Topic: Maneuvering - Backpack

[Usdrothek]

Have your players ever been ambushed whilst travelling loaded with gear? Most likely.

If given the opportunity, most rational people would drop their packs before engaging in combat. However, we dont all have that luxury all the time.

What penalties to OB and manuevering in a pressured situation ( eg in combat, fleeing from enemies) would people suggest for those characters that wish to retain their packs?

Perhaps a skill for reducing the maneuver penalty, akin to maneuvering in armour? With bigger packs incurring more penalty than smaller ones. Better braced packs (like a frame backpack) could have less penalties than "loose cloth/leather" packs that would move about more.

All I know is, its damn hard to run in a straight line without your pack bouncing all over the place, let alone fight or scamble up a steep slope under arrow fire.

Thanks,

Usdro

[Arioch]

What penalties to OB and manuevering in a pressured situation ( eg in combat, fleeing from enemies) would people suggest for those characters that wish to retain their packs?

Encumberance penalties seems the most straightforward solution to me.

Perhaps a skill for reducing the maneuver penalty, akin to maneuvering in armour? With bigger packs incurring more penalty than smaller ones. Better braced packs (like a frame backpack) could have less penalties than "loose cloth/leather" packs that would move about more.

I wouldn't add a skill for this, imho a backpack is just a dead weight on you back, you either keep it up and suffer the penalties or spend actions to drop it and remove them.
OTOH I agree that high quality backpack could lessen encumberance penalties

[markc]

 I know that there are rules for encumberance in RMSS and RMFRP that you could use. But you may also provide a modifier to that penalty if the weight is not balanced correctly.

 I backpacked and hiked 580 some miles in a year when I was 13 for the boy scouts. And I can say that there is something to say about balancing your load and you learn just how much good equipment can help you. In RMSS/FRP I beileive I would use the portar profession under crafts, come to think of it you can do that also in RM2/C.
 IMO adventures would have good equipment because it can help them and stand up to some beetings. Also if it was possible to have a quick realease backpack most adventures would buy it ASAP. Also IMO you might provide a small bonus to overland movement for good equipment or a large penalty for poor equipment.
 Also depending on your style you may or may not want to track weight to prevent PC's from picking up everything thay can get there hands on. In my game one of the holy grails of magic items is the "bag or holding", "backpack of holding ", "Warpack of Holding", "Staff of Tree Home", portable hole, etc. They all provide a way to carry stuff without impacting your combat abilities and some have some highly sought after magical abilities. But then again I try to make them rare or hard to find. But often they save up for it as a group or take dangerous jobs and ask for it as payment.

MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

I once had a player whose new character had turned out to be very well set up for starting cash. He spent a fair amount on a spare packhorse and lots of "just in case I need it" supplies, and forgot to pay attention to weights. When he'd burned up most of his cash on hand and showed me the list of what he'd bought, I asked him, "Okay, were are you putting the 400 lbs. of caltrops you bought?"

Boy was he ever embarrassed.

[Usdrothek]

I realise encumberance could be used. However, most of the players are carrying loads within their limits for any penalties (one has the "portage" talent).

Even so, melee fighting with even a small pack is really awkward. I own some armour and weapons and did a small test 'sparring' session with a small modern backpack. Even well secured it wobbled all around, hindering sword arm movements and throwing me off balance when shifting positions.

The pack was not fully stuffed with gear and I would (and indeed have not) have no trouble hauling it about all day, so I would not consider myself 'encumbered' by the pack for the purposes of trecking from A to B. When it came to maneuvering in a "fight" situation I definately would consider myself encumbered

[markc]

Usdrothek,
 Maybe you could propose some mods for fighting with backpacks, write and article and submit it the GuildCompanion.com. If you would like someone to look over your work you can post it here or send me a PM.
MDC

[Usdrothek]

Usdrothek,
 Maybe you could propose some mods for fighting with backpacks, write and article and submit it the GuildCompanion.com. If you would like someone to look over your work you can post it here or send me a PM.
MDC

Sure! I will try and put something together after playtesting any rules in my current campaign. I would appreciate any proofreading.  Cheers

Usdrothek

[Dark Schneider]

I know that there are rules for encumberance in RMSS and RMFRP that you could use. But you may also provide a modifier to that penalty if the weight is not balanced correctly.

