Armor Encumbrance

[Griffy]

Is anyone else playing savage pathfinder having issues with equipped armor not having weight? Unequipped is nothing as well but carried adds the weight. Thanks

63593

63594

[Ikael]

That's feature, see change log

5.10.8 - 2024-12-31

Changed

Equipped armor's weight is not included to carried total weight


in essence equipped armor affects you by Minimum Strength requirement but you are not actually carrying it so it does not affect your carried load

[Shoras]

In the SWADE rulebook, however, worn armor counts toward carried weight. There is no reference stating that it is excluded; on the contrary, some passages imply that worn armor is included in the total carried weight.

[Griffy]

Thanks Ikael!

I missed that and was feverishly going through my extensions assuming one of them was breaking something. Is it possible to turn it off? Although it not the end of the world if I can't.


Shoras

The only thing i could find in the Pinnacle forums was from 2020 from Clint Black. It did support that Armor was encumbrance but also said only worry about it when it matters.

Quote:

So, for a character wearing clothes, armor, and carrying just "normal" equipment, don't worry about it. Only if it's important for some reason (how much gold do you carry out of the dungeon or what happens if you have to carry another character), does it need to be a concern. Even then, both of those could quickly and simply be answered with "Okay, you count as being Encumbered."

But if the situation does warrant adding up all the weight the character is carrying, then all of the weight is added up. Armor, clothes, shield, weapons, backpack, and everything else would all be added up. If the situation is such that weight needs to be counted then the dramatic tension lies in whether the character must choose to leave some personal belonging behind to allow for additional weight.

I'll see if I can find the errata yet to see if something has changed. Just with a quick search there are a lot of different takes on encumbrance in Savage Worlds.

[Shoras]

Hi everyone! I'd like to bump this thread to address the armor weight calculation feature that was introduced in version 5.10.8.

While I understand the reasoning behind not counting equipped armor towards the total carried weight, the SWADE rulebook clearly indicates that worn armor should be included in encumbrance calculations. I've thoroughly checked the settings but couldn't find any option to revert to the original behavior where equipped armor weight was counted.

Would it be possible to either:
1. Restore the original behavior where equipped armor weight counts towards encumbrance, or
2. Add a toggle option that allows GMs to choose whether equipped armor should count towards the total carried weight?

This would help those of us who prefer to follow the rulebook's encumbrance guidelines more strictly while maintaining flexibility for groups who prefer the current implementation.

Thanks for considering this suggestion!

[Ikael]

I will add option to revert calculation to previous approach.


Hi everyone! I'd like to bump this thread to address the armor weight calculation feature that was introduced in version 5.10.8.

While I understand the reasoning behind not counting equipped armor towards the total carried weight, the SWADE rulebook clearly indicates that worn armor should be included in encumbrance calculations. I've thoroughly checked the settings but couldn't find any option to revert to the original behavior where equipped armor weight was counted.

Would it be possible to either:
1. Restore the original behavior where equipped armor weight counts towards encumbrance, or
2. Add a toggle option that allows GMs to choose whether equipped armor should count towards the total carried weight?

This would help those of us who prefer to follow the rulebook's encumbrance guidelines more strictly while maintaining flexibility for groups who prefer the current implementation.

Thanks for considering this suggestion!

[Shoras]

I will add option to revert calculation to previous approach.

Great!!

Thanks

[Ikael]

This has been addressed in upcoming 5.13.0 version