Trade In Fantasy Ch. 3: Routine Personnel Pt 1
The first of at least three posts looking at everyday personnel in Trade. This covers everything from wagon drivers to guards to dock-hands and farmhands. Anybody who can be considered a faceless cog in the trade machine, in fact!
This Image is based on festival-3305615.jpg by Franck Barske from Pixabay and also incorporates tree 2 by bupaje via deviantart, pdgrass by the same artist and source, and Fairy Tale House by roula33, also via deviantart.
Credit where it’s due:
The series title graphic combines three images: The Clipper Ship Image is by Brigitte Werner (ArtTower); Dragon #1 is by Parker_West; and Dragon #2 is by JL G. All three images were sourced from Pixabay.
Table Of Contents: Chapter 3, Routine Personnel
3.1 A Choice Of Four Trade Unit Standards (actually, 8)
3.1.1 Humans as a beast of burden
3.1.1.1 Lift from STR
3.1.1.2 Average isn’t Average
3.1.1.3 4d6 keep 3 vs 3d6
3.1.1.4 Career Paths & STR3.1.1.4.1 Linear vs Non-Linear
3.1.1.5 Lift, at last
3.1.1.6 EncumbranceSidebar: Behind The Curtain
3.1.1.7 Load & Load Capacity
3.1.1.8 Load Balance3.1.1.8.1 Adding a Staff to the equation
3.1.1.8.2 Relating Load to Encumbrance (D&D)
3.1.1.8.3 Relating Load to Encumbrance (Hero / Superhero)
3.1.1.8.4 Relating Load to Encumbrance (Hero / Adventurer’s Club)3.1.1.9 Load Distribution
3.1.1.10 Humanoids3.1.1.11.1 The Size Factor
3.1.1.11.2 The Proportions Factor
3.1.1.11.3 The Racial Factor
3.1.1.11.4 The Human Advantage
3.1.1.11.5 The Iconic Reference
3.1.1.11.6 Elves
3.1.1.11.7 Dwarves
3.1.1.11.8 Halflings
3.1.1.11.9 Orcs
3.1.1.11.10 Ogres
3.1.1.11.11 Bugbears
3.1.1.11.12 Trolls
3.1.1.11.13 Hill Giants
3.1.1.11.14 Stone Giants
3.1.1.11.15 Other Giants
3.1.1.11.16 OthersNext Time (Expected, may be less or more):
3.1.1 Humans as a beast of burden (cont)
3.1.1.12 Time: 8, 12, 16, 24
3.1.1.13 Speed
3.1.1.14 Distance
3.1.1.15 Provisions: Food
3.1.1.16 Provisions; Water
3.1.1.17 Replenishment: Foraging / Hunting / Buying
3.1.1.18 The humanoid bottom line3.1.2 Horses as a beast of burden
3.1.3 Burros as a beast of burden
3.1.4 Carts as a ‘beast of burden’
3.1.5 Choosing Your Unit
3.1.6 Ramifications
3.1.6.1 Freight Management
3.1.6.2 Base Loading Time
3.1.6.3 On The Road: Drivers, Guards, Cargo-masters, & Handlers
3.1.6.4 Base Unloading Time
3.1.6.5 Sales Prep
3.1.6.6 Sales and CustomersAnd, Further down the track (1-2 more posts):
3.2 Recruiter / Personnel Manager
3.2.1 Assumption #1: The best available gets hired
3.2.1.1 Any Relevant Skill
3.2.1.2 INT + WIS
3.2.1.3 Substituting CHAR3.2.2 Assumption #2: They Hire The Best
3.2.3 The Principle Of Labor Unmanagement3.3 The Labor Unit
3.3.1 Eight man-hour Labor Units
3.3.2 Twelve man-hour Labor Units
3.3.3 Sixteen man-hour Labor Units
3.3.4 Twenty-four man-hour Labor Units
3.3.5 Choices and Expectations3.4 The Labor Market
3.5 Basic Pay-scales
3.5.1 Pick An Index
Which will be followed by:
3.6 Productivity
3.6.1 Premium Labor Units
3.6.2 Reminder: Profit per Trade Unit, not costs or prices3.7 Pay-scale Variations
3.7.1 Overpaying workers / Elite Quality Workforce
3.7.2 Underpaying workers / Lower Quality Workforce
3.7.3 Slaves
3.7.4 Minor Stakeholders
3.7.5 Combinations & Complications3.8 Technological Impact
3.8.1 Major Breakthroughs
3.8.2 Incremental Gains
3.8.3 Trade Secrets & Industrial Spies3.9 Key Personnel & The Labor Unit
3.10 The Personnel Bottom LineIn future parts after that:
- Mode Of Transport
- Land Transport
- Waterborne Transport
- Spoilage
- Key Personnel
- The Journey
- Arrival
- Journey’s End
- Adventures En Route
Sometimes, the tail wags the dog. Have you ever seen a dog who was upset change mood completely because something got their tail wagging momentarily? No? Well, it happens in humans – smile at someone and there’s a high chance that they will feel better about themselves / their day, and smile back – without realizing it. Look dour, like a miserable sourpuss, and you rain on the parades of everyone that encounters you, whether you interact with them or not.
And the same thing happens with most if not all primates. So the question has to be, how far down the animal chain does this extend? A couple of relevant movie sequences come to mind: Riggs befriending the guard dog in Lethal Weapon (2?) and Dundee and “Dopey” the water buffalo in Crocodile Dundee. If there were no plausibility to the conjecture, these scenes would not have been credible to audiences.
Of course, “some critters are just ornery”, as an NPC might be prone to warn PCs trying to befriend everything they meet.
Arguably, domestication has a lot to do with the outcome – Dundee’s water-buffalo does nothing more than get out of the way, whereas the guard dog actively bonds with Riggs.
All this is a metaphor for the content of today’s post, which started out in Chapter 2, moved into a chapter in it’s own respect (Chapter 4, leading into Mode Of Transport) before finally landing here as an insert at the beginning of Chapter 3. The content makes certain parts of the rest of the chapter easier, while presenting those parts first would have made this content easier to write – so is this the tail wagging the dog?
I actually did my best to avoid getting into this subject so early in the discussion – I wanted to erect a framework around the handling of Trade Units that would make this the obvious best solution – but have reluctantly concluded that I can’t actually put it off, despite those efforts in previous posts. That means that Chapter 3 – this chapter – will almost certainly have to be split into at least three parts.
Sometimes, the tail wags the dog, and all you can do is smile back and bark.
Chapter 3. Routine Personnel
Every organization runs on the efforts of a faceless, anonymous, workforce. These should only even get name-checked if they are to play a vital and deliberate role as an NPC in an adventure, never mind actually playing a part in the adventure.
Routine Personnel are clumped together into an abstract entity called the Labor Unit, which represents a block of man-hours for which the members have to be paid, even if you don’t use all the man-hours that they represent. The size of a Labor Unit is related to the size of a Trade Unit, which creates a problem.
You see, the actual size of a Trade Unit is something I’ve been dodging trying to define because it makes the maximum comprehension to do so when discussing modes of transport, but I find that I need to define it for this chapter to make sense to readers. That means either repeating myself several times in the course of the total text, or simply tossing numbers out without foundation – and with potential errors unchecked until much later in this series.
