# How much does a backpack hold?



## Aopy (Nov 10, 2003)

I am about to rip my hair out.  For the life of me I can not find a table or any sort of information on the capacities of various items.  I know I've seen it somewhere but where is another question.  I need to know how much a backpack can hold, a sack, saddle bags, etc.

Please help.

Aopy


----------



## gamecat (Nov 10, 2003)

Aopy said:
			
		

> I am about to rip my hair out.  For the life of me I can not find a table or any sort of information on the capacities of various items.  I know I've seen it somewhere but where is another question.  I need to know how much a backpack can hold, a sack, saddle bags, etc.
> 
> Please help.
> 
> Aopy




I'd make that a common-sense call; a shortsword could ride in a backpack, a quarterstaff couldn't.  So really, you have to determine it yourself.


----------



## Chingerspy (Nov 10, 2003)

Surely it depends on how much you're willing to let your Munchkins get away with? 

Your call man.


----------



## Antoine (Nov 10, 2003)

Aopy said:
			
		

> I need to know how much a backpack can hold, a sack, saddle bags, etc.




I do not know about D&D backpack, but from real life experience, assume a 1 cubic foot inner capacity for a light back pack, and 2-2 1/2 cubic feet for a heavy one.

2 cubic feet of gold pieces weigh over a ton (2000+ lbs) !
2 cubic feet of water around 125 lbs, still an awesome load.

Assuming a balanced equipment (somme metal stuff, but mostly food, clothes, bedrolls…) I would allow a 30 to 40 lbs per cubic foot average.

Meaning : 
• light backpack : 40 lbs max load, more likely 25-30 lbs.
• heavy (regular adventurer) backpack : 100 lbs max load, more likely 60-75 lbs 
+ some stuff strapped on/hanging around the backpack.

The fabric probably won't stand much more anyway.

Hope this helps.


----------



## thalmin (Nov 11, 2003)

Table 7.8 in the 3E PHB lists capacity for containers. Was this dropped in 3.5?


----------



## the Jester (Nov 11, 2003)

The 1e character sheet pack had container capacities in it; I'd ask diaglo to check for you.


----------



## thalmin (Nov 11, 2003)

the Jester said:
			
		

> The 1e character sheet pack had container capacities in it; I'd ask diaglo to check for you.



Small pouch or purse - 1/4 cu. ft. - 25 g.p. capacity
Large pouch - 1/2 cu ft. - 50 g.p.
Small sack or tied shirt - 1 cu. ft. - 100 g.p.
Backpack - 3 cu. ft. - 300 g.p.
Large Sack - 4 cu. ft. - 400 g.p.


----------



## thalmin (Nov 11, 2003)

Second edition had different values. From Table 50 of the 2E PHB:
Backpack - 50lbs. - 3'x2'x1'
Belt Pouch, large - 8 lbs. - 6"x8"x2"
Saddle Bags, large - 30 lbs. - 18"x1'x6"


----------



## thalmin (Nov 11, 2003)

From the 3E PHB, Table 7-8


Backpack  1 cu. ft.

Barrel  10 cu. ft.

Basket  2 cu ft.

Bucket  1 cu. ft.

Chest  2 cu. ft.

Pouch, belt  1/5 cu. ft.

Sack  1 cu. ft.

Saddlebags  5 cu. ft.

Spell component pouch  1/8 cu. ft.


----------



## Antoine (Nov 11, 2003)

thalmin said:
			
		

> Table 7.8 in the 3E PHB lists capacity for containers. Was this dropped in 3.5?




Yes. They probably assumed that listing capacities in cubic feet didn't help much since all of D&D equipment is measured in pounds. 

3E backpack had a 1 cubic foot capacity.


----------



## Pariah (Nov 11, 2003)

One cubic foot? That's it in 3E?

Being a hiker, I'll have to disagree with those figures if you're going for what an "adventuring" pack would hold, assuming the D&D version would be designed about the same way modern backpacks are.

I have two Jansport backpacks and love them, neither of which are as low as 1 cubic foot. (12" x 12" x 12" = 1728 cu in)

The Jansport Rockies backpack (my RL "adventuring" backpack) has a capacity of 7000 cu in, which is almost exactly 4 cu. ft of space, and the pack weighs about 50-60 pounds fully loaded (including entrenching tool, tent stakes AND the tent, goose down sleeping bag, sleeping pad, Coleman stove, water filteration system, etc). 

My Jansport _bookbag_ (which I use for D&D rulebooks) has more capacity than what the PHB lists for their backpack, at 2200 cu in. Maybe the designers aren't that into hiking, or perhaps their concept of an D&D adventurers pack is different from a fully stocked backpack, with everything you need to survive contained therein. Not sure exactly if fantasy packs would go with an internal or external frame, but internal frame sure balances a lot better on your body when you're hopping across a mountain stream on moss covered stones


----------



## Aaron2 (Nov 11, 2003)

Pariah said:
			
		

> Being a hiker, I'll have to disagree with those figures if you're going for what an "adventuring" pack would hold, assuming the D&D version would be designed about the same way modern backpacks are.




