Encumberence Change from 3rd ed


It's a small change but last night one of my players, (a knight of summerland) got his strength dropped from 16 to 5. and because we diden't know the max load thresholds of by heart I ended up looking in the book.

To my suprise i found encumberce works slightly differently from standard 3rd ed. The pentalty for Medium and Heavy loads take of To hit rolls, AC and other things rather than just modify skills.

Now the player was rather upset by this, (hes in fullplate with a greatshild, so on a medium load, which is a -3 penatlity to AC and To Hit.)

Is everyone else using this rule? I kinda like it, (It makes it relevent for people in heavy armour,) but it has just made the Knight a lot worse off.


Okay, so if you're wearing heavy armor and a shield to protect yourself, you're taking a hit of -3 to your AC.

This makes no sense.


Yes it makes sense. Wearing heavier armor/carrying more tires said character out; a weary character will not be able to raise his shield for defense effectively, nor will he be able to raise his sword to parry effectively. Over all the rules changes in lw are superior to that of standard d20. Mastercrafted is another good example.

Duskfox, to be honest your non-stop bitching is starting to get more than a little annoying. Constructive criticism is one thing, whining about flaws that only you can see, and apparently make sense only to you, makes no sense at all. If you do not like the game please do not come to its board and make negative remarks about it.


Well, "Guest," taking an AC penalty for wearing armor makes no sense. Armor adds to AC. It subtracts from the max Dex bonus, and that's the trade-off, which is why more nimble characters are better off not wearing heavy armor (and in some cases, better off not wearing armor at all). This is why the system functions as it does. What is the point of wearing full plate armor if you're not going to benefit from much of your Dex bonus (you get a max of 1, if I recall correctly) and you have a -3 AC penalty? At that point, wouldn't you just do the smart thing and wear lighter armor? That's like saying "This sword gives a +3 bonus to attack, but because it's so heavy, you take a -3 bonus to attack." That's not really a bonus, is it?

If you're tired of the fact that I actually see flaws in LW... well, tough. I like the game a lot, but I'm not going to pretend it's perfect. I dislike the class system, but I understand why it is the way it is, and I don't think it's terrible, it just doesn't suit my group very well. This is not a crime, but I'm not going to pretend it's some brilliant contrivance. That's about all I've been vociferously against, and even then, I'm pretty clear on stating it's my opinion. The only thing I think the classes are lacking is a strong representation of rogue classes, and that's because it's true (Shadaki Buccaneers don't count--how many people are likely to play a pirate adventure in Magnamund?).

If you dislike that I'm not out to constantly and blindly praise Mongoose, then grow up. I love the setting, I like the game, but I don't like this particular rule about AC, and if you can't see why I think it's weird, I'm not the one with the problem.


You should go back and reread my post, this time perhaps while wearing your glasses, since it appears you missed the key points that I made.

---The reason the character is so encumebred is due to the overall amount of material/equipment he is carrying; which includes armor. If said character wears only armor and carry's his weapon, and has decent strength, then he should have no problem. If he also carry's an elephant *on his back, then even someone as dim as you duskfox ought to agree that the extra weight of said elephant would be detrimental to conducting strenous actions, such as combat.

*'elephant' represent miscellenous material a character might pick up, such as crowbars, pieces of wood, plethora of weapons, extra bedrolls, etc etc. :)

Oh and by the way, a character with a strength of 05 (which the above person's player has currently) has no call wearing full plate and weilding a sword and shield. If the player insisits on wearing full plate depsite the fact he is basically now a shriveled up vegetable, then he should at LEAST incur said penalties.

I am glad you like the game and you are ofcourse entitled to your own opinions; I myself agree the game is far from perfect, (for instance, IMO armor should provide DR...but then againthat debate was done to the death last year) but I do not go out of my way to point out faults in the rules that appear to be just fine as they are.