That last was too high a price to pay to avoid the former, so I’ve chosen repetition (that I will do my best to minimize) as the lesser of two evils.
After defining and discussing four (well, eight) standard sizes for trade units, with the ramifications, I can move on to the one critical individual to be mentioned in this chapter: the Recruiter / Personnel Manager who hires Labor Units from the available labor force on behalf of the trading organization. While this can be a PC if you really insist, it’s better for everyone if someone competent, trustworthy, and reliable is hired to do the job. Well, two-and-a-half of these, anyway.
Then I can move on to discussing the Labor Unit (and why they come in four standard sizes), pay scales, productivity, elite and substandard Labor Units, pay scales, and so on. I close out the chapter with a brief consideration of the role magic / technology might play and what the consequences might be.
That’s a lot to get through in just three posts, so we had better get busy….
3.1 A Choice Of Four Trade Unit Standards (actually, 8)
There are four main ways to define a Trade Unit (in terms of Bulk, which was defined in Chapter 2). Each of these needs to exist in two convenient forms – one for the game systems that use the Metric system, and one for those that use feet and pounds. The latter will exclusively use American units (some of them are actually different from the old British Imperial measurements, something I didn’t realize for quite a long time).
The difference between the standard sizes is something I’ll refer to as the Work Effort. It is defined as
Work Effort = Bulk × Distance / Labor Unit Standard.
where,
Bulk is as defined in Chapter Two: Volume × Weight, measured in Cargo Units;
Distance is how far the chosen Trade Unit Standard Transport can move a Cargo Unit in a certain period of time; and
“Labor Unit Standard” defines that period of time.
In other words,
Work Effort = Bulk × Speed.
The desirable goal is to select the smallest of the four options that apply to your game system, because every other mode of transport will be able to transport more trade units in the specified time, or be able to transport the same number much more quickly and efficiently.
What we want is to define the conversion rate between kg-cubic-meters or lb-cubic-feet that equals one Trade Unit or Cargo Unit.
With me so far? Good, because it’s about to get curly.
3.1.0 Principles of Comparative Modes Of Transport
There are a lot more than four modes of transport, but most of the remainder are a lot more efficient and so can be disregarded in this respect.
The four are Humans, Horses, Burros, and Carts. The first complication is that each of these is more efficient than the others under some circumstances, one of which is duration of the effort – and that’s in hours and ties directly to the scale of a default Labor Unit. But that can be obviated by changing mounts regularly along the way – if there is a network of way stations where you can keep teams of mounts on standby. And, in practice, the speed at which the mounts are driven then changes how frequently you need to change teams. Plus there’s loading and unloading time for everything except the wagon.
The second complication is that all four modes of transport require replenishment of two vital resources: food and water. If those are readily sourced along the way, that’s no problem – but if one or both need to be carried with the cargo, it diminishes the bulk of cargo that can be carried – and that changes the efficiency again.
The third complication is that it is most probably the case that neither extreme is the most accurate; the truth lies somewhere in between – but this can also differ from one mode of transport to another.
Four modes of transport, at least two duration values each (probably more), at least two replenishment options (probably more) for each of the two critical resources, and four different time intervals – at worst case, that’s 4 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 4 = 128 different values for each set of measurement units, or 256 in total.
Fortunately, restricting time to those 4 standard values means that many, if not most, of the possible values simply won’t apply. So there is hope that the actual number of choices will be limited.
For a given combination of time and speed within each type of mount, a distance value can be derived – and that distance will define which values are applicable. So you will get one set of answers for distances of (say) 60 km or 40 miles, and another for distances twice that, and so on.
All of the above is strictly theoretical at this point. Until I actually work the calculations and limitations out, I don’t know how much work it will be – but I do have an indicator, having had to produce similar calculations for both the horses and burros options for a recent Adventurer’s Club adventure. I still have those notes…
3.1.1 Humans as a beast of burden
So, how much can a human, who uses his STR for a living, carry?
It’s a far more complicated question than it seems on the surface.
Let’s start by pointing out that there are no game systems that I know of that do it all in this respect – generally because of that complication, and it’s usually not worth the fiddling around with numbers that you have to do to get an answer. But there are exceptions to almost every rule, and this circumstance is one to that particular rule of thumb.
I’d love to be able to simply give you a simple answer. But there are way too many assumptions hidden under the surface, and for non-humans you’ll need to understand the conceptual process of going from “A” to “B” so that you can tweak it. So We’ll have to dig in.
The Hero System (and GURPS for that matter) defines Lift as 25 × 2^(STR/5 -2) in kg.
Well, actually, it doesn’t – that’s a compression of several different rules, but it gives the right answers – according to their system.
D&D gives a semi-linear progression in a table, indexed against STR. Well, it used to – that may have gone the way of the dodo in recent incarnations.
Pathfinder avoids the question entirely, using an abstracted Bulk system that combines weight and inconvenience (hmm, sounds familiar). It’s not the same as the one being used in this series, but it’s conceptually similar; their version is more granular, more appropriate to individual adventurers and pieces of gear.
And none of these agree with each other, though some come close.
When converting characters from D&D to Hero (or vice versa), it’s usually most effective to look up Lift and determine the corresponding lift value. That often means converting lb to kg – there are 2.2046 of the first to every one of the second, but for our purposes, 2.2 will be close enough.
The question posed is therefore dependent on the STR score that we consider equates to “uses STR for a living.”
The first thing that can be said is that it isn’t 10, especially in systems that define 10 as “average”. That average includes everything from street sweepers to bookkeepers to beekeepers. With exercise, you get stronger, but each increase makes the next step harder. But if you’re too strong, you would tend to get recruited into a martial profession, or one that’s even harder in it’s own way, like Blacksmithing. So we need a model that allows for all that.
I figure the tipping point for a martial career is probably going to be 16 out of 20 (or 15 out of 18). That’s the score at which either professional pathway is equally likely, based on STR alone.
That doesn’t mean that characters with a STR of 10-15 can’t be soldiers, just that there are likely to be more lucrative / less risky opportunities.
We need to allow for the distribution of STR scores within a standard population.
The easiest way to do so is to look at the typical D&D stat generation methods. Point-buy is worthless to us in this case, and simple 3d6 centers itself on 10, which we have already said is not representative of the people going into these professions.
4d6 and keep the three best gives a far more interesting and useful distribution for our purposes.
It was surprisingly hard work generating the data that is graphed above, simply because most of it couldn’t be automated by the spreadsheet that I used. If you look closely, the graph even indicates a small error that I think crept into my calculations, even though I couldn’t find it in the data – the 8 value seems a little low, and perhaps the 9, a little high. But it’s close enough for our purposes.
This shows the likely distribution of STR values across the whole of the population, assuming that they have all been generated using the 4d6 keep 3 method. Some GMs will employ this distribution without thought; others may have a tiered society in which adventurers and potential adventurers use it while the plebeians don’t.
I was all set to add yet another set of standards for GMs to work from when I realized something: Even if the GM’s standard approach to NPC generation is ‘roll 3d6’, he should make an exception for the primary stat in most cases – because characters get better with practice / exercise. The character may have started out with STR 12 from 3d6 – but six months of hard work and it might easily have become 14 or 15 from the best 3 of 4d6.