I tried to research when backpacks were actually invented but didn't have much luck. The earliest references I could find were from the 1800s. In medieval times, I have seen wicker baskets strapped to the back and used to haul dirt around but nothing like a modern backpack. The Romans didn't use them, instead the used a carrying pole (like a hobo). Anyone know when backpacks with frames were invented. Modern ones use aluminum which wasn't available; iron would be too heavy (they couldn't make tubing) so it would have been wooden. 

Up until recently, a man was expected to have a horse or a cart around so a backpack wasn't really needed. No one was preparing for a dungeon delve.


Aaron


----------



## CRGreathouse (Nov 11, 2003)

Pariah said:
			
		

> My Jansport _bookbag_ (which I use for D&D rulebooks) has more capacity than what the PHB lists for their backpack, at 2200 cu in. Maybe the designers aren't that into hiking, or perhaps their concept of an D&D adventurers pack is different from a fully stocked backpack, with everything you need to survive contained therein. Not sure exactly if fantasy packs would go with an internal or external frame, but internal frame sure balances a lot better on your body when you're hopping across a mountain stream on moss covered stones




I'm a hiker too, but I have no problem with 1 cubic foot capacity.  It's certainly better than 2E's capacity of 6 cubic feet.

The backpack assumed in (3E) D&D is pretty small compared to what I'd hike with.  Look at the size of Lidda's backpack (proportional to herself, that is) -- it's tiny!  It probably holds 200 cubic inches... scaled up for her small size, that's about one cubic foot.

Sure, there could easily be a 'hiker's backpack' holding four times the standard pack, but most adventurers would do just fine without -- in my D&D experience, extra rations and water go on the pack animal anyway.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Nov 11, 2003)

You have to consider that D&D's weights are way off. Example: D&D bastard swords are 15 lbs., while RL ones are 2-3 lbs. (Source: Museum Replicas Limited) I'm not sure what else is off, but that's a pretty big difference.


----------



## CalrinAlshaw (Nov 11, 2003)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> You have to consider that D&D's weights are way off. Example: D&D bastard swords are 15 lbs., while RL ones are 2-3 lbs. (Source: Museum Replicas Limited) I'm not sure what else is off, but that's a pretty big difference.




Very true, I think one of the biggest discrepencies all D&D games have, are the weights of weapons. Some of the heaviest bladed weapons were probobly no more than 7-8 pounds.

As for bashing weapons, I could see maybe a 10 pound object after the counter-balance to the metal ball. Otherwise you'd have to hold that thing right next to the ball and you'd have no leverage, unless you WANT to be flung off balance.

Now, big battleaxes are a different story, anyone seen Dragonheart? In the end when the knight is swinging the double bladed battle axe and he almost never switches it's path, thats realistic, it's heavy, and the exertion of stopping something THAT heavy would be a pain. 

Calrin Alshaw


----------



## CalrinAlshaw (Nov 11, 2003)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> You have to consider that D&D's weights are way off. Example: D&D bastard swords are 15 lbs., while RL ones are 2-3 lbs. (Source: Museum Replicas Limited) I'm not sure what else is off, but that's a pretty big difference.




Very true, I think one of the biggest discrepencies all D&D games have, are the weights of weapons. Some of the heaviest bladed weapons were probobly no more than 7-8 pounds.

As for bashing weapons, I could see maybe a 10 pound object after the counter-balance to the metal ball. Otherwise you'd have to hold that thing right next to the ball and you'd have no leverage, unless you WANT to be flung off balance.

Now, big battleaxes are a different story, anyone seen Dragonheart? In the end when the knight is swinging the double bladed battle axe and he almost never switches it's path, thats realistic, it's heavy, and the exertion of stopping something THAT heavy would be a pain. 

Calrin Alshaw


----------



## CalrinAlshaw (Nov 11, 2003)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> You have to consider that D&D's weights are way off. Example: D&D bastard swords are 15 lbs., while RL ones are 2-3 lbs. (Source: Museum Replicas Limited) I'm not sure what else is off, but that's a pretty big difference.




Very true, I think one of the biggest discrepencies all D&D games have, are the weights of weapons. Some of the heaviest bladed weapons were probobly no more than 7-8 pounds.

As for bashing weapons, I could see maybe a 10 pound object after the counter-balance to the metal ball. Otherwise you'd have to hold that thing right next to the ball and you'd have no leverage, unless you WANT to be flung off balance.

Now, big battleaxes are a different story, anyone seen Dragonheart? In the end when the knight is swinging the double bladed battle axe and he almost never switches it's path, thats realistic, it's heavy, and the exertion of stopping something THAT heavy would be a pain. 

Calrin Alshaw


----------



## Tessarael (Nov 12, 2003)

Actually, 3.5E PHB has Bastardsword listed as weighing 6lb. Probably still a little on the heavy side, but I'd have to go and re-read the books on historical weapons to double-check.

Traditionally, D&D has significantly overweighted weapons.

---

Sidenote for those not familiar with the gp weight system of earlier editions, 10gp = 1lb.


