Encumbrance and Load

[vegas]

Trying to understand the encumbrance rules, they seem to be under-specified and there is some inconsistent uses of terms. Here is the relevant text that I can find:
KAP e5.2 p. 97 reads:

Quote

 

For actions involving agility or movement, such as climbing or dodging, DEX is reduced by encumbrance, as shown on the chart below.
Encumbrance / DEX Modifier
Light load / –5
Heavy load / –10
In addition, armor penalizes DEX rolls, as shown in Table 6.1: Armor.

 

p. 119 reads [emphasis added]:

Quote

Encumbrance: A character or creature may be “encumbered.” Knights and horses are usually treated as being encumbered during the game as their normal state of affairs, so no special rules apply. However, characters and horses used to bearing heavy loads that then find themselves unencumbered gain an increase of +2 to their base Movement Rate....
The state of being “encumbered” is defined as bearing a heavy load. Clothing, or even some kinds of armor and a sword and shield, for instance, aren’t enough to constitute a heavy load for a character, but metal armor, weapons, and combat gear all together most certainly qualify as a heavy load.

p. 139, reads in part (redacted to focus only encumbrance)

Quote

 

Table 6.1: Armor

Type       /DEX/ Heavy Load?
Padded        0    N
Leather      –5    N
Hrd leathr  –5     Y
Chainmail  –10    Y
A “Y” indicates that a character is encumbered when wearing this armor, while “N” indicates that a character wearing this armor along with a minimal load of equipment (perhaps personal gear and a sword and shield) is unencumbered. Of course, a heavier load of gear worn with this armor would push the character into the “encumbered” zone.

 

Questions:

p 97 seems to read that no matter what you have at least -5 on DEX rolls (excluding cases that have their own rule, e.g. sneaking): is that the intention? Or are we to assume there is an "inconsequential load" that would get no negative DEX modifier? What defines a "light load"?

p119 seems to contradict p. 97 by equating encumbrance only with "heavy load" whereas the former had both light and heavy encumbrance. Given the context of p119, I assume only "heavy loads" affect movement rates and this language has no bearing on DEX rolls.

p139 parses things a third way by having encumbrance equated with "heavy load" but the DEX modifier varies by armor type independent of load. It seems like the most straight forward reading and by inference from other text (e.g. p 108 "swimming") is that the armor table DEX mod is additive to the p. 97 table, giving net DEX mods for typical DEX rolls (again excluding sneaking) of Padded -5, Leather -10, Hard Leather -15, and Chainmail -20.

Is this how you all read this?

[Morien]

KAP doesn't do the accounting of every piece of equipment you carry, but simplifies it mainly to the armor you have on. But yeah, I admit that the rules could be clearer here. One reason is that there used to be more rules for being unarmored than just the +2 Movement rate, so there are some legacy text issues.

Anyway, if you are wearing a Chainmail, the DEX penalty is -10 and that is it. This is confirmed by the host of published adventures that quote this rule, and I am pretty sure I can find a Greg quote if I try, too. You have to be doing something else in addition to qualify for more. I would consider -20 if you are hauling another armored knight over your shoulder as well (extra heavy load or something like that), but not for just wearing a chainmail. Also, note that the DEX penalty for armor does not influence your DEX roll to stay on your feet in the case of a knockdown roll.

 

[vegas]

Thanks Morien! I greatly appreciate the light touch of KAP rules and relying on judgement. Your post connects the dots for me that there are just two encumbrance systems not three; the Table 6.1 Armor "Heavy Load" column refers to the p119 movement rules and the text below the table affirms that. The DEX modifier column in 6.1 represents the "armor encumbrance" rule.

Then we have the "normal encumbrance" rule on p 97. Your post says that there should be an "inconsequential load" with no DEX modifier, and I'll trust you on that because I haven't read any KAP adventures yet. I have done my best searching the Nocturnal archives and can't find a post that clarifies this.

Left open is what constitutes a "light" load. I take it a sword and shield remains "inconsequential", I just wish p 97 was explicit about that. It would have saved me quite a bit of searching. Beyond that it is a judgement if a -5 or -10 DEX mod is appropriate.

 

[Morien]

4 hours ago, vegas said:

Left open is what constitutes a "light" load. I take it a sword and shield remains "inconsequential", I just wish p 97 was explicit about that. It would have saved me quite a bit of searching. Beyond that it is a judgement if a -5 or -10 DEX mod is appropriate.

