Question about equipment and encumbrance

[mostrojoe]

Hi all,

rules for encumbrance have been simplified a lot in the 6th edition.

Still, many items have still the (w) code written in their description line. Why that if it's no more important when an equipment piece is wearable or not?

Are perhaps the equipment tables not been updated for some kind of error?

Thanks!

[Arduin]

I didn't see any equipment marked with a (w). Do you remember what had it?

[Omote]

All the the worn items still do. Though, they have eliminated the rules regarding word (w) items.

~O

[Arduin]

All the the worn items still do. Though, they have eliminated the rules regarding word (w) items.

~O

I'm on page 65 of the PHB:
Cap
Cape
Cloak
Cowl
Dalmatic
etc.
etc.

Nothing with a (w)...

[Omote]

The print copy I am looking at right now, does have the (w) notation on all worn items. However, the digital version does not have them.

~O

[Arduin]

The print copy I am looking at right now, does have the (w) notation on all worn items. However, the digital version does not have them.

~O

Okay. They corrected the text after the physical books were printed. No issue now. Thanks

[Snoring Rock]

The print copy I am looking at right now, does have the (w) notation on all worn items. However, the digital version does not have them.

~O

So the PHB 6th printing has the (w) missing in the encumbrance description so that you specifically know what that annotation is for in the table. That is an issue to a new purchaser of the book or anyone who has not read a previous printing. Unfortunate.

I only have the digital with me. It is not in the notes either. Did the (w) make it in the notes under the table in the printed version?

[Arduin]

Did the (w) make it in the notes under the table in the printed version?

No. I wrote up an errata entry for this issue.

[Snoring Rock]

D'oh!

[mostrojoe]

The (w) note is present in the equipment section too. For an exemple the backpack, the spell component pouch and so on. Also, ALL of the armors are still (w) marked and the transport equipment for animals too (like saddles).

But that's not the only odd thing I noticed.

In the previous editions, (w) items encumbered the half when donned. In this edition, there is no more this advantage, so a gown is EV4 and will not be halfed even if donned. A banded Mail is 4EV and it will stay that.

I think C&C is plagued by problems relative to encumbrance rules from years. If the (w) rule has been erased, we should see EV valours halved now isn't it?

I would like to note too that saddle bags have no CAP again.

[Snoring Rock]

Oh, spilled my Pepsi again.

Do this: imagine how you may carry your stuff. If you can picture it and it seems right, roll with it. I have not yet seen a system for doing encumbrance right, where it makes sense.

[Buttmonkey]

Good Lord, skip over encumbrance. The only encumbrance system I've ever seen that looked at all worth the effort was for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. I only saw it once, but recall it was innovative and sleek. I should probably pick up a copy of LFP at some point, but I digress. Back to the OP. Please ignore encumbrance rules in this and all D&D variants. Hand wave it. You'll be much happier. I'm sure there are some hard core purists out there who want to play with BTB encumbrance and prefer to resolve combat in OD&D using Chainmail rules, but that approach is definitely unnecessary. What's the point of running a rules lite system if you willingly jump into a quagmire that you can easily bypass?

[Snoring Rock]

Good Lord, skip over encumbrance. The only encumbrance system I've ever seen that looked at all worth the effort was for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. I only saw it once, but recall it was innovative and sleek. I should probably pick up a copy of LFP at some point, but I digress. Back to the OP. Please ignore encumbrance rules in this and all D&D variants. Hand wave it. You'll be much happier. I'm sure there are some hard core purists out there who want to play with BTB encumbrance and prefer to resolve combat in OD&D using Chainmail rules, but that approach is definitely unnecessary. What's the point of running a rules lite system if you willingly jump into a quagmire that you can easily bypass?

+1

[mostrojoe]

Your suggestions are valid if skipping a rule could be an option. This way it could be a must because rules are confusing.
In my opinion when I pay for something I should find everything and then I should make my choices, considering an Rpg a toolbox. But when I find bad written rules, it is a negative quirk of my character, I find myself constricted to skip them or house rule them, and I am not supposed to do that. It should be a choice.
4th printing encumbrance rules needed two erratas but finally worked. Then you could choose if use them or not.
These rules, obviously changed for simplicity, seem to create questions again.

[Snoring Rock]

Dude, I feel your pain. This is not the only place in the book that errata screems at you from the page. You do not need to look hard. I get upset about it often. But, a look back and thumb through my Pathfinder Core book and see this geniusly crafted masterpiece and then go create an NPC Orc barbarian that has 5 feats that 3 must be looked up in game to run. The NPC write up is an entire page and is a virtual dashboard.

Then C&C for all its flaws, looks much better. I am going to go back over it and try to make sense of it. So check back here tomorrow. I, or someone else will have a better answer.

This much is certain, C&C has maleable rules that you can tweak and it still works. But you are right, you paid for a book that should have solid rules. It is here, but it was written by trolls. Give the members of this forum some time to chew on it and we will get you some better answers.

Crusade on!

[Buttmonkey]

But you are right, you paid for a book that should have solid rules.

Fair point. But complaining about wonky encumbrance rules in a D&D system is a bit like saying you don't like the the 2 inch square bit of artwork on page 58 of a PHB. It really doesn't affect the playability of the system in any meaningful way.

[Omote]

While I like and use the C&C encumbrance rules as is, I wish they would have kept the (w) notation, and kept the small little rule that if the item is worn it's effective encumbrance is reduced. That would only take one small paragraph, of a few sentences in the Worn & Capacity Items section.

~O

[Snoring Rock]

But you are right, you paid for a book that should have solid rules.

Fair point. But complaining about wonky encumbrance rules in a D&D system is a bit like saying you don't like the the 2 inch square bit of artwork on page 58 of a PHB. It really doesn't affect the playability of the system in any meaningful way.

Dude, we have to party together! Agreed.

[Captain_K]

I assume the question is not, "Why are w items less encumbrance"?

I still like making each PC describe, pantomime, or better still draw their PC (even a stick figure) with all items on (worn or carried) then let it plain for all who is and who is not over burdened.. group pressure to "lighten the load" and the penalties in the PH help make it obvious.. especially if they have to try to out run something or the last guy gets eaten..

I think the Trolls have a video of this and they too say, hey these things are there for those who care...