Forums of the Megaverse®

Does anyone have any good house rules for limiting the number of weapons (or other equipment) a character can carry, besides their basic encumbrance limit? Looking at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9BqK-nq60A there seems to be a limit to the number of different weapons a character can carry and still remain vaguely functional, so I would like to come up with a system for this but I'm a little stuck on the details. I was thinking a good way to go about it would be to say that a character can carry a certain amount of stuff without any kind of impact to their performance, but any attempt to carry more weapons than that (even if within their encumbrance limit) will more or less severely impact their ability to move efficiently, quietly, and fight without penalty - their sheer number of weapons will make it much harder to move without either a lot of rattling and clattering (bad for stealth) or catching on things like door-frames, walls, furniture or simply tripping over one's own gear (bad for stealth and also for fighting, or just plain moving through even vaguely enclosed spaces like doorways and furnished rooms. I like the idea of "if you want to carry something, you need somewhere to put it", so I was thinking of instituting a "hands, bags or pockets" policy. Are there any stats for things like backpacks, belt pouches/boxes, bandoleers etc. either in Palladium Fantasy or in another Rifts book that might be easily adjusted? The sort of things I would like to be able to give to characters would be:

• Backpacks
• coin purses/pouches
• belt boxes
• bandoleers
• scabbards/weapon frogs

I'd be looking to institute a limit on how much each thing can hold (for example maybe a backpack can hold 40lbs of stuff, a belt pouch only a few ounces), as well as how many of each you can wear (for example, limit the number of pouches and scabbards that can fit on a belt or bandoleer). One idea I did have that I'd love some feedback on would be different "levels" of backpack - a basic one being little more than a leather or canvas sack strapped to your back, while a more advanced backpack would have pockets and internal compartments for organizing your stuff, and even external hooks or rings from which you can have the most essential gear immediately to hand while only expending a single action (just reach behind you, grab what you need off the hook, and use it without having to take off the pack and rummage through it, same action cost as drawing a weapon from a scabbard.)

PalladiumBrony wrote:I'd be looking to institute a limit on how much each thing can hold (for example maybe a backpack can hold 40lbs of stuff, a belt pouch only a few ounces), as well as how many of each you can wear (for example, limit the number of pouches and scabbards that can fit on a belt or bandoleer). One idea I did have that I'd love some feedback on would be different "levels" of backpack - a basic one being little more than a leather or canvas sack strapped to your back, while a more advanced backpack would have pockets and internal compartments for organizing your stuff, and even external hooks or rings from which you can have the most essential gear immediately to hand while only expending a single action (just reach behind you, grab what you need off the hook, and use it without having to take off the pack and rummage through it, same action cost as drawing a weapon from a scabbard.)

I like this idea. Belts and bandoleers have weight limits. Plus a lot of weapons dangling and thrashing abot would limit your movement and make it hard to fight. Maybe make severe penalties for trying to carry too much stuff.

Conceptually, I like it. However, in my experience, the added bookkeeping results in these sort of rules being quickly abandoned. I find it easier to discuss with the players what they are carrying on their person and come to an agreement on what is realistic and reasonable. Yes, some players will argue the point, but I'm pretty clear early on that such arguments are not welcome at my table.

Well, I've essentially ruled that you get a weapon slot on each hip, and one one the back. That is restrictive but a bit more realistic.

-Vek
"People sometimes don't like realism."

kiralon wrote:http://epiclevelgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Alt-pg-inventory.jpg
https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/770819 ... =1astiSZjE

I created a similar system to these for Rifts decades ago. We created slots for all parts of the body and each character had an "estimated" weight limit based on physical attributes. Estimates are more than adequate as most of the weight for any PC are in 3 places - armor, primary weapon, backpack - so if you have a weight for those you can keep it realistic for the rest. Also, it is a lot easier to keep an accounting of weight limits with Excel than it was on paper.

Thieves steal things.

Go buy some equipment and try out things that work and don't; I can guarantee that the average backpack of the middle ages can carry more than 40 lbs, however. Certainly not as much as a modern rucksack, of course; I suppose a backpack could be made of some tougher leather (chimera hide or the like) and be the equivalent.
The same goes for weapons. I find that most games' creators have no idea what weapons and armor actually weigh and how the encumbrance of each type of armor works.
As for the "equipment junkie", yes I've encountered people who don't understand how much a parson can carry, especially for a long march. I always suggest people buy mules or donkeys. They also don't understand that a knight rode on a riding horse, and led the war-horse, most of the time. In order to avoid wearing out your horses, you also need to walk about as many hours as you ride per day.

