Encumbrance Errata

Where CKs swap ideas and players figure out what's coming.

Moderator: Keeper Advice Moderators

cheeplives
Red Cap
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Behind my eyes
Contact:

Encumbrance Errata

Post by cheeplives »

After some pretty in-depth discussion at Dragonsfoot I wanted to come here and post my version of Errata for the Encumbrance section in the C&C PHB 2nd Printing. As the author of the Encumbrance system, I'd like to see these changes and issues addressed.

Mostly the problems revolved around the modified Capacity system and some missing capacities. As such, whomever tracks the Unofficial Errata, I'd really appreciate it if you made the following changes:
The Shoulder Pack on the equipment list should be marked with an EV of 3 (w) and should have a Capacity of 10.
A Note should be added on all pouches (superscript 2) that should read: A human-sized character should not be able to pack more than two Large Pouches and one Small Pouch on their belt with a Large Belt Pouch being equivalent to one Scabbard, one Quiver, two Small Pouches, or one Spell Component Pouch.
The Spell Component Pouch should have an EV of 2 (w) and should have superscript 1 associated with it.
The Quivers should both have an EV listed of 2 (w)
The Flask, Holy-Water Flask, and Oil, Flask of entries should have superscript 1 associated with them and should have a Capacity of 1 pint listed
The Bottle should have a Capacity of 1 pint rather than 1 and should have a superscript 1 associated with its EV
In the Worn and Capacity Object Section of the Encumbrance Rules the following passage:
Original Passage wrote:
As such, load-bearing items (such as backpacks, sacks, chests, etc.) reduce the total EV of the items inside by -2. Thus, a character who has a backpack carrying a bedroll (EV 3), hammer (EV 2), 50 nails (EV 1), and 50 feet of silk rope (EV 2) would have a total EV for the items of 8 (which is the most that the backpack can carry with a capacity of 8), but this would be reduced to EV 5 due to them being in the backpack. Thus, the backpack and its items would only add 6 to the characters EV (5 for the items carried and 1 for the backpack since it is being worn).

Should be changed to:
Errata Change wrote:
As such, load-bearing items (such as backpacks, sack, chests, etc.) reduce the total EV of the items inside by 1 for every 2 points (i.e. divide total EV by two, rounding down) of EV contained within. Thus, a character who has a backpack carrying a Bedroll (EV 3), hammer (EV 2), 50 nails (EV 1), and one torch (EV 1) would have a total EV for the items of 7. This would be reduced to 3 (7/2 = 3.5, rounded down to 3) and thus make the backpack's total EV 4 (w) (EV of 1 (w) for the backpack plus the modified EV 3 for the items contained within). Also note that load-bearing items and worn items can reduce the EV of the items to 0, as would be the case of a Small Pouch carrying 1 EV of equipment. One-half of 1 EV, rounding down would be 0 EV, so the EV of the Small Pouch and the item contained within would be 0 EV.

Sorry for any confusion this might have caused. We determined that the -2 EV was too little of savings for large capacity items while the 1st printings -1 to the EV of each item made for strange occurances (eight 1 EV objects would technically add 0 to the EV while two 4 EV objects would add 3 EV). The 1/2 EV in capacity items make them an actual savings and was more in tune with the original spirit of the rules. The Pouch rules were added to prevent an infinite pouch loop (small pouches can carry 1 EV of items for 0 EV in the existing system and large pouches could carry 2 EV for 0 EV).

If Davis or Steve have a problem with this, they can of course voice it, but I doubt they will.
discreteinfinity.com -- my respite from the bustle of the internet

Author of StarSIEGE: Event Horizon

User avatar
gideon_thorne
Maukling
Posts: 6176
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by gideon_thorne »

Noted.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach

phadeout
Red Cap
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 7:00 am

Post by phadeout »

Cheeplives,

This is "slightly" different than our discussion in that now you have Round Up rather than Round Down.

The difference here (again) is the Pouch issue.

