Talk:Encumbrance: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Possible Error with formula.) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This formula might not be accurate anymore. I gave it a try, and according to mama's I have 904 stones on me, then it took 720 coins in addition to that weight to go from no burden to light. My strength is 20, my stamina is 21. I've tried using the formula, but the closet I can get is it telling me I need 1082 stones to go from no to light. Not a huge difference, but one none the same. I think this formula will give you an idea, but not exact numbers. |
This formula might not be accurate anymore. I gave it a try, and according to mama's I have 904 stones on me, then it took 720 coins in addition to that weight to go from no burden to light. My strength is 20, my stamina is 21. I've tried using the formula, but the closet I can get is it telling me I need 1082 stones to go from no to light. Not a huge difference, but one none the same. I think this formula will give you an idea, but not exact numbers. |
||
:Were you wearing your armor during the coin test? I vaugely recall that worn armor is ~20% lighter than being carried, might account for the difference. Assuming that there isn't actually an error in the formula and I'm not confused.<br>-[[User:Glimmereyes|Glimmereyes]] 23:04, 3 October 2008 (CDT) |
|||
Revision as of 22:04, 3 October 2008
This formula might not be accurate anymore. I gave it a try, and according to mama's I have 904 stones on me, then it took 720 coins in addition to that weight to go from no burden to light. My strength is 20, my stamina is 21. I've tried using the formula, but the closet I can get is it telling me I need 1082 stones to go from no to light. Not a huge difference, but one none the same. I think this formula will give you an idea, but not exact numbers.
- Were you wearing your armor during the coin test? I vaugely recall that worn armor is ~20% lighter than being carried, might account for the difference. Assuming that there isn't actually an error in the formula and I'm not confused.
-Glimmereyes 23:04, 3 October 2008 (CDT)