OK, so here's the thing: things like full-plate armor aren't sweaters. You can't just pop 'em on and off nor sleep in them. Actually, same goes for most armor but plate is the most extreme example.
It seems more realistic (I know, I know) to rule that players in the field accumulate levels of exhaustion based on nights they sleep armored OR are AC10 while encamped or in town.
Further, wearing full plate while bopping around town looking for information or spell components or something is even stupider.
Pretty sure the rules say you can’t sleep in armor other than light armor. And yeah, most characters won’t wear armor around town (although some might). You’re never a jerk for asking your players to respect realism as long as you’re nice about it!
And don’t worry, “realistic” isn’t a dirty word. For every DM who runs a game that feels like a crazy anime or MMO, there’s another who runs a classic fantasy or even simulationist game! And even less grounded games can still use a hint of realism.
I ignore it. I might make notice of it in a social interaction (ie, nobody's going to believe you're just there to talk and you're not looking for trouble), but as much as I can, I just do not think about it. Players know you just want to attack them when they're not wearing their plate and they don't want to have to do a risk-reward balancing test over going to the tavern. Not worth the fight. Just let them wear the armor.
Older editions had rules about it. IIRC, you could sleep in light armor, but anything heavier and there was some sort of penalty, like a minus on attack rolls or something. I haven’t tried to implement anything in this edition, but I could see something like a level of exhaustion if you’re running a grittier simulationist campaign. I wouldn’t go higher than 1, just enough to remind them of a consequence without being too harsh.
I don't think it is ridiculous to ask players to put themselves in the place of their character when in town. I make a point of telling everyone at the table that I dress well in town and don't wear armor around that I couldn't conceal. Outside of town, they should sleep in a heavy cloth suit gambeson. They can grab their shield in a moment, but nobody would sleep in a full suit of plate armor. I would want to tell them they don't receive the benefits of a long rest and let them have a short rest only. We have a dwarf in my current party that insists he ALWAYS wears his full plate armor. I think he was hammered for being awaken in the night and couldn't put his armor on in another game, and decided he would never take off his plate ever again if his DM would let him get away with it. He always plays a tank.
Me, I'd rather be attacked in my nightshirt than sleep in anything more than a gambeson. And I always dress like a well to do merchant or better in town unless I have a specific reason to wear any armor. I might wear a gambeson or elven chain under a shirt, but I'd never just walk around in full medium or heavy armor. If the DM keeps jumping me, I'll just fight, die maybe, and if it keeps up, just stop playing in that group.
It depends on the group, and campaign, among other things. Some groups like realistic campaigns, others don't. I generally allow sleeping in plate, but I also play a very not realistic campaign.
Even if you are not necessarily going for a realistic campaign, you may want to not allow it or penalize it for many reasons, that could include the following:
You think that plate is too good
The non plate players are not getting to shine much
It's too easy for the players and you don't want to change what you were going to do
It also depends on the character. If the character follows a strict set of rules that does not let them take off their armor, kinda like mandalorians, you may want to penalize them less or not at all.
As for ways to penalize, I have 2 ideas. 1. Just don't allow. This is probably more realistic, and works better. 2. For an hour after they wake up they have disadvantage on all saving throws, ability checks, and attack rolls, and has a minus 10 penalty to their speed, and for the rest of the day have a disadvantage on saving throws against exhaustion.
BTW, people can totally wear armor in town, so I would advise allowing that.
BTW, people can totally wear armor in town, so I would advise allowing that.
Wellll... yes and no.
For instance, my campaign takes place in an alternate version of the Roman Empire. No, people did not "totally wear armor in town" walking around the city of Rome, just everyday Roman citizens. The Praetorian guard wore armor. But they mostly protected the Emperor and didn't just go wandering around randomly. The military soldiers wore quite good armor (lorica segmentata, which old school D&D used to call "banded mail"), but they were generally stationed at the borders and did not usually wander around the city streets or hang out in tabernae (taverns). Wealthy patricians had bodyguards, but it isn't clear that those bodyguards wore what we would call armor, and certainly not something like the lorica segmentata -- that was Roman military equipment. And in the big cities, especially Rome, it was illegal to carry weapons around as well. Knives/daggers were allowed (because they you could argue they were used for cooking), and what we would today call quarterstaffs were allowed (they could be used as walking sticks). Bodyguards of patricians carried staffs to beat away pesky paupers and pebians (lower classes), but they didn't carry around things like swords and spears.