If I remember well, the encumbrance penalty is only applied to maneuvers, you could apply it to all rolls as wounds, so for combat you have an OB penalty, but apply this penalty to ALL only for encumbrance (gears), so the armor penalty should not be applied to OB (it has no sense).

In addition, for weight not balanced correctly you could apply the next encumbrance range penalty modifier, or 2 next, what you see that is the best one.

[djmarvanek]

In my RMC campaign I am applying the Special Modifications encumbrance penalty for manoeuvres on p.g. 137 of character law to combat (offset by strength bonus)

e.g. a character with weapons/armour and a pack has a -20 (offset by strength) penalty to combat.

[Zat]

Arms Companion has a Portaging skill. With a little tweeking I suppose this could be used to offset imposed penalties in such cases.
This is such an interesting idea, I may have a look at it myself.

[Ynglaur]

In my RMC campaign I am applying the Special Modifications encumbrance penalty for manoeuvres on p.g. 137 of character law to combat (offset by strength bonus)

e.g. a character with weapons/armour and a pack has a -20 (offset by strength) penalty to combat.

I think I've used something like this, too.  There's a reason armies left their gear in a camp.

[Athelstaine]

We just use the basic encumbrance penalties. There have been a few situations where the bulkiness of the pack has come into play. We just give a flat out -5 for small packs and -10 for big packs. Only when a situation arises.

[yammahoper]

In my RMC campaign I am applying the Special Modifications encumbrance penalty for manoeuvres on p.g. 137 of character law to combat (offset by strength bonus)

e.g. a character with weapons/armour and a pack has a -20 (offset by strength) penalty to combat.

I thought that was the rule lol.  One reason races such as halflings and gnomes are, well, stupid.  Try decking out a hobbit thief with clothing, weapon belt, a main guache and 6 throwing knives.  Just the most basic gear will max his weight allowance.  A dropable pack for him is absolutely necessary.  If he has a large purse, ya best be ready to drop that to in a fight.

[Ynglaur]

Pack animals are your friend...

[Zat]

I thought that was the rule lol.  One reason races such as halflings and gnomes are, well, stupid.  Try decking out a hobbit thief with clothing, weapon belt, a main guache and 6 throwing knives.  Just the most basic gear will max his weight allowance.  A dropable pack for him is absolutely necessary.  If he has a large purse, ya best be ready to drop that to in a fight.

Um... couldn't resist...

Frankly, Death the Hobbits. 

[yammahoper]

I thought that was the rule lol.  One reason races such as halflings and gnomes are, well, stupid.  Try decking out a hobbit thief with clothing, weapon belt, a main guache and 6 throwing knives.  Just the most basic gear will max his weight allowance.  A dropable pack for him is absolutely necessary.  If he has a large purse, ya best be ready to drop that to in a fight.

Um... couldn't resist...

Frankly, Death the Hobbits. 

I so agree.

Yet the example I was refering to was in a Middle Earth campaign.  Hobbits, elves and dwarves make sense in that setting, as they do in any setting that takes the time to explain WHY they are there.

[Marc R]

Are you questioning just backpacks, or encumbrance in general? Combat while encumbered is usually addressed by carrying your extra gear in a bag you can drop, so you can fight fine, then pick it up at the end. . .does become a problem if you need to flee a fight though, you lose all that stuff.

[Usdrothek]

Thats kind of my issue. A lot of folks never drop the pack and expect to fight fine.

Yes they are below their encumbrance thresholds, but having any sort of pack on would still impact you in a fight as it moves, shifts and bounces.

[Marc R]

Short of laying down firing a rifle, backpack is not casual, but short of encumbrance, how would you want to handle it?

[Kristen Mork]

I give a bonus of -1 difficulty to moving maneuvers if the character is basically carrying nothing.  So, if you want the bonus, you drop the backpack.  Doesn't address combat rolls, but neither do the encumbrance rules.