" item, magical or not.

Aye, specifically under the swords it references that all magic blades are made of such metals. I would assume armors are the same, and other items are made from similarly rare and expensive materials.

[koralas]

Troll Lord wrote:
Holy crap! so many items in DD have weight to them??? magical or not.

When I tell Todd he is going to beat me to death with the 1st edition DMG!

Steve

LOL, sorry to have unleashed the beat-down!