Fenris2020 wrote:Go buy some equipment and try out things that work and don't; I can guarantee that the average backpack of the middle ages can carry more than 40 lbs, however. Certainly not as much as a modern rucksack, of course; I suppose a backpack could be made of some tougher leather (chimera hide or the like) and be the equivalent.
The same goes for weapons. I find that most games' creators have no idea what weapons and armor actually weigh and how the encumbrance of each type of armor works.

... I mean that number was just a random ass-pull to illustrate the point that I was trying to make But I do take your point, and agree that most fiction that touches on the topic tends to massively over-estimate the weight and encumbrance of armour and weapons, I like that Palladium is at least vaguely sensible with weapon weights (If you have the Compendium of Weapons, Armour and Castles), though I feel like their handling of armour is a bit off. But that's a bit off topic for this discussion! Does -3 to Strike, Parry and Dodge sound about right, or too much/little for a character who's totally and completely weighed down with an absurd number of weapons?

TBH, this is part of why I make extradimensional spaces relatively easily available... they're something everyone would want, and they make my bookkeeping a lot easier if I can just shrug and say "Eh, you've got a weird amount of capacity, I'll allow it."

PalladiumBrony wrote:

Fenris2020 wrote:Go buy some equipment and try out things that work and don't; I can guarantee that the average backpack of the middle ages can carry more than 40 lbs, however. Certainly not as much as a modern rucksack, of course; I suppose a backpack could be made of some tougher leather (chimera hide or the like) and be the equivalent.
The same goes for weapons. I find that most games' creators have no idea what weapons and armor actually weigh and how the encumbrance of each type of armor works.

... I mean that number was just a random ass-pull to illustrate the point that I was trying to make But I do take your point, and agree that most fiction that touches on the topic tends to massively over-estimate the weight and encumbrance of armour and weapons, I like that Palladium is at least vaguely sensible with weapon weights (If you have the Compendium of Weapons, Armour and Castles), though I feel like their handling of armour is a bit off. But that's a bit off topic for this discussion! Does -3 to Strike, Parry and Dodge sound about right, or too much/little for a character who's totally and completely weighed down with an absurd number of weapons?

Define absurd.
I don't have as much training as a friend of mine, due to being a more... modern person, but he and his wife demonstrated to me a realistic combat load. Her load-out was what you'd call brigandine armor, a spear, a sword and long-knife, and a pair of daggers; she also had a smallish round shield. His load-out was a battle-axe, sword, two daggers, and an 80-lb draw horse-bow and quiver of arrows; his armor was mail with greaves and pauldrons. They had no problems moving and fighting.
The weights weren't too different from my combat load in the army (my friend was also in the army), though his gear weighed a little more than hers.

Fenris2020 wrote:Define absurd.

That's actually the point of this thread, to try and come to a consensus about how many bags, boxes, pouches, scabbards etc. full of weapons and other gear is "too much", and the sort of penalties that seem reasonable to a broad range of folks for when you're carrying that much gear.

PalladiumBrony wrote:

Fenris2020 wrote:Define absurd.

That's actually the point of this thread, to try and come to a consensus about how many bags, boxes, pouches, scabbards etc. full of weapons and other gear is "too much", and the sort of penalties that seem reasonable to a broad range of folks for when you're carrying that much gear.

Like I said then, get a donkey, mule, or pack-horse... or string of them
That's been done for centuries.
In some areas, like the Northern Wilderness, dog-sleds would be much better.

Fenris2020 wrote:

PalladiumBrony wrote:

Fenris2020 wrote:Define absurd.

That's actually the point of this thread, to try and come to a consensus about how many bags, boxes, pouches, scabbards etc. full of weapons and other gear is "too much", and the sort of penalties that seem reasonable to a broad range of folks for when you're carrying that much gear.

Like I said then, get a donkey, mule, or pack-horse... or string of them
That's been done for centuries.
In some areas, like the Northern Wilderness, dog-sleds would be much better.

There are some places you can't take a horse. If your GM lets you dungeon crawl with a horse, he/she needs to be slapped.

Stone Gargoyle wrote:

Fenris2020 wrote:

PalladiumBrony wrote:

Fenris2020 wrote:Define absurd.

That's actually the point of this thread, to try and come to a consensus about how many bags, boxes, pouches, scabbards etc. full of weapons and other gear is "too much", and the sort of penalties that seem reasonable to a broad range of folks for when you're carrying that much gear.

Like I said then, get a donkey, mule, or pack-horse... or string of them
That's been done for centuries.
In some areas, like the Northern Wilderness, dog-sleds would be much better.