If you Round up, the small Pouch has an EV of 0 (1w), but the contents will make it an EV 1 (1 capacity, divide by 2, round up = 1).

Now (by round up) the Large Belt pouch is far more "valuable" than the small, since the small will be able to Hold 1 EV, but always give 1 EV worth of Encumbrance when full.

If you round down, the small belt pouch is technically more valuable, but that depends on what you can carry (what your ER is).

Rounding down:

3 Large Pouches (Costs 3 EV, Capacity of 6)

2 Large Pouches + 2 Small Pouches (Costs 2 EV, Capacity of 6)

4 Small Pouches (Costs 0 EV, Capacity of 4) - you COULD wear 6 of these, so maybe the limit should be 4 small pouches, 1 Large Pouch.

Rounding up:

3 Large Pouches (Costs 3 EV, Capacity of 6)

2 Large Pouches + 2 Small Pouches (Costs 4 EV, Capacity of 6)

4 Small Pouches (Costs 4 EV, Capacity of 4)

So should it be Round Down (as the discussion states) or Round Up?

User avatar
StealthSuitStanley
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Sidney, OH, USA

Post by StealthSuitStanley »

does anyone here really get that precise with encumberence?

Seems like encumberence is the only area that isn't "rules lite" in C&C.

But that's OK. I don't use it anyway!
CK of the Planewalker's Society

phadeout
Red Cap
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 7:00 am

Post by phadeout »

StealthSuitStanley wrote:
does anyone here really get that precise with encumberence?

Seems like encumberence is the only area that isn't "rules lite" in C&C.

But that's OK. I don't use it anyway!

Some do, some don't. Whether it's Encumbrance or "Weight Allowance", some keep track (to the 1/2 pound), some don't.

Metathiax
Red Cap
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Metathiax »

Thanks for the update Cheeplives!
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

cheeplives
Red Cap
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Behind my eyes
Contact:

Post by cheeplives »

phadeout wrote:
Cheeplives,

This is "slightly" different than our discussion in that now you have Round Up rather than Round Down.

The difference here (again) is the Pouch issue.



So should it be Round Down (as the discussion states) or Round Up?

You're right... it should be Round down... silly me... I'll fix above.

I also see your problem with the Pouches so I changed the above to be Two Large Pouches and One Small Pouch where each Large Pouch equals one scabbard, one quiver, two small pouches, or one spell component pouch. So at most you can carry 5 Small Pouches (2 + 2 + 1)...
discreteinfinity.com -- my respite from the bustle of the internet

Author of StarSIEGE: Event Horizon

User avatar
gideon_thorne
Maukling
Posts: 6176
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by gideon_thorne »

StealthSuitStanley wrote:
does anyone here really get that precise with encumberence?

Seems like encumberence is the only area that isn't "rules lite" in C&C.

But that's OK. I don't use it anyway!

Well.. it's the one subject that everyone seems to 'weigh' in on.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach

Metathiax
Red Cap
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Metathiax »

I don't want to be nitpicking but I guess that the bottle should be added to point 5. I also think that "This would be reduced by 4" should be "This would be reduced by 3". One last thing, I can't seem to find an entry for the scabbard in the equipment list.
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

phadeout
Red Cap
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 7:00 am

Post by phadeout »

cheeplives wrote:
You're right... it should be Round down... silly me... I'll fix above.

I also see your problem with the Pouches so I changed the above to be Two Large Pouches and One Small Pouch where each Large Pouch equals one scabbard, one quiver, two small pouches, or one spell component pouch. So at most you can carry 5 Small Pouches (2 + 2 + 1)...

