well unless they say they take off their armour they keep it on you shouldnt be forcing them into reality its a fantasy roleplaying game i get certain aspects need to be semi realistic but you shouldnt be forcing them to take off their armour like if you want before they enter the tavern ask them do they wanna put their weapon away to seem less threatening
Character should act in a way that's ordinary for the setting. In every setting it's common for people to NOT wear armor in safe places like taverns. If players want to go against what's normal then they can insist that they character keeps on their armor. This also helps the Player take ownership for the situation they are creating. So when the DM tells them, "The NPC is nervous around you because you're wearing armor and armed with weapons." The Player can understand they have created that situation via their choices, instead of blaming the DM for not warning them.
It comes down to talking to the players. You can sleep in leather or padded I believe but anything else and they get exhaustion. Personally if they make an issue I would say they don’t get the benefit of their long rest. But then I don’t like the idea of interrupting the long rest anyway unless it is for actual story reasons and not just because you decide to roll on a random table. In many civilised areas wearing armour and weapons would be frowned upon and would result in constantly getting stopped by the city guards. Some places have rules like only nobles or ‘guild licensed bodyguards” are allowed to cary anything bigger than a knife and leather armour. As always, talk to the players.
Keep in mind that an "encounter" doesn't necessarily mean a combat.
Actually, an encounter does mean a combat. The "6-8 encounters" standard is derived from the daily xp budget divided by the medium encounter xp budget, and non-combat encounters don't have an xp budget nor count against it.
Absolutely incorrect.
Just to quote the DMG p261
"NONCOMBAT CHALLENGES You decide whether to award experience to characters for overcoming challenges outside combat. If the adventurers complete a tense negotiation with a baron, forge a trade agreement with a clan of surly dwarves, or successfully navigate the Chasm of Doom, you might decide that they deserve an XP reward. As a starting point, use the rules for building combat encounters in chapter 3 to gauge the difficulty of the challenge. Then award the characters XP as if it had been a combat encounter of the same difficulty, but only if the encounter involved a meaningful risk of failure."
If a DM is awarding experience for an non-combat challenge/encounter then it certainly DOES count towards the 6-8 encounters for a daily budget. The above even references using the experience as if it had been a combat encounter.
Keep in mind that an "encounter" doesn't necessarily mean a combat.
Actually, an encounter does mean a combat. The "6-8 encounters" standard is derived from the daily xp budget divided by the medium encounter xp budget, and non-combat encounters don't have an xp budget nor count against it.
Absolutely incorrect.
Just to quote the DMG p261
"NONCOMBAT CHALLENGES You decide whether to award experience to characters for overcoming challenges outside combat. If the adventurers complete a tense negotiation with a baron, forge a trade agreement with a clan of surly dwarves, or successfully navigate the Chasm of Doom, you might decide that they deserve an XP reward. As a starting point, use the rules for building combat encounters in chapter 3 to gauge the difficulty of the challenge. Then award the characters XP as if it had been a combat encounter of the same difficulty, but only if the encounter involved a meaningful risk of failure."
If a DM is awarding experience for an non-combat challenge/encounter then it certainly DOES count towards the 6-8 encounters for a daily budget. The above even references using the experience as if it had been a combat encounter.
Absolutely correct. And defeating a combat encounter without entering combat also awards exp because you used your intelligence and wits. Having a group use pass without trace combined with invisibility or fog cloud or darkness etc to stealthily sneak around guards and into an enemy lair is considered to be ‘defeating’ the guards as if you had walked up and stabbed them with a sword. It earns exp and counts as an encounter.
Absolutely correct. And defeating a combat encounter without entering combat also awards exp because you used your intelligence and wits. Having a group use pass without trace combined with invisibility or fog cloud or darkness etc to stealthily sneak around guards and into an enemy lair is considered to be ‘defeating’ the guards as if you had walked up and stabbed them with a sword. It earns exp and counts as an encounter.
That was definitely true in 3.5. It's not RAW in 5e as far as I can tell (the DMG rules refer to 'defeating' but don't define what that means). It's also not RAW for non-combat encounters to count against the daily budget -- the daily budget is based on counting up adjusted experience and noncombat challenges are just a straight-up experience grant.
In practice most modules actually use waypoints, and on a waypoint system it doesn't matter how you get from point A to point B.
The game uses simplified english to allow children with single digit ages to play without adult supervision. The game doesn’t need someone to examine every single word in every single sentence with a dictionary to determine the absolute definition and how those definitions interact. We don’t need hundreds of pages of rules written in legalese defining absolutely every possible conceivable situation we might find ourselves in order to play. We just need a little bit of common sense and more importantly, a sense of fun.