My rough rule of thumb:

Unarmored but with a weapon and shield**: no encumbrance, no penalties to DEX, +2 Move

Non-metallic* armor with weapon and shield**: light load, -5 DEX (and +1 Move, house-ruled)

Metallic* armor with weapon and shield**: heavy load, -10 DEX, normal for knights

* These are obviously a bit game-fied statements, as a non-metallic armor can be comparable in weight to a metallic one. Especially if a thick gambeson gets waterlogged. But it is close enough for game purposes. Although I would posit an idea that a 8-point chainmail byrnie (tunic) should be in the -5 DEX category, as should a brigandine doublet when it becomes available. Basically, give those nimble longbowmen an armor that they can still zip around with.

** Depends a bit on the shield, too. A heavy, large shield like the scutum might push you into -5 DEX territory even without armor, and push you into -10 DEX even with a lighter armor. But for the most part, I don't have to worry about it since the PKs usually run around in full armor for -10 anyway.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Morien

[vegas]

Circling back to this issue after having spent more time with the text and carefully parsing it all, I think I now understand the rules as written and perhaps as intended. I also notice that my original post had missed the treatment of Combat Skill modifiers which appears to be different than the DEX and Move effects of encumbrance. So we are back to three sets of encumbrance rules. ☹️

Table 6.1 was a big source of my confusion when I first studied this, and I see now it is also incomplete. Here is how I think the Table should read:

Armor Type	Redctn.	DEX Modifier	Move Bonus*	Combat Skill
Heavy clothing	1	0	+2	+5
Padded armor	2	0	+2	+5
Leather armor	4	-5	+2	na
Hard leather	6	-5	na	na
Chainmail	10	-10	na	na
Reinforced Chain	12	-10	na	na

* Increase in Movement rate bonus only available if character is also unencumbered

Relabeling the "Heavy Load?" column "Move Bonus" removes some of the confusion with the DEX modifier, as it seems from context intention is not to decrement DEX twice as a result of armor (once for the "DEX Modifier" column and then again if "Heavy Load?" reads "Y" as Heavy Loads cause a -10 DEX modifier on p 97.)

The RAW as I see it have 2 different triggers for encumbrance effects, armor & load, and 3 different thresholds for encumbrance:

A) for DEX encumbrance modifiers begin either with leather armor or light loads, and since load and armor modifiers stack (the example on p 97 is explicit about that) the DEX modifier from load and armor can range from -5 to -20;

B) the +2 Move bonus is lost from encumbrance from either "hard leather armor" or a "heavy load";

C) the +5 Combat Skill modifier is only affected by armor not load - padded armor or less and you get the bonus.

To get this to work at the table, I think it requires some house rules: 1) encouraged by Morien I'd rule a sheathed one-handed weapon, and a shield carried on the back is neither a heavy nor a light load, so no additional DEX modifier applies besides whats explicitly on Table 6.1. Much more than that and you have at least a light load for an additional -5. 2) whether its RAI or not, I'd take away both the +5 Combat Skill modifier and the +2 Move bonus if more than a shield and weapon are being carried in hands.

I do hope this topic gets a re-write in 6e.

 

[Morien]

The combat skill bonus for being unencumbered was removed by Greg in his errata. And I agree that it should be removed, as it encourages high-skill individuals to strip off their armor, which is very ahistorical and counter to the sources, too.

I would be tempted to make the Move bonus +1 for 4 and 6 point armors, but that is just to avoid such a big jump. If staying at +2, I would remove it from the 4 pt armor. If it is enough to give a DEX penalty, you don't get a Move bonus, either, is my reasoning.

 

[Voord 99]

I wouldn’t mind seeing some useful effect for being unarmored in the context of hunting.  The trick is to design one so that it makes sense not to be wearing armor when hunting,  on the one hand, and on the other in such a way that means that it never makes sense to be without armor in combat.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Voord 99

[Morien]

40 minutes ago, Voord 99 said:

I wouldn’t mind seeing some useful effect for being unarmored in the context of hunting.  The trick is to design one so that it makes sense not to be wearing armor when hunting,  on the one hand, and on the other in such a way that means that it never makes sense to be without armor in combat.

Well, if you are hunting on foot, having extra Move and no penalties to DEX (i.e. sneaking up on the animal) would be useful. Presumably, also less fatigue for hiking around the whole day, too.

As for a chase, the only rationale I am able to come up with of the top of my head is that wearing an armor is uncomfortable; if you don't expect to need it, you'd rather go without. And it might be socially frowned upon, seen as Cowardly (with a trait check), perhaps even a -1 Honor if it is a repeated faux pas.

[vegas]

13 hours ago, Morien said:

The combat skill bonus for being unencumbered was removed by Greg in his errata. And I agree that it should be removed, as it encourages high-skill individuals to strip off their armor, which is very ahistorical and counter to the sources, too.

I saw that in Greg's errata, but... he doesn't quite remove it, he seems to "suggest" it if it being abused. Supporting that reading, most of the errata were entered into 5.2 but the +5 for unencumbered is still in the book.

I was actually just looking last night in the old Nocturnal threads for where Greg discussed this, because I have this memory that I read him posting about it, but my search skills have failed me and I can't track it down.

But a question about the second part "encourages high-skill individuals to strip off their armor": I agree that is stupid, but is the +5 really worth it? I would think the possibility of having to split your attack roll quickly makes that a bad trade. To check that behavior, doesn't sending 3 bandits at the PK make them very vulnerable? Or shot at with arrows or a javelin? My gut says I am happy to give +5 is someone wants to be a swashbuckler rather than a knight, but the price they pay is very high if they get hit! But maybe I am not seeing the whole issue. (Fortunately my players haven't been devious enough to try this so I haven't really been put to the test.)

[Morien]

2 hours ago, vegas said:

But a question about the second part "encourages high-skill individuals to strip off their armor": I agree that is stupid, but is the +5 really worth it?

It can be, especially if you can combine it with a Passion. Sure, if your skill is 15, then you are better off with an armor. However, if your skill is 20+, it might be worth it to hunt for those critical hits.

Let's say two skill 20 knights wearing chainmail (10) with shields (6) and swords, doing 5d6 of damage. If they both fight in armor, it is basically 50/50 which one will win. However, if one of them takes off his armor and gets +5, the odds shift. Now it is 20 vs 25. The 25 will crit 30% of the time, and wins the round about 3 out of 4 (I didn't run a full simulation, so this is ball park on 1d20+5-1d20 >= 0, since a draw works for the unarmored one, too). This means that he is even likelier to land a critical hit before the other guy lands a regular one, and a critical (using RAW) does double damage so on average 35 points. This is 19 points past the armor+shield, and almost a certain major wound and automatic knockdown, meaning that the next blow is likely to be a critical as well. In other words, a fight ender. Even if the skill 20 knight lands a hit, the average damage is 17.5, so 11.5 past the shield, likely not a major wound, and only 50/50 or so chance of knocking the skill 25 guy over. In short, your odds are better if you ditch the armor, and that simply does not seem right. (6d6 would make a major wound more likely on the unarmed guy's side, but on the other hand, 26 points past the armor is almost certainly a straight to unconscious hit, too, and a certain knockdown.)

Sure, if you are expecting to be in an arrow storm, or fighting whilst outnumbered, you want to have your armor on. But if you are in a duel, any rule that makes it worth while to take off your armor is a bad rule, IMHO. Especially when the reasoning for the rule is that since you have trained to fight in your armor, you are suddenly even better when fighting without it. Off the top of my head, I can't come up any situations in the stories where the knights deliberately stripped their armor off for combat, but I can come up with plenty where they specifically armored up before fighting. Two of the top of my head: Prince Lanceor going after Balin since the was the only one in armor at the time, and Lancelot yanking one knight into the room to steal his armor when confronted by Mordred and Agravaine and their cohorts for adultery. (In Le Morte, Lancelot armors up and then fights in the corridor, not near-naked as in GPC.)

What the fighting without armor should do is to tire you less. Most fights seldomly last long enough for this to be an issue, and battles usually allow for breathers. But if someone really wanted to model this, an easy way would be to give fatigue points equal to CON/3* when in heavy armor with an enclosing helmet, CON/2 in heavy armor and CON when in light armor or no armor. Once you cross the threshold, you take -5 penalty due to huffing and puffing. Each round you are not fighting at all restores 2 points, each round Defensive restores 1 point. Something like that. Mind you, that is too fiddly for me, but something like that might work, if you want to get all realistic about the downsides of wearing armor.

* Low value chosen for this effect to show up in melee, since they seldom last too many uninterrupted rounds.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Morien

[Morien]

2 hours ago, vegas said:

I saw that in Greg's errata, but... he doesn't quite remove it, he seems to "suggest" it if it being abused. Supporting that reading, most of the errata were entered into 5.2 but the +5 for unencumbered is still in the book.

The text in the Encumbrance section (KAP 5.0 & KAP 5.1, p. 98; KAP 5.2, p. 119) is a vestigial remnant (same with Table 6-2) of the errataed Unburdened rule.