Glad to be of help and to know I made a difference with these encumbrance rules since they've been bugging me for a while. Been trying to find/make a fix, and that Dragonsfoot thread I started seemed to have finally made the difference. Can I have a cookie (or 10% share in the credit? - yeah, I get a cookie).

cheeplives
Red Cap
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Behind my eyes
Contact:

Post by cheeplives »

Metathiax wrote:
I don't want to be nitpicking but I guess that the bottle should be added to point 5. I also think that "This would be reduced by 4" should be "This would be reduced by 3". One last thing, I can't seem to find an entry for the scabbard in the equipment list.

Fixed the above (since the EV can't go below 1 for it, the Bottle really doesn't need the superscript, but should for completeness, I guess)...

AS far as the scabbard goes, there isn't one really... it's more there to track if the player carries something that would use a scabbard. Basically if the character has a sword or such, then he'll be taking up a spot on the belt of a Pouch... or he'll have it slung elsewhere... Assume the scabbard comes with whatever weapon requires it and it is included in the EV for it all.
discreteinfinity.com -- my respite from the bustle of the internet

Author of StarSIEGE: Event Horizon

phadeout
Red Cap
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 7:00 am

Post by phadeout »

Metathiax wrote:
I don't want to be nitpicking but I guess that the bottle should be added to point 5. I also think that "This would be reduced by 4" should be "This would be reduced by 3". One last thing, I can't seem to find an entry for the scabbard in the equipment list.

I think reduced by 4 is right no? 7 - 4 (reduced by 4) is 3?

"... Thus, a character who has a backpack carrying a Bedroll (EV 3), hammer (EV 2), 50 nails (EV 1), and one torch (EV 1) would have a total EV for the items of 7. This would be reduced to 3 (7/2 = 3.5, rounded down to 3) , and thus make the backpack's total EV 4 (w) (EV of 1 (w) for the backpack plus the modified EV 3 for the items contained within)."

Ah, should this not be it? I think you were right the first time, Cheeplives.

Should also mention about EV being able to go to Zero, since it can right?

Small Belt Pouch that is full = 0 EV.

User avatar
Tadhg
Cleric of Zagyg
Posts: 10817
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Time

Post by Tadhg »

StealthSuitStanley wrote:
does anyone here really get that precise with encumberence?

Seems like encumberence is the only area that isn't "rules lite" in C&C.

But that's OK. I don't use it anyway!

Well, as mentioned on the DF thread, I looked at them in the 1st print and they were too "encumbering" for my game!
But seriously, I've been watching the consensus build on how they should work and now with the input from cheeplives, I will take another look at them. What I'm really hoping will happen is that the official rules will support my current - common sense/eyeballing determination of what the characters are carrying.
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

cheeplives
Red Cap
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Behind my eyes
Contact:

Post by cheeplives »

phadeout wrote:
I think reduced by 4 is right no? 7 - 4 (reduced by 4) is 3?

Should also mention about EV being able to go to Zero, since it can right?

Small Belt Pouch that is full = 0 EV.

You're right... for some reason I was subtracting there rather than just taking 1/2 and moving on... silly me. Fixed.

I'll put a note above about EVs going to 0
discreteinfinity.com -- my respite from the bustle of the internet

Author of StarSIEGE: Event Horizon

phadeout
Red Cap
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 7:00 am

Post by phadeout »

cheeplives wrote:
You're right... for some reason I was subtracting there rather than just taking 1/2 and moving on... silly me. Fixed.

I'll put a note above about EVs going to 0

Metathiax
Red Cap
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Metathiax »

I really don't find the encumbrance system to be complicated at all...I don't know but maybe this second version suffers from the first print version's reputation that still sticks to it...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

Nifelhein
Red Cap
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Nifelhein »

I thin the system is fairly good and simple, in fac, it takes both weight and volume into account and is not very hard to keep track of. But I guess most people have not even bothered comparing the 2nd edition one to the first, they prefer to not keep a detailed track of encumbrance, which is perfect fine anyway.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

User avatar
Traveller
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2029
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Traveller »

I just got a look at this, as the unofficial errata monkey. Since I no longer frequent Dragonsfoot due to their habit of policing other sites (long story), I've had no part in the discussion. It's not as if I'd be able to contribute much, given that I use a completely different system for encumbrance.