Now in my world, towns do not regulate this (because they are smaller and often have no military presence, and as the Romans have no real police forces, you pretty much have to defend yourself in small towns). But any large city and especially Rome, regulates weaponry. Armor, they would not care, and it is not illegal to walk around in chain mail or something... But it would definitely be noticed and you might well be considered a potential trouble-maker if you are walking around in full plate and a large shield. Because, nobody really does that except the army.
So this is all highly dependent on the campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
BTW, people can totally wear armor in town, so I would advise allowing that.
Wellll... yes and no.
For instance, my campaign takes place in an alternate version of the Roman Empire. No, people did not "totally wear armor in town" walking around the city of Rome, just everyday Roman citizens. The Praetorian guard wore armor. But they mostly protected the Emperor and didn't just go wandering around randomly. The military soldiers wore quite good armor (lorica segmentata, which old school D&D used to call "banded mail"), but they were generally stationed at the borders and did not usually wander around the city streets or hang out in tabernae (taverns). Wealthy patricians had bodyguards, but it isn't clear that those bodyguards wore what we would call armor, and certainly not something like the lorica segmentata -- that was Roman military equipment. And in the big cities, especially Rome, it was illegal to carry weapons around as well. Knives/daggers were allowed (because they you could argue they were used for cooking), and what we would today call quarterstaffs were allowed (they could be used as walking sticks). Bodyguards of patricians carried staffs to beat away pesky paupers and pebians (lower classes), but they didn't carry around things like swords and spears.
Now in my world, towns do not regulate this (because they are smaller and often have no military presence, and as the Romans have no real police forces, you pretty much have to defend yourself in small towns). But any large city and especially Rome, regulates weaponry. Armor, they would not care, and it is not illegal to walk around in chain mail or something... But it would definitely be noticed and you might well be considered a potential trouble-maker if you are walking around in full plate and a large shield. Because, nobody really does that except the army.
So this is all highly dependent on the campaign.
I don't want to turn this into ranger underpowered? And you are mostly right, but just because it's against the law, does not mean players can't do it, my players break the law all the time!
Something like appropriateness of armor for certain situations (sleeping; going into a town) is, as many have replied, highly dependent on the tone/feel of the campaign. For me personally I never give a care about donning/doff ing armor or restricting it's use in locales. I don't personally want to think about it, creates a hassle if one party remembers to do so but another doesn't, or trying to remember who should reduce/increase AC bonuses in the heat of the moment if my attention needs to shifted to an encounter. My personal fun doesn't include that kind of micromanagement, but I have full respect for those whose fun does include such tracking at a table on which I am not playing, running, and have no influence.
Like anything else, it reverts back to comfortability with rules/options listed through sourcebooks, for which DM's should have confidence to apply/ignore so long as it's done so in a consistent manner. Like any other application of rules, DM and players should discuss, have reasoning, gain perspective, and come to satisfactory mutual understanding and agreement about something like this upfront BEFORE a campaign starts. If you're looking to be more realistic and grittier about it, there's nothing wrong with that approach. It's only a problem if the players reaaaalllly don't think that doing it that way would be fun. Then nobody ends up having fun, and there's no real point in playing.
I don't think either extreme approach is a problem, most would likely prefer something in the middle, but altogether the most important thing is everyone can agree upon it upfront rather than it coming up as a surprise in session 5 after having established a different precedent in session 2. That's the time when accusations of who's being the jerk will bubble up.
I *think* it stands for "Am I the *******" derived (I *think*) from reddit forums. I'm not young or hip to the scene (and don't use reddit), but that's my educated guess.
just a idea,maybe allow/make a feat/spell/enchanted armor that allows them to sleep in armor? like a magic version of the item that at will can shrink into a ring and back again,kinda like the flash's costume,only magic.
It’s not quite Legend of the 5 Rings, where going around dressed for war is considered an insult to the local daimyo as it suggests he’s unable to properly keep the peace in his own lands, but it’s probably still going to elicit some negative reactions every now and then. More classy inns might object to it, because it’d make other guests uncomfortable. Sleeping in full plate might damage the bed, or even the floor if that’s this character’s preference (sabatons or sollerets will do a number on the floor to begin with). Local officials might take offense, shopkeepers might want to get you out the door a bit faster, and you’ll stand out like a sore thumb at festivities. I’d let the player do this if he really wants to, but I’d let him know there’d be occasional circumstantial penalties in social situations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I feel that someone who is trained in wearing armor is accustomed to sleeping in it. Sure, it seems uncomfortable to people like me... a pretty sedentary, sheltered human, but people can and have slept comfortably in all sorts of situations.