And the same is true of just about any other stat you care to nominate, too. Dexterity / Reflexes can definitely be improved by training. Minds can become sharper. Wisdom will increase with the breadth of experience, and exposure to the thoughts of other deep thinkers. Con is increased by most exercise routines as well, but especially running with weights. Even Charisma – if part of the character’s profession is to be charming or attractive, learning how to take better care of yourself would lead to an obvious improvement.
The only exceptions to this rule would be absolute beginners – new apprentices and the like.
Of course, it’s the precise numeric values that will be most useful for further calculations; when all is said and done, the above is nothing more than a pretty picture.
But before I do that, let’s talk about the next factor to be taken into consideration, so that I can present the table with both being shown.
There are lots of career opportunities open to the strong. ‘Porter’ is likely to be well down the list – it’s honest work, but poorly paid and less desirable than ‘bouncer’ or ‘thug’ – or ‘Blacksmith,’ for that matter.. That said, if STR is your biggest asset and it’s only 11 or 12, those choices are going to be less suitable for you.
Once you go above average in STR, the military / fighter branch of service is always going to appeal to some extent, and by STR 16, that would be the dominant career path for most.
So there are two percentage factors to be considered – suitability for military service / fighter and suitability for roles other than porter, which would drain off a percentage of whatever doesn’t follow the first path. Whatever’s left is our general laborer workforce, which includes things like farm hands, construction laborers, and warehouse stockers as well as porters. That’s fine, those are all equivalent jobs.
Linear changes are simpler, but I think that many compounding influences would apply, and those would amplify disproportionately at different STR values. So, even though it’s a lot less straightforward, I think that non-linear is the way to go.
The table below lists STR, the percentage of the population likely to have it, and the appeal / capacity for these other, more desirable, careers. Multiplying the three percentages together gives a net breakdown of the relevant population by STR.
Since we want the average STR of all those within this occupation category, multiplying by any given total population count gives us the number of individuals with that STR within the occupation. So the average STR will be that number times the STR they possess divided by the total number of representatives with that STR. It simplifies things greatly if I operate on a ‘population pool’ of 100 × 100 × 100, or 1,000,000 – even though that is improbably high for any given nation / culture, by at least a factor of 6 (the percentage of individuals for whom STR is the dominant stat).
There will be some fuzziness to the result for several reasons. Some people will enter the profession even though they aren’t perfectly suited to it physically, simply because it appeals to them in some other way. Some will choose something else even though they aren’t ideally suited to it, for the same reason. And there will be a percentage of the population who have two equally-dominant stats, which would act to increase their options and therefore that factor-of-six – but it’s not worth doing the math to exclude them. (If you insist, 3d6+18-3d6 and shift the zero point on the x-axis from 3+18-3=18 will graph the plus-or-minus adjustment for you. What you care about are the percentage who get a result of exactly 18).
|
STR |
Population |
Non-martial |
Exclude Other |
Relative |
x STR = |
|
3 |
0.08% |
100% |
0% |
0 |
0 |
|
4 |
0.31% |
100% |
5% |
155 |
620 |
|
5 |
0.77% |
100% |
15% |
1,155 |
5,775 |
|
6 |
1.62% |
100% |
25% |
4,050 |
24,300 |
|
7 |
2.93% |
99% |
35% |
10,152.45 |
71,067.15 |
|
8 |
4.86% |
99% |
40% |
19,245.6 |
153,964.8 |
|
9 |
6.87% |
95% |
45% |
29,369.25 |
264,323.25 |
|
10 |
9.41% |
85% |
50% |
39,992.5 |
399,925 |
|
11 |
11.42% |
70% |
55% |
43,967 |
483,637 |
|
12 |
12.89% |
60% |
40% |
30,936 |
371,232 |
|
13 |
13.35% |
50% |
40% |
26,700 |
347,100 |
|
14 |
12.35% |
40% |
40% |
19,760 |
276,640 |
|
15 |
10.11% |
20% |
35% |
7,077 |
106,155 |
|
16 |
7.25% |
10% |
35% |
2,537.5 |
40,600 |
|
17 |
4.17% |
5% |
30% |
625.5 |
10,633.5 |
|
18 |
1.62% |
5% |
30% |
243 |
4,374 |
|
Totals: |
235,965.8 |
2,560,346.7 |
|||
2560346.7 / 235965.8 = 10.85 (color me a little surprised, I thought it would 12-13, maybe even between 13 and 14).
D&D 3.x:.STR 10 = 100 lb max heavy load; STR 11 = 115 lb max heavy load; 85% of the way between these is 112.75 lb = 51.14 kg. The fine print in the rules states that a character can lift up to double their carrying capacity, so that would be 102.28 kg.
Hero System, Lift 100 kg = STR 10 (STR 11 -> 115 kg).
100 kg lift = 220 lb. Halved, 110. So STR 10 in the Hero System is between STR 10 and STR 11 (and closer to the latter) on the D&D scale.
But, I have to admit, I’m not all that happy with any of these numbers, and never have been. To see why, let’s look at the current world record for weightlifting. In theory, that should be fairly close to the defined value for “normal human”.
I’m going to ignore the weight categories of the athletes and simply go for the top. Right away, there’s a complication: Olympic weightlifting scores two different kinds of lift, the Clean & Jerk and the Snatch, then totals the two for an aggregate. That means there are six possible values to choose from:
★ Clean & Jerk record, 267 kg (589 lb);
★ Snatch record, 225 kg (496 lb);
★ Aggregate (both records are held by the same man): 492 kg (1085 lb);
★ The lower of the two;
★ The higher of the two;
★ The average of the two.
In both systems, 25 is supposedly the maximum human. The hero system gives a Lift of 800kg, which is about 63% higher than the record aggregate; the D&D scale, after doubling the Heavy Encumbrance value to get Lift, of 1600 lb, about 47.5% above the record aggregate. At least this spells out the correct choice – only the aggregate is anywhere near reasonable.
But wait one – there used to be a third lift type aggregated, until it was discontinued because it was too hard to judge objectively. If we presume it to be somewhere in between the two official numbers, we can multiply the aggregate by 3/2 to get somewhere close to a reasonable number – and since we already know those ratios to the STR 25 ratings are very close to that × 1.5 ratio, the resulting error shrinks accordingly.
So both numbers are only about 3 times what is reasonable – the effects of aggregating the three individual scores (one fictitious and assumed).
But wait – there’s also powerlifting to be considered. This produces considerably higher values: Squat approx 1015 lb, Bench approx 720 lb, and deadlift 1015 lb (461.36, 327.27, and 461.36 kg, respectively). 1600 lb (D&D Scale) is 1.576 times the squat & deadlift estimates, while 800 kg (Hero Scale) is 1.734 times those estimates. Well, that gets rid of the troubling “aggregate” notion, at least.
The fantasy factor is something that has to be accommodated in both cases. Neither are representing ‘the real world’, and I’m not saying that they should; instead, I’m using the real world as a means of gauging how reasonable are the actual limits that the game systems set.