There are some places you can't take a horse. If your GM lets you dungeon crawl with a horse, he/she needs to be slapped.

Sounds like a good time to acquire a flunky. I mean squire...

Fenris2020 wrote:Go buy some equipment and try out things that work and don't; I can guarantee that the average backpack of the middle ages can carry more than 40 lbs, however. Certainly not as much as a modern rucksack, of course; I suppose a backpack could be made of some tougher leather (chimera hide or the like) and be the equivalent.
The same goes for weapons. I find that most games' creators have no idea what weapons and armor actually weigh and how the encumbrance of each type of armor works.
As for the "equipment junkie", yes I've encountered people who don't understand how much a parson can carry, especially for a long march. I always suggest people buy mules or donkeys. They also don't understand that a knight rode on a riding horse, and led the war-horse, most of the time. In order to avoid wearing out your horses, you also need to walk about as many hours as you ride per day.

the backpacks that can carry more than a rucksack have a frame. so don't forget the weight of the frame when calculating encumbrance.

Stone Gargoyle wrote:

Fenris2020 wrote:

PalladiumBrony wrote:

Fenris2020 wrote:Define absurd.

That's actually the point of this thread, to try and come to a consensus about how many bags, boxes, pouches, scabbards etc. full of weapons and other gear is "too much", and the sort of penalties that seem reasonable to a broad range of folks for when you're carrying that much gear.

Like I said then, get a donkey, mule, or pack-horse... or string of them
That's been done for centuries.
In some areas, like the Northern Wilderness, dog-sleds would be much better.

There are some places you can't take a horse. If your GM lets you dungeon crawl with a horse, he/she needs to be slapped.

If a player suggests such a thing, they also need to be slapped.
There's such a thing as a base-camp...

Fenris2020 wrote:

Stone Gargoyle wrote:

Fenris2020 wrote:

PalladiumBrony wrote:

Fenris2020 wrote:Define absurd.

That's actually the point of this thread, to try and come to a consensus about how many bags, boxes, pouches, scabbards etc. full of weapons and other gear is "too much", and the sort of penalties that seem reasonable to a broad range of folks for when you're carrying that much gear.

Like I said then, get a donkey, mule, or pack-horse... or string of them
That's been done for centuries.
In some areas, like the Northern Wilderness, dog-sleds would be much better.

There are some places you can't take a horse. If your GM lets you dungeon crawl with a horse, he/she needs to be slapped.

If a player suggests such a thing, they also need to be slapped.
There's such a thing as a base-camp...

But that's not what this thread is about. This is about how much a character can comfortably carry on their body.

Kraynic wrote:Sounds like a good time to acquire a flunky. I mean squire...

Ah yes, the golf caddy of midieval times

Stone Gargoyle wrote:

Kraynic wrote:Sounds like a good time to acquire a flunky. I mean squire...

Ah yes, the golf caddy of midieval times

Not even close to what a squire was.

Fenris2020 wrote:

Stone Gargoyle wrote:

Kraynic wrote:Sounds like a good time to acquire a flunky. I mean squire...

Ah yes, the golf caddy of midieval times

Not even close to what a squire was.

I know. I was kidding.

It also has different meanings depending if it was used as a Rank or used to describe a position. But that whole bit is for a different topic.
But mostly it was the difference between 'getting a seat at the table' and getting "That armor isn't going to polish itself" yelled at you.

A squire was supposed to be a knight in training. Part of his duuties was to do whatever the knight he was squire to asked, including polishing armor and take care of the horse and weapons. I compared it to a caddy because he follows the golfer around like a squire followed a knight, in return for being able to use the golf course for free. There really aren't very many similarities. But I digress...

My personal rule of thumb for carried weapons:
Hips: Up to two 1-handed weapons can be worn, one on each side of the hips. If two large weapons are worn here, their sheaths will interfere somewhat with movement (speed/climbing penalty). A quiver of arrows/bolts can also be worn here.
Back: a 2-hander or two smaller one-handers can be worn here. A shield or a quiver of arrows/bolts can also be slung here.
Others: up to five knives or small throwing axes (or something similar) can get stowed along the lower legs, forearms, and/or small of the back.

Any additional weapons must be carried in-hand. Pole arms, spears, long bows, staffs, and other person-length weapons must be carried in-hand.

Hotrod wrote:My personal rule of thumb for carried weapons:
Hips: Up to two 1-handed weapons can be worn, one on each side of the hips. If two large weapons are worn here, their sheaths will interfere somewhat with movement (speed/climbing penalty). A quiver of arrows/bolts can also be worn here.
Back: a 2-hander or two smaller one-handers can be worn here. A shield or a quiver of arrows/bolts can also be slung here.
Others: up to five knives or small throwing axes (or something similar) can get stowed along the lower legs, forearms, and/or small of the back.