Also, sleeping in armor != getting a full, restful night's sleep in armor. The exhaustion rules exist to simulate the fact that if you slept in full plate or something similar, you would not get a restful night's sleep and you would be less alert and awake than if you had gotten into your PJs and slept in a nice warm bed. Do the plate sleeping enough nights in a row and you will definitely feel the negative effects.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
OK, so here's the thing: things like full-plate armor aren't sweaters. You can't just pop 'em on and off nor sleep in them. Actually, same goes for most armor but plate is the most extreme example.
It seems more realistic (I know, I know) to rule that players in the field accumulate levels of exhaustion based on nights they sleep armored OR are AC10 while encamped or in town.
Further, wearing full plate while bopping around town looking for information or spell components or something is even stupider.
How do other DMs handle this?
Pretty sure the rules say you can’t sleep in armor other than light armor. And yeah, most characters won’t wear armor around town (although some might). You’re never a jerk for asking your players to respect realism as long as you’re nice about it!
And don’t worry, “realistic” isn’t a dirty word. For every DM who runs a game that feels like a crazy anime or MMO, there’s another who runs a classic fantasy or even simulationist game! And even less grounded games can still use a hint of realism.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I ignore it. I might make notice of it in a social interaction (ie, nobody's going to believe you're just there to talk and you're not looking for trouble), but as much as I can, I just do not think about it. Players know you just want to attack them when they're not wearing their plate and they don't want to have to do a risk-reward balancing test over going to the tavern. Not worth the fight. Just let them wear the armor.
Older editions had rules about it. IIRC, you could sleep in light armor, but anything heavier and there was some sort of penalty, like a minus on attack rolls or something.
I haven’t tried to implement anything in this edition, but I could see something like a level of exhaustion if you’re running a grittier simulationist campaign. I wouldn’t go higher than 1, just enough to remind them of a consequence without being too harsh.
They won't "know" that if you don't attack them every time they take off their plate armor.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Thumbs up Bio, again.
I don't think it is ridiculous to ask players to put themselves in the place of their character when in town. I make a point of telling everyone at the table that I dress well in town and don't wear armor around that I couldn't conceal. Outside of town, they should sleep in a heavy cloth suit gambeson. They can grab their shield in a moment, but nobody would sleep in a full suit of plate armor. I would want to tell them they don't receive the benefits of a long rest and let them have a short rest only. We have a dwarf in my current party that insists he ALWAYS wears his full plate armor. I think he was hammered for being awaken in the night and couldn't put his armor on in another game, and decided he would never take off his plate ever again if his DM would let him get away with it. He always plays a tank.
Me, I'd rather be attacked in my nightshirt than sleep in anything more than a gambeson. And I always dress like a well to do merchant or better in town unless I have a specific reason to wear any armor. I might wear a gambeson or elven chain under a shirt, but I'd never just walk around in full medium or heavy armor. If the DM keeps jumping me, I'll just fight, die maybe, and if it keeps up, just stop playing in that group.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
It depends on the group, and campaign, among other things. Some groups like realistic campaigns, others don't. I generally allow sleeping in plate, but I also play a very not realistic campaign.
Even if you are not necessarily going for a realistic campaign, you may want to not allow it or penalize it for many reasons, that could include the following:
It also depends on the character. If the character follows a strict set of rules that does not let them take off their armor, kinda like mandalorians, you may want to penalize them less or not at all.
As for ways to penalize, I have 2 ideas. 1. Just don't allow. This is probably more realistic, and works better. 2. For an hour after they wake up they have disadvantage on all saving throws, ability checks, and attack rolls, and has a minus 10 penalty to their speed, and for the rest of the day have a disadvantage on saving throws against exhaustion.
BTW, people can totally wear armor in town, so I would advise allowing that.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Great advice hear.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Wellll... yes and no.