And x 3 – roughly – is a little on the high side for my tastes.
Encumbrance has been mentioned a number of times. It generally categorizes a number of negative effects from carrying a load that is greater than their Unencumbered Minimum Load. Amongst those effects, critically, is movement rate.
As a general rule in the real world, a human can carry about 20% of their body weight and walk around normally. The legal ‘safe load’ limits are usually considerably less than this, because they have to accommodate both larger and smaller individuals; while the numbers will vary from country to country, the typical maximum acceptable weight for back lifting is 41.5 lb, for front lifting 39.4 lb, and for side lifting, 25.5 lb (18.86 kg, 17.91 kg, and 11.59 kg, respectively).
The problem is, what do I compare these to? What STR score are they supposed to accommodate? If Maximum Heavy Encumbrance on the D&D scale, I have to halve these – and we’re talking a STR between 1 and 2. If Minimum Light Encumbrance, it’s 5 or 6 depending on which limit we’re using.
The amount that you can carry without encumbrance in the Hero System is half what you can lift. Because each +5 STR doubles the weight that you can lift, the STR needed to carry something unencumbered is 5 lower than the STR to lift.
In my superhero game system (based on Hero Games 3rd Ed), I use that to set a simple ratio: each point between STR to Carry and STR to Lift is +20% Encumbrance. For the Adventurer’s Club campaign, we simplified that even further to 3/4 Lift (greatly reduced movement), 1/2 Lift (reduced movement) and 1/4 (slightly impaired movement).
But if both systems triple what it’s reasonable for you to lift, they must also do so for what it’s reasonable for you to carry, and so those limits should all be measured against triple the restriction numbers – 124.5 lb (56.58 kg), 118.2 lb (53.73 kg), and 76.5 lb (34.77 kg), respectively, which then have to be halved for the D&D Scale and equates to between STR 14 and STR 15 (Minimum Light Encumbrance) or STR 6-7 (Maximum Heavy Encumbrance).
As you can see, there are no simple, straightforward answers to these simple, straightforward questions.
Time to cut the Gordian knot and simply pick a standard to use for the purposes of this system, then – well two of them, one for those whose game system uses pounds, and one for those using a game system that measures in kg.
Sidebar: Behind The Curtain
I always suspected that this would end up being the case, which is part of the reason for the lengthy exposition leading to this point. I am well aware that by choosing values that make sense to me, based on the research I have done, I am imposing those opinions on the games of other GMs, and wanted them to be fully equipped to make alternative choices if those made more sense to them.There is also an element of introducing readers to the complexities that I propose to bury beneath the surface of the system so that they can make adjustments to the basic system appropriately should one of the assumptions vary in a particular campaign or game world.
The third and final significant reason is, of course, that there is an element of always showing my working, the readers and I exploring a subject together. It’s not about presenting the answers without first presenting the context in which those answers should be interpreted.
To start with, let’s unpack a couple of concepts that have been hiding beneath the surface of these issues the whole time: Load, and Load Capacity. The first has a relationship with Weight, but isn’t necessarily the same thing; and the second has a relationship with Lift, and Encumbrance, but also isn’t the same thing.
Load is theeffective weight being carried by the character.
Loads can be Balanced, Semi-balanced, or Unbalanced.
Load Capacity is the character’s capacity to carry a Load.
Weights carried can also be Distributed, Supported, or Point.
Only Point and Supported weights qualify as Loads, but Distributed and Supported weights also subtract from Load Capacity.
Don’t worry if the above is coming at you a bit quickly – it will all make sense in a few minutes.
★ A Balanced Load is one in which the posture of the character carrying the load is natural, enabling them to carry the load most effortlessly. Carrying baskets or pots full of produce on the head counts as a balanced load, for example, and so does carrying two smaller loads balanced on a pole over the shoulder.
★ A Semi-balanced Load is one in which there is some moment to the distribution of mass, but it falls within manageable limits. The load attempts to pull the character off-balance in the direction of the greatest concentration of weight.
★ An Unbalanced Load is one in which all the Load lies in a specific direction relative to the normal posture of the character. It could be heavier to the front (if carried in front of the character), to the back (if worn in a pack of some kind), or off to one side or the other, or some combination of these.
Two or more characters can combine to balance an unbalanced load if it is the right shape – for example, a felled tree whose branches have been trimmed would be an unbalanced load carried by one character, even if they were strong enough, but is naturally balanced or semi-balanced when carried by two or more (one at each end, extras in the middle).
★ The full weight of an Unbalanced Loads counts against the Load Capacity of a character.
i.e. the maximum weight that can sustainably be carried by the character if Unbalanced = Unused Load Capacity.
★ Only 3/4 of the weight of a Semi-balanced Load counts against the Load Capacity of a character.
i.e. the maximum weight that can sustainably be carried by the character if Semi-balanced is 4/3 × Unused Load Capacity.
★ Only 1/2 of the weight of a Balanced Load counts against the Load Capacity of a character.
i.e. the maximum weight that can sustainably be carried by the character if Balanced is 2 × Unused Load Capacity.
For the sake of an example, let’s assign an unused load capacity of 30 lb. That character could carry 30 lb unbalanced, or 40 lb semi-balanced, or 60 lb balanced.
Loads have to be distributed through the number of legs that the creature can place on the ground while walking, i.e. 1 less than the total number of legs that the creature has. When it comes to humans, walking involves bearing the entire weight of character plus load on one limb while lifting and moving the other one forward, so this actually makes no difference (2-1 =1) if only one character at a time is carrying the load. As soon as you introduce teams, however, this changes.
EG: Team of 2: Four legs, -1 = 3; if the two had a combined Unused Load Capacity of 60 lb, so the pair together could carry a load of 60 × 3 (number of legs on the ground) × 2 (balanced) = 360 lb. But their movement rate will be slowed to a crawl at this rate.
EG2: Team of 2: Four legs, -2 = 2; same combined Unused Load Capacity of 60 lb, so the pair together could carry a load of 60 × 2 (number of legs on the ground) × 2 (balanced) = 240 lb – with the pair able to walk almost normally (still at a slow pace, though).
A walking stick or staff used one-handed counts as 1/2 of an extra ‘leg’. A staff used 2-handed counts as a full extra leg. BUT this means that the hand(s) in question are no longer available for holding Load. Any of these options reduces movement by 25%.
The same rules apply if the weight, Load, and Load Capacity are measured in kg.
Look up the STR table for your game system and work out the maximum they can carry when fully encumbered.
Multiply this by the adjusted Load and divide by the Unused Load Capacity to get the effective weight being carried in the form of the Load. From this, you can read off the Encumbrance Level.
EG: A character has a Load of 40 lb, Balanced. Their unused Load Capacity is 30 lb. Their STR on the D&D scale is 12, so their maximum Encumbrance is 130lb:
40 / 2 = 20;
20 / 30 × 130 = 86.67 lb;
86.67 lb for a character of STR 12 is just outside the “Medium Load” range. If the character can find 8 oz to lose, they will scrape into that category.
EG2: Same character, same load, using a Staff 1-handed:
40 / 2 / 1½ = 13.33 lb;
13.33 / 30 × 130 = 57.78 lb;
57.78 lb for a character of STR 12 is right in the middle of the “Medium Load” range.