Any additional weapons must be carried in-hand. Pole arms, spears, long bows, staffs, and other person-length weapons must be carried in-hand.

So no weapons slung across the chest like a bandolier?

Stone Gargoyle wrote:

Hotrod wrote:My personal rule of thumb for carried weapons:
Hips: Up to two 1-handed weapons can be worn, one on each side of the hips. If two large weapons are worn here, their sheaths will interfere somewhat with movement (speed/climbing penalty). A quiver of arrows/bolts can also be worn here.
Back: a 2-hander or two smaller one-handers can be worn here. A shield or a quiver of arrows/bolts can also be slung here.
Others: up to five knives or small throwing axes (or something similar) can get stowed along the lower legs, forearms, and/or small of the back.

Any additional weapons must be carried in-hand. Pole arms, spears, long bows, staffs, and other person-length weapons must be carried in-hand.

So no weapons slung across the chest like a bandolier?

I'd allow it for shuriken, knives, and daggers.
Remember that a dart used in combat is like a lawn-dart, not the bar-game version. So no bandolier for that.

Fenris2020 wrote:

Stone Gargoyle wrote:

Hotrod wrote:My personal rule of thumb for carried weapons:
Hips: Up to two 1-handed weapons can be worn, one on each side of the hips. If two large weapons are worn here, their sheaths will interfere somewhat with movement (speed/climbing penalty). A quiver of arrows/bolts can also be worn here.
Back: a 2-hander or two smaller one-handers can be worn here. A shield or a quiver of arrows/bolts can also be slung here.
Others: up to five knives or small throwing axes (or something similar) can get stowed along the lower legs, forearms, and/or small of the back.

Any additional weapons must be carried in-hand. Pole arms, spears, long bows, staffs, and other person-length weapons must be carried in-hand.

So no weapons slung across the chest like a bandolier?

I'd allow it for shuriken, knives, and daggers.
Remember that a dart used in combat is like a lawn-dart, not the bar-game version. So no bandolier for that.

I agree with Fenris. I'd also point out that, while there are a lot of places to stow knives on a person's body, at a certain point things are going to get out of hand; weapons will slide out of their sheaths, handles will snag on things, and your character will start to look like a parody.

Most characters should focus on a single style of fighting, with maybe a backup weapon that can help them be useful in a different style. For example, in the Lord of the Rings, Legolas is a bowman, but he also has a knife (two in the movies). Aragorn has a two-handed sword, but he also has a short hunting bow and a backup hunting knife in the movies. Boromir has a sword and shield, but also has a throwing knife.

In real life, Roman infantry used a short sword and large shield, but they also carried two throwing spears. Greek hoplites carried spears, but they also carried swords as backup weapons. Mongol horse archers also carried melee weapons. Heavy lance cavalry also carried swords. Modern soldiers often carry a backup sidearm or a carbine to back up a vehicle-mounted, heavier weapon.

It makes lots of sense for a range-focused character to have melee weapons, and vice-versa. It also makes sense for a melee fighter to have a backup weapon to give you another option if a main weapon fails. If your character really likes thrown weapons, then having a bunch of them on you also makes sense. Otherwise, packing more weapons on an already well-armed character should probably result in some encumbrance penalties.

Fenris2020 wrote:

Stone Gargoyle wrote:

Hotrod wrote:My personal rule of thumb for carried weapons:
Hips: Up to two 1-handed weapons can be worn, one on each side of the hips. If two large weapons are worn here, their sheaths will interfere somewhat with movement (speed/climbing penalty). A quiver of arrows/bolts can also be worn here.
Back: a 2-hander or two smaller one-handers can be worn here. A shield or a quiver of arrows/bolts can also be slung here.
Others: up to five knives or small throwing axes (or something similar) can get stowed along the lower legs, forearms, and/or small of the back.

Any additional weapons must be carried in-hand. Pole arms, spears, long bows, staffs, and other person-length weapons must be carried in-hand.

So no weapons slung across the chest like a bandolier?

I'd allow it for shuriken, knives, and daggers.
Remember that a dart used in combat is like a lawn-dart, not the bar-game version. So no bandolier for that.

Yeah, I was thining for daggers.

Well, I've essentially ruled that you get a weapon slot on each hip, and one one the back. That is restrictive but a bit more realistic.

-Vek
"People sometimes don't like realism."

I think there is no profession gunner in the world who could pull that off