Oct 12, 2011 at 11:16 am #1280502
I'm really excited by Ryan Jordan's new gear list recommendations. But I'm wondering if we can all start providing Costs in addition to Weights in those lists. Of course, using the standard exchange rates: 1pp=5gp, 1gp=20sp, 1sp=10cp. I'm always stuck deciding between lots of equipment options, e.g. the Petzel e-Lite and a Hooded Lantern. I know that example is a no-brainer for most of you because you don't bother with encumberance either. And that's why the Costs would really be more helpful. Weights are cool to read and all, but, whatever. Right now, what's important, is that I'm down to copper pieces after stocking up on spell components; I had a crappy roll out of my 2d4x10gp
-michaelOct 12, 2011 at 11:32 am #1789617
@cobbermanLocale: Northern Colorado
I think we all would benefit from a Bag of Holding. Weight/Encumberance problems solved.Oct 12, 2011 at 1:00 pm #1789655
Blah…the Bag of Holding is the oldest trick in the book.
While they're certainly very cool, it's really a cheap plot device used by lazy DMs and uncreative players to avoid dealing with the inevitable impossible reality of:
Where the hell am I carrying 19 scrolls, 10 flasks of Holy Water, lockpicking tools, 2 Potions of Cure Lt. Wounds, a heavy crossbow, 4 torches, a bedroll, and a 1 gallon jug of mead? Let alone the bag of caltrops, a fine silk rope, and what could easily amount to 47 pounds of gold and silver coinage.
And how is it that all those potion bottles and flasks aren't destroyed every time you're bull-rushed by a Bugbear?
Good to hear from you Michael, happy travels.Oct 12, 2011 at 5:27 pm #1789752
@butukiLocale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Ah, brings back wonderful memories of D & D! Used to be a DM back before computers were added to the mix. Had to draw and write everything by hand. Good to see the illustration quality has improved! I had bags of holding, to a certain extent, but provided rooms and chests where characters could keep the overflow of their gear. Sometimes those rooms or chests got raided or broken into!
Showing prices in gear lists would be fine, but for me not so necessary. I can look up most of the stuff on the internet, whereas the weights are better listed so you get more accuracy.
What I don't understand are gear lists that separate stuff you wear from stuff you carry. They're all weight, no matter where on your body they are… so why isn't everything listed on the gear lists?Oct 12, 2011 at 5:32 pm #1789755
@ryanLocale: Northern Rockies
Miguel, great comment, and I agree. Reformatting our gear lists is on my radar.
For clothes, I usually think of them in terms of three buckets:
– warm weather trekking clothes (trekking shirt, underwear, pants, socks, cap)
– storm clothes (wind shirt, rain jacket, rain pants, base layer shirt)
– camp / sleeping clothes (insulating jacket and pants, dry socks)
But even this is arbitrary.Oct 12, 2011 at 5:44 pm #1789761
@hikinggrannyLocale: Gateway to Columbia River Gorge
Miguel: "What I don't understand are gear lists that separate stuff you wear from stuff you carry."
I think that the distinction is primarily because most people want to compare pack weights rather than what they are wearing. It also lets some people exclude from pack weight items carried in pockets, allowing some fudging of numbers. It's inevitable, IMHO, when the weight comparison game becomes too competitive.
It's very true that the total weight carried by one's knees and feet includes clothes worn and those pocket contents (skin out weight). Also, if you want to analyze the total clothing system, you must include what's being worn! Of course if we scrap "base weight" of the pack in favor of something like "base skin-out weight," we could end up with lists designed for "Naked Hiker Day"!
As for me, I have never understood why cameras are never included in gear lists, even though the list authors illustrate their reports with pictures of their trip!Oct 12, 2011 at 7:34 pm #1789806
Th crappy plot devices typically included some suspension of disbelief. It's an RPG fer christsake. Though we let go of the High Fantasy gaming around the time we stopped reading Poul Anderson.
Completely of topic (snicker): Should I include Josh Billings in my SUL gear list? I'm 4lbs carried and worn with that guy as a trail partner. He's something of a Bag of Holding meets a Deck of Many Things.
"his vorpal blade went snicker snack"
cheers, Craig. see you somewhere on the PCT next summer.Oct 12, 2011 at 8:01 pm #1789818
Makes sense to me to have separate notation of worn vs. carried items totaled at the bottom. While it is all weigh on your knees and has to be hauled uphill, the weight of the items carried in the pack may effect the choice of pack in terms of structure/hip belt.Oct 12, 2011 at 10:16 pm #1789866
If we are going to nitpick about whether worn gear such as sunglasses, watch, and clothing worn while hiking should be counted in our total weight since it still must be supported by our legs and feet then I propose that hiker weight should also be included, as it must be carried by your feet as well. If you pack weight is 8 lbs, worn gear is another 3 lbs, and you weigh 150 lbs, then total weight is 161 lbs. SUL could be around 130 lbs maybe? Would be easier for women I suppose…Oct 13, 2011 at 12:05 am #1789888
@socal-nomadLocale: North San Diego county
I don't count the clothes I have on. Because you wear them anyways.
I never understood why the D&D card game was so popular then I heard this song by Stephen Lynch's about D&D.
You tube D and D song link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyxnEKTjhj0
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.