EG3: Same character, 60 lb load, Balanced, using a staff 2-handed:
60 / 2 / 2 = 15 lb;
15 / 30 × 130 = 65 lb;
65 lb for a character of STR 12 is right in the middle of the “Medium Load” range.
EG4: Same character, same load, Semi-Balanced, using a staff 2-handed:
60 × 3 / 4 / 2 = 22.5 lb;
22.5 / 30 × 130 = 97.5 lb;
97.5 lb for a character of STR 12 is solidly into the “Heavy Load” range.
EG5: Same character, 40lb load, Unbalanced (one-handed), using a staff 1-handed:
40 / 1.5 = 26.67 lb;
26.67 / 30 × 130 = 115.56 lb;
115.56 lb for a character of STR 12 is quite a long way into the “Heavy Load” range. In fact, the character would be close to his limits.
This involves a couple of extra steps, made much simpler using tables.
1. Lookup the LIFT of the character.
2. Calculate Adjusted Load / Unused Load Capacity × Lift.
3. Lookup the STR needed to Lift the result (round up if necessary).
4. Subtract the result from the character’s STR.
5. Subtract the result from 5. If the result is <0, the character is unencumbered.
6. Multiply the difference by 20% to get the encumbrance.
EG: A character has a Load of 25 kg, Balanced. Their unused Load Capacity is 50 kg. Their STR on the Hero scale is 12.
1. Lift is 132 kg.
2. 25 / 2 = 12.5;
12.5 / 50 × 132 = 33 kg;
3. STR 2 has a Lift of 33kg.
4. 12-2=10.
5. 5-10=-5. The character is unencumbered.
EG2: Same character, Load of 40 kg, Semi-Balanced.
1. Lift is 132 kg.
2. 40 × 3 / 4 = 30;
30 / 50 × 132 = 79.2 kg;
3. STR 8 has a Lift of 76 kg, so STR 9.
4. 12-9=3.
5. 5-3=-2.
6. 2 × 20 = 40%. So the character moves at 40% normal speed.
This is a lot simpler.
1. Lookup the LIFT of the character.
2. Calculate Adjusted Load / Unused Load Capacity × Lift.
3. On the STR table, cross-reference STR and the result to get the encumbrance.
EG: A character has a Load of 25 kg, Balanced. Their unused Load Capacity is 50 kg. Their STR on the Hero scale is 12.
1. Lift is 132 kg.
2. 25 / 2 = 12.5;
12.5 / 50 × 132 = 33 kg;
3. 1/4 Lift =33 kg, so the character is lightly encumbered (-25% speed), but is only a hair short of being unencumbered.
EG2: Same character, Load of 40 kg, Semi-Balanced.
1. Lift is 132 kg.
2. 40 × 3 / 4 = 30;
30 / 50 × 132 = 79.2 kg;
3. this is between 66 and 99 kg, so character is moderately encumbered (-50% speed).
Some weight, like armor, can be worn, which evenly distributes the weight over the entire body. This subtracts from the base Load Capacity at the rate of 1 lb for 1lb or 1 kg per kg.
Some weight can be worn across the shoulders in a backpack, shoulder bag, etc. This partially distributes the weight over the entire body. It subtracts from the base Load Capacity at the rate of 2 lb per lb or 2kg per kg. This includes most weapons in sheaths.
Some equipment weight (like shields and drawn weapons) has to be carried. This weight is Point weight and subtracts from the base Load Capacity at the rate of 5lb per lb or 5kg per kg.
Base Load Capacity is equal to the Maximum Heavy Encumbrance shown (D&D) or 1/2 the character’s Lift (Hero / Superhero) or 1/3 of that amount (Hero / Adventurer’s Club).
1. Total the weight that is Distributed.
2. Total the weight that is Partially Distributed. Multiply the total by 2.
3. Total the weight that is Point Weight. Multiply the total by 5.
4. Add all three results together.
5. Look up the Base Load Capacity.
6. Subtract the total from (4) from the Base Load Capacity to get the Unused Load Capacity.
EG: D&D Character, STR 15, Full Plate (50lb*), Heavy Steel Shield (15lb**), Longsword (4lb***), backpack (2lb), 22 lb in Backpack.
* And A 10′ Pole Weight (Middle Ages) is 60-85 lb.
** And A 10′ Pole Weight (Middle Ages) is 15-30 lb.
*** And A 10′ Pole Weight (Middle Ages) is 3.5-6 lb.
1. Full Plate (50 lb)
2. Longsword & Sheath (4+0.5 lb)+ Backpack (2 lb) + Backpack contents (22 lb) = 28.5, x2 = 57.
3. Shield (15 lb) × 5 = 75.
4. 50 + 57 + 75 = 182.
5. 200 lb.
6. 200-182 = 18 lb Unused Load Capacity.
Conclusion: The armor makes this character unsuitable to being a porter. Take it away and the results are very different:
1. 0 lb.
2. Backpack (2 lb) + Backpack contents (22 lb) = 24, x2 = 48.
3. 0 lb.
4. 48 lb.
5. 200 lb.
6. 200-48 = 152 lb Unused Load Capacity.
152 lb is a LOT of capacity.
This is why caravan guards are hired separately to porters; it’s the former’s job to wear the armor and protect the latter.
On earth, the only humanoids we have to consider are Humans. Even if we go a distance back into prehistory, there weren’t that many physical differences between us and Neanderthals, or us and Cro-Magnon. You have to go a lot further back than that to get a significant difference – except in one respect: Stature.
All humans and related species were, historically, short-asses. A few of them may have topped 5’6″ – but most would be comfortably below 5’2″. It takes an astonishingly small deviation from an adequate diet to stunt growth, but that’s not the only factor at work – evolution itself seems to be trending in the direction of 6’+ humans, through social selection of genes.
Visit any house built in the late 1800s and one of the things that will astonish is just how low the ceilings are – unless a deliberate attempt was made to make the room “spacious” of course, at considerable expense. Even if the ceilings are high enough, look at any original door frames – I have literally seen some that were no more than 4’6″ in height and about 2/3 of the normal width.
It is therefore an entirely valid choice for the GM to decide that humans in general in his game world average just an inch or two more than they do in modern reality. But, for the sheer convenience of the number, I’m going to set “average human” at exactly 5′ tall – give or take quite a bit..
The important point is that in Fantasy games there are a LOT of very different Humanoids with which to contend. And that requires the designer of a game subsystem – that’s me, in this case – to consider what impact the differences between them would have.
The fun then arrives in the form of campaign differences. I have my idea of Elves – that is almost certain to be completely different to that of the next GM over, whose ideas are also completely different to the one next to him, and so on.
There is only one solution: to lay down some general principles and show GMs how to use them to match any given interpretation they consider appropriate. So, let’s do that.
The most obvious factor is size. But I immediately ran into a problem: the size ratings given in D&D and Pathfinder are too coarse. To make things work, I needed to introduce a couple of intermediate ‘steps’.
It should also be noted that real-world physics and biology set limits on how tall a humanoid can be with significant internal modification (and external changes to accommodate them). Pathfinder 2nd edition (the one I consulted) attempts to at least wink at these by employing a different scale to that of D&D 3.x (again, the version that I consulted).