However, I will add this to the errata on my next day off from work. If someone could PM me with any other errata that has been discussed and I've missed, I'd appreciate it.
_________________
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.

phadeout
Red Cap
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 7:00 am

Post by phadeout »

Could this thread get stickied?

*thank you*

angelius
Lore Drake
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 7:00 am

Post by angelius »

Why can't we give load reducing items a -ve to total EV? It would make it easier.

ie. A sack gives -4 to the total EV of items not worn. A small pouch, -1 EV. A scabbard -1EV to weapons. etc.

I might give that a whirl today to see how it works out.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

phadeout
Red Cap
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 7:00 am

Post by phadeout »

angelius wrote:
Why can't we give load reducing items a -ve to total EV? It would make it easier.

ie. A sack gives -4 to the total EV of items not worn. A small pouch, -1 EV. A scabbard -1EV to weapons. etc.

I might give that a whirl today to see how it works out.

Funny enough, this is how I run my even more simple version. It follows the rules we came up with for this errata. Then I just say:

"As per C&C PHB and Errata except as follows:

List all your items, add up your EV for all items and ignore capacity. Assuming characters are carrying food, water, adventuring gear, have a backpack, 2 large pouches, and 2 small pouches: Subtract 8 from the total EV. If you have quivers (max 2) and a spell component pouch, add their EV to the total, ignore the EV of arrows/bolts, and subtract 8 as usual."

Direct from my house rules document. This rule makes it so you can ignore calculating Capacity. This is a major fumble, as I see it, in a simple Encumbrance system. You shouldn't have to add up the EV for each "capacity" item you have, it would be just easier to use Weight than EV in this case. So using the above rule, you're still following the EV guidlines as per the Errata rules, but you can now ignore adding up each and every capacity item, while still receiving the benefits and intent of the rules. Just a lot simpler. Try it, you'll love it.

Yamo
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Yamo »

I just wanted to take a sec to register my disappointment that none of this eratta made it into the PHB third printing.

User avatar
moriarty777
Renegade Mage
Posts: 3735
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by moriarty777 »

Yamo wrote:
I just wanted to take a sec to register my disappointment that none of this eratta made it into the PHB third printing.

What? I thought it had been! DAMN IT!

Ah well, I have the newer printings of the PHB and M&T enroute -- I would have found out sooner or later...



M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
Image

Yamo
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Yamo »

Yeah, I was pretty surprised, too.

User avatar
Traveller
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2029
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Traveller »

With luck, the All Seeing Eye will see this and can find out what's going on. I'm wondering though if perhaps it was a conscious decision to continue with the original version of the system?
_________________
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.

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 13905
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

It was not passed over my table when asked to confirm what was, and was not, errata. I didn't write it, so its not my place... hell, I don't even use it. ;)

Astinus
Mist Elf
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Astinus »

I'm not sure if I've just missed this, but what's the EV of coins? For example, what's the EV for 100 gold pieces?

User avatar
Traveller
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2029
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Traveller »

It's not explicitly spelled out in the book, but there is no appreciable EV for a single coin. If you have more than 10, the EV is 1 per 10. Therefore, 100gp has an EV of 10.
_________________
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.

User avatar
ssfsx17
Unkbartig
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:00 am
Location: San Francisco Region

Post by ssfsx17 »

That would make a high-level dungeon haul take a fair amount time to carry outside.
C&C/D&D-related writings, Cortex Classic material, and other scraps: https://sites.google.com/site/x17rpgstuff/home

Class-less D&D: https://github.com/ssfsx17/skill20

Astinus
Mist Elf
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Astinus »

Hmm, it would make a dungeon haul interesting. That would mean a shoulder pack would hold 200 gold pieces (20 EV / 2 equals carrying capacity of 10 EV). Does that feel right? 200 coins in a shoulder pack?

Post Reply