----------



## AeroDm (Nov 12, 2003)

I think that D&D backpacks are not as large as present day backpacks.  I know that when people 'envision' their characters they are not weighed down with klunky backpacks, but at most have a small 'stylish' backpack like lidda.  On the meta side, people want to declare that their backpack can hold a canoe because in real life they once saw just that!

I'm all about small backpacks with small carrying capacities.  It fits in with the flavor people envision, limits eq, and forces responsibility/limiting oneself.


----------



## Xeriar (Nov 12, 2003)

Antoine said:
			
		

> Meaning :
> • light backpack : 40 lbs max load, more likely 25-30 lbs.
> • heavy (regular adventurer) backpack : 100 lbs max load, more likely 60-75 lbs
> + some stuff strapped on/hanging around the backpack.
> ...




There was a radio guy in WWII who, weighing 135 libs, carried 180 pounds of gear.  While a pack is only going to take so much wear period, I imagine 130 pounds of water is not out of the question.


----------



## Xeriar (Nov 12, 2003)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> You have to consider that D&D's weights are way off. Example: D&D bastard swords are 15 lbs., while RL ones are 2-3 lbs. (Source: Museum Replicas Limited) I'm not sure what else is off, but that's a pretty big difference.




Greatswords are 15 lbs, historically they were about 8-10 lbs though there is a claymore from the ~8th century that weighed 15 pounds.

D&D has been improving in this arena, as it is some touching up is all that's needed now (though John Wick defending the longsword weighing 40 pounds and a katana weighing 8 was great fun)


----------



## jester47 (Nov 12, 2003)

Also, keep in mind that the D&D 3e weights also take into consideration bulk.  So, somthing that takes 8 lbs IRL (like a greatsword) gets inflated with weight due to bulk.  I think it was Reynolds that was saying this.  That the "weights" in D&D are actually "bulk/weight points."  This costs realism, but makes things a little easier when it comes to game play.

Aaron.


----------



## Antoine (Nov 12, 2003)

Xeriar said:
			
		

> There was a radio guy in WWII who, weighing 135 libs, carried 180 pounds of gear.  While a pack is only going to take so much wear period, I imagine 130 pounds of water is not out of the question.




Probably not. 
Anyway, how much gear a guy can carry around is handled elsewhere in the d20 rules.
The point was to approximate how much load you can stuff INSIDE an average backpack.
Which will also help carry several more pounds on the outside (woodaxe, pick, blanket, bedroll, poles, tent, spare weapon, you name it…).

And there's a lot of gear to carry apart from the loaded backpack, the more so when adressing a fighter type D&D adventurer.


----------



## Nighthawk (Nov 12, 2003)

Hmm, I am away from home, so I cannot check, but I thought the listed values for equipment were for encumbrance purposes, not weight alone. Did that change or am I mistaken in my thought to begin with?


----------



## Aaron2 (Nov 12, 2003)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Also, keep in mind that the D&D 3e weights also take into consideration bulk.  So, somthing that takes 8 lbs IRL (like a greatsword) gets inflated with weight due to bulk.  I think it was Reynolds that was saying this.  That the "weights" in D&D are actually "bulk/weight points."  This costs realism, but makes things a little easier when it comes to game play.




I can't see how making weights include some undisclosed "bulk factor" can possibly make things easier. What about using TK to move weapons around? Mage Hand doesn't care about bulk.  

Also, why are weapon the only thing with this mysterious Bulk Factor? 

They should just admit that their weights are wrong and fix them. If DMs want to enforce bulkiness it should be up to them.


Aaron


----------



## Tywyll (Nov 13, 2003)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> Also, why are weapon the only thing with this mysterious Bulk Factor?
> 
> They should just admit that their weights are wrong and fix them. If DMs want to enforce bulkiness it should be up to them.
> 
> Aaron




Not when you have sacks weighing 2 pounds, no, weapons aren't the only things.  I've always assumed it was the unwritten 'bulk' factor, but its still obnoxious.


----------



## Aaron2 (Nov 13, 2003)

Tywyll said:
			
		

> Not when you have sacks weighing 2 pounds, no, weapons aren't the only things.  I've always assumed it was the unwritten 'bulk' factor, but its still obnoxious.




My book shows sacks at 1/2 pound. Empty backpacks are 2 pounds. 


Aaron


----------



## Norfleet (Nov 14, 2003)

Of course, you do realize that many D&D weight figures are, in fact, completely arbitrary? That the designers kinda pulled these figures out of their asses, and as such, they have only the crudest possible approximations to reality, and that most people don't really have a very solid mental image of how much a pound or kg weighs?

If you want to get more reasonable approximations of this, what you should do is take ACTUAL items which are similar to the described items, and weigh them, and try to stuff them into a backpack. No amount of eyeballing will give you an accurate idea of how much stuff you can actually put into a backpack. In fact, knowing how to pack is a skill in itself, as I find you can fit an appalling amount of crap inside of a seemingly tiny backpack. Just look all the stuff women have in their purses. You can fit a surprisingly large amount of stuff inside of a backpack, and still have enough room to put a whole fish in.


----------