The immediate future of the line looks somewhat bleak as it is concerning supplements (though I seriously doubt it will be cancelled anytime soon, seeing as the mongoose boss msprange has a special fondness for lonewolf and is pleased with the rulebooks success). Since lonewolf was a special pet project of mongoose, they will no doubt launch more supplements once they have gotten starshpi troopers and WARS off the ground, along with their respective supplements. As such, we do not want people coming here and complaining absolutely non-stop from post to post to post.

Since you stated that you are truly fond of the game, perhaps you could start up a thread and make a list of all the things you DO like, it would make for a far better use of your time. (and the time of those reading it)


Dim? What's with all the personal attacks, Invisible Man? I disagreed with one of your opinions. I didn't call your mom a fat whore. Just because you don't like what I have to say is no reason to be intentionally insulting about it. I may be abrasive, and I may sometimes say someone's conclusions are stupid or their logic isn't sensible, but I pretty much draw the line at ad hominem attacks.

I even agree with some of your points. Armor should provide DR, logically speaking--this even plays into my own opinion. If you stand still in a suit of full plate mail and let people have at you with baseball bats, you're unlikely to do more than get a little bumped up unless someone gets in a really lucky shot or cracks you a Herculean blow to the head. Even if you can barely move in that tin underwear, it's going to protect your hide pretty well, so why a penalty to AC? If you're carrying an entire war wagon on your back, your problems are being able to move, trying not to die of exhaustion, and breaking your back, but you're still pretty well shored up against a maniac throwing rocks at you and trying to stab you through thick steel. I'm not saying it's smart (it's retarded to try to carry that much stuff), and at Strength 5, it's flat out insane. I just don't see the detriment to AC being a realistic penalty.

I don't go out of my way to point out faults, either--someone made a point about the -AC, and I said "That doesn't make sense to me." I'm sure you can see the logic in my argument, even if you disagree with the overall conclusion. I made an offhand statement about how I don't really care for the class system in LW, and due to my choice of analogies, I was roped into a prolonged debate about Shianti Sorcerers and Dwarven Gunners. And if you don't feel like going out of your way to say you dislike a certain aspect of the game... well, bully. I don't really care.

As for making a post of the things I do like--why is that even necessary? Aren't there enough people around here blowing sunshine out their ass? Why add me to the mix? I like plenty about the game (the fact that it exists at all is wish fulfillment for me), but I'm not really big on pointless raving about something everyone here likes anyway. You don't need me to tell you it's a great game--you already know that.

A Guest speaking on behalf of the forum as to what's welcome here and what's not rates just below a newbie to the forum telling me I haven't been here long enough to understand something, so you'll forgive me if I take your personal statements with a grain of salt. I do not come here and complain non-stop about the game--in fact, the only gripes that come to mind are the AC thing and my bit with classes, and if you can't take that kind of criticism of an otherwise solid game, you need to mellow out. I've made plenty of posts (the majority of my posts, in fact) saying favorable things or not complaining. You seem to just be focusing on a few things I've said.

In short, keep your statements of "keep your opinions to yourself" to yourself. Go censor someone else.


<QUOTE by df>
I just don't see the detriment to AC being a realistic penalty.

You know, people throwing bolts of lightning out of their fingers is not exactly realistic either. I think you are missing the point of the genre, much less the game...

But anyhow, even within your delusional rationalisation of rabidly attacking an excellent game mechanic and 'pack rat' mentality deterrant you seem to miss the point again and again and yet again. Physical exhaustion, resulting from carrying too much stuff, in turn results in said character not being able to raise sword arm to parry and shield arm to do likewise AS effectively as he may otherwise be able to do, had he not been so tired. This then results in a decrease in armor class.

However, since the ac penalty is only (-1)-(-3), and not COMPLETE, or something like -2000000, it represents the fact that the characters armor still protects him from hits, even though he cannot really parry blows, or even take blows very well.