Here is where I draw the line: this is Fantasy. If a race of 50′ tall humanoids belong in your game world, so be it. These rules will accommodate you.
There are two types of adjustment possible: An adjustment to a specific Load Balance or Load Distribution, or a general adjustment to Load Capacity. The approach that I intend to use is to reserve the specific adjustments for specific Proportion differences (in the next sub-section) and Racial differences (the sub-section after that). These will adjust the grossest consideration: raw height, the Size Factor.
When dealing with individuals, you can choose a set ‘average’ human height and apply the principles given below for an estimate of how their stature alters their carrying capacity, but for the purposes of this series, I want to deal in broad generalities.
|
Height |
Definition |
Ht Factor ^2 |
Ht Factor ^1.5 |
Size Factor |
|
Average human / 10 or less |
Ht × 0.1 |
0.01 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
|
Average human / 5 |
Ht × 0.2 |
0.04 |
0.09 |
0.0065 = 0.07 |
|
Average human / 2 |
Ht × 0.5 |
0.25 |
0.35 |
0.3 |
|
Average human / 1.5 |
Ht × 2/3 |
0.444 |
0.544 |
0..494 = 0.5 |
|
Average human / 1.25 |
Ht × 0.8 |
0.64 |
0.716 |
0.678 = 0.7 |
|
Average human |
Ht × 1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Average human +25% |
Ht × 1.25 |
1.5625 |
1.3975 |
1.48 = 1.5 |
|
Average human +50% |
Ht × 1.5 |
2.25 |
1.84 |
2.045 = 2 |
|
Average human x2 |
Ht × 2 |
4 |
2.83 |
3.415 = 3.4 |
|
Average human x4 |
Ht × 4 |
16 |
8 |
12 |
|
Average human x6 |
Ht × 6 |
36 |
14.7 |
25.35 = 25 |
|
Average human x8 |
Ht × 8 |
64 |
22.63 |
43.315 = 43 |
|
Average human x10 |
Ht × 10 |
100 |
31.6 |
65.8 = 66 |
|
Average human × 12 |
Ht × 12 |
144 |
41.57 |
92.785 = 93 |
|
Average human × 15 |
Ht × 15 |
225 |
58.1 |
141.55 = 140 |
|
Average human × X |
Ht × X |
X^2 |
X^1.5 |
1/2 (X^2 + X^1.5) |
A couple of assumptions worth mentioning: As bodies increase in size, more of the innate STR is used holding everything together and making it work. That’s why it’s not a straight geometric increase with size.
As bodies get smaller, gravity affects everything less, so muscle efficiency should increase – but there is simply less muscle to work with, so this factor is also compromised somewhat. Compensation means additional muscle mass is required – but that’s mass that does nothing else to benefit the character, it simply compensates somewhat for size. That’s why it’s not a straight geometric reduction with reducing size.
If a particular creature is not located solidly within one of the bands, but is somewhere in between, the GM has three options: he can pick one of the bands (whichever one the creature is closest to); or he can average the two Size Factors, effectively defining an ad-hoc intermediate value; or he can actually formally calculate the Size Factor. The smaller the difference between options 2 and 3, the less important it is to be super-accurate, and the more the simpler answer is good enough.
Note that the size of a creature increases the weight of armor by the cube of the ratio. A character with Ht × 2 requires 8 × as much metal to amour them to the same extent as a human wearing the same type of armor.
Note, too, that this increase happens a LOT faster than Base Load Capacity goes up because of size. This means that armor occupies an increasingly large fraction of the being’s capacity.
It is possible to compensate – plate-mail on the lower legs, chain mail on the upper, and leather everywhere else, for example, on the assumption that few opponents will get up that high – but this ignores flying enemies, enemies with bows and other ranged weaponry, and one’s own kind, so it doesn’t seem very smart. Instead, creatures would increasingly rely on natural armor, resulting purely from the thickening of skin / hide. Wearing mail at 50′ tall is gilding the lily.
The assumption being made in this section is that the basic humanoid form has proportions approximately the same as a human being would have, relative to their height. But there, again, there is a second problem: humans vary all over the shop in this respect. Never mind, let’s define those as ‘resembling race X’ in build, which excludes them from ‘typical’ human, simplifying the question enormously.
I am operating under a couple of basic assumptions that are generally valid when it comes to artwork: that normal shoulder widths and limb thicknesses are proportional to the width of the body in general, and that limb length is proportional to height.
I am also going to assume that the more ‘superheroic’ proportions used by comic book artists (generally) are the appropriate ones for fantasy. We want the characters and the threats that they overcome to be somewhat larger than life.
Exactly what these are doesn’t really matter much except to an artist. If you look at the image of a creature, I want you to be able to visually assess “it looks about twice as wide as a normal human of the same height” or 4x or whatever. There are practical limits – more than about 4x just doesn’t look anatomically ‘right’ to us.
Images based on man-37470.png by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay
So: Proportions Factor = Width multiplier ^ 0.5
★ Width Multiplier 0.3 = Proportions Factor 0.55
★ Width Multiplier 0.5 = Proportions Factor 0.71
★ Width Multiplier 0.7 = Proportions Factor 0.84
★ Width Multiplier 0.85 (Thin Human) = Proportions Factor 0.92 – (but use 1)
★ Width Multiplier 1 (Normal Human) = Proportions Factor 1
★ Width Multiplier 1.17 (Broad Human) = Proportions Factor 1.08 – (but use 1)
★ Width Multiplier 1.35 (Hulking Human) = Proportions Factor 1.16
★ Width Multiplier 1.5 = Proportions Factor 1.225
★ Width Multiplier 2 = Proportions Factor 1.41
★ Width Multiplier 2.25 = Proportions Factor 1.5
★ Width Multiplier 2.5 = Proportions Factor 1.58 (but use 1.6)
★ Width Multiplier 3 = Proportions Factor 1.73 (but use 1.75)
★ Width Multiplier 4 = Proportions Factor 2
★ Base Lift Capacity × Proportions Factor
★ Balanced Load / Proportions Factor
★ Semi-balanced Load × 1.5 / (Proportions Factor)
★ Unusual Limb Length: Multiplier × Distributed Load
Point Loads / Multiplier
Don’t worry if this isn’t immediately clear, I’ve got lots of examples coming up.
Some humanoids (and other creatures) are known for being able to carry far more than they look like they should be able to handle. Others may go in the other direction, and be able to carry less. Rather than a blanket increase or decrease in capacity, these are better handled with specific adjustments to the loads that consume that capacity because it permits a more nuanced approach, and because players whose characters are affected are less likely to complain about that.
It’s important to remember that we aren’t intending to deal with individuals; instead, we want to be able to relate the cargo capacity of a generic human porter to (say) a generic Dwarven porter.
One point that I cannot emphasize enough is to Always Record Your Justifications for any racial bonus or penalty. Of course, the corollary is to always have such a justification!
There may be other racial advantages as well, relating to sureness of movement or stamina.