For instance, my campaign takes place in an alternate version of the Roman Empire. No, people did not "totally wear armor in town" walking around the city of Rome, just everyday Roman citizens. The Praetorian guard wore armor. But they mostly protected the Emperor and didn't just go wandering around randomly. The military soldiers wore quite good armor (lorica segmentata, which old school D&D used to call "banded mail"), but they were generally stationed at the borders and did not usually wander around the city streets or hang out in tabernae (taverns). Wealthy patricians had bodyguards, but it isn't clear that those bodyguards wore what we would call armor, and certainly not something like the lorica segmentata -- that was Roman military equipment. And in the big cities, especially Rome, it was illegal to carry weapons around as well. Knives/daggers were allowed (because they you could argue they were used for cooking), and what we would today call quarterstaffs were allowed (they could be used as walking sticks). Bodyguards of patricians carried staffs to beat away pesky paupers and pebians (lower classes), but they didn't carry around things like swords and spears.
Now in my world, towns do not regulate this (because they are smaller and often have no military presence, and as the Romans have no real police forces, you pretty much have to defend yourself in small towns). But any large city and especially Rome, regulates weaponry. Armor, they would not care, and it is not illegal to walk around in chain mail or something... But it would definitely be noticed and you might well be considered a potential trouble-maker if you are walking around in full plate and a large shield. Because, nobody really does that except the army.
So this is all highly dependent on the campaign.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don't want to turn this into ranger underpowered? And you are mostly right, but just because it's against the law, does not mean players can't do it, my players break the law all the time!
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Something like appropriateness of armor for certain situations (sleeping; going into a town) is, as many have replied, highly dependent on the tone/feel of the campaign. For me personally I never give a care about donning/doff ing armor or restricting it's use in locales. I don't personally want to think about it, creates a hassle if one party remembers to do so but another doesn't, or trying to remember who should reduce/increase AC bonuses in the heat of the moment if my attention needs to shifted to an encounter. My personal fun doesn't include that kind of micromanagement, but I have full respect for those whose fun does include such tracking at a table on which I am not playing, running, and have no influence.
Like anything else, it reverts back to comfortability with rules/options listed through sourcebooks, for which DM's should have confidence to apply/ignore so long as it's done so in a consistent manner. Like any other application of rules, DM and players should discuss, have reasoning, gain perspective, and come to satisfactory mutual understanding and agreement about something like this upfront BEFORE a campaign starts. If you're looking to be more realistic and grittier about it, there's nothing wrong with that approach. It's only a problem if the players reaaaalllly don't think that doing it that way would be fun. Then nobody ends up having fun, and there's no real point in playing.
I don't think either extreme approach is a problem, most would likely prefer something in the middle, but altogether the most important thing is everyone can agree upon it upfront rather than it coming up as a surprise in session 5 after having established a different precedent in session 2. That's the time when accusations of who's being the jerk will bubble up.
Boldly go
I have to ask, what does “AITA” stand for?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I *think* it stands for "Am I the *******" derived (I *think*) from reddit forums. I'm not young or hip to the scene (and don't use reddit), but that's my educated guess.
Boldly go
just a idea,maybe allow/make a feat/spell/enchanted armor that allows them to sleep in armor? like a magic version of the item that at will can shrink into a ring and back again,kinda like the flash's costume,only magic.
it stands for "Am I The A$*hole"
It’s not quite Legend of the 5 Rings, where going around dressed for war is considered an insult to the local daimyo as it suggests he’s unable to properly keep the peace in his own lands, but it’s probably still going to elicit some negative reactions every now and then. More classy inns might object to it, because it’d make other guests uncomfortable. Sleeping in full plate might damage the bed, or even the floor if that’s this character’s preference (sabatons or sollerets will do a number on the floor to begin with). Local officials might take offense, shopkeepers might want to get you out the door a bit faster, and you’ll stand out like a sore thumb at festivities. I’d let the player do this if he really wants to, but I’d let him know there’d be occasional circumstantial penalties in social situations.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I feel that someone who is trained in wearing armor is accustomed to sleeping in it. Sure, it seems uncomfortable to people like me... a pretty sedentary, sheltered human, but people can and have slept comfortably in all sorts of situations.
One of my players is a US Army Vet with two tours in the Middle East. From what she has told me, many soldiers sleep in their armor on many occasions.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah but modern combat armor is way different from medieval plate. Historically, no one slept in plate armor; chain mayyybe, but not plate.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Also, sleeping in armor != getting a full, restful night's sleep in armor. The exhaustion rules exist to simulate the fact that if you slept in full plate or something similar, you would not get a restful night's sleep and you would be less alert and awake than if you had gotten into your PJs and slept in a nice warm bed. Do the plate sleeping enough nights in a row and you will definitely feel the negative effects.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.