The fact that you admit you have had prior problems with certain SUPERB aspects of the game (shianti sorcerors/dwarven gunners) proves that I was correct in assuming your whining and bitching to be non-stop. Your type is not hard to spot on message boards after all. :)

I admire your honesty, but it is far outshone by your stupidity. ;)

I do not even want to know what problems you had with shianti and gunners; if I had to hazard a guess you probably bitched that shianti were supposed to be unique (even though there is an island full of them, and shasarak is already an example of a rogue shianti, plus the fact grey star could have gone on to take up apprentices of his own) and that guns and fantasy do not mix.

*yawn* Same bitching, different day is all I have to say. :(

Advice: Why not get some sleep and cool off, before making your (predictible, yet so very pointless) next post? And might I suggest you purchase a punching bag so as to relieve some of the stress that seems to plague you so? :p


My only response to the previous post is the following. You may respond to it or not as you see fit, Invisible Man; I really do not care.

Your constant ad hominem attacks and arrogant sense of superiority are no better than the "constant whining" you accuse me of. Your reactionary defense of the game is no wiser than my considered criticism of it. If you cannot be civil enough to conduct a debate on a subject without resorting to name-calling and backhanded statements, then I don’t think I’m the one in the running for board troll. The difference between us is that I’m looking to discuss and debate these topics, and I don’t invalidate other people’s opinions out of hand because I disagree. You seem to want people to conform to your view of the game, and resort to ridicule and juvenile dismissiveness to undercut differing viewpoints. You even hide behind a veil of anonymity by not logging in to make these statements so that there is no actual target for retorts, just a Guest ghost making posts like crank phone calls on a talk radio show.

I’m done with this conversation, as I really don’t feel the need to continue dialogue with someone whose only goal seems to be to immaturely slur and slander me for not agreeing with them.


I'm surprised this topic hasn't been locked or archived. Given the intensity of the argument (it has gone beyond debate, as debate sticks to the topic and not the presenter of the topic), I'd say PMs are the way to go.

That being said, the knight in question suffered a huge loss of strength, relatively speaking. Given that I'm a light fellow myself and not too blessed with muscle, I can easily see how being weak can affect AC and attacks when overloaded. The armor itself may provide protection, but the overall weight of it counteracts any dextrous actions that may occur.

But, the major point to remember is that whoever runs the game has the final say on the rules. If you want to run encumbrance based on standard D&D 3E, just make sure your players know it ahead of time or are comfortable with it in mid-game.

KL, who allows Strafing Will to cause critical damage on a natural 20 concentration check--that ain't in no rulebook
I don’t understand why this topic ???
I just read the rules about encumbrance in D&D 3.5 RPG and in the Lone Wolf RPG, and the check penalty is valuable only to skills, attack rolls and reflex save depending on Dexterity. Despite my research, I never saw anything about a penalty to AC, except the maximum dexterity bonus to AC.

Sorry, for my English, but I understand more than I speak or write.


LS, I don't get it either. I think the Guest was really just looking for an excuse to call me out, which just seems ridiculous to me. Why call someone out on a message board? Anonymously?

And KaiLord, I'm actually pretty embarrassed about the conversation. I would hope this would have been locked or something, because I feel that it went into an inappropriate territory. This isn't the kind of board where you just get into random insult fests with people you don't know. I was trying to keep it civil, but... well, whatever. I'm partially to blame, but I wasn't looking to get into some sort of personal argument.
jadrax said:
It's a small change but last night one of my players, (a knight of summerland) got his strength dropped from 16 to 5.

When his strength recovers the penalties should be gone.

Oh and by the way, a character with a strength of 05 (which the above person's player has currently) has no call wearing full plate and weilding a sword and shield. If the player insisits on wearing full plate depsite the fact he is basically now a shriveled up vegetable, then he should at LEAST incur said penalties.

Whilst I don't agree with the tone of this poster I agree with the sentiment of this small section here. But a strength of 05? That implies that numbera above 99 do not exist (or that someone doesn't know how to count or something equaly daft).