The game uses simplified english to allow children with single digit ages to play without adult supervision. The game doesn’t need someone to examine every single word in every single sentence with a dictionary to determine the absolute definition and how those definitions interact. We don’t need hundreds of pages of rules written in legalese defining absolutely every possible conceivable situation we might find ourselves in order to play. We just need a little bit of common sense and more importantly, a sense of fun.
The game uses natural language (it isn't particularly simplified) because it wants to appear user friendly. This has a side effect that many interactions have no clear answer within the rules. This isn't always a bad thing, except when the rules are gibberish or actually clearly state something nonsensical (such as the fact that, as written, see invisible doesn't actually negate the combat penalties for fighting an invisible foe).
I have no idea what any of that has to do with this thread, though.
The relationship to the thread is that you specifically called out how the rules didn't define the exact meaning. The rules don’t need to define. The quote you linked specifically stated it was up to the dm to decide.
A session 0 should be able to sort things out in a way that is fun for everyone.
I am in one campaign where we are frequently travelling through the countryside the DM decided it was dangerous enough that our nights are fairly frequently disturbed resulting in combat (maybe one night in 3). However the party is able to sleep in armor without penalty with our weopons at our sides (object interaction to pick up). A decent perception role by someone on watch will give them enough time to wake everyone up with time to don a shield. (We actually have a weapon of warning so the worst case is we avoid surprise but as initiative is rolled we are prone and not wearing a shield. This means that going to bed with no resources left while in the wilderness is a risk. However it feels that night time combat is fair.
The rule for interupting rests has some wiggle room
"If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity — at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity — the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."
Can be interpreted as the "at least one hour" refers to only the walking or all the adventuring activities. At session 0 it was agreed that if we were awoken to a overnight attack got up and one minute went back ot bed with the enemy defeated it would not count as the long rest being interrupted. Though on the other hand shenanigians with casting a long duration spell 1 minute before you get the spell slot back isn't allowed. As a druid I cast goodberry before the start of a long rest and the sorcerer cast mage armor before we leave camp (and sometimes if he has the spell slots before he goes to bed). This is probably a rule of fun as a good compromise as RAW is either a dawn raid can turn a long rest into a 15 hour marathon or a whole lot of casting goes on just before the long rest ends.
Regarding going round town in armor it depends on the world but I always assume adventures are a highly respected group (they ar eoften descibed as the "heroes" in published adventures). The world is a dangerous place and while in town adventures would be expected to help in any emergency. If a party of Orcs attack the town any adventures staying at the inn would be expected rush out and join the guard in fighting them off. If the fighter wasn't wearig his armor while having dinner he would be neglecting his duty!
The relationship to the thread is that you specifically called out how the rules didn't define the exact meaning. The rules don’t need to define. The quote you linked specifically stated it was up to the dm to decide.
I agree that the rules don't need to define, but that doesn't make it useless to point out when they don't define.
Regarding going round town in armor it depends on the world but I always assume adventures are a highly respected group (they are often descibed as the "heroes" in published adventures). The world is a dangerous place and while in town adventures would be expected to help in any emergency. If a party of Orcs attack the town any adventures staying at the inn would be expected rush out and join the guard in fighting them off. If the fighter wasn't wearing his armor while having dinner he would be neglecting his duty!
The party represents as much danger to a town as a party of orcs. The party are strangers in most towns they come into their occupation is violence, and the townsfolk have no idea what they want or will do. One person's hero is another person's villain, so the use of the term 'Hero' is meaningless depending on the context. This is why strict codes of chivalry had to be made for warriors in medieval societies and those warriors had to be attached to lords who would take responsibility for them. As far as villagers are concerned there's no difference between the a so called party of "heroes" and a party of brigands, except the brigands are more honest about their intentions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Character should act in a way that's ordinary for the setting. In every setting it's common for people to NOT wear armor in safe places like taverns. If players want to go against what's normal then they can insist that they character keeps on their armor. This also helps the Player take ownership for the situation they are creating. So when the DM tells them, "The NPC is nervous around you because you're wearing armor and armed with weapons." The Player can understand they have created that situation via their choices, instead of blaming the DM for not warning them.
It comes down to talking to the players. You can sleep in leather or padded I believe but anything else and they get exhaustion. Personally if they make an issue I would say they don’t get the benefit of their long rest. But then I don’t like the idea of interrupting the long rest anyway unless it is for actual story reasons and not just because you decide to roll on a random table. In many civilised areas wearing armour and weapons would be frowned upon and would result in constantly getting stopped by the city guards. Some places have rules like only nobles or ‘guild licensed bodyguards” are allowed to cary anything bigger than a knife and leather armour. As always, talk to the players.