As a general rule of thumb:
★ Extreme Modifiers × 1.5 or / 1.5 (or more)
★ Significant Modifiers × 1.25 or / 1.25
★ Flavor Modifiers × 1.1 or / 1.1
★ Trivial Modifiers × 1.05 or / 1.05 – but I recommend you don’t bother with these.
One advantage that a human has over every creature in the ‘real’ world is this: If we proceed at our natural pace, given the load, we need to rest 15 minutes out of every 2 hours. If we proceed faster, given the load, we need to rest 20 minutes out of every hour. But if we slow our pace one step, we become terminators, who can keep going for hours at a time.
Every other creature we know about, including the Apes, can travel faster than we can, but then needs to stop and rest. Failure to do so leads to rapid exhaustion.
Prey animals like deer are very quick – for a little while. Like, 5 or 10 minutes. The predators that hunt them are optimized to be able to keep up – for a fraction of that time – and to attack. If they wound a prey, blood loss will soon bring the animal down, so they don’t need to be able to sustain the pace of their hunt for very much longer; patience and tracking ability gets the job done. Humans with spears are lethal to predators like lions and to herbivores like deer and horses because we don’t stop. They run away, we catch up while they are resting and attack, again and again and again, until – once again – exhaustion and blood loss bring our prey down.
That alone would make us the apex predator of the natural world. Every other advantage adds insult to injury.
In a fantasy world, other humanoids may share that advantage, or be even better at it than we are. We still have limits to our ability.
The human advantage is:
★ -5 movement rate (“), after adjusting for Load Encumbrance, can be sustained for 2 hours.
★ -10 movement rate (“), after adjusting for Load Encumbrance, can be sustained for 4 hours or CON hours, whichever is lower..
★ -15 movement rate (“), after adjusting for Load Encumbrance, can be sustained for 8 hours or CON hours, whichever is lower.
★ -20 movement rate (“), after adjusting for Load Encumbrance, can be sustained for one hour per point of CON or for 1 day, whichever is lower.
Every GM should trawl through their references and select the image that best accords with their amalgamated views of what a particular creature is like. This is ‘the iconic reference’ and its the visual that the GM should return to, time and again, when composing his flavor text and other narrative.
We all have these mental images that have built up over the years. They combine elements that are distinguishing and specific from all sorts of sources – Monster Manuals and Bestiaries and Fiction and specific encounters and unique turns of phrase that resonated at the time, and so on. Your Trolls may not be quite the same as my Trolls – and my Elves may vary from one game world to another.
There are no wrong answers – only answers or the lack thereof.
It was my intention just to throw out an example or two in the following sections, but I kept thinking of something more to say about a different type of humanoid. Before I knew it, there was a very long list. I’m going to keep it as brief as I can, but I want to describe not only what factors apply to the race in question, but what my iconic reference is – where I can point to one.
Elves are dexterous and fleet of foot. They not only enjoy the human advantage, they get it 5″ faster than we do. Some have speculated on hollow, bird-like bones, but there’s no evidence that they are more likely to break bones, which would result form that arrangement. Instead, I think that they have multiple bones where humans have one, connected by cartilage, with ‘holes’ between the two that reduce the bone mass while preserving 99% of the strength of the bone: This enables them to move their limbs more quickly (faster reflexes) and operate with a cat-like grace.
Elves are – depending on the subspecies – either slightly taller than the average human or slightly shorter. In both cases, they are relatively thin. The price they pay for all these benefits is a small reduction in their capacity for Point Loads and unbalanced Loads in general.
Tall Elves:
★ Iconic Image: Pathfinder 2e Core Rules p38
★ Size: Human normal
★ Proportions Factor: Load Capacity × 0.85 but use × 1
★ Point Weights: +10% Load
★ Semi-balanced Loads: +10% Load
★ Unbalanced Loads including Point Weights: +10% Load, cumulative with the above.
Short Elves:
★ Size: Average Human × 0.8
★ Size Adjustment: Load Capacity × 0.7
★ Iconic Image: D&D 3.5 Monster Manual p101
★ Proportions Factor: Load Capacity × 0.85 but use × 1
★ Point Weights: +10% Load
★ Semi-balanced Loads: +5% Load
★ Unbalanced Loads including Point Weights: +5% Load, cumulative with the above.
Dwarves are heavyset beyond anything possible to humans. Despite this, they take the human advantage one step further: they do not need to slow down in order to access their vast endurance. However, not slowing down prevents them from attacking targets should that be necessary. They normally proceed at full pace for their size until about to enter melee, then slow for a single round. This isn’t generally all that noticeable when a single Dwarf is viewed, but when there’s an entire company of them, it becomes obvious; those of a poetic bent have described this action as “The Gathering Storm”. For many years, it was misinterpreted as the Dwarves giving their enemies one last intimidating view of what was about to fall on them.
★ Size: Average Human × 0.8
★ Size Adjustment: Load Capacity × 0.7
★ Iconic Image: D&D 3.5 Monster Manual p92
★ Proportions Factor: Load Capacity × 1.41
★ Balanced Loads: Load / 1.25
★ Semi-Balanced Loads: Load / 1.5
★ Racial Modifier: Load Capacity × 1.43*
* This effectively wipes out the Size Adjustment.
I have great exception to the depiction of Halflings in the 3.x Player’s Handbook. They look like oversized pixies, not the iconic creatures of unbelievable stamina from which their legend derives. Like almost everyone, the dominant source of my impressions are the Lord Of The Rings trilogy and The Hobbit, and it’s my suspicion that the brief from WotC to the artist responsible for p12-13 was to distance in-game Halflings from Hobbits.
As a general rule, Halflings prefer to travel light, and lightly armored; but if one chooses to act like a pack mule, they can bear surprising loads for their size. Many a wager will have been won in taverns when the local strong man attempts to hoist a Halfling’s pack.
Halflings have a weaker version of the human advantage; they must slow to 1/2 their unencumbered speed or less, but they can maintain that pace almost indefinitely. They will need to start making FORT rolls at a cumulative -1 per hour to stay awake after CON hours forced march, though. If they are forced to a pace greater than this, they can sustain this without rest for CON / 2 hours and thereafter must make a FORT roll every hour, at a cumulative -1 per 2 hours.
★ Size: Average Human / 2
★ Size Adjustment: Load Capacity × 0.3
★ Iconic Image: Pathfinder 2e Core Rules p50, p53
★ Racial Modifier: Load Capacity × 2*
★ Distributed Loads: Load × 1.25
★ Semi-distributed Loads: Load / 2.5
* Partially compensates for the Size Adjustment
Orcs are either short or taller than human norm. The former have a build not dissimilar to Elves, the latter have builds that resemble those of Dwarves. The latter have the human advantage, the former have a weakened form of it (have to slow an additional 5″). Orcs have great stamina, and count their CON as × 1.5 for purposes of Endurance and FORT checks for stamina.
Small Orcs:
★ Size: Average Human / 2
★ Size Adjustment: Load Capacity × 0.3
★ Proportions Factor: Load Capacity × 0.92 but use 1
★ Iconic Image: Pathfinder Bestiary p222
★ Racial Modifier: Load Capacity × 1
★ Distributed Loads: Load × 0.75
★ Semi-distributed Loads: Load × 0.8
★ Point Loads: Load × 0.85
Large Orcs
★ Size: Average Human × 1.25
★ Size Adjustment: Load Capacity × 1.5
★ Proportions Factor: Load Capacity × 1.41
★ Iconic Image: Never found the perfect image.
Races Of Destiny p50 comes close even though it’s a Half-Orc.
So does Legends & Lairs Monster’s Handbook p115.
Perhaps the closest match of all is the illustration at Orc-Names Generator | Mythopedia (art uncredited, site © 2022 Wasai LLC, All Rights Reserved. This is assumed to include the art, which is why I’m linking to the page and not showing the image here. Reverse Image Search found no matches that could identify the artist / source but many similar images).
★ Racial Modifier: Load Capacity × 1.1
★ Distributed Loads: Load × 0.7
★ Semi-distributed Loads: Load × 0.75
★ Point Loads: Load × 0.9
Okay, so now we’re getting into the bigger end of town. There are a lot of differing perceptions of Ogres that I’ve seen through the years, but none of them quite matched my mental images. Note that in my Fumanor campaign it was discovered that Drow had created/corrupted Ogre Magi, supplying them with a herb that, when consumed, made Ogres bigger, dumber, and more obedient/pliable. Once the drug is removed, assuming that the Ogre survives the withdrawal process, they lose musculature and gain intelligence. They don’t actually lose much in the way of height, but they tend to bend forward a lot more so as to keenly observe what’s on the ground before them, giving the perception that they are shorter.
★ Ogres are described as typically STR 21.
★ Size: Average Human × 2
★ Size Adjustment: Load Capacity × 3.4
★ Proportions Factor: Load Capacity × 1.225 (without herb) or × 1.41 (with herb or under different concept**)
★ Iconic Image: Another case of never quite finding the perfect representation.
Legends & Lairs Monster’s Handbook p110 is headed in the right direction, but not quite there.
The images on this page (Balder’s Gate 3: Should You Kill Or Recruit The Ogres | Gamerant.com, presumably excerpted from the computer game) are the closest that I can find online.
★ Racial Modifier: Load Capacity × 1.25
★ Distributed Loads: Load × 0.8
★ Semi-distributed Loads: Load × 1.2
★ Point Loads: Load × 0.8
I have a love/hate relationship with Bugbears, especially in art. Everything that I have seen has contributed to my impression of a furry / hairy beast-like humanoid with shoulders the size of basketballs, standing slightly taller than a human but far broader. You might not agree with this interpretation – that’s why I’m describing it, so that you can amend or modify what’s below to match your vision of the species.
★ Bugbears are usually described as having STR 15 but that undersells my vision of them. I use STR 19±d4.
★ Size: Average Human × 1.5
★ Size Adjustment: Load Capacity × 2
★ Proportions Factor × 2 Human Width: Load Capacity × 1.5
★ Iconic Image:
Low-STR Ogres: D&D 3.5 Monster Manual p29
High-STR Ogres: D&D 3.5 Monster Manual p199 (Ogre Image)
★ Racial Modifier: Load Capacity × 1.25
★ Distributed Loads: Load × 1
★ Semi-distributed Loads: Load × 1
★ Point Loads: Load × 0.75
I’ve always considered Trolls to be tall, thin, and stringy. Gaunt, even. Something akin to a Corrupted Treant – I’ve even used the term “Willowy” to describe various aspects of them. Trolls have never been about their muscle (though they are no slouches in that department), it’s always about the Regeneration. (Hint: A subspecies that is vulnerable to something else instead of Fire scares the Bejeezus out of most players. Especially if Fire doubles their regeneration rate, and can even resurrect them from the dead). A key attribute of Trolls is abnormal arm length; simply bending forward enough to walk naturally permits them to use these limbs as Staves.
★ Trolls are usually described as having STR 23.
★ Size: Average Human × 2
★ Size Adjustment: Load Capacity × 3.4
★ Proportions Factor × 1.5 Human Width: Load Capacity × 1.225
★ Iconic Image: I have this image somewhere but couldn’t find it: Troll | Forgotten Realms Wiki (5e) – it’s probably in Monsters Of Faerun, which I appear to have misplaced. I note that WotC have also used it as the current official depiction.
★ Distributed Loads: Load × 1
★ Semi-distributed Loads: Load × 1.1
★ Point Loads: Load × 1.25
★ Special: If not carrying a point load, can use arms as extra legs
balanced loads /3
/ (3 × 3/4) = × 4 / 9 semi-balanced loads
* Some sub-species may be × 1.5.
Hill giants are pretty much the shortest of the Giants but they make up for it by being spread much wider. Their arms are often bigger than their legs. That can make them clumsy when mobile, but deadly dangerous when placed. They are also frequently depicted as the stupidest variety of Giant.
★ Trolls are usually described as having STR 25.
★ Size:
Small: Average Human × 2
Large: Average Human × 4
Gargantuan: Average Human × 8
★ Size Adjustment:
Small: Load Capacity × 3.4
Large: Load Capacity × 12
Gargantuan: Load Capacity × 43
★ Proportions Factor × 4 Human Width: Load Capacity × 2
★ Iconic Image: There are lots of images that could qualify, but I’ve selected three – two of them miniatures!
Small: Limited Edition Miniature from Tabletop Empires (only 1 left?)
Large: This Miniature, almost sold out (1 in stock) from Bones Miniatures;
Also, this art by TheMightyQuill at Tensor Art (AI art so don’t click if you’re not down with that).
Gargantuan: The Scion Of Grolantor image in “Dungeons & Dragons: Every Scion of Giants’ Gods, Ranked” by The Gamer
★ Distributed Loads: Load × 1
★ Semi-distributed Loads: Load × 1.1
★ Point Loads: Load × 1.25
Stone Giants are relatively human in proportions, but they run to 12-20 ft tall, with rare specimens reaching 22 feet.
★ Stone Giants have STR 27.
★ Size: Average Human × 4
★ Size Adjustment: Load Capacity × 12
★ Proportions Factor × 1 Human Width: Load Capacity × 1
★ Iconic Image: Legends & Lairs Monster’s Handbook p106
★ Racial Modifier: Load Capacity × 1.10
★ Distributed Loads: Load × 64 due to size
★ Semi-distributed Loads: Load × 1.5
★ Point Loads: Load × 1
Giants only get bigger from there, but generally more human in proportions. Choose your iconic image, look up the STR and typical height, get the size adjustment, and think about any racial modifiers. The more unbalanced the creature naturally is, the worse will be the point load impact; the more stable they are, the better the distributed load impact will be. But don’t forget, when assigning values to those, the impact already present from the STR and size; you may even need to compensate if they seem too high.
Using the above system, you should be able to deal with anything from Angels to Zombies. Racial modifiers that stand out of me are Angels (lower), Formians (higher) and Golems (Higher). Goblins could possibly be lower.
…and with that, I’m right out of time (besides, this is a good break point). I’ll pick this up next time with section 3.1.1.11, where I return to the setting of standard Labor Units (using humans), show how to adjust for non-human humanoids, and then tackle Horses, Burros, and Carts. Along the way I’ll also deal with the impact on efficiency of Foraging and Hunting.
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply