Encumbrance?

[devinlc]

I am confused about encumbrance in the new BRP version.

Page 118:

"Your character can only easily carry as many points of ENC as they have points in STR and can only maneuver normally for any length of time carrying ENC equal to or less than their average of STR+CON (round up)."

So, if my CON is higher than my STR, then I can maneuver for a long time with more ENC than I can easily lift? Seems like the STR + CON should be limited by STR. Not a huge deal, but a little confusing.

"ENC Penalties
Every point of ENC your character carries over their maximum ENC causes them to suffer the following modifiers:

• –1 to Movement (MOV)
• –5% to the Agility characteristic roll
• –5% to all Agility, Manipulation, Stealth, Dodge, and weapon skills"

Wait. So, if I have decent STR and CON of 15, I can carry a total of 15 ENC without penalty, right? If this pretty robust individual wants to be a warrior and wear chain armor (20 ENC) a light helm (1.5 ENC) and carry a longsword (1.5 ENC) and a full shield (5 ENC) his total ENC is 28, so he gets -13 to MOV (i.e., basically paralyzed) and, amongst other things -65% to weapon skills and -80% to Dodge (because chain also gives -20% to physical skills on its own)?

How is one supposed to play a warrior in this game? And the above is only with those 4 pieces of basic equipment!

I note that the BGB version said armor does not count towards ENC if worn (because they have their own built-in penalties).

"Additionally, your character loses 1 fatigue point per turn per additional ENC above their maximum while exerting themselves (marching, combat, strenuous activity, etc. in addition to any other fatigue point losses"

Per turn seems like no penalty whatsoever in combat. Maybe something like +1 FP per combat round for every 5 ENC (or fraction thereof) above the normal limit....

SIDE NOTE: No such thing as Agility skills. also "weapon skills" seems a bit vague. Should probably just be all Physical and Combat skills.

Edited April 21, 2023 by devinlc

[devinlc]

In the BGB version, a character could lift STR x6 in ENC  50% of the time (each ENC = 1/6 SIZ equivalent). 

In the new version, it seems to be limited to STR (or Average of STR and CON). Seems much more restrictive and not very realistic. Assuming no armour at all, if I have a 15 STR and 15 CON and I carry a heavy crossbow (8 ENC), 20 bolts (.5 ENC), a short spear (2 ENC) and a full shield (5 ENC) I am now over encumbered despite being absolutely naked and with no other equipment at all (backpack, rope, food and water, bedroll, et al). So, even if armour does not count towards ENC, the system does not seem properly calibrated. In BGB, ENC was optional and not very well-developed. In this version, I don't see it labelled as optional (for example, Hit Locations are clearly labelled optional in this version), so it should probably be rejiggered to work better.

Also, shouldn't there be some table or indication as to how non-weapons/armour/shields weigh?

For now, I am going to change ENC capacity to STR plus CON plus SIZ, so a 13 STR, 13 CON, SIZ 13 character can carry 39 ENC with no penalty, which works out to about 6.5 SIZ points of stuff carried. A decently physically capable character like that can then outfit themselves with chain armor (20 ENC), a light helmet (1.5 ENC), a full shield (5 ENC), a long sword (1.5 ENC), a longbow (0.5 ENC) and 20 arrows (0.5 ENC) and still have 10 ENC left over for other equipment.

As far as the penalties for over encumbrance, I am going to change them to:

Every 5 points of ENC (or fraction thereof) your character carries over their maximum ENC causes them to suffer the following modifiers:

• -1 to MOV
• -5% to the Agility characteristic roll
• -5% to all Physical and Combat skills

Additionally, your character loses 1 additional fatigue point per 5 points of ENC (or fraction thereof) when exerting themselves.

(Note: there is no need to specify a time period for this exertion because the normal fatigue rules already provide for that. This is just an add on to the points lost at whatever rate is already prescribed)

Edited April 21, 2023 by devinlc
typo fix

[devinlc]

Lastly (for now), armour and shield shave a BURDEN category on their tables. So, full plate is listed as "Cumbersome". Where does it explain the effects of that?

[SDLeary]

@Jason D, This could be a simple typo (missing a multiple, ex. x6?), or more. Would you advise this be moved to the Corrections thread. Also, shouldn't the whole rule be labeled as (Optional), or is this now Core?

SDLeary

[devinlc]

1 minute ago, SDLeary said:

@Jason D, This could be a simple typo (missing a multiple, ex. x6?), or more. Would you advise this be moved to the Corrections thread. Also, shouldn't the whole rule be labeled as (Optional), or is this now Core?

SDLeary

As I understand it, the corrections thread is specifically for typos, not for questions about actual systems. That's why I posted it here. Happy to move it if the powers that be desire that.

[SDLeary]

1 minute ago, devinlc said:

As I understand it, the corrections thread is specifically for typos, not for questions about actual systems. That's why I posted it here. Happy to move it if the powers that be desire that.

Yes, that's why I asked. 🙂

They are all in the middle of the editing task, sometimes they will miss things in the forums outside of the pinned topics if you don't tag someone.

SDLeary

Edited April 21, 2023 by SDLeary

[devinlc]

Important, also, to make sure a warhorse can carry a mounted knight using this system. So, I am going to rule that a quadruped (or any creature with more than 2 legs that moves on at least 4 of those legs) can carry double the maximum ENC. There's no provision in the new BRP for such creatures carrying more, and that leads to horses not being able to carry a rider.

So, a warhorse has an average STR of 31, Con of 15, and SIZ of 28. Using my system, it would have a max ENC of (31+15+28) x2 = 148. If we assume (from the BGB) that 1 SIZ = 6 ENC, then this average warhorse could bear a SIZ 15 rider (90 ENC) wearing full plate (25 ENC), a half shield (3 ENC) a lance (3.5 ENC), a light mace (1 ENC), a self bow (0.5 ENC) and 20 arrows (0.5 ENC) and still have 24.5 ENC available for other equipment (saddle, bit and bridle, saddle bags, maybe some light barding...).

I'd also give quadrupeds double the allowance for ENC penalties (i.e., every 10 ENC or fraction thereof).

Edited April 21, 2023 by devinlc

[devinlc]

Related question. Does anyone have any idea what the BURDEN category for armor and shields is supposed to do? Each armor and shield on the equipment charts has a burden rating, but there is nothing I could find anywhere int he rules that actually tells what effect these have.

[Mugen]

11 hours ago, devinlc said:

For now, I am going to change ENC capacity to STR plus CON plus SIZ, 

As for myself, I see Fatigue as one of the few rules where the designers decided to change the balance between STR, CON and SIZ.

SIZ influences Damage Bonus and Hit Points, whereas STR and CON only affect one of those stats each.

Sure, SIZ is never actively used in a roll, and it reduces some bonuses (only in games where this optional rule is used), but I wouldn't give it more weight (;)) nonetheless.

[Susimetsa]

5 minutes ago, Mugen said:

SIZ influences Damage Bonus and Hit Points, whereas STR and CON only affect one of those stats each.

Sure, SIZ is never actively used in a roll, and it reduces some bonuses (only in games where this optional rule is used), but I wouldn't give it more weight (;)) nonetheless.

I tend to agree. Size is a problematic stat for many fantasy species - especially dwarves. Rules such as these seem to make Tolkienesque dwarves even more unlikely... At least, I'd assume that they'd need to have pretty good damage bonus and the importance of SIZ seems to counter that... 😕

[devinlc]

10 hours ago, Mugen said:

As for myself, I see Fatigue as one of the few rules where the designers decided to change the balance between STR, CON and SIZ.

SIZ influences Damage Bonus and Hit Points, whereas STR and CON only affect one of those stats each.

Sure, SIZ is never actively used in a roll, and it reduces some bonuses (only in games where this optional rule is used), but I wouldn't give it more weight (;)) nonetheless.

Well, if you find use of SIZ to be problematic, you could, instead, double up on STR or CON, but IMO the ENC rules clearly need 3 "chunks" of stats added together in order for it to make sense as written.

[Barak Shathur]

 

On 4/21/2023 at 7:15 PM, devinlc said:

I am confused about encumbrance in the new BRP version.

Page 118:

"Your character can only easily carry as many points of ENC as they have points in STR and can only maneuver normally for any length of time carrying ENC equal to or less than their average of STR+CON (round up)."

So, if my CON is higher than my STR, then I can maneuver for a long time with more ENC than I can easily lift? Seems like the STR + CON should be limited by STR. Not a huge deal, but a little confusing.

"ENC Penalties
Every point of ENC your character carries over their maximum ENC causes them to suffer the following modifiers:

• –1 to Movement (MOV)
• –5% to the Agility characteristic roll
• –5% to all Agility, Manipulation, Stealth, Dodge, and weapon skills"

Wait. So, if I have decent STR and CON of 15, I can carry a total of 15 ENC without penalty, right? If this pretty robust individual wants to be a warrior and wear chain armor (20 ENC) a light helm (1.5 ENC) and carry a longsword (1.5 ENC) and a full shield (5 ENC) his total ENC is 28, so he gets -13 to MOV (i.e., basically paralyzed) and, amongst other things -65% to weapon skills and -80% to Dodge (because chain also gives -20% to physical skills on its own)?

How is one supposed to play a warrior in this game? And the above is only with those 4 pieces of basic equipment!

I note that the BGB version said armor does not count towards ENC if worn (because they have their own built-in penalties).

"Additionally, your character loses 1 fatigue point per turn per additional ENC above their maximum while exerting themselves (marching, combat, strenuous activity, etc. in addition to any other fatigue point losses"

Per turn seems like no penalty whatsoever in combat. Maybe something like +1 FP per combat round for every 5 ENC (or fraction thereof) above the normal limit....

SIDE NOTE: No such thing as Agility skills. also "weapon skills" seems a bit vague. Should probably just be all Physical and Combat skills.

One solution to the problem of over-heavy armour could be to have its ENC count for half when worn. If the warrior in the first example ditches the helm (mail protects almost twice as well anyway) and switches his full shield to a heater, he would be down to 14.5 ENC, netting him -1 MOV and -5% to Agility and said skills. Not unreasonable for someone moving about in full battle gear. If he carries other equipment, he had better drop it before entering combat, which is also realistic. 
 

An alternative might be to make STR + CON the carrying capacity (as per RQIII) rather than the average of the two. Then the above warrior would be completely untroubled by his equipment, which is perhaps realistic for someone with such good stats. 
 

It would be nice with a simplified fatigue system that uses the burden stat from the shield and armour tables. For example, instead of using fatigue points you do a CON roll every minute or so of strenuous activity, where “Burden” affects the multiple of the roll. Failure would indicate a penalty, say a cumulative -10% to all skills or so. 
 

Added: I support anything that makes CON a bit more important. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[Barak Shathur]

@Jason D clarified in the BRP discord channel last night: armour ENC does not count when worn. 

[peterb]

So, no effects of wearing heavy armor? Really? I'm going to house rule that one...

[Ravenheart87]

49 minutes ago, peterb said:

So, no effects of wearing heavy armor? Really? I'm going to house rule that one...

There are skill penalties for wearing armour. It is awkward there are no simplified movement penalties though.