Absolutely incorrect.
Just to quote the DMG p261
"NONCOMBAT CHALLENGES
You decide whether to award experience to characters for overcoming challenges outside combat. If the adventurers complete a tense negotiation with a baron, forge a trade agreement with a clan of surly dwarves, or successfully navigate the Chasm of Doom, you might decide that they deserve an XP reward. As a starting point, use the rules for building combat encounters in chapter 3 to gauge the difficulty of the challenge. Then award the characters XP as if it had been a combat encounter of the same difficulty, but only if the encounter involved a meaningful risk of failure."
If a DM is awarding experience for an non-combat challenge/encounter then it certainly DOES count towards the 6-8 encounters for a daily budget. The above even references using the experience as if it had been a combat encounter.
Absolutely correct. And defeating a combat encounter without entering combat also awards exp because you used your intelligence and wits. Having a group use pass without trace combined with invisibility or fog cloud or darkness etc to stealthily sneak around guards and into an enemy lair is considered to be ‘defeating’ the guards as if you had walked up and stabbed them with a sword. It earns exp and counts as an encounter.
That was definitely true in 3.5. It's not RAW in 5e as far as I can tell (the DMG rules refer to 'defeating' but don't define what that means). It's also not RAW for non-combat encounters to count against the daily budget -- the daily budget is based on counting up adjusted experience and noncombat challenges are just a straight-up experience grant.
In practice most modules actually use waypoints, and on a waypoint system it doesn't matter how you get from point A to point B.
The game uses simplified english to allow children with single digit ages to play without adult supervision. The game doesn’t need someone to examine every single word in every single sentence with a dictionary to determine the absolute definition and how those definitions interact. We don’t need hundreds of pages of rules written in legalese defining absolutely every possible conceivable situation we might find ourselves in order to play. We just need a little bit of common sense and more importantly, a sense of fun.
The game uses natural language (it isn't particularly simplified) because it wants to appear user friendly. This has a side effect that many interactions have no clear answer within the rules. This isn't always a bad thing, except when the rules are gibberish or actually clearly state something nonsensical (such as the fact that, as written, see invisible doesn't actually negate the combat penalties for fighting an invisible foe).
I have no idea what any of that has to do with this thread, though.
The relationship to the thread is that you specifically called out how the rules didn't define the exact meaning. The rules don’t need to define. The quote you linked specifically stated it was up to the dm to decide.
A session 0 should be able to sort things out in a way that is fun for everyone.
I am in one campaign where we are frequently travelling through the countryside the DM decided it was dangerous enough that our nights are fairly frequently disturbed resulting in combat (maybe one night in 3). However the party is able to sleep in armor without penalty with our weopons at our sides (object interaction to pick up). A decent perception role by someone on watch will give them enough time to wake everyone up with time to don a shield. (We actually have a weapon of warning so the worst case is we avoid surprise but as initiative is rolled we are prone and not wearing a shield. This means that going to bed with no resources left while in the wilderness is a risk. However it feels that night time combat is fair.
The rule for interupting rests has some wiggle room
"If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity — at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity — the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."
Can be interpreted as the "at least one hour" refers to only the walking or all the adventuring activities. At session 0 it was agreed that if we were awoken to a overnight attack got up and one minute went back ot bed with the enemy defeated it would not count as the long rest being interrupted. Though on the other hand shenanigians with casting a long duration spell 1 minute before you get the spell slot back isn't allowed. As a druid I cast goodberry before the start of a long rest and the sorcerer cast mage armor before we leave camp (and sometimes if he has the spell slots before he goes to bed). This is probably a rule of fun as a good compromise as RAW is either a dawn raid can turn a long rest into a 15 hour marathon or a whole lot of casting goes on just before the long rest ends.
Regarding going round town in armor it depends on the world but I always assume adventures are a highly respected group (they ar eoften descibed as the "heroes" in published adventures). The world is a dangerous place and while in town adventures would be expected to help in any emergency. If a party of Orcs attack the town any adventures staying at the inn would be expected rush out and join the guard in fighting them off. If the fighter wasn't wearig his armor while having dinner he would be neglecting his duty!
I agree that the rules don't need to define, but that doesn't make it useless to point out when they don't define.
The party represents as much danger to a town as a party of orcs. The party are strangers in most towns they come into their occupation is violence, and the townsfolk have no idea what they want or will do. One person's hero is another person's villain, so the use of the term 'Hero' is meaningless depending on the context. This is why strict codes of chivalry had to be made for warriors in medieval societies and those warriors had to be attached to lords who would take responsibility for them. As far as villagers are concerned there's no difference between the a so called party of "heroes" and a party of brigands, except the brigands are more honest about their intentions.