KAP 5.0 had a whole paragraph on it in the Combat Modifiers (p. 117):
"UNBURDENED
Knights (or other character accustomed to heavy armor, at the Gamemaster’s discretion) not wearing armor and otherwise only lightly encumbered gain a +5 modifier to all weapon rolls in combat. Characters such as peasants, bandits, or Picts, who are not trained to wear armor, do not gain this modifier.
Gamemasters should also give knights a +5 modifier to Awareness rolls when they are unarmored, to simulate the increased sensitivity gained when the heavy, confining helmet is removed. Again, characters who do not normally wear heavy armor do not gain this modifier."

This text has been removed in KAP 5.1 and KAP 5.2 Combat Modifiers section (p. 117 and p. 140-141, respectively), indicating that it should not be part of the RAW anymore. The vestigial text (and Unburdened in Table 6-2) are just errata that were not corrected. The Table 6-2 in particular was explicitly noted as errata in the old Nocturnal Forum's Errata Section: https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-1972.html

Other mentions:
https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-1146.html

My memory is that Greg was pretty clear on this topic when he was asked about this. There was another forum before this, but alas, I don't think it has been archived.

[vegas]

Ah, I see. Thanks again and as usual, Morien!

Where do I sign up to help edit 6th edition?

[SDLeary]

6 hours ago, Morien said:

It can be, especially if you can combine it with a Passion. Sure, if your skill is 15, then you are better off with an armor. However, if your skill is 20+, it might be worth it to hunt for those critical hits.

Let's say two skill 20 knights wearing chainmail (10) with shields (6) and swords, doing 5d6 of damage. If they both fight in armor, it is basically 50/50 which one will win. However, if one of them takes off his armor and gets +5, the odds shift. Now it is 20 vs 25. The 25 will crit 30% of the time, and wins the round about 3 out of 4 (I didn't run a full simulation, so this is ball park on 1d20+5-1d20 >= 0, since a draw works for the unarmored one, too). This means that he is even likelier to land a critical hit before the other guy lands a regular one, and a critical (using RAW) does double damage so on average 35 points. This is 19 points past the armor+shield, and almost a certain major wound and automatic knockdown, meaning that the next blow is likely to be a critical as well. In other words, a fight ender. Even if the skill 20 knight lands a hit, the average damage is 17.5, so 11.5 past the shield, likely not a major wound, and only 50/50 or so chance of knocking the skill 25 guy over. In short, your odds are better if you ditch the armor, and that simply does not seem right. (6d6 would make a major wound more likely on the unarmed guy's side, but on the other hand, 26 points past the armor is almost certainly a straight to unconscious hit, too, and a certain knockdown.)

Sure, if you are expecting to be in an arrow storm, or fighting whilst outnumbered, you want to have your armor on. But if you are in a duel, any rule that makes it worth while to take off your armor is a bad rule, IMHO. Especially when the reasoning for the rule is that since you have trained to fight in your armor, you are suddenly even better when fighting without it. Off the top of my head, I can't come up any situations in the stories where the knights deliberately stripped their armor off for combat, but I can come up with plenty where they specifically armored up before fighting. Two of the top of my head: Prince Lanceor going after Balin since the was the only one in armor at the time, and Lancelot yanking one knight into the room to steal his armor when confronted by Mordred and Agravaine and their cohorts for adultery. (In Le Morte, Lancelot armors up and then fights in the corridor, not near-naked as in GPC.)

What the fighting without armor should do is to tire you less. Most fights seldomly last long enough for this to be an issue, and battles usually allow for breathers. But if someone really wanted to model this, an easy way would be to give fatigue points equal to CON/3* when in heavy armor with an enclosing helmet, CON/2 in heavy armor and CON when in light armor or no armor. Once you cross the threshold, you take -5 penalty due to huffing and puffing. Each round you are not fighting at all restores 2 points, each round Defensive restores 1 point. Something like that. Mind you, that is too fiddly for me, but something like that might work, if you want to get all realistic about the downsides of wearing armor.

* Low value chosen for this effect to show up in melee, since they seldom last too many uninterrupted rounds.

Or, one could simply adjust the Armor table (Table 6.1, p.139). Change the "Heavy Load" heading to "Load". The load for Clothing and Heavy Clothing stays at N. Padded and Leather Armor becomes L(ight), and Hard Leather and above remains H(eavy). 

At the end of a fight, the GM can require the PKs to roll CON to see if they have "tired". The multiple of the roll would be based on how encumbered the PKs were. Perhaps N could be CONx5, L could be CONx4, and H could be CONx3. You could have, say, a penalty of -2 Movement. And, you could have it so that this is cumulative, should the PKs find themselves in several small combats, or a running battle.

As far as the Movement Bonus for those unencumbered, I'd say leave it. Not so much for those that want to Buckle Swashes, but for those instances when rowdy villagers or townsfolk decide they have no other option